1 Corinthians 3:16 KJV
Isn't it likely that the Antichrist only comes to convert everyone into their own antichrist?
The New Age and Word of Faith "Christian" movement all teach of self divinity.
What does the Bible say is the Temple of God?
1 Corinthians 3:16 KJV
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV
Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Acts 7:48 KJV
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
1 Corinthians 3:17 KJV
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2 Corinthians 6:16 KJV
And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
Daniel 2:43 KJV
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
1 Corinthians 15:38 KJV
1 Corinthians 15:39 KJV
There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
1 Corinthians 15:40 KJV
More from Religion
"Hinduism was one of the world's most easy-going faith traditions, famed for it's non-persecutory history."
I can assure you, it is NOT.
It is neither easy-going, nor non-persecutory. In fact it is the very opposite.
Thread.
Modern Hinduism is a British colonial concept, created in concert with Brahmins, who are at the "apex" of the caste system. The word "Hindoo" in fact, is of Persian origin, meaning a person who lives in the Indus valley.
Colonialists who attempted to study Indian religion in the 18th century (NOT, at the time, Hinduism) were baffled by it. Strata of people living distinctly (the caste system) with overlapping gods didn't fit into their Judeo-Christian understanding of religion.
Which has an ecclesiastical authority, a holy book etc., which Indian religions lacked. In studying "The Hindoo", colonialists prioritized textual sources of knowledge, which is where Brahmins, the priestly caste with a monopoly over education/text come in.
Brahminism was a distinct "religion" (although i don't really want to use the term in this way) that was frankly terrorized of other castes. In fact, the very basis of Brahminism is oppression. Brahmins had scholars who recorded *Brahminical* canon textually.
I can assure you, it is NOT.
It is neither easy-going, nor non-persecutory. In fact it is the very opposite.
Thread.
Hinduism was historically one of the world's most easy-going faith traditions, famed for its non-persecutory history. Now this ... pic.twitter.com/Obln4cns7b
— David Frum (@davidfrum) February 3, 2021
Modern Hinduism is a British colonial concept, created in concert with Brahmins, who are at the "apex" of the caste system. The word "Hindoo" in fact, is of Persian origin, meaning a person who lives in the Indus valley.
Colonialists who attempted to study Indian religion in the 18th century (NOT, at the time, Hinduism) were baffled by it. Strata of people living distinctly (the caste system) with overlapping gods didn't fit into their Judeo-Christian understanding of religion.
Which has an ecclesiastical authority, a holy book etc., which Indian religions lacked. In studying "The Hindoo", colonialists prioritized textual sources of knowledge, which is where Brahmins, the priestly caste with a monopoly over education/text come in.
Brahminism was a distinct "religion" (although i don't really want to use the term in this way) that was frankly terrorized of other castes. In fact, the very basis of Brahminism is oppression. Brahmins had scholars who recorded *Brahminical* canon textually.
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?