Second Coming / Sign of the rainbow?

[Pa Pa]

I would say we are getting very close both temporally and spiritually. California is having the WORST DROUGHT IN 1200 years! Wake up people (of the world)!. It is said that California has 1 more year of drinking water left too.

Also, the "sign of the rainbow" could be referencing the "LGBT" / gay rights flag. When the flag disappears (when they have "won" the political battle), that's when the Savior will intervene and stop the wickedness from getting worse, just like Sodom and Gomorrah. Isaiah also spoke about the 2nd coming and said "their faces doth declare their wickedness to be even as Sodom and Gomorrah" (paraphrasing).

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/californias-drought-worst-1-200-years-researchers-say-n262621

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/california-drought/death-yoda-650-year-old-tree-tells-tale-southwest-drought-n195251

Death of Yoda the 650-Year-Old Tree Tells Tale of Southwest Drought

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-36-the-lords-second-coming?lang=eng

You might be linking many unrelated scripture...the rainbow is to remind us of God's promise to never destroy the world by flood again. So not sure where you are going with this. The Holacost, the 20 million killed as a result of the Russia Recelation and the "killing fields" bears witness that far more evils have been around in the last century, more so than Gay Mariage.

[Traveler]

In Matt 24:30 Jesus talks about the "sign" of his coming.  I have asked on several occasions - what is the sign to which Jesus is speaking?  The response is usually like, "We will all see him coming in clouds of glory."  It is my impression that Jesus is talking about a specif sign and I wonder - If we cannot see the sign how do we think we will see him coming in clouds of glory?

 

If Jesus is speaking with symbolism - which he is known to do and said specifically that he does - a lot of religious individuals will be as mislead as were the ancient Scribes and Pharisees.

 

I am inclined to think that it is not so much that we wait for his coming as it is that we have oil for our lamps before we go about waiting.

[omegaseamaster75]

I would say we are getting very close both temporally and spiritually.  California is having the WORST DROUGHT IN 1200 years!  Wake up people (of the world)!.  It is said that California has 1 more year of drinking water left too.

 

Also, the "sign of the rainbow" could be referencing the "LGBT" / gay rights flag.  When the flag disappears (when they have "won" the political battle), that's when the Savior will intervene and stop the wickedness from getting worse, just like Sodom and Gomorrah.  Isaiah also spoke about the 2nd coming and said "their faces doth declare their wickedness to be even as Sodom and Gomorrah" (paraphrasing).

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/californias-drought-worst-1-200-years-researchers-say-n262621

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/california-drought/death-yoda-650-year-old-tree-tells-tale-southwest-drought-n195251

 

Death of Yoda the 650-Year-Old Tree Tells Tale of Southwest Drought

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-36-the-lords-second-coming?lang=eng

All gloom and doom, I predict that we will not see anything happen in my life time and I am still pretty young.

 

By the way I live in CA, I turned on my faucet and guess what.....water came out

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't necessarily buy into the idea of gay marriage as being a sine qua non indicator of the imminency of the Second Coming or that the prophecy about no rainbow in the year of the Second Coming refers to the rainbow flag; but--on a tangential vein--I do think that in the grander scheme of things, the adoption of the rainbow flag as a symbol for sexual liberalism was no accident.  The rainbow is a token of God's covenant that, no matter how obnoxious humankind becomes and no matter how richly we may deserve it, He will not impose another wholesale destruction.  In that context, the waving of the rainbow flag becomes a taunt on behalf of Satan:  Here we are doing the stuff that got Noah's contemporaries exterminated, and You can't do a thing about it, because of that rainbow-thing, and nanny nanny boo boo!

 

Even if I supported civil gay marriage, I'd be really cautious about using the rainbow symbol specifically.  It just seems like it's tempting fate.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I do think that in the grander scheme of things, the adoption of the rainbow flag as a symbol for sexual liberalism was no accident.  The rainbow is a token of God's covenant that, no matter how obnoxious humankind becomes and no matter how richly we may deserve it, He will not impose another wholesale destruction.  In that context, the waving of the rainbow flag becomes a taunt on behalf of Satan:  Here we are doing the stuff that got Noah's contemporaries exterminated, and You can't do a thing about it, because of that rainbow-thing, and nanny nanny boo boo!

 

Even if I supported civil gay marriage, I'd be really cautious about using the rainbow symbol specifically.  It just seems like it's tempting fate.

 

I think I disagree.  Surprise.  

 

We know that flags as symbols carry differing meanings for different people. Most see the swastika on the Nazi flag as a symbol of darkness--cruel tyranny and slaughter of innocents while a few others see it as a reverential symbol in a worshipful vein. And of course the American Flag which I see through the lens of love of my own people/country regrettably symbolizes things less lofty to some others.  

 

Because I'm aware of this, I'm not caught off-guard that some see the rainbow flag as tantamount to evil, or a taunt on behalf of Satan. But others do see it as a symbol of the beauty of diversity when people manage to live together in peace and mutual respect despite their differences. They see the rainbow flag as they see the colors of the rainbow--something beautiful like the colors of the spectrum creating visible light. I don't think the majority of people who wave the rainbow flag as a symbol even of gay pride do it with the idea that they are taunting any more than the majority of people who wave the American flag feel that they are taunting.

 

Oh, and I'm wondering about the basis for suggesting that homosexuality is what got Noah's contemporaries exterminated.  (Before I flat out debate that point, I'd like more information about where the claim comes from.  My impression is that the extreme evil to which humankind had sunk had more to do with neglect of the poor and with violence, and the fact that the people had fallen beyond the capability of turning away from their ways.  Apologies in advance if I'm misinterpreting your remarks.)

[Just_A_Guy]

Oh, I agree with you that it's not intentional on the part of those who use the symbol (although their contempt for people who think differently about this than they do, adds another layer of irony).  But--while I'm not really into suggesting dark global conspiracies of devil worship--I do think that there is an ongoing duel of symbols between God and Satan that is carried on by often-oblivious mortals in the here-and-now.  I rather think, for example, that Satan actually relishes the crucifix as a trophy/reminder of the one time he was able to really hurt God--but obviously, that's not how Catholics look at it.

 

The idea of homosexuality in the days of Noah has been something I've taken for granted a long time, but now that you've called me on it--yeah, I'm going to have to look that one up.    Obviously, cities have been destroyed for indulging it, but that's different . . . Nevertheless, I still think there's something to my interpretation.  The rainbow, theologically, represents a divine covenant to forbear from total destruction; and we know that sexual promiscuity in general--and homosexual promiscuity in particular--is just the sort of thing that has historically led the god of the elements to intervene.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

... But--while I'm not really into suggesting dark global conspiracies of devil worship--I do think that there is an ongoing duel of symbols between God and Satan that is carried on by often-oblivious mortals in the here-and-now.  I rather think, for example, that Satan actually relishes the crucifix as a trophy/reminder of the one time he was able to really hurt God--but obviously, that's not how Catholics look at it.

 

The idea of homosexuality in the days of Noah has been something I've taken for granted a long time, but now that you've called me on it--yeah, I'm going to have to look that one up.    Obviously, cities have been destroyed for indulging it, but that's different . . . Nevertheless, I still think there's something to my interpretation.  The rainbow, theologically, represents a divine covenant to forbear from total destruction; and we know that sexual promiscuity in general--and homosexual promiscuity in particular--is just the sort of thing that has historically led the god of the elements to intervene.

 

OK, I can appreciate that.

 

Oh, I agree with you that it's not intentional on the part of those who use the symbol (although their contempt for people who think differently about this than they do, adds another layer of irony). 

 

I think that the contempt for people who think differently about this than they do is essentially a tit-for-tat result.  Contempt for the "other side" is not universal on either side.  But it seems to me that we're left basically with the same situation than humans always devolve toward--that is a never ending downward spiral of "I hate them because they hated me first" sort of thing, or "they fired the first shot".  Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

[Just_A_Guy]

I think that the contempt for people who think differently about this than they do is essentially a tit-for-tat result.  Contempt for the "other side" is not universal on either side.  But it seems to me that we're left basically with the same situation than humans always devolve toward--that is a never ending downward spiral of "I hate them because they hated me first" sort of thing, or "they fired the first shot".  Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

 

I understand, but (guess what? ) I don't fully agree. 

 

If the desire by major portions of the gay-rights movement to "hit back" at conservative Christian institutions were primarily a result of historical Christian oppression, then we would naturally see this animus on the part of gays reduced as the indicia of oppression tended to fade. Gays would be much more willing to let Christian businessmen decline to provide expressive products/services for gay-rights events.  They would be comfortable with the idea that even though gay marriage is legal, there may be individual judges or state officers who would decline to solemnize such ceremonies on religious grounds who should nonetheless be permitted to keep their jobs.  They would have no problem with the Boy Scouts existing and even getting corporate donors, recognizing that the organization--while discriminatory--still accomplishes a heckuvalot of good.  They would be willing to let discriminatory educational institutions maintain access to federal loans and funding for students at those institutions.  They wouldn't bat an eye at discriminatory churches retaining tax-exempt status, acknowledging that even those churches actually do generally turn their congregants into better citizens and do a great deal of charitable work.

 

But I see none of the above becoming true.  Instead, I rather perceive that the animus is intensifying and that the determination to crush the holdouts is becoming an obsession.  "Tolerance" seems to be visibly on the decline in the gay-rights movement (or did I miss some rally where the HRC pledged a couple million bucks to the BSA?)

Edited May 27, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

... If the desire by major portions of the gay-rights movement to "hit back" at conservative Christian institutions were primarily a result of historical Christian oppression, then we would naturally see this animus on the part of gays reduced as the indicia of oppression tended to fade. Gays would be much more willing to let Christian businessmen decline to provide expressive products/services for gay-rights events.  They would be comfortable with the idea that even though gay marriage is legal, there may be individual judges or state officers who would decline to solemnize such ceremonies on religious grounds who should nonetheless be permitted to keep their jobs.  ...

 

If I were gay and pushing for what I considered to be my equal rights, I don't think I would perceive that the indicia of oppression have tended to fade.  I would probably look at how the so-called gay-rights movement has existed for approaching 100 years in the United States and perceive that "we" have made progress.  But since I can't marry the person I want to marry in the state where I was born and raised and wish to continue to live, then the road to where I want to be is still a long one.  

 

We should probably be surprised given our country's history (the world's history for that matter) and the way movements for rights seem to go in general if the hit-back you're talking about didn't exist.  Since this is, according to most of the Christians I happen to know, a "Christian nation" it should also surprise us if one were to throw a rock and not hit a Christian.  So, it may get worse before it gets better (it usually does) but I personally think it will be a pendulum-like effect over time.  

Edited May 27, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Just_A_Guy]

If I were gay and pushing for what I considered to be my equal rights, I don't think I would perceive that the indicia of oppression have tended to fade.  I would probably look at how the so-called gay-rights movement has existed for approaching 100 years in the United States and perceive that "we" have made progress.  But since I can't marry the person I want to marry in the state where I was born and raised and wish to continue to live, then the road to where I want to be is still a long one. 

 

I'd like to think you wouldn't be so myopic.  :)  A majority of Americans in support of gay marriage, actual legalization of gay marriage in--what?--thirty-something states now, numerous cases where Christian businesspeople have been threatened with (or actually compelled to suffer) fines, loss of their businesses, or imprisonment if they do not engage in expressive activity in support of your cause; mandatory professional de-certification (and apparently, coming up in some states pretty soon now, imprisonment) of mental health counselors who help to reconcile gay kids to their religions by trying to get them comfortable with the notion of a fulfilling heterosexual marriage; California precedents stating that conflict of interest canons do not prevent a gay judge from hearing a case on whether gay marriage should be constitutionally protected (and issuing a ruling saying that anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is "irrational"), but a judge who's a registered member of the BSA must step down from the bench entirely. . . the situation of gay Americans is clearly more comfortable than it was fifty, or twenty, or even five years ago to anyone except those whose ultimate goal remains the legal, professional, financial, and intellectual subjugation of anyone who thinks differently than themselves.

 

 

We should probably be surprised given our country's history (the world's history for that matter) and the way movements for rights seem to go in general if the hit-back you're talking about didn't exist.  Since this is, according to most of the Christians I happen to know, a "Christian nation" it should also surprise us if one were to throw a rock and not hit a Christian.  So, it may get worse before it gets better (it usually does) but I personally think it will be a pendulum-like effect over time.

 

I know historians are partial to the "pendulum" analogy, and I think it holds true in a lot of ways--especially over many generations--but I don't know that its application is universal or that we'll see it in operation in our lifetimes to any meaningful degree  Progressive activists, in particular, have a miserable track record of declaring "mission accomplished, we can all go home now".  Women's suffrage, racial justice, "war on poverty"--these efforts have been under way for half a century or more, and we still haven't seen the "pendulum" swing back to any meaningful degree; even as we see feminists openly demanding the right to retroactively deny consent to sexual encounters, race activists trying to nationalize local police forces because a 40% black force run by a black commissioner in a city with a black mayor and majority-black city council is "too racist", and the "poverty line" increasingly includes people in publicly-provided housing with food stamps who pay hundreds of dollars per month for a flat panel, smart phone, and cable/data plans. 

 

And that's just the secular crotchety paleoconservative in me.  The Mormon in me remembers that sometimes the pendulum doesn't swing back--we just morph into a downward "pride spiral" that, unchecked and in conjunction with other factors, leads to a social collapse.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Blackmarch]

hmm the idea that the bow is referring to the gay pride symbol is interesting. definitely worth a think.

well the only way i can see it going away in that  is if the people become subdued... and that is probabbly going to be through war or some extreme disaster that involves quite a bit of death and/or trauma.
 

 

Extreme Drought

Thats the myth. I doubt it though. Worldwide no rain during a time when the sun is shining (which is when a rainbow occurs) for an entire year? seems unlikely to me.

nuclear winter or an asteroid smashing into the earth would do it... or if there is enough heat (or lack there of)  to keep liquid moisture from reaching altitudes that cause rainbow phenomena that people are familiar with.

[Guest]

I'd like to think you wouldn't be so myopic.  :)  A majority of Americans in support of gay marriage, actual legalization of gay marriage in--what?--thirty-something states now...

 

Said the redwood tree to the butterfly.  Movements don't end until the goals are reached.  Thirty seven states is great progess.  (Still in my role-play) we won't rest until 50 states have legalized it.  If it doesn't hapen in our life-time, we'll continue working for it until our descendants may enjoy the benefits of the right we seek.  That is a hallmark of any serious movement that has to do with rights.

[Just_A_Guy]

Movements don't end until the goals are reached.

 

I submit that generally speaking, progressive movements don't even end then.  They just change the goal and keep right on marching--almost always, in a direction that tends away from individual liberties.

 

It's all well and good to talk about "historical pendulums"; but bear in mind--wrecking balls are pendulums, too; and their actions--random though they may appear to someone unacquainted with the laws of physics--do tend to serve the purposes of an operator.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I submit that generally speaking, progressive movements don't even end then.  They just change the goal and keep right on marching--almost always, in a direction that tends away from individual liberties.

 

It's all well and good to talk about "historical pendulums"; but bear in mind--wrecking balls are pendulums, too; and their actions--random though they may appear to someone unacquainted with the laws of physics--do tend to serve the purposes of an operator.

 

If what you say is accurate, then it's only because the work itself is never really done.  As long as human beings find something that dissatisfies them they seek to change it.  That's just a fact of life, and it is true regardless of what label one wishes to place on the movement.  And individual liberty is in the eye of the beholder. 

 

You don't really want to make an argument by using a different meaning (for a term that typically has more than one meaning) than the meaning I originally intended, do you?  I'll start a thread about pendulums if you really want to, haha. 

[Just_A_Guy]

If what you say is accurate, then it's only because the work itself is never really done.  As long as human beings find something that dissatisfies them they seek to change it.  That's just a fact of life, and it is true regardless of what label one wishes to place on the movement.  And individual liberty is in the eye of the beholder. 

 

Okay, but that means that a) you are basically forfeiting the right to attack conservatives for making "slippery slope" arguments as to the implications of progressive movements; because even progressives can't--or won't--tell where their movements will take them politically in a hundred, or fifty, or even ten years; b) liberty itself is a "movement" that is at least as valid as any progressive cause du jour; and c) individual liberty, having no absolute meaning, is defined only by the will of the majority; and the minority therefore has no absolute and fundamental liberty rights.  (Oops!  There went Lawrence, and Roe/Casey, and a whole cartload of fourteenth-amendment jurisprudence . . .)

 

 

You don't really want to make an argument by using a different meaning (for a term that typically has more than one meaning) than the meaning I originally intended, do you?  I'll start a thread about pendulums if you really want to, haha. 

 

Well . . . yes . . . I did understand that your metaphor was not literal in nature.  If you think my observation goes beyond the scope of the metaphor, please don't feel obligated to start a whole new thread.  :)

Edited May 29, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Okay, but that means that a) you are basically forfeiting the right to attack conservatives for making "slippery slope" arguments as to the implications of progressive movements; because even progressives can't--or won't--tell where their movements will take them politically in a hundred, or fifty, or even ten years; b) liberty itself is a "movement" that is at least as valid as any progressive cause du jour; and c) individual liberty, having no absolute meaning, is defined only by the will of the majority; and the minority therefore has no absolute and fundamental liberty rights.  (Oops!  There went Lawrence, and Roe/Casey, and a whole cartload of fourteenth-amendment jurisprudence . . .)

 

No, (a) anybody who wants to make a slippery slope argument may do it his heart's content. But one makes a fallacious argument if one singles out progressive movements as never-ending in the way you seem to have done earlier because nobody can tell where a movement will take them as you described; and (b) if we call liberty itself a movement then we don't have to single out anybody at all (progressive or conservative or whatever) because everybody we're talking about is seeking a form of liberty. The nature of life on this particular planet however is that total liberty for all is impossible. And ( c ) sorry but at least here in the U.S. individual liberty is not defined only by the majority. 

[Just_A_Guy]

A.  Modern American conservatism/libertarianism generally limits itself to the plain text of the Constitution; and in that regard there are generally clear boundaries and limits to what American conservatives suggest--and even when some go off the reservation and advocate for a nanny state in some regard, there's usually a strong conservative theological framework for bringing them back into line.

 

B.  By "liberty" I should have clarified that I was referring to "individual liberty".  Any social movement in a society with our nominal values, will try to cloak itself in terms of "liberty"--and they may be correct, in the sense of "liberty" as "the freedom to get whatever you want, whenever you want it".  But that isn't necessarily what constitutes the advancement of individual liberty for all.  A restoration of slavery, or droit du signeur, would be quite liberating for the specific classes empowered by it--but it doesn't advance individual liberty at all.

 

So no, not every social movement--left or right--is inherently about the preservation or expansion of individual liberty.  In fact, many modern movements seek to limit it--often with good reason, such as nondiscrimination law and the like; but they are still limits on liberty and IMHO should be recognized as such rather than justified by attempts to equate individual liberty with happy feelings and free stuff.

 

C.  If "individual liberty is in the eye of the beholder", then ultimately it is going to be interpreted and applied through the collective will of the majority of beholders.  Or, in other words--majority rule.  Individual liberty means what the majority wants it to mean.

[Guest]

Just_A_Guy, I confess that since we began our back-and-forth about progressive movements vs. individual liberties [Posts #37 through #40] I have become a little confused.  So, I thought I’d seek to understand rather than seeking to be understood.  To that end I went back and re-read (several times) what we said to each other.  I tried to sift everything to the essentials and this is what I could come up with.  (Please accept my efforts as sincerely offered and an attempt to understand what you’re saying to me.)

 

 

 

You claim that progressive movements generally lead away from individual liberties. You argue that (if individual liberty is in the eye of the beholder as I asserted) I ought not attack conservative slippery slope arguments that support your claim because:

 

[A] Even Progressives can’t or won’t tell where their social movements will ultimately lead. Conservatives and Libertarians stick to the Consitution, and even when they stray they have a Conservative theological framework that is Constitutionally self-correcting.

 

Individual Liberty is itself a movement as valid as any Progressives’ movement but it doesn’t necessarily mean freedom to get whatever one wants whenever one wants because such would not truly benefit all people.

 

[C] If individual liberty is in the eye of the beholder, then Individual Liberty has no absolute meaning.  Instead it must be seen as defined by the majority.

 

 

      

Am I even close to distilling accurately what you’ve argued?

Edited May 30, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Just_A_Guy]

UT.starscoper, apologies for the delay in answering.  Let me respond a bit:

 

[A] Even Progressives can’t or won’t tell where their social movements will ultimately lead. Conservatives and Libertarians stick to the Consitution, and even when they stray they have a Conservative theological framework that is Constitutionally self-correcting.

 

Well, first off, I should have said "theoretical" framework, not "theological" framework; so apologies for the poor word choice.  But, in general--yes, that's my position; recognizing that there will always be some exceptions.  Conservatism and libertarianism tend to hitch their carts to the horse of originalism/textualism, and there's only so far you can stretch the Constitution under that sort of interpretative approach.  Progressivism, by contrast--and I don't mean this pejoratively, but I can't think of a more elegant way to say it--but progressivism doesn't seem to have any fixed Constitutional interpretative framework to fall back on.  The Constitution means whatever progressives want it to mean in the here-and-now:  what it means in 2055 may be radically different than what it means in 2015--and neither meaning need have much relationship to the actual text of the document itself.

 

Individual Liberty is itself a movement as valid as any Progressives’ movement but it doesn’t necessarily mean freedom to get whatever one wants whenever one wants because such would not truly benefit all people.

 

I would delete the bolded portion above.  Neither the fact that only a minority of a population (maybe even just a few dozen individuals in a population of millions), nor the possible collective social benefit of such an arrangement, makes the slavery less of a breach of individual liberty for the individuals so subjugated.  Thus, I would disagree with the notion that individual liberties arise primarily from a utilitarian analysis.  I'm more sympathetic to what I know of the natural/negative rights approach, though I can't claim a very strong understanding of all the underlying theory.  (Philosophy and social theory tend to be things I have trouble wrapping my head around without frequent concrete examples or hypotheticals.)

 

[C] If individual liberty is in the eye of the beholder, then Individual Liberty has no absolute meaning.  Instead it must be seen as defined by the majority.

 

Yeah, of necessity it would be defined by whoever is in power--a monarch in a monarchy, the autocrats in an autocracy, and the majority in a democracy.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Rem281]

How can there be no rainbows? The sun will be darkened ...

[brotherofJared]

On 10/24/2009 at 8:16 PM, pam said:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/22571-signs-second-coming.html

Link is broke 

[brotherofJared]

20 hours ago, Rem281 said:

How can there be no rainbows? The sun will be darkened ...

No. It won't. By the time that happens it will be too late to be looking for rainbows. That's line saying it's going to rain, better get an ☂️ but it's been raining for hours and you are already soaked.

But that sign has come and gone. Hint, it has nothing to do with that orb in the sky.

I should clarify, if that where the case, it would be too late. But it isn't the case.

Edited June 26, 2017 by brotherofJared

[pam]

2 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Link is broke 

Well it was posted 7 years ago so yep a lot can happen to some threads and comments.

[Rob Osborn]

No rain, no rainbow. Pretty simple.

[brotherofJared]

2 hours ago, pam said:

Well it was posted 7 years ago so yep a lot can happen to some threads and comments.

I have no idea how I ended up on that thread. After seeing that 37 States allow same-sex marriages, that's when I checked the date.

Thanks