Is The World Ending On Saturday?

[Calm]

The dead were supposed to rise as well, so between all the people who must be buried around there, you'd think at least a few would have qualified.

Living here in Utah I just figured we were all damned anyway.

[mfbukowski]

I promised her that I wouldn't say it was her, so, sorry MFB, I can't. I am a man of my word and my word today is "saxicolous."

OK that's it, now I'm REALLY MAD.

I can take the insults, but putting a hidden camera on me like that and then putting it on the internet- ??

[urroner]

OK that's it, now I'm REALLY MAD.

I can take the insults, but putting a hidden camera on me like that and then putting it on the internet- ??

Don't get mad with your wife, she's totally innocent. Me, not so innocent, but don't get mad with me either. It was Bill Hamblin. He made me do it. He was going to tell me the whole story of his life and the torture was just too much. He said that if I just did a few nefarious deeds, than he would let up on his enhanced interrogation. PLEASE FORGIVE ME, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE!!!! It was Hamblin. I confess his sins.

[bookofmormontruth]

This just coming in........looks like he was right.

My link

[mfbukowski]

Don't get mad with your wife, she's totally innocent. Me, not so innocent, but don't get mad with me either. It was Bill Hamblin. He made me do it. He was going to tell me the whole story of his life and the torture was just too much. He said that if I just did a few nefarious deeds, than he would let up on his enhanced interrogation. PLEASE FORGIVE ME, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE!!!! It was Hamblin. I confess his sins.

AHA!

I figured he was at the bottom of it!

[CQUIRK]

Almost 11 o'clock PST. Nothing yet

[Garden Girl]

Well, it is now 11:00 P.M. here on the beautiful central Oregon coast... no earthquake, no tsunami...

And I even wore my better casual clothes today around the house... just in case something happened and I was found in the rubble.

GG

[Libs]

Southern California reporting in.

Still here.

Not even a tiny earthquake.

[CQUIRK]

Now its 12:23, Sunday, the 22nd, in Nevada, and Harold Camping is officially a false prophet now

[jo1952]

Now its 12:23, Sunday, the 22nd, in Nevada, and Harold Camping is officially a false prophet now

Can someone please confirm that I am still here?

Thank you!

jo

[Stargazer]

Can someone please confirm that I am still here?

Thank you!

jo

Well, the question is, where is here? I think you'd best ask Frank about that. He is nearer to the situation.

[ELF1024]

Kidding! Still here...

[thesometimesaint]

10:20 AM Sunday morning here. Did I miss something?

[jo1952]

Well, the question is, where is here? I think you'd best ask Frank about that. He is nearer to the situation.

Uh oh.......I can't find Frank.

[CQUIRK]

Uh oh.......I can't find Frank.

We can't find Harold Camping either, who must already be taking off in a private jet to an undisclosed location... With suitcases full of cash

[scooby]

I hope psychologists are not passing up the opportunity to study Camping's followers in the wake of this nonsense.

[Vance]

In passing, I would note that upon rereading certain of my past posts here, looking at them from the distance of a few days, or weeks, or now years, many of them strike me as sounding much more belligerent and condescending than I ever actually felt while composing them. Perhaps I'm tone deaf in that regard. Amused, bemused, or confused, sure. But not intentionally bellicose.

I think that this applies to many (if not most) of us here. I am not sure why this is, but it is an interesting phenomenon.

[LeSellers]

I hope psychologists are not passing up the opportunity to study Camping's followers in the wake of this nonsense.

I hope they're not expecting to be paid for it.

First, Camping's believers have no more money: they bought the t-shirts, at the very least.

Second, it was a self-inflicted injury, and no one (least of all tax payers) should be forced to foot the bill.

Third, they will exploit these poor people and whatever acclaim they get from the nay-sayers in the psychiatric community (those who gainsay all religion) should be ample compensation for their efforts (which, under the best of circumstances, I consider hokum anyway).

Lehi

[cksalmon]

Well, I appreciate the comment, but I think that the case of Calvin is entirely different than that of the Bible. Calvin's writings are just that- Calvin's writings. We know who he was, and the purpose of his writings were clear; they were polemical writings seeking to persuade to a given theological position. In short, his "authorial intentions" were totally clear. That is not so with the bible. You seem to see that distinction yourself:

You appear to be misreading me at this point, M. What I was suggesting is problematic is a failure to distinguish between a wooden "literal" reading of the text and a reading that is informed by literary considerations. My reference to this distinction in Calvin was exemplary of, rather than integral to, my point. That is, I'm suggesting this is the way in which Calvin read the Bible, not the way in which we should read Calvin.

That "divinely revealed, shared deposit of truth" could be full of myth and stories without any clue of who wrote them. The whole question of "authorial intent" is quite different than it is in the example of Calvin, plus the Bible includes many symbolic passages, making it totally unclear if they are "intended" to be taken literally or not. I am sure that you would not think for a minute that "This is my body" should be taken literally.

Again, my concern is not about Calvin's authorial intent (I see where you're getting that), but about how, e.g., Calvin read and exegeted biblical texts.

Since I've invoked Calvin, let me pass on his commentary (in translation) on the verse you've raised:

Christ declares that the bread is his body. These words relate to a sacrament; and it must be acknowledged, that a sacrament consists of a visible sign, with which is connected the thing signified, which is the reality of it. It must be well known, on the other hand, that the name of the thing signified is transferred to the sign; and therefore, no person who is tolerably well acquainted with Scripture will deny that a sacramental mode of expression ought to be taken metonymically. I pass by general figures, which occur frequently in Scripture, and only say this: whenever an outward sign is said to be that which it represents, it is universally agreed to be an instance of metonymy. If baptism be called the laver of regeneration (Titus 3:5;) if the rock from which water flowed to the Fathers in the wilderness, be called Christ (1Co 10:4;) if a dove be called the Holy Spirit, (John 1:32;) no man will question but the signs receive the name of the things which they represent. How comes it, then, that persons who profess to entertain a veneration for the words of the Lord will not permit us to apply to the Lord’s Supper what is common to all the sacraments?

They are delighted with the plain and literal sense. Why then shall not the same rule apply to all the sacraments? Certainly, if they do not admit that the Rock was actually Christ the calumny with which they load us is mere affectation. If we explain that the bread is called his body because it is the symbol of his body they allege that the whole doctrine of Scripture is overturned. For this principle of language has not been recently forged by us, but has been handed down by Augustine on the authority of the ancients, and embraced by all, that the names of spiritual things are improperly ascribed to signs, and that all the passages of Scripture, in which the sacraments are mentioned, ought to be explained in this manner. When we bring forward a principle which has been universally admitted, what purpose does it serve to raise a loud clamor, as if it were something new and strange? But let obstinate people cry out as they please, all men of sound judgment and modesty will admit, that in these words of Christ there is a sacramental form of expression. Hence it follows, that the bread is called his body because it is a symbol of the body of Christ.

Now there are two classes of men that rise up against us. The Papists, deceived by their transubstantiation, maintain that what we see is not bread because it is only the appearance that remains without the reality. But their absurd fancy is refuted by Paul, who asserts that

the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ.

(1Co 10:16.)

Well thank you too, and I am sure that I have been at least as bad as you, probably even in interactions we have had. I am trying to do better, and I appreciate your posts.

Cool. Thanks.

[cksalmon]

How am I supposed to know why sola scriptura is such a good thing if you don't show me? I am not about to explore it on my own because it makes no sense to me.

If only as a thought experiment, I'd suggest you think about this rallying cry of the Reformation from within its historical context. What questions did sola scriptura answer for Luther, for example, in his originally internecine war of words with the "Papists?"

It's a different question (or set of questions) than LDS have with regard to sola scriptura today, I'd think.

[bluebell]

Saw on Yahoo that Camping has re-scheduled the end of the world for Oct. 21st. He said that he misunderstood the nature of the judgement that was to occure on the 21st of May-that it was a spiritual or silent judgment, so to speak, which took place and not the rapture/disaster he had predicted.

[mfbukowski]

You appear to be misreading me at this point, M. What I was suggesting is problematic is a failure to distinguish between a wooden "literal" reading of the text and a reading that is informed by literary considerations. My reference to this distinction in Calvin was exemplary of, rather than integral to, my point. That is, I'm suggesting this is the way in which Calvin read the Bible, not the way in which we should read Calvin.

Ok I get it.

Since I've invoked Calvin, let me pass on his commentary (in translation) on the verse you've raised:

I really like reading Calvin. I don't agree with him on most points, but there is no question that he is a brilliant man who makes wonderful arguments.

Cool. Thanks.

Here's to some good talks in the future!

[One Clear Voice]

Is there anyone not here that was here on Saturday? I'm still here! But I did see the movie "Left Behind" cause I was feeling sorry for myself!

[mfbukowski]

Is there anyone not here that was here on Saturday? I'm still here! But I did see the movie "Left Behind" cause I was feeling sorry for myself!

I'm not here anymore. I got raptured. Sorry you missed out.

[scooby]

I hope they're not expecting to be paid for it.

First, Camping's believers have no more money: they bought the t-shirts, at the very least.

Second, it was a self-inflicted injury, and no one (least of all tax payers) should be forced to foot the bill.

Third, they will exploit these poor people and whatever acclaim they get from the nay-sayers in the psychiatric community (those who gainsay all religion) should be ample compensation for their efforts (which, under the best of circumstances, I consider hokum anyway).

Lehi

I think there would be value in studying these people, and others like them. When people give up their life-savings for what most others consider to be a transparently ridiculous reason, then I think that researching them would be, not just insightful, but the humane thing to do. If we could identify the cocktail of conditions that led to their folly then we could spare others the same fate.