Mark of the Beast - the core issue is Religious Liberty

[Benjamin Müller]

tbh, if you had read my point carefully you would have realized I didn't argue which is the day of worship. I merely pointed out that it can be just another tradition. your heart can still be far away from God.

I know you're directing that at the other poster, but I understood what you meant.

To the other poster. He meant one can be a Jew and keep the Sabbath and do it only from tradition without being a zealous worshiper and, though it's the right day, it means nothing to God because their heart isn't in it. They're just going through the mundane, weekly motions. The day is important, but one's attitude towards the day makes a difference.

 

[Gary K]

tbh, if you had read my point carefully you would have realized I didn't argue which is the day of worship. I merely pointed out that it can be just another tradition. your heart can still be far away from God.

It's true that anyone's heart can be dedicated to anything/anyone but God. But not if we actually believe the Bible as the Bible tells us that worshiping God on the Sabbath is an acknowledgement that we understand that our righteousness comes from God, not ourselves.

Exodus 31:12 ¶And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.
14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Why was breaking the Sabbath punished by death? Because it was the rejection of God as the heart and soul of spirituality.

1Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

 

[SabbathBlessings]

tbh, if you had read my point carefully you would have realized I didn't argue which is the day of worship. I merely pointed out that it can be just another tradition. your heart can still be far away from God.

Thats true, that could be with anything, but not a good excuse to disobey God. Only God can judge the reasons why one obeys Him or chooses not to. My hope and prayer for all of us is that we obey Him in truth and spirit, and we obey because we have a changed heart from the inside out and we obey because this IS the love of God that we keep His commandments. 1 John 5:3.

 

[BobRyan]

For what its worth, religious liberty doesn't mean you can choose what is right or wrong.
It is about your freedom to follow any kind of religious belief without fear of persecution.

The obey/not obey scenario only works if there is just one big church entity which pretty much applies to everyone and is inherently right in what it does.

No surpise we got countless christian groups,churches, etc. which differ in A LOT of ways. It is your freedom to choose one of them or none.

agreed.

As for the mark of the beast being the day of worship, thats a pretty big problem. If people say sunday worship is the mark of the beast, then its been around for quite a while.

agreed. There would need to be a lot more to it - to have this be some new event at the end of time.

The idea it will become the mark once a law is passed and people are going to get killed if they don't, well, tbh, it sounds pretty a bit far-fetched.

• rain was far-fetched in Noah's day. Only eight people were still buying it at the very end.
  
• Virgin birth was far-fetched in Christ's day many people did not buy it.
• The idea that the Messiah was supposed to be killed - seemed like a far-fetched idea to Jewish scholars of Paul's day.

The idea that everyone should be able to choose Tuesday, or Sunday or Saturday as the Sabbath dedicated to God without government intrusion is not "as far-fetched" as some might suppose. (You might agree with me on this point). Your statement that governments would never get into any sort of censorship like that - does not survive a close review of the dark ages and the rules in American Colonies back in "the day".

Still - I am not saying you are wrong to say it is wayy outside of the normal expected state of things to suppose such a thing happens in the future.

 

[BobRyan]

I know you're directing that at the other poster, but I understood what you meant.

To the other poster. He meant one can be a Jew and keep the Sabbath and do it only from tradition without being a zealous worshiper and, though it's the right day, it means nothing to God because their heart isn't in it. They're just going through the mundane, weekly motions. The day is important, but one's attitude towards the day makes a difference.

Agreed. An atheist can choose to "not take God's name in vain" but that does not make him a Christian.

 

[Mugen]

agreed.



agreed. There would need to be a lot more to it - to have this be some new event at the end of time.

• rain was far-fetched in Noah's day. Only eight people were still buying it at the very end.
  
• Virgin birth was far-fetched in Christ's day many people did not buy it.
• The idea that the Messiah was supposed to be killed - seemed like a far-fetched idea to Jewish scholars of Paul's day.

The idea that everyone should be able to choose Tuesday, or Sunday or Saturday as the Sabbath dedicated to God without government intrusion is not "as far-fetched" as some might suppose. (You might agree with me on this point). Your statement that governments would never get into any sort of censorship like that - does not survive a close review of the dark ages and the rules in American Colonies back in "the day".

Still - I am not saying you are wrong to say it is wayy outside of the normal expected state of things to suppose such a thing happens in the future.

ngl, rain? virgin birth? what kind of arguments are these?
so I might as well as come up with aliens and if somebody says its far-fetched I counter with rain, lol. - just a side note

I don't doubt governments can kill people!

my point is, people have been worshipping on sundays for ages. i am no historian but I would suppose there were times in medieval history where very few or no christians at all were worshipping on Saturday. a common practice, done by many over centuries suddenly becomes the mark of the beast? it was ok for 2000 years but suddenly its not?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

ngl, rain? virgin birth? what kind of arguments are these?
so I might as well as come up with aliens and if somebody says its far-fetched I counter with rain, lol. - just a side note

I don't doubt governments can kill people!

my point is, people have been worshipping on sundays for ages. i am no historian but I would suppose there were times in medieval history where very few or no christians at all were worshipping on Saturday. a common practice, done by many over centuries suddenly becomes the mark of the beast? it was ok for 2000 years but suddenly its not?

People have been sinning right after the beginning and Jesus is allowing each of us to make up our minds- do we follow God or follow man. There has always been a remnant of believers who kept the commandments of God including the Sabbath. There will be a remnant until the very end, but unfortunately it is only remnant according to scriptures. The invitation to the narrow path is open to everyone though!

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

God bless!

 

[BobRyan]

ngl, rain? virgin birth? what kind of arguments are these?

I am pointing out the in the Bible we have a lot of history of having to deliver "news" that was out of what is normally expected for future events and even for past events. Examples
1. world wide flood coming in Noah's day
2. Virgin birth of Christ
3. Bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ
4. Predicting that the messiah was to be killed (as in Matt 16)

so I might as well as come up with aliens and if somebody says its far-fetched I counter with rain

If the Bible opens the door for future events to be "A", or "B", or "C" and you say - fine well then
"in the future I think "C" will happen though it is far-fetched (Pilots snatched out of airplanes during the rapture for example) -

Just because someone else says "that is far-fetched" -- which of course it is wayyy outside of expected normal events in the future - does not end the possibility of it being correct.

I don't doubt governments can kill people!

Nor do I... but have them killed for playing checkers? I would suspect they would not. However it is pretty hard to deny that in Rev 13 some sort of very bad violation of religious liberty is being legislated/dictated)

my point is, people have been worshipping on sundays for ages.... a common practice, done by many over centuries suddenly becomes the mark of the beast? it was ok for 2000 years but suddenly its not?

The OP does not say worship service on Sunday is the mark of the beast.

It says that in the future having government forbid religious liberty so that individuals may not select Sunday, or Saturday or Tuesday etc as their conscience dictates -- is the problem being addressed.

And I have stated that point several times especially on this thread .

i am no historian but I would suppose there were times in medieval history where very few or no christians at all were worshipping on Saturday.

Most Bible Sabbath keeping groups would assert that in all of history there were "some" who kept to the "seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH)" as we see in Ex 20:10

Those same groups would claim that Paul provided gospel preaching to both gentiles and Jews "every Sabbath" Acts 18:4 without any indication that once a gentile converted they switched to "every week-day-1" in Acts 18. In fact in Acts 13 it is gentiles not Jews asking for more gospel preaching "next Sabbath"

So it is understandable that Sabbath keeping groups would view this as a NT practice "every Sabbath".

 

[Gary K]

@Gary K

I was talking about cancel culture, not religious liberty in my post. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. What I was discussing is that American culture is more religious than, for example, Canada. Puritanism left an indelible mark on our country and because Puritanism is rooted in Christianity, our roots are in Christianity.

I will agree, however, than the ideals of the Pilgrims may be a better example than Puritanism as they also founded this nation on the basis of religious freedom and Christianity.

My post was comparing this country being founded as a Christian nation and now our leaders are trying to demonize the colonizers; demonize white Anglo-saxons and 'cancel culture'. The ultimate goal is to cancel Christianity.

When the Beast Power comes on to the scene, he will be a nationalist and he will be religious. He will be about restoring Christianity as part of European culture. Because when was Europe great? When *everyone* was unified by the Catholic Church. When was America great? When we were all unified as a Christian country.

And just like cancel culture being about canceling Christianity while using racism as the front-man; the Beast Power will persecute Sabbath keepers for keeping the Sabbath, but use tax-evasion as the front excuse. (Maybe it won't be tax evasion, but the persecution of Sabbath-keeping Christians will be for some other stated reason than the actual reason)

I'm not a very articulate person and have a problem with rambling at times, but I hope that clarifies what I meant in my previous post.

*everyone*, meaning those willing to conform to the Catholic church.

Apparently you have never read the Constitution as it refutes your entire premise of the influence of the Puritans on the foundations of the US. The founding fathers completely rejected Puritan influence and values.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Mugen]

I am pointing out the in the Bible we have a lot of history of having to deliver "news" that was out of what is normally expected for future events and even for past events. Examples
1. world wide flood coming in Noah's day
2. Virgin birth of Christ
3. Bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ
4. Predicting that the messiah was to be killed (as in Matt 16)



If the Bible opens the door for future events to be "A", or "B", or "C" and you say - fine well then
"in the future I think "C" will happen though it is far-fetched (Pilots snatched out of airplanes during the rapture for example) -

Just because someone else says "that is far-fetched" -- which of course it is wayyy outside of expected normal events in the future - does not end the possibility of it being correct.



Nor do I... but have them killed for playing checkers? I would suspect they would not. However it is pretty hard to deny that in Rev 13 some sort of very bad violation of religious liberty is being legislated/dictated)



The OP does not say worship service on Sunday is the mark of the beast.

It says that in the future having government forbid religious liberty so that individuals may not select Sunday, or Saturday or Tuesday etc as their conscience dictates -- is the problem being addressed.

And I have stated that point several times especially on this thread .



Most Bible Sabbath keeping groups would assert that in all of history there were "some" who kept to the "seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH)" as we see in Ex 20:10

Those same groups would claim that Paul provided gospel preaching to both gentiles and Jews "every Sabbath" Acts 18:4 without any indication that once a gentile converted they switched to "every week-day-1" in Acts 18. In fact in Acts 13 it is gentiles not Jews asking for more gospel preaching "next Sabbath"

So it is understandable that Sabbath keeping groups would view this as a NT practice "every Sabbath".

just to make sure: the mark of the beast proper will be the lack of religious liberty?

to further clarify...

the image of the beast is being worshipped according to revelation
is it a christian image? i mean, is the religion of the beast still a christian religion and all non-christians will have to become christians?

 

[BobRyan]

just to make sure: the mark of the beast proper will be the lack of religious liberty?

1. It will be some form of denial of religious liberty to at least some Christians -- that is clear as we see in the coercive actions it takes in Rev 13

2. - and specifically I think it comes in some form of denying some Christians the religious liberty to have their day of worship. whether that be Tuesday or Sunday or Saturday. Which is not a government action that anyone on CF has risen in defense of (as if it would be a "good thing" to deny such rights).

3. I predict they will specifically deny the right to have that day be Saturday based on a few hints in Rev 13 and 14.

is the religion of the beast still a christian religion and all non-christians will have to become christians?

I suspect it is likely to be pan-religious. It will incorporate all religions in some way since the "whole world" buys into it. One thing is for sure from Rev 13 and 2Thess 2 -- the event will include at some point a singular being "whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and false signs and wonders" 2Thess 2:9 and will accommodate all major religions in some way since the whole world buys into it.

 

[Mugen]

1. It will be some form of denial of religious liberty to at least some Christians -- that is clear as we see in the coercive actions it takes in Rev 13

2. - and specifically I think it comes in some form of denying some Christians the religious liberty to have their day of worship. whether that be Tuesday or Sunday or Saturday. Which is not a government action that anyone on CF has risen in defense of (as if it would be a "good thing" to deny such rights).

3. I predict they will specifically deny the right to have that day be Saturday based on a few hints in Rev 13 and 14.



I suspect it is likely to be pan-religious. It will incorporate all religions in some way since the "whole world" buys into it. One thing is for sure from Rev 13 and 2Thess 2 -- the event will include at some point a singular being "whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and false signs and wonders" 2Thess 2:9 and will accommodate all major religions in some way since the whole world buys into it.

ahh... I see...
thats what I suggested earlier...
so it isn't gonna be sunday/saturday after all but 'remaining' christian or joining the chimera with sunday worship just being a part of the new religion.
(ofc I understand none of us can know for sure whats it gonna be and we are all just speculating).

 

[BobRyan]

ahh... I see...
thats what I suggested earlier...
so it isn't gonna be sunday/saturday after all but 'remaining' christian or joining the chimera with sunday worship just being a part of the new religion.
(ofc I understand none of us can know for sure whats it gonna be and we are all just speculating).

It is specifically denying religious liberty as I stated before. There are tons of ways false teaching is promoted and even Hindus find a place to include Christ as do Muslims. But they are not on a world wide basis forbidding Christians to worship on Tuesday or Sunday or Saturday. Something new is coming as Rev 13 points out.

 

[Mugen]

It is specifically denying religious liberty as I stated before. There are tons of ways false teaching is promoted and even Hindus find a place to include Christ as do Muslims. But they are not on a world wide basis forbidding Christians to worship on Tuesday or Sunday or Saturday. Something new is coming as Rev 13 points out.

i was just a bit confused as the lack 'religious liberty' seems to be more of a consequence of the new order. rev 13 says, pretty much everone has to worship the image of the beast, and the mark seems to me more like an identifying mark, enabling people to carry on with their privileged life, aka buy and sell. why you would call the mark 'denying religious liberty' still isn't fully clear to me.

 

[BobRyan]

i was just a bit confused as the lack 'religious liberty' seems to be more of a consequence of the new order. rev 13 says, pretty much everone has to worship the image of the beast, and the mark seems to me more like an identifying mark, enabling people to carry on with their privileged life, aka buy and sell. why you would call the mark 'denying religious liberty' still isn't fully clear to me.

I agree that the mark is a tool like a check-box on a form, signing a contract after agreeing to something. The clerk in a store will not ask if you are complying with government orders to worship beast or image -- they will want to see that bank account or credit card is still valid and having some "other card" or "passport" to prove it - could be the technology used.

You say "why you would call the mark 'denying religious liberty' still isn't fully clear to me" yet John makes it very clear that failure to worship the beast and his image - is death. Even in the most casual skimming of such a statement one would notice that Christians would be denied religious liberty (in at least some fashion) if put under such a law by government. How is that not apparent?

But in Rev 13 and 14 the problem is not the technology used to implement - but rather the compliance of the individual - agreeing with something God condemns - an agreement/compliance that must be given in order to gain approval to buy or sell.

However God is the one choosing the terms "mark of the beast", "number of his name", "name of the beast" to reference the agreement.

People will not go around with the words "beast name" or "beast number" written on their hand or forehead. God is trying to give the reader a clue about the sin that one has to agree to... and it involves denying religious liberty to others.

Any act related to worshipping an image is condemned in the first part of the Ten Commandments.
1 John 3:4 says "sin is transgression of the Law" of God by its very definition.

In Rev 14:12 the opposite of complying with the mark of the beast program is "keep the Commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus".

One of the commandments is to "Love your neighbor as yourself" which means denying religious liberty to them - is not complying with that command.

 

[Mugen]

I agree that the mark is a tool like a check-box on a form, signing a contract after agreeing to something. The clerk in a store will not ask if you are complying with government orders to worship beast or image -- they will want to see that bank account or credit card is still valid and having some "other card" or "passport" to prove it - could be the technology used.

You say "why you would call the mark 'denying religious liberty' still isn't fully clear to me" yet John makes it very clear that failure to worship the beast and his image - is death. Even in the most casual skimming of such a statement one would notice that Christians would be denied religious liberty (in at least some fashion) if put under such a law by government. How is that not apparent?

But in Rev 13 and 14 the problem is not the technology used to implement - but rather the compliance of the individual - agreeing with something God condemns - an agreement/compliance that must be given in order to gain approval to buy or sell.

However God is the one choosing the terms "mark of the beast", "number of his name", "name of the beast" to reference the agreement.

People will not go around with the words "beast name" or "beast number" written on their hand or forehead. God is trying to give the reader a clue about the sin that one has to agree to... and it involves denying religious liberty to others.

Any act related to worshipping an image is condemned in the first part of the Ten Commandments.
1 John 3:4 says "sin is transgression of the Law" of God by its very definition.

In Rev 14:12 the opposite of complying with the mark of the beast program is "keep the Commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus".

One of the commandments is to "Love your neighbor as yourself" which means denying religious liberty to them - is not complying with that command.

Thats pretty much what I was saying, denying religious liberty is a consequence of the mark of the beast and NOT the theme as was implied.

rev 14;12 doesnt say its the opposite. not saying that it isn't, just not what the text says

i dont really understand the love your neighbor part. what does that have to do with anything?

 

[BobRyan]

i dont really understand the love your neighbor part. what does that have to do with anything?

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 is also violation of the Lev 19:18 commandment to love others.
  • i.e. -- 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.

So given that the bad side has a program outlined in Rev 13:11-18 and the good guys have a plan and message as identified in Rev 14, we have more clues about what is going on. I think Rev 14:6-7 is worded so as to point what worship practice is not being allowed by the Rev 13 beast.

 

[Mugen]

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 is also 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.

So given that the bad side has a program outlined in Rev 13:11-18 and the good guys have a plan and message as identified in Rev 14, we have more clues about what is going on. I think Rev 14:6-7 is worded so as to point what worship practice is not being allowed by the Rev 13 beast.

can you elaborate on the love your neighbor part? I completely fail to see the relevance.

 

[BobRyan]

can you elaborate on the love your neighbor part? I completely fail to see the relevance.

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 is also violation of the Lev 19:18 commandment to love others.

you appear to fully agree with that, or did I miss something?

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.

I assume you agree that Rev 13 makes it appear that someone is committing a sin including those who accept the mark of the beast - not just the ones enforcing it.

 

[Mugen]

you appear to fully agree with that, or did I miss something?



I assume you agree that Rev 13 makes it appear that someone is committing a sin including those who accept the mark of the beast - not just the ones enforcing it.

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