Ya mean, "Men's hearts failing them for fear?

I'm delighted to concede that point that yes, conspiracies do occur. Once we have that out of the way, we need to look at the actual evidence for any actual conspiracy (and, as a broader point, given the general incompetence of governments on all sorts of fronts, on the plausibility of multi-decade conspirators being competent enough not to be revealed (or, interestingly, incompetent enough to be revealed just a little bit, enough that conspiracy theorists know but no-one else)).

In looking at evidence, we also need to be aware of 'confirmation bias' - the strong human tendency to believe evidence that supports our assumptions and ignore evidence that challenges them.

What evidence do you think would lead Pickie Chickie to believe that 9/11 went down exactly as the mainstream account goes: terrorists flew planes into buildings which then collapsed? Is there *any* evidence that can convince her of that? I don't think so, because part of the scheme is that the conspirators would try to fake very convincing evidence to cover their tracks.

The same is true for all sorts of conspiracy theories, on both the left and the right. Confirming evidence is embraced, disconfirming evidence is discounted.

In answer to Stan's original question, which I took to be focused more specifically on Christian believers, since that's our focus here, I have three answers. They aren't a sequence that form an argument, they're three individual factors.

1. Christians know evil is abroad in the world, they know evil has plans for the world. They assume that evil is cunning (which seems only to be true sometimes) and likes to work in hidden ways, so the notion that evil men are conspiring behind closed doors to do evil is inherently believable to Christians.

2. For SDAs specifically, our traditional prophetic framework very strongly lends itself to conspiracy theory, with the Papacy viewed as one of these malevolent networks, and notions about world government (which are completely implausible given Daniel 2, but there ya go) and apostate protestantism and America's role in prophecy. It pretty much sets us up for Jesuits and Masons and Rosicrucians, oh my!

3. And here's the pilloriable one: Creationism requires those who believe in it to deny large parts of science, and seems to cause them to believe that science itself is an evil conspiracy to destroy religious faith. Once you're there, the scientific evidence that debunks a conspiracy theory is easy to dispose of. You've flexed your 'not believing in the evidence from the world around you' muscles enough that it becomes easy to accept anything and believe anything, no matter what the evidence says.

Have fun with it.

I tend to agree with your first 2 points only it seems that the Christian's knowledge of evil and SDA prophetic insight, both based in Scripture, should be a strong hedge AGAINST a conspiracy mindset.As for #3, the nature of the question can just as easily lead "science" to believe in a religious conspiracy to reject their "evidence"(where have I heard that before?).And don't worry about Jesuits.We've already identified Woody! Strange. Real conspiracies seem to not stay secret for very long.And Stan was referring to normal intelligent people, does that exclude non-Christians?

I think confirmation bias applies to everyone. And existing prejudices of whatever kind prepare the ground. Catholics, Jews, bankers, right-wingers, left-wingers, Muslims... whoever you fear you'll be all too willing to believe they're conspiring.

And yep, scientists are susceptible to confirmation bias too. But science has *methods* for testing ideas, and when science is done properly it will correct these biases. That's kind of what it's *for*.

Sivart, you have generally done a pretty good job of staying out of these kinds of over-generalizations. The question is whether conspiracy theories should be examined. Your taking it to the wall like you did above, doesn't come right out and say that everyone who looks for evidence of conspiracy is a lunatic, but it implies it.

There have been some famous conspiracies. They center around money and power. It is logical that big money and big power would be a lure for conspirators.

The following famous expression stems from a conspiracy for power in the most powerful government on earth. "Et tu, Brutus?"

OK, fair enough. Any particular specific ones you'd like us to look at the evidence for, karl?

I would tend to say that a guy named Madoff or something like that had a huge conspiracy going on... Perhaps even people inside the regulating comittees had something to do with it? He was reported like a dozen times, yet nothing was done until...

>>"Pascha" means Passover, aka. the time when Jesus died (14th of Nisan on the Hebrew calendar).<<

Indeed, however, does that ‘fact’ nullify my observation, following?



>>Easter has nothing to do with Jesus' death.<<

I’ve not made that argument; however, though the KJV translators translated the NT “Pascha” as Passover 28 times – they correctly translated “Pascha” in the one instance of Acts 12:4 "Easter" – as indicated by contextual usage: specifically, as correlate to verse 3.

>>It's celebrated at a different time,<<

Indeed; is that good or bad?

>>...with traditions that are completely pagan.<<

Pagan, in its least pejorative – is simply rustic or peasant – generally speaking, the poor. (Some what says, that Solomon’s Temple incorporated aspects of heathen temples – for instance, the pillars marking the solstices and the equinoxes. Solomon’s Temple seems to have been a facsimile of the Phoenician temples Hazor and that at Tell Tainat – both predating Solomon’s - and what was with the two winged creatures that filled the Holy of Holies?)

>>Some years Passover and Easter are around the same dates (like this year), however, other years they can be an entire month apart.<<

Oy, oy, oy.

>>So, you are right, we are to use them to determine when these "Appointed Times" are. However, we should use the Bible to determine these times, not man-made rules nor the use of equinoxes or solstices like the pagans use.<<

Indeed, and that entails reconciling all the several different calendars, yes?

>>Jesus, the disciples and the early church never celebrated Easter.<<

Indeed, it was such as Herod Agrippa of Acts 12...

>>They did, however, celebrate Passover.<<

...which was, even then, fading into obsolescence for the NT Xtian community – per Writ.

>>It wasn't until many years later that they changed Passover to Easter, and of course, the Sabbath to Sunday as well.<<

Isn’t it the argument of the .Org that such as the celebration of Pasch – was nailed to the cross?

>>See quotes below.

“The earliest Christians celebrated the Lord's Passover at the same time as the Jews, [...]

“A whole body of ‘Against the Jews’ literature was produced by leading Fathers who defamed the Jews [...] the repudiation of the Jewish reckoning of Passover and adoption of Easter-Sunday instead. Joachim Jeremias attributes such a development to ‘the inclination to break away from Judaism.’ In a similar vein, J.B. Lightfoot explains that Rome and Alexandria adopted Easter-Sunday to avoid ‘even the semblance of Judaism’”
- Samuele Bacchiocchi, God's Festival in Scripture and History, 1995, pp. 101-103<<

Ahh, the sigilism of Papal conspiracy.

How are the above quotes relevant to today’s Xtian?—isn’t it really a non-issue? Are you proposing that today’s Xtian observe the Jewish Pasch?

Xtians, rightly so, celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ and a New Testament; whereas, noting, it is Jews who continue to embrace, by and large, OT traditions/observances.

>>Catholics, Jews, bankers, right-wingers, left-wingers, Muslims...<<

Yep, alla thems. And Dem'crats too.