Leaderboard

Again, you have simply made a generalized assertion with nothing to support it. If you do like historical evidence and facts then why is it you dislike when I use it? And now you admit you seem to not like history teachers. Why not just cite some historical evidence for your points? So far you have provided none and cannot justify any of your opinions. Since you haven't refuted any of the facts except through broad dismissive generalizations about what you don't like about history, I leave them to stand on their own for all to see. The facts speak for themselves.

I have heard of some of your strange prophecies and reportedly, they have not come true. If I had made a prophecy of serious importance and it did not come true, I don't think I would again prophesy. I am not sure you are one to rebuke. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Deut 18:20-22

To be clear: If my wife knew that a female was hiding under my bed, my wife would chase the female away.

Lets examine a shortened form the historical facts that I listed: Pope Pius VI organised the next coronation of the next pope as temporal sovereign prior to his death. Emperor Napoleon continued to annex papal territory after 1798. Pope Pius VII temporarily abdicated temporal rule over the Papal States in 1813. Almost full restoration of territory of the Papal States was returned to the Papacy in 1814 at the Congress of Vienna. Papal popularity and legitimacy amongst the nobles and population surged as a result of the French Revolution. Which of these historical facts exactly do you charge as being merely opinion, please explain with your justifications for believing this. So far you have effectively said that you simply don't like them, not that they are invalid, since you provide no evidence that there is any reason to don't those facts that I cited, except to make generalizations. Where's your specific evidence? Lets just follow your logic to its natural conclusion. If what you say is true then anyone who possessed their own rich estate would be a temporal sovereign or have temporal power. But that is obviously not true since many people own land and do not claim such power. Secondly, you ignored what I said comprised a sovereign and temporal power, namely, to have (1) centralized governing power with (2) coercive power to enforce its edicts, and (3) the power to extract taxes. All of these presuppose having control over a significantly large population, or else who would they have governing power, coercive power and taxing power over? And obviously, a large population covers a large territory. This is how a state works. I am currently studying a degree module called 'Rise of the Modern State' and all authors state this. It obviously makes sense. Simply having a small plot of land does not make you a temporal power. Please cite me any evidence that you have for this instead of just asserting claims that are evidently false. Lastly, you also ignored what I said regarding the current status of the Vatican, which is no different to when it factually lost temporal power in the form of the Papal States after 1870. It has not expanded. You would do well to read any online encyclopedia or history book from a library or bookstore. Simply repeating what one believes does not make it more true.

It is important to stick to what is being discussed. Again, the fundamental belief claim is that the Papacy lost its supremacy in 1798. That claim is not verified by historical facts. And so are you saying that we should not read history books, encyclopedias, books of facts? If you read each point, I give the point and support it with historical evidence that historians have gathered. Quibbling with it over alleged 'semantics' doesn't do anything to remove the thrust of it. Point 1: This outlines a clear criterion of papal sovereignty, namely temporal power, which was believed by Catholics and the Popes themselves during the period. Fact. Points 2-4: These points outline had the Papacy still retained temporal power, albeit reduced, by the simple historical fact that it was being taken from it piecemeal by Napoleon post-1798. Point 5: This point outlines how the Papacy had almost all territories restored to it at the Congress of Vienna in 1814. All these point prove that 1798 was not a marker for its loss of supremacy. If one does not like that definition, then we can use the criterion of spiritual influence and popularity, hence Point 6, where the Papacy's influence, respectability and adoration during the French Revolution and after it was actually dramatically increased. This is historical fact. None of what you have said deals with these facts. All you have said is effectively you do not like such things like historical facts. But if you don't like historical facts then you've already removed the basis on which you can support your claim, and so it is self-refuting. In other words, if you say you don't like historical facts because they disagree with your belief, then you are effectively saying that there are no historical facts to support your belief. So why believe it? Because it is true? But how do you verify that it is true? Because you believe it on the basis that others claimed it? If what they say is true then surely after one hundred and fifty or so years we would be able to verify it. But we can't. I can't see where this helps your belief. What part of that book do you not like? So are you saying you disagree with it or not? This is a strange position to take, as it would mean that you are defending it whilst disputing it. The evidence used in it is to support the official belief. Without it the official belief has no ground. So are you saying you do not like the evidence that they use in support of the fundamental belief, and therefore aren't you removing the rug that you are standing on? This is simply not following the definition that I outlined in Point 1. This territory has to cover quite an extensive bit of land that has a significant population in which to govern, implied in what I said about 'centralized governing power', and the power to coerce that population with force. Implied in that is the power to extract taxes. This the Papacy did have in the form of the Papal States. This is simply fact. And these Papal States were lost in 1870, as I said, which was acknowledged by both Samuele Bacchiocchi and the SDA Bible Commentary. The Papacy has never regained them. Fact. So what you are saying is that what it presides over now is temporal power. But under what I said comprises temporal power it still at this present time does not fulfill that. Let's look at some more facts to understand this. When the Papacy lost the Papal States and thus temporal power in 1870 every pope from then on up until 1929 restricted themselves to the Vatican. First point: if the Vatican on its own did not demonstrate temporal power post-1870 then how, still having only the Vatican, does that demonstrate its temporal power? Furthermore, in 1929 there was a public debate of what to do with the Papacy known as the 'Lateran Treaties'.[1] It was voted, almost as a token of pity and sympathy, of giving over 'Vatican City' to the Papacy, as opposed to Rome. 'Vatican City' is not a city at all, much less a state, much less territory in which to exert military force to extract taxes. If one surveys a map of the area it is simply a rich estate, and at 0.17 square miles[2] is the equivalent size of an industrial estate.[3] Its population numbers only 800 approximately[4] - this is less than the UK Parliamentary estate, which in 2017 numbered 2297 plus 650 MPs, not including temporary staff and contractors.[5] It has no domestic or foreign trade income as it is a non-commercial economy, and is reliant on charitable contributions as well as stamps, religious literature, mementos and from museum admissions – tourism essentially.[6] It carries out no taxation, and its judiciary only handle religious matters.[7] It has no army, navy or air force – its Swiss Guard, numbering at a meagre 100 members, are merely ceremonial decoration and are only permitted to be armed with harlberds, a spear with a battle axe attached to its spear end.[8] In reality Vatican City operates more like an embassy with unique long-standing religious heritage and authority. It ‘is not a state, nor does it claim to be one’,[9] and in spite of it being granted de jure sovereign status its de facto ‘temporal influence was not necessarily restored’.[10] It certainly is nothing like what it had prior to 1860. So any appeal to its status since 1929 is forlorn. It operates nothing like it did pre-1870 and operates exactly like it did post-1870 when its temporal power was removed. [1] Encyclopedia.com, ‘Vatican,’ Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations, (2018), <https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/christianity/christianity-general/vatican> [accessed 23 December 2018]. [2] Ibid. [3] NovaLoca, <https://www.novaloca.com/commercial-property/industrial%20properties%20in%20Isleworth,%20Greater%20London>. [accessed 23 December 2018]. [4] BBC, Vatican Country Profile, 31 January 2018, <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17994868> [accessed 23 December 2018]. [5] Parliament.uk, Staff Numbers (2017), https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/foi-and-eir/commons-foi-disclosures/human-resources/staff---numbers-2017/> [accessed 23 December 2018]. [6] Encyclopedia.com, ‘Vatican,’ Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations, (2018), <https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/christianity/christianity-general/vatican> [accessed 23 December 2018]. [7] Ibid. [8] Ibid. [9] Samuel W. Bettwy, ‘United States – Vatican Recognition: Background and Issues’, The Catholic Lawyer, vol. 29, No. 3, 1984, p. 225, <https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2193&context=tcl> [accessed 23 December 2018]. [10] Ibid., p. 231.

All the understanding of prophecy in the world will not save you. Who knows prophecy better than Satan and God will take him to ashes. I still say there is something that people are not understanding that we need to know before the return of Jesus and correct interpretation of prophecy is not one of them. "scripture, prayer, faith, and obedience" are going in the right direction. (imho)

All of the quotes you posted below the line above are good advice. That hit me from left field. I've never heard that before. Maybe that's a subject for a different topic.

I'm not gonna disagree with you; but I will say that none of them fit your read of the prophecies in Revelation. Rather than summarily dismiss those other possibilities you mentioned, I'd rather keep them filed away as possibilities, along with Islam. In the end, it probably isn't as important to know this stuff as it is to be ready for Jesus to come through study of scripture, prayer, faith, and obedience. That way, it won't matter how things unfold, we will be ready for the Kingdom.

I think it might be Communist China, maybe it is the globalists, or perhaps the postmodern wannabe Christians! None of the make any since or fit the prophecies of Revelation. I think I will stick the the Roman church model of the interpretations of Revelation's prophecies.

5 Shocking Facts You Didn't Know About Texas On this day in 1845, six months after the Congress of the Republic of Texas voted for annexation by the United States, Texas was admitted into the Union as the 28th state. Here are five shocking facts you didn't know about the state of Texas... Texas' History of Occupation, Independence, and Annexation Influenced the Name of an Amusement Park Texas has been under the Spanish, French and Mexican flags; its own flag; the flag of the Confederate States; and the U.S. flag. Those six flags were the basis for the name of Six Flags, the amusement park company. The original location, Six Flags Over Texas, in Arlington, was a history-based theme park that was meant to be turned into an industrial zone eventually. But the park became so popular that the owner scrapped the industrial plans instead. Texas Was a Pawn in Great Britain's Political Ambitions You'd think the only countries concerned about sparsely populated Texas would be the U.S., Mexico, and the Republic of Texas itself. Not so. Britain took an interest because it did not want the U.S. to expand any further. It's easy to dismiss this as sour grapes over the loss of the colonies in the 1780s, but it wasn't that simple. Britain didn't want the U.S. to become a continent-wide phenomenon that might threaten the British Empire's grip on the world; it could see that if Texas joined the U.S., additional territory would soon follow. It also wanted to set up a profitable trade agreement with Texas, and annexation by the U.S. would have prevented that from happening. And third, while Britain helped negotiate a treaty between Texas and Mexico, it was technically a Mexican ally, and supporting annexation by the U.S. would have offended Mexico. In fact, Britain's interest in Texas was one of the reasons the U.S. finally started moving forward with annexation. Texas Has the Right to Split Into Five States if It Wants One right given to Texas when it joined the U.S. is the ability to split up. It can't leave the U.S. without federal approval, but if the state government and population ever decide to stop worrying about state size and break up into smaller states, they can do so. Other than two attempts in the 20th century to spin the panhandle off into its own state and create a region where parimutuel betting was legal, the state itself has not shown any interest in changing its borders within the U.S. Texas Was Interested in Annexation Early On Despite the constant reminders that Texas used to be its own country, the population at the time actually wasn't that opposed to simply joining another country. Texas seceded from Mexico in 1836 and elected a president, but even at that early stage, people in the state had a positive view of chucking independence for life as a part of the U.S. (Some did not, of course, such as Mirabeau Lamar, who was president from 1838 to 1841; he wanted to develop Texas into a major country.) However, the slavery issue prevented any action toward statehood until 1844, when annexation negotiations began. The Annexation of Texas Was a Key Part of California's History It's no surprise that annexing one territory might lead to annexing another. But in this case, without the annexation of Texas, the western part of the continent could have had a very different fate. Back when Texas joined the U.S., President James Polk decided to send troops to occupy a border zone that technically was still part of Mexico. This was too much for Mexico, which had lost control of Texas a few years before and was threatening war if Texas gave up its independence to join the U.S. When Texas went ahead and joined anyway, Mexico began promoting border raids and attacks in the occupied zone, one of which set off the Mexican-American War. This war ended with the Treaty of Hidalgo, which ceded vast swathes of territory, including California, to the U.S. Here's the key part: Gold was discovered in California territory only a few days before the land transfers in the treaty took effect—the Mexican government didn't know about the gold at that point. This meant that as a result of Texas joining the U.S., the U.S. got its hands on prolific sources of gold, people streamed into California, and the region became a state more quickly than any other state.

HCH: Please note that we have restricted certain of your posts to another section of this forum. That restriction still applies. Please keep this in mind.

Yes, and we allow you to post along with the wheat in this forum.

If two SDA members who are on opposing sides of these [in my opinion] ridiculous denominational battles, and demonize each other for their heartfelt beliefs, and one found out that s/he could save the life of his/her opponent with, say, a bone marrow transplant, do you suppose the person would do so? Or do you think s/he would thumb his/her nose, and say "good riddance" (because that would be one less opponent, you know)? It's like we've got the Adventist version of the Civil War going on. With no Abraham Lincoln...and it seems like we're in the midst of the hornet's nest of the Battle of the Adventist Shiloh. In all this bickering, don't people realize that they're participating in the denunciation and annihilation of their own friends and families? Shameful. Makes me sick.

if someone thinks Christmas (Christ's Mass) is pagan and refuses to celebrate the holiday for that reason, that's okay. But the truth is, most pagans (and I'm thinking of the witches and other neopagans, along with Druidic and Celtic factions, rather than centuries old-established non-christian religions) aren't particularly impressed with Christmas. The day has no relevance in their sacred calendar (and never has), contrary to what many Christian writers have tried to espouse. The Winter Solstice (Yule) was the important day... and it's *never* on Dec 25th. So many Christians get so worked up and fearful of "touching" anything that could possibly be conceived as "pagan" — and end up sounding the false alarm. Let's be thankful for a day when most of the Christian world remembers the Christ Child's birth, and stops for a bit to think good thoughts. But as I wrote first, if someone doesn't want to celebrate Christmas, fine. But don't steal the joy from others who truly get a blessing from the day...

In view of Stinsonmarri's post, I feel a need to clearly say that in no way did I intend to imply that she was a Jesuit hiding under my bed. As a matter of fact, I am confused as to how either she or any other person could think that I might have implied that she was a Jesuit. To set put this in context, for any who do not know: Jesuits are all male. There is no such thing as a Jesuit female. My understanding is that Stinsonmarri is a female. I would never imply otherwise. Further, I would never consider Stinsonmarri to have any desire to hide under my bed.