RTQUESTION MORELIVE

21 Feb, 2022 13:52Join RT on TelegramRussian President Vladimir Putin speaks during an annual extended meeting of the Board of the Russian Interior Ministry, in Moscow, Russia. © Sputnik / Aleksey Nikolskyi

We have come to a time old-time phrases are applied. The terrible times of the dark ages, the times of David and Jesus Christ whom they would not agree with were excommunicated. What and whose spirit is this? Thus were faith Sabbath keepers excommunicated, Elijah being one of them. The spirit comes from the mouth of Pope francis to separate those we don’t agree with. It’s an age of “war” for everything as the Pope has directed the world to War against those he calls Fundamentalist, extremist.

And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his father was a stranger, in the land of Canaan.Genesis:37:1, I am a stranger in the earth: hide not thy commandments from me.Psalm:119:19

By Layla Guest Non-citizens who respect the country’s values, culture, and laws are still welcome, the Russian president has said

Foreigners in Russia who support terrorist or extremist causes should be immediately booted out of the country, President Vladimir Putin has said after Moscow hinted that it was considering the possibility of giving citizens found guilty of serious violations deportation orders.

Speaking on Thursday at the board of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Russian leader set out his stance on how people who have immigrated to his country should be penalized for grave crimes.

According to Putin, everyone who comes to Russia to live, study, and work, while respecting the law of the land, its culture, and traditions, is welcome. “These foreign citizens, and especially our compatriots coming from abroad, should be able to freely and, without bureaucratic delays, arrange all necessary documents,” he explained.

“However, illegal migration, the activities of criminal gangs that build their business on this, the toughest measures should be drawn up against these people,” he explained.

READ MORERussia considers kicking out rowdy foreigners

Putin went on, insisting that “any demonstrations of extremism, violations of law and order, and illegal labor operations [should] serve as grounds for prompt decisions for their deportation from Russia and ban them from entering our country in the future.”

Last month, Moscow’s Ministry of Internal Affairs said that it was looking into the possibility of kicking out foreigners if they commit severe administrative breaches, including violations of public order.

Tensions have flared between Russians and a new generation of workers from Central Asia in recent years. Last summer, more than 100 people were arrested in the Kuzminki area of the Russian capital after a massive brawl between two groups, mainly migrants, erupted on the streets.

Russia draws a large number of skilled and unskilled workers from former Soviet Republics, such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, notably in the service and construction sectors. In December 2020, the Ministry of Internal Affairs estimated that almost half of all migrants living in Russia had left during the Covid-19 pandemic.

In 2016, the high-profile case of an Uzbek nanny, who beheaded a four-year-old girl in her care and paraded the child’s severed head on a street in Moscow, shocked the Russian public. Videos of the woman, Gyulchekhra Bobokulova, purported to show her shouting “I am a terrorist.” She claimed that the grisly attack was revenge for Russian military operations in Syria. She is said to have been suffering from serious mental health problems and was later deported from the country.Join RT on Telegramhttps://d-27026887462079924939.ampproject.net/2202042210001/frame.html

rt.com© Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2017. All rights reserved.

Wycliffe began to write and publish tracts against the friars, not, however, seeking so much to enter into dispute with them as to call the minds of the people to the teachings of the Bible and its Author. He declared that the power of pardon or of excommunication is possessed by the pope in no greater degree than by common priests, and that no man can be truly excommunicated unless he has first brought upon himself the condemnation of God. In no more effectual way could he have undertaken the overthrow of that mammoth fabric of spiritual and temporal dominion which the pope had erected and in which the souls and bodies of millions were held captive. GC 84.2

This appeal was rapidly circulated throughout Germany and exerted a powerful influence upon the people. The whole nation was stirred, and multitudes were roused to rally around the standard of reform. Luther’s opponents, burning with a desire for revenge, urged the pope to take decisive measures against him. It was decreed that his doctrines should be immediately condemned. Sixty days were granted the Reformer and his adherents, after which, if they did not recant, they were all to be excommunicated.
That was a terrible crisis for the Reformation. For centuries Rome’s sentence of excommunication had struck terror to powerful monarchs; it had filled mighty empires with woe and desolation. Those upon whom its condemnation fell were universally regarded with dread and horror; they were cut off from intercourse with their fellows and treated as outlaws, to be hunted to extermination. Luther was not blind to the tempest about to burst upon him; but he stood firm, trusting in Christ to be his support and shield. With a martyr’s faith and courage he wrote: “What is about to happen I know not, nor do I care to know…. Let the blow light where it may, I am without fear. Not so much as a leaf falls, without the will of our Father. How much rather will He care for us! It is a light thing to die for the Word, since the Word which was made flesh hath Himself died. If we die with Him, we shall live with Him; and passing through that which He has passed through before us, we shall be where He is and dwell with Him forever.”— Ibid., 3d London ed., Walther, 1840, b. 6, ch. 9. GC 141.1 – GC 141.2

When the prelate saw that Luther’s reasoning was unanswerable, he lost all self-control, and in a rage cried out: “Retract! or I will send you to Rome, there to appear before the judges commissioned to take cognizance of your cause. I will excommunicate you and all your partisans, and all who shall at any time countenance you, and will cast them out of the church.” And he finally declared, in a haughty and angry tone: “Retract, or return no more.”—D’Aubigne, London ed., b. 4, ch. 8. GC 136.4

Those who have differed from the established doctrines have been imprisoned, put to torture and to death, because the dignitaries of the church could not endure those who dissented from ideas which these leaders deemed to be true. Satan himself is the sower of tares; but even though he is the sower of them, they are not to be rooted up, lest by chance the wheat be rooted up with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and the harvest is the end of probationary time. Fiendish zeal has been manifested in excluding dissenters from the fellowship of the church, and passing upon them the sentence of excommunication by which the Roman Church asserted its power of excluding them from all possibility of entering heaven.
How does heaven look upon such things? With what amazement do angels hear men judging and condemning their brethren, causing them most cruel suffering of body and mind, and claiming that they do it under the sanction of God? Instead of being under the leadership of Christ, they are following the leadership of Satan. Paul at one time pursued this course, actually believing that he was doing God service; but Jesus spoke to him, and told him that in persecuting his saints he was persecuting him. All persecution, all force employed to compel conscience, is after Satan’s own order; and those who carry out these designs are his agents to execute his hellish purpose. In following Satan’s cruel proposals, in becoming his agents, men become the enemies of God and his church, and will be judged in that great day by that man whom God hath ordained; for he hath committed all judgment into the hands of his Son. RH January 10, 1893, par. 9 – RH January 10, 1893, par. 10

Michael Sugimura

Oct 6, 2018·12 min read

For students of the social sciences the Tragedy of the Commons will be a familiar example about how rational individual actions can have negative effects for society as a whole. The original example of the tragedy of the commons is from 1833 where British economist William Forester Lloyd discussed the issues of grazing cattle of public lands. Since then this idea of individuals over utilizing public lands/goods has been applied to different subjects another classic one that I based the game environment I built off of was the over fishing of New England cod fisheries.

1833 Millerite, Showers of Stars 🌟🌟,

New England Cod fishing

The basic premise of the tragedy of the commons is that individuals acting in a rational way will deplete common resources as they maximize their own utility even though it could be argued that it is in their best interest to preserve these common resources for future use. This is because the future is uncertain and individuals are incentivized to maximize their own personal utility. Without any external regulation/action this means they should utilize resources that are available rather than holding back their consumption for a future that is uncertain.

The solution posed in social sciences to avoid this tragedy of the commons is to create regulations or measures to help curb immediate consumption which will help the resource in question survive into the future. Some examples of this are placing the resource in private hands, have fees/permits attached to their use, or have laws/regulations placed on them for government/society to enforce.

This is all well and good, but I am a data scientist and enjoy building AI.

So how does that fit in here? My thought is that data science and deep learning in general is the process of optimization towards some goal. That goal could be maximizing a win percentage or accuracy, which is fine and very satisfying to achieve. However as AI becomes more integrated into our society there will be increasing social consequences to the objectives we choose to optimize towards. To illustrate how choosing what to optimize for is important this post is going to go through how I built an environment to allow the training of reinforcement learning bots to play out the tragedy of the commons and how adjusting their rewards changes the social implications of the games.

Teaching a Bot to Fish

The first step was to build a game environment to act as a simulation for the tragedy of the commons. I based my example off of a version I found online for economics classes.

NO NEUTRAL BUT WINNING!

The game is initialized with two players and some starting number of fish in the fishery, the game ends when the fishery count falls below a certain threshold representing the crash of the population due to overfishing. The winner is the one who ends with the most fish. Each turn players simultaneously declare how many fish they will take, if the total take does not force the population below the threshold each player gets their take and the remaining fish all have one offspring with the maximum never going above the initial number of fish. On the final turn the remaining fish are divided between players based on how many fish they declared to take for that turn. So if I declared 10 fish and you declared 8 fish with 9 fish remaining I would get 5 and you would get 4.

The game itself is a loop that only breaks when the fishery population crashes (drops below the threshold of 8) or when the game hits 100 turns. I added the 100 turn limit to avoid the loop running infinitely.

In the game itself the starting number of fish was 20 and I had two players one “computer player” which would randomly pick fish values depending on the current level of the fishery and a Keras reinforcement learning bot. This Keras bot is the one that will be the focus of the post, and by testing how tweaking its reward structure affects the game’s outcomes.

The game status that is fed into the neural network as context is the current computer score, bots score, total fishery count, past computer take, past bot take for a 5 node input. The output layer of the network is 20 nodes representing different amount of fish to declare in a given turn, 1–20 fish. In order to get a better idea of the training cycle for the bots I think it is important to throw in a bit of a refresher on reinforcement learning in particular deep q-learning.

See tragedy.py for details of the game. The TOC class contains the game function and some other utility functions for running the game and reporting results.

The network is housed in the netlearner.py file

Quick Deep Q-Learning Review

This section is here to layout how the bots are trained and how exactly it is they learn the specific game behavior that they exhibit.

In high level terms the bots are conditioned based on rewards and punishments they receive for outcomes.

Mechanically doing this for a neural network is obviously not quite the same as doing it for a living thing so it is good to lay it out. The basic process is as follows:

the Agent (the network in this case) is given the current state of the game. This could be the pixels of an atari pong game or whatever representation you choose. Here is is the current number of fish, player and computer scores, player and computer most recent takes. My thoughts are that this is the type of context a human player would have while playing.

Agent chooses an action out if its action space. In the Pong example Andrej Karpathy has it as the probability of going up. In this example it means

choosing one of the 20 output nodes corresponding to declaring to take 1–20 fish. An important note here is that there is the idea of exploration vs exploitation. Essentially saying that sometimes an action should be chosen at random rather than simply doing what the Agent thinks is best. This helps the Agent to explore and find additional rewards that it would not have found otherwise if it has simply exploited the rewards it knows.

Action is imputed into the environment, any rewards are collected, and the environment moves onto its next state, frame, or turn. Mechanically I do this by adding the rewards to the card slot combination that the network outputted. For a positive reward that category’s value in the output array increases and the network will see that given that input again that particular category is a beneficial one.

The Agent is updated based on the rewards it received. After the rewards are used to modify the output array, the network is trained on the initial input state with the modified output array as the target. This helps to reinforce good choices, while taking into account bad choices as well.

Rinse and repeat.

See the interactions between the previously mentioned netlearner.py and the tragedy.py file for this process

Photo from Tsukiji bluefin tuna auction in Tokyo from a 2014 trip. Seems appropriate for a tragedy of the commons writeup

Victory at the Cost of the Common Good

What I found is that standard configuration of rewards create very “greedy” bots.

By standard configuration I mean that I placed rewards on winning, negative reward on losing, and no reward for anything in between. Usually this is done so that bots can learn what behaviors lead to their wins and allow them to maximize their win percentage. This behavior is useful things in like Atari Pong, Cartpole, or other games where the goal is simply victory. But this maximization of winning does not necessarily mean it has good social consequences.

I even experimented with scaling the win and loss rewards based on the number of turns (I used sqrt of the turn count for some tests) to give incentive for winning in longer games but the results remained the same and the bots played a very greedy play style.

So what do I mean by “greedy play style”?… Basically when I train bots with these rewards in place the bots win something like 99% of the time which is cool! Basically the bots have figured out how to maximize their win percentage against the little computer player that I coded up. However they reach this 99% win rate in a single turn on average.

The strategy that the bots fell into is to declare to take larger numbers of fish on the first turn which causes the population of the fishery to crash immediately.

Then because of the final turn conditions where population is divided up based on the number of fish each player declared if the bot declared more it automatically beats the opponent.

Even though the bot could gain additional reward by playing longer and even with with it set to explore on 10% or 20% of its turns it still falls into this same strategy and does not learn to play for longer games.

This is interesting because this style of bot with a common reward structure and maximization towards winning behaves almost exactly the same as agents in the classic tragedy of the commons examples. The bot can earn greater rewards by keeping resource around for a longer period of time, but instead it decides to consume it now to maximize its short term gains since it may or may not be able to win in the future. So while this bot has learned how to win and win well, it also overconsumes and destroys the resource in question.

Now lets mess around with 1 line of code…

2017 photo from Valencia, Spain. I liked the futuristic look of this part of the city.

A Bot Improving the Common Utility

So I laid out the reward structure for the bot in the previous section, now what if I adjust one part of that reward structure. Leaving the rewards for victory and defeat in place I ran multiple tests where the reward for a continued turn and varied across positive values between 1.5, 5, and 10. What I found that it created “altruistic” bots which would play for longer games, but the bot’s winrate suffered as a result.

From a technical point of view I was testing the idea that placing a reward of 1.5 would mean the bot would find it beneficial to itself to learn to play games of a length greater than 2 (since the reward is sqrt of the turn count for winning). I benchmarked how the bots played over 1000 game windows and found that depending on the iteration the bots have winrates between 85–91% and average games lasting between 2–4 turns.

With a reward of 5 the bot starts out with a fairly low winrate of 36% and a turn count of 7 but ended its training with a winrate of 59% and a game length of 11 and some of the test games from that final section of training are games with length 100 with the bot winning with a score of 406 to 401 fish.

At a reward of 10 the bots winrates do not get above 30–40% but their games go to 100 rounds. So they learn behavior that is useful for having the game continue. but not necessarily win. Due to the extreme focus that the bots will have on simply letting the game continue, a lot of the time the strategy that they follow is to simply take 4–5 fish per turn. So if I was trying to optimize these bots to win, this is a hilariously bad way to train them.

However we are not just trying to have the bots win, so lets step back and think about the behavior of the bots!

Shibuya X photo from a trip to Tokyo, I had my family sit in a second story of a Starbucks for an hour so I could take short timelapse photos of the crossing… Things like this are why it is hard to travel with photographers I think.

Certain Victory or Optimizing for the Common Good

In an unregulated version of the tragedy of the commons, players behaving as rational agents should try to maximize their short term gains rather than hoping for an uncertain future. The “greedy” bots mirror this behavior, they go for a near 100% win rate strategy where they win on the first turn.

However if we think about the consumption of resources. Burning all of them immediately is rarely the goal, rather the continued existence of the resource is beneficial to everyone. So if we could structure incentives to allow for sustainable harvesting it would lead to a vastly larger number of fish being collected than the 1 turn example.

From a mechanical/game theory point of view, the sustainable way to play this implementation of the game is to have the two players each take 5 fish per turn for a total take of 10. This drops the fishery count from 20 to 10. Since the fishery count is not below 8 the population doubles and goes from 10 to 20. This means the fishery can be maintained indefinitely.

This balance is hard to maintain in actual practice because there is no communication between players and requires the players involved to forego short term gains (certain victory) over letting all players gather more fish (increasing collective utility). In the real world this may come about with things like regulations/monitoring/cultural norms/privatization.

So while the “greedy” bots optimize for the fast win, the “altruistic” bots with increased rewards for continued play begin to optimize towards behavior other than simply winning. In fact the bots start to behave very similarly to this more sustainable best case gameplay I laid out above.

With the reward at 10 the bots play a safer version of this conservative gameplay and only play take 4–5 fish per turn and basically throw any chance they have of winning. As far as balancing winrate and average number of turns the reward 5 bots maintain a more competitive stance taking between 4–6 fish per turn. This additional competitiveness is reflected in their higher winrate while still trying to not deplete the fishery.

All of the more altruistic bots were optimized to try and win but to do so in longer games. This multi part optimization means that there is some trade off and in this case it means that they win a lower percentage of the time, but if taken in greater context you may be able to argue that that is okay.

In playing longer games the bots sometimes win, but also sometimes fall hilariously far behind for example some of the 100 turn games end with scores of 350–400 to 600+. While this is a fairly staggering loss in terms of victory or defeat, if you consider that the continued existence of fish generates additional utility for the whole community then this is still a very favorable outcome even if the bot does not win as much for itself.

This staggering loss can be a good outcome by comparing how many total fish a simulation generates. A victory by the “greedy” bot has a total of 20 fish get harvested by both players. The bot wins and the resource is gone. The “altruistic” bot that plays to 100 games and may lose, but somewhere between 800–1000 fish are gathered by both players.

Final Thoughts
As an economist/social scientist this post is a straightforward showing of how the modification of preferences can be modeled using deep learning/reinforcement learning to illustrate ways to get to higher levels of overall social utility.

As a data scientist this post is my roundabout way of commenting that as AI gets more integrated with society there will be more consequences to how we choose to optimize that AI and the tradeoffs we make in building them.
I could likely improve the RL methods that I applied in this post and try to have the bots learn stronger strategies to increase their winrates no matter the number of rounds. As of now the bots with higher rewards for continued turns sacrifice winning and settle into very weak overall strategies. With more experimentation the bots could likely learn how to sustain the numbers of fish, but also take action to close gaps between them and their opponent or increase a lead over their opponent. That can be a project for another time.
Thanks for reading!
Github repo here

Bible Prophecy appeals to the sons of men to come to the Lord’s side now. My soul could not be in peace when I see my brethren ensnared by the evil one. I remember the accounts of Elijah when he had to ran from Israel to a neighboring land for safety from the union of church and state (Ahab and Jezebel) which was unlawful relationship with Herodias wife by the King who discarded the council of God. God’s dealings with men in nations is the same as to individuals who shall be mingling in this last days on the same effect. The end result is to hush from the land those whom they can’t agree with. The incident of Jesus crucifixion is of great teaching in this time. The Apostate First Beast of Revelation 13 is back to ensnare America to enforce a mandatory Sunday Law of his own creating! Where will Elijah stand?

The churches mingled Dan2:44 with the State in the case of the Pharisees and priests and rulers to hush Jesus Christ from the land in the name of protecting the nation from Roman power. How dare we repeat history!!! The COMMON GOOD was a SNARE to many who cried, “crucify Him”. Elijah is Censored!!! Help Lord, the godly man CEASETH!

Common good game

We often talk about doing things in the interest of the “common good”. But is there a vision of the “common good” that everyone agrees with? And what would this vision look like?

I worked with the Shell strategy team to design a game to help answer these questions. The game is based on a thought experiment by John Rawls called the “Veil of Ignorance”. In this experiment, Rawls puts participants in what he calls the “Original Position”:“No one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities.”

Rawls argued that, put in this position and asked to design an ideal society, people would come up with rules that were inherently fair.Playing the Common Good Game at the Shell Strategy Away Day, June 2018

We tried to recreate this in the Common Good Game. Players have to choose policies at the beginning of the game, and afterwards they are given a character and have to try to achieve personal and societal goals under the policies they chose. Each character has different abilities, opportunities and goals, and so players may come to regret their policy decisions!

The game works to stimulate discussion around these issues and to help players put themselves in the shoes of a wide variety of people.

As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport? Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth. As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife. The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly. He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, and layeth up deceit within him; When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart. Whose hatred is covered by deceit, his wickedness shall be shewed before the whole congregation. Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him. A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.
Proverbs:26:18-22,24-28

AIM OF COMMON GOOD AS IN CHRIST JESUS’ TIME.

In the thirteenth century was established that most terrible of all the engines of the papacy—the Inquisition. The prince of darkness wrought with the leaders of the papal hierarchy. In their secret councils Satan and his angels controlled the minds of evil men, while unseen in the midst stood an angel of God, taking the fearful record of their iniquitous decrees and writing the history of deeds too horrible to appear to human eyes. “Babylon the great” was “drunken with the blood of the saints.” The mangled forms of millions of martyrs cried to God for vengeance upon that apostate power.
Popery had become the world’s despot. Kings and emperors bowed to the decrees of the Roman pontiff. The destinies of men, both for time and for eternity, seemed under his control. For hundreds of years the doctrines of Rome had been extensively and implicitly received, its rites reverently performed, its festivals generally observed. Its clergy were honored and liberally sustained. Never since has the Roman Church attained to greater dignity, magnificence, or power.
But “the noon of the papacy was the midnight of the world.”—J. A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism, b. 1, ch. 4. The Holy Scriptures were almost unknown, not only to the people, but to the priests. Like the Pharisees of old, the papal leaders hated the light which would reveal their sins. God’s law, the standard of righteousness, having been removed, they exercised power without limit, and practiced vice without restraint. Fraud, avarice, and profligacy prevailed. Men shrank from no crime by which they could gain wealth or position. The palaces of popes and prelates were scenes of the vilest debauchery. Some of the reigning pontiffs were guilty of crimes so revolting that secular rulers endeavored to depose these dignitaries of the church as monsters too vile to be tolerated. For centuries Europe had made no progress in learning, arts, or civilization. A moral and intellectual paralysis had fallen upon Christendom.
The condition of the world under the Romish power presented a fearful and striking fulfillment of the words of the prophet Hosea: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee: … seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” “There is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.” Hosea 4:6, 1, 2. Such were the results of banishing the word of God. GC 59.3 – GC 60.3

The wide diversity of belief in the Protestant churches is regarded by many as decisive proof that no effort to secure a forced uniformity can ever be made. But there has been for years, in churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing sentiment in favor of a union based upon common points of doctrine. To secure such a union, the discussion of subjects upon which all were not agreed—however important they might be from a Bible standpoint—must necessarily be waived.
Charles Beecher, in a sermon in the year 1846, declared that the ministry of “the evangelical Protestant denominations” is “not only formed all the way up under a tremendous pressure of merely human fear, but they live, and move, and breathe in a state of things radically corrupt, and appealing every hour to every baser element of their nature to hush up the truth, and bow the knee to the power of apostasy. Was not this the way things went with Rome? Are we not living her life over again? And what do we see just ahead? Another general council! A world’s convention! Evangelical alliance, and universal creed!”—Sermon on “The Bible a Sufficient Creed,” delivered at Fort Wayne, Indiana, Feb. 22, 1846. When this shall be gained, then, in the effort to secure complete uniformity, it will be only a step to the resort to force.
When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.
The beast with two horns “causeth commands all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Revelation 13:16, 17. The third angel’s warning is: “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God.” “The beast” mentioned in this message, whose worship is enforced by the two-horned beast, is the first, or leopardlike beast of Revelation 13—the papacy. The “image to the beast” represents that form of apostate Protestantism which will be developed when the Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas. The “mark of the beast” still remains to be defined.
After the warning against the worship of the beast and his image the prophecy declares: “Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Since those who keep God’s commandments are thus placed in contrast with those that worship the beast and his image and receive his mark, it follows that the keeping of God’s law, on the one hand, and its violation, on the other, will make the distinction between the worshipers of God and the worshipers of the beast.
The special characteristic of the beast, and therefore of his image, is the breaking of God’s commandments. Says Daniel, of the little horn, the papacy: “He shall think to change times and the law.” Daniel 7:25, R.V. And Paul styled the same power the “man of sin,” who was to exalt himself above God. One prophecy is a complement of the other. Only by changing God’s law could the papacy exalt itself above God; whoever should understandingly keep the law as thus changed would be giving supreme honor to that power by which the change was made. Such an act of obedience to papal laws would be a mark of allegiance to the pope in the place of God.
The papacy has attempted to change the law of God. GC 444.2 – GC 446.2

And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.
Mark:9:38-40

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is THAT SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.1 John:4:3

And I saw THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the SPIRITS OF DEVILS, WORKING MIRACLES, which go forth unto the KINGS OF THE EARTH and of the WHOLE WORLD, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.Revelation:16:13-14

Notwithstanding that vice prevailed, even among the leaders of the Roman Church, her influence seemed steadily to increase.

About the close of the eighth century, papists put forth the claim that in the first ages of the church the bishops of Rome had possessed the same spiritual power which they now assumed. To establish this claim, some means must be employed to give it a show of authority; and this was readily suggested by the father of lies. Ancient writings were forged by monks. Decrees of councils before unheard of were discovered, establishing the universal supremacy of the pope from the earliest times. And a church that had rejected the truth greedily accepted these deceptions. (See Appendix.) GC 56.1

THE STORM IS INCREASING, WHERE IS SDA STANDARD BEARERS ANGELS?

The few faithful builders upon the true foundation (1 Corinthians 3:10, 11) were perplexed and hindered as the rubbish of false doctrine obstructed the work. Like the builders upon the wall of Jerusalem in Nehemiah’s day, some were ready to say: “The strength of the bearers of burdens is decayed, and there is much rubbish; so that we are not able to build.” Nehemiah 4:10. Wearied with the constant struggle against persecution, fraud, iniquity, and every other obstacle that Satan could devise to hinder their progress, some who had been faithful builders became disheartened; and for the sake of peace and security for their property and their lives, they turned away from the true foundation. Others, undaunted by the opposition of their enemies, fearlessly declared: “Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible” (verse 14); and they proceeded with the work, everyone with his sword girded by his side. Ephesians 6:17. GC 56.2

DOES THE SAME SPIRIT OF THE ANTICHRIST EXIST?

The same spirit of hatred and opposition to the truth has inspired the enemies of God in every age, and the same vigilance and fidelity have been required in His servants. The words of Christ to the first disciples are applicable to His followers to the close of time: “What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.” Mark 13:37. GC 56.3

The darkness seemed to grow more dense. Image worship became more general.

Candles were burned before images, and prayers were offered to them. The most absurd and superstitious customs prevailed. The minds of men were so completely controlled by superstition that reason itself seemed to have lost its sway. While priests and bishops were themselves pleasure-loving, sensual, and corrupt, it could only be expected that the people who looked to them for guidance would be sunken in ignorance and vice. GC 57.1

The advancing centuries witnessed a constant increase of error in the doctrines put forth from Rome. Even before the establishment of the papacy the teachings of heathen philosophers had received attention and exerted an influence in the church. Many who professed conversion still clung to the tenets of their pagan philosophy, and not only continued its study themselves, but urged it upon others as a means of extending their influence among the heathen. Serious errors were thus introduced into the Christian faith.

Prominent among these was the belief in man’s natural immortality and his consciousness in death. This doctrine laid the foundation upon which Rome established the invocation of saints and the adoration of the Virgin Mary. From this sprang also the heresy of eternal torment for the finally impenitent, which was early incorporated into the papal faith. GC 58.2

The Scriptural ordinance of the Lord’s Supper had been supplanted by the idolatrous sacrifice of the mass. Papal priests pretended, by their senseless mummery, to convert the simple bread and wine into the actual “body and blood of Christ.”—Cardinal Wiseman, The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist, Proved From Scripture, lecture 8, sec. 3, par. 26. With blasphemous presumption, they openly claimed the power of creating God, the Creator of all things. Christians were required, on pain of death, to avow their faith in this horrible, Heaven-insulting heresy. Multitudes who refused were given to the flames. (See Appendix.) GC 59.2

Popery had become the world’s despot. Kings and emperors bowed to the decrees of the Roman pontiff. The destinies of men, both for time and for eternity, seemed under his control.

For hundreds of years the doctrines of Rome had been extensively and implicitly received, its rites reverently performed, its festivals generally observed. Its clergy were honored and liberally sustained. Never since has the Roman Church attained to greater dignity, magnificence, or power. GC 60.1

But “the noon of the papacy was the midnight of the world.”—J. A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism, b. 1, ch. 4. The Holy Scriptures were almost unknown, not only to the people, but to the priests. Like the Pharisees of old, the papal leaders hated the light which would reveal their sins. God’s law, the standard of righteousness, having been removed, they exercised power without limit, and practiced vice without restraint. Fraud, avarice, and profligacy prevailed. Men shrank from no crime by which they could gain wealth or position.

The palaces of popes and prelates were scenes of the vilest debauchery. Some of the reigning pontiffs were guilty of crimes so revolting that secular rulers endeavored to depose these dignitaries of the church as monsters too vile to be tolerated. GC 60.2

 It is not so with a republic. This is founded upon right, not power; this is laid in righteousness, not iniquity. When once power is substituted for right, and iniquity for righteousness, the republic, in the nature of things, is transformed by these very acts into a despotic grade of government. It may continue to wear the insignia and badge of freedom, but the life, the sacred fire, has flickered and gone out in darkness. The image may remain, but ‘t is only a death mask; the vital breath has fled. If republics endure, their citizens must not only know the right, but they must do the right. This the people of the Roman republic, in early days, knew and appreciated. 

The dealings of Spain with Holland and the Netherlands are dyed in stains of deepest crimson. This chapter in the history of Spain is a tragedy of the most dreadful type. During the few short years in which this dependency of the Spanish crown struggled for freedom, crimes, monumental in their proportions and unnumbered for their multitude stand registered against the government and warfare of Spain.PRUS 61.1

Of all the people of Europe, none were more brave than the Hollanders. To an unparalleled degree they were tenacious of liberty, both in things civil and in things religious. From time to time during their history they had wrested valuable charters of freedom from their masters. These had been won at great cost of blood and treasure, and at all times their owners showed a disposition to cling to them firmly. From the earliest days of their history, sovereignty had resided in the great assembly of the people, and this same assembly elected the village magistrates, and decided upon all matters of great importance. The government may have been a fierce democracy, but it was a democracy nevertheless.PRUS 61.2

At length, however, Holland fell under the rule of Spain; and with the advent to the throne of Charles V. of Reformation fame, ill times began for the little land.

This monarch made continued effort to drain their treasure, and to hamper their industry.

He hated their ancient and dearly bought civil liberties, and did all in his power to restrict and overthrow them. The Netherlands at this time were divided into seventeen distinct and separate provinces; but this prince was determined to construct them into one kingdom, in order that he might rule them the more effectually with the iron hand of absolutism.1PRUS 61.3

His hand it was that planted the Inquisition in the Netherlands. For reading the Scriptures, for looking irreverently at a graven image, for even daring to hint that the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ was not present in the consecrated wafer, from fifty to one hundred thousand Dutch perished according to his edicts.

Well has Motley said that his “name deserves to be handed down to eternal infamy, not only throughout the Netherlands, but in every land where a single heart beats for political or religious freedom.”

When the phrase “Common Good” is used, it brings to mind the dark times when the children of Israel passed through afflictions in the hand of Pharaoh in the name of serving Egypt with no option to opt out nor having to rest on the Lord’s Sabbath or Holy Day. The mandate to make bricks was severe and for the sake of making the masters happy while they degenerated into deeper slavery made rich great men with good houses while Israel suffered.

Christ Jesus suffered on the cross on the pretext that it was worthwhile for him to suffer as the Pharisees and priests and rulers united to crush him whom they could not agree with from the land.

Jeremiah the Prophet encountered persecution which led him to write his solemn book ,” Lamentations” showing the sorrows he passed through while giving warning to a rebellious house of Israel.

Elijah The Prophet of God was threatened to flee to a foreign land of the Sidonians when Ahab and Jezebel furiously wanted to destroy him as they felt threatened by his presence and warning of their error. Therefore this was a Common Good pretext to even take Naboth’s Vineyard for the rejoicing of the King misusing his power.

Nebuchadnezzar also misused his power by seeking worship of the golden idol on the pretext of Common Good which was a target to a few Individuals living in Babylon. This was also the case in Persia under Haman commanding to be worshipped a thing which is not proper for only God ought to receive honor and worship.

The same spirit of antichrist has been manifest in our time taking away the liberty we have enjoyed over the ages. A command of commonality is here again in the name of Common Good. Wherever this is reached, the King of Heavens is about to bring Swift judgement on the rebellious nations who won’t acknowledge the Dignities of Heaven to rule over them.

Before the fall of Rome, a war was fought against Macedonia a might nation by Rome in the name of safeguarding least capable nations. It was called a War for Humanity solely for humanity”. This was a Common Good evil agenda to remove competition and so called Individualism. Some who are rich want to remain only them are rich while the poor are to remain suppressed and subjects to the wealthiest.

In our present case, the spirit of the antichrist in the name of Popes has re-emerged giving a common resting day with penalties and punishments. This is the apostate of the latter days prophesied by the prophets in Daniel 8:23-25 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3 sitting in the temple of God seeing himself has God. The following excerpt shows the apostate power commanding Worship on unblessed day, unholy day and an institution of man rather than God:

In rectifying men we Adopted from Website:
Roadmap of the Catholic Faith

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

YOUCAT Lesson 366

YOUCAT the catechism for Catholic youth

366  Why is it important for the State to preserve Sunday?

Sunday is a genuine service to the good of society, because it is a sign of opposition to the total absorption of man by the working world. [2188, 2192-2193]

Family lawn game at the Don L Bragg home near Rhinelander, WI. …..366

When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.
The beast with two horns “causeth commands all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Revelation 13:16, 17. The third angel’s warning is: “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God.” “The beast” mentioned in this message, whose worship is enforced by the two-horned beast, is the first, or leopardlike beast of Revelation 13—the papacy. The “image to the beast” represents that form of apostate Protestantism which will be developed when the Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas. The “mark of the beast” still remains to be defined.
After the warning against the worship of the beast and his image the prophecy declares: “Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Since those who keep God’s commandments are thus placed in contrast with those that worship the beast and his image and receive his mark, it follows that the keeping of God’s law, on the one hand, and its violation, on the other, will make the distinction between the worshipers of God and the worshipers of the beast. GC 445.1 – GC 445.3

Therefore in lands that have a Christian character, Christians not only demand the governmental preservation of Sunday, they also do not ask others to do work that they themselves do not want to do on Sunday.  Everyone in creation should take part in this “breather”.

“What does Sunday cost us?  The very question is already a decisive attack on Sunday.  For Sunday is Sunday precisely because it costs nothing, in the economic sense.  The question of what preserving it as a work-free day (that has a) “cost” presupposes that we have already conceptually turned Sunday into a workday.”  Robeart Spaemann (b. 1927, German philosopher)

[2188, 2192-2193]

II. THE LORD’S DAY

A day of grace and rest from work

2188 In respecting religious liberty and the COMMON GOOD of ALL, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church’s holy days as LEGAL holidays. They have to give everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. If a country’s LEGISLATION or other reasons require work on Sunday, the day should nevertheless be lived as the day of our deliverance which lets us share in this “festal gathering,” this “assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven.”(Hebrews 12:22-23.)¹²⁵ –Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

IN BRIEF

2192 “Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church” (Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1246 § 1). “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass” (Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1247). –CCC

No2193 “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound . . . to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body” (Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1247). –CCC

Don L Bragg at 2:36 PM

Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines. Protestant churches that have followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience. An example of this is given in the long-continued persecution of dissenters by the Church of England. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, thousands of nonconformist ministers were forced to flee from their churches, and many, both of pastors and people, were subjected to fine, imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom.
It was apostasy that led the early church to seek the aid of the civil government, and this prepared the way for the development of the papacy—the beast. Said Paul: “There” shall “come a falling away, … and that man of sin be revealed.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3. So apostasy in the church will prepare the way for the image to the beast.
The Bible declares that before the coming of the Lord there will exist a state of religious declension similar to that in the first centuries. “In the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” 2 Timothy 3:1-5. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” 1 Timothy 4:1. Satan will work “with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness.” And all that “received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved,” will be left to accept “strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11. When this state of ungodliness shall be reached, the same results will follow as in the first centuries.
The wide diversity of belief in the Protestant churches is regarded by many as decisive proof that no effort to secure a forced uniformity can ever be made. But there has been for years, in churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing sentiment in favor of a union based upon common points of doctrine. To secure such a union, the discussion of subjects upon which all were not agreed—however important they might be from a Bible standpoint—must necessarily be waived GC 443.3 – GC 444.2