Something Big is about to happen

[Choir Loft]

So said Alex Jones, although I understand not too many here are into conspiracy stuff and that was not my intent. But what grabbed my attention is now O'Reily on the Factor was saying the same thing. BOTH men haven't the faintest idea what it is or what it will involve, whether economic, war, governments or maybe a combination. But in the former case Alex said "everyone" he talked to feels that 'something is about to change' or something 'fundamentally shifted' world-wide.

I really think this is an end-time topic, but a grab-for-all type topic where anything goes, I guess. My thought is that even the carnal mind may sense a spiritual shift in the atmosphere; a foreboding that Satan will soon be cast out and his time is short so-to-speak, and maybe something from heaven will come to earth soon.

I open the floor for comments ----

I've been tracking economic trends for several years and a few indicators went yellow around the beginning of the year (2015). One can watch the stock market, but apart from weekly vacillations monitored by the volatility index, one can't really see much as far as a trend. One can also monitor commodities such as gold or oil. Those aren't much better unless you have a financial interest in the price for investment purposes.

Three major financial changes are expected in the fall of 2015.

(1)One indicator that is interesting to watch is the SDR/XDR, known originally as Special Drawing Rights. Set up by the IMF, the SDR is a kind of currency basket which is used for international bank trading. There are 4 national currencies currently in the basket; The USD, the UK pound, the Euro and the Japanese Yen. The major currency in the SDR basket as of this writing is the USD. Prices of goods are determined by the valuation of the currencies in the basket and the nations that participate can determine to a great extent the price commodities and real goods are bought and sold for in the international market. Every five years the SDR basket is reviewed. The last review was conducted in 2010. The next one is due in October 2015 and the major issue expected is the addition of the Chinese Yuan to the group. Since currencies in the SDR are valued by GNP and since the US GNP is mostly an exaggerated figure, the Chinese Yuan or Renminbi is expected to assume immediate primary status. If this happens it may signal a major change in the international cost of goods and commodities.

(2) A second major indicator of economic trends is the BDI-Y or Baltic Dry Index. This number is calculated daily by shipping companies throughout the globe, not just the ones that serve the Baltic area. As you are aware, nearly all goods and commodities are shipped via sea transport. The number of ships and what ship owners charge for transport varies. Shipping companies such as the Maersk Group tend to keep their carriers (dry bulk only - no oilers considered in this index) slightly below demand so as to be able to charge a profitable amount for transport. When the global economy burns hot, more ships will be built to accommodate the demand for transport. When the global economy cools, ships are retired. A shipping company cannot afford to 'park' too many ships, so they are sold for scrap. The index, therefore, is considered to be an accurate reflection of future economic trends. AS OF JANUARY 2015 THE INDEX HAS LITERALLY GONE FLAT! It has been the lowest in recorded history. This trend can also be verified by a google search of the boom in ship scrapping. India in particular has a booming ship scrapping business. The reader should also be aware that it takes two to three years to build a ship, so the absolute earliest turn-around for the global economy is 2.5 to 3.5 years on average (assuming a miracle happened and everything went up tomorrow morning).

(3) The third major shift in financial activity is the expected change in the Federal Reserve interest rate. The IMF has asked the Fed NOT to change the current level, NOT to mess with it. Knowing American bankers, however, many financial pundits expect the rate to go up. Many fear this will signal a panic, but the truth is that even experts don't know if it would cause an inflationary cycle or a deflationary cycle. Those who make the big decisions generally retreat from any activity that will cause the dollar to increase in value, therefore the interest rate may be expected to be raised at least a full point.

General impressions of the Global financial future......

A lot of fear mongering is going on regarding the US debt. For the purposes of this post, it's generally rated at about 100% of GNP. Other nations are far worse. Greece, for example is close to 150% and Japan, one of the largest industrial nations on the planet carries a whopping 240%. I've read no articles proclaiming disaster beginning with a collapse of the Yen, yet this national currency is the most fragile of all. It is not a great leap of imagination to expect a global financial disaster beginning with a sudden collapse of the Yen.

I've divided all the financial noise out there into four groups;
-Religious prophecy (end times alignment of nations, the Year of Jubilee calculations, etc.)
-Pseudo-Religious prediction (what one might call the lunatic fringe)
-Legitimate Financial advice (people that aren't selling books, videos, cable TV shows, etc.)
-The US government and the Federal Reserve

Without exception the first three groups all agree that a financial emergency can be expected within the next 6 to 18 months.
The US government and the Federal Reserve have assured us all that everything is peachy keen.

I don't think it is.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[john darling]

OK, I quoted the wrong scripture to you. I apologize. When I read my quote, I didn't look back to why I had posted it, and picked the wrong scripture. I quoted the incident in Matt 17, rather than Matt 22!! They are two totally different taxes/tributes.

I don't understand why you think they are two totally different tax issues, since they both specifically relate to tax.

That is a clear statement from Jesus, that the children are free from the Law and so was He. But He said pay it, so as not to cause them, the Jews, to stumble.
Sorry I confused you. 2

No, I was not confused. I understood your explanation quite well and gave a rebuttal to it. Can you please comment on it?

Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

I think it's worth noting that the context to these verses is that the pharisees were attempting to trick Jesus so they could accuse him. This was not a sincere attempt to find God's will. Jesus' answer is given in that context.

He says we should give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. The beauty of this answer is that it avoids the trap by technically covering both masters and the reason the tempters marveled at Jesus' answer is because he turned the trick back on to them. For those who are instead in loyalty to Caesar, they will hear, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar". For those who are interested in following God they will hear, "Give to God what belongs to God" and reason to themselves, "after we've to God what belongs to him, what is left for Caesar"?

But what's even more interesting is that this issue of Caesar has come up between us before, but in a verrrry different context, over on another thread. You said: "This actually happened in the Roman Empire to Jews and Christians who would not declare the Caesar as a god, the number one God. People were martyred, burned at the stake. Caesar's picture was on the coinage that they had to use to buy and sell. Many people died rather than declare Caesar a god". [bold added by me for emphasis]

I thought it was an excellent observation. I replied with much the same as I've just done above but also added this, "Instead of having the kind of faith you describe of the Christians waaaaay back in Jesus day, (i.e. people who were willing to die rather than serve Caesar), today we've got a world full of Christians who can't seem to stop themselves from quoting the virtues of serving Caesar. My, how the faithful have fallen".

 

[john darling]

As for the "something big", what about the destruction of America? I think something like that was mentioned earlier (like another economic meltdown), but it was more on an economic level. I'd like to suggest a literal physical destruction of America as the "big thing".

 

[Choir Loft]

The quotes of Jesus and St. Paul regarding civil obedience are often misunderstood as they are interpreted in the context of American nationalism - not Biblical intent, not the mind of God. Partisan politics is never an accurate lens with which to view the Word of God.

In the encounter with the Pharisees, in which Jesus said to render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, it should be pointed out that Christ NEVER intended it to be an endorsement of Roman politics. He didn't intend it to be an endorsement of Jewish politics either. In every instance, Jesus firmly refused the slightest hint of nationalism or allegiance to it.

Jesus lived his life like that of a foreign tourist. He paid taxes where due and obeyed the civil laws. BUT He firmly and absolutely asserted that He was NOT part of the political process. He said He was NOT a citizen and He behaved like it. There's a big difference between acting like a tourist in a foreign land and banging a political drum to support partisan political issues.

Jesus NEVER pledged allegiance to the flag of the Roman Empire, to its Emperor or to its government.
Jesus NEVER uttered support of Roman soldiers 'for their service to the empire'.
Jesus NEVER uttered support of Roman wars and crimes against humanity.

Anyone who says He did is misrepresenting scripture to justify a political position on national politics of the day.

"Christ does not vindicate a race or a nation. It is the sovereignty of God which is vindicated."
- Reinhold Neibuhr

In Romans 13, St. Paul is NOT endorsing the rule of government. Read it again. St. Paul is merely instructing the reader as to the purpose and the structure of authority - specifically temple authority, not Roman rule. Consider the target of St. Paul's letter. It was addressed to the Christians who lived in Rome, the governmental center of the Empire.

Do you think that those who lived in the capital city were unaware of politics of government, of the mechanics of its function and the purpose of its ordinances? They certainly were because they were reminded of it every day. What the Christians of Rome were NOT aware of was the continuing debate among new Christians of their responsibilities toward Jewish customs and religious laws.

Paul and Peter had an ongoing debate for a while. The subject was circumcision of new believers - a matter of Jewish law. There were also debates about what one was to eat or not eat, specifically those foods that had been dedicated to pagan temples. In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul is attempting two things; instruction about the working of civil law and instruction about religious law. The burning question of his day was whether new Christians owed a tax to the temple as did Jews everywhere in the Roman Empire.

Considering all this, one should also consider that the structure of authority Paul refers to and its true purpose remains in effect in every human government. Paul is instructing the reader about how it works, not giving an endorsement. Paul himself was thrown into prison for disobedience numerous times. Paul did NOT endorse the rule of authority of his day and is NOT recommending the reader do so either. Paul was beaten and ultimately executed for his disobedience of civil authority.

Neither St. Paul nor Jesus EVER endorsed the rule of government or encouraged disciples to do so. They always encouraged men to follow Christ and the rule of God.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[Choir Loft]

In #327 John said As for the "something big", what about the destruction of America? I think something like that was mentioned earlier (like another economic meltdown), but it was more on an economic level. I'd like to suggest a literal physical destruction of America as the "big thing".

I do not believe that a literal destruction of America is in the wind. Although I do believe that the US is presently under divine judgment and that this judgment will increase steadily in severity, I don't think destruction of the type one might see in photos of post-WWII Europe can be expected.

Consider the history of America. The nation is composed of several individual geographic and cultural parts separated in some cases by thousands of miles. Today we call them states, but at the time of the independence movement each was a separate sovereign nation. In fact, the Republic of Texas was admitted to the union as a previously functioning independent country. A future destruction of America may be a political destruction of the Federal political process, not necessarily a physical one.

When the Roman Empire fell, its collapse was preceded by division. The first major fraction was separation of west from east when the Empire was divided into the Roman section ruled from the city of Rome and the eastern section ruled by the city of Byzantium/Constantinople. The western Roman section fell first and after a thousand years of war so did Constantinople.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, it was preceded by a disunion of client states and later those states such as Georgia and Ukraine which had been firm members.

It is not inconceivable that America could suffer a similar disintegration. It happened once before and the voices of secession are being raised once again across the land.

I'm not sure such a thing will happen or that it should happen. I'm only stating how it might happen. That's all I'm saying.

America is under divine judgment and the outcome of that period will be decided by God.
One thing is certain.
The country will never be the same again.
It isn't now.
It won't be then.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[john darling]

In the encounter with the Pharisees, in which Jesus said to render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, it should be pointed out that Christ NEVER intended it to be an endorsement of Roman politics. He didn't intend it to be an endorsement of Jewish politics either.

Agreed. However, I don't see this thing about taxes relating to politics as such, but more so about our fears of living without money. After all, the usual reason people argue the need to pay taxes to Ceaser is because it provides a reason for them to continue relying on money for their daily bread. Jesus said we cannot work for two masters at the same time without cheating on one or the other. He said God is one master and mammon (money and the things money can buy) is the other master.

When it comes to money issues it's helpful to keep in mind that the love of money is the root of all evil. Jesus talked abuot the deceitfulness of "riches". He said we should not store treasure on the Earth, that we should forsake all, share all things in common, and seek his kingdom first. He said God will provide the things we need if we seek his kingdom first and that the laborer is "worthy of his hire" (i.e. if we work for him we become his employees and he will take care of us as such). Jesus said we should not allow worry about even the most basic necessities (like food and clothing) stop us from working for love (rather than money). He said this because he knows what a powerful manipulator fear can be.

An argument in favor of supporting Caser monitarily is a result of worry about these basic necessities. It's dressed up as "just doing what Jesus said to do" or "obeying the laws of the land", but the bottom line is that it represents job security.

He paid taxes where due

Can you please clarify what you mean about him "paying taxes where due" or give an example of where he either taught this or demonstrated it?

 

[Deborah13]

I don't understand why you think they are two totally different tax issues, since they both specifically relate to tax.

Mat 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? Ex. 30:13, 38:26, This is a Jewish temple tax.
Mat 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? Roman tax.

No, I was not confused. I understood your explanation quite well and gave a rebuttal to it. Can you please comment on it?

Obviously, you still are confused and it's my fault that you gave the rebuttal you did. You should have been very confused that I had even posted the Matt 17 scripture seeing it has nothing to do with secular taxes.
There is no point in me defending myself against your rebuttal, when your rebuttal is against the wrong scripture, that I posted.
You asked me for the Roman tax scripture in relationship to paying secular government taxes and instead I gave you the Jewish temple tax scripture, which is in the Law of Moses.
Two very different taxes and two very different reasons for paying them.

As for the rest of your post we are in agreement.

 

[Choir Loft]

Ref John post #46:
"Agreed. However, I don't see this thing about taxes relating to politics as such, but more so about our fears of living without money."

You don't see the passage relating to politics? I think you should go back and read the rest of the chapter. While you're at it, please consult commentaries on the subject.

The conversation was between the Pharisees and Jesus. The pharisees posed a loaded POLITICAL question to Our Lord. The question was meant to put Jesus on the horns of a dilemma by forcing Him to make a statement as to whether Jews were required to pay the Temple tax OR the tax to the Romans. Jesus wise answer was to pay tax where it was due. To us it seems the correct one (hindsight is 20/20), but considering that it was a politically loaded and motivated question I think Christ did a fine job of stating the obvious.

The question and the entire conversation was political in nature. It had nothing to do with love of money, needing money, money as a resource, etc. It was political pure and simple. Do not read an interpretation where none exists.
...
Ref John post #46
Can you please clarify what you mean about him "paying taxes where due" or give an example of where he either taught this or demonstrated it?"

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. - Mark 12:17

Asked and answered. Read it again.

You don't understand "where it was due" because you are still thinking the passage has to do with love of money. It doesn't. Read it again. It is entirely POLITICAL. Don't believe me? Do your homework. Read several commentaries on the conversation. That's what I did. Do not read an interpretation where it doesn't exist.

Again, the payment of taxes is a political obligation. It has nothing to do with citizenship, supporting the government, discussions about sinful love of money or the use of it. Jesus lived exactly like a tourist in a foreign country. He paid tax where due and obeyed civil laws. He NEVER uttered the slightest support of any government, its agents or its policies.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[Deborah13]

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Well, wherever you are hollering from, I mostly agree with you.
They attempted to set Him up to say something they could hold against Him, for Roman criminal charges.
The Jewish temple tax, was not political.

 

[john darling]

You should have been very confused that I had even posted the Matt 17 scripture seeing it has nothing to do with secular taxes.

Hi Deborah. Thanks, again, for attempting to clarify your position. I suppose you see confusion because we are arguing from two different perspectives. However, I'd like to suggest that my position is inclusive of your position, whereas your position is not inclusive of mine.

The original issue was about paying taxes. What I'm suggesting is that this issue of Jewish tax vs worldly tax is a technicality which side-steps a deeper issue. Whether it was the Matthew 17 or the Matthew 22 example, in both cases Jesus had a problem with the tax.

You suggest Jesus paid taxes so as not to be seen as "law breakers", but is that really consistent with Jesus' ministry? No. Jesus' behavior was not motivated by a concern of what others would think of him. He told Peter to pay the tax because Peter had already lied about having paid it. Ignoring the issue after that would have caused it to become an issue for Jesus' enemies to accuse him (i.e. your disciple said you pay taxes yet you yourself teach that you are free from paying the tax).

As for the Matthew 22 example, the pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. The question about paying taxes to Caesar is posed in that context. It was not a sincere attempt to know God's will. The answer Jesus gave is posed in that same context. He gave an answer which pitted Caesar against God and allowed room for people to make up their own minds as to what his answer really meant. People loyal to Caesar will give their time and money to Caesar. People loyal to God will see that once they've given to God what belongs to him, there is nothing left for Caesar.

Now, the real question is, why would he have a problem with paying tax? What is the purpose of tax in the first place? Isn't it just a means of people sharing what they have with one another for the common good? Taxes are collected and used to build infrastructure, fund government projects on behalf of the nation and to support the physical needs of those in charge of governing the people.

Except, "tax" isn't really sharing. It's a law where people are compelled to give a portion of what they have even if they don't particularly want to. The law goes so far as to punish people if they don't give. The "children are free" because the children don't need to be forced to help. The children help just because they want to. That's what makes them children. When we submit to a system of forced sharing, while still claiming to be children, we only end up confusing the issues and the values of Heaven become obscured.

 

[john darling]

Ref John post #46
Can you please clarify what you mean about him "paying taxes where due" or give an example of where he either taught this or demonstrated it?"

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. - Mark 12:17

Asked and answered. Read it again.

Hi CL. I'm still not seeing any place where Jesus said that we owe anything to Caesar. He said to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. It's an answer which allows people to see what they want to see.

After we've given to God what belongs to him, what is left for Caesar?

 

[Choir Loft]

Hi CL. I'm still not seeing any place where Jesus said that we owe anything to Caesar. He said to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. It's an answer which allows people to see what they want to see.

After we've given to God what belongs to him, what is left for Caesar?

Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
- John 9:41

Jesus' answers NEVER leave people open to their own interpretation. In fact, He spent His entire ministry in opposition to the twisted logic of the Pharisees. Their love of heresy is what got Jesus executed.

If one only 'sees' want they want to see such a person limits their own understanding. Why bother to read the Word of God at all? Why read any book, for that matter?

Subjective opinion, justifying errant interpretations of Holy Writ, is one of the reasons there are so many aberrant cults and even murderous religions on the planet. If a person wishes to know God and His Son Jesus Christ, then a good place to start is an objective examination of the gospels. In those passages we learn about the person Jesus, about the culture He lived in, and how God responds to issues of the day.

The sum total of what we know is composed of what we learn from others. Creating fantasies within one's own mind does not constitute truth, nor does it enable that person to understand another or the issues of his own day. Marriages break up for less. Religions are corrupted in this way. Nations fall because each man goes his own way. A man with a double mind achieves nothing and knows less.

Something Big Is About To Happen

Returning to the theme of the current thread, it can be readily observed that economics is the engine that drives a civilization and which directs history. Economic factors have contributed either directly or indirectly to the rise and fall of every civilization in history. The corruption of the management of a nation's economy is one of the reasons why countries falter and collapse. One of the greatest corrupting factors is war and the United States is addicted to it right down to the bone. This love of carnage and murder has already changed us and may quite possibly destroy us. War has ruined great economic powers before, but American conceit blinds us to the danger in the same way as personal interpretations of the Bible blinds some to the truth on its pages.

A double mind is not evidence of wisdom, but of folly. Consider Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001 - a fool of the highest magnitude, proved by her own words.

In 2003 the season of American invasion of Iraq, she was quoted as saying the following;
“What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”
- MADAM SECRETARY (2003) p. 182

A few years later, when the idiocy and frustration of the invasion of Iraq became apparent to all but the most closed of minds, she did a turn about in a public statement.
“I hope I'm wrong, but I am afraid that Iraq is going to turn out to be the greatest disaster in American foreign policy - worse than Vietnam, not in the number who died, but in terms of its unintended consequences and its reverberation throughout the region.”

As it turned out Ms. Albright was not only wrong, but VERY wrong. Not only could she not sustain a consistent view of policy, she couldn't even justify her own twisted logic concerning the use or non-use of US military forces. War is NOT a game and the parts in play are human beings who have hopes and families and dreams and lives of their own. Human beings are not targets in an international game of target practice, yet US leadership has proceeded along this very path for decades. War destroys the economy of the nation that initiates it as well as the nation it engages on the battlefield.

Finally, American exceptionalism has been driven into the psyche of us all for so many years we think it's true. It isn't.

Albright provided evidence that she was infected with this lie on the NBC Today Show on February 19, 1998.
“..we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.”

America is neither exceptional or indispensable. God has brought 'exceptional' empires to their knees before and He can do it again. In fact, the Bible frequently states that God uses the weak and little things of the world to confound the wise and powerful. If one who believes himself to be the disciple of Christ cannot see that, then he is doing himself and his nation a disservice.

"Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as His divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, 'You are too arrogant. If you don't change your ways I will rise up and break the back bone of your power.'"
- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. circa 1967

The back bone of American power is its economy and its military. A great failure of one or both could lead to the collapse of all. Much has been written about the economy, but few know how badly the US military is being led or of its inadequacy in terms of combat readiness. Such things are not well publicized.

Something BIG is indeed about to happen, because too many little things perceived as being inconsequential are being overlooked by leadership as well as men and women who ought to know better. Ask anyone who has ever prepared for a wedding and they'll tell you that success is all about the details. So is disaster and national calamity.

IF GOD DOES NOT JUDGE AMERICA, HE WILL HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[Deborah13]

Mat 17:24 And they having come to Capernaum, those receiving the didrachms came near to Peter, and said, `Your teacher--doth he not pay the didrachms?' He saith, `Yes.'
Mat 17:25 And when he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, `What thinkest thou, Simon? the kings of the earth--from whom do they receive custom or poll-tax? from their sons or from the strangers?'
Mat 17:26 Peter saith to him, `From the strangers.' Jesus said to him, `Then are the sons free;
Mat 17:27 but, that we may not cause them to stumble, having gone to the sea, cast a hook, and the fish that hath come up first take thou up, and having opened its mouth, thou shalt find a stater, that having taken, give to them for me and thee.'
This is what I said and I could have explained it better.

Jesus was saying He and Peter were strangers when it came to this unlawful tax, however they should pay the tax, so as not to cause the Jewish tax collector, to stumble. Jesus and Peter, being Jewish men would be seen as law breakers if they didn't pay it.

The tax was not unlawful under Jewish law, but seeing that Peter and Jesus were free sons, they did not need to pay it. However, Jesus said, they should pay it, so as not to cause the Jewish tax collector to stumble, a man under the Law of Moses. The exact same thing that Paul said. Timothy was circumcised, even though he didn't need to be. When Paul was with the Jews or the Gentiles he observed their customs (not in sinful ones) in order to bring them to Christ.

You suggest Jesus paid taxes so as not to be seen as "law breakers", but is that really consistent with Jesus' ministry? No.

Not for Himself but for the Jewish man, so as not to cause him to stumble.

Jesus' behavior was not motivated by a concern of what others would think of him.

Correct, His concern was for the tax collector.

He told Peter to pay the tax because Peter had already lied about having paid it

Peter did not say they had to pay it. The tax collector ask IF Jesus paid this tax and Peter said, Yes. Where is the lie? Jesus obeyed the Jewish laws, so why would Peter think he wouldn't or didn't obey this one?

Ignoring the issue after that would have caused it to become an issue for Jesus' enemies to accuse him (i.e. your disciple said you pay taxes yet you yourself teach that you are free from paying the tax).

What? Jesus, spoke privately with Peter. It was a teaching moment for Peter's ears. Why do you think that Jesus would not have paid the tax if Peter hadn't said He does? Why would you think that He hadn't it the past and Peter knew this?
This was a yearly tax paid by all Jewish men, no matter where they lived. Jesus would have paid this tax many times by the time He was 30 yrs. old. and so would have Peter.

 

[Choir Loft]

Deborah: I note your signature says you quote scripture from Young's. I have used Young's reference material for years and believe it to be one of the most accurate. There are, however, newer versions of interpretations and Bibles on the market which are paraphrases at important points. Those have been published to increase sales (one of them even admits to it on the flyleaf) not to further accurate understanding. I wonder if Mr. Darling has been led astray by one of these aberrant translations.
xxx
SOMETHING BIG IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN: Crushing the Empty Shell

The Great Apostasy, predicted in the Epistles of the New Testament, is upon us. Christendom is almost everywhere falling upon hard times.

In the Middle East Nestorian and Coptic Christians, among others, are being persecuted to the extent of loss of life.(1) In Europe, the former bastion of Christian civilization is now completely secularized. In South America, native populations are returning to worship of pagan deities complete with sacrifices of all sorts. I've been there and seen it. I've spoken to missionaries who are fleeing the area. Except for small pockets, the church has no presence there.

In Africa, the church suffers from missionary groups who are only interested in the financial bottom line. I have spoken to missionaries there who inform me that some mission groups forbid the use of the name Jesus Christ in correspondence. Others refuse to release emergency medications to the population during regular plagues. The meds are stockpiled in warehouses, but are not released until money is raised to replace it. The same thing is true for food stockpiles. It is not released to the starving masses until money can replace it. Many missionaries are abandoning the field because of this spiritual debauchery.

There are no reliable numbers of Christians coming out of China where religious observance is illegal. Despite claims by mission groups to the contrary, numbers for a secret church in China are bogus. A secret church is by its nature secret. Only God knows. There is, however, a resurgence of old traditional ways in China which corresponds with similar trends globally. The Greek Orthodox church is experiencing economic hard times along with the rest of Greece and Russian Orthodox churches are experiencing somewhat less political pressure, but have no real growth.

In North America, churches still appear to be active although that is mostly a numeric illusion. Pew & Gallop polls indicate that regular attendance(2) is down 45% - 50% from 1948 levels. (I don't know why they picked 1948 as a benchmark year. Don't ask me.) Projections for attendance in the US and Canada are that attendance will fall to 10% by 2050. Those numbers are skewed. Membership is never deleted from church databases, which are normally administered by third party organizations. Instead when a family moves from one church to another their new membership is recorded as added not moved. Polls therefore indicate a 5% membership growth per year when in actuality its more like 1%. Even worse, American churches are heavily in debt.

This brings me to the core of my argument, that American churches particularly the Protestant variety are in imminent danger of total collapse. As I pointed out above, attendance is remarkably low. Attendance is tied to donations, which in turn enables the buildings/real estate and expensive ministries to continue. In the 1980's Protestant American churches attempted expansion of their ministries without corresponding person to person evangelism. It began an economic failure that will come back to bite the religion in the wallet. Nearly every church I have served in or am aware of is heavily in debt. Stewards of the financial resources have adopted the "name it and claim it" heresy and approve additional expenditures without consulting the Lord first. The usual statement is that God will bless efforts in His name. He won't and He doesn't - not without consulting Him first, that is.

The American Protestant church is now presented with a double edged sword pointed at its heart. One edge is a lack of -real- new membership. Electronic evangelism has been substituted for person to person evangelism (the proven method for 2,000 years). The digital variety is failing miserably. The second edge is debt. Debt is increasing and church leadership continues to act irresponsibly thereby fueling an economic disaster.

The American Protestant church is now a hollow shell of its former glory. It has no political influence. It has little or no basis in truth either philosophical or spiritual(3). It has financially corrupted itself, has no spiritual authority whatsoever (2 Tim 3:5) and is no longer a popular form of society. Once respected, Christians are everywhere mocked for their faith.

The final collapse of the Protestant church may happen as a result of a national economic crisis.

Heavily mortgaged, the properties will no longer be seen to be viable as loan instruments and will be repossessed for sale to land developers. Someone will state that a church is made up of people, not buildings. While true, that has not been the emphasis of Protestant 'ministries'. The real focus of church leadership has been property development, not spiritual guidance. Case in point is a recent discussion I had with a friend who is a Lutheran minister. I asked what sort of questions people have when they meet with him. None ask spiritual questions. All are inter-personal, financial, or moral questions. None are questions about the work of Christ in their lives or their lives in service of Christ. The church is now a hollow indebted shell waiting for the winds of economic misfortune to blow them away like the religious house of cards they really are.

What will happen next? The rise of the antiChrist, if we are to believe the predictions of Holy Writ.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

(1) If the reader wishes to be more informed or to assist with financial contributions I suggest contacting the Barnabas Fund www.barnabasaid.org

(2) Regular attendance is defined by pollsters as appearing in the assembly a minimum of once a month.

(3) Heresy and Biblical illiteracy flourish as never before. Every person with an opinion thinks they are a pope unto themselves. Few consider the wise words written and spoken by scholars who have delved deeply into Biblical literature and tradition. Case in point is that few Christians can even define the word 'truth'. (Truth is that which is consistent with what is.) <-- look it up

 

[Nordica]

Yes.

Putin.
ISIS.
Our supposed recovering economy.

Might even throw China in there.

Like something's gonna bust loose here.

Putin at least has the guts to stand against homosexual culture.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Putin at least has the guts to stand against homosexual culture.

Reminds me of how the nations around Israel were more righteous than them.

 

[Nordica]

Reminds me of how the nations around Israel were more righteous than them.

No, Russia isn't righteous, but it is still advocating traditional marriage... I am really worried for US and European Christians, liberalism will make us suffer very soon

 

[Sinthesis]

Putin at least has the guts to stand against homosexual culture.

So does the Islamic state.

 

[jasonc]

im curious so how exactly does laws against gay marriages and jobs protection really save them?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No, Russia isn't righteous, but it is still advocating traditional marriage...

This is the passage I was referring to...

"5 "Thus says the Lord GOD, 'This is Jerusalem; I have set her at the center of the nations, with lands around her. 6 'But she has rebelled against My ordinances more wickedly than the nations and against My statutes more than the lands which surround her" (Ezekiel 5:5-6 NASB)

Like Judah, we're supposed to be the god fearing nation, but also like them, we're actually more wicked than our enemies among the non-Christian nations. We're so bad some of those nations ban our entertainment.