Anyone ever heard of the doctrine of eternal return?
492688
Some very interesting and thought provoking stuff...\n\nThe Eternal Return is one of Nietzsche's most important thoughts. Nietzsche was not the first to write on the subject, but he did expand the idea of recurrence greatly:\n\nThe greatest weight. -- "What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your live will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence--even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!' Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' If this thought gained possession of you, it would change, you as you are or perhaps crush you." \n\nNietzche believed that there is no final state of the universe; that the world is in a constant state of flux, always changing and becoming: "If the world had a goal it must have been reached".\n\nNietzsche holds that the world is a world of becoming. There is no being. A world of being is merely a world of appearances. All concepts of being, unity, finality, and endpoint are illusions. There is no truth in being. Belief in a world of being is just a consequence of religion and philosophy. The only reality is becoming. If there were being, it would necessitate a final state, which would have been reached. Also, if becoming could pass into being, then becoming would become devalued.\n\nTime is not "duration" with and "in vain", rather the moment is the prime "constituent" of time. Each moment arises and perishes. The perishing of a moment allows the next moment to arise. It is important to understand that for the moment "there is no end". The perishing of a moment is not a final state. Moments do not end in time because they allow other moments to arise.
28621
I think that Pope Benedict is in support of this movement in general, though he, like others in the Catholic hierarchy, has some concerns about it. He seems to support the movement, but reminds members to stay connected to the whole Church.  The quotation below is from before he was elected Pope.\n\n\n\n\n \nFor his part, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has added his voice to the Pope's in acknowledging the good occurring in the Charismatic Renewal and providing some cautions. In a forward to a book by Cardinal Suenens, at that time the Pope's delegate to the Charismatic Renewal, the Prefect comments on the Post-Conciliar period stating,\n\n"At the heart of a world imbued with a rationalistic skepticism, a new experience of the Holy Spirit suddenly burst forth. And, since then, that experience has assumed a breadth of a worldwide Renewal movement. What the New Testament tells us about the charisms - which were seen as visible signs of the coming of the Spirit - is not just ancient history, over and done with, for it is once again becoming extremely topical."\n\nSpeaking of the book's subject, renewal and the powers of darkness, he says,\n\n"What is the relation between personal experience and the common faith of the Church? Both factors are important: a dogmatic faith unsupported by personal experience remains empty; mere personal experience unrelated to the faith of the Church remains blind."\n\nFinally, he urges those who read the book to pay special attention to the author's double plea,\n\n"... to those responsible for the ecclesiastical ministry - from parish priests to bishops - not to let the Renewal pass them by but to welcome it fully; and on the other (hand) ... to the members of the Renewal to cherish and maintain their link with the whole Church and with the charisms of their pastors. "[Renewal and the Powers of Darkness, Leo Cardinal Suenens (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1983)]
1103105
No.  Nowhere in the entire Bible is there any mention of the "Trinity."  It is NOT a Bible teaching.  \n\nWhat is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?\n\nThe New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.\n\nThe New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma.  Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.\n\nIn The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.\n\nAccording to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel,  “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient pagan religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.\n\nJohn L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
407135
NO.\nIf you study you will find out that the ideas of left behind by tim lahaye was not arround until the early 18th century. the books are a joke. \n\nWhat About "the Rapture"?\n""\nThe rapture doctrine seems to have originated with a man named John Nelson Darby in about 1830. He divided the time of the second coming into two stages. Darby said Christ would come for his saints (the "rapture") before the tribulation and he would come with his saints after it, which he thought was Jesus’ true coming in glory or second coming. \n\n""
665054
It is a WORK OF FICTION. While the theories he talks about, Mary being the wife of Christ and bearing children, have been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years, there is little historical evidence on either side.\n\nIn 1945 at Nag Hammadi in Egypt, a number of early Christian Gnostic texts were unearthed, some of which are believed to be as old or older than the canonical Gospels. The early church sought to destroy these Gnostic Gospels as heritical. \n\nOne of these texts is The Gospel of Mary. According to this Gospel, it was not Peter who was Jesus' second-in-command, but Mary Magdalene. It was Mary who rallied the despondent deciples after the Crucifixion. \n\nAccording to the Gnostic Gospel of Philip:\n'But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth'. Later in the same Gospel it says 'There are three who always walked with the Lord;Mary his mother, his sister, and Magdalene, who is called his companion. His sister, his mother, and his companion were all called Mary. And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene'. Where companion implies colleague or friend, the original Greek word actually meant 'consort' or 'sexual partner'.\n\nWere Jesus and Mary married? Did they have children?  That is a question the world may never know the true answer to. But truth is irrellivant where religion is involved. It's all about faith and belief.\n\nSome other books I recommend on this topic are "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar", both of which Dan Brown draws heavily on.
535985
Any theologian should be wary of a doctrine that:\n!. Denies the existance of God.\n2. advocates theft and murder.\n\nCommunism is merely a theory.  It promises a panacea in which everyone is equal yet has always produced a totalitarian state in which most individual rights are not recognized and the vast majority of the people live in abject poverty when the party leaders wallow in wealth.
371461
Have to look that one up in my Catholic bible, can't find it anywhere else Here's a nice link, maybe they know.
528423
it that's true than it is screwed up\n\nbut then again I think the concept of eternal Hell is evil to begin with. A merciful creator would not not allow any person to suffer for all time.
456965
It's all TRUE.  We were made aware of this over 10 years ago.  It's all coming to pass.  This is how the world will be taken over.  Only those who are raptured at the Lord's return will be saved from the worst of it.  Thanks John
347069
I have never heard this before, and I have studied a lot on the religion.  Because they are so secrative rumors like this start.  However, there are so many wrong teachings of the mormons that there is no need to make stuff up about them!\n\nMormonism teaches:\n\nThat there is more than one God.\nThat God the Father is really just an exalted man with flesh and bones just like you and me.\nThat we also can become gods.\nThat the apostle John is still alive today, but yet believe that the church went into complete apostacy (meaning John must have left Jesus, too).\nThat Adam and Eve didn't really sin.\nThat salvation is earned and that grace is nothing more than "enabling power" that aids people as they seek perfection.\nTeaches that the Father actually had sex with Mary and that she was not a virgin.\n\nI have been told that the last one is not widely believed by the Mormon church, and is not an "official" church doctrine.  I know that Doctrines of Salvation vol. 1:18 says that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.  I do not know if that is one of their "official" sources of doctrine.  I know this does, however, contradict both Matthew 1:18, and even the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:10).  \n\nMormonism IS a cult, IS a perversion of the gospel of Christ, and IS NOT the "true church" as they claim.
204965
Here's a ton I found earlier, quite randomly: \nhttp://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_christian.html\n\nIt's ironic you ask! :)
562877
The "church" as an institution I think has really used spirituality to hype the political agenda of it's rulers (witness the Inquisition). But the confirmation of rules that really help a society work (don't steal, murder, cop another person's spouse or property) I think would be something that a "God" would be all in favor of.  I think that there are God ordained humans whose life's work is to remind those of a lesser spiritual bent that "to treat others as you would be treated" is the ideal.  These people SHOULD be "the church" but like you say there are those who for milllineums have used the claim that they have a "direct line to God" to control whole populations.  I figure if there IS a God, and He created me, why wouldn't He care what happens to me and if I am living a worthwhile life or not. I'm not sure about a heaven or hell type of judgement, but once again, if there IS a God/Creator then I figure he cares if I am a hurter or a helper and when I go back to Him He will care about an accounting that I have for my actions while I passed through his Creation.
1137075
Yes, the "end times" are a fact of scripture.  They are upon us. \n\nChrist will return to earth for His people (believers) and restore peace and hope to the world.  Many will be destroyed by the plagues of God first, however.  Christ will establish peace and order on earth based on God's laws.\n\nAfter the 1000 year reign of Christ is completed, the resurrection of the rest of the dead will take place.  Billions of people will come back to life for an opportunity of salvation.  This is called the Great White Throne judgment period.  At the end of this period, God's enemies will be destroyed.  Death and the grave will be destroyed also.  There will be no more death ever, God promises.\n\nThose who believed God and turn to Him through faith believing also in His Son, Jesus Christ will be given eternal life.  These will live forever.\n\n"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  John 3:16\n\nThe offer is for everyone who will believe.
800129
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimson_Doctrine\n\nare you asking for the answer or to see if anyone knows?
209920
I wish it were true. There are several theories that could work. But in reality God wouldn't permit it.\nThere was a discussion about the folding of space, but the end result seemed to be that normal time would have been accelerated and there would be no place to return. No one you knew would have survived. I too am sorry for you haveing lost your DAD. We too have lsot loved ones this year, A Mom and A sister in 10 months time.\nTake heart though, you will see your loved ones in the resurrection according to the Bible. Look in the back through "Revalation"
1058164
The trinity is not a biblical teaching, no matter what preachers say! Jesus said himself that the father is greater than he is!\nJohn 14:28 YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.\nAnd he also said that he went his way to the father. Does that sound like they are the same?\n1 Cor. 11:3 “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)\n\n\nWhat is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?\n\nThe New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.\n\nThe New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.\n\nIn The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.\n\n\nloj
172659
NO, NO!  \n\nWhat is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?\n\nThe New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.\n\nThe New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”\n\nIn The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching\n\nDoes the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?\n\nMatt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)\n\nJohn 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)\n\nDoes the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?\n\nCol. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? \n\n, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.\n\nDoes the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?\n\nMark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)\n\n1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)\n\nDoes the Bible teach that each