clipka wrote:
> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>
>>> Read John's Apocalypsis, particularly the sections about the Big Bad Beast
>>> apparently conspiring to unite all nations against God's Good Guys.
>> Er, right... because we can't have all nations uniting to bring world
>> peace, or something like that. It just doesn't make sense that the
>> altruistic goal of peacful unity could be considered evil.
>>
>> I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
>> always have something to squabble about.
> 
> That's not the way those particular type of christians you were talking about
> are thinking.
> 
> They do interpret John's Apocalypsis to be a prophecy, and they expect things to
> happen as described there (or as they read them to be described there).
> 
> This, most particularly, includes a world-wide government by the bad guys
> persecuting God's chosen ones; only after that most glorious battle at
> Harmagedon would this be overthrown, and replaced by another world-wide
> government of the Messiah himself.
> 
> So whatever first world-wide government there would ever be, according to
> fundamental christian's interpretation of the bible, those must be the bad guys
> mentioned in John's Apocalypsis.
> 
> That's the answer to your question. Not my invention, so don't shoot the
> messenger.
> 
> 
Given how much time these same morons spend trying to turn everyone 
Christian, fund the UN, and force everyone to be American like, I have 
always been rather confused as to why they ***possibly*** imagine 
themselves to be on God's side, instead of the Beasts. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
> together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
> --
> ~Mike

Three theological movements: Dispensationalism, Theology of Glory, and
Antinomianism.  Plus idolatry of the state and confusing the United States with
the New Israel.


Some might not be threatened by worldwide humanitarian cooperation if your
Theology were one of the Cross, where the devotion of living an examined life
(including examining one's contribution to social woes) reminds one of one's
need for the saving grace of Jesus. Here, sin and death and suffering are the
primary problem, and the cross is the primary solution.


On the other hand, if you're practicing a Theology of Glory, damnation is the
primary problem, and choosing to accept Jesus is the primary solution. Sin is
reduced to a few nominal and childish vices (gay relations, drunkenness,
impatience with spouse). Evangelization becomes more about mocking those who've
picked the wrong spiritual "football team", quite different from the
witness-and-social-reform movements of 19th century evangelists.  If your focus
is on getting the best seat on the bus/ fighter-jet in the End Times, as is the
focus in many popular forms of Dispensationalism, you'll skip over the old
testament lessons that show God's concern for the poor, and look instead in
these passages for ways to come out ahead-- how you can find the be the first
to find "the signs".  The entire focus eventually becomes Antinomian, where any
mention of the law, especially social sins, is somewhere between ignored and
decried.  In these theologies are also a confusion of the Church, the New
Israel,  with the United States.  It's mere idolatry.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > > As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
> > > a lawyer.
>
> > a snake?
>
>   What's the difference?-)

The tie.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
>>>> a lawyer.
>>> a snake?
>>   What's the difference?-)
> 
> The tie.

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20000701.html

Not as much as you'd think.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> So... God would prefer his favored creation to be divided into factions, 
> fight and squabbling, with a good deal of killing eachother, than a 
> harmonious planet were we get along?

Well, the one world government is supposed to "mark" or "tag" people as 
beasts, via... the number of the beast of course. It's demeaning to be 
marked and tracked as an animal.

> Oh, yeah, there was that whole tower of babel thing..

If I remember correctly the moral behind that story was that man was 
trying to reach God's throne in a vain fashion, and God was asserting 
his superior wisdom. "You can't reach spiritual heights with muscle/mind 
alone."

Of course, we go up into space all the time these days without 
experiencing too many mishaps.

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <" <-"@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, the one world government is supposed to "mark" or "tag" people as
> beasts, via... the number of the beast of course. It's demeaning to be
> marked and tracked as an animal.

Although it's the most famous contemporary interpretation of that "Mark/Number
of the Beast" thing, John's Apocalypsis is not nearly that clear. A simple
uniform sign would fit the bill, too.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> stbenge <" <-"@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, the one world government is supposed to "mark" or "tag" people as
>> beasts, via... the number of the beast of course. It's demeaning to be
>> marked and tracked as an animal.
> 
> Although it's the most famous contemporary interpretation of that "Mark/Number
> of the Beast" thing, John's Apocalypsis is not nearly that clear. A simple
> uniform sign would fit the bill, too.

I actually don't know the current interpretations, I was just asking 
myself, "what would the Number look like today?" I can't help but to 
think people tracking people with RFID tags or some such thing.

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <" <-"@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I actually don't know the current interpretations, I was just asking
> myself, "what would the Number look like today?" I can't help but to
> think people tracking people with RFID tags or some such thing.

Implanted chips are all the rage these days. They seem to have become quite
popular for pets already, instead of ear tattoos.

A few years ago, some company seems to actually have proposed such a chip to be
implanted into the hand as a replacement for credit cards. As you can imagine,
fundamental christians got a *bit* upset about this.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> stbenge <" <-"@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I actually don't know the current interpretations, I was just asking
>> myself, "what would the Number look like today?" I can't help but to
>> think people tracking people with RFID tags or some such thing.
> 
> Implanted chips are all the rage these days. They seem to have become quite
> popular for pets already, instead of ear tattoos.
> 
> A few years ago, some company seems to actually have proposed such a chip to be
> implanted into the hand as a replacement for credit cards. As you can imagine,
> fundamental christians got a *bit* upset about this.

I for one would rather not have a tag implanted into my body. Sure, a 
person would have to get close to scan you, but still... It's creepy and 
reminds me of the Borg somehow :/

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> If I remember correctly the moral behind that story was that man was 
> trying to reach God's throne in a vain fashion, and God was asserting 
> his superior wisdom. "You can't reach spiritual heights with muscle/mind 
> alone."

... after which, God used muscle power to bring down the tower, because 
otherwise they might have reached his throne.

When you actually follow through, most of the stories make no sense. "God 
intervened to make them fail, because if he hadn't, they would have failed."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message