Signs of the Second Coming

[Clark Addison]

southern virginia might give us a run for our money

Fair. Also depends if BYUI recognizes the opportunity and puts a team together.

[Applejack]

Fair. Also depends if BYUI recognizes the opportunity and puts a team together.

Even with Jesus raining fire down on the non-believers, I still don't think that is enough to stop Alabama.

[Clark Addison]

Even with Jesus raining fire down on the non-believers, I still don't think that is enough to stop Alabama.

That's why I said 500. 'Bama and Notre Dame will get a few in those years where Satan is unleashed.

That's also Utah's window of opportunity, I would think.

[Bo Diddley]

That's why I said 500. 'Bama and Notre Dame will get a few in those years where Satan is unleashed.

That's also Utah's window of opportunity, I would think.

[Applejack]

That's why I said 500. 'Bama and Notre Dame will get a few in those years where Satan is unleashed.

That's also Utah's window of opportunity, I would think.

Perhaps we can lure Urban back!

[Moliere]

Fair. Also depends if BYUI recognizes the opportunity and puts a team together.

BYUI won’t recognize the second coming as they’ll be looking past the mark.

[old_gregg]

Perhaps we can lure Urban back!

urban will be busy hanging out with epstein and pol pot in hell

[falafel]

This may be a bad analogy, so forgive me.

But do you remember those Sunday School lessons where the teacher would say something like: "The Jews were waiting for the Messiah to deliver them from foreign rule. They were looking for a political revolutionary, but instead they failed to recognize him as the babe born in a manger who delivered them from sin and death and not the Romans" or some variation of the foregoing.

I feel like the second coming may be similar. Instead of a literal physical reign of Jesus for a thousand years, I wonder if after humanity turns on itself and pushes itself to near-extinction, the words and philosophy of Jesus will be what saves the species and brings us peace.

We latter-day saints are steeped in a "literal truth" paradigm (from JS's first prayer onward), and I think that may ultimately need revision. The church can be true without being the literal/factual truth, if that makes any sense at all.

I can't understand how one might discount Jesus' return in a literal sense, but also believe in a 1000 years (or so) of peace based on Jesus' teachings. I mean, there's no need to teach that concept through figurative speech. It is plain to understand without confusing the issue with tons of references to a literal second coming.

[Applejack]

urban will be busy hanging out with epstein and pol pot in hell

So.....is that a yes?

[old_gregg]

So.....is that a yes?

guess it depends on if he can coach with a pineapple up his ass

[Applejack]

guess it depends on if he can coach with a pineapple up his ass

So...is that a yes?

[Jeff Lebowski]

This may be a bad analogy, so forgive me.

But do you remember those Sunday School lessons where the teacher would say something like: "The Jews were waiting for the Messiah to deliver them from foreign rule. They were looking for a political revolutionary, but instead they failed to recognize him as the babe born in a manger who delivered them from sin and death and not the Romans" or some variation of the foregoing.

I feel like the second coming may be similar. Instead of a literal physical reign of Jesus for a thousand years, I wonder if after humanity turns on itself and pushes itself to near-extinction, the words and philosophy of Jesus will be what saves the species and brings us peace.

We latter-day saints are steeped in a "literal truth" paradigm (from JS's first prayer onward), and I think that may ultimately need revision. The church can be true without being the literal/factual truth, if that makes any sense at all.

Didn't you say you recently read The Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg? If so, I am surprised you would be asking these kinds of questions. To me, one of the most powerful messages of the book is that arguing the literalness/historicity of religious events (either for or against) is pointless and counterproductive. We could sit here and argue whether or not jesus literally turned water to wine (as an example from the book) but at the end of the day, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW one way or the other. It is and always will be a matter of faith. Why not focus on the beauty and symbolism of the story and what we can learn from it? I am sure some religious events are figurative and not literal, but so what? And why on earth would I feel the need to convince others that something isn't literally true? It takes some humility to recognize that I don't have all the answers. I have found that if I accept things on faith and focus on the fundamentals of the gospel, I find tremendous strength, joy and power in my faith.

[Green Monstah]

Didn't you say you recently read The Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg? If so, I am surprised you would be asking these kinds of questions. To me, one of the most powerful messages of the book is that arguing the literalness/historicity of religious events (either for or against) is pointless and counterproductive. We could sit here and argue whether or not jesus literally turned water to wine (as an example from the book) but at the end of the day, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW one way or the other. It is and always will be a matter of faith. Why not focus on the beauty and symbolism of the story and what we can learn from it? I am sure some religious events are figurative and not literal, but so what? And why on earth would I feel the need to convince others that something isn't literally true? It takes some humility to recognize that I don't have all the answers. I have found that if I accept things on faith and focus on the fundamentals of the gospel, I find tremendous strength, joy and power in my faith.

I have no doubt that I've simply muffed up this exchange, but I feel like this is what I'm doing. If believing [insert anything supernatural] makes you happier/better, then I'm all for it.

[falafel]

I have no doubt that I've simply muffed up this exchange, but I feel like this is what I'm doing. If believing [insert anything supernatural] makes you happier/better, then I'm all for it.

Haha, there you go again!

[Non Sequitur]

Didn't you say you recently read The Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg? If so, I am surprised you would be asking these kinds of questions. To me, one of the most powerful messages of the book is that arguing the literalness/historicity of religious events (either for or against) is pointless and counterproductive. We could sit here and argue whether or not jesus literally turned water to wine (as an example from the book) but at the end of the day, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW one way or the other. It is and always will be a matter of faith. Why not focus on the beauty and symbolism of the story and what we can learn from it? I am sure some religious events are figurative and not literal, but so what? And why on earth would I feel the need to convince others that something isn't literally true? It takes some humility to recognize that I don't have all the answers. I have found that if I accept things on faith and focus on the fundamentals of the gospel, I find tremendous strength, joy and power in my faith.

That argument seems to blur the line of where religion stops and philosophy starts.