Famine

[luigi]

17 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

No, that is a gross perversion of both logic and faith and God's word. But you are getting ahead of yourself, luigi.  I asked a single simple, plain question and it wasn't answered. One question. 

 

I try not to accuse anyone of gross perversion of their view and faith in Gods Word, as it could be that the interpretation of the Word the other individual is providing could be correct and from the Holy Spirit. As such any false accusation would be from the devil.

Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

[luigi]

41 minutes ago, Josheb said:

You don't know that. You have no idea what the "world" experienced in totality in ancient times. They only reason you think that way is because we now have global news. Global news does not make glonal reality. AND... you're still falling prey to the practice of measuring scripture by secular media and not the other way around. 

 

We do know that fires on the level that are burning today have not occurred within numerous millennia. The area of Siberian tundra that is burning today is greater than all other fires that are currently burning throughout the world. The tundra that is burning is thousands if not tens of thousands of years old material that is releasing methane into the atmosphere. This is what is called a feedback loop that has environmental scientists so worried. CO2 levels increase the level of heat that causes increasing fires that in turn burns the tundra releasing tremendous amounts the much more potent greenhouse gas methane.

Edited September 7, 2021 by luigi

[luigi]

52 minutes ago, Josheb said:

 

Which is sovereign: scripture or the news media? 

Which is truth: scripture or the news media? 

Which measures which: does scripture measure the news or does the news measure scripture? 

 

These posts have got it backwards! 

Where do the prophesies say "around the world"? 

 

The Lord informs all to watch for the signs indicated in the Olivet discourse. This means everyone (who will listen) around the world are to watch for these end time signs. The way we watch today is primarily through the news media, which provide us news from around the world. What part of Mark 13:37 do you not understand, or believe?

Mark 13:37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

Edited September 7, 2021 by luigi

[Alive]

Large scale fires have always occurred. They are inevitable. Grassland fires are easily sparked by lightning and the nature of winds across such landscapes cause them to move quickly. Forested areas that are matured with little understory growth because they are largely screened by the canopy are also sparked by lightning and burn rapidly with the help of wind and the thermal currents created by the burning.

Both of these are actually healthy. The grasslands grow back immediately and the forest landscape turns to early successional young forest within a mere 5 years and matures fully within 100-150 years.

In both cases, its good for wildlife--especially the forest areas. early successional provides food and protective cover for all species.

These are naturally occurring cycles whether man is present or not.

Without man's mitigating the scope of these fires, they would be far larger.

Always been fires.

 

[teddyv]

4 hours ago, Alive said:

Large scale fires have always occurred. They are inevitable. Grassland fires are easily sparked by lightning and the nature of winds across such landscapes cause them to move quickly. Forested areas that are matured with little understory growth because they are largely screened by the canopy are also sparked by lightning and burn rapidly with the help of wind and the thermal currents created by the burning.

Both of these are actually healthy. The grasslands grow back immediately and the forest landscape turns to early successional young forest within a mere 5 years and matures fully within 100-150 years.

In both cases, its good for wildlife--especially the forest areas. early successional provides food and protective cover for all species.

These are naturally occurring cycles whether man is present or not.

Without man's mitigating the scope of these fires, they would be far larger.

Always been fires.

 

Human mitigation has been a problem. Constantly fighting forest fires has led to heavy fuel loads on the forest floor and hotter fires. Of course, in our province where forestry is the primary resource industry, it is necessary to protect the forests. 

[luigi]

18 hours ago, Josheb said:

luigi, what will you do if these predictions do not happen within the next few years?

If the current environmental catastrophes disappear over the next few years, I will admit my error. 

I can now ask you the same question. What will you do if the current environmental catastrophes do not disappear over the next few years, but instead, as prophesied, augment until destroying 1/3 of earths environmental resources due to the love mankind has for the things his hands produce?

[luigi]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Thank you for that succinct answer. Let me encourage you to be this forthcoming and succinct with all of my future inquiries but also with this same question anytime and every time anyone asks it. Two of the biggest problems with the kind of modern-futurism being asserted by this op and those who've agreed with you is 1) the constant uniform fail-rate of such predictions and 2) the complete utter lack of culpability and accountability for asserting/teaching/arguing the modern-futurist positions that never come true. 

 

So let me move on as promised. Are you aware of the other much more historical, orthodox, and mainstream eschatological positions held by the Church long before modern futurism developed in the 19th century? If you are aware of them, do you have much familiarity with their teachings, their similarities and the areas where they all agree with each other but uniformly and unanimously disagree with modern futurism? 

I know that's a mouthful, so let me break it down. 

• Do you know other eschatological views exist?
• Do you know they ALL precede the modern futurist position implicit in this op?
• How familiar with them are you?
• Are you aware they all agree in some very important ways where modern futurism alone disagrees? 
• Are you aware the modern futurist position implied in this op is a radical departure from long-held and well-established positions in the Church that go all the way straight through the early Church fathers to plain statements made in scripture? 

 

I know that is several questions all at once. Direct and succinct answers to each will be appreciated. If you're not familiar with the other more historical eschatologies I'll list them and outline their basics and you or I can pick an alternative for comparative purposes. 

You did not answer my question; you merely spun it into a diatribe of other peoples perspectives. Here it is again below.

I can now ask you the same question. What will you do if the current environmental catastrophes do not disappear over the next few years, but instead, as prophesied, augment until destroying 1/3 of earths environmental resources due to the love mankind has for the things his hands produce?

[luigi]

51 minutes ago, Josheb said:

My apologies, luigi. I thought the question was rhetorical. The reason I thought the question was rhetorical is because I don't have a problem with things getting bad in the future; there's no incongruity between that prospect and my eschatology. I won't have to change my views or my posts one pixel. I KNOW if things do get bed they will do so by either God's express mandate or consent but they will NOT be a function of the Olivet Discourse. 

I know this because I can read. 

I know this because I do read. 

I have already pointed out two specific matters that preclude your interpretation but because of the lack of engagement on those two matters I had to resort to asking you what would happen when things don't pan out as you predict. To your commendation you possess enough personal integrity to say you'd change your views accordingly. Good! Most posters lack that ability. 

I don't have that problem. ALL the non-futurists are able to avoid that internal conflict. 

And that absence is why I have asked if you have any familiarity with the much more historical perspectives within Christianity. 

You still haven't answered the question. Let me see if I can rephrase it so that you understand the question that you asked me which I answered you, but you can't seem to answer me.

If the current environmental catastrophes that are occurring throughout the world were to continue to increase to the point where one third of earths environmental resources were destroyed as indicated in Revelation 8, would you then admit you were in error? 

[luigi]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

I would not be in error. 

Revelation 8 does not indicate what you think it indicates. Would you like me to explain how and why that is NECESSARILY the case? If you are open to a scriptural explanation how and why Revelation absolutely does NOT say what you've argued I can and will provide that explanation. It's not going to be a matter of interpretation. It's not going to be a matter of pre-existing doctrinal bias. I will only show you scripture and scripture as written without any added embellishment, interpretation of doctrinal biases placed upon it. 

The world could in fact experience a worldwide famine and it would not in any way alter my eschatology. My eschatology has complete integrity with such an occurrence. Most Christians don't have the problem you have, luigi. The world could experience fires and loss of timber and forests  but it would not in any way compromise my eschatology. The view you think it somehow might do so is an indication of your lack of knowledge about my end times views. 

That's okay because I haven't expounded upon my views. 

I did not want to hijack your op . 

 

I wonder why you've shifted away form Matthew 24 and switched to Revelation 8. I am happy to walk with you through the text of either passage BUT you are going to have to pick ONE passage and stick to that one passage without jumping around ad nauseam and never coming to consensus with any of them. In other words, if you're going to discuss these things with me and you want my input then you're going to have do some proper exegesis and maintain an orderly conversation. 

 

The op specifies the Olivet Discourse. That is where the discussion of this op began and I think it should stay there until that passage is thoroughly examined because 1) there are things specifically stated in that passage that preclude the op from being true, 2) it is common practice for modern-futurists to attempt to change topics/passages/onuses when scripture proves their views untenable, and 3) I have already made note of two or three statements in the Olivet Discourse that are not being fully engaged. 

Again I reiterate: It is only because I could not get you to respond to thse scriptures WITHIN MATTHEW 24 that I resorted to asking what you would do if things don't turn out as predicted. 

I am happy to walk through the text of Matthew 24 with you. IF we do so you will discover how and why I can say my views will not be in error if the world suffers catastrophic famine and forest fires. Those won't compromise my end times views one bit. My eschatology can and does accommodate those occurrences AND the absence of those occurrences AND my eschatology has been around a lot longer than yours. 

So you have in fact gotten an answer to your question: the question itself is a red herring because it does not apply to my views. 

 

 

Now, do you want to walk through Matthew 24 (or Revelation) with me or not?

If when the world reaches the levels of environmental catastrophe indicated in Revelation 8 due to the love mankind has for the things his hands make; you then see this as caused by something other than what is clearly specified, you can then likewise make anything that is in the Word to mean anything you want it to mean other than what is clearly indicated. There really is no further discussion necessary at this point of denial.

[luigi]

9 hours ago, Josheb said:

That is self-contradictory. Revelation 8 does not indicate the world in the 21st century will reach levels of environmental catastrophe. I have already explained how and why the text of Revelation precludes that view. There is absolutely NOTHING in Revelation 8 about the 21st century. I don't think this is being thought through very well because since the time when the book of Revelation was written much, much more than a third of the earth's resources have already been destroyed! 

Nope. Not seeing it. As far as I can see in these posts things not stated in the scriptures are being read into them AND you are doing so expressly in a book that explicitly tells us not to do that very thing. 

 

Now, are you ready to move on and answer my earlier inquiries? 

• Do you know other eschatological views exist?
• Do you know they ALL precede the modern futurist position implicit in this op?
• How familiar with them are you?
• Are you aware they all agree in some very important ways where modern futurism alone disagrees? 
• Are you aware the modern futurist position implied in this op is a radical departure from long-held and well-established positions in the Church that go all the way straight through the early Church fathers to plain statements made in scripture? 

Can I get an answer to these questions?

Here is the point Josheb, I believe in the Word to watch for the signs in the Olivet discourse, which also correlate with the environmental plagues in Revelation 8. If I did not believe in watching for these signs for the coming end of this age under Satan, I would then be somewhat complacent like so many here are.

These are the times described as the day of the Lord in which the Lord commences once again to shake the earth, so that those whose faith is feigned (made up) and do not believe in the Word to watch for the signs indicated, will be shaken out as these environmental plagues progressively worsen living conditions throughout the world.

Hebrews 12:26  Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.