Quote:
|
Originally Posted by darkangelism
the end of the world has been predicted manyy times, and how many times have they been right?
|
Exactly zero times. It was a very common occurence in the Roman empire, in the time of the first Emperors. Including a corner of the empire then known as Judea.
The end of the world has been predicted and proclaimed during large parts of the First World War. 1917, and the revolutions in Russia, and later in Finland, Germany, Hungary, to name but a few European countries were often seen as signs for that too.
At times it has been more common than others. It was quite common in the time of the French and American Revolution too. It was common around the end of the Middle Ages, when Reformation was about to hit Europe.
All these were times when a lot of people felt the end of times was near. It is even easier to find instances where a few people feel that way, and acted upon those beliefs.
If I would take the text of Revelations, I could predict the end of time, in practically every point in historical time. 1945? Atomic bomb. 1961? The first environmental reports that suggested that we are messing up this planet. 1300s? The plague. 1150? The Crossbow (declared to be a diabolical machine by a pope at the time). 400? The Mongol Hordes. You can always identify something as being a disaster, some government to be unjust.
And moral decay has been as old as civilization itself, so it is not hard to spot that either. In the 1920s a lot of people considered the use of lipstick as a sign of moral decay.
Any scholar on theology, with a bit of investigative skills could do the same. That in itself proves nothing, but does not prove either that something "big" is going to happen either. You simply can read almost anything in some parts of scripture.
There are so many versions of Christianity condemning all non-believers (of that particular version) to eternal damnation, because of scripture, that any Christian who is trying to make an argument on the basis of scripture has to overcome a lot of issues related to that.
Every religion carries its past with it. Christianity in a lot of versions has provided justifications for slavery. Christianity in a lot of versions has provided justifications for wars, for the oppression of women (and still does in parts of the Netherlands).
Christianity, or more specific Roman Catholic in this example also has its other side, often neglected by believers as well: in the Middle Ages attempts have been made to define a fair price for agricultural products, tools, labour et cetera. Futile in retrospect, but still.
Mystic tendencies as well, and of course apocalyptic visionaries. It was not unheard of for someone being of high rank in the Catholic church and a mystic at the same time.
You can't simply say that someone is interpreting scripture rightly or wrongly. You have to prove why it is right, or why it is wrong.
Christians cannot even agree on that, so unless someone defines Christian, as one specific version of Christianity, anyone will be hard pressed to come up with conclusive proof for whatever position based on scripture.
Other than a few of the Ten Commandments (!) there would not be much agreement. It depends on how you interpret "killing" "honoring your Lord", or "Loving your Neighbor." The first could result in a religious conviction to refuse to kill, even if it is for one's country.
This holds for
all religious doctrines.
Arguments relating to the fact how many people believe in a proposition does not tell us anything about the truth value of said proposition.