Religious view : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I was thinking about all the economically and technologically depressed countries of the world. I was also thinking of all the christians in these poor countries like the Philippines, Thailand, Africa, Mexico. I asked myself this question: Is God being unfair to these christians around the world? They are serving Him just as much or more so than we do here in the United States. Isn't it unfair of Him to let them remain in humble circumstances, high unemployment, without the technological advances we enjoy each day as well as the medical services? The immediate answer was No! He is not being unfair to them whatsoever. He is providing them with what He has promised all of us. If we seek the kingdom first, He will keep us fed, clothed, and an eternal dwelling waiting for us and help along the way as we journey there. (See Matt. 5-7 Sermon on the Mount)

Well, that brings us to the next question. If God isn't letting these people down by not providing them the things we enjoy, would He be letting US down if He were to allow something like y2k to change the way we live and the things we take for granted? I think our "christian American mindset" equated our technological advancements with blessings from God because of our spirituality and righteousness. I think we feel that God couldn't and wouldn't let any breakdown of this structured way of life collapse because of fairness. Try preaching that in the Philippines.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it will collapse because of y2k. All I'm saying is that God promises to provide all the things we need for our spiritual life and only the essentials in this physical life. If God were to let this country change places with a "third world country" and continue to provide what He has promised, He would in no way be letting us down or failing us as our provider.

Like Paul said,

Philip. 4:12-13 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. [13] I can do everything through him who gives me strength.

-- James Chancellor (, July 29, 1998



This forum, according to to the message posted by Mr. Yourdon at the top of the page is "a question and answer forum associated with Ed Yourdon's Y2000 book."

-- Chana Campos (, July 29, 1998.


Just a quick glance at the list of forum questions and answers should make it clear that hundreds of non-y2k issues are being discussed, including dirty jokes and personal greetings, so why pick out a religious post to criticize?

Every Christian believer knows why!

-- Roy Cave (, July 30, 1998.

God bless you Roy.

-- James Chancellor (, July 30, 1998.

Please point out the criticism.

I simply referred him to a more appropriate venue since he seemed to only want to talk religion.

Christianity (or should I say Christians?) have already caused great dissension and grief here. If the gentleman really wants to discuss these things with like-minded individuals he can do so more readily there. If he just wants to start a fight - then he should post here.

It's up to him what his intentions are. Fortunately, it seems that we are learning that ignoring the provocateurs of dissension tends to keep the forum focused on the Y2K issues raised in Mr. Yourdon's book -- I don't remember a chapter on religion in there. And that is the stated purpose of this forum - and we are his "guests" here one might say...

I won't respond further because --- as you people might say "The Spirit of the Lord is not the Spirit of contention." If the gentleman doesn't want to cause contention he knows the right place to go. Every discussion that has started out the way his has has ultimately lead to people more angry and upset with Christians than ever --- is that his goal? Or is his goal to share his feelings with another, more receptive, audience? Or does he just want to parade his religiosity? I can't answer these questions for him. He can decide the effect he wants to create here.

-- Chana Campos (, July 30, 1998.

Chana, I titled my listing "religious view" so people like yourself could skip it and read something related to the book. You obviously read it knowing it wasn't about the book. That is your right. While it is true that Mr. Yourdon made available this forum to discuss the book, a more general y2k discussion is evolving. If you look through the postings on it, you will find that very few of them are discussing the book. They are discussing y2k in general and sometimes how it relates to Time Bomb 2000. Mr. Yourdon knows this is happening and has not shut down or directed the forum to change.

You may have a point about discussing anything not related to the book somewhere else, but I haven't received an indication from Mr. Yourdon that this is required. My opinion is that he is happy we are discussing it at all and raising awareness.

By the way, I don't know how a person copes with this without knowing God will take care of you and that Jesus Christ is y2k compatible.

-- James Chancellor (, July 30, 1998.


You are correct in what you are saying. These so-called Christians, are not Christ like. They want to seek and destroy, that's all they know how to do. They don't want to go to Pastor Chris's network because there is no useful dialogue there. They want to continue to nit pick and somehow they think their righteouness is gladly accepted in God's eyes. They all seem to have the martyr syndrome. Maybe we should ignore them, not read any of their posts, like we did with Timothy Fonsesca. They want to fight and argue and debate, they need Sunday school everyday, they are fanatics, they are the ones that give christianity a bad name. For sure I wouldn't want to be any part of their church or religion! They are more of a witness to Satan than anything else. I don't see the spirit of Christ in any of them. Bardou

-- Playedbythegame (, July 30, 1998.

I think it's fine if the religious posts stay in their own forums, like this one which is called "religious view." Those of you who are not interested should not read it. Although I don't agree with thumping, it's a free country. Just keep your religious posts out of the other forums. Thanks!

-- Dave (, July 30, 1998.

I think that this religious view has no relevance to Y2K. Y2K is not about the significance of the year 2000 in religion, mysticism, superstition, or any other "spiritual" non-tangible subject. Y2K is simply a technological problem created by people. People can solve the problem if we focus on it and not feed into the panic. The general public doesn't know the significance of this technological problem yet. I doubt that when they do figure it out that they are going to want to hear your arguments. They are going to want solutions. Nothing you have said will help solve the Y2K problem for anyone.

-- Buddy Y. (, July 30, 1998.


Methinks they hath confused righteousness with self-righteousness, verily I say unto thee. I'm able to forgive others who chose not to see everything the same way that I do. As to this debate's relevance to the forum, it is thought provoking.

-- Uncle Deedah (, July 30, 1998.

Wow. What a barrage of accusations against a man whose message is merely that God is in control and that He has both the power and integrity to keep His promises. To claim offense at that is to claim the right to be god over one's own life. That too is a religious idea and one which is highly offensive to me. However, I do not argue with a person's right to express it. I only ask that those who hold to that belief extend the same right to others and not maintain a double standard by claiming your ant-Christian ideas are "not religious" and therefore not subject to censorship.

-- Lori Baldwin (, July 30, 1998.

Hasn't it occurred to to some of you people that there are people of all religions and faiths that read this forum? There are some who are Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, and a host of others that do not belive in Christianity. I think you are insulting their beliefs, and lack sensitivity for people of other faiths. Furthermore, you lack respect and continue to act holier than thou. Furthermore, what qualifications and special priviledge do you have to be a mouth piece for God? You are nothing more than a mere human being like the rest of us, no better, no worse. Bardou

-- Playedbythegame (refusetogive!, July 30, 1998.


Bardou, I do believe you're beginning to see the light! You said that Christians are humans just everone else, no better, no worse. You are absolutely right! We're just sinners who have been given the saving faith of Christ apart from any personal meritorious effort, and by His marvelous grace we were lifted from the dung hill to be set among princes! You missed on the next point though! You said: "who gave (us) the right to speak for God?" Well, don't you think a child who's been delegated the authority to speak for his father is entitled to do so? Each true believer is a child of God, a priest unto God, an ambassador for Christ, and is peculiarly set apart for God. He's been duly authorized to go forth and speak for God, proclaiming His Word to a lost and dying world. What a glorious responsibility we have!!

Did you ever pick up that reference bible at the thrift shop, Bardou? Now might be a good time to do so, because believers on this forum are not going away. In fact, it appears they're being energized with Holy boldness! So, if you plan to continue scoffing, you might want to have a good bible handy just to keep score on us.

Unworthy, but His,

-- Roy Cave (, July 31, 1998.

Many of you are right about those that follow Christ. We are not better than anyone else and we were just as lost as anyone else. If God gives me what I deserve (wage), then I will die. Rom. 6:23 "The wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord." But God in the form of Jesus got what He didn't deserve so I could get what I don't deserve. 2 Cor. 5:20-21 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. [21] God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Get this..God becomes sin, something He is not and I become righteousness, something I am not. What a fantastic message at such a great cost!

-- James Chancellor (, July 31, 1998.

I don't think anyone is making accusations because of the religious view. We are simply trying to say that none of what is being posted from the religious point of view has any relevance to the topic of this forum. Your religion is your business. Talk about it if you must, but please find a way to tie it in to the subject of the forum. Otherwise, nobody is getting the point.

I guess your point is that God will see us through this problem. You must be expecting a major disaster. That is debatable and precisely the point of this forum.

-- Buddy Y. (, July 31, 1998.

I don't think anyone is making accusations because of the religious view. We are simply trying to say that none of what is being posted from the religious point of view has any relevance to the topic of this forum. Your religion is your business. Talk about it if you must, but please find a way to tie it in to the subject of the forum. Otherwise, nobody is getting the point.

I guess your point is that God will see us through this problem. You must be expecting a major disaster. That is debatable and precisely the point of this forum.

-- Buddy Y. (, July 31, 1998.

AN OPEN QUESTION TO GOD....Dear Father all Mighty, why did you create the %@#&?#! mosquito? Just itching to find out hee-hee.

-- Connie L> (, July 31, 1998.

I agree with those that believe the Y2K problem in and of itself not a religious issue. At its foundation, Y2K is primarily a technological issue that is the result of man's inability to see beyond the end of his nose.

Beyond that, however, Y2K rapidly becomes a social issue. And, having said that, Y2K becomes a very significant religious issue due to its impact upon humanity.

Humans are inherently religious, regardless of where they put their faith, whether it be in God, a rock, or themselves. To say that the greatest problem to face mankind since the tower of Babel has no religious significance is like saying that a drought has no direct relation to famine or that disease has no relation to the medical profession.

In addition, many on this forum do believe that the RESULTS of Y2K have significant biblical implications, even to the ultimate fulfillment of certain prophecies spelled out in the book of Revelation. At the very least, Y2K provides a wonderful springboard from which individuals and governments can take advantage of a scared and vulnerable people.

Regardless of where you stand, do not dismiss the deeper issues of Y2K and their impact on the human soul. If indeed there is biblical relevance to the impact of Y2K you may want at the very least to give it token consideration. After all, what harm is there in looking at all sides of this multifaceted issue?

Blessings to all!

-- Pastor Chris (, July 31, 1998.


Mosquitoes were created so they can suck your blood, so they can survive. See, everyone sucks off ah, er, ah, I mean ah, why do you have to ask such a complicated question anyway? It's cause God likes to see you scratch? Bardou

-- Bardou (, August 01, 1998.


Please don't lump ALL Christians in with the ones you describe. I'm trying very hard to keep MY religous views to myself and I'm sure there are others out there doing likewise. But, I'm not perfect and sometimes I do post something or other that is of a religous ilk.

AND, by the way, I did visit Pastor Chris forum but found it kinda boring. It's does not make for very interesting conversation and discussion if one is always conversing and discussing with others who completely agree with you and can do nothing but pat you on the back and expect you to pat theirs - I feel like I'm blasphemying (sp?). I know the quote about contention not being of the Lord... I'll have to watch myself closer.

-- Dianne Smith (, August 01, 1998.


To my fellow Christians, it does no good to preach to those like Bardou who are vehemently opposed to discussing any connection between the Savior and Y2K. Doing so (meaning preaching) is like rubbing salt in an open wound! There comes a time when you need to "dust your feet", as it were. Not literally, of course, I believe very few people truly deserve that. Just cut the losses and keep the peace. Jesus never forced his teachings on anyone. Basically... leave it lie.

By the way, history has shown how the general populace reacts when true devastation strikes. They begin to fear and begin to believe there is a God after all -- they "get religion". If TS should HTF, there's gonna be a lot of very fearful people. I'd kinda've like to have thought it out and discussed such occurrences with others if that should happen.

Another thought: I had a friend in High School who was a devote atheist. I believed she would always be so. A few weeks ago I found out she joined the Church. 15 years later... oh, those little seeds, once planted don't necessarily need to be pounded into the ground.

-- Dianne Smith (, August 01, 1998.

Just because a few people want to silence the gospel on a network of possibly hundreds of viewers who need it, is no reason to keep quiet. What would Billy Graham do in a stadium of 50,000 if a small group of hecklers cursed him? Would he fold his tent and go home to accomodate the God haters?

I don't think we need concern ourselves with every filthy post, such as the last one by bardow, but we do need to be ready to answer when the Lord says speak. Unfortunately, bardow's vicious attacks have caused her to lose credibility, and few will now take her seriously. I feel so sorry for these women who feel there's something wrong with being a Christian, or even being a lady.

-- Phylis (, August 01, 1998.

In response to the post above ---

Not everyone who isn't a Christian is an athiest. You are arrogant to presume so. And for those who find "something wrong in being a Christian" has it occurred to ANY of the zealots posting here that we might possibly have our own religious tradition that for many reasons keeps us close to our's just not yours! You don't find other religions doing this on this board! And I have great respect for them and their adherents! Christians are the ONLY ones who have a history of creating division and dissension on this board. It is very much a question of "by their fruits ye shall know them."

We've seen the "fruit" and we are not interested...but rejecting Jesus does not mean we have rejected God or our own spirituality. I find a great DEAL wrong about being a Christian - that is why I am not one. I have found no intellectual or emotional solace in the purported image of Jesus, the values Christianity espouses, etc. However, I do respect your right to believe whatever you want --- this is a simple question. Why can't you follow your own teachings and show respect for other's beliefs?

There IS a saying that sums it up nicely --- what you ARE speaks far more loudly than what you SAY. It always has been and always will be. I have said it before here -- but no Christian ever responds to it. You are disgracing the very image of the God you purport to follow by your contentious, arrogant behavior. If the "Spirit of the Lord is not the spirit of contention"..why are you all ignoring your own scripture? Why should any of us want to follow a religion whose adherents say they believe the Bible --- and then ignore it????

-- Chana Campos (, August 01, 1998.

Hey kids! It's now time to play..."Which bible do you really trust?" Here is Connie's litmus test verse for ascertaining a Bible's politics: Ezekiel 23:20 (King James Bible: "She dotes upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.") Ezekiel 23:20 (New Revised Standard Bible: "She lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of stallions.") Ezekiel 23:20 (Good News Bible: "She was filled with lust for oversexed men who had all the lustfulness of donkeys or stallions.") Ezekiel 23:20 (New International Bible: "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.") Now remember kids, when shopping around for a God-CAVEAT EMPTOR!

-- Connie L. (, August 02, 1998.

James, we had a potent demonstration of the god-creature's actions toward the third world christians and non. For a comprehensive article on the latest events check out this link:

-- Phineas (, August 02, 1998.

Big assumption being made here: Y2K will end the world as we know it. I doubt it. But if it does, then, and only then, is your religious preaching relevant to this issue.

-- Buddy Y. (, August 03, 1998.

Chana: Thank you very much for the post, you said in words that I couldn't have said it in. It's exactly how I feel. I don't feel the need or desire to get on any BB and preach about who I think God is, and why everyone should believe in him/her (even that's a big debate in some Christian circles). I have no respect for people who come off holier than thou, and that's how I perceive a lot of the religious posts. I just skip over them now and read only the stuff that's relevant to me and my getting prepared for Y2K.

Connie: You are really hilarious!!! I just love your posts! I always notice though that no one ever answers your posts. The Bible is full of nonsense isn't it? I hope you keep posting, cause you really make it fun!

-- Bardou (, August 03, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ