Okay…have been scouring my bible here for the verse that says something alone the lines of…
“…two will be working in the field, one will be taken the other left behind…”
When I get home from work tonight I can run it through the bible program…but anyone have a reference for me now?
Sake: If my dying could save your life, then yes. It really depends on the circumstances. I wouldn’t give up my life to prevent you from getting a paper cut. In fact, I might just pour some salt into it. 
You know, my first thought was 1 Corinthians 15:51…but that’s not right. Yet, it is a rapture related verse. Darn it…I’ll keep looking for you. Sorry, can’t help right now
Matt 24 I think…
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
Edlyn wrote:
Uh huh.
Okay, I do have to apologize for one thing: I’m sorry I didn’t notice that Gaudere had already made essentially the same quip earlier in this thread, at the time I made mine. (c.f. Gaudere, posted 01-05-2000 02:40 PM, on page 1 of this thread.)
Had I noticed that, I would instead have posted something along the lines of, “D’OH! Ya beat me to it, Gaudere!”.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
Some Christians who are also scholars think that Revelation was written before Jesus’ time - none of what’s there really refers to Jesus’ second coming; rather, his first.
Same group also speculates that there was more of this same kind of writing, now lost to us, from the same period. Would have been lost around 70 A.D…
So our knowledge of what the Jews were expecting at that time isn’t totally known.
Ruffus says
Ok, but just remember where it really came from, ok? Nothing would freak me out more than a follower, if you know what I mean.
** Sake Samurai** asks
[/quote]
I would like to ask any Chistians out there if they would die for me. Would you?
[/quote]
I am glad you asked. It serves me well that you do ask, as it poses the question to me in the most revealing fashion that it is you who asks. I am bidden to seek you out, and make amends for what ill I have done to you. I don’t like you. You hurt my feelings, and yet do not stand and answer me when I speak of it. Since I have referred to my despite in other threads it is a very good thing that I have this opportunity.
I would like to believe that I could sacrifice my life, in order to gain some benefit of commensurate importance for your life. Not as an example of sacrifice, willfully loosing my life to show you my worth, but that I might not value my life too much or your need to little. Am I really made from the metal of heroes? Who knows? Given that I am, would I let my rancor kill that nobility? Perhaps, although I know in my heart that my life is not my treasure, and that holding on to it, while your suffering went on would wound that part of me which is my treasure.
I do not know. I know that I should, if my life is all that it would take, to accomplish some thing of worth for the world, or for your spirit. But I cannot claim the surety of heart that would make me know now if I could lie upon your hypothetical spiritual hand grenade if we were alone.
Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them.
–** Aristotle** (384-322BC)
I believe that Revelation is pretty clear on who wrote it. John the Beloved. I don’t think he wrote it will fishing prior to meeting Jesus…ergo…he would have written it afterwards…how much after…
Tracer, I think there was a difference of degree, if not of kind, between our posts. Mine took a title of a belief of Christianity, dropped the caps and made a sexual pun about myself. Kinda like saying “Hey, I was immaculately concieved; my mom washed the sheets before sex!” Whereas yours made an explicit sexual reference about their deity (who is supposed to be wholly pure, so sexual references are even more inappropriate) .
Despite the difference, if anyone had called for an apology I was prepared to give one. I had one mentally sketched out already. I had thought perhaps one of the pounders would object, and I was kind of feeling out whether my usual mildly off-color humor was still acceptable. Fortunately, it still seems to be. If anyone has found my remark offensive enough to require an apology, I will apologize and try to be more careful around those more sensitive.
You’ve clearly offended some people, and I do not think they are being too unreasonable. I think it is basic courtesy to have some respect for the sensitivities of others.
Tris - don’t worry, brother. I don’t go setting people up as gods. (Not even David B. ;)) I just wanted to let you know that what you wrote hit home with at least one poster!
Friends:
I would like you to meet my fiancee, Edlyn.
Edlyn:
I love you. Thanks for the comments.
Sake:
Given different circumstances, I might or might not die for you. But what was the point of your question?
tracer:
In retrospect, I came down pretty hard on you. Sorry, guy. Gal. Whatever.
Just please be mindful of the context — the who, what, when, where, and why. It just wasn’t appropriate for Poly, a vulgar Jesus joke, this time, this place, because he asked you nicely not to.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Gaudere said:
I demand you apologize for not being as offensive as Tracer was! 
Lib: You’re bringing your fiance here? Jeez, I hope you warned her about us!
Good thing you introduced her, though, 'cus I figured “Edlyn” was a man. < smirk >
And you crawled on me about Holly!? 
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
I am heartily sorry, David, and I will try to do better next time.
David:
Why do you assume that Edlyn is not a man. Isn’t that just as unfounded as assuming that Edlyn is a man?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
[Apologies to the Princess Bride]
It is obvious that Edlyn is a woman by the way I spelled fiancee. But I might have made a typographical error, meaning that Edlyn is a man. But you cannot assume a typographical error, because if Edlyn were a man, then I might have spelled it incorrectly but on purpose! Meaning that I might have been concealing my homosexuality by deliberately misleading you about Edlyn’s sex, but because you know me well enough to make the reasonable assumption that I would not lie, you will likely assume that Edlyn is a woman. But it is possible that I had intended to deceive you, despite my reputation for piety, so that Edlyn is a man … Except! Except that in my intention to deceive you, I might also have made a typographical error, meaning that Edlyn is a woman, but Edlyn can’t be a woman because the typographical error, meant to imply that Edlyn is a woman actually implies that Edlyn is a man. Therefore, Edlyn has to be a woman because, if I were being pious as you expected, but appeared to be trying to deceive you, but failed in my deceit by making a typographical error, while nevertheless making a typographical error because I am a pious man, then I would have spelled the word fiance. But since I didn’t, then Edlyn must be a man. But Edlyn isn’t a man, so he must be a woman. But a “he” cannot be a woman, therefore she must be a man. But a “she” cannot be a man, therefore he must be a woman.
Dammit, give me that chalice!
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
All I have to say is, Edlyn, is Lib as confused in real life as he sometimes sounds on the board?
Nice to have you with us!
Hah! Jokes on you, Lib. I switched the fiancees when you weren’t looking.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Somehow I don’t recall “going in against a Libertarian when marriage is on the line” being an ancient blunder…
I did not realize that Libs inpending marrage was a sign of the second comming either…or the Apocalypse either…
JK
B^D