Not Quo Vadis, but Quo Tendimus.
The intolerant tolerance.
We have been concerned that a mindset is being set up that will be used against those who do not conform to the authorities. Let’s look at some of the rashes we can see right outside our living room windows.
The world is about to completely disintegrate. There are no longer any inhibitions when it comes to violence and immorality. School shootings are constantly being reported in the United States, and there were nearly 30 school shootings in the United States in the first three months of 2023, nearly 2.5 shootings on average per week. This has of course spread to other parts of the world, and we have heard of school shootings in Russia, Finland, and several other places. Little, and peaceful Norway has become used to youth gangs fighting with assault weapons, machetes and stabbing each other with knives and shooting each other, almost on a daily basis. Sexual immorality is constantly reaching new heights, and all media; TV, radio, internet, weekly magazines, and newspapers overflow with this immorality, and the worse it is the better it seems to be the idea behind it all.
Here on the mountain, it is NRK (television) and Dagbladet (newspaper) that are the ‘best’ in their class and appear to be pure porn magazines. If you dare to go out, it seems that you have ended up in the middle of a psychedelic film where most of the participants seem to have been bombarded with paint in all the colours of the rainbow and more.
It all started on 21 April 1972. It was on this day that the law banning homosexuality was removed, and since that day it has gone from strength to strength, and in the last ten years or so it has really accelerated. I have to add right away that I have no problem accepting that this law was removed, because such laws that forbid people to think something do not belong in any society. In 2022, the 50th anniversary of the repeal of this law was marked almost all over the world. This is something that is seen as a great victory for humanity.
The mantra of the gay lobby at the time, in the years before the law was removed in 1972, was that if only this law that criminalized gays was removed, then the gays would be satisfied with it. But alas, so far there is between life and learning. One day a few years later, when lesbians and homosexuals had united and laid out a strategy, the next move came. Boys would have the right to marry boys and girls would have the right to marry girls, because it is a ‘human right’ to enter into partnership, that is; marry.
There was no necessity to marry in the church, oh no – not at all – church wedding, no, no, no, it was absolutely not necessary – only they were allowed to marry each other, boy to boy and girl to girl (partnership) then everything would be so fine … … … … They just wanted the right to do what all other people did. In 1993, Norway adopted a law on registered partnerships. And suddenly, with the law in hand, they could go to the town hall, and similar places and get married (enter into a partnership).
Only if we are allowed to enter into partnership we will be satisfied, was the claim. How has it gone? The church, which runs the errands of the de-Christianization organizations, and which is so politically correct to the extent that it does not know what it can do to satisfy the world and ungodly politicians, has created its own liturgy to carry out same-sex marriages.
Same-sex marriage was allowed in Norway on January 1, 2009, and the liturgy for this came into place on February 1, 2017. What will happen tomorrow (within a short time), no one knows, but there is already talk of polygamous marriage where three or more people of one or more sexes marry each other. There are even those who argue that it is in the best interests of the children that they have several parents of the same and/or all three sexes!?!
Is it to wonder that the rising generation is confused? Maybe someone will even demand to marry their pet … … Unfortunately, it has already become so that not even the imagination can set limits to what will be accepted.
We also see a growing trend among children as young as preschool age who claim they were “born in a wrong body”. By that they mean that the person born as a girl is actually a boy and vice versa. But tell me how can a child, four or five years old, even well into puberty, who has no concepts of sexuality and no sexual preferences either, could claim that they were born in the wrong body if they have not been indoctrinated this by their parents, preschool teachers or by other confused people? It is quite clear that there is an agenda behind all these opinions that I call confused. Not even many of the people who call themselves adults, and who claim to have a clear mind, know what gender they are. Did someone say confused?
Today, the individual can decide for themselves which gender they want to be, regardless of which gender they were born with. If you are a man, you can call yourself a woman if you feel like it, and vice versa. It has even been decided politically that there is a third gender! which has been given the pronoun s/he and he/she (HEN in Norwegian), which those who are extra, extra confused can use about themselves.
We then have he, she, and “s/he and he/she”. Is it any wonder then that many, especially young people, get confused? And then I don’t understand why the suicide rate – especially among the young – is increasing exponentially! But as always, the blame is of course placed on the horrible homophobic people, because as you know, some have to be made scapegoats, and then it’s just as well to let others take the blame for the injustice you yourself commit against your own children. Because this wanton perversity has been accepted by all so-called civilized countries in the world. Large parts of Jude’s letter address this decay and draw a comparison with what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, draw a parallel both to Cain who killed his own brother, to Balaam who wanted to make money by cursing what God had blessed and to Korah who rebelled against God when Israel was in the wilderness.
To put it all in perspective. On 5 September 2022, a schoolteacher was jailed in Ireland for refusing to use a transsexual pronoun about a boy. The boy wanted the teacher to call him <s/he and he/she>! This teacher ended up in prison indefinitely because of this case and will not be released until he changes his mind – by accepting this confusion, or by the court setting him free. This is probably just the beginning of what we can expect.
In the fall of 2021, our foreign minister went to the media and was terribly indignant on behalf of LGBTIQ, and attacked Hungary because they have a more balanced view on this matter than the servile pseudo-politicians we have here in Norway and in the «so-called civilized part of the world» to which we belong. Today, a law has been introduced in Hungary that prohibits the promotion of this confusion to children, which has caused a strong outrage in the so-called civilized world. In the late summer of 2022, it was said about Hungary that this country was no longer a democracy, because they will not allow themselves to be gagged by the international gay lobby. Imagine something so unheard of as denying young children in Hungary to hear that boys can choose to be girls and vice versa.
We who stand on God’s word which tells us that God created man and woman, we are branded as homophobic, and are threatened with lawsuits if we say anything unfavourable about this group of people. These are court cases that have been decided in advance, because what we are accused of doing is classified as hate speech, and hate speech is prohibited and must be cracked down on. That is how it is. Hate speech has even been classified as terrorism by Pope Francis, well think about that.
But to the word tolerance. This is an interesting word, isn’t it? We are constantly told that we must be tolerant. We are told that homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. But none of us who stand on God’s word deny that this is the case, or who want to take away from this group the natural rights which God has given to all men. As for anything coming from this LGBTIQ band, behold, no one is calling this for hate speech. They can bully others as much as they want without consequences.
We have to put up with them doing this and that.
We have to put up with them getting married in church.
We have to tolerate same-sex couples adopting children or using donors.
We have to put up with everything this group demands to do.
We have to put up with the fact that everything this marginal group demands simply has to be complied with.
We have to put up with our young children being exposed to regular indoctrination of LGBTIQ propaganda from the time they start in kindergarten and up through the school years.
We even have to put up with the fact that this small group of LGBTIQ and their supporters can harass us in the grossest way without any reaction to it.
Imagine the following situation. You want to play handball but join a football club. Do you think you are allowed to take the ball in your hands and throw it to your teammates? The answer goes without saying, but that’s how it is with LGBTIQ and their desires. They do not want to know about God and Jesus, but demand to use the church to ‘legitimize’ their lifestyle.
Dictatorship of opinion in totalitarian states, also called democracies.
But when we, who stand on God’s word, dare to go out and say it as it is, or say something ‘unfavourable’ about LGBTIQ, well, behold, that’s hate speech we’re dealing with, then we’re homophobic and what’s worse. There is only one expression that covers what we are experiencing today, and that is the dictatorship of opinion. Of course, it is claimed that everyone has the right to think and express what they want, but if it is not politically correct it will be put down, and this is exactly what is the dictatorship of opinion. This is one of the consequences that the mindset that is about to be set up brings whit it.
One of the arguments used to defend their point of view and demands is «we are living in 2024 after all«, as if that means anything. In this argument, it is implied that we have become so civilized in 2024 that we must now tolerate and accept everything that comes from that part. But if such an argument is to have any value and validity at all, it must also be able to be used the other way.
So, since we then live in 2024, not in 2023, and by implication have become as civilized and highly educated as we are – which we were not in 2023, then only the contents of the Bible must be accepted and acknowledged by all people. Right? Same argument. Then this group must accept that there is another side to the matter, which they do not want to know anything about. They simply cannot bear to hear that there is another view to this.
This is precisely where the intolerant tolerance comes into play. Today, being tolerant is only a one-way exercise that LGBTIQ, their supporters and the politically correct society own, and have the right to define and decide. It is only their opponents who have to endure everything. They themselves should certainly not be tolerant and put up with anything.
All those who do not follow what is politically correct, i.e. all those who do not actively follow the gay lobby, shall be gagged, and silenced to death with the law in hand. But then tolerance is no longer something that applies to the whole of society, only to the small group that stands on the safe ground of God’s word, while those who constantly howl about tolerance are the ones who most often turn out not to be in possession of tolerance.
They claim the right to use parts of the Norwegian poet Arnulf Øverland’s famous poem Dear not to sleep. The part they use to defend themselves is the following stanza: You dare not, at all. Accepting that outrage on all else may fall! but this is quickly forgotten if someone thinks something different to them about homosexuality and sexuality.
If someone dares to ask questions about whether this is something that should be spread in the media 24 hours and 7 days a week, well, then it’s blooming in the asphalt. Then comes the pointing of the finger and accusations of homophobia and hate speech, and then Arnulf Øverland’s famous poem is also broken in a row, just as they break in a row everything else they deal with and behold … … and then they dare accepting that outrage on all else may fall.
Them and us.
Einar Øverenget, Professor of philosophy, says in an article in NRK.no on 29 November 2021: «A lot of wrong can be done in politics, but it becomes really problematic if politicians suggest to a large majority that their problems are due to a small minority. Much wrong can also be done by the media – but if the media does not follow up with critical questions and instead chooses to ask the question: Are we too kind to this minority? – then we find ourselves on thin ice«. And he follows up with a thunderous: Why?
Actually, this is a very timely question, and one that goes much further than Professor Øverenget can imagine.
I have said since early on during the covid pandemic that this pandemic will be used for all it is worth to set up a mindset that will be used against a minority in the near future. During the pandemic, we have been brought up to march in active marching band following our political and healthcare leaders, who have commanded:
Mask on … Mask off … One meter social distance … Two meters social distance … Do not hug each other … Do not hold hands … Stay at home … … and many, many other commands.
Some papal encyclicals and apostolic letters.
Pope Francis.
Laudato Si.
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html (may 24 2015)
- Nothing in this world is indifferent to us
§ 3; More than fifty years ago, with the world teetering on the brink of nuclear crisis, Pope Saint John XXIII wrote an Encyclical which not only rejected war but offered a proposal for peace. He addressed his message Pacem in Terris to the entire Catholic world and indeed “to all men and women of good will”. Now, faced as we are with global environmental deterioration, I wish to address every person living on this planet.
In this encyclical, the Pope refers to Bartholomew, Francis of Assisi, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, and therefore draws the lines via the last two Popes and all the way back to ancient times, which shows us a long-term strategy.
§ 87; When we can see God reflected in all that exists, our hearts are moved to praise the Lord for all his creatures and to worship him in union with them. This sentiment finds magnificent expression in the hymn of Saint Francis of Assisi:
Praised be you, my Lord, with all your creatures,
especially Sir Brother Sun,
who is the day and through whom you give us light.
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendour;
and bears a likeness of you, Most High.
Praised be you, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars,
in heaven you formed them clear and precious and beautiful.
Praised be you, my Lord, through Brother Wind,
and through the air, cloudy and serene, and every kind of weather
through whom you give sustenance to your creatures.
Praised be you, my Lord, through Sister Water,
who is very useful and humble and precious and chaste.
Praised be you, my Lord, through Brother Fire,
through whom you light the night,
and he is beautiful and playful and robust and strong.
When the current Pope praises Francis of Assisi for his hymn, I am not surprised. This is nothing but a pantheistic poem by the great pantheist Frans.
The most disturbing thing in this encyclical is not the pantheistic work, but what is dealt with in Chapter VI.
- The common destination of goods
§ 93; Saint John Paul II forcefully reaffirmed this teaching, stating that “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone”. These are strong words. He noted that a type of development which did not respect and promote human rights – personal and social, economic, and political, including the rights of nations and of peoples – would not be really worthy of man.
Then we come to the raisin in the sausage!
He (John Paul II) clearly explained that “the Church does indeed defend the legitimate right to private property, but she (the church) also teaches no less clearly that there is always a social mortgage on all private property, in order that goods may serve the general purpose that God gave them”. Consequently, he maintained, “it is not in accord with God’s plan that this gift be used in such a way that its benefits favour only a few”. This calls into serious question the unjust habits of a part of humanity.
§ 95; The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone. If we make something our own, it is only to administer it for the good of all. If we do not, we burden our consciences with the weight of having denied the existence of others. That is why the New Zealand bishops asked what the commandment “Thou shall not kill” means when “twenty percent of the world’s population consumes resources at a rate that robs the poor nations and future generations of what they need to survive”.
If we are to read this with clear words, it becomes the case that the Catholic Church says that private property is not private, it is a common and/or public good, and those who have nothing have the right to enrich themselves from other people’s property and wealth . The papacy thus says that it is perfectly okay to steal.
If we take up Proverbs 6:30 and see what the ecumenical New International Version says, we find the following text: «Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving«. When translated like this, it is completely in harmony with the Pope’s Laudato Si.
If we take a look at what Contemporary English Version says, we find this text: “We don’t put up with thieves, not even with one who steals for something to eat”. This translation is in harmony with the Bible, and what the papacy says is social justice, it is robbing from those who have what one needs to sustain life, which the Bible calls stealing:
God’s Eighth Commandment in Exodus 20:15 says: «Thou shalt not steal«. To steal is explained as follows in Wiktionary: To take something from someone else without permission; take something wrongfully, and a couple of synonyms for steal are: rob; plunder and deprive.
Fratelli Tutti.
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html (3 de octubre 2020).
- Without borders
§3; Pope Francis uses Francis of Assisi’s visit to Sultan Malik-el-Kamil in Egypt, (note the location!) as a starting point for his encyclical «Fratelli Tutti», and also draws from his previous encyclical «Laudato Si», his «brother » – the Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew, and not least Abu Dhabi’s grand imam Ahmed Al-Tayyeb and says that the meeting Francis had with the grand imam «was not a diplomatic gesture, but an acknowledgment born of dialogue and shared commitment«.
As we see, the Pope refers to the same sources.
- Chapter 1; Dark clouds over a closed world.
§ 9; Here says the Pope: “Without claiming to carry out an exhaustive analysis or to study every aspect of our present-day experience, I intend simply to consider certain trends in our world that hinder the development of universal fraternity”.
There are, as always, beautiful, and edible words that come from Rome, no matter which Pope we are talking about, but is it really the case that the Bible promotes a universal brotherhood across religions?
No, not even within Christianity should there be a universal brotherhood, see Revelation 18:4: And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. This must be one of the most hated verses in Rome. There are also several verses that say the same thing:
Numbers 16,26 And he spake unto the congregation, saying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins.
Isaiah 48,20 Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter it [even] to the end of the earth; say ye, The LORD hath redeemed his servant Jacob..
Isaiah 52,11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean [thing]; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.
Jeremiah 50,8 Remove out of the midst of Babylon and go forth out of the land of the Chaldeans and be as the he goats before the flocks.
Jeremiah 51,6 Flee out of the midst of Babylon and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity; for this [is] the time of the LORD’s vengeance; he will render unto her a recompense.
Jeremiah 51,45 My people, go ye out of the midst of her, and deliver ye every man his soul from the fierce anger of the LORD.
Zechariah 2,11 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest [with] the daughter of Babylon.
2 Corinthians 6,17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you.
Pope John Paul II.
Populorum Progressio
https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html (March 26, 1967)
This encyclical deals with the development of humanity and human society.
- A Problem for All Men
§ 3; Today it is most important for people to understand and appreciate that the social question ties all men together, in every part of the world. John XXIII stated this clearly, and Vatican II confirmed it in its Pastoral Constitution on The Church in the World of Today. The seriousness and urgency of these teachings must be recognized without delay.
- Our Journeys
§ 4; Before We became pope, We travelled to Latin America (1960) and Africa (1962). There We saw the perplexing problems that vex and besiege these continents, which are otherwise full of life and promise. On being elected pope, We became the father of all men. We made trips to Palestine and India, gaining first-hand knowledge of the difficulties that these age-old civilizations must face in their struggle for further development. Before the close of the Second Vatican Council, providential circumstances allowed Vs (=Us) to address the United Nations and to plead the case of the impoverished nations before that distinguished assembly.
Just notice the way Pope John Paul II refers to himself. He calls himself We with a capital W, which indicates that the Pope refers to himself as god.
- The Use of Private Property
§ 23; «He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?» Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: «You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.» These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional.
No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, «as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.» When «private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,» it is for the public authorities «to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.»
The way I read this, the Catholic Church believes that no one owns anything, it is a common good.
See also Laudato Si and The common destyination of goods, § 93 (above).
Dies Domini.
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini.html (May 31, 1998).
This apostolic letter deals with the Lord’s Day, which in the Pope’s eyes is Sunday. This is based only on the church’s traditions and the church’s self-assumed power to change God’s word. In the introduction to the apostolic letter, point 2, Pope John Paul II says the following:
“The Resurrection of Jesus is the fundamental event upon which Christian faith rests (cf. 1 Cor 15:14). It is an astonishing reality, fully grasped in the light of faith, yet historically attested to by those who were privileged to see the Risen Lord. It is a wondrous event which is not only absolutely unique in human history, but which lies at the very heart of the mystery of time. In fact, «all time belongs to [Christ] and all the ages», as the evocative liturgy of the Easter Vigil recalls in preparing the Paschal Candle”.
According to the Pope, this is the background for the change of the Lords day from Saturday to Sunday, and goes on to explain why the change has come about by saying:
“Therefore, in commemorating the day of Christ’s Resurrection not just once a year but every Sunday, the Church seeks to indicate to every generation the true fulcrum of history, to which the mystery of the world’s origin and its final destiny leads”.
Pope John Paul says that we should consider Sunday the Lord’s Day as a commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection. But what does Jesus himself say? When the Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus on Maundy Thursday in the year 31, we read in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 what Paul says: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me”.
In Luke 22:19 we read this: “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me”.
In other words, it is the Lord’s Supper that should remind us of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Not surprisingly, the papacy is on a collision course with Jesus in this matter as well. So as if it is not enough that the papacy is on a collision course with Jesus, Pope John Paul II contradicts statements from historians, the Catholic Church’s «Manual of the Catholic Religion«, Cardinal Gibbon, the Catholic catechisms «Doctrinal Catechism» and «The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1977 edition)” as well as many other sources.
The following quotes from the church’s history are thought-provoking in this context.
The first church laws.
Emperor Constantine’s Sunday law came on March 7, 321 AD: On the venerable day of the sun (venerabili die Solis) the officials and the population of the cities should rest, and the workshops should be closed. But in the countryside, the people who do agriculture are allowed to continue their work, (Codex Justinianus in Schaff, History of the Christian Church).
In 364 AD came the first ecclesiastical Sunday law, issued by the Council of Laodicea, where the practice of not working on Saturday was condemned.
In 538 AD the council in Orleans issued a stricter and stricter Sunday law, which among other things also stopped work in agriculture.
Other statements.
The historian Socrates (4th century AD) writes this in his work Ecclesiastical History: Almost all the churches in the world celebrate the sacraments on the Sabbath every week, but the Christians in Alexandria and Rome have by some tradition stopped doing this.
Lucius Ferraris says: The Pope can change divine laws, because he does not have his power from man, but from God, and he acts in God’s place on earth and has unlimited power to bind and loose his sheep.
In the Manual of the Catholic Religion it says: That the church has instituted Sunday as the Lord’s day instead of the Sabbath and determined it to be a day especially for divine worship, is a clear proof of its great power which it solemnly received from Christ.
Cardinal Gibbon’s reply to I. S. Snyder, on whether change of holy day was a sign or mark of the authority of the Church. Naturally, the Catholic Church claims that the change is its own doing. It could not be otherwise, as no one in those days would have dreamed of undertaking anything in spiritual, clerical, and religious matters without it. And this action is a mark of the clerical power and of its authority in religious matters, (letter dated 28 October 1895).
Cardinal Gibbon says in the book The Faith of Our Fathers the following: One can read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, without finding a single line that authorizes the observance of Sunday.
Del Catecismo Doctrinal podemos tomar esto:
Pregunta: ¿Puede probar de alguna otra manera que la iglesia tiene el poder de instituir días festivos por ley?
Respuesta: Si no tuviera tal poder, no podría haber hecho lo que todos los religiosos modernos están de acuerdo con él: no podría haber instituido el domingo, el primer día de la semana, en lugar de la observancia del sábado, el séptimo día, un cambio para el cual no hay autoridad en las Escrituras.
En el Catecismo de la Doctrina Católica del Converso (edición de 1977) encontramos esto:
Pregunta: ¿Qué día es el día de descanso?
Respuesta: El sábado es el día del descanso.
Pregunta: ¿Por qué guardamos el domingo en lugar del sábado?
Respuesta: Celebramos el domingo en lugar del sábado, porque la Iglesia Católica ha transferido la santidad del sábado al domingo.
El teólogo católico romano John A. O’Brian dice en The Faith of Millions lo siguiente: Dado que es sábado y no domingo, como se menciona en la Biblia, no es extraño; ¿Que personas que no son católicas, y que dicen que no obtuvieron su religión de la Iglesia, sino directamente de la Biblia, guarden el domingo en lugar del sábado? Naturalmente, es inconsistente. La observancia del domingo es un recordatorio de la Iglesia Madre, de la que se han separado las sectas no católicas.
Celebramos el domingo en lugar del sábado porque la Iglesia Católica ha transferido la santidad del sábado al domingo. Pieter Geiermann, CSSR: Un catecismo doctrinal, edición de 1957, pág.
El domingo es una institución católica y su pretensión de observancia sólo puede defenderse sobre bases católicas. The Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, agosto de 1900.
La tormenta se convierte en todo un huracán.
Es la cuestión del sábado la que será el último gran tema de discordia en los últimos tiempos; la cuestión de qué día de la semana se contará como el día del Señor, o el sábado de Dios, será el catalizador final de la tormenta que pronto se avecina sobre nosotros. La batalla entre Jesús y Satanás, entre el bien y el mal, es también una batalla por la adoración. ¿Quién recibirá vuestra adoración? ¿Adoras al Creador del cielo y de la tierra, o adorarás a aquel que se rebeló contra Dios y trajo el pecado al mundo mediante la seducción? Es la elección tuya, y sólo hay dos opciones. O Dios o Satanás. No hay más opciones y nadie puede decir que no les concierne.
Todos adoran a uno u otro con sus vidas y acciones. Cualquiera que no elija activamente adorar a Dios, automáticamente elige adorar a Satanás. Cuando llegue la ley dominical mundial implementada por los Estados Unidos, y llegará pronto, todas las personas deben adoptar una postura sobre esta ley. Nadie puede permanecer indiferente ante esta ley. La ley dominical trata sobre la adoración. Si te sometes a la ley dominical, te sometes al régimen que respalda esta ley, y este es el papado y Satanás. Satanás odia el sábado de Dios, que es nuestro sábado. Por lo tanto, esta ley dominical llega en los últimos tiempos para obligar a la gente a adorar a Satanás eligiendo el domingo como día de reposo.
En Apocalipsis 13,11-17 encontramos la profecía que apunta a este evento: “Y vi otra bestia que subía de la tierra. Y tenía dos cuernos semejantes a los de un cordero, y hablaba como un dragón. Y ejerce toda la autoridad de la primera bestia en presencia de ella, y hace que la tierra y sus habitantes adoren a la primera bestia cuya herida mortal fue sanada. Y hace grandes señales, de tal manera que aun hace descender fuego del cielo a la tierra delante de los hombres. Y engaña a los habitantes de la tierra a causa de las señales que se le concedió hacer en presencia de la bestia, mandándoles a los habitantes de la tierra hacer una imagen en honor de la bestia que tiene la herida de espada y que revivió. También le fue permitido dar aliento a la imagen de la bestia, para que la imagen de la bestia hablase e hiciera que fueran muertos todos los que no adoraran a la imagen de la bestia. Y ella hace que a todos, a pequeños y a grandes, a ricos y a pobres, a libres y a esclavos, se les ponga una marca en la mano derecha o en la frente, y que nadie pueda comprar ni vender, sino el que tenga la marca, es decir, el nombre de la bestia o el número de su nombre”.