Comparing Russia vs Ukraine to other countries

Post Reply New Topic

Thats not the definition of globalism though. "Globalism" comes from the word "global". So if I just look at it naively, I don't see a connection between being "global" vs making treaties: an empire can be global too.

Perhaps there is less direct connection. In particular, you need a "global" judge (such as UN) to conduct such treaties. Well, in this case, the presence of the UN is a possible threat to Christianity since some believe antichrist would come from UN.

Now I am not saying thats where antichrist would come. He might come from US, too. But the point is that antichrist will come from some global power, since his own power will be global. Thats why a global power (whether it be UN or US) is not a good thing.

By the way, US forefathers had one of their tenets as "no foreign entanglements", so I have nothing against the US that they envisioned. Unfortunately today US isn't that way.

Pope is only an authority for Catholics. Protestants, on the other hand, are opposed to him. And in fact a lot of Protestants think Pope is the antichrist. Well Chrisitans in Russia are Orthodox. As such, they don't believe in Pope either (they have Archbishop instead), yet they aren't villifying him the way Protestants do. I am yet to see an Orthodox ever saying Pope is the antichrist. That is a Protestant idea. Well I happened to be a Protestant; even though in Russia Protestants are very small minority I came to Christ in the US (I was raised Jewish) that is why. I don't think Pope will be the antichrist though.

In any case I realize it is kind of a tangent. Just felt a need to correct it. Because if we talk about Christianity its best to at least have some basics right.



If you read Revelation 13, it says "all the world follows after the beast" which implies that said "beast" is a global government. The idea of introducing beast with the government is in Daniel, and then Revelations says this government is global. And then towards the end of Revelation 13 it talks about the beast introducing a mark (so we understand it as a global government introducing said mark) and in Revelation 14 it says that everyone who takes that mark are going to hell.



By opposing the west, yes, because west renounced Christian values (such as marriage between one man and one woman) while Russia still upholds them.

As far as killing innocent people, no. I think they are wrong in killing innocent people. But that doesn't logically imply the war itself is wrong, it just means the way they carry it out is wrong.

Googling "dictionary globalism" yielded the following first result:

globalism

glō′bə-lĭz″əm

noun

1. A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence.

2. The development of social, cultural, technological, or economic networks that transcend national boundaries; globalization.

3. An ideology based on the belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered.

I think the discussion might go better if we did not make up our own definitions.

No worries QFT, as long as North Korea stays the way it is, nothing will truly be global, so the dynasty of the Kims shall protect you from the Beast.

^^ I mean mostly the definitions 2 and 3 but 1 also partially fits:
Instead of conquering vast empires, in global world, states establish treaties allowing them to share resources and markets from all over the world.
Fair, unfair, partially fair, it's definitely better than the previous era of empires conquering territories for resources and launching total wars over them.

If QFT keeps claiming that wars over spheres of influence are better than establishing a global network because Christianity, then I think he didn't really read the Gospel and its moral teachings.

It would not surprise me at, since many Evangelical or Fundamental "Christians" who claim to know what Jesus said cannot even quote a single Beatitude without googling for it first.

I can: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"

This idea comes from Revelation rather than Gospels.

I would have a problem with 1. On the other hand 3 seems fine. As far as 2, it depends on what kind of networks, they can be good ones or bad ones.

I guess Christians probably also mean 1 when they criticize globalization. I mean, they don't have a problem making missionary trips, which is what 3 is all about.

Revelation is written in very indirect language of symbols, so one can interpret it in multiple, often contradicting ways.

Do you actually believe it says that starting wars is better than establishing a global network of trade?

Revelation speaks of wars in a bad light. But then also Daniel says that antichrist will "by peace kill many". So its like wars are bad and the solutions to wars, peace, is also bad. Kind of like good cop/ bad cop strategy. Wars play a role of "bad cope" then antichrist would play a role of "good cop". Yet that won't justify wars either. So wars are bad but the alternative is even worse.

I understand you wish to be invaded.

PS - can you give me the adress to the relevant Daniel verse? I'm trying to find it in the context and I don't see anything like that.

If secessionists wish to be taken seriously, they need to start winning elections. Get a secessionist elected governor, and a majority of secessionists in the legislatures. Legislate for a referendum on secession, and win it. A few random nutjobs isn't enough, prove that it is the will of the people through democratic means.

As for the Antichrist, I don't think that's anything for sane people to worry about. Even most Christians seem to acknowledge that Revelations is at best deeply weird, and most likely nothing more than the ravings of a lunatic. Certainly very few believe that free trade, free movement and good international relations will result in the coming of the Antichrist, or that there's any good reason to be opposed to microchipping. People are sovereign over their own bodies, but we shouldn't bend public policy to appease fringe minorities.

Thats not true. Most Christians won't call any book of the Bible that way.

Now, yes, there are Christians that say that Revelation is symbolic and hard to interpret. And there are also preterists who say that it refers to 1-st century and not now. But thats different. I don't think any Christian would refer to Apostle John as a lunatic.

I never said I wanted to be invaded



Daniel chapter 7

Then why do you advocate for this fate for others?

I read it and I didn't find it there.