Amen. But it wasn't me who labels them as enemies. It was Jesus who said our greatest foes will be those of our own household. And by that, although true, I don't mean exclusively those in in the next room. I speak of the household of faith. I have no doubt that Abel was always gracious and as gentle as he could be with his brother...but his brother was still his enemy. Those two cities we spoke of are sister cities. One a counterfeit of the other. Both claiming to know the true God...both claiming to espouse the right way of worship...but one of them using legislation to enforce their particular brand. That is our SDA message. It isn't one of naming enemies, but merely a message of warning that prophecy reveals a certain group who one day will force under pain of persecution and death, a false form of worship, using the state power to do so. Since the beginning of Adventism in the 1860s, we have been utterly consistent in our belief that the USA will be that state power which enforces that worship on behalf of the papacy. But it is a Protestant US, but fallen. Apostate. And what is it we observe today taking place in American politics? A president who promised "power" to the church and who is now surrounded by a coterie of evangelical pastors and counsellors/advisors ...and to what purpose? Add to that the growing relationship between the US and the Vatican, and all the accompanying signs of submission on the part of the American republic (now a democracy more than republic) to Rome. One being the presentation of the Pope from a balcony higher than any US President before him. Seemingly minor I know, but in Freemason circles highly significant.
Did you watch that video presentation of Revelation 13? I believe that will answer a lot of questions.
Ok...nuts and bolts of it. I think that Revelation clearly speaks of a spiritual emnity between to "city" types: Jerusalem and Babylon. Babylon has always been, throughout the bible, the city used to describe a city or nation that is in utter rebellion against God. While Jerusalem has been, of course, the city of God...of his people.
The bible is ultimately about Jesus, but we also see the story of rebellous mankind and how God, again and again, is gracious to save a few, to bring them into his fold, so to speak. And so, yes, there is this tension between the two cities.
But when we come to Revelation, which is highly symbolic book, I think there can be room for metaphors. Does the New Jersualem refer to an actual city, or to the people of God as a whole? There is some suggestion it could be both, as we see are told "I saw the Bride", and it was the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. Likewise, does Babylon mean a specific city, or is it talking about all nations who rebel against God? Might it be both?
My point being, there is a lot of...space...around the texts that talk of the Antichrist, Babylon, the Mark, etc. They are fairly symbolic and don't give a lot of details. The problem here is twofold. Because they don't give details, they invite others to do so, but for that very reason, because we strive to fill in some of the blanks, we often find ourselves going places that the bible just doesn't say we can. It ends up being supposition.
The problem I see with labelling the RCC the Antichrist, Rome Babylon, and America...well, whatever it is, complicit. Is that, while you feel you may have arrived there logically, there is still no way to draw that from scripture. It's still just a guess. And when we become dogmatic over something that is, essentially, just a guess, then aren't you becoming exactly that which you are writing about in essence? Perhaps not in the sense of death and imprisionment, but I suppose it's troubling to me that you warn of the enemy in the next room, but admit that the SDA's have faithfully taught America will hunt, tag and bag, so to speak. And, forgive me, but scripture just doesn't say that.
I did watch that video. And while interesting, I found that a lot of the information he 'started' from, to make his points, was just assumed. He would make statements to found the points he went on to make, and I'm afraid I didn't feel comfortable to just assume many of those founding assumption, many I didn't agree with. So while his logic may have made sense, his starting presuppositions often were off (I felt), or were stated in such a way that seemed true, but may not have been. I didn't take the time to check each one...I don't have that sort of free time! Some of them may have been. But my point is, when you build everything you're saying, all your points, on various things, and those things you just say are, because they are, and you don't seem to lay that foundation, you just say them like you expect everyone else to accept it as true because you said it was...then that concerns me a little. Take a little time to lay some foundation for what your building.
But, perhaps most of his audience had had that foundation and agreed with him. Either way, I could not. I'm sorry.