Here is another false prophet trying to defend his falseness.
What I found interesting is that the psychological approach is to attack those who were right as a way to defend yourself when you are wrong. The technique is to combine those who disagree with date setting with those who think that things are going fine. One can be against date setting and at the same time be concerned about future of the US. I am. This is a smoke screen designed to confuse.
The issue was, did anything happen on Sept 23. The answer is no. So someone who said that something would happen, even covered by mealy-mouthed words like "I am just speculating," is a false prophet.
The appeal to Matthew 24 was typical, and standard operating procedure for this type of person. Are things bad economically? Sure. Are there wars? Sure. Is there religious persecution? Sure. But are the wars as bad as WWII? No. Are they even as bad as WWI. No. Are the health issues of today as bad as the Black Death, where 1/3 of Europe died? No. To even mentioning people eating sugar in the same prophetic context as plagues shows a very odd mindset. Is there a problem today with bad diet. Sure. Does this have any relation with the return of Christ? No.
Could this be the beginning of the return of Christ? Sure. Does it have to be? No.
Yes, I think that we as individuals should get our houses in order. This is just common sense prudence, but this has nothing to do with the ultimate return of Christ. The use of the scriptures that warn of false prophets...to defend a false prophet...is rather amusing.
The Original Way Back MachineWhat do you do when you make a false religious predication?
Some people who do this retire from public religious life and apologize. This seldom happens. Some rewrite history, but in the modern Internet era this is more difficult, as the Internet seldom forgets with tools like the "Way Back Machine."
In my one and only podcast (yeah, podcasting is hard) I discuss such a prediction. It failed. In the podcast I talk about this failed prophecy and such date setting in general. The beloved editor of this blog, Pam Dewey, also wrote about this episode, focusing on the devastated people deceived by such silliness: When Prophecy Fails.
In the church I attend an elder predicted that Jesus would return in AD 2027, 2000 years after the beginning of Jesus' ministry. (I will talk about this later.) Why? He gave an elaborate scenario about the prophet Daniel that I doubt anyone in the audience actually understood. This was combined with the idea that we humans have had 6000 years to prove ourselves, or as the theory usually states it, prove we can't do anything right. The main problem with such a prophecy is that we humans have already been here far longer than 6000 years.
The message had the usual disclaimers. "I could be wrong," and so on. The technical term for this is CYA. ("Cover your ***") Often, the speaker is indeed sincere about his uncertainty, as this man was. But sometimes it is just a ploy. The false prophet is thinking, "I can say all these things, increase my donations, sell more books, and I will not be held accountable." I recently talked about the hubbub about the Shemitah, which is the Biblical seven year debt release cycle, which was then connected with fall festival lunar eclipse or the blood moons, and their supposed prophetic significance. Those that advocated such things were wrong. Oops. I was accused by one reader of just "having a bad day" because I was griping about this on my blog. Maybe so. But another explanation might be that I am tired of such false prophets and the lack of accountability that the public demands of them.
Here is one fake rabbi's explanation on how he was not really wrong. (He does have a great beard, however.)
Yes, I am sure he covered his original prophetic pronouncements with the appropriate caveats and disclaimers like pharmaceutical ads that warn, "This drug may cause blindness." Since false prophets usually know in advance that nothing is going to happen, such disclaimers are a normal part of the false prophet biz. Too bad these prophetic heroes do not give real disclaimers: "Warning: listening to my message may lead to spiritual blindness."
In conclusion let me clarify what I mean by "fake rabbi." Almost all prognosticating fellows who call themselves "rabbi" are not actually Jewish, in spite of using the Jewish term "rabbi" instead of the English term "teacher." Often, but not always, they wear what they think to be Bible-times-looking robes, so they can look "authentically prophetic." Actual Jewish rabbis in the 21st century seldom wear Bible era-style robes. Real orthodox rabbis of modern times look more like the image on the left.
Of course growing a good "Jewish-looking" beard is a plus.Do they think that God tells them to dress this way? Or do they assume, probably correctly, that many naive Christians will be under the impression that a Jewish person is somehow more in tune with Bible prophecy than a gentile? And a Jewish person who looks like a Bible-times prophet from a Hollywood movie will seem even more "qualified"!
One telltale sign self-appointed rabbis are fake is the lack of any discussion about their rabbinical credentials. In Judaism, a person becomes a rabbi by studying at a traditional rabbinical seminary for many years. Fake rabbis can just skip that step, do a little personal Bible study, and hang out a Rabbi shingle on their door. (If a local congregation declares that someone is a rabbi, does that make them one? Maybe it does, for that congregation, but I am not a member of that congregation.)
A few years ago some of these fake rabbis realized their credibility problem. So several of them got together and formed a fake seminary for fake rabbis. Most people will not do as I did and research the supposed school. When you hear "Rabbi So And So" pontificating on a Youtube video, it is totally fair to be suspicious about his supposed rabbinical degree, just like you can legitimately question how a "Christian" teacher got to be a "Doctor of Divinity." Like "Dr." Jack Van Impe. (Yes, there are fake "Christian" divinity schools too.)
So did I get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? No, I am just warning you that when you support the ministries of fake rabbis, buy their books, or recommend their YouTube videos, you are empowering them to deceive others.
While I enjoyed this show, this is not the alienation I have in mind.I never really understood the term in college. Maybe because I was not alienated. But sitting here in a food court of a troubled mall with lots of vacancies I get it. We humans want to belong, and we will put up with a lot to belong.
What is alienation?
al·ien·a·tion ˌālyəˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the state or experience of being isolated from a group or an activity to which one should belong or in which one should be involved."unemployment may generate a sense of political alienation"
loss or lack of sympathy; estrangement."public alienation from bureaucracy"
(in Marxist theory) a condition of workers in a capitalist economy, resulting from a lack of identity with the products of their labor and a sense of being controlled or exploited.
It is difficult to feel a connection of belonging when people act so oddly and say such strange things. I left one church last year because of this. How could I belong to a church where a pastor randomly burst into tears for no apparent reason and asked people to come forward so they could too?
I would have just written it off, but I knew the "backstory" behind it. The leadership was speaking in tongues and other similar Pentecostal nonsense. They were not letting it into services, but occasionally they slipped. Or maybe it was a "trial balloon" that never got off the ground. In any event I was not sure what was more disturbing, the under current of Pentecostalism or the fact they felt they had to hide it. Sure I want to belong, but not at the expense of checking my brain at the door of the church.
Checking your brain at the door is exactly what many churches want. If you get a funny look on your face that says, "That makes no sense," or worse yet you say it, you may be allowed to continue to attend, but you won't be welcomed. And "belonging"? Don't even think about it.
To continue with the metaphor of checking your brain at the door like it was your hat or coat, there is a real risk if you do so. You may forget to retrieve it when you leave! What I mean by this is that if you don't use your brain you will forget how to use it. Then when a evil Jedi Pastor tells you that these are not the droids you are looking for you believe it.
This is why I keep talking about templates, or world views, or whatever you wish to call it. The people at my former church had a Pentecostal template through which they looked at everything. They are very fine people, among the best I have ever met, but because of faulty thinking and faulty theology I cannot go to their church unless I have a frontal lobotomy.
One of my favorite songs is the Eagle's "Frail Grasp of the Big Picture." The song tells us about the modern civil religion that combines a pseudochristianity with various Americanisms like praying before football games. The lyrics say "He presides over football games." Does God preside over football games? Putting it that way makes such prayer seem silly--as it should. But I am reminded of this song with regards to the Kim Davis hoopla.
A Kentucky county clerk who has become a symbol of religious opposition to same-sex marriage was jailed Thursday after defying a federal court order to issue licenses to gay couples. The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, Ky., was ordered detained for contempt of court and later rejected a proposal to allow her deputies to process same-sex marriage licenses that could have prompted her release. Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriage
Why does Kim Davis remind me of the song? Before I answer that question let's talk about a fallacy that is often used in political discourse that I need to be careful to avoid. It is called "Argumentation to the Man," or for those that like Latin, ad hominem. Wikipedia describes it this way:
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized. Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.
There are some aspects of Kim Davis' life that bear on the issue. As in the Wiki definition, to point out personal details of a person's life is not necessarily an ad hominem argument if those facts relate to the subject in question.
According to an article in US News and World Report, Davis, who is now 48, married her first husband Dwain when she was 18, and they divorced in 1994. Five months after that divorce, she gave birth to twins. The twins' father was Thomas, a man who would later become husband number 3. However, instead of marrying Thomas right away, she married Joe, husband number 2 in 1996. Joe adopted the twins. In 2006, Davis divorced Joe and married husband number 3 (Thomas) who had fathered the twins. But in 2008, she divorced Thomas and RE-married Joe.
In other words, her current husband, Joe Davis, is, all at the same time, her second husband, fourth husband, current husband, and ex-husband.
Why is ANY of this relevant to the county clerk situation in the news?
In insisting she is unable to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, Davis would cite the following scripture.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them. Leviticus 20:13.
Thus Davis insists she is unable to issue a marriage license lest she be seen by God to be approving "an abomination."
This makes sense logically. However...just one Bible book later, in Deuteronomy, we read this in chapter 24:
1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife, 4Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD. And thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Maybe I am easily amused, but considering the Hebrew word in the original biblical writings for abomination in Leviticus against homosexuality is the same word used in Deuteronomy against this kind of remarriage, it seems to me that if Kim Davis had been county clerk at that time of her remarriage to her second husband she could not have issued a marriage license to herself.
And while one could assert that Kim Davis had been "forgiven" for all her past sins when she became an Apostolic Christian...her marriage to Joe is still, according to the passage in Deuteronomy, an abomination. Just as most Apostolic Christians would consider that a homosexual could only be forgiven for homosexual acts if he quit doing them, it would seem that Kim Davis would be required to abandon her "abominable" marriage to Joe in order to be forgiven. (Which, of course, would require another divorce.)
Considering the lack of marital fidelity in the Christian world, how would the reaction differ if Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to divorced people? After all, some do have a religious belief that forbids remarriage after divorce. For example, could a Catholic county clerk (an elected job ... Kim Davis was elected to her position) refuse to issue a marriage license to any divorced person who did not have permission of the Catholic Church to remarry? The logic would dictate that that clerk could, and even should, refuse to issue the license.
So arguments about Kim Davis’ looks is ad hominem, but talking about her argument isn’t. So no, pointing out the inconsistency is not an argument to the man. Those who are getting all hot and bothered by this case need to ask themselves why. Would you feel the same way if a clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to divorced couples?
So it seems to me that many have a Frail Grasp on the Big Picture.
Here is a cover of that Eagles song.
(Those interested in the legal aspects of this case can read Eugene Volokh. Since Davis is not refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays, only refusing to issue them if her name is on them, it seems to me that the Federal judge overreacted. This will be solved with an executive order by the governor or a change in the law which requires Kim Davis signature on marriage licenses.) It looks like she has been released while this post was being prepared.
In addition to her normal volunteering as editor of this blog, Pam Dewey contributed to this blog post.
Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 4:49AM 
