Peace & Security or Sudden Destruction?

[nPeace]

I must have missed that implication. Can you quote it for me. Thanks.

You still used false equivalence in your reply. Is there any evidence the higher atheism rates have any thing to do with the lower homicide rates?

It's seems clear that SZ would not be able to provide what you are requesting, as usual for obvious reasons.
For one thing, I don't believe he really read through the OP, and for another providing evidence to back up his claims, is not one of his strong areas, as I have witnessed.

 

[LuisDantas]

The OP is the kind of question that to this day I stand surprised to see people actually asking.

It is all just so... disconnected.

 

[nPeace]

The OP is the kind of question that to this day I stand surprised to see people actually asking.

It is all just so... disconnected.

Would you mind explaining? I'm not sure what you find disconnected.

 

[savagewind]

Not sure if this response is to me Hubert, but I think religion is part of the package of a corrupt society. Firstly, because of failing to teach the truth that unites its members in peace, and love. Secondary, because religion is itself involved in the political, and greedy commercial systems of this world, which it seems evident are all corrupt.

I agree with you that religion has played a great role in viscous and violent activity. In fact, going further than that, I agree with the scriptures which places the blood of all righteous people on earth squarely on the shoulders of religion. Revelation 17 & 18

When you think about that, does it not make sense that there is a way worship that is different to religion of this world, which promotes peace and unity, among all its members?
Can you think of any "religion" at all, which does not allow for involvement in the political system, and wars?

I know of one, but I would be glad to hear of any you know of.

Why don't you call it what it is? Security! It isn't love because love is patient and kind. There is no patience in the organization for people who disagree. They are silenced. So, there is also no real unity in the organization because there are people in it who absolutely disagree but they must keep silent if they want to keep their way of life and their friends and family.

 

[LuisDantas]

Would you mind explaining? I'm not sure what you find disconnected.

Thanks for asking.

It comes down to three things.

1) Scripture is not something that people should lend so much credence to, IMO.

2) Asking whether "man can solve the problem" is just strange. There is no actual point to asking the question; any answer will ultimately be useless.

3) Divine intervention is just too odd an expectation for anyone to have.

 

[nPeace]

Thanks for asking.

It comes down to three things.

1) Scripture is not something that people should lend so much credence to, IMO.

2) Asking whether "man can solve the problem" is just strange. There is no actual point to asking the question; any answer will ultimately be useless.

3) Divine intervention is just too odd an expectation for anyone to have.

Thanks for sharing your opinions.
Notice though, I used the word optimism more than once.
I started by saying many people are, and further down, I asked if based on the information, they think, or still are optimistic about the promises and goals being made.
It's more a matter of hearing other's opinions and views, while giving one myself.
That's all.
When persons have an exchange like that, I think it allows room for thoughts and ideas.
Don't you agree?

So any thoughts, besides the ones you just gave?
Oh. Don't bother, I realize you don't believe any divine intervention is possible. So basically, we are at the mercy of man... So let's hold our breath, and hope for a miracle... not a divine one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's seems clear that SZ would not be able to provide what you are requesting, as usual for obvious reasons.
For one thing, I don't believe he really read through the OP, and for another providing evidence to back up his claims, is not one of his strong areas, as I have witnessed.

There is no need to provide what he requested. The problem is that he made a logical error and will not admit it. There would be no point. You see he tried to make me claim that atheism makes society better, I never claimed that, though it is probably true. Even if they were just as bad as other societies the OP would have been refuted. That they appear to be even better merely slams the coffin door on gun is argument.

 

[metis]

There is nothing false or fabricated about the 'powers that be' will take action against the false religious world.

I don't personally judge religions in terms of "true" or "false" since religious beliefs are based on faith, not empirical evidence.

 

[savagewind]

If a whole world had faith in the realization that God will arrive in due time to fix what is broken some people would rightly think, "what right do I have to do any fixing of it?". And, most Jehovah's Witnesses wish that everyone would be changed to be one of them. So, nothing might ever be accomplished and then Big Business wins.

It is prophesied.

 

[metis]

Back then swords had to be handy against wild animals.
Swords, but Not to be used in fighting just as Jesus taught at Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10

Actually they were also used in fighting as well, and one can see at least a couple of them that I saw at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

If Jesus had ordered that such a weapon could not be used in the defense of the innocent, then he would have violated Jewish Law as it appears in Torah, thus he could not have "fulfilled the Law" by clearly violating it.

We have to remember the situation at Jesus' time, whereas the Romans were in full control politically and militarily in eretz Israel, and yet the Zealots were fighting a futile battle against them that was leading to senseless bloodshed, including of those that were innocent. Also, what sense would it have made if Jesus were to teach just to let the innocent die and then turn around and teach us that we need to feed and clothe the poor?

If your child were to be attacked, heaven forbid, and all you did was to sit and watch because you're not willing to use force, how exactly would that make sense, including any moral sense?

The early Church very much struggled with this, ultimately settling in on what's called the "Just War Theory" by Augustine and, later, Aquinas. This was at least partially based on
Romans 13:4: For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Swords were used more for fighting than for wild animals. Don't be do niave.

My reply was to as to why the apostles ( Not men in general ) would have had swords.
They carried swords Not for fighting or killing people, but protection from wild animals. That is Not being naive.
Jesus and his followers did Not use swords for fighting/killing people as per Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't personally judge religions in terms of "true" or "false" since religious beliefs are based on faith, not empirical evidence.

I think many would agree with you, but what we learn from the Bible is that Jesus judged religion by his logical reasoning and referring to the old Hebrew Scriptures as the basis for his teachings.
That is why and how Jesus knew the hypocritical hate-filled Pharisees religious beliefs were in vain - Matthew 15:9
Jesus gives his reasons why he pronounced many 'woes' on their beliefs in Matthew 23rd chapter.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Actually they were also used in fighting as well, and one can see at least a couple of them that I saw at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.
If Jesus had ordered that such a weapon could not be used in the defense of the innocent, then he would have violated Jewish Law as it appears in Torah, thus he could not have "fulfilled the Law" by clearly violating it.
We have to remember the situation at Jesus' time, whereas the Romans were in full control politically and militarily in eretz Israel, and yet the Zealots were fighting a futile battle against them that was leading to senseless bloodshed, including of those that were innocent. Also, what sense would it have made if Jesus were to teach just to let the innocent die and then turn around and teach us that we need to feed and clothe the poor?
If your child were to be attacked, heaven forbid, and all you did was to sit and watch because you're not willing to use force, how exactly would that make sense, including any moral sense?
The early Church very much struggled with this, ultimately settling in on what's called the "Just War Theory" by Augustine and, later, Aquinas. This was at least partially based on
Romans 13:4: For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

I find Matthew 26:52 and Revelation 13:10 is Not talking about self defence.
What was in question was the purpose for the apostles having swords.
Self defence was Not justified by Peter's actions.
As far as possible a Christian is to be peaceable and try to avoid danger as per Romans 12:18
This is Not about facing a violent attack.
Jesus did Not condone use of physical weapons to defend material things - Luke 6:29.
On the other hand, life being threatened then defensive action was taken as per Exodus 22:2-3
So, if physically assaulted then defending oneself or another is Not deliberate or premeditated harm.
The course of wisdom then would be to do the best to avoid potentially bad situations - Proverbs 16:32.
Jesus and his followers remained neutral in world affairs, so they would Not be involved in the issues of the day.
They would Not ever take up the use of arms/swords against opposing sides.
No justification for becoming involved in men's wars, but Christians always neutral in world affairs, thus often hated
- Matthew 10:22.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It comes down to three things.
1) Scripture is not something that people should lend so much credence to, IMO.
2) Asking whether "man can solve the problem" is just strange. There is no actual point to asking the question; any answer will ultimately be useless.
3) Divine intervention is just too odd an expectation for anyone to have.

I find many people give No credence to Scripture as we can see by the immoral behavior even among church goers.
Mankind's long history does prove or show it is Not in man's ability to solve man's problems.
If we would Not see divine involvement into mankind's affairs, then there will be No real hope for humanity.
In the past, why God took divine action was so the wicked would Not do away with all righteous people on Earth.
Today's crime is why we are nearing a soon coming ' time of separating ' to take place on Earth as per Matthew 25:31-33,37,40.

 

[metis]

That is why and how Jesus knew the hypocritical hate-filled Pharisees religious beliefs were in vain - Matthew 15:9

Actually Jesus worked within a liberal Pharisee paradigm but there's no way of knowing if he thought of himself as such. Paul, upon arrest, said "I am a Pharisee", which would have put him at odds with Jesus if Jesus wasn't one himself.

Basically, it was sort of a "family argument" by all indications, and they can be the worst.

 

[12jtartar]

That's interesting.
It's another view that some have.
One interpretation holds that the cry of peace and security occurs well into the future - Paul says that it is "when they are saying", or "when they say".
Usage: (denoting speech in progress), (a) I say, speak; I mean, mention, tell, (b) I call, name, especially in the pass., (c) I tell, command.

Looking closely at the Greek expression, it seems to suggest, that it is more a proclamation, than a long experienced period of thought.
We know from Revelation, that the Roman Empire was to be replaced by two successive kings, during the Lord's day.

Understandably though, various interpretations abound.

nPeace,
You are very correct, there are many interpretations, but only ONE fits ALL the Scriptures.
Just as you said there are two Kings after The Roman Kingdom, the Saventh is in power now, it is the Anglo-Saxon combine, made up of The United States and Britain. The Eighth and last King, World ruler will be The Untied Nations. Consider how Revelation 17:8,11-13. Notice that this Beast Was, and then WasNot, then WasAgain. This started as the League of Nations, which went out in 1939, and came back in 1945 as the United Nations. The Ten Kings, which means all the other,lesser kingdoms of the earth. They give all their power to the United Nations, Revelation 17:12,13. Then when The U tied Nations re dives all power from the other nations, it will attack false religion, which is really the Harlot riding on the seven headed Wild Beast. After they are successful, ant start to say Peace and Security. They will then attack True Religion, which brings them against The Prince, Jesus, and they will not escape, Revelation 17:16,17, 14, 1Thessalonians 5:3.
It takes much study to understand how all these things fit together, but they do. I will be glad to help you understand how each fits together with many other Scriptures. All Scripture must agree or the understanding is inaccurate!

 

[metis]

I find Matthew 26:52 and Revelation 13:10 is Not talking about self defence.
What was in question was the purpose for the apostles having swords.
Self defence was Not justified by Peter's actions.
As far as possible a Christian is to be peaceable and try to avoid danger as per Romans 12:18
This is Not about facing a violent attack.
Jesus did Not condone use of physical weapons to defend material things - Luke 6:29.
On the other hand, life being threatened then defensive action was taken as per Exodus 22:2-3
So, if physically assaulted then defending oneself or another is Not deliberate or premeditated harm.
The course of wisdom then would be to do the best to avoid potentially bad situations - Proverbs 16:32.
Jesus and his followers remained neutral in world affairs, so they would Not be involved in the issues of the day.
They would Not ever take up the use of arms/swords against opposing sides.
No justification for becoming involved in men's wars, but Christians always neutral in world affairs, thus often hated
- Matthew 10:22.

The above is what happens when one doesn't consider the context with the times and situations and also ignores the Law that Jesus said he would fulfill. Plus you ignored what's said and its implications in Romans 13:4.

If you looked up "Just War Theory", you would see that it only allows for defense, not offense, and even with that it's quite limited in other areas as well.

Here: Just war theory - Wikipedia

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The OP is the kind of question that to this day I stand surprised to see people actually asking. It is all just so... disconnected.

On the surface it might seem disconnected as to the coming of peace or coming of destruction.
I find what we learn from the Bible is that when the 'powers that be ' will be saying, "Peace and Security..."
that is only going to be the appearance of Peace and Safety because the connect of the saying of Peace and Security is just going to prove to be the precursor announcement to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14.
In other words, to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
This coming ' great tribulation ' is proving that deliverance is getting near.
Deliverance (rescue) from trouble-filled religion because the 'powers that be' will surprisingly turn on the religious world.
Turn on the corrupted un-faithful religious world, thus opening up the way for divine involvement into man's affairs.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The above is what happens when one doesn't consider the context with the times and situations and also ignores the Law that Jesus said he would fulfill. Plus you ignored what's said and its implications in Romans 13:4.
If you looked up "Just War Theory", you would see that it only allows for defense, not offense, and even with that it's quite limited in other areas as well.

Jesus did Not take sides in the issues of the day, but he and his followers remained 'neutral '.
The ' Just War Theory ' <- is Not a teaching of Jesus.

As far as Romans 13:4 God permits the governments to operate until the time of Daniel 2:44; Rev. 19:11-21.
The governments have the God-given right to punish thieves, murderers, other law breakers.
If a ruler misuses his authority and acts against God, then he is responsible to answer to God for his misuse.
When a ruler tries to get a Christian to act in violation of God's absolute authority, then he is Not acting as God's minister and will receive punishment ( not from men ) but ultimately from God as per Romans 13:1-4.
So, when there is conflict with Scripture Christians obey God as Ruler over man as per Acts of the Apostles 5:29 B.
Christians do Not take up arms against others.
In world wars, Christendom (apostate Christianity) even took up arms against fellow so-called Christians.
That is Not a teaching of Jesus.!

 

[Oeste]

What should we conclude when we consider that not just the USA, but the leaders of all nations are in turmoil, not knowing what to do to ensure the security of their citizens...physically, financially, nationally, religiously or in any other way?

A cry of "peace and security" could come from an unexpected source. They could introduce a new governing system that might appear at first to be a global solution to a global problem. People are desperate for a solution, so the state of the world would be a catalyst for this kind of revolutionary change.....all carefully orchestrated....and foretold in scripture.

The Bible speaks of men introducing a system of government that would put all mankind under one governing authority.....one financial system, and one set of laws for all.

Yes, foretold in scripture but it’s not happening now.

@nPeace claimed that “Sudden Destruction” is “imminent” and he cites Thessalonians 5:3 in the OP.

No one is running around shouting “peace and security” right now, so “sudden destruction” is not “imminent”. Why? Because the anti-Christ is not in power and he has not brought the vast majority of nations under his control. It is during the reign of the anti-Christ that people shout “peace and security” (even though there is no peace) unaware that God’s judgement will be suddenly upon them.

When the anti-Christ is in control, you will hear how he has brought unity, peace and security on the earth, and you will read it in your newspapers and your social media, you will hear it on the radio, you will even see his glorious documentary on TV, but you won’t see it now. No one is claiming anything of the sort right now.

On this issue, it’s not so much what you’ve written here Deeje, it’s the timing. IMO, Watchtower timing has always has been premature and still continues to be incorrect. Thessalonians 5:3 will be fulfilled, but there is nothing at present indicating it to be “imminent”.

Is it eventual? Yes. But is it imminent? @nPeace argues against it and then attempts to obfuscate by claiming that perhaps I misunderstood the OP.