On Quora, sometimes people ask really stupid questions.
One person asked: What would you like to hear about Germany's
invasioin of China in the future?

Initially, I responded with the snarky comment... a sequel to the
Perry Rhodan novel in which it happened.
But then I searched, and found that in 1898, Germany did, like many
other nations, invade China and get a concession from it. Around
Qingdao IIRC.

But then, I thought, maybe Nostradamus predicted that Germany would
invade China, and that's what thuis was about. My search turned up a
Google Books resullt for a book about Nostradamus and Branham, God's
something-or-other.

I did further searching. William Branham was a preacher. Did he have
propecies? Yes he did; he had a series of seven visions.

I don't know quite how popular they are among Fundamentalists today.

The first couple were about World War II, and they were fulfilled.
Presumably it was _after_ that when he revealed his visions publicly,
the cynic in me says.

Vision 3: Communism is more important than those little guys Fascism
and Nazism.

Vision 4: Bubble-dome cars that drive themselves.

Vision 5: Women will not wear enough clothes, and not stay where they
belong under the authority of men.

Vision 6: A cruel woman will rule the United States.

Vision 7: The U.S. will be devastated from one end to the other.

So there you have it: thanks to Donald Trump defeating Hillary
Clinton, the end of the world, or even just World War III, can't
happen yet!

At least, that's what those who believe these visions may think.
Another source for extreme right-wing thinking.

John Savard

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:37:03 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

>My search turned up a
>Google Books resullt for a book about Nostradamus and Branham, God's
>something-or-other.

Nostradamus, Branham, and the Little Book: God's Masterpiece
by Patricia Ann Sunday, in case anyone is curious.

John Savard

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:37:03 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

>On Quora, sometimes people ask really stupid questions.
>One person asked: What would you like to hear about Germany's
>invasioin of China in the future?
>
>Initially, I responded with the snarky comment... a sequel to the
>Perry Rhodan novel in which it happened.
>But then I searched, and found that in 1898, Germany did, like many
>other nations, invade China and get a concession from it. Around
>Qingdao IIRC.
>
>But then, I thought, maybe Nostradamus predicted that Germany would
>invade China, and that's what thuis was about. My search turned up a
>Google Books resullt for a book about Nostradamus and Branham, God's
>something-or-other.
>
>I did further searching. William Branham was a preacher. Did he have
>propecies? Yes he did; he had a series of seven visions.
>
>I don't know quite how popular they are among Fundamentalists today.
>
>The first couple were about World War II, and they were fulfilled.
>Presumably it was _after_ that when he revealed his visions publicly,
>the cynic in me says.

A book I read recently (from my Grandfather's collection), /Our Near
Future/ by William A. Redding, the source of my "Saxons ruling the
world from Jerusalem in 1914" comment elsewhere, was claimed by
Redding and at least one of his followers to be a prediction of WWI.
Which, of course, it was not -- Jerusalem, among other things,
remained in Ottoman hands until Lawrence liberated it four years or so
later. Well, unless he predicted it in some other book; this is the
only one I am ever likely to read.

Predictions come, predictions go. Some manage to come true, just as a
stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day. Others are /claimed/
to have come true even though they really didn't.

>Vision 3: Communism is more important than those little guys Fascism
>and Nazism.
>
>Vision 4: Bubble-dome cars that drive themselves.
>
>Vision 5: Women will not wear enough clothes, and not stay where they
>belong under the authority of men.
>
>Vision 6: A cruel woman will rule the United States.
>
>Vision 7: The U.S. will be devastated from one end to the other.
>
>So there you have it: thanks to Donald Trump defeating Hillary
>Clinton, the end of the world, or even just World War III, can't
>happen yet!
>
>At least, that's what those who believe these visions may think.
>Another source for extreme right-wing thinking.

Well, maybe, if this guy actually /has/ any followers nowadays.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:37:03 -0600, John Savard wrote:

> On Quora, sometimes people ask really stupid questions.
> One person asked: What would you like to hear about Germany's invasioin
> of China in the future?
>
> Initially, I responded with the snarky comment... a sequel to the Perry
> Rhodan novel in which it happened.
> But then I searched, and found that in 1898, Germany did, like many
> other nations, invade China and get a concession from it. Around Qingdao
> IIRC.
>
> But then, I thought, maybe Nostradamus predicted that Germany would
> invade China, and that's what thuis was about. My search turned up a
> Google Books resullt for a book about Nostradamus and Branham, God's
> something-or-other.
>
> I did further searching. William Branham was a preacher. Did he have
> propecies? Yes he did; he had a series of seven visions.
>

Searching the extremely long Wikipedia article on Branham doesn't
turn up any reference to these prophecies.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:03:10 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:37:03 -0600, John Savard
><quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

>>At least, that's what those who believe these visions may think.
>>Another source for extreme right-wing thinking.

>Well, maybe, if this guy actually /has/ any followers nowadays.

It's possible that quite a number of MAGA followers and
Fundamentalists might include Branham as someone whose insights they
accept as valid without being his followers in the sense of placing
him first in their thinking.

Just like some Nostradamus fanatics will also quote Mother Shipton on
occasion.

John Savard

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:37:09 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer
<mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:37:03 -0600, John Savard wrote:

>> I did further searching. William Branham was a preacher. Did he have
>> propecies? Yes he did; he had a series of seven visions.

>Searching the extremely long Wikipedia article on Branham doesn't
>turn up any reference to these prophecies.

None the less, my use of Google enabled me to discover that they
existed, so there was mention of them on the Internet even if, due to
his busy life and career, they did not find their way into Wikipedia.

Now, I suppose it is also entirely possible that these seven visions
could be spurious and merely attributed to him. But I haven't
encountered any evidence of that.

John Savard

Oh, and I just found this...

https://www.godreports.com/2020/05/trump-revival-bible-is-fake-news-but-hebrides-revival-was-real/

after seeing on YouTube the video to which it referred.

Pity, it would have been nice if one of Donald Trump's many Bibles had
some connection to some real history.

Although I am inclined to be skeptical of the claims even on that page
that actual supernatural events took place in the Hebrides.

John Savard

Also, I was able to see - by looking at a video on the site for Lee
Greenwood's God Bless the USA Bible - which Donald Trump has merely
endorsed - that the Bible is a plain KJV Bible, without notes or
cross-references.

They don't mention this in the FAQ for the Bible. They do link to a
video, with which they have no connection, which demonstrates what to
do with a Bible with gilt edges so that the pages can be easily opened
(the demonstration is even done on a *Roman Catholic* Bible!).

Stephen Colbert had some fun with the title of _that_ entry in the FAQ
for that Bible, but no, the pages weren't going to be sticky for
_that_ reason.

There are Bibles with cross-references and notes that have fallen into
the public domain, but I suppose for any particular one of those, it
would take some checking to find one that was widely acceptable as
opposed to being of interest only to those in a limited set of
denominations.

Having been given, by the Gideons, while in Junior High, a little red
New Testament which had the national anthem - and even The Maple Leaf
Forever (!) - in the back, I'm not sure if having the Constitution
and the Declaration of Independence in the back of the volume is
really all _that_ controversial.

However, they did say that it contained "the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights". The Bill of Rights happens to be the first ten amendments
to the Constitution. I *hope* this doesn't mean that they omitted all
_later_ amendments to the Constitution, finding, say, the 13th and
14th amendments too controversial or something.

Incidentally, I found the country singer's name to be slightly
confusing. But I'm pretty sure that Lee Hazlewood never arranged for
the publication of a Bible of his own.

John Savard

John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
>
>Although I am inclined to be skeptical of the claims even on that page
>that actual supernatural events took place in the Hebrides.

It has been known to happen. I even heard a rumor once that a Scotsman
offered to pick up the check.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 01:36:44 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

>Oh, and I just found this...
>
>https://www.godreports.com/2020/05/trump-revival-bible-is-fake-news-but-hebrides-revival-was-real/
>
>after seeing on YouTube the video to which it referred.
>
>Pity, it would have been nice if one of Donald Trump's many Bibles had
>some connection to some real history.
>
>Although I am inclined to be skeptical of the claims even on that page
>that actual supernatural events took place in the Hebrides.

Since it has long been possible, through evolution, quantum
mechanics/relativity, and psychoanalysis, to explain (or at least
explain away) anything that occurs whatsoever, all events hav natural
explanations (or at least can be explained away as some form of
psychological mass delusion).

I have long since concluded that the restriction of miracles to
"supernatural events" is anti-religious psuedo-intellectual hogwash. A
better approach is that in the song "A Hundred Million Miracles" from
/Flower Drum Song/.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 01:50:48 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

>Also, I was able to see - by looking at a video on the site for Lee
>Greenwood's God Bless the USA Bible - which Donald Trump has merely
>endorsed - that the Bible is a plain KJV Bible, without notes or
>cross-references.

That probably goes without saying. Given their target audience.

>They don't mention this in the FAQ for the Bible. They do link to a
>video, with which they have no connection, which demonstrates what to
>do with a Bible with gilt edges so that the pages can be easily opened
>(the demonstration is even done on a *Roman Catholic* Bible!).

Gilt edges are gilt edges wherever they are found.

>Stephen Colbert had some fun with the title of _that_ entry in the FAQ
>for that Bible, but no, the pages weren't going to be sticky for
>_that_ reason.
>
>There are Bibles with cross-references and notes that have fallen into
>the public domain, but I suppose for any particular one of those, it
>would take some checking to find one that was widely acceptable as
>opposed to being of interest only to those in a limited set of
>denominations.

Is Scofield in public domain? That was widely accepted in the relevant
quarters. It was also a KJV.

>Having been given, by the Gideons, while in Junior High, a little red
>New Testament which had the national anthem - and even The Maple Leaf
>Forever (!) - in the back, I'm not sure if having the Constitution
>and the Declaration of Independence in the back of the volume is
>really all _that_ controversial.

It shouldn't be controversial with those in the target audience. In
the Army, I once was involved with a Weekday Bible School under a
Chaplain whose tradition was non-creedal (that is, they didn't like,
never mind use, the historic creeds).

We started each day pledging allegiance to God, the Church, and the
USA. Well, they did; I kept silent.

As if they were equals.

Thus illustrating that some people who are "non-creedal" have no
problem making up creeds of their own. With a very dubious theology.

>However, they did say that it contained "the Constitution and the Bill
>of Rights". The Bill of Rights happens to be the first ten amendments
>to the Constitution. I *hope* this doesn't mean that they omitted all
>_later_ amendments to the Constitution, finding, say, the 13th and
>14th amendments too controversial or something.

Probably another pamphlet that has fallen into the public domain.

I ran across one such thing that numbered the ten Amendments in the
Bill of Rights as if they were subsections of a section of the
Constitution. This was very confusing, as it came up in a conversation
and made no sense at first, until we figured out what had happened and
explained to its user that, no, the Bill of Rights was not an organic
part of the Constitution but rather a set of amendments to it.

>Incidentally, I found the country singer's name to be slightly
>confusing. But I'm pretty sure that Lee Hazlewood never arranged for
>the publication of a Bible of his own.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>Although I am inclined to be skeptical of the claims even on that page
>>that actual supernatural events took place in the Hebrides.
>
>It has been known to happen. I even heard a rumor once that a Scotsman
>offered to pick up the check.

Clearly not a true Scotsman.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:37:03 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

>I did further searching. William Branham was a preacher. Did he have
>propecies? Yes he did; he had a series of seven visions.
>
>I don't know quite how popular they are among Fundamentalists today.
>
>The first couple were about World War II, and they were fulfilled.
>Presumably it was _after_ that when he revealed his visions publicly,
>the cynic in me says.
>
>Vision 3: Communism is more important than those little guys Fascism
>and Nazism.

Certainly would have been obvious after 1945!

>Vision 4: Bubble-dome cars that drive themselves.
>
>Vision 5: Women will not wear enough clothes, and not stay where they
>belong under the authority of men.

Certainly by the mid-1960s though to be sure many men would have
considered that a good thing!

>Vision 6: A cruel woman will rule the United States.

Inevitable eventually and not necessarily a bad thing.

As for 'cruelty' many would argue several male presidents were cruel
yet served their terms honorably. For me Coolidge and Truman come to
mind here - but that's opinion and certainly not something a 100%
objective view is possible on.

>Vision 7: The U.S. will be devastated from one end to the other.

In what respect? Physically as in the classic "let's push all those
buttons then see what we have to go home to?" or "economically
clobbered" as was the US banking system in 2008 (which has led to
Canada's two largest banks - the Royal and Toronto-Dominion - now both
having more US branches than Canadian since they had several billion
in cash reserves in 2008 when quite a few US banks were "distressed"
and used those reserves to expand to the US)

>So there you have it: thanks to Donald Trump defeating Hillary
>Clinton, the end of the world, or even just World War III, can't
>happen yet!

I grew up in the sort of religious background where while we
definitely believed in prophesies the only ones we took seriously were
those in the Bible though we were aware of several "prophets" (which
were regarded as fakery and on the side of "Our Father Below" as CS
Lewis put it in his great parody / religious text The Screwtape
Letters). As such Branham (along with Jeane Dixon) was one of those I
knew about.

(Though we definitely were taught that a very few children alive at
the time of the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 would still
be alive at the second coming of Jesus Christ - meaning i was a few
years too young to be part of that...)

Somehow the mind strains thinking of Donald Trump as the "agent of
God"! (perhaps an agent for the other side but God's side?!?)

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>Thus illustrating that some people who are "non-creedal" have no
>problem making up creeds of their own. With a very dubious theology.

The Great Pumpkin will punish you for claiming these dubious.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:37:03 -0600, John Savard
> <quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I did further searching. William Branham was a preacher. Did he have
>> propecies? Yes he did; he had a series of seven visions.
>>
>> I don't know quite how popular they are among Fundamentalists today.
>>
>> The first couple were about World War II, and they were fulfilled.
>> Presumably it was _after_ that when he revealed his visions publicly,
>> the cynic in me says.
>>
>> Vision 3: Communism is more important than those little guys Fascism
>> and Nazism.
>
> Certainly would have been obvious after 1945!
>
>> Vision 4: Bubble-dome cars that drive themselves.
>>
>> Vision 5: Women will not wear enough clothes, and not stay where they
>> belong under the authority of men.
>
> Certainly by the mid-1960s though to be sure many men would have
> considered that a good thing!
>
>> Vision 6: A cruel woman will rule the United States.
>
> Inevitable eventually and not necessarily a bad thing.
>
> As for 'cruelty' many would argue several male presidents were cruel
> yet served their terms honorably. For me Coolidge and Truman come to
> mind here - but that's opinion and certainly not something a 100%
> objective view is possible on.
>
>> Vision 7: The U.S. will be devastated from one end to the other.
>
> In what respect? Physically as in the classic "let's push all those
> buttons then see what we have to go home to?" or "economically
> clobbered" as was the US banking system in 2008 (which has led to
> Canada's two largest banks - the Royal and Toronto-Dominion - now both
> having more US branches than Canadian since they had several billion
> in cash reserves in 2008 when quite a few US banks were "distressed"
> and used those reserves to expand to the US)
>
>> So there you have it: thanks to Donald Trump defeating Hillary
>> Clinton, the end of the world, or even just World War III, can't
>> happen yet!
>
> I grew up in the sort of religious background where while we
> definitely believed in prophesies the only ones we took seriously were
> those in the Bible though we were aware of several "prophets" (which
> were regarded as fakery and on the side of "Our Father Below" as CS
> Lewis put it in his great parody / religious text The Screwtape
> Letters). As such Branham (along with Jeane Dixon) was one of those I
> knew about.
>
> (Though we definitely were taught that a very few children alive at
> the time of the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 would still
> be alive at the second coming of Jesus Christ - meaning i was a few
> years too young to be part of that...)
>
> Somehow the mind strains thinking of Donald Trump as the "agent of
> God"! (perhaps an agent for the other side but God's side?!?)
>

There's an entire subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Trump666 devoted to
this idea.

pt

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:04:26 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:37:03 -0600, John Savard
><quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I did further searching. William Branham was a preacher. Did he have
>>propecies? Yes he did; he had a series of seven visions.
>>
>>I don't know quite how popular they are among Fundamentalists today.
>>
>>The first couple were about World War II, and they were fulfilled.
>>Presumably it was _after_ that when he revealed his visions publicly,
>>the cynic in me says.
>>
>>Vision 3: Communism is more important than those little guys Fascism
>>and Nazism.
>
>Certainly would have been obvious after 1945!
>
>>Vision 4: Bubble-dome cars that drive themselves.
>>
>>Vision 5: Women will not wear enough clothes, and not stay where they
>>belong under the authority of men.
>
>Certainly by the mid-1960s though to be sure many men would have
>considered that a good thing!
>
>>Vision 6: A cruel woman will rule the United States.
>
>Inevitable eventually and not necessarily a bad thing.
>
>As for 'cruelty' many would argue several male presidents were cruel
>yet served their terms honorably. For me Coolidge and Truman come to
>mind here - but that's opinion and certainly not something a 100%
>objective view is possible on.
>
>>Vision 7: The U.S. will be devastated from one end to the other.
>
>In what respect? Physically as in the classic "let's push all those
>buttons then see what we have to go home to?" or "economically
>clobbered" as was the US banking system in 2008 (which has led to
>Canada's two largest banks - the Royal and Toronto-Dominion - now both
>having more US branches than Canadian since they had several billion
>in cash reserves in 2008 when quite a few US banks were "distressed"
>and used those reserves to expand to the US)
>
>>So there you have it: thanks to Donald Trump defeating Hillary
>>Clinton, the end of the world, or even just World War III, can't
>>happen yet!
>
>I grew up in the sort of religious background where while we
>definitely believed in prophesies the only ones we took seriously were
>those in the Bible though we were aware of several "prophets" (which
>were regarded as fakery and on the side of "Our Father Below" as CS
>Lewis put it in his great parody / religious text The Screwtape
>Letters). As such Branham (along with Jeane Dixon) was one of those I
>knew about.
>
>(Though we definitely were taught that a very few children alive at
>the time of the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 would still
>be alive at the second coming of Jesus Christ - meaning i was a few
>years too young to be part of that...)

I turned 2 in 1948. We shall see what we shall see.

Was the theory /really/ that those born after 1948 would all die
first? Leaving only those born before 1948 alive at the second coming?
Or did something get muddled somewhere?

>Somehow the mind strains thinking of Donald Trump as the "agent of
>God"! (perhaps an agent for the other side but God's side?!?)

In the Bible, both the Assyrians and the Neo-Babylonians
("Chaldaeans") were "people who knew not God" led by men "who knew not
God" but who nevertheless were agents of God to destroy the Northern
and then the Southern Kingdom.

God, IOW, can use whoever He wants to to do whatever He wants done.
Leaving us with the sobering thought that Dawkins has been doing God's
work all along.

That's the problem with monotheism: there is no "other side", at
least, no "other side" equal to the one deity[1].

[1] Anyone nattering on about the Trinity will be reminded that it is
One God in Three Persons. Tritheism is one of the historical heresies.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:04:26 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:

>
>That's the problem with monotheism: there is no "other side", at
>least, no "other side" equal to the one deity[1].
>
>[1] Anyone nattering on about the Trinity will be reminded that it is
>One God in Three Persons. Tritheism is one of the historical heresies.

Which is a heresy depends completely upon which side one is on.

OBSF: Merlin comments on this during his travels while
Arthur being raised by his childhood nurse in
_The Hollow Hills_.

Dualism exists in most religions - in christianity, it
is god vs. the devil.

Even christianity accepts the existence of other gods, they're
just lesser gods (see first commandment).

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 17:01:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:04:26 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>wrote:
>
>>
>>That's the problem with monotheism: there is no "other side", at
>>least, no "other side" equal to the one deity[1].
>>
>>[1] Anyone nattering on about the Trinity will be reminded that it is
>>One God in Three Persons. Tritheism is one of the historical heresies.
>
>
>Which is a heresy depends completely upon which side one is on.

Not in the context of Christianity. Any definition of "heresy" in the
context of Christianity must include the heresies condemned by the
early Church councils. And that includes Tritheism. Also Modalism.
Among others.

I try to restrict "heresy" to those. Groups that diverge from orthodox
[1] Christianity I tend to regard as "heterodox", even if some of
their beliefs are shared with one or another of the heresies condemned
by the Church.

[1] Basically anyone who accepts each and every part of what is
commonly called the Nicene Creed (feel free to trace its history and
supply all the compound names, it won't make any difference). Note
that I do not require them to use it or even to accept the concept of
"creed", only to agree with what it says.

>OBSF: Merlin comments on this during his travels while
> Arthur being raised by his childhood nurse in
> _The Hollow Hills_.
>
>Dualism exists in most religions - in christianity, it
>is god vs. the devil.

No it is not. Well, not technically, anyway. Folk religion has many
wrong ideas in it, mostly borrowed from other religions. Dualism is
one example of such an idea.

Even in Revelation, it is /Michael/ who opposes "the devil".

In Job, "the Satan" is an honored member of God's court. But not God's
equal: God must give him permission to torment Job.

>Even christianity accepts the existence of other gods, they're
>just lesser gods (see first commandment).

This is hard to unpack. There are oddities like the "sons of God" who
mated with the "daughters of men" to produce giants, for example. And
then there is the vast amount of stuff that Christians believe that
are not, in fact, Christian. I have no doubt that many citations of
dualistic Christians could be produced, but they are misinformed.

The first commandment, however, can apply to non-existent (except for
their images and statues) gods as well to to existent ones. And it is
usually interpreted along the line of "no man can serve two masters",
which was applied to "Mammon", which apparently /means/ money but
became personified over time. See
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon> for more information.

There is a strong strain, in the OT prophets and in Paul (and in the
Apocrypha, for that matter), explicitly asserting that "other gods"
only exist as statues and images, and nothing more. Note that "image"
can include mental images.

So, Christianity accepts the existence of statues and images and
stories and so on that /claim/ to be about other gods -- it in fact
extends them to movie stars, sports heroes, etc, etc (basically,
anything that distracts from God, which is quite a lot of stuff) --
but not of the "gods" themselves.

Well, except when the "gods" are said to be "demons", perhaps. But
since Revelation is /very/ clear that the demons are currently chained
up in a bottomless pit and will be there until the end of the world,
that seems unlikely. The tendency to worship something created instead
of the Creator, however, seems very common.

Dante shows a different perspective on demons. But Dante is not part
of the Bible and (AFAIK) is not claimed to have been inspired by God
or reporting a vision, so he can be taken as an example of what people
actually believed at the time he wrote. Not as speaking in an official
capacity.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 17:01:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:04:26 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>That's the problem with monotheism: there is no "other side", at
>>>least, no "other side" equal to the one deity[1].
>>>
>>>[1] Anyone nattering on about the Trinity will be reminded that it is
>>>One God in Three Persons. Tritheism is one of the historical heresies.
>>
>>
>>Which is a heresy depends completely upon which side one is on.
>
>Not in the context of Christianity.

Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic? Protestant?

IIRC, Eastern orthodox and Roman Catholic disagree on this
point specifically.

>Any definition of "heresy" in the
>context of Christianity must include the heresies condemned by the
>early Church councils.

In other words, the Roman Catholic interpretation of
christianity.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:47:20 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Is Scofield in public domain? That was widely accepted in the relevant
>quarters. It was also a KJV.

It was originally published in 1917, so, yes, it's in the public
domain at least in the United States. Despite that, at first when I
went looking for a copy online, I could only find the original 1901
editioin, but a while later the 1917 editioin also appeared.

While the Scofield Reference Bible _is_ very popular among
Fundamentalists these days, though, it's a controversial versioin, as
it's based on the viewpoint of "dispensationalism". This view of the
Bible takes the common idea that there are some things in the Old
Testament that seem to contradict the New Testament, but these are
laws God gave to different people in different circumstances, and
extends the principle to eliminate all the contradictions in the Bible
by dividing it up ito seven (or is it eight?) dispensations.

So, for example, in addition to Old Testament times and New Testament
times, there's God's Law as it was iln the Garden of Eden, and God's
Law after the end of the world.

John Savard

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:53:39 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>A
>better approach is that in the song "A Hundred Million Miracles" from
>/Flower Drum Song/.

Without looking up the song, I am going to assume from context that
you mean: instead of only thinking of miracles as things that aren't
supposed to happen, according to science, the things that do happen
every day around us are often so wonderful that they deserve to be
thought of as miracles - and, hence, evidence for God - even though we
just take them for granted.

John Savard

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:04:26 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>(Though we definitely were taught that a very few children alive at
>the time of the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 would still
>be alive at the second coming of Jesus Christ - meaning i was a few
>years too young to be part of that...)

This is definitely heretical!

Any unbiased reading of God's Holy Word, the Bible, will make it clear
and plain that what it says is that some children alive *at the time
of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD* will still be alive at the
second coming of Jesus Christ!

This is absolutely obvious, it is completely beyond any denial... and,
of course, what it proves about the Bible creates a problem for
Christianity.

John Savard

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 08:54:35 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Was the theory /really/ that those born after 1948 would all die
>first? Leaving only those born before 1948 alive at the second coming?
>Or did something get muddled somewhere?

It was only about who wouldn't die, not about who would die.

Verily, I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass away until
all be fulfilled.

John Savard

On Thu, 04 Apr 2024 12:24:22 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:53:39 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>A
>>better approach is that in the song "A Hundred Million Miracles" from
>>/Flower Drum Song/.
>
>Without looking up the song, I am going to assume from context that
>you mean: instead of only thinking of miracles as things that aren't
>supposed to happen, according to science, the things that do happen
>every day around us are often so wonderful that they deserve to be
>thought of as miracles - and, hence, evidence for God - even though we
>just take them for granted.

I would simply say that a "miracle" is "something worth seeing" or
"something you don't see everyday".

Jesus had something to say about people who looked for, if not
miracles, then at least "signs and wonders". And it wasn't
complimentary. I suspect His reaction to restricting miracles to "the
supernatural" would be even less acceptable, but who can say?

The lyrics are readily available:
<https://www.allmusicals.com/lyrics/flowerdrumsong/ahundredmillionmiracles.htm>.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 04 Apr 2024 16:19:03 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 17:01:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:04:26 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's the problem with monotheism: there is no "other side", at
>>>>least, no "other side" equal to the one deity[1].
>>>>
>>>>[1] Anyone nattering on about the Trinity will be reminded that it is
>>>>One God in Three Persons. Tritheism is one of the historical heresies.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which is a heresy depends completely upon which side one is on.
>>
>>Not in the context of Christianity.
>
>Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic? Protestant?
>
>IIRC, Eastern orthodox and Roman Catholic disagree on this
>point specifically.

They disagree on the "filioque".

The explanation I have read that makes the most sense is that, in the
West, having the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son
("filioque") was needed to combat heresies prevalent there, but was a
burden in the East because different heresies were prevalent there.
They were, of course, using "heresy" more broadly than I prefer to.

What matters is that both sets be rejected. This may mean rejecting
any attempt to say that the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the
Son, and any attempt to claim that the Holy Spirit could not procede
from the Father alone. As you can see, this gets us into very deep
waters, and I am not a reliable guide.

You can also, if you look, find a lot of versions that use "Christian"
in place of "Catholic", although "Catholic" here means "universal",
not "subject to Rome".

Keep in mind that this is to define "orthodox" vs "heterodox", not
"Christian".

>>Any definition of "heresy" in the
>>context of Christianity must include the heresies condemned by the
>>early Church councils.
>
>In other words, the Roman Catholic interpretation of
>christianity.

The early councils I am referring to involved the entire Church, both
East and West. That's why I restrict this to those councils, and do
not include parochial ones.

And I was speaking of more general definitions, pointing out that they
must include those of the early councils. Not saying that they have to
do so.

The early Reformers (and their followers for some time thereafter)
were very enthusiastic about condemning others a "heretics" so, no,
this extended use of "heresy" is not specific to Rome. Or even the
West.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"