Sudden Pope-ularity
by Stephen Foster
By Stephen Foster, February 6, 2014
Let me begin with an unfortunately necessary disclaimer, especially on what is a site dedicated to the free exchange of ideas and information related to topics of contemporary interest to Adventists of every ideological stripe: I know that some may conceivably be uncomfortable discussing certain issues, and/or would rather discuss issues of their choosing or interest. If this, in any way, describes you, you may want to skip this blog post.
Our brother Clifford Goldstein wrote a book a while back entitled Day of the Dragon, in which he parallels contemporary events with historical or conventional SDA eschatological doctrine.
In one passage I recall him imagining that (the late) Mother Theresa might be profiled on a 60 Minutes-type of program in which her selfless and charitable acts toward the poor and infirmed are highlighted in juxtaposition to the caricatured SDA characterization of Roman Catholicism (as some bogeyman organization). This would, of course, have positioned Adventists as sort of kooky on national television, bringing subsequent wide-scale embarrassment to its membership.
This nightmarish public relations scenario has not occurred to this point. Or has it? I recall cringing in embarrassment any time David Koresh or the cultists in Waco, TX, were mentioned in connection to any previous SDA associations or memberships.
Now of course, suddenly there is a new pope, who is suddenly very popular. I use the word “suddenly” advisedly because the previous pope suddenly abdicated his position.
The circumstances that afforded this pope the opportunity to ascend to his position were historically rare and therefore cannot be discounted, but we only have the reported reasons provided for his predecessor’s abdication and perhaps really shouldn’t speculate beyond those official reasons.
In any case, Pope Francis I is suddenly much more popular—particularly with those of liberal persuasions with regard to economic and political issues—than was his predecessor.
This is significant because (as with Seventh-day Adventists?) it was largely liberals who were somewhat disgruntled with much of the official doctrinal and policy approaches of Roman Catholicism. (Interestingly enough, however, with Adventists in America the disaffected liberals are often politically conservative—although this is undoubtedly due largely to ethnic, sociological, and historical differences in perspectives.)
With Roman Catholics in America, there appears to be less of a political/theological dichotomy. Politically liberal Catholics seem to also be relatively liberal in their approaches to traditional Catholic teachings on such things as married priests, contraception, abortion, evolution, and gay rights. On the other hand, politically conservative Catholics appear to be equally as religiously conservative, at least in terms of Catholic doctrine.
But it is in the sense of unifying these ideological wings of Roman Catholicism (and Catholics) that this pope appears ingenious.
Liberal Catholics in the (so-called liberal) media have been particularly impressed and even enamored by Pope Francis I’s statements and stances. It is these liberal Catholics, who have recently championed family planning, abortion, and gay rights, and who have been most at odds with traditional Catholic teaching and stances on these issues, and are in some cases estranged from Catholicism, who may be returning.
These Catholics, and even President Obama, have been so impressed and happy with Francis’s statements relative to poverty and wealth in society that they can hardly contain themselves. MSNBC’s Chris Hays, host of All In with Chris Hays, has raised the possibility that Pope Francis I is perhaps the “best pope ever.” Check it out.[1] If by chance you think Mr. Hays is alone in his thinking, think again.
Actually, many would consider the pope’s “enlightened” (“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”) position regarding Catholic priests who have a homosexual orientation to be more accepting, less judgmental, and more “Christ-like” than was that of his predecessor, whose attitudes toward gay priests and homosexuality generally (especially in the wake of a widespread scandal) was never nearly as forthcoming. Furthermore, the pope's approach may be more accepting than the attitudes of conservative Protestants, including those of Seventh-day Adventists (including mine?). This alone is winning the pope popularity.
As has been indicated in our preceding blog (https://atoday.org/article/2198/opinion/foster-stephen/2013/undeniable-plausibility), the President of the United States is clearly among the smitten, and he is scheduled to meet the new pope next month to cap off his next European trip. This is not unusual, as American Presidents routinely meet Catholic popes. (Indeed, President Obama had of course met with Pope Benedict XVI early in his first term.)
What is unusual is the willingness or eagerness of the U.S. President to cite or quote the pope as an authority in seeking (or bolstering) support of his policy and programmatic approaches to alleviate poverty.
“The President looks forward to discussing with Pope Francis their shared commitment to fighting poverty and growing inequality” reported White Press secretary Jay Carney in a prepared statement.
We are now to understand that the new pope’s approach is actually strategic, at least according to an actual papal voter, and perhaps the most influential American cardinal, Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York City. In a recent Meet the Press interview, he says that the new pope has not only instituted a change in tone, but also “a change in strategy.[2] A pope by his nature cannot make doctrinal changes. He can make a lot of changes in the way, the style, the manner in which it’s presented.”
Earlier in this interview, regarding what we’ve termed this pope’s pope-ularity, Cardinal Dolan had said that “I can’t walk down the streets of New York, which I do a lot, without people stopping me and saying, ‘Cardinal, I’m not even a Catholic, I’m not even a believer, but I love Pope Francis, and thanks a lot for voting for him.’ Because they love him; you put the finger on it I think when you spoke about the humanity—his simplicity, his sincerity, his genuiness, his humility. We as Catholics believe God came to us through the Person, through the humanity of His Son Jesus; and I think Jesus is coming to us as Catholics, and again to the world, through the humanity, the simplicity, the sincerity, of Pope Francis.” That’s saying something.
However, what Time magazine managing editor Nancy Gibbs wrote in explaining “The Choice” of Francis as the magazine’s 2014 Person of the Year, says something too. Gibbs writes, “…in a very short time, a vast global, ecumenical audience has shown a hunger to follow him.” Need anyone say more?
[1] https://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52997083#52997083
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/video/meet-the-press/53707473#53707473
"Need anyone say more?" Well, yes. And why don't you just go ahead and say it?
There is a hunger for these kinds of characteristics in our spiritual leaders. All hierarchical churches should learn from it.
As is your habit, you have invited us to speculate about the progression of church and state moving closer together to fulfull prophecy. OK, I'll take the bait.
First, let's remember that the Mark of the Beast is received in either the forehead or the hand, symbolizing mental assent to and compliance with the teachings and authority of the Pope, or physical cooperation. Add that the primary focus of President Obama's administration is on "social justice" issues requiring the redistribution of wealth. Next, if you read several statements the Pope has made recently (available for reading on the Vatican website), you will find him saying that wealth redistribution is essential to helping the poor, that governments must use their authority to take greater amounts from the affluent and give to the poor, and that such government programs are doing the work of the church.
Wait a second! Did you catch that last part about governments needing to take more from the affluent and doing the work of the church? Surprise! You've made passionate advocations for exactly those things in statements you've posted on this site in the past! It looks like the social policies you defend have found an unexpected ally whose presence on the world scene reveals the true nature of what you support. This raises serious questions. Does your support for the same policies the Pope endorses mean you've already given mental assent to the teachings of the Pope in a manner consistent with the Mark of the Beast being in the forehead? Can you afford to continue advocating what makes it look like you are supporting the Pope?
To quote Ricky Ricardo on the old TV series I Love Lucy, "You've got some 'splainin' to do!" I'm going to enjoy watching how you try to get out of this one.
“The President looks forward to discussing with Pope Francis their shared commitment to fighting poverty and growing inequality” reported White Press secretary Jay Carney in a prepared statement.
And who really believes Jay? Fighting equality with our tax dollars while Obama spends millions on a Hawaiian Vacation. How naive does Jay think we are.
Maranatha
re: redistribution of wealth. Once the one world order of political control of the masses is complete in the West, it is the United Nations who will manage the production & product guidelines and assignments for each nation, as well as authority for policing and military required. The UN will receive its assignments from the hierarchy of the world's Power Bloc. Then we have the potential for amighty power to the image of the beast.
As we know, the top Administrator of the United Nations serves a term and is then replaced. i find it interesting that a young healthy candidate named Barack Obama, may be in the running for a much enlarged powerful position.
It so convenient a black guy will herald the end time of Good 'Ol Millerite blessed America and the inevitable apocalypse of a world w/o her beloved Christian guardian and demigod- U.S of A
How does the image of the beast get tied to "wealth redistribution" as if the modern Wall Street exec is more God-fearing than a future communist? The wealthy already are being worshipped and are responsible for our love of money. Wealth redistribution is as Satanic as an American Democrats (JFK/Carter/Clinton mold) are communists
And by that logic, there is nothing literally republican about a peasant telling the rich to give up all their wealth and property (John Locke) to follow His kingdom (redistributing). And then, He tells any republican revolutionaries to give material possessions to Caesar and Jesus is there for the Spirit.
AntiChrist is a spiritual battle at the core of mankind and is far greater than superficial labels of common politics.
I'm surprised at how hard I blew in that rant. Excuse it as something to get off my chest. I get really into comments by people that aren't getting the ramifications of such generalizations and that even their attitudes do have a historical source and tradition even in Christianity.
Lynn,
Your postings are a voice of gentleness amid a storm of harshness, mine own included. Still, sometimes we need to blow.
There is an essential misconception in the debate about the possession and redistribution of wealth. God's plan for His people is that He will bless them with wealth so they can voluntarily redistribute as they see need and try to meet that need from the blessings God has showered on them. That concept has become corrupted into the belief that being wealthy is somehow evil and that forced redistribution using the power of government and according to the dictates of corrupt politicians who are enriching themselves in the process is good and proper.
When Jesus told the rich young ruler to go and sell all that he had and give to the poor, Jesus was not condeming the fact that he had great possessions. Jesus was challenging the order of priorities in his life and being rich was at the top instead of God and doing the work of God, including charity.
Nicodemus was very rich. So was Joseph of Arimathea, who buried Jesus in his own tomb. The historian Josephus wrote that they were the two richest men in all of Jerusalem and that the personal wealth of either would run the entire local economy for a period of several years. Yet other historians record that they died poor because of their charity in response to the love of God. They expended their wealth providing sustenance to the believers in Jerusalem and Judaea through times of persecution.
Charity springs from our relationship with God according to the blessings we recognize as coming from Him. Our degree of charity is a life choice, a measurement of a person's relationship with God that sometimes is very obvious for others to see. I count as personal friends a number of people who are wealthy. They are charitable because they recognize the blessings they have received from God. A few months ago I found myself in the company of one of those friends going to visit the husband in a family facing great financial hardship that was turning into a relationship issue with his wife. He was at his breaking point. We talked outside his apartment because he was too ashamed to invite us inside. One of his concerns was that he didn't have enough money to even buy his wife an inexpensive birthday present. Not even a birthday card. Hearing that ripped at my heart and I pulled-out my wallet. All I had was a $20 bill, yet I gave it to him. My friend reached into his pocket and multiplied my gift ten-fold. I was surprised by how quickly he gave. The man we had come to visit sank to the ground in tears. Over the months since we have watched God use that and continued charity to heal his spirit, his relationship with his wife and his faith.
Contrasting sharply with those like the man I just described are those who support using the power of government to seize wealth and redistribute it. That viewpoint typically is used to isolate themselves from having to be touched by the needs of others and being personally charitable. By doing this they violate God's instructions and lose for themselves the rich blessings awaiting them when they work as God leads them. Plus, taking by force produces negative results. Teaching that they are entitled to receive just because they are poor cultivates an attitude of disrespect for what they are given. It encourages them to become spiteful, even violent, when they are not given growing amounts of aid. On the other end of the spectrum, government seizure of wealth for redistribution shrinks the pool of available funds from from which it is taken and progressively pushes the affluent toward poverty. This is evidenced by the shrinking giving to charities that is being seen as the economy sputters and growing numbers of the affluent lose their incomes. For example, at the federal agency where I work we have the annual Combined Federal Campaign encouraging support for local charities. We have more employees than ever before and a larger total income to workers. But giving to the CFC has been dropping steadily over the past six years and this year we failed to meet our goal for the first time. Why? The cost of living is higher and uncertainty about our nation's fiscal future is growing, so people are protecting their reserves.
There were several great points about the benefits of charity and an inspiring account that exemplifies our societal needs and mindfulness towards our brethren's financial plight.
However, wealth is not a blessing, certaintly not a spiritual one. But wealth is a call to responsibility, accountability and true rejection- only the wealthy can truly reject the seductive trappings of wealth. Being wealthy is our chance to testify of God's love by rejecting it.
Yes, God wants us to be prosperous, productive, hard-working, effective member of community, appreciated and appreciative and thus generous but not to be celebrated. See now more than ever, people are celebrated. And celebrity status is only eclipsed by celebrated wealth. Unlike Antiquity or Ancient Israel where one owed their success and status to family status and social order- we now have the mobility to earn the beloved title of "self-made man" and pine to join ranks of celebrity wealth.
I'm not condemning wealth and money itself as a resource- I'm rejecting to support and endorse what money means in our society. And what is truly vile is the poisonous marriage between the superwealthy manipulating Christian doctrine to justify their ruthless ways. Past robber barons would just devote later years to philanthropy while having the self-awareness to know their celebrated wealth could not fit alongside modesty and humility of church life.
However, modern mega churches and church industry are operating on levels compared to Rome and today, unlike the openly Darwinian past, the superwealthy have no discomfort or challenger in tying their celebrated wealth to Christian doctrine.
Now enforcing charity (taxes, subsidized living programs) is not a good and godly thing b/c it interfere w/ the Holy Spirit's job to create willing hearts. But we are to physically give to Caesar what is Caesar. We have the modern luxury of democracy, where we can remove and elect different Caesars to represent.
But in our wealth-based and selectively democratic state, we forget Christ represent us. Christ dies for us. And Christ came back from dead to live for us. And finally Christ best represents the poor.
Christ purposefully represents the poor, meek, oppressed, and downtrodden and especially poor in spirit. The rich can find survivalist comfort and applause for fiscal strength from Darwin but not the peasant carpenter rabbi in Christ.
If Christ represents the poor and says wherever they are hungry and oppressed people there He is. He is not in: Park Avenue apartment or Vegas condo or Beverly Hills mansion or Coventry estate or French Rivera villa or Alpine exclusive ski resort or Dubai or Singapore or Hong Kong or Safari expedition or Antarctic voyage etc etc.
So if Christ best communicates w/ the struggles of the poor- shouldn't we center our entire lives doing the same?
If the entitled are people who attempt take the benefits w/o enduring the hardship and misery- don't the poor understand the futile, neglected, and meaningless suffering that Christ faced and the celebrated rich absolutely do not endure?
Aren't the rich entitled and enjoy the exclusive privileges of being able to lead meaningful lives and freely condemn others while the poor are deemed expendable and unjustly suffer for perceived misconduct w/o being heard?
Doesn't our culture condemn the ungrateful attitudes of the poor rather than, the elitist and judgmental arrogance of the rich?
Wealth is celebrated. Philanthropy is celebrated. Even influential and thoughtful people are awarded and celebrated too.
But who celebrates the rejection of wealth… that's forbidden.
Lynn,
You wrote: "How does the image of the beast get tied to "wealth redistribution" as if the modern Wall Street exec is more God-fearing than a future communist?"
Good question. Please forgive me for ignoring the Wall Street bankers right now because there is a greater issue in which the bankers are just part of a larger cast of players.
Here's the simple answer. The Pope is working under the control of Satan in opposition to God. Whatever he does should be viewed with suspicion because of the power controlling him and we should be careful to avoid doing the same things. On two occasions within the last month the pope has made statements directly stating or implying that government redistribution of wealth was an extension of the work of the church. That is a clear church-state linkage. No treaty of public statement of common purpose is required for the state, including the USA, to be doing the bidding of the Papacy. But instead of seeing a flashing neon sign warning of danger and exposing evil, Mr. Foster has a track record of vigorously defending exactly what the pope endorsed in words describing church and state working together. So his view is at least in harmony and cooperation with that of the pope and giving mental assent (the mark in the forehead) to the concept of which the pope spoke. If Mr. Foster supports what the pope endorsed and the pope is the agent of Satan working against God, why are we not to suspect that the redistribution Mr. Foster advocates is not the objective of Satan and that he is at least unwittingly advancing concepts that are contrary to God?
I understand skepticism is valuable for a wise Christian but, it's not the priority as I'm sure you'll know. So even if we were all wrong and Pope Francis is an alien demon sent to trick us into whatever trick keep us out of Heaven for all eternity- that doesn't deny his cry for prioritizing treatment of the poor. When people test Pope Francis' words out, they find it having Jesus' support, that Francis is creating more enemies of his Papal colleagues and other well-to-do Catholics resent such message, and this pope isn't gaining power by not handing out indulgences to rich donors but, saying the poor capture Christ's attention most of all and rich successes aren't doing enough.
A Roman pope is one the most privileged, elistist, and arrogant positions to hold, and Pope dares to speak out against lavish success. The Vatican's holdings could feed starving people around the world for a month or longer. We know naturally Catholics care more of power and judgment than real compassion and humility- but apparently Pope Francis resist excessive luxuries and lives more modestly than any pope in recent memory. It's not perfection or correct a lot of wrongs that Catholicism has done almost 2,000 years- but it's a start and certaintly noble to lead by a humble example. Skepticism is wise to keep when people are demanding trust and servitude but, not when they say serving the poor is ideal- that's wins no power but sacrifices it in faith.
Christians especially Adventists don't have it in their job description to police and solve spiritual cases like a Bible certified detective. Being wrong doesn't equate to the end-time destruction, instead refusing to admit we have been wrong several times and continue to wrong God is the key to grace and salvation. So being wrong is okay but not keeping faith and love towards the needy and poor is the essence of Christianity. Be skeptical but don't let getting the right answer interfere w/ servitude and humility- humans are destined to be wrong about the hour, not even Lucifer knows the hour of His coming and other plans He has- so have more faith than an arrogant skepticism as opposed to an existential one.
Next Wall Street execs and political power brokers have exceeded even the Pope's adoration and also they have the deadly combination of having even more innocent disguises than papists who are too hated to enter most circles, where a Wall Street exec can slide into.
More kids around the world and especially in the United States or non-Catholic led countries grow up wanting to be wealthy as Warren Buffet or be a big shot like George Soros or the Koch brothers. In fact the Koch brothers have the best of both worlds- w/money Wall Street and members of Washington power elite groveling at their feet. Most parents raise their kids to be the next US president and not a future pope. Pope Francis knows this, it's apparent even in Italy and the Papacy decline has been steady even during the Millerite days of 19th century. In Catholic Italy, wealth isn't a nefarious dealing like Mafia or corrupt or just ruthless practice in business or an elistist aristocratic privilege- it's celebrated from Berlusconi to other new celebrities of Europe. And celebrity culture is very new to Europe but not the Americas where Pope Francis is from (Argentina).
So today's icons from Gates to Zuckerberg to Saudi royal families and glitzy fashion/entertainment stars- wealth, glamour, media, and celebrity are some of the most "revered" objects in our world. Satan wins more people w/ such vanity b/c people are willing to make deals w/ the devil for such success. And yet, in America, a reformed sociopathic millionaire turned church attending elitist billionaire is more valuable than any poor congregation or a hated papist. Reject papacy and criticize the poor as drug addicted or lazy or whatever is more practiced than reviling wealth inequality and rejecting the celebration of wealth?
It's fine to reject lazy poor and reject celebrated rich but, Forbes Top 500 can always get more smiles than headline of "Poor Man Suing Christians for a Living Wage and Shelter"
Rhetorically I ask, why is that the case?
If you will recall William I wrote a blog in which I pointed out the President’s willingness to quote the pope and use the pope’s popularity to further his own policy agenda and political standing. Now I write a blog in which I document how the punditry of the political left has been doing something similar (while reiterating Obama’s willingness to do so).
I have always maintained that the danger of church and state uniting can easily come from the right and the left.
But sadly, you would never notice this because you have been deluded into conflating laissez faire capitalism with God’s ways of doing things; perhaps a uniquely American delusion. God, of course, has never once hinted a preference for any man-made economic system; and political animals of the American variety, conservatives and liberals alike, will always use the church to further their respective agendas.
Stephen,
Reality here is so obvious a blind man could see it. The social policy objectives of President Obama, which you vocally support, and the Pope's are the same! The Pope's recent declarations in support of redistribution of wealth by the state as an extension of the ministry of the church publicly mark the purposeful alignment between church and state so they can work together toward a common objective. You love to speculate about potential steps toward the fulfillment of prophecy and the union of church and state. Well, you can stop speculating because that is concrete evidence.
While your intent has been to warn people away from deception, your allegiance to liberal-socialism has duped you into becoming a supporter of the Pope in his efforts to unite church and state. Instead of pulling people away from danger, without realizing it you have been luring them into deception. Such is the nature and power of Satan's deceptions. But, praise God! He is far more powerful. His mercies endure and forgiveness is still available to those who choose to repent and learn from Him.
Liberal-socialism hijacks the noble concepts and purposes of God and attempts to fulfill them through the power of men and the force of law. It stands in stark contrast and opposition to God, who tells us to do everything through the guidance and empowerment that comes through the Holy Spirit. The difference could not be more dramatic or serious because the consequences of allegiance to the first is our loss of eternal life.
Your understanding of Am. History and Am. politics is off and the resulting narrative is shoddy work. The Papacy doesn't garner American popularity but, is a gesture to 3rd world and Latin countries- not Americans. Joe Biden to Santorum don't get added points b/c of Catholicism- if anything they are disadvantage by the association to Rome.
No the Pope's New Groove is catching on because BOTH oligarchal superwealthy of post Cold War world and the neo-judgmental factions/sects of that Abrahamic Ol' Time religion are incredibly alienating and frightening. Wall Street and Salt Lake City have more to do w/ the national discourse than Rome and Mitt Romney is the by product of that- despite being nationally rejected when he was supposed to cruise to victory by all past indicators of Democrat failure. Wall Street is the new Rome. Is it any wonder that hallowed ground was terrorized by extremist voices shouting for that 'Ol Time Religion? Yes Christianity is older than Islam but America isn't.
The marriage between billionaires and the religious right is happening all over the world and what is truly fascinating is the Papacy's in-roads in the 3rd world. Sure Catholicism has previously focused on the poor and stabilizing influence in broken societies, but to have its highest leader in an exclusive elitist circle and be non-European is huge shift. Then for the Pope to address wealth creators and judgmental fundamentalists as being un-Christian is both ironic coming from a totalitarian Pope and also absolutely right.
Obama is not trying to gain popularity, he knows Americans won't ever really universal admire him and elect him b/c they feel more alienated by the poorer alternative.
Obama is only responding to the massive response all people have towards the new tune the Pope is singing. The Pope rather than be applauded and surrounded by sycophants in luxurious settings- is reaching out and trying soothe the ALIENATING GULF that wealth and religion create.
America isn't leading the charge against the Pope and it's rotten indulgences and corrupt wealth but, indirectly the Pope is confronting American culture and the President can't be on the defensive- so he intuitively accepts and sides w/ the overwhelming amounts of Christian and non-Christian that feel neglected by modern Christianity.
Those buffoons calling the Pope a Marxist or danger to religion everywhere are AVOIDING the revolutionary sentiment and distaste people are gathering towards Abrahamic faiths- religion may not be worth the economic cost and trouble anymore. Americans should be changing such attitudes not unwittingly reinforcing them.
Lynn,
I really can’t keep up with what you believe and what you don’t. Sometimes I think I catch your drift, but then you’ll invariably lose me again.
I have a take on who "wealth creators" are; but it would be distractive. Obama and all successful politicians are always “trying to gain popularity;” never doubt/forget that!
Re: redistribution of wealth? Let find a way to redisribute wealth and get more votes… Push imagration reforms. Obama says Republicans are just "worried and scared of the political blowback", 90% are Catholic and with the porous borders one can not play down the effect on the upcoming election. Ever wonder why Nancy Pelosi and others made those many trips to the Vatican?
Lynn, the ruling hierachy will be the Global Bankers, USA, Germany, Russia, and China, as the Ruling committee, giving orders to the United Nations, who will be organized to provide the day to day management of the Global economy and policing and military needs. This mighty power structure can provide the needs of the beast power, as the Pope will sit on two thrones, Vatican Rome/ Jersulem.
See the problem is the derivatives. We don't derive our interactions w/ a Chinese girl, or Israeli man or Indonesian woman from a global bureaucratic manual on human relationship.
Leaders take their cues from people and social conventions and contrary to myth, even the most hated dictator can't manage each relationship and interaction of a person like an artificially intelligent omniscient force (an immortal demigod). The US government is trying to build such information databases to keep track of our every relationship and subsequent thoughts but, that is only a result of people increasing mistrust of each other. See, it's people that kill each other not forces controlling them like a puppeteer. The true apocalypse is completed when people whether Christian or otherwise subscribe their emotions to based on what a talking head or bureaucratic authority says is right to simply "feel". It's all about people's fears and attitudes causing them to abandon responsibilities for their emotional issues to leaders that can explain why the majority ill-feelings are duly noted and right.
In other words, if people care about each other and don't view "non-believers" as alien creatures no government functionary would dare to interject.
And finally, the actual feasibility to perform such domineering feats is astronomical. Because w/ totalitarian dominance of a world w/ us vs them- the authority loses its context and w/o context how can we tell if there is success or not. We've been in Iraq and Afghanistan for decade after winning in less than a couple of weeks and like Alexander the Great historically learned there before Islam and Christianity ever existed- it is so hard to simply gauge success on such an unruly terrain- the people in those cliffs and valleys and barren villages aren't half as difficult as the conditions by which an authority must conquer. So forget succesfully dominating people, just try to gauge whether you're dominating them already or progressing at all. In America's War on this existential Terror- have we made a difference the past ten years? Have we made a difference in the past century or millenium? How long has terrorism and counter-revolutionaries been happening and do these unmanageable events increase along w/ our human capacity for violence that can't be stopped by any body of government? Our extent of successful global dominance is best measured by the past and such progress- sure we have unmanned drones that can blast away a counter-revolutionary and his terrorist cell and also deliver the same book he bought on Amazon "Idiot's Guide to Christian Patriotic Revolutionism". But those same drones can be criminally refitted for a tech-savvy individual civilian to circumvent and control for their private use.
W/ every large moving government force that successfully rises, there is always an individualist threat that undermines and questions such success to begin w/. To suggest there can be absolutist reign of terror and also manages to integrate other groups to participate or be terrorized is shortsighted. Because w/o a exclusive target to terrorize like a cult leader kidnapping and persecuting his own helpless flock- then we can't affirmatively measure whether such a particular group has been authoratively persecuted by another group. Subjugation, persecution, and degradation needs a context and exclusive setting to gauge success in annihilation or failure by creating individual opportunities for greater control as a result of subjugation efforts.
Take the invention of the gun for example, it literally was taken to be government weapon to use on domestic oppositions and national enemies at large. But, the intensity of war and human subjugation at the hands of the gun wielding only enabled private investment and individual research for better guns. It all made for better guns that were more individually accessible. While governments, throughout history from Nazis to today have the advantage in tax-funded investment and research, it still takes people to create guns and those same people are finding ways to benefit from providing guns to other people. Therefore, while governments have more capabilities than ever before to deploy a "Final Solution" measure effective immediately versus whatever opposition, individual people are more weaponized than our ancestors from WW2 and beyond could ever imagine. Even a local gang can have enough capital to purchase an armor piercing gun turret that could frighten away past government warriors like Stormtroppers that couldn't imagine such power at the hands of a private individual. So w/ every step towards dominance, there is an increasing consequence of unhinged mercenary backed individual challenges.
And challenges violently increase in a more integrated society bent on totalitarian world government. The religious theocracy of Taliban can manage a relatively technological Stone Age of Afghani cave dwelling and villages but, imagining their control of an advanced city or state is preposterous not b/c of faith. But, the scale to manage data on each person and remain committed to religious oppression while those same people can develop and share information on a lesser scale but, more personalized level to gauge success in various mediums. The key to absolutist dominance is isolation and dependence integrated into cultural traditions and unchallengeable myths instead of context, management, and relative agencies w/ nuanced definitions and functions to gauge performance.
9/11 is an example of bureaucratic dominance having failed and people exploiting the inevitable cracks in such massively integrated world of relative success and not absolutism. Men feigned innocent disguises w/ the bureaucratic qualifications after purchasing trips from a private corporate body to weaponize a transportation vehicle. That doesn't happen in the Stone Age but, massacring a tribe of Amalekites by royal decree of an Israelite King is perfectly plausible but not, a raid or independent terrorist act. See, despite having the power to inflict Hiroshima in a weapon carrying plane, today, people are weaponizing those same planes kamikaze style for the same of bureaucratic and institutional chaos.
Imagining a world governing body trying to safely manage power w/o harm from rogue individualists that are capable of undermining success w/ their own weapons. But individuals can sadistically threaten entire institutions just as the threat of 9/11 confirmed. Tell me, how certain is world dominance when a mere bomb threat can throw entire communities out of whack. Nobody can truly define what success totalitarianism looks like in the modern age-Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Fidel Castro's Cuba or even examples of Jim Jones death cult are the farthest thing from a world government. Besides the few thousands of select investors and employees of Goldman Sachs can measure more literal financial worth and growth than entire nations like Tanzania, w/ hundreds of millions of people scraping by. There are less UN boots and regulations to follow and more Blackwater mercenaries and private money hungry contractors benefitting themselves to Iraqi opportunities. That's is individualist trend of the world from terrorist pirates and raiders, to corporate conglomerates overthrowing national sovereignty and formerly isolated channels in post-Cold War era, and finally a weapon-industrial complex that is frightfully unmanaged and drones are used for protection instead of being banned for violating intrusion- we are too scared of all the guns and walking suicide bombers that unmanned drones are a last resort.
Success is always relative and contextual, while absolutism is either exclusively seen or just a myth like Zeus on Olympus universally striking down false worshippers. And how we compassionately feel towards each other, the cues we use to signal decisions and interpret our own feelings or lack thereof is what effects powerful change rather than mere action and reaction, that is our apocalyptic future.
Lynn,
Is the problem deriviatives? Or, is it sin that is getting progressively worse to the point where God will no longer be able to tolerate it and He will be forced to destroy it? I think the latter.
I think the judgmental attitudes that derive from "take care of your sinning or I will and you'll be better off for having been- good" cause the problems.
We forgive and care for each other cause that's all we can do. Life gets tough and gets worse and we get naturally tougher but, become progressively worse in recognizing our need to forgive and not judge. We get worse at doing what little we can do for each other. And we aren't adding to heavenly treasures but spending it to hurt each other. Then, we deny people what is freely theirs and never ours to deny.
Dear Author, There are too many open "seems" in these points. "Seem" isn't used to introduce an idea and explain the converse and opposing idea- but tries to reinforce speculative conclusions, hit or miss objections, and skepticism w/o traditional references. Far too many broad, sweeping generalizations despite choosing a nice topic it's glossed over a lot of nuances. It's reads more like a mere comment at times, than a thoughtful and well-research article.
That was a mocking tone when referring to leftists as "hardly being able to contain themselves" w/ these trending comments by the Pope, as if MSNBC was a Roman bathhouse of media adulation w/ a side of pagan debaunchery. Just a taste.
The Pope is taking the lead on the Christian message b/c American Protestantism is anchored by the likes of late Jerry Falwell, mega-church Hagee or Osteen, Billy Graham, exclusive sects and reverends and our judgments. We know if any organization is large and potentially deceitful enough to hide intentions within such vast networks it's Catholicism w/ militant Jesuits to ascetic Francisicans. While America just mouths off judgmental rhetoric and makes a light show of good publicity- they are missing the institutional progress and might of that Mother Church. It's has grown up and readjusted itself but American Protestants are content w/ a Sunday/Saturday smile and weekday wagging finger w/ Fox News reinforcing all their speculation of the evil, leftist conspiracies.
This article should have been versed on the social view of Christianity in America becoming a cesspool of activism that rises to claim "we're right" and "either they're wrong or just leftist". In the US, Christians aren't calling for forgiveness or social inequalities but can be the same people supporting exclusive wealthy elite (1%), sexism, homophobia, self-righteous, militant wars vs. the sinners, vs. the poor, and vs. Islam.
Pope Francis is changing the warrior pope tradition and shedding the corporate and lavish pope stereotype for a more personal appeal. And his success can only be caused by the lack of compassionate duty Protestants should be providing for people in their actions and social commentary. So rather than worry about the actual Pope- be concerned how we are creating and becoming self-righteous and self-appointed popes and there is a Schism coming to modern Christianity between the righteous and the forgiven. But I only speculate on the future while the present already displays a highly contentious climate and politicized rhetoric in Christianity evidenced by the aforementioned article.
There may be more Protestants, than a percentage of Catholics, these days that would support a Patriot-Act-like modern Inquistion to root out Islam, liberals and non-Christians in a mass judgment to deport or exorcise.
And yes, it's clear your article harbors that traditional anti-Papist attitude, we, Americans crave but, is sorely lacking on the substance to make leaps to end-time world dominance by Rome. Conspiracy theorists make a better effort and it's easy to mock their glee of such apocalyptic forces to vanquish humanity and prove them right all along. I think the Bible prophesied a spiritual battle rather than on an open field or a chat room or open pulpit or market but in our hearts, alone. So let's keep each other in those our hearts but, I'm only speculating on what I understand.
And it's the Pope that says, our human problems can be traced to judgment and a lack of compassion?! Shocking for a guy who leads an organization bent on righteous dominance and anger towards forces of evil. So instead of just a sin problem of which begrudgingly there isn't enough righteous anger to quell voices of tolerant and sinful resistance. It's should be stunning a Pope is saying "that" and not a true believer of compassion and forgiveness or maybe the Pope does pray to our God. We should love him and love each other. Anger and sin are overrated but compassion isn't.
Lynn,
You should understand that I am just reporting what “seems” to be obvious; that many on the political left who have been estranged or alienated or at enmity with Roman Catholicism are suddenly being drawn to reconsider their views because they are suddenly enamored with what the new pontiff is saying (and what he’s doing).
If you haven’t already done so, watch the first of the two footnoted videos. I haven’t mischaracterized Chris Hays’ unabashed enthusiasm.
I must remind you that two things can be true at the same time. What the pope is saying can be accurate and what should be being said. Simultaneously the prophecy of Revelation 13:3 can also be in fulfillment as a result.
Francis I is just a human being. He may not be the last pope or even the next to the last; but his sudden ascension, his “strategy,” and his sudden popularity do suddenly/”seemingly” change things.
You should also understand that I am a political liberal, and am in agreement with Francis’s statements about the wealth, poverty, and society, and agree with his statements about (not) judging priests/people with gay orientations. In fact, I voted for Obama twice. But I am a Seventh-day Adventist who subscribes to historical (conventional?) SDA eschatological doctrine.
You are absolutely correct in that there may well “be more Protestants, than a percentage of Catholics, these days that would support a Patriot-Act-like modern Inquistion to root out Islam, liberals and non-Christians in a mass judgment to deport or exorcise.” As I indicated in the blog, Adventist eschatology has been caricatured by misunderstanding and even ignorance—by many Seventh-day Adventists no less. Discussions such as this one are necessary.
Roman Catholicism, its teachings, and the papacy may represent part of our eschatological equation; but certainly don't represent the whole thing.
Stephen,
Saul Alinsky could scarcely have had a better student than you! You're following his teachings well. I paraphrase: If you can't refute the evidence brought against you, minimize it. Divert attention to the "more important" points of what you are trying to teach. Tire your enemies with endless argument and noble-sounding statements that divert away from what they said.
Get this straight: you and the pope are in conceptual alignment. Prophecy makes it clear that the intent of the Papacy is to unite church and state so it can establish itself in the place of God. Your arguments are serving that purpose and advancing that agenda.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, I would encourage you to read more carefully. In reality I have taken the initiative to have authored two consecutive blogs voluntarily highlighting this President’s willingness to leverage this pope’s statements and popularity for political purposes. This is precisely because I consider it very important to not only maintain a sharp and distinct separation of church and state, but to remain vigilant about it.
This blog began with a disclaimer precisely because you have never wanted to focus on this topic and have expressed personal displeasure because I happen to do so.
Now you question my commitment to it, and repeat yet another accusation about me being a student of someone whose writings, to this day, I have never read. (Besides, since you claim to have read Alinsky, shouldn’t you demonstrate wisdom by avoiding the traps that you believe are set?)
I can only reiterate the words of wisdom that those who run this site have posted on the alternating/rotating masthead messages:
“It’s not differences that divide us. It’s our judgments about each other that do.”
Margaret Wheatley, who is credited with this, could never have said anything more apropos. (This is why a couple of you are 'encouraged' to deal with what is written instead of making character judgments.)
On the other hand—toward get my points across effectively—if you hadn’t existed you would have to have been invented. Amazingly William, “all things [always somehow] work together…”
Stephen,
So you haven't read Alinsky? Well, maybe you've read Genesis. Remember the story about when Adam and Eve sinned? God, the problem is this woman that you gave me! No, it's the serpent's fault! Diversion didn't remove their responsibility for what they had done. They still had to repent. Your attempts at diversion show how unwilling you are to recognize that you've been caught endorsing something the Pope is using to unite church and state.
You're either for God, or you're against Him. Being aligned with the Pope is not a good way to persuade people you're on God's side.
I agree w/ such a well-reasoned and balanced assessment.
I’m gratified that you concur, Lynn. It’s easy for us all to succumb to the simplicity of seductive false choices.
Blindly following anyone is perilous. The Roman Catholic tradition has been top-down, with the Pope
presented as infallible–regardless of whether his positions are constructive or not. Fortunately, the
current Pope seems have a much more constructive and Christian attitude than many in the past. He
can inspire confidence and promote a message of service and love. And in what sense is that wrong?
"By their fruits ye shall know them" may even apply here. I'm not so sure "end-time" paranoia adds
anything of value. Is the SDA position that Catholics are "damned if they do and damned if they don't?"
Why not just give credit where credit is due, without erecting authoritarian antagonism to what seem
to be constructive positions?
Joe,
Good point. Paranoia complicates things and makes it harder to see reality. The more severe the paranoia, the more difficulty someone has recognizing that reality is not the way they think.
Joe,
This is rather interesting isn’t it?
Two points (and please don’t be hypersensitive about this observation and offer to leave; because, no matter what, I think that you add considerable value to the conversation): 1) as someone who is not a believer and therefore probably thinks that any talk of eschatology is essentially crazy talk, then it is all paranoia to you; and 2) In isolation, I applaud the pope’s language and stances toward the poor.
You are actually one individual who I would think can appreciate that two things can be true at the same time. From my historical SDA perspective this simply represents prophecy in the process of fulfillment. (But then you would say that to the paranoid, everything/anything seems like prophecy fulfillment.)
I am however most interested in the perspectives of ex-Adventists as prophecy is fulfilled. I personally believe that most perceive a vested interest in denial at all costs—and clearly, no one can admit denial.
For those who believe, let’s remain alert. Being alert is different than being paranoid.
The point I take from this article is that the SDA eschatological narrative "seems"to be on target. That narrative says, in short, that the apostate Protestants will employ the power of the state to accomplish the agenda of the papacy — and persecute those who resist. The narrative does not say that either liberals or conservatives will be the catalysts. It DOES say that those who believe they are doing God a favor will.
Because of the conflation of either liberal or conservative ideology with end-time 'bad guys," this conversation, like many others, becomes a circular debate focused on protecting the proponents of one political ideology, while demonizing the other. In the process, the larger point is missed. That is, it "seems" (at least to the author and many others) that the fulfillment of this prophetic narrative is excellerating. The fact that a liberal politican and a politically liberal pope agree on the social agenda serves to make the coalition of those who wish to utilize the power of the state larger. Now, those who decried the use of state power to impose a moral agenda from the right (i.e., pro-life/anti-abortion) and those who wish to wish to emply the power of the state to advance their moral ends (i.e., income redistribution) from the left, have something in common — along with the world's two most powerful and popular spokesmen: Pope Francis and Barack Obama.
Don't ignore the obvious. At the very least, don't dismiss the parallels to the narrative by being distracted by fielty to one political camp or the other.
Preston,
While the issue is typically framed in political terms the more important issue is whether we are obeying God or Satan and which we are serving with our words and actions. The Pope's devotion to charity is admirable and should be an inspiration or to Christians to be more charitable. However, we know from prophecy that the Pope is working against God. So, if we believe prophecy is accurate, then the Pope's endorsement of wealth redistribution by government is an extension of the ministry of the church is prima facie evidence that whoever endorses the same has been deceived by Satan. Even worse, because God and Satan are in direct opposition, whoever is using or endorsing the methods of Satan is working against God.
The distinction could not be more clear or absolute. The problem for Christians is that so few of them have ever encountered the power of God so they mistake the deceptive power of Satan for the power of God. What is truly tragic is how this has led so many who claim to be followers of Jesus to deny the promise of power that He gave us.
The church would be very different if only they asked Him for that power so they can be enabled to minister the way He wants them to be working. I have tasted the power of the Holy Spirit and I regularly witness the power of God in both my ministry and the ministries of others that most Christians do not believe exists or is possible to experience. So, based on that experience with God, I tell you with complete confidence that anyone who endorses wealth redistribution, or who is allegiant to liberal-socialism has been deceived by Satan.
Yes and that end time and apocalyptic disaster thinking actually legitimize bigotry, prejudices, and divisive rhetoric to be on equal terms w/ reason, logic, and social justice.
Such hysteria and sectarian prejudices have no place in either the Kingdom of Heaven or in reasonable conversation.
If people of any level of divinity- don't know the hour, would they know if they are agents of hell and emissaries of the dragon- then, how delusionally self-righteous does someone have to be to definitively declare "others" to be his minions. Even amongst them, there can be a greater convert than Saul by the power of Holy Spirit. While being the self-appointed remnant can have perks in addition to being in personal and spiritual journey w/ Christ- they or we or just yourself- don't have a green light to target and even select people they've appointed damned or agents of hell. We don't have that right no matter how sinless we are.
Correction: "accellerating"
I see the same thought patterns at work here as those who saw the Iraq war as the
great blessing of progression into the Battle of Armageddon.
When "evil" becomes "good" and "good" becomes "evil," utter confusion ensues.
Talk about being "lost" and in need of salvation! Hopefully, the Almighty can save us
from such muddled and bewildered thinking.
Rather than labeling Pope Francis I and President Obama as "The Terrible Twins,"
why not reserve that label for projectile vomiting and explosive diarrhea?
Projectile vomiting and explosive diarrhea are terrible twins Joe; on that we can agree:) I have to reiterate that I have proudly voted for and supported the President, and I basically agree with what I have read that the pope has said. So I’m not characterizing either as evil.
I’m saying that “…in a very short time, a vast global, ecumenical audience has shown a hunger to follow him”—Time magazine’s reporting, is in fulfillment of prophecy (and that our President is a politician).
Joe, those are your labels. No one called them "terrible" or intimated such (I happily voted for President Obama, twice and agree with the Pope's take on runaway capitalism). This, too, is a diversion.
Playing a role in fulfilling prophecy does not, neccessarily equate to personal evil or bad intent.
is it possible to discuss an issue (e.g., prophetic narrative) without devolving to personal attacks?
So it absurd to consider your flimsy reasoning as anything more than a possibility. I personally think the end will be hard to foresee than socialist black President and Marxist Latino pope gang up to takeover the world- that's too much fantasy and redemption for a hedonist pill-popping Rush Limbaugh.
(Obama isn't socialist, he ran one of most costly campaigns in history and Francis isn't Marxist, Marx hated religion especially Catholicism/Orthodoxy.) Everyone probably knows that but, we forget the world is more grey than black/white in apocalyptic battle.
And they don't even have bad intent or knowingly do so as you've thoughtfully suggested- what's the point in having Antichrist labels to spawn divisive and judgmental attitudes- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT Satan wants.
Stephen, only a few years ago I seriously wondered how on earth could the SDA teachings on the RC be correct? How could the whole world wonder after the beast? Far from being healed, the Vatican seems utterly wounded, if not near fatally, by the sexual abuse scandals. That festering wounding seems to continue, with various countries conducting State-sponsered Royal Commissions (like grand juries, in Ireland and Australia) and the UN recently coming out with its own damning report.
However, with the arrival of Pope Frances I it now all seems to be possible! So I much agree with much of the broad intent of your article. I don't buy into conspiracy theories that Pope Frances is the last pope before the Second Coming or anything like that. I do think Pope Frances is personally a very Christ-like kind of guy. But Pope Frances demonstrates precisely how quickly events in history can change – and how quickly they can change institutionally.
To me this again highlights twin dangers. The first is to deny the possibility of prophetic prediction, as our more left-wing readers seem to think, because it is no longer politically correct or even historical suggestive. The second and opposite extreme is to think we have the fine details worked out to a tee.
Even when we talk about the RC instituting persecution, on some level we are talking about a continued and perpetual organisation, but on another level, we are talking about an as-yet to exist religious power. It is not the current RC Church we need to worry about, as much as the RC Church that will one day exist in the future. In fact, it may be incorrect to talk about the RC Church as much as a global religious conglomorate between RC-Protestantism-Spiritualism. What I get from Pope Frances sudden popularity is a practical demonstration of just how quickly an organisation, even the 2,000-year old RC Church, can change!
So Pope Frances should make us all watch and pray. We can speculate but ultimately neither those who deny prophecy nor those who think they have it all worked out exactly are likely to be right. It will be those who are like Nathan, who know and believe in prophecy but yet unlike the Pharisees, open to the unlikely ways prophecy usually unfolds, who are least likely to be deceived.
Hopefully you meant the Old Testament Nathan. The Nathan we know on these boards does not subscribe to SDA prophetic eschatology; at least as it is outlined in The Great Controversy by Ellen G. White.
Other than that, I am gratified that you are conceptually open to this Steve.
No I actually meant Apostle Nathanel – sorry. Nathanel is how I think we should example ourselves on. He knew all the prophesies concerning the coming of the Messiah, and so was able to see that Jesus may well have been the One. He also seemed to be more open to how those prophecies would ultimately be fulfilled, unlike the Pharisees, who seemed to have missed Jesus because He didn't fit their preconceived notions of who the Messiah would be.
So it was with His first coming I suspect it may be with the second. I suspect both extremes, of modern-day Sadducees (who no longer believe) and modern-day Pharisees (who think they know it all and have fixed, inflexible preconceived ideas) will both be fooled. It will instead fall to the fisherman, tax collectors and zealots amongst us, a diverse group indeed but neither experts of any kind, who will see the signs and correctly interpret them.
I broadly share your idea that Pope Frances recent popularity, and how in almost an absolute instant, the RC Church seems to be turning itself around. So how people can simply suggest traditional SDA eschatology wrong out of hand somewhat perplexes me.
Steve,
I think the contrast you are illustrating is important. It was those who felt they were superior because of their knowledge of scripture who rejected Jesus, but those who met Him and were touched by the power of the Holy Spirit who became God's agents for taking the gospel to the world. I used to take pride in how much I knew about God. Then I met Him, discovered His power and found all my knowledge reduced to irrelevance.
Lynn, some of your doctoral thesis i followed, and agreed, but generally i was lost.
The concept of the unorganized, even if armed, to be successful against a state army policed state in the modern era is unthinkable. Soviet Russia proved the fallacy of that concept. With internment (concentration) camps, gulags, torture chambers, murder, disappearance without a trace, those enemies of the state incarceration control haven't a chance of meaningful opposition. Are you unaware of the massive buildup since 9/11, of the great regional internment camps, many on military bases, active and closed since WWII, built and currently manned by special chosen forces of FEMA, as well as purchase of unknown numbers of the latest weaponry, and over 12 million rounds of ammo?? The purchase of these items is in the govt. record. All of the above under the auspices of Homeland Security. Therefore should a "one world order" come to be, subjection of the masses is assured.
i don't see Pope Francis as the role model for Steven. Being compassionate and providing for our unfortunate brothers & sisters, is the result of our role model, Jesus Christ. His love expressed is our desire to follow Jesus. Christ is the owner of all global resources, and added value, by genius and innovation. Although He caused some to acquire great wealth, i believe it was because they had great responsibility to provide for many. i can't believe God desired for 5% of the people to have control of 95% of the resources, and arrogantly ignore the basic necessities of modern society's masses, and further using those resources to reduce the masses to serfdom, as it was in earlier centuries. Much is required of those who have much. i believe redistribution of global wealth is required by God. Matt 25:31-46 (verse 40 "And the KING shall answer and say unto them, verily i say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me".
Pope Frances may well be a model of Jesus Christ. I for one am mightily impressed by him. But it nonetheless proves that history can change in an instant. That the RC Church, which was and continues to be wounded by sexual abuse scandals, can make a rapid comeback.
The wider point being, that Pope Frances illustrates that the common modern ultra-liberal argument that traditional SDA eschatology about the RC Church cannot be possibly true is itself naive. We are not to know what the future will bring and how the RC institution, united with other aspects of Christianity (as SDAs have traditionally taught about the 3 frogs), but Pope Frances' sudden popularity shows it is certainly a possibility.
I don't think we should get bogged on Pope Frances himself, and whether he is a good guy or not – for the record I think he is a good guy. Rather, we should see Pope Frances' rappid rise in popularity as an object lesson for the possible future.
I’ve got news for you Steve; at least from what you term the perspective of “traditional SDA eschatology,” this pope (or any pope) is in the wrong job to “be a model of Jesus Christ.” The fact that you are “mightily impressed with him” while recognizing that the scenario detailed by SDA eschatology “is certainly a possibility” is on a number of levels.
If Francis can be perceived by you as possibly “a model of Jesus Christ,” while you view “his rapid rise in popularity as an object lesson for the possible future,” how about those who do not see SDA eschatology playing out as “certainly a possibility;” and how about the 'certain possibility' of his “sudden rise in popularity” being “an object lesson” for the immediate future—or perhaps even the present?
“…is intriguing on a number of levels.”
Stephen I view Francis in much the same way I view Barrack Obama. I really like Barack Obama and I quite like you Americans – most of you that is. I am mightily impressed with Obama, who I think has actually accomplished much in some of the world's worst financial conditions, has championed the downtrodden, made America safer, tried to be conciliatory to Republicans within a highly partisan environment.
However, I also realise that Barack Obama holds an office that will, according to traditional SDA eschatology, be the Second Beast of Revelation. That office will be responsibility for the greatest persecution in history. For all the good of Obama the man, I see elements of that Beast-like power in action today, in the continued holding of people in US military custody without trial, in the use of drones, in the US's continued warmongering, in the massive spying of the internet etc.
Just because the USA will be the persecuting power of the End Times, does that mean I personally dislike Obama or the rest of you Americans. Of course not. I can distinguish the office from the person. I can also distinguish the prophetic understanding of the office of President and the US nation from the person who occupies that office now and the people who currently currently occupy your landmass.
So I think it is important to distinguish the office from the man.
Steve,
I understand what you’re saying, except that the papacy is represented in prophecy—in Revelation 13:2—or so many Protestants (not just SDAs) have understood and taught. The office of President of the United States itself is not separately represented from the second beast of Revelation 13: 11-12.
For the prophecy of Revelation 13:3-4 to be realized, the papacy and/or the occupant of that office, must be popularly followed. For the prophecies of Revelation 13:11-17 to take place, the President of the United States doesn’t necessarily have to do anything.
Theoretically a law can be passed and go into effect by overriding a veto (at least as it stands right now).
Stephen do you think every Pope in history is destined for hell? Are there any Popes in history that were possibly Christ-like, in any way whatsoever?
I don't think the Bible so clearly makes the sort of distinctions between the Pope and President you are making. In particular, the Pope is not as singularly powerful as you suggest, as the Curia actually holds lots of power and the conclave of Cardinals are arguably also parts of the 'Papacy'. The Papacy is arguably more than just the Pope. As a simple illustration, who or what is the Papacy when the Pople is personally incapable of making decisions, either in coma, mad or suffering alzheimers?
By contrast, the President of the US is more powerful that you suggest. And given the rise of the 'Imperial President', that powers is only growing. As head of the Executive Branch through executive orders, and through the powers inherent as commander in chief, there are limits short of impeachment that Congress can utilise to control the President.
Thus I think your technical approach might itself be technically wrong. It is indeed possible that the prophecies about the First Beast could come true against the will of the individual Pope, especially if the Pope was at the time was not in his right mind and the Papacy was effectively governed by the Curia. By contrast, I think it would be effectively impossible for the prophecies about the Second Beast to come true without the President's personal affirmation, especially given his inherent powers as commander in chief.
In fact, you have it quite backwards in some ways Stephen. This is because a Pope can't be removed in office, so a Pope in a coma remains in office even though the Papacy is run by the Curia. By contrast, the President can be removed from office, so it is much more likely that the President would have to personally allow the persecution to be possible. This is especially since the role of the Second Beast is the power of the sword for the first, and that very much seems to involve the inherent powers of the President.
I’m sorry I previously overlooked this Steve.
Of course since I am not God, I do not know the eternal destiny of any individual and assume/trust that God is equipped to make the right calls. Since Jesus saves to the uttermost and God is unwilling that any should be perish but that all should come to repentance, I trust that many will be saved who did not apparently serve Him. This would conceivably include people who have held any position or done practically anything.
However I see your point about the papacy practically involving more than one individual. But Revelation specifically identifies a position, and describes actions and statements it/he makes; but more to the point prerogatives it/he claims. The Revelation also describes actions made by the second beast “speaking;” which represents actions that we believe to be legislative ones.
The executive branch does execute the laws; but laws can be enacted without it. Then again some would argue that executive orders are effectively laws executed without legislation. In any case for what will happen to happen, the Constitution must be ignored/changed. I’m just saying that overriding a veto is a way in which legislation occurs; so any President need not necessarily agree.
Correction: “…that any should perish, but that…”
Stephen I would be happy to say that the Beast Powers both represent positions, and in same ways those positions, even when they are said to be vested in a single individual, are somewhat broader than that individual. Even dictators are in some ways broader than their office, but usually involve a clique that the dictator needs to retain power.
In some cases, the dictator personally has little to no power. The example of the Japanese Emperor comes to mind. When the Allies were thinking about prosecuting Hirohito for war crimes after WW2, many Westerners couldn't grasp the concept that the emperor the man had little real power, even though the emperor the office had almost unlimited power.
I do my best not to judge the men personally whilst holding quite strong views about the office.
Earl,
The problem with redistribution of wealth is that it depends on the power of government that is prone to gross corruption and being leveraged to enable the union of church and state, as is evidenced by the recent papal statements endorsing it as an extension of the work of the church. In contrast with that, the charity God expects us to practice is personal and through the church. The government plays zero role in God's charity model.
William, redistribution of "taxpayers" wealth transferred to a corrupt government isn't going to happen. When the peoples continue to vote in and support the corruption, by extension, they are involved. The "government" is not singular, has not a conscience. This however does not change Christ's object lesson, "love thy neighbor". The govt's bankers control 95% of global wealth. The bottom 5% of peoples starve and live without the basic essentials of creature comforts. Poverty and need is caused not by the starving, it is caused by the continuing heartless policies of the corrupt hierarchies, that squander the "peoples" wealth, for their own use in promoting wars, terrorism, weaponry, personal acqusition by thievery, class warfare etc, causing wholesale destruction, genocides, disruptions in economies that result in joblessness, homelessness, mental and physical health problems of billions of innocents. And then the arrogant priviledged sneer and say why don't they make an effort to help themselves?? We always have these lazy people on the dole. They won't work, why should i feed them?? hmmmm, What do you think Jesus would say to this situation??
OPEN THE STOREHOUSES, FEED MY PEOPLE, HEAL THE BROKEN HEARTED, DELIVERANCE TO THE CAPTIVES, SET AT LIBERTY THEM THAT ARE BRUISED.
What is the source of the power to be used to do those things? From where shall the resources originate? Is it man? Or, is it God? I don't find any instruction in scripture to depend on any source other than God. He wants us to be in such a close relationship with Him that we won't even think about depending on any source other than Him.
Sry Earl. It was too blowhard-y and rant-y. Sometimes I think and plot on a keyboard instead of in my head.
Look s like there is a deep need to read and study 2 Thessalonians 2.
Sorry I don't understand your code here. Conversing with the likes of Elaine Nelson and Dr Taylor have increased my abilities at code-breaking, but I am still not quite there yet. Could you perhaps explain further please?
Argentina as a backdrop for Francis, has provided his experience among acontinual work load of severe pockets of poverty. The compassion he expresses is definitely not in the general background of Jesuits, the militant arm of Catholicism,down through the past 600 years, the energy of the Inquisition. And yet he worked his way up the ladder to the top. The first Jesuit to do so. The Jesuit's have long been hard nosed to simplicity, shunning the trappings of priviledge. As was some earlier popes who opposed the for life bureaucrats of the Vatican, especially the Curia, have had very short tenure, Francis is wise not to sleep in the Vatican. Malycah, a 11th century Irish prelate, left a prophecy outlining a time frame for the Popes to endtime, accurately the number of popes to the last pope, which if becomes true, Francis is the last. Very interesting, for it to happen the German pope Benedict, either had to resign or die in 2012-2013. And we know it happened. Francis must constantly have security watching his back. Can a pope neglect his training and change his stripes?? He chose to be a Jesuit.
Earl wasn't the inquisition by the Domican Order, not the Jesuit Order?
The history of the various "inquisitions" is pretty complicated. Clearly, both Dominicans
and Jesuits were involved in various times and places. Much of the activity was initiated
by political leaders of various stripes.
I'm afraid all the talk of "prophecy" really does strike me as "crazy talk" that has nothing
to do with "salvation" as conceived of in Christianity. It is mostly idle speculation that
seems designed to frighten people or convince others that one has some sort of special insight.
Of course, it really is in the Millerite tradition from which the SDA church emerged. Even
so, it seems to be a perpetuation of vulnerability to disappointment as well as an invitation
to paranoid patterns of thinking.
Earl,
Perhaps you can shed some light on something that has long intrigued me.
It would seem to me that the SDA interpretation of Revelation 12-14 (chapters) is conspiratorial enough for anyone inclined toward conspiracies. Why is that it doesn’t seem to be quite conspiratorial enough for many people?
Personally, I’m more comfortable sticking with the interpretation of Revelation 12-14 that we teach; although I realize that some theories are in actuality derivatives of historical Adventist/Protestant interpretations. (In other words I am uncomfortable with individual and private interpretations of eschatological prophecy.)
But Joe, given that Adventists (and other Protestants) interpret the first (leopard-like) beast of Revelation 13:2 as we do, does it really seem crazy to you to perceive that the (undeniably accurate) reporting of Time magazine— “…in a very short time, a vast global, ecumenical audience has shown a hunger to follow him”—sounds very similar to the latter part of Revelation 13:3?
And Joe, would you be able to step back and admit that once one has concluded that prophecy talk is tantamount to crazy talk, then one must permanently (continually) deny any and all parallels/similarities between current events and any previous prophetic interpretation?
Stephen, when sane people attempt to understand other people's descriptions of their
dreams or hallucinations or premonitions, and resort to attribution of prophetic symbolism
to these descriptions, there is no end of the extent to which they build imaginary stories.
Becoming obsessed with supposedly prophetic tales distracts one from engaging with
the real and tangible world in which one could actually be of some service. It is no secret
that I think dwelling on prophecy is useless bunko. It does not serve any good purpose
even within the context of Christianity (at its best).
Of course there are many people who are hungry or thirsty for leaders who seem to
have a consistent and righteous message. And there are many who are anxious to
follow someone, anyone, who seems to have a better message than the one to which
they are accustomed.
Many people have made predictions about things. Why not just evaluate them on their merits?
Not all predictions or forecasts qualify as prophesy. If someone predicts something and it
comes true, so be it. What does that prove? Well, it may inspire some confidence if the
predictions are evidence-based and have tangible consequences, but the predictions that
are about spirits and ghosts and other imaginary forces and about imaginary and unverifiable
events in imaginary places, well, one has to be a little warped to go there. Sorry, Stephen,
but you asked what I think….
Now, I'm not calling all adventists warped or nuts if they place credence in prophecy. When
young, otherwise sane people, are taught to believe crazy things, I think there are unfortunate
consequences. It can push the most vulnerable right around the bend into schizophrenia.
For others, it is just confusing, and as depressing as hell.
Joe, you answered something I suppose, but you didn’t answer any of my questions. This is of course your prerogative, but you claimed to have answered something candidly precisely because I asked; unless I misunderstand.
I had asked you two questions above; neither of which needs to be restated. I understand that you don’t think that focusing on prophecy in relation to current (‘real world’ events) is of any use; but that may well be because you are skeptical or dubious of another world.
If you choose to answer my questions, I would be interested in your answers. Now I’m additionally interested in why you think that “for others” (these “others” being the less “vulnerable;” and those who seem less prone to “schizophrenia”) prophecy is “depressing.” However I’d be more interested in your answers to my first two questions above.
Stephen, the answer to the first question is, yes, I think it is nuts from start to finish. Crazy in every way. Insanity building on insanity.
Second question: I can step back and say what I said above that you seem unwilling to acknowledge. There are many foreward looking predictions that can be made that do not rise to the level of what people choose to call "prophecy." Some of them make sense and are verifiable in the real world. No, I do not think all predictions or suspicions or premonitions are crazy. Yes, I think claims of spiritual revelation are pretty much imaginary and worthless, even if people take some comfort from them (although there could sometimes be some personal value in that). To your point, I guess, if one believes as I do, one does not put much stock in any prophetic claims or interpretations.
I’m not trying to frustrate you as much as trying to understand your position. “…nuts from start to finish. Crazy in every way. Insanity building on insanity” is unequivocal. Then to turn right around and say “No, I do not think all predictions or suspicions or premonitions are crazy” seems just a little contradictory to me.
In the interest of communication my first question was:
…given that Adventists (and other Protestants) interpret the first (leopard-like) beast of Revelation 13:2 as we do, does it really seem crazy to you to perceive that the (undeniably accurate) reporting of Time magazine— “…in a very short time, a vast global, ecumenical audience has shown a hunger to follow him”—sounds very similar to the latter part of Revelation 13:3? [Which by the way says, “…and all the world wondered after the beast.” KJV]
Your answer:
… yes, I think it is nuts from start to finish. Crazy in every way. Insanity building on insanity.
My second question was:
… would you be able to step back and admit that once one has concluded that prophecy talk is tantamount to crazy talk, then one must permanently (continually) deny any and all parallels/similarities between current events and any previous prophetic interpretation?
Your answer then was:
I can step back and say what I said above that you seem unwilling to acknowledge. There are many foreward looking predictions that can be made that do not rise to the level of what people choose to call "prophecy." Some of them make sense and are verifiable in the real world. No, I do not think all predictions or suspicions or premonitions are crazy. Yes, I think claims of spiritual revelation are pretty much imaginary and worthless, even if people take some comfort from them (although there could sometimes be some personal value in that). To your point, I guess, if one believes as I do, one does not put much stock in any prophetic claims or interpretations.
I thank you for addressing the questions. But it seems that you are necessarily stuck in a denial loop if you think it’s all crazy; even when some of it makes sense and is verifiable in the real world. I’m just sayin’…
The weather forecasters use real world information to predict specific weather in specific locations. They are getting better and better at it. As the information changes, they change their predictions. Then whatever happens actually happens in the real world. It is verifiable.
We do not need to rely on rain dances or other mytical attempts to control or predict weather.
And even if someone does a ritual or prays or throws the chicken bones, claims about such efforts to control or influence the weather are unbelievable as the actual causes.
Fortune tellers tell tales that may come true, but the tales are usually in a form that is so general that many outcomes can be seen as fulfillment. Coming up with such tales may be quite clever, but that does not equate to being super natural.
I can tell you that there will be a volcanic eruption in Indonesia within the next year, or month, or week, or day, or hour, or minute–based on what has happened in the past. The more specific the prediction the less likely it is to happen exactly that way.
I can also tell you that God has revealed to me that there will be a volcanic eruption somewhere and sometime soon, and that when that happens you will know how powerful He is to control the fate of the earth, and this will be a sign that He has moved from his throne to the gates of heaven in preparation for his soon return. And some people would find that entirely believable.
The only verifiable part is when the volano blows. The attribution of meaning is bogus.
So, what is new? Stuff happens. Some people claim that what happens means more than is verifiable. Some people do this a little. Some people believe in unverifiable things a lot more than in verifiable things. Living as if imaginary and unverifiable things are actually real seems crazy-ish to me. "Splitting away from reality" is the very definition of schizophrenic disorder.
And, of course, there is nothing wrong with admitting not to know why some strange things happen. We often don't know. We often can't know. Why make claims about things that have no prospect at all of being verifiable?
So, I'm just sayin' that I'm skeptical of almost everything that purports to be spiritual prophesy. Which should surprise no one. If one chooses to live one's life as if Jesus will come today, that is fine with me. That carries more weight with me than attempting to predict the unpredictable, as if this would allow one to quickly straighten up and fly right in time to "be saved." That is just so much hooey….
Stephen, many relate all aspects of conspiracy as being a false evaluation of potential future happenings, and heap ridicule on the messenger, ie: "you can't believe that-t-t". However, there is strong evidence for the Global plan of "ONEWORLD GOVERNMENT" thru the auspices of the world Bankers in collusion with the leadership of large governments, thru the control of moneys and business. Has not everyone noticed that European hegemony by the Northern industrial & techno wealth nations, controlled by the Euro Banking leadership, has brought the weak poor Southern nations of Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece & others, to their knees, begging for funds from Brussels?? These countries are suffering from unemployment of 25%-45%, with young and college graduates 50%-60% unemployed. Failure of municipal & medical services. Govt. dole and pensions reduced, bank accounts confiscated with worthless govt. paper as the trade?? Have you not noticed the senseless printing of government paper into the Trillions of $$, with nothing undergirding it, byevery large Central banking states. This is a planned mutual promotion of debasement of every State or Community currency to strip the general peoplesof their wealth, and then a mutual capitulation by the last State currencies at terms dictated by the Group of Eight consisting of China, Japan, European Community (Germany) England, Russia, possibly Brazil, and the USA/Canada. Then a new single barter system, controlled electronically (credits issued to those with the Mark) eliminating the possibility of laundering. The plan is about 50%-60% of completion today. Rev.12 is mostly about what occurred in heaven, and immed after Lucifer and his supporters were expelled to Earth. i do not believe this scripture earmarks the SDA church exclusively as "the REMNANT" that keep the Commandments of GOD and have the testimony of Jesus Christ , but all Christians, of every church and creed. i believe this prophecy was to those on Earth in a time period before the SDA church was established. i believe Rev. Chapter 13 was re: to our time period, perhaps 1800-present. It relates the apostacies of Eartly State powers (wierd beasts) giving power and supporting "the beast". i believe verse 13 is specifically the USA, and verses 16 & 17 to be the Group of eight combined.
Receiving the Mark of the Beast permits man to buy and sell, that is participating in commerce. Ever more perfect Identity methods are being developed NOW. One of the latest is identity by scanning the eyes(fore head??) Does your dog have a identity & GPS chip enbedded until the skin??
Rev 14, speaks to the everlasting Gospel to be preached on Earth verse 6-7, by "Angelic Ministry', (Not by SDA). Babylon fallen. Christ returns in Glory.
People should not be incredulous to an elaborate and but highly plausible end-time scenario and global domination. That has been apparent for some time, ever since man asked himself "what's the other guy up to (money)?" "And how do I get him to put me in charge of what people get to do in the first place? (power)"
It's very likely the end is upon us and plays out in such detailed and precise way that has been calculated. I'm willing to admit its likely- but the natural reservation that such understanding could be totally false and absurd- keep me sane.
On Earth, there is self-gratifying wealth reinforcing power-hungry motives of each man and vice versa.
But the point is- why does the end matter? How does the beginning actually effect life?
Which one of us, can remember birth or definitively answer what death will be like?
The questions are existential but, that's the problem w/ using "terms" and "jargon" and "universal understanding" for an end, or life, or beginning– too big for us to imagine.
We haven't pinned down on why we're here, what we came from, where we're going, who gives us the answers and questions- is it us or some dark force compelling us to ask or nobody can answer such absurd question. So we appoint God for all things unknown and rest what little we dare to call known upon Him or the world He left to us.
But anytime, we've deluded ourselves to think we've got a handle on existence than the infectious confusion and true apocalypse has taken hold. It's a great big question and our Savior died begging for answer- it was death and He came back. We won't see it coming, sure there are signs we were born and people die but, it will be different and unimaginable when it hits us. Whatever "it" is, will prove signs can't match the experience and anticipatory hysteria that happened as result of "our valuable signs". All the glory to the Father.
“…why does the end matter?”
Well, it only matters because of the predictive prophecies in The Revelation of Jesus Christ, and those that appear elsewhere in scripture and because Revelation 1:1-3 indicates that they're important. It also matters because, for whatever reason, Revelation 14: 9-11 is a solemn warning.
So then, it would seem that your question might be a natural one for someone who is not familiar or associated with any advent message or advent theology; but for anyone who is either familiar with or associated with such, it is at best a curious question (to me).
None of us can know if we are in the very last generation; and for those who don’t believe in any of these things—a supernatural God, a resurrected and returning Jesus, heaven, etc.—then the end may conceivably not matter; since in that instance the only end that matters would be the end of life. But since we don’t know that we’re not in the last generation, for those who do believe in the existence of the scriptural God of the Bible, then it’s logical that The Gospel and The Revelation of the Jesus Christ described therein are of more importance than other things. (John 13:19 provides the rationale behind prophecy.)
Actually for believers, whether we believe that we are in the last generation or not, these things have eternal significance because such people (believers) at least understand mortality.
“How does the beginning actually effect life?”
“We haven’t pinned down on why we’re here, what we came from, where we’re going, who gives us the and questions…”
Well, if we don’t believe what God has told us about “why we’re here, what we came from, [and] where we’re going,” then we inevitably will believe that we created God instead of Him having created us; and therefore we are God. (I would submit that there is not one person who disbelieves that God created us who does not therefore believe that we created God; and would further submit that this is the ultimate delusion, Lynn.
So then, “we haven’t pinned down why we’re here, what we came from, where we’re going,” only to the extent that we don’t believe that God created us. This is what Genesis, the Sabbath, and The Revelation of Jesus are all about.
And yet, it is abundantly clear to anyone who will look at and consider the factual evidence, that some things about where we came from and who we are ARE known. We are, without question, animals (mammals, primates, apes–or very nearly so). Humans have existed for tens of thousands of years. Other forms of near humans have existed in the past, and some of them surely shared ancestry with humans. Even the extant apes and other nonhuman primates appear to have shared ancestry with humans.
One cannot say that God did not design or initiate the process by which humans came to exist–but one has to stretch credibility to the breaking point to claim (as is the official SDA position) that humans and all else were recently created. Insistence on "young-earth" creationism as the basis for Genesis, the Sabbath, etc., including Jesus amounts to making the entire thing preposterous.
Sensible people can be believers in God the Creator without making everything fit into a young earth model, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. One can say they believe without claiming to know things that cannot be known.
Joe,
What I actually said was that Genesis, the Sabbath, and The Revelation of Jesus Christ are the basis of the understanding of why we’re here, what we came from, and where we’re going—and not, as you’ve suggested, the other way around. I also said that those who don’t believe that God created us inevitably and invariably believe that we created God. The Sabbath represents a bulwark against this.
“The entire thing is preposterous” to people who have chosen not to believe; I think we can all agree on that.
It would seem to some that what is “without question” may well be in conflict with what is “very nearly so.” What “is abundantly clear” to some is clearly very different than what “is abundantly clear” to others.
“Some things about where we came from and who we ARE” are certainly believed as a result of what to some seems “factual” or “overwhelming evidence;” but what happened dozen of thousands, or hundreds of millions, or billions of years ago is to others of us among the things that are indeed “unknowable.”
My opinion is that God was probably invented by humans–and I think belief in God is so personal that each one invents his/her own version of who God is (some accepting what someone else tells them and others basing at least part of their belief on some written word).
There is no need for anyone to believe in or accept uncritically the speculations of anthropologists and paleontologists about fine details of prehistoric life. However, anyone can clearly see that there are fossils and that some things about them are pretty well established, even though all such understanding is open to being revised as more is learned.
If someone chooses to believe that all that is a fraud perpetrated by scientists or the devil, well, that is just plain nuts–and yet, that is what the church does if it insists (unnecessarily) on the "young earth" literal creation myth. When religionists insist on this in the face of so much evidence to the contrary they make themselves look stupid, their religion look bogus, and their God look small. It is all so unnecessary.
There are many things that are unknowable–at least in every detail. That does not mean we should abandon our brains and not derive some understanding from the things that are somewhat knowable. And we can learn to hold knowledge gently, changing when the evidence indicates that change is needed. We need not grasp absolutes so tightly that our opinions cannot change when change is warranted.
Joe,
You would, of course, agree with any physician who would conclude that a resurrection of a days-old human corpse by voice command is an absolute—‘knowable’—impossibility; especially via the voice of an angel. But that is in large part upon what the Christian faith is founded/based; right?
Of course, what is “pretty well established” about fossils represents consensus; but is certainly not undisputed—even among anthropologists and paleontologists. And hasn’t much of “pretty well established” science changed with more time and ‘knowledge’? (Perhaps, the term ‘present truth’ applies to secular science even more than to Adventism.)
I thought we had sort of established that you believe belief to be “just plain nuts.” If not, it would seem that at this point we certainly have. Maybe creationist “religionists” do look stupid, and their religion bogus, and their God…small, Joe. But to exactly whom do they look stupid, and to whom should this matter?
Frankly, I get somewhat impatient with “religionists” who are more than willing to compromise their beliefs in the hopes of ‘winning,’ or at least currying favor from those to whom you are undoubtedly making reference (in terms of looking at creationist “religionists” as “stupid,” or maybe “just plain nuts”). And considering them/us as looking “stupid,” etc. seems at odds with “[holding] knowledge gently.”
Rather than saying that something is "impossible," I would usually say that something is "very unlikely." Yes, for many Christians, belief in the resurection is fundamental to their faith. What is known about the voices of angels? Anything? We do know that people who "hear voices" are often diagnosed, rightly or wrongly, as schizophrenic, and we know that there are sometimes other causes for hallucinations. Does scripture (or SoP) "reveal" that Jesus was called forth from the tomb by the voice of an angel? How was this known?
Do you deny that fossils exist and have tangible physical reality? Do you have any real world (non-spirit world) explanations for their existence? As evidence accumulates, understanding can be refined, can't it? The beauty of the scientific process is that new knowledge can improve understanding. Errors can be corrected by more evidence or better methods.
Of course, some scientists resist change more than others. Some are more dogmatic than others.
There is some sort of difficulty in distinguishing between observable and measurable physical reality and explanations and speculation about what that physical reality means. Are you, perhaps, confusing changing ideas about what tangible physical specimens are or mean, rather than that they exist?
Those who are exercised in interpreting everything in spiritual or imaginary terms seem to not a very firm grasp on physical reality. But how can one ever verify spiritual explanations?
The Christian faith is largely based on the reality of the resurrection of Jesus. The voice of an angel as the means of the resurrection is SDA lore.
The Biblical account is that the soldier/guards who survived the angel’s appearance at the tomb (which may or may not have been all of them) later reported the angel’s arrival, and what he had done at the sepulcher, to the chief priests. The two Marys were witnesses of what the angel had told them concerning Jesus.
I am certainly not denying, nor have I denied, the existence of fossils Joe. I said that what is established about fossils was in dispute (or disputable); but that doesn’t refer to their very existence. In fact you even said that understanding about them “is open to being revised as more is learned;” which is true.
Spiritual explanations can perhaps only be verified in spiritual terms I suppose. A friend of mine survived stage four breast cancer, my brother survived a horrific car crash without a scratch; I survived a 95% widow-maker artery blockage and resultant myocardial infarction, I could go and on and on; but the reality is that some believe it is idiotic to believe while others believe it is idiotic not to believe. You seem to be in the former category while I am in the latter.
I believe it’s this simple: that nothing good happens without Him effecting it, and nothing bad happens without Him permitting it. I’ve seen God work things out for people and I’ve seen the power of love do some “spiritual” things through people.
It truly boggles my mind as to how anyone of intelligence, much less anyone of great intelligence, can live a long life and conclude that man created God. It may boggle your mind how anyone period can believe that God created man. At the very least we must all agree that because one thing is totally true; then the other is totally false.
(This is perhaps why your hedging your bet about the possibility of the resurrection of a days-old corpse is somewhat baffling.)
Christianity is largely based on belief in stories that were told and written about one or more people named Jesus who was said to have come from Nazareth. The stories about Jesus describe a number of events that might have happened, along with some other claims. Some quotations are attributed to Jesus, although it is not quite clear how records were made of what he said. The temporal context is described in such a way that we can identify it as about 2000 years ago.
Christianity is based on belief that the man described was real and that he was actually God and/or half God and half human or both. Christians variously believe in the scriptural accounts of Jesus and what the stories mean or how literally the stories of The Bible are to be accepted. People pick and choose which parts they believe and to what extent, depending on their personal taste and what they find most appealing. In other words, it seems to me that people believe what they want to believe (and, ultimately, what they can believe).
It seems to me that people choose to focus on some stories and ignore others. That they place some stories as anchors that are accepted as absolute fact, regardless of how credible the story is or seems. Then they ignore all evidence that disagrees with what they have chosen to accept as fact–as if ignoring evidence can make it go away.
The resurection is an appealing story. Could it be true? Maybe. Given how things usually happen in the real world, it seems pretty unlikely. But there are many unlikely stories in the folk lore of various cultures. For those who believe that the resurection of Jesus actually occurred, it is not difficult to believe that all the other folkloric stories about resurections and returns from death were just made up by humans to support their superstitious traditions. What is different? We are right and they are wrong. Everyone else has just imagined and invented dieties. But, no, not us.
Does the fact that nearly all human cultures have some sort of concept of gods or a God indicate that there is a God that is real and that humans universally (or nearly so) are designed with readiness to make a connection? Maybe so. But who is to say which concept transcends all others?
Or can one imagine that there is something about human nature that motivates us to invent explanations for things we do not understand? So, inventing someone very big and very powerful and hopefully on our side as we struggle through life, has some appeal, and may well give us confidence to attempt things we would not otherwise try. On the whole, imagining a force that is with you may have real value. Adaptive value. Survival value. And sometimes it feels good and helps you find a mate and provide a cohesive and sustainable context in which your progeny can thrive.
Maybe in the halls of academe it would be more acceptable, more palatable, or more understandable to think in terms Intelligence. Maybe if you think of God as a superior intelligence and/or superior life form, it—the concept of His actual existence—would be more readily acceptable or plausible.
Think of the difference between your intelligence and intellectual capacity and that of the least intelligent animal life on this planet. Given the vastness of the universe, just think of (the probability of) another intelligent life form with an enormous qualitative and quantitative difference in knowledge and intellectual capacity; and even a bigger moral sensitivity differential.
Or think of the likelihood—or actually lack thereof—that given the vastness of the universe, we are its smartest and most powerful beings.
Personally, experience has given me sufficient evidence for my belief. But everyone’s experiences are different, and if you have had no experiences that have yielded such knowledge, or belief, or understanding, then think of Him in terms of Intelligence.
The Christian faith is based on the belief that the resurrection of Jesus, and the miracles He performed, and the things that He said all represent essential truth.
The same scripture that predicted His incarnation, His birth of a virgin, etc. is the scripture from which we derive the idea that God intentionally created our world. We have autonomy to believe or disbelieve (but it’s not plausible that we’re it). Given my experiences, and the way the information about the love of God, and the congruence of the Biblical narrative(s) have been communicated to me, it makes sense.
It might make more/some sense to you to think of it other inductive terms.
I had very kind, well meaning, good intentioned Catholic friends back in the early 1990s. One of the times I was hanging out with them, their Catholic Jesuit priest came by. They warned me that whenver the Catholic Jesuit priest came by to never tell him I'm a Seventh-day Adventist because he's shun me away from them. Pope Francis is Jesuit….he's also that "lamb-like" personality…
I meant to also say that when I read about Pope Francis suddenly replacing the previous pope…I was concerned about it before his popularity soared…because he's Jesuit. My Catholic friends never fully explained to me why I should never tell their Catholic Jesuit priest that I'm Seventh-day Adventist, and they protected me because of the friendship…but I figured it out in later evangelistic meetings why…that Catholics consider it a serious sin to desecrate Sunday.
Did something happen to Elaine Nelson? I have not seen her comments yet.
Also was waiting for someone to disect Rev.14:9 Why do we just say mark of beast when there are several things here to consider?
What about Rev. 13:7 and the buying and selling issue?
Yes I've missed her usual provocative and not wholly relevant comments. I hope the old miss is ok.
I see her making comments on Spectrum just now. She seems to be alright.
Lynn, what do i know? how do i know "what" i know? what i am offering is a scenario of what to me is highly plausible, considering one of my life's pursuit of knowledge is study and observation of economics, commerce, access, flow, end destination and control of moneys. The truth to every important issue of money is, in whom's vault does it repose???? The one element which most people aren't aware of is the one & only money nabob of this world, who has been financing most every large venture on the globe, using own and managing Royalty fortunes with guaranteed results, residing in the "City of London", UK, (not London,UK) which is a tax free domain (like the Vatican), compounding profits for 200 years. This tax free state permits the Crowned Head of the UK (Queen Elisabeth), to enter only by invitation, once annually, to formally view the results of the Royal investments. Upon entering the City of London, a demarcated mile square, where reposes the "WEALTH OF ALL NATIONS", the Queen bows down to the Lord Mayor, of the State, the City of London, the only person in the world she bows to. In their vaults are the deeds of ownership of the UK, which would stand up in any recognized court of Global Law, of which the City of London would provide both sides of evidence, as well as the Judge. These issued Deeds prove that the UK is the legal owner of the USA, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, South Africa, Zimbawe, Guayana, Falklands, New Zealand, Tasmania, Shanghai, and other far flung assets. They own these including all resources, lock, stock, and barrel.Their hands are indelibly bloody with stains that aren't removable, for providing the funds for tyrants to bloody carry out annihilation of God's treasure on Earth.
i submit that this knowledge is "not" universally known. yet it is, i believe, the power in high places, spoken of in Revelation 18: 3,9,11,23, and Rev 6: 15-17.
Hi Joe and Steven. we all do come forth with variation of beliefs. Interesting Joe, that more and more physical scientists have in the past few years who previously were in the camp of the origin of the human creature being the result of evolution without the need of ID, have changed that concept. With the results so far of the human genome knowledge acquired, and with the influences of the elementary study of the epigenome, what was previously called junk, many are now supporting the concept of a non-Earth intelligent designer. Some refer to this designer as God, others of an unknown author. One very prominent formerly atheist scientist who has changed his view, said if there was no known God, with the knowledge the genetic design of man, we would have had to invent one. More and more, formerly held views of so called Myths, of earlier Earth periods are becoming believeable as actual happenings rather than fanciful wives tales.
My belief is our origin is the result of an intelligence from somewhere in space. i am awestruck by the magnificence of deep space exploration by Hubble (the heavens declare God's glory). the Bible, i believe, is a collection of truthful facts, allegories, metaphors, God inspired, and non-inspired portions of writers personal thoughts, outside of God's command. i believe it is in some cases innerant as it was told and retold oer and oer, and finally written, and then rephrased by interpreters. Yet, i believe by studying deeply, the truth of God, for man, shines brightly through. i believe in an old Earth, with present mans earliest ancestors being perhaps millions of years in the past. God being eternal had no need of 24/7 Earth timing to create a masterpiece. God, being ONE, multifaceted Spiritual intelligence, able to function as the Ancient of Days, the IAM, JESUS CHRIST, and HOLY SPIRIT, ALL in ALL. i believe there was much carnage and annihilation by the early tribes, and they ascribed their mandates and victories as directed from God, whereas Jesus Christ said God is LOVE, He said "I NEVER CHANGE". Jesus is a reality of the GODHEAD, and He proved by His Earthly habitation that HE is God, He ressurected Himself after suffering human death. By His NEW COVENNENT, and His sacrifice to cover all the sin of the world, He said He would also ressurect our spirit soul's. Our only requirement being belief He will do it, by His grace, our faith, He can and will save us in His everlasting kingdom. People all over believe on death they are immediately transited to heaven, where God resides. In a sense that's true, in that in death we know nothing, nor do we participate in anything under the sun, so when we give up our soul at death, God retrieves it as it is His "eternal" treasure, and reunites it with our new spirit bodies instantly on ressurection, as He has promised. i believe it. God the Holy Spirit reassures me of this truth. God the Holy Spirit is my constant Companion.
Joe, i agree, no absolutes, however-r-r :)), reverse of 2nd message above " what we don't know about what we don't know", so we each reach our belief system by how and what we consider vital evidence about origins, whether from info we can see and touch, and from what some would identify as supernatural events, or belief they are influenced by the spiritual nature (something that causes gnashing of teeth to those who refuse to recognize the possibility of a outer space Creator).
Its so obvious, i believe, that as none of us know for a certainty of, HOW &WHYwe are here, we should not be incredulous that some are so wrapped up in "i must see IT and touch IT, or i don't believe IT"; and others think they have evidence of a spiritual dimension, as well as the beauty of this planet, we inhabit, in addition to the beautiful creatures here, the human being the most beautiful, the most loving, the most tolerant, the most intelligent, the most soul searching. Also the searching for knowledge leads many Christians to recognize what the natural elements they are observing, (including the fossil record & the billions of years old is our universe (and perhaps other universes beyond), and that every worthwhile industry must have an intelligent plan, to fine tolerances, to have an acceptable acceptance in intelligent circles. As stated, the general scheme of life with its diversity, its brilliance, its human intelligence, dexterity, and longevity, in a hostile world is remarkable in histories annals, constantly adapting to ever greater and intellectual knowledge and accomplishments. There is no useful detectable intelligence detected in a one cell creature from which "evolutionists" believe is our origin from nothing. Aah, the missing links, where are they? Yes there are creatures that have two arms and two feet, and can walk upright, but they aren't human. i submit the human creature is basically a different design than the monkeys, chimps, apes, gorillas, etc. it is basically our intelligence of superior ability to adapt and control the Earth, imperfect tho we are. Some have indicated we are creatures of our birth geography, as to what religion we accept. Probably so generally, however thinking people study religions other than that of Christianity, and the Christian religion we learn from the Bible, with its content composed of truth, as well as falsehoods contradictions, allegories, metaphors, and personal input not inspired, tells us of a loving living Creator, who is the maker and owner of everything, and has provided all a life here and a unearned bonus of life after Earthy death. This religion is by far superior to any other i've studied, the beauty of the Earth, including its intellectual content, and the intelligent evidence the heavens declare, has given me personally all the evidence i can comprehend that God Jesus Christ, is the Creator and the New Testament of the Bible is the pure truth of His story of eternal love for eternal souls.
To sum up this article: "The current pope is much smarter and nicer than we are.This proves he's the Antichrist!"
To sum up this article…when Revelation 13:3 is inadvertently parroted by Time magazine in real time, then prophecy is being fulfilled.