Mark of the Beast - the core issue is Religious Liberty

[Gary K]

I understand worshipping the image of the beast is a sin. I fail to see the love your neighbor context.

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

To love your neighbor as yourself is to keep the law of God. So, to not love your neighbor is to not worship God.

 

[Mugen]

To love your neighbor as yourself is to keep the law of God. So, to not love your neighbor is to not worship God.

yes, but what bearing does it have on the mark of the beast?

 

[BobRyan]

I understand worshipping the image of the beast is a sin. I fail to see the love your neighbor context.

How does this not directly address it?

Well Rev 13 reveals the 2nd beast placing a burden on Christians that cannot be justified. It is obviously a violation of a number of commandments to

• worship the beast,
  
• worship the image
  
• and denying the right to religious liberty is also a violation of the Lev 19:18 commandment to love others

As noted in my post "sin is transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4 even in the NT. So John is helping the reader see that the problem is not in check mark or chip or credit card "technology". The issue is sin which is still defined as violation of the law of God.

 

[Mugen]

How does this not directly address it?

how does it? thats why I asked you to elaborate.

I don't see the relevance at all. people chose to worship the image. wether they keep loving their neighbor or not doesnt seem to have any bearing on their salvation at all as they were not included in the book of life.

 

[BobRyan]

how does it? thats why I asked you to elaborate.

I don't see the relevance at all.

1. Rev 13 points to a sin problem involving severe infringement of religious liberty - obviously
2. Sin is defined as transgression of the Law 1 John3:4
3. The fact that denying religious liberty to someone is not a form of "loving your neighbor as yourself" -- is not even debatable that I have seen so far.

So where is there something to elaborate on??

 

[Mugen]

1. Rev 13 points to a sin problem involving severe infringement of religious liberty - obviously
2. Sin is defined as transgression of the Law 1 John3:4
3. The fact that denying religious liberty to someone is not a form of "loving your neighbor as yourself" -- is not even debatable that I have seen so far.

So where is there something to elaborate on??

so you are saying, if the beast denies religious liberty to someone IT (the beast) commits a sin? as in it (the beast) doesnt love their neighbors?
for real?

 

[Freth]

so you are saying, if the beast denies religious liberty to someone IT (the beast) commits a sin? as in it (the beast) doesnt love their neighbors?
for real?

The beast is in direct opposition to God.

• Revelation 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Everything the beast does is at the behest of the dragon (Satan), who gives the beast its power and authority.

• Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

The second beast exercises the power of the first.

• Revelation 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

The second beast restricts buying and selling, and threatens death for not worshiping the image of the beast.

• Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
• Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Conclusion:

• Sin is most definitely involved here.
• Liberty of conscience is taken away.
• Commandment-keeping Christians are persecuted for obeying God and not man.

 

[Mugen]

The beast is in direct opposition to God.

• Revelation 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Everything the beast does is at the behest of the dragon (Satan), who gives the beast its power and authority.

• Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

The second beast exercises the power of the first.

• Revelation 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

The second beast restricts buying and selling, and threatens death for not worshiping the image of the beast.

• Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
• Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Conclusion:

• Sin is most definitely involved here.
• Liberty of conscience is taken away.
• Commandment-keeping Christians are persecuted for obeying God and not man.

yes, but how is loving your neighbor important in the context.
ngl - its totally confusing

 

[Gary K]

how does it? thats why I asked you to elaborate.

I don't see the relevance at all. people chose to worship the image. wether they keep loving their neighbor or not doesnt seem to have any bearing on their salvation at all as they were not included in the book of life.

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Do you believe someone who doesn't love God with all their heart, soul, and mind actually loves their fellow man like Jesus did? Remember, Jesus lived His entire life here on earth without a single sin. That means He loved His fellow man the way the law requires.

Loving our fellow man is only possible if our hearts are 100% dedicated to loving God the way keeping the law requires of us. Notice the distinction made between those who keep the commandments and have the same faith Jesus did here on earth, and those who do not. Who do you think the spiritual power is behind the beast? God or the devil?

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Matthew 6:24 ¶No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

 

[Mugen]

Do you believe someone who doesn't love God with all their heart, soul, and mind actually loves their fellow man like Jesus did? Remember, Jesus lived His entire life here on earth without a single sin. That means He loved His fellow man the way the law requires.

Loving our fellow man is only possible if our hearts are 100% dedicated to loving God the way keeping the law requires of us. Notice the distinction made between those who keep the commandments and have the same faith Jesus did here on earth, and those who do not. Who do you think the spiritual power is behind the beast? God or the devil?

I a merely asking how it is relevant in the context of the mark of the beast. so far no one has provided an answer.

 

[BobRyan]

how does it? thats why I asked you to elaborate.

I don't see the relevance at all.

1. Rev 13 points to a sin problem involving severe infringement of religious liberty in its description of the beast, image to the beast, mark of the beast - obviously
2. Sin is defined as transgression of the Law 1 John3:4
3. The fact that denying religious liberty to someone is not a form of "loving your neighbor as yourself" -- is not even debatable that I have seen so far.

So where is there something to elaborate on??

so you are saying, if the beast denies religious liberty to someone IT (the beast) commits a sin? as in it (the beast) doesnt love their neighbors?
for real?

I am saying that it is incredibly obvious that denying religious liberty to someone is not a form of "loving your neighbor as yourself" rather it violates it -- AND is not even debatable that I have seen so far.

So far you have made no case in favor of this not breaking that commandment. You seem to be focused on "why notice that detail?". Don't you have to make some case for an alternative if that is your point?j

I give three irrefutable points above -- which you also do not refute -- you just keeping asking why we would want "to notice" them.

 

[Mugen]

1. Rev 13 points to a sin problem involving severe infringement of religious liberty - obviously
2. Sin is defined as transgression of the Law 1 John3:4
3. The fact that denying religious liberty to someone is not a form of "loving your neighbor as yourself" -- is not even debatable that I have seen so far.

So where is there something to elaborate on??



I am saying that it is incredibly obvious that denying religious liberty to someone is not a form of "loving your neighbor as yourself" rather it violates it -- AND is not even debatable that I have seen so far.

So far you have made no case in favor of this not breaking that commandment. You seem to be focused on "why notice that detail?". Don't you have to make some case for an alternative if that is your point?j

I give three irrefutable points above -- which you also do not refute -- you just keeping asking why we would want "to notice" them.

are you guys making this all up? xD

what are you even talking about?

all you do is throw around some concepts which don't make any sense in the context of the mark of the beast.

lets take 3rd point

The fact that denying religious liberty to someone is not a form of "loving your neighbor as yourself" -- is not even debatable that I have seen so far.

what are you even trying to say here?

denying religious liberty is not a form of love. yes! I agree. but how is it relevant in the context of the mark of the beast? so the beast is denying liberty, does that mean it doesn't love those (neighbors) he denies to have religious liberty? Bob! its the beast who is denying it, it doesn't affect those who don't take the mark of the beast!

 

[Gary K]

I a merely asking how it is relevant in the context of the mark of the beast. so far no one has provided an answer.

Baloney. I answered your questions but you have ignored the answers.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

[Mugen]

Baloney. I answered your questions but you have ignored the answers.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

my point still stands

 

[Gary K]

my point still stands

When you don't acknowledge the totality of my answers to you you have no point. You're simply creating a red herring. Your objection is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

When you decide to be honest I will continue this conversation. Until then? So long.

 

[Mugen]

When you don't acknowledge the totality of my answers to you you have no point. You're simply creating a red herring. Your objection is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

When you decide to be honest I will continue this conversation. Until then? So long.

as I said before 'loving your neighbor' doesn't have any bearing on the mark of the beast. the mark of the beast is the end-game. if you take it you are lost, aren't you? the term religious liberty is also not very ideal in this context.
in case you are still keen on upholding your position, please provide an example of how
a) loving your neighbor has any bearing on the salvation of a person who has received the mark of the beast
b) loving your neighbor cannot be practiced by a person who hasn't received the mark of the beast

 

[BobRyan]

as I said before 'loving your neighbor' doesn't have any bearing on the mark of the beast.

It is a violation of that commandment -- to make laws stating that people no longer have the religious liberty freedom-of-conscience to worship God as He instructs them. (Christ in Matt 22 and Paul in Rom 13 make the case that ALL sin against a fellow human falls under that one category). You are not making any case to show this particular point is not true. Shouldn't you at least make a case for that if this is your point?

please provide an example of how
a) loving your neighbor has any bearing on the salvation of a person who has received the mark of the beast
b) loving your neighbor cannot be practiced by a person who hasn't received the mark of the beast

(Christ in Matt 22 and Paul in Rom 13 make the case that ALL sin against a fellow human falls under that one category).

Laws that restrict religious liberty are all violating that commandment -- by definition.

In Rev 13 people are forced at the risk of death, or at the risk of no access to commerce or both if they fail to comply.

 

[BobRyan]

how does it? thats why I asked you to elaborate.

I don't see the relevance at all.

1. Rev 13 points to a sin problem involving severe infringement of religious liberty in its description of the beast, image to the beast, mark of the beast - obviously
2. Sin is defined as transgression of the Law 1 John3:4
3. The fact that denying religious liberty to someone is not a form of "loving your neighbor as yourself" -- is not even debatable that I have seen so far.

So where is there something to elaborate on??

are you guys making this all up? xD

what are you even talking about?

all you do is throw around some concepts which don't make any sense in the context of the mark of the beast.

Give some sort of proof of your suggestion.

lets take 3rd point

The fact that denying religious liberty to someone is not a form of "loving your neighbor as yourself" -- is not even debatable that I have seen so far.

what are you even trying to say here?

That is not an argument/a-proof ... you are just asking "what do you mean"???

denying religious liberty is not a form of love. yes! I agree.

It appears you shot your own argument in the foot just then.

so the beast is denying liberty, does that mean it doesn't love those (neighbors) he denies to have religious liberty?

Sure! violations all around. How is that helping your suggestion??

it doesn't affect those who don't take the mark of the beast!

True as in the case of all commands to violate God's Law - not complying with them is not a violation of God's law. How is that helping your suggestion?? Isn't that just making my case?

One could argue that the mark of the beast will also violate other commandments - but at the very least it gets this one.

 

[Mugen]

1. Rev 13 points to a sin problem involving severe infringement of religious liberty in its description of the beast, image to the beast, mark of the beast - obviously
2. Sin is defined as transgression of the Law 1 John3:4
3. The fact that denying religious liberty to someone is not a form of "loving your neighbor as yourself" -- is not even debatable that I have seen so far.

So where is there something to elaborate on??


Give some sort of proof of your suggestion.



That is not an argument/a-proof ... you are just asking "what do you mean"???



It appears you shot your own argument in the foot just then.




Sure! violations all around. How is that helping your suggestion??




True as in the case of all commands to violate God's Law - not complying with them is not a violation of God's law. How is that helping your suggestion?? Isn't that just making my case?

One could argue that the mark of the beast will also violate other commandments - but at the very least it gets this one.

I think we might not be able to find commonground on this one.
in fact we may both have a totally different approach to things.
if you say the mark of the beast will introduce a law which will violate a commandment (in this case 'love your neighbor/religious liberty), I still don't get the point of it (never tried to make a case or anything).
it seems as if you are trying to proof the mark of the beast is a bad thing and use a connection between rel. liberty/love yout neighbor to do so.
the thing is, neither I nor prolly anyone else ever considered the mark or the beast a good thing.
if some greater power restricts rel. liberty than I cant do much about it, can I? and if that rel. liberty restriction which THEY impose comes at a price of sin (love your neighbor) then its a) on them and b) who cares about the beast - that entity isnt interested in a life free of sin nor does it want to facilitate a sinfree life for anyone else. tbt - I have never come across the subject from this perspective, where someone was pointing out sinful behavior on the side of the beast. isnt the devil the father of all lies and the orriginator of sin?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I think we might not be able to find commonground on this one.
in fact we may both have a totally different approach to things.
if you say the mark of the beast will introduce a law which will violate a commandment (in this case 'love your neighbor/religious liberty), I still don't get the point of it (never tried to make a case or anything).
it seems as if you are trying to proof the mark of the beast is a bad thing and use a connection between rel. liberty/love yout neighbor to do so.
the thing is, neither I nor prolly anyone else ever considered the mark or the beast a good thing.
if some greater power restricts rel. liberty than I cant do much about it, can I? and if that rel. liberty restriction which THEY impose comes at a price of sin (love your neighbor) then its a) on them and b) who cares about the beast - that entity isnt interested in a life free of sin nor does it want to facilitate a sinfree life for anyone else. tbt - I have never come across the subject from this perspective, where someone was pointing out sinful behavior on the side of the beast. isnt the devil the father of all lies and the orriginator of sin?

Hi Mugen nice to meet you. Well I am only someone different but I am trying to understand your argument or the question your asking only if it might be helpful. Can you explain your argument to me to save some time? Are you saying that if the mark of the beast does not effect loving your neighbor as yourself then no one will receive the mark of the beast? Genuine question I do not what to have a misunderstanding of what your saying before I respond so I thought I would ask you for clarification first. Nice to meet you once more.

God bless