Too many times on this site (and others) we’ve seen people leave threatening messages “from God”. In a recent post, a commenter added “I would tread very carefully when speaking/mocking things that you’re not sure about.”
First of all, this is a typical comment from a conspiracy theorist. It’s as if they did some vast amounts of research and “uncovered” the hidden truth about something that only they know about. The above commenter believes that the Catholic Church is somehow behind some sort of vast conspiracy to bring in a one world religion. They don’t offer any evidence. Just threats.
This ranks up there with the “demonizing” of other believers. We don’t need it, it doesn’t convince us of anything, and the conspiracy theorist ends up discrediting himself because of his shrill tone and lack of reason.
Wikipedia offers some great thoughts on conspiracy theories
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory) :
The “Rationality Theorem”
Another criticism of conspiracy theories is that they rely on a certain worldview which may or may not be correct. Graham Allison, a political scientist, developed this argument in his book, Essence of Decision, and informally named it the “rationality theorem”.
Basically, Allison argued:
• Many theories – including conspiracy theories – rely on the assumption of rational expectations. Under this assumption, events and decisions are explained by the rational responses of groups and individuals.
• However, Allison pointed out that groups and individuals do not always act in a rational manner.
• Allison argued that by using rationalistic thinking, individuals automatically take a “black box” approach to problems, meaning that they concentrate on data that was available and the results, but failed to consider other factors, such as bureaucracy, misunderstandings, disagreements, etc.
• Finally, Allison argued that rationalistic thinking in general violates the scientific law of falsifiability, as according to the rationality theorem, there exists no event or groups of events that cannot be explained in a rational and purposeful manner.
Although Allison primarily studied the Cuban Missile Crisis, in Essence, he illustrated the rationality theorem by making reference to the Attack on Pearl Harbor, specifically the theory that U.S. decisionmakers must have purposefully allowed the attack to be pulled off.
Allison argued that, for this specific conspiracy theory to hold, analysts must first make the assumption that officials act in a rational manner, and that these officials had full access to all information that indicated the attack was imminent.
However, by examining additional internal evidence, Allison argued that while, from a black-box perspective, the U.S. had enough evidence of the Pearl Harbor attack, a combination of bureaucracy and misunderstandings was the real reason why the attack succeeded. For example, Allison noted that evidence of the upcoming attack was scattered among different governmental departments, and was not immediately combined to create an entire picture. Likewise, some decisionmakers misinterpreted the data at hand – on December 7, 1941, the base at Pearl Harbor actually was on alert, but the alert was for possible Japanese sabotage, not an all-out aerial attack.
Testing Conspiracy Theories
Perhaps the most contentious aspect of a conspiracy theory is the problem of settling a particular theory’s truth to the satisfaction of both its proponents and its opponents. Particular accusations of conspiracy vary widely in their plausibility, but some common standards for assessing their likely truth value may be applied in each case:
• Occam’s razor – is the alternative story more, or less, probable than the mainstream story?
• Methodology – are the “proofs” offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
• Whistleblowers – how many people—and what kind—have to be loyal conspirators?
69 Comments(+Add)
I don’t know how anyone who has dealt with any type of government agency be it local, state, or federal for even the simplest of things could really think that such bureaucracy could be possible of any type of grand conspiracy theory. I mean the government loses laptops with nuclear “secrets” on them quite regularly.
It always amazes me that the same people who claim Geerge W. Bush is a complete idiot are the same ones who think that his administration is so cunning that it can pull off a vast conspiracy needed to orchestrate 911 and make it look it like a terrorist attack. People just believe and make up this kind of stuff because they really just don’t want to believe the truth.
Regarding the “conspiracy theorist,“ Paul C spent the time to give a thoughtful response to your previous article as well as a gentle but firm warning: “I would tread very carefully when speaking/mocking things that you’re not sure about.â€
A threat – only if Paul thinks that he controls God, and I’d say from what I’ve read of what he’s written, that that isn’t likely. I see it not as a threat, but a word from someone who cares about God, His Word, and perhaps even you.
You toss off his warning/admonition as well as his other good points by relegating him to “conspiracy theorist.”
Your relegate other’s end times’ viewpoints and views about apostacy by acting as if yours are scholarly and others that differ from yours have little or no merit and are made by paranoid people with no intelligence.
I did think that Paul got it slightly wrong. He said, “I would tread very carefully when speaking/mocking things that you’re not sure about.†“Speaking/mocking things that you’re sure about” would better reflect your attitude.
Amy – You missed the point. A vegan could tell me “You are going to destroy yourself and planet earth by eating a hamburger.” That is a threat and not a reasoned statement.
Also, where is the proof that the RCC is planning this vast conspiracy?
My uncle thinks that in the end times all the Jews are going to get piled up in the Valley of Petra. While he is a Christian, I do consider his views on the end times completely wacky. And the fact that he has the end times all figured out seems bizarre to me.
Amy –
Also, please read the portion of the Wikipedia article about conspiracy theories and put them into what Paul C has said about the RCC. See if they line it into a “conspiracy theory”. You will be surprised how well it does.
Phil,
I think really don’t think that conspiracy theories are constructed because people don’t want to believe the truth, I think they are constructed because they fit what people already believe is the truth. Once you abandon the ability to critique your own worldview/theology and dive head first into the arrogant belief of your own infallibility its almost inevitable that you’ll have to construct some kooky theories to maintain the facade of that infalliblity.
Tim,
Well, it’s not they don’t “want” to believe the truth, it’s that the truth doesn’t fit what they want to believe. So instead of changing their belief to fit the truth, they focus on things that support their belief and ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
So, phil, I guess we’re back to the Old Oaken Bucket analogy, again.
Amy,
As far as Paul’s comments go, I thought I answered what was asked (in terms of why I hold to a partial-preterist view, and how historical evidence might support it), while still allowing that (whether the historical evidence supports a fulfilled prophecy or not) such historical alignment might occur again. However, treating such things as certainties insofar as being enough to accuse another group of Christians (the RCC in this case) of being the whore of Babylon goes a tad bit too far…
Regarding the RCC I think the better question is what evidence do you have that the RCC’s goal is to NOT to have all the world’s religions under the authority of the papacy, not to mention if they could regain their temporal control too. World History 101 anyone?
Also, if one buys into the whole Anti-Christ end times scenario which by definition requires a one-world religion, then anyone with any discernment and the least thought about how power among nations ebbs and flows one does not have to be a nut case to see that setting this thing up takes time (centuries?) and doesn’t take place in a vacuum. The anti-christ and false prophet can’t just pop up and install this system overnight. The ground-work has to be laid.
HJ,
I think you just proved the point I was trying to get at a couple of days ago about WHY some views of eschatology force people to be conspiracy minded.
Whatever eschatology you “buy in” to will force you to speak, act and believe in certain, predictable ways in which the predicted certainty is directly proportional to the certainty into which one has “bought it” to that eschatology.
I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the modern RCC’s goal and that of many American Fundamentalists/Evangelicals – though the RCC’s aspirations probably extend further beyond America’s borders… Bringing a view of the future that is HIGHLY uncertain into the realm of certainty just makes for bad orthopraxy.
World History 101, anyone?
Eschatology is the most unclear of all the Biblical sciences, it should never divide brethren.
HJ – The burden of proof is on you, not me. The only people who claim that the papacy is trying to create a one world religion are the conspiracy theorists.
I think these people give the RCC way too much power. Really, if it was going to take over the world, it’s best chance was before the Reformation, when the Pope actually held some real power. Now, most Catholics don’t believe most of the stuff the Pope says.
Also, I’ve heard claim of one world religion my whole life, and I find them quite suspicious as well. I mean we can’t even get Christians to agree, getting the whole world to agree seems like kind of a stretch right now.
Matt,
My comment to Chris was based on the first paragraph and the title as well. I didn’t miss the point.
_____
Speaking generally to this issue, for those who aren’t assuming that most “end time” prophecies have already come to pass, there are a lot of details given in scripture that are there for a reason. Revelation 17:9 says, “This calls for a mind with wisdom.” I think that God is inviting us to look into these things, to be aware of what is happening around us that could be fulfilling of prophecy.
Hey – just passing by the site again and noticed that ir was actually my comment that was the subject of this post! Very surprising.
I was surprised because whoever wrote today’s post completely missed the mark. I was not saying anything about the Catholic Church as much as the blatant write-off that it might very likely have a roll in end-time events.
Secondly, I was surprised at Chris L’s poor interpretation of “the man of lawlessness” – taken from ’scholars’ or whoever, this was way off base as well.
At no point was I claiming to be a voice of God, but I would definitely caution anyone who seems to take a mocking tone against something they don’t fully understand, lest you be found opposing God at some point. If you took it as an attempted warning from the throne of God you are MORE of a conspiracy theorist than anyone you’re writing about. To make the flying leap from my comments to somehow building a LONG blog-article over it is almost comical.
Sorry, but not out to get you – just caution you.
And by the way, as Henry says we can’t know prophesy 100%, but no other institution better matches up to some of the biblical references found in 2 Thessalonians or Revelation.
Sometimes observation, rather than drawing conclusions about issues to come, is the best policy, and examining yourself to see where you genuinely stand and measure up according to the word of God – rightly divided.
Chris,
Back to Paul: Were you speaking of his “shrill tone and lack of reason?” Or the “shrill tone and lack of reason” of conspiracy theorists in general?
If you were referring to Paul’s comments, how were they “shrill” and showing “lack of reason?”
You said, ” They don’t offer any evidence. Just threats.” But surely plenty of people who are concerned about the RCC being part of the end times apostacy “offer evidence.” And surely they aren’t all “threatening” you.
Who is “demonizing?”
(now that I see how quickly things can be misinterpreted) let me also add that many things can be known FOR SURE.
At the present time, for example, I see the Emergent church with all of its poor renderings of God’s word, the willingness to compromise to win people over (becoming the world to win the world??), the one-upmanship that appears to reign and everyone becoming a scholar out of the blue as more dangerous than the Catholic church.
“At no point was I claiming to be a voice of God, but I would definitely caution anyone who seems to take a mocking tone against something they don’t fully understand, lest you be found opposing God at some point.”
So, you are saying you “fully understand”??? Did God tell you that?
I take a word of caution from someone I know and people who know me. Not from some blogger somewhere.
“And by the way, as Henry says we can’t know prophesy 100%, but no other institution better matches up to some of the biblical references found in 2 Thessalonians or Revelation.”
Is this in reference to the Catholic Church? Since none of us know when Christ will return, to claim that you can match up an institution with a prophecy seems a huge leap. A lot of well meaning Christians did that with the Soviet Union. They were wrong.
Amy- what evidence? Please show me the evidence. You haven’t answered this question yet. It’s a simple question. It’s one of the major points in my post.
It is not the Roman Catholic Church that is plotting a one world church, it’s the Plymouth Brethren.
Amy,
I think you’re questions are addressed to Matt, and not me, as I didn’t write this article… I assumed from the context that the aim was a general one and not a specific one.
Paul,
You wrote:
Have you studied partial-preterism at all? Did you happen to read the links attached to the previous article? John Darby (the father of pre-mil dispensationalism), and other contemporary Christians (including, apparently, you) of the past 200 years seem to be blissfully ignorant of the events which occurred in the first and second centuries outside of canon. Thus, the assumption has been made that any prophecies unfulfilled in scripture must be fulfilled today.
Why is it assumed that all of these things that Paul and John wrote to the churches they were responsible for went unfulfilled and unneeded by the very people they were written to?!? Are we so arrogant to assume that none of them came true? Are we so arrogant to assume that Paul and Jesus were misleading their followers by declaring prophecy that would be fulfilled “soon” or “within this generation”?
Perhaps it is not the answer to your question that was “poor” or “off-base”, but your knowledge of Christian history. The past 59 years (since the reinstitution of Israel and the expansion of archaeology beyond Jerusalem and the large cities of Asia Minor and Europe) have been a boon to our understanding of the life and events of the Mediterranean region during the first three hundred years of the current era.
There is wide acceptance within Christian (and non-Christian) scholarship that much of the apocalyptic language in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation was directed at the Caesars and the tribulations of the latter first century. Some examples:
The “number of the beast” (666) has been shown in contemporary literature to Revelation to be an equivalent of Nero’s name in BOTH Hebrew and Latin, used by those who opposed him to do so without fear of retribution.
Archaeological digs in the past 20 years have confirmed that in order to buy and sell items in the 2 Agora (marketplaces) of Ephesus, one had to burn incence to Caesar, declare “Caesar is lord”, accept his mark on your goods (to be sold) and on your person (to buy). Sound at all familiar to scripture?
The entire structure of the middle of the book of Revelation has been shown to be parallel to the dedication ceremonies of the Domitian Games (with which John would have had familiarity, as a contemporary and resident of Ephesus), with the key exception being to show that Jesus – not Domitian – is King of kings and Lord of lords – the exact title Domitian demanded of himself.
Earthquakes – a number of cities in Asia Minor were completely destroyed via earthquake in the mid- and late- first century, including the city of Laodicea. John’s letter to Laodicea is a partial mimic to their reply to Nero’s offer to help them rebuild “we need for nothing…” – and Jesus via John throws it right back in their faces.
The only thing “off base” and “poor” at this moment seems to be the prophetic comparisons you’re trying to draw to the RCC…
Paul wrote:
Thank you for proving my point, yet again, via your gross mischaracterization and lame attempt at prophetic comparison…
I am not a “blogger somewhere” – don’t have a blog, but I was just passing through.
In terms of what I know “for sure” – that 2 Thessalonians 2 was taken out of context and poorly translated by Chris L.
Then you ask me a question about if I fully understand end time events. Never claimed I did, hence the whole point of my caution which was pointed to all of us (if you read my whole post you would also see that I said observation, based on biblical principles, might be a solid course).
I take it your next question (”Did God tell you that?”) wipes out your first question since you are assuming I claim to hear voices from the Lord.
I said we can’t know prophesy for sure, but the Catholic church does some to match up quite nicely – THEREFORE to mock someone who has drawn these parallels is foolish.
Again, the Emergent Church seems to be more dangerous to me (in its subtelty of leading people away from God as) than other more obvious movements.
And the sum is this _ Only the Father knows when the Son will return no matter what we believe about it. The tie that binds is that we “love His appearing”.
“In terms of what I know “for sure†– that 2 Thessalonians 2 was taken out of context and poorly translated by Chris L. ”
One man’s “out of context” is another man’s accurate translation. Why can’t we say I see it differently instead of “poorly translated”? Present your view and leave the invective descriptions aside.
Good point, Rick – I got a bit hot under the collar there, as well…
“I said we can’t know prophesy for sure, but the Catholic church does some to match up quite nicely – THEREFORE to mock someone who has drawn these parallels is foolish.”
And the parallels people drew about the Soviet Union and Revelations weren’t foolish? I’d just rather wait till the Lord comes back rather then look in the tea leaves.
“Again, the Emergent Church seems to be more dangerous to me (in its subtelty of leading people away from God as) than other more obvious movements.”
Cool, we agree that the Emergent Church is lacking in doctrine.
I agree with you. I’m not a McLaren or Jones fan myself. I don’t attend an Emergent Church and have no desire to.
Chris L… what in the world are you talking about in terms of my attempt “at prophetic comparison”?
What is so difficult to understand? Let me put it in point form:
- don’t mock what you don’t know for sure; use observation
- your scriptural reference (citing 2 Thess 2 was wrong; sorry)
- I’m not making any concrete claims at all about the Catholic church but simply saying, “Let’s be careful not to write it off as playing a role in end-time events.”
- the Emergent church, at the present, appears to be more troubling than other institutions. Am I saying it is the “whore” or something? No – just an undermining influence to the truth. That’s all
Please try not to exaggerate upon what’s not there.
Sorry Rick and Chris L – I’m not a politician and didn’t political correctness was what you were looking for here.
Paul,
Do you consider R.C. Sproul to be a scholar? If so you might try his book The Last Days According to Jesus, for starters.
Matt,
I realize that you know the difference between Emergent (Emergent Village, MacLaren, Jones, etc.) and emerging (Kimball, Driscoll, Hyatt, etc.), though not all readers might pick up on this…
Chris L;
Have any of us written an article detailing the difference between the Emerging Church and the Emergent Church? Could be a good resource.
Matt – glad to hear (about the emergent stuff). Seems like an odd little movement (in my view).
But, I believe “the tea leaves” you’re referring – in my view, called the Holy Bible – can shed some light on things as they appear, BUT only to sincere, humble individuals that are not so quick to scoff and mock.
Amazing how a few comments I made in sincerity can spawn such a broad-ranging argument.
To me, “emergent” and “emerging” – same color, different shades. But again, I’m not versed in all the definitions. I just call them as I see them.
Matt B,
Anychance of getting one of them to change their name to something else? Maybe if they switched to something like the Awesomenators we could avoid some confusion.
Paul- Honest question, have your views on the end times ever changed? Have you ever been wrong about your view on the end times? What were your thoughts on the Soviet Union before it fell?
The reason I ask is that too many times Christians have played the guessing game and been wrong. Believers in the first century thought Christ’s return was imminent. Obviously, that didn’t happen.
Sorry Matt – I didn’t become a Christian until 1996 (after the USSR fell). But not sure what that has to do with anything…
However (in all sincerity), I think I would be willing to change my view if need be. I’m not playing the guessing game. But I do believe the Lord gave us scriptures so that we might understand things and be warned beforehand, even if we see only dimly.
I have a slight problem with arrogance and mockery. But from what I see, isn’t that the purpose of this entire blog? (Again, speaking as a relatively new visitor – my first couple days on the site).
Paul – I was not looking for political correctness, just respectful, Christian dialogue. Passionate but respectful.
The reason I bring up the Soviet Union was because of the many Christians who believed that Gorbachev was the antiChrist.
I was at a Christian bookstore warehouse after the Soviet Union fell. As I was leaving, I noticed boxes and boxes of books about the USSR, all being given away for free. There must have been at least 50 different books. A lot of ernest Christians were wrong.
For a primer on the difference between emerging and emergent, you might want to check out the Mike Corley interview of Mark Driscoll, an emerging pastor by most counts. Corley is a very conservative guy, so I think you will like him.
http://www.wqbc.net/corley.php
Here’s a previous article on ing vs. ent
Paul,
I have tons of problems with the RCC, but I don’t find that tossing in an ad homenim reference to Revelation helps the discussion at all. Also, I don’t have time to get into it, but I assumed you understood Caesar worship to include the worship of the pantheon (since Caesar was it’s head, particular when Domitian became the first Caesar deified while he was living). I can write more on the connection to the “man of lawlessness” and its connections later, if you so desire.
My apologies if you feel put upon – it’s one reason I don’t like to write about eschatology…
The problem with seeing dimly is no matter how hard we try, we won’t see the same thing. You might see a horse, I might see a pony and still another will see a great dane.
Yet it is so easy to think we have it figured out. Your glass is half-full, mine is half-empty. We pronounce potatoes or tomatoes differently. Catholicism could be the one-world religion but only if the apostasy of the Emergent Church comes first. Or Emergent thinking could be the revival Evangelicals have all been looking for, but since it’s not the Christianity we know, we’ll shun it.
Jesus didn’t look like a Messiah either.
I’ve come to realize that God will judge between me and my accusers (Christian or no). In the meantime, it becomes increasingly obvious to me that discussions like these tend to break down to differences in semantics.
Just some observations.
I’m a voyeur when it comes to most blogs. Plus I’m not very well versed in things eschatology or “end-times” but I feel the need to comment.
Why does everything always come back to the “dangerous little emergent movement”. Is it really that bad? Mind you I like “Generous Orthodoxy” can’t really listen to “Mark Driscoll” love “Brennan Manning” and have a few issues with “Rob Bell”. It is such a diverse movement with so many voices how can anybody say they understand it enough to shout critiques?
Maybe that’s part of the problem…We so desperately want to know all the answers that we invent theories and speculations to fill in the gaps. Voila! The RCC is mounting a one world religion and the emergent movement is denegrating the gospel until theres nothing left.
As for me and my money I’m betting on the “No man will know the day nor the hour” and when the King (Jesus not Elvis)does return he’ll be as sneaky as “A thief in the night”
Chris,
You’re right, my questions should have been addressed to Matt. Since the initial accusation was one that was addressed to you I started off thinking that you were writing it . . . and never thought of checking it. I did think the writing style seemed a bit unusual for you.
Please forgive me.
Matt,
You asked for evidence.
First of all, I suggest that if you have the same view of end times that Chris does, you aren’t really looking for evidence. You’re looking to shoot someone else down.
If I provided you with sources, you would more than likely find something about them to criticize.
If you haven’t already made up your mind that there is no end times apostacy, I suggest that you study the Roman Catholic church, past and present.
And compare it to scripture.
Underneath the surface, it’s Satan, not any church that is at the center of the battle for truth. Personally I think that the human cause/surface picture is much bigger than “Roman Catholic.” There is so much false teaching everywhere, in all kinds of denominations. Serious false teaching.
Yet I also think the Roman Catholic system is unique in it’s political power and ability to affect the whole world. So perhaps somehow in the end the apostacy will have a direct connection to the Catholic system. Surely this is already happening in various ways.
Amy-
I will use Occam’s razor. Is the alternative story more, or less, probable than the mainstream story?
No, your alternative story is less probable then the mainstream story.
Besides, I think the Catholic church is dying and on it’s way out. It is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Have you been reading Dan Brown?
Matt,
Feel free to answer my 1:30 comments that should have been addressed to you, not Chris.
What is the mainstream story?
Never read Dan Brown.
Chris,
You said, “I realize that you know the difference between Emergent (Emergent Village, MacLaren, Jones, etc.) and emerging (Kimball, Driscoll, Hyatt, etc.), though not all readers might pick up on this… ”
This reader doesn’t “pick up on this.” In light of some of Nathan’s comments and Tim’s recent articles as well as comments by regular posters it’s actually quite difficult to see why it seems important to you to point out that there are distinctions. Don’t want to get off topic, but just know that trying to figure out what this blog actually stands for is . . . impossible.
Its not that hard Amy, as we’ve consistently written whenever the watchdawggies haven’t been able to understand what others write/say, lied, and been especially nasty.
Here’s a dictionary definition of shrill
shrill [adj]: derogatory (esp. of a complaint or demand) loud and forceful
Paul was being shrill by speaking in a disrespectful tone and demanding that Chris L be careful talking about things he is not sure of. ChrisL sounds like he is pretty sure of what he believes. He has a very reasonable argument.
Lack of reason= no evidence. Neither you nor Paul seem to be able to show any. All you say is there is evidence. The burden of proof is on you.
Mainstream story= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church#Ecumenism:_Quest_for_Christian_Unity
It doesn’t say anything about a diabolical plan to create a one world religion.
Again, the burden of proof is on you.
demonize= portray as wicked and threatening
I didn’t say Paul or you were wicked or threatening. I believe both you and Paul are Christians.
Matt,
Have you read Paul’s responses here? You don’t seem to have heard what he’s saying.
I’m not out to prove anything or disprove anything to you regarding the Catholic church, as I already explained.
It would be interesting to spend some time looking into what else I am supposed to be believing according to Wikipedia.
Well, since none of you can show me evidence that the RCC is starting some sort of one world religion, let me say this-
Bill Gates is the AntiChrist.
You didn’t hear it from me first.
I would like to look at this from another angle. Personally, I won’t fight over details of eschatology that much, but I kind of have strong feelings against the kind of Dispensationalism portrayed in the Left Behind books and such. I know one can be a pre-millenialist and not a Dispensationalist, so I won’t lump them all together.
The reason I feel so strongly is this. As a kid, I heard of the impending Rapture all the time. I heard people talking about events in the Soviet Union, Israel, etc. and point to them as evidence. I was a Christian, but I was secretly terrified of the Rapture growing up. I mean, what if I had an unconfessed sin, and the Rapture happened – would I be left behind? The funny thing was that I hardly ever remember my parents saying anything, it was more from camps and youth conventions. Anyway, I have talked to other people that came from similar backgrounds, and have heard the same thing. Adults were terrifying children with this stuff.
Well, now I have pretty much walked away from my Dispensationalist roots, but it’s not because I left my Christian belief or have stopped taking the Bible seriously. I finally heard and read some teaching that made sense and wasn’t based on sensationalism. I honestly feel like I’m in a place where I can start seeing the future and be hopeful about things, not just hope to be “raptured” away.
Honestly, I still do not know how some people can take some Dispensationalists seriously at all anymore. I mean Hal Lindsey has predicted the date like three times, I think (could be more). How many times does someone have to be wrong before they’re called out on it? I think also, people like Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey who talk about this stuff and try to relate specific current events to specific prophecies are actually doing harm to the Kingdom. They are like blockers, in the words of Earl Creps, they are actually standing in people’s way and making it harder for people to enter the Kingdom.
Hey, I am a left behind kind of guy except those who have heard do not get another chance as is portrayed in the series. I never get into an argument over it because the date of Christ’s return is certain (no one knows) and our different views alter nothing. Even though I disagree with Chris L’s view (at least what I can understand), I admire his scholarship and thirst for truth.
I do believe that conjecture about current events must be clearly presented as conjecture. I do not know the exact date of the return of Christ, but I do know for sure it will be on a Tuesday.
I’ve read Dan Brown! I find his works to be way too wordy, not well written and B-0-R-I-N-G!!!!!
Personally, I cannot believe that anyone, and I mean anyone ever took his code book serious. Awful on so many levels.
Ok, back to arguing and saying “I’m right, you don’t know how to interpret Scripture because I’m right and you’re wrong. What DOES this blog stand for!”
How does this tie into Rob Bell?
Joe,
Have you read the comments?
“What DOES this blog stand for!â€
was a question directed to Chris here because of one of his comments. A question that begs to be answered.
“I’m right, you don’t know how to interpret Scripture because I’m right and you’re wrong.”
Who is saying this? Paul isn’t. I’m not. He said, “I was not saying anything about the Catholic Church as much as the blatant write-off that it might very likely have a roll in end-time events.”
I think if there’s been any dogmatism it’s in “the blatant write-off.”
Its not that hard Amy, as we’ve consistently written whenever the watchdawggies haven’t been able to understand what others write/say, lied, and been especially nasty.
Amy,
I checked this thread directly before bed, and yes I thought one could sum up some of the comments directly as I did. Mostly, I was taking a shot at satire.
I do think there are commenter’s here (Yes, you can be one of them) who have the same questions no matter how many times they are answered or how “off topic” that thread they may be. I found Mr. Carrington’s comments to Chris to be somewhat shrill (see 2:14, and 2:18)
I especially liked the 2:15 comment. I wonder if he even looked at the research?
I believe there will a semblemce of a one world church or at least a world wide union of sorts in an effort to cast a blanket of deception. With The Roman Church the largest Christian church and indeed the most powerful, they would be in a position to effect such a movement, even though they themselves are decieved into thinking it is a good thing.
With a continuing effort toward unity at the expense of truth, the climate is ripe for such a change and one can see some of the walls coming down. This movement has many insidious strains, and since some Catholic people are getting saved by outside witnesses and remaining within the church, and with the Roman Church being so much more pliable and willing to work with the Protestant community, the soil is fertile for an invisible merger.
Even now, many Protestants have come to the view that the Roman Church is as Christian as they are, and they are willing to accept the RCC as a sister church. John Paul II was such a nice and charismatic man, his personality was used to forward this kind of thinking. You may consider this a “conspiracy theory” and I agree it is conjecture, but what is not conjecture is that the RCC teaches a false gospel of works on many different levels.
And with I will continue to be baffled about some of the osmosis concerning their teachings and practices into some Protestant churches. How can two walk together unless they are in agreement? How can we overlook the baptism and good works save theology? How do we excuse the Mary doctrines including the co-redemtriz teaching? If we can overlook doctrines such as these, then why not Mormons next? And why then does Rick Warren go to Mormon churches to teach church growth, it is Spiritually unseemly.
All these things lead me to believe a conspiracy, not of men but of Satan, whose intent it is to mix the true gospel with so many convenient accoutrements that it is no longer effective. The Scriptures tell us of a falling away and of a turning unto fables, so the specifics are with God but the result has been fortold.
So the dialogue here has morphed into a critique of the tone and methodology of the communication rather than a critique of the substance of our different views surrounding our common faith, specifically that the Lord Jesus will return one day in power and glory.
Rick,
I personally think the RCC is corrupt to the core as well. Last time I was in NYC, my wife and I visited St. Patrick’s cathedral, and I just felt such a sense of spiritual darkness and opression there. I feel that RCC has done a lot to keep people in spiritual bondage. Some have managed to be part of it, and actually see the truth, but I think on a whole it is the anitheses of what Jesus was about.
That being said, I just don’t see how thinking in these “big picture” terms is helpful for Christians. Just like politics, all our Christian life is local. If we are faithful to do what God calls us to do where and when He wants, I don’t see that much else is required from us. God is guiding history and time, and He’s in control. To focus on details like who the anti-Christ is and what country will do what just seems like a distraction to me.
I agree.
I may take all kinds of crap for this, but I’ve had nothing but good experiences with the RCC. Or I suppose to be more accurate with Catholics. I’ve never had a sense of spiritual around them. Of course they have what I consider to be some kooky beliefs (perpetual virginity, what’s that about)? Of course considering the beliefs of the watchdawggies, maybe they’re not so odd.
One of the things that is crucial to understanding the RCC versus RCCs is that on every major theological issue you can hunt for whatever documents you want to support whichever side you fall in, so if you want to prove that RCCs are actually heretical misfits who kick puppies, from their documents you can do that. But the actual experience I have with RCCs is very different from those documents.
Tim – you have brought your experience as well as some people into the equation. I spoke only of teaching which is representative of the church itself. I would suggest a short study from their own documents about how one can be saved.
Tim,
I think we can separate the RCC as an institution from actual Catholics to some extent. To me there are institutional things at play in the RCC that I would almost go as far to say are demonic in origin. Some people have managed to become Christians despite this, and for that I praise God. I think there are some Catholics who have done some good things, definitely. It is hard to just dismiss an entire institution, though, for systematically teaching things that opposed to Scripture.
Henry,
As I pointed out, their documents are conflicting at best. I suppose that’s what happens when you’ve got 1500 years worth of ex cathedra working.
I don’t know if this really qualifies as a conspiracy theory, but this post on Slice cracks me up. The comments are especially hilarious. Watch out when people start talking about the Nephilim.
This comment kind of has all the classic conspiracy theory elements:
I for one, welcome our monkey-man overlords.
Sorry, I forgot the link.
Phil,
Actually, the chimera technology (all apocalyptic hysteria aside) is troubling to some extent, and I don’t know that it is a path science should be going down at all…
In the right place this time:
Chris,
There are some troubling aspects of the whole thing, I agree, but I don’t think the way to react is hysteria (speaking of Def Leppard). I think in general, Christians are too mistrustful of scientists and rather than actual offer informed opinions, they get off on things like the Nephilim and ape-men. In a way, I think there is an unspoken fear among Christians, too, that hybrids like this will offer some validation for evolution.
Also, from what I understand from my wife who actually knows a thing or too about microbiology, the claims in this article are probably pretty dubious.
Pastor Roddey McDowell.
phil,
I’m a Chem E working for a pharma company (whose research stays well out of fetal stem cells, etc.), and I understand (just enough to be dangerous) some of the science involved. This is similar to some of the genetic engineering that has gone on with (primarily) plant hybrids – splicing genes from multiple species into a target species.
However, this has moved out of plant science in the past decade into animal science. For instance, a Canadian company has genetically engineered goats with some spider genes so that they now produce spider silk (which is stronger than steel cable, pound-for-pound) in their milk. I have seen journals which have indicated that there is some private research being done with human genetics, as well, which I believe is a serious ethical issue.
I agree that the whole thing around Nephilim, ape-men and the resulting apocalypse are wacky, but that shouldn’t keep us from seeing the actual issue of scientific ethics involved. I am definitely a guy who sees that religion and science are not opposing forces…
Chris,
I agree with your assertions. The thing that I found amusing I guess it that the Fox article that spurned this whole discussion had nothing to do with genetic engineering, at least not in the sense SOL is portraying it. It was talking about scientists actually generating life in the lab, which actually seems very unlikely to me.
Somehow, though, the SOL piece linked it with chimeras and there was the quote from the unnamed scientist that said, “if the public knew what scientists were doing in private labs they wouldn’t sleep well at night.” It just seems like the typical “research” we’ve come to expect from SOL. Hearsay and hyperbole once again come before actual facts.
Here’s some more on the chimera thing, this time from Britain.