A question on Armageddon

Here is a serious question on what you believe about Armageddon.

To kind of sum up the issue, many Jews believe that in the end days there will be this horrific final battle of good over evil in Israel, and that good will win out---they of course believe that they are good, and that as they are about to lose, this Jewish Messiah will come down and save them, and everyone will live as good Jews from then on.

The Muslims also believe that there will be this final horrific battle of good over evil, and that good will win out, as they are good and all these prophets, including Jesus and Mohammed, will come down and good will win out and that afterwards everyone will live as good muslims in this wonderful time without evil.

Christians, of course, believe in this final horrific battle of good over evil and that good will win over evil as Jesus will come down and save them and that everyone will live as good Christians in a time without evil. Now the Christians have the added idea that they will help the Jews, but in the end, it is only the Jews who convert to Christianity that will be saved.

So despite the fact that the Christians will help the Jews up to a point, all three religions are really fighting against each other, as they have done for centuries. The crazy thing is they all worship the god of Abraham.

So here is my question, who is actually fighting on the side of evil in this massive battle of good over evil?

 

Good and/or Evil are completely irrelevant. (In my opinion)

To my way of thinking, Armageddon is a purely subjective concept.
THe way I see it, Humanity as a whole, will banter back and forth about Good vs Evil and eventually we will simply destroy ourselves and that will be that. Evolution will choose a new dominant species to inhabit the planet for a time, before it will inevitably be push down into the sediment that makes up the Earth's crust to be replaced by a new species, ad. infinitum.

THe only thing that will remain is the Earth and her sister planets, orbiting a bright G-Type star for the next 5 billion years, until that Star goes nova, causing another black hole in the fabric of space.

 

That is clearly the most sensible answer.

 

The world has been divided into those who believe in Science and those who believe in fairytale spirits and ancient fictions. Those latter individuals are fodder for conspiracy theorists and con men.

 

It is very interesting. Human beings who have labelled and categorised themselves as Jews, Christians, Muslims, coming from the same Abrahamic background with the same Abrahamic God are fighting with each other for centuries.

All human and spiritual values have been thrown overboard in the process of declaring the supremacy of one's own religion and culture.

I would say this actually highlights the failure of authentic spirituality and religion, which is supposed to unite these peoples in harmony and goodwill for each other.

It also means that other sociological and secular systems may have to come up to take up the role of religion in instilling and creating a progressive value-based human society.

 

Organized religion is founded on the basic concept that the world is divided into us and them. Believers and non-believers. Therein lies the curse of religion upon humanity.

True spirituality sees no us and them, so don't mix that up with organized religion.

 

Yes that is right---all religions are dualistic, and are about control. Spirituality on the other hand is multiplistic. There is no need to seek control.

 

Spirituality is a subjective, individual experience expressed through thought and action.

Religion is the implementation and objectification of social and cultural norms, not really anything spiritual.

That's just the con as in corrupt, hypocritical con men controlling congregations via confidential confessions and continuous conversions.

 

So many humans are just children that in no way see that this little blue planet is the only place that could and should be a paradise for all sentient beings. Travel to Mars? Outer space? What a waste of time and riches that will mean exactly zero. If this planet was run correctly--there would be no wars, no starvation, complete worldwide education, complete worldwide medical care----an actual brotherhood--sisterhood of caretakers of life on earth. The human brain is soooo capable of achieving the aforementioned---and yet---at the same time , so incapable of resisting that which hinders any REAL progress towards an equatable, gentle , reasonable life for all.

OH YEAH--AND DON'T FORGET ---BUY MORE! BUY MORE NOW!

 

Well said! The waste of resources, especially in this moment with 2 wars, while billionaires want their egos to extend to Mars, and the environmental collapse is ever near.

Armageddon and the apocalypse are on the horizon. Here's what to expect...
Wars over water, food, land, religion, minerals, etc.

 

There is one thing everyone who has this kind of discussion overlooks. Whether it is because they are in denial, or they just don't get it, I'm not sure. Maybe both. There is a simple answer to all the questions. (Not a solution, just an answer when you ask why?)

Humans, under it all, are still, just Animals. We are special types of Animals, we thrive on conflict, we need strife in order to feel worthwhile, we demand possessions in order to be able to claim dominance over our small slice of land, and no one has the right to take it from us. If they do, what is our response?

Humans will always default to conflict and violence to solve their issues. It's all well and good to talk about altruistic endeavors, but even the smallest examples of it will never last. We swarm together in modified versions of villages that we call cities and call it our "turf." we fight to keep it, why? does it really belong to you? or are you just inhabiting it for a few decades?

We know that it will all end, but we don't care. As a matter of fact, we USE that fact to explain why we have to gather as many THINGS as we can before we are gone, to leave our mark. But consider this. Everyone knows the Roman Emperors. Some of the names are famous, even infamous. Julius Caesar, Caligula, Marcus Aurelius, Nero. But who was the guy in town that carved the busts that adorned their galleries?

Can anyone say with any certainty the name of the vintner that crushed the crapes for Caesar's wine? And still those historical records will fade just as those of this era will. The current generation is trying to erase our history as it is. Books written 50 or 70 years ago, movies form the 40's and 50's being dragged through the mud and "Cancelled" because someone thinks that long dead actors and producers should have been more sensitive.

Dream of

It's a worthy dream. But live with the knowledge that you will almost certainly be disappointed. It's good for the unwashed masses who serve Lords on High to have ambitions. It keeps us motivated to work harder, push farther and climb just a little higher.

 

I disagree. That may be true of some, even many, religions, but I question its applicability to all. The problem is that your definition dichotomizes spirituality and religion, and portrays them as mutually exclusive. That may reflect your personal experience (spirituality) but it doesn't reflect mine. I agree that spirituality is a private personal sense of the sacred triggered by awe and wonder at aspects of reality. Religion, at least ideally and often in fact, is a social, public, and the organized means by which people sharing these experiences relate to one another in fellowship. To say it concerns "not really anything spiritual" is, to put it mildly, an over-generalization. And to call it a "con as in corrupt, hypocritical con men controlling congregations via confidential confessions and continuous conversions" is to confuse the exceptions with the rule--albeit applicable to too many televangelists and preachers today. To be sure, there are unfortunately all too many examples of churches that fit that description. They make lots of noise, and get a disproportionate share of media attention. But they are far from the whole show.

My own experiences with organized religion have been mostly positive. I admit I'm something of a religious junkie, and have been fortunate, after considerable digging, to find congregations that share my progressive values. My primary affiliation is with the Methodist church, especially a Sunday school of progressively minded folks, from whom I learn as we exchange ideas every Sunday. I've also been involved with Bible study groups with the Disciples of Christ (First Christian church) and the Catholic church, and I've attended services at the local mosque. I've found them all to be mostly positive--decent people with different perspectives seeking God and serving as conduits for organized altruism.

Sure I disagree with some of it. The Methodist church is currently divided over the gay issue, and members have been leaving in droves. So far, the anti-gays leaving outnumber the pro-gays leaving. My Sunday school finds concern over the issue puzzling. The Catholics are a bit dogmatic for my taste, and while listening to them put out prayer requests for this or that person before each study session I can't help thinking: Do you folks actually think God is only going to help these people cuz you asked Him to, and otherwise would let them suffer or die? But they mean well. I am concerned at the extent to which so many Evangelicals and conservative Christians have become involved in right wing politica, and sold their souls in exchange for some court appointments, and phonies like Joel Osteen sell a "prosperity gospel" that perverts Jesus' message. Churches, like other institutions, suffer from what sociologist Max Weber called the "routinization of charisma", as the routines of weekly worship dull the fervor which brought some into the church, while those who were raised in it seem sometimes to be going through the motions. But both spirituality and religion remain central forces in my life.

 

I see goodness in people as well as them expressing their spirituality. These things are separate from religion.

I see religion using followers spirituality and goodness to imply that somehow religion is required to achieve either. And following certain precepts and concepts, often involving arcane and illogical leaps of faith makes you somehow better than someone else following another groups illusions.

 

That's so--Left Bank Post modernist!
I agree that will eventually be the likely fate of our planet, if nuclear war or a comet doesn't get us first. But where does such doom and gloom get you. Pikaia , the plucky chordate that the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould thinks may be a common ancestor, didn't sit around wallowing in existential angst. She picked herself up by her tentacles and made it thru the Burgess decimation, thereby, according to Gould, enabling us to have this discussion. I think it's important to keep in mind that if we don't play our cards right we could indeed end up exitinct--replaced by some other dominant species--possibly cockroaches. I hate cockroaches, so I won't give up without a fight!

 

Not all religions are dualistic. Of the major religions, Hinduism doesn't quite fit that mold--Brahman, the ultimate principle, incorporating all, and Brahma (creator), Vishnu (sustainer), and Shiva (destroyer) playing co-equal roles in governing the universe. Primal religions, tending toward animism and nature worship, tend to see nature as harmonious and the individual entities within it as independent spirits not concerned with competing with one another. But the Abrahamic religions are, all being influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism during the couple of centuries when Palestine was a Persian province. Zoroastrianism, lagely dualistic, arose out of the same Vedic tradition as Hinduism, but Hindu devas (gods) were transformed into demons at war with the good spirits--the Amesha Spenta and ahuras aligned with Ormuzd, Lord of Light and Wisdom--Mithra (St. Michael?), his general, leading the charge. The Zoroastrian idea of a final battle between the forces of Light and the forces of Darkness infected some sects of Judaism, notably the Essenes or whoever wrote the War Scroll at Qumran. Christianity arose out of this apocalyptic wing of Judaism, and Islam picked it up.

It is interesting, though, that dualism also arose, apparently independently, in parts of the world unlikely to have contact with one another. Aztec-Toltec theology features a struggle between the nagual (sprit) and the tonal (material world)--the former embodied by the savior god Quetzalcoatl, the latter by Tezcatlipoca (Cloudy Mirror). The latter temporarily displaced the former by tempting him into a sex scandal, but prophesy said he would return--making the Aztecs temporaily receptive to Cortez. This suggests that this mode of thought may be rooted in our collective unconscious.

As for religions being about control, that's only one thing they're about--and some more than others. (One could day morality is about control, pressuring us to avoid killing, stealing, raping, lying, etc. Is that a bad thing?) Religion is multi-functional, providing individuals with cognitive mapping and relief from existential anxieties; governments and ruling classes with legitimation;
and priests and shamans with spiritual authority and a living. I take what I need, and leave the rest.

 

When I get drawn into such discussions, I ask the person if he REALLY thinks, that somewhere up in the heavens, all the Gods spend all day hurling rocks at each other.
It even made my most devout Muslim friend burst out laughing.

 

If he's Muslim, you're lucky he just laughed. To Muslims there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet. There is, of course, that fallen angel, Iblis, and his host of shayāṭīn (demons). But he and they are false gods, who aren't in heaven, and don't throw rocks at God or each other.

The Quran (43:61) does prophesy a final judgment, heralded by the return of Jesus (yes, Jesus!), and multiple hadith say that before then there will be a final battle, Malhama Al-Kubra ,led by he Mahdi (the rightly-guided one) against Dajjal (the Antichrist).

 

I have Muslim friends that would find that funny. They are no more fanatical or zealous than my Christian friends and family who believe that there is no God but God (i.e.their God). I personally do not know anyone that are on a jihad or support jihad. But I certainly know that the world has many like that. I have some Palestinian friends, and some of them are in Israel. I have a few Israeli friends too, and they are liberal, meaning that they recognize and do not support the Apartheid of Israel.

 

When I ask the question that I did in the OP, I am trying to see what Chrisitians actually believe so I usually don't mention that Jesus will be one of the prophets that will come down in the Muslim version of the final battle or that the Jewish believe a Messiah will come down to save them, as that would taint their response towards Jesus would come down and everyone who converts will be saved.

All three religions are descended from Abraham, so it seems incredulous to me that they would think that only 1 of these traditions is good and the others are evil. But that is what I am trying to find out. Or do they have another way of rationalizing this. Is it to be a battle against pagans and witches and warlocks? Believers against scientists? (LMAO!)

 

Just an amusing aside. I always get a good laugh when I tell a Christian that Christ was NOT Christian.
Christ was born to a Jewish Mother, making him Jewish. He taught all of the Abrahamic forms. Christianity wasn't developed until the late 5th Century of the Common era, AFTER the death of Christ.
The pure outrage and cries of Blasphemy it illicit's by trying to talk sense to a Christian is amusing to me.