Krissi

The more ambiguous and symbolic is a prophecy, the more difficult it is to set boundaries for acceptable interpretation. Daniel's prophecies have two main schools of thought, but many tributaries within these schools. Honestly, I don't know what to think. I'm sorry.

Considering we'll never really know for certain what the interpretation should be, it seems ridiculous to argue our opinion as truth. There are more important truths in the bible that need to be defended. Just recently I argued with someone over Christ's divinity, for example. Among Christians, there isn't a lot of debate over Christ as God. My attitude toward people who seem to know how to interpret numbers and dates and have a real confidence in their own interpretation is ... to ignore them. Not to their faces, of course, but their words just slide off me.

I find it inspiring that Daniel was so certain of his interpretation of scripture that he based his entire future (prayers and life direction) on it. He was convinced that God would restore Israel in a certain timeframe. So many times, prophetic words such as those of Jeremiah, are obscure and interpreted in many ways. Such interpretations differ. Well-meaning Christians argue over their "true" meaning. But Daniel was absolutely certain that his interpretation of Jeremiah was true and reliable. I wish I had such certainty about my own interpretation of biblical verses, prophetic or not. The problem with God's promises is not "only" that they can be vague and open to various interpretations, but that our own minds cause us to desire certain outcomes. We tend to look for answers/promises that confirm what we want. In the case of Daniel, he wanted his own captivity to end. His interpretation of scripture was clouded by his desires and YET, still, it was correct. God pierced through his human desires with the truth. Daniel, as a Jew, had certain ingrained and ritualized habits which he continued through his searching and pleading with God to deliver the Jews from captivity, within the timeframe that the prophecy indicated.

Daniel, in this prayer, juxtaposed God’s character to that of Israel. At first, he compared the shame and transgressions of Israel to the constancy of God’s word and character. Disaster came on Israel because they did not live as God had instructed them to do. After comparing God’s mercy/anger to the sinfulness of Israel, Daniel begs God to be merciful to a nation that does not merit His mercy. He appeals to the need to keep God’s “reputation” from being tarnished by the sins of the people with whom He had covenanted As Daniel was praying, the angel Gabriel (one of the two archangels) spoke directly to Daniel as part of an answer to his prayer. He told him that a remnant would return, Jerusalem would be rebuilt and the temple would also be rebuilt. I don’t believe Daniel saw any of this, however, as he was very old and probably died before the restoration.

x

z

Daniel was a member/citizen of the nation of Israel. As a citizen, he was, therefore, tarnished with the sins of others. Innocent people can be killed in war, for example, because they are citizens of a nation ruled by unjust, ignorant, evil or incompetent people. This always happens. The ordinary people of a nation pay the price of the sins of it's leaders. But in this case, it appears that the ordinary citizens in the nation have also sinned ... the rot from the top down had fully infected the people! Less infected, Daniel was identified as one of the people as well as a leader. The fact that he didn't act like the people, committing particular sins, matters not -- he was identified (carried the passport, so to speak) with the people of that nation. I do not think daniel was sinless, though he was a godly/god-fearing man. Jesus, in contrast, was sinless. His identification with the people of his nation was quite different than Daniel's, as He was both God and man, sinless and above the "passport ID" to which Daniel was subjected. There is a strong strain of universalism in Christian thought. Both sought forgiveness for others. Must I do the same? I wonder, as an intercessor, if I have to identify with the sins of the person/s for whom I am praying to assure that my prayers will be efficacious. Can I merely pray for them without identifying with them? Do I have to erase the distance between us, in some manner, to intercede for them? Lets say I'm interceding for the victims of public school educators who are coercing the tranny/sexual-perversion on students. In what way do I have to identify with them? Or, lets say I'm interceding for a high ranking State Department officials who are fomenting wars and color revolutions on nations that simply want to be left alone. I certainly don't identify with them. But I do pray for them. And I pray that their belligerent acts are stymied, that the ordinary people who will become their victims are protected and given clear insight into whatever is going on. I guess I'm saying that I'm no longer sure how to intercede for others and if identifying with teh sins of other people is a prerequisite for effective intercessory prayer.

I have often wondered why some Christians "act out" their inner feelings, as if God pays more attention to a person covered with ashes than a person with equal contrition who is clean, for example. Some churches emphasize "doing things" in worship -- standing, kneeling, prostrating, jumping, dancing, symbolically such as throwing chains, etc. It's called "kinetic worship." I'm sure that some Christians find this meaningful because it concretizes or externalizes what they feel internally and therefore makes their inner feelings seem more genuine or efficacious. Fasting is not one of these kinetic acts. It is done quietly without fanfare. No one should know that you fast except God Himself. The person fasting gives something up, not acts something out. Too, prayer in itself can be silent and private, not always public and vocalized. But sackcloth and ashes is a public display not merely an expression of an inner faith or feeling (which doesn't need to be expressed externally to be genuine.) You don't put on sackcloths and cover yourself in ashes in the privacy of your bedroom, but in public. What seems most important in this passage is the depth of Daniel's pleading. He feels and thinks God will intervene because his prayers are genuine and heartfelt -- what is unimportant, in my opinion, is the way Daniel opts to express his genuine love and concern for his tribe. So, do we have to "set our face" before God to get God to hear us, even when our prayers are barely faith-filled ... with a mustard seed of faith? I believe God hears all prayers. This passage insinuates that God hears more loudly ... or more intensely, the most dramatic prayers of those which are most intense and sincere. Honestly, I don't know how God responds to prayer. That's His business. On a personal level, I do know, however, that my most desperate and pleading prayers "felt" as if they reached Him, though I will never "act out" my prayers except privately and quietly. This also reminds me of the parable of the persistent widow who came before the judge multiple times until he finally noticed her and granted her wishes. She pestered him, in other words, repeatedly. Must we do this with God? I don't believe so. Last night, I was reading a book on healing by Anne White in which she wrote that after she prayed half-faithfully for her very sick son, he was instantly healed. Why did God heal her son and not someone else who was lovingly and passionately prayed for? I do not know how God chooses to heal. But after this prayer of hers "worked" so well that the rest of her life was devoted to understanding miracles, particularly healing, and helping others become healed as well. Perhaps God healed her son because He wanted to call her to this ministry.

What encourages Daniel to seek God for the forgiveness and restoration of Israel to its homeland? What practice on Daniel's part leads him to pray? Habit. Daniel was a man of prayer. Visions. Daniel received visions from God directly and thus it makes sense that he would "talk to" the God who gave him these visions, asking for explanation, perhaps, and also how to respond/react. Study. Daniel was a man who spent many hours in study of the scriptures which could be why God trusted him with the visions and horrible testing he had to endure. He had proven his faith, his reliable dependence on God.

God's sense of time is certainly longer than mine! These prophecies, though they looked forward to empires that didn't yet exist, seem long-ago to me -- ancient history -- and so, their fulfillment has already come to pass mostly or partially. At times of pain, persecution, injustice, war and corruption, the idea that the "good guys" win in the end is very appealing as well as comforting. But, it is the case that we cannot expect this to happen in our lives. Evil exists. Wars kill us. Corrupt and disgusting political leaders send Christians to war as "cannon fodder." And where is God in all this? Is this part of His plan? During a war, we shouldn't expect God to bring about the eschaton or deliver us, for many Christians have died in war and, perhaps, millions more will die. So, how can we pray for personal deliverance when God's timing and plan is so greater than ours? In a way, this explains unanswered prayers. I doubt that the men in foxholes during WWI, for example, were not praying as they faced probable death. I probably shouldn't write this, but I wonder if God, in HIs big-picture way, regards our individual lives as insignificant/expendable compared to his larger plans? Yes, of course, God loves us individually, but He also lets us die of disease or in war, to give two examples. We fit into His plans -- He does not fit into our plans. His plans are all-encompassing -- ours are centered on our own lives, circumstances and times. God is working toward the ultimate fulfillment of His plan -- we have our tiny roles to play, and then we die. I don't know the balance between His plans for the universe and His tiny plans for my own life. Somehow, His bigger plans get fulfilled as my tiny plans may -- or may not -- come to pass.

This was very informative -- thank you, Pastor Ralph. The Son of Man seems to be an intentionally ambiguous phrase that points to both humanity -- a human being -- and divinity -- God's essential self. I found the little world "like" to give a hint to the meaning of this phrase, (I don't read Hebrew so don't know if that word is truly in the original language, however.) Ezekial describes someone who is LIKE a son of Man. Perhaps this means that some people have Jesus-like qualities, but are still human and sinful? As Pastor Ralph wrote, the phrase points to both humanity and divinity -- only Jesus had both. Jesus had the authority and glory due to God, yet he assumed the "shape" of the son of Man. After his resurrection, he appeared before God in both glory and power. -- Although this isn't developed in this passage, I was struck by the idea that the word PELAH means to pay reverence to or serve. In my little brain, I thought true worship was effortless and flowed seamlessly from my heart. ON rare occasions, it IS like this, but most of the time, I have to work at worship. It's difficult for me. Thus, the idea that PELAH means working at worship is almost a relief. Thankfully, God honors this or, perhaps, accepts it as another imperfect but intentional form of worship.

God stands over-above the nations of the world in judgment even though they are "beastly" and "rage against him." Eventually, they are judged and destroyed. It is difficult to reconcile a good God with the horrors of life today, the evil that seems to prevail. The biblical message is that evil, in the end, does not prevail, but it's difficult to believe this when we look around and see the corruption and apostasy of our national leaders. Although, formerly, I looked at other nations and religions as the place where evil reigns unimpeded, I now see my own nation as the source of much of the evil in the world. I pray He comes quickly. The "fact" that the once-Christian nations are now fomenting evil is difficult to believe, let alone reconcile with a God who cares for the world and has His hand in every happening. Yet, God does NOT allow evil He cannot use. What is happening, though cruel and horrifying, is part of His plan. God uses evil for good.

In the New Testament, Jesus doesn't present God as legalistic, but as holy -- "hallowed be thy name." We are to be God-fearers. How do Christians commonly act irreverently in ways that would offend God? How have you changed your ways to conform to God's holiness? In a culture that seems to deny consequences, many so-called Christians act fearlessly and recklessly. They do not stop to think about God before acting or speaking -- He is far from their mind. These are Christians, mind you, not seculars. For them, the ideas of the world are so pervasive and media/tech so overwhelming that their minds are primarily shaped by forces outside scripture, prayer and an intimate knowledge of God. To revere God as holy means putting aside worldly thoughts. This is easier written than done. How many of us put aside our cell phones, laptops, tablets, tvs, movies, etc. in order to purify our minds to focus on God? -- I have tried, not always successfully, to purify my mind from cultural/social/political influences. I threw out the tv years ago, stopped listening to radio in the car, got rid of all music in the house, got rid of all fiction books, never go to movies ... yet still, my mind wanders down paths it should not. God sees my efforts as well as my failures. Getting rid of the bad stuff is only the first step. The second and much harder step is replacing the bad with good. What I have found is that the "good stuff" isn't always as good as it once seemed. For example, I am fascinated by the Western war against Russia taking place in the Ukraine, now. I read a lot on it. Perhaps obsessively. This is the sort of "filler" that I should excise from my mind even though it isn't sinful per se. Rather than think about Western decline, I should think about more spiritual things. Though my goal is to go one day without thoughts that are NOT of Him, I can barely go an hour, now ... much to work on. Recall those old medieval mystics who lived their lives without distraction or confusion; I marvel. Even though today's culture is ubiquitous compared to that of medieval times, I know I could separate myself more from it. What would it be like to live a day in total fear and reverence toward God? Why am I not more afraid of offending Him? One of the teachings that evangelicals focus on -- rightly -- is forgiveness. But we forgive cheaply and lightly as if our sins were inconsequential. They're not, however. In Roman Catholic teaching, confession was followed by Penance and then restitution. We rarely do penance in the church. We forgive cheaply without personal cost or acknowledgement the our unholy behavior has a rippling effect of unholy consequences. To be holy is to recognize the horror of unholiness.

Some call what happened to Nebuchadnezzar "brokenness." He was broken. Not just humbled but destroyed. Then, miraculously, he was restored. I'm not sure what this says about God. I can read what Nebuchadnezzar says about God, that he now regards Him as sovereign and transcendent, but I'm looking at this story from the outside, wondering why God broke this man so thoroughly only to later -- years later -- redeem him. Honestly, this story scares me. It makes me fear God even more. I have carefully avoided public testimonies though have spoken to select people one-on-one. My trials have been so horrible -- almost as bad as Nebuchadnezzar's trials -- and are still ongoing. I pray to learn whatever it is I have to learn so the pain will end. God never puts us into situations unless He can use them for His glory. I pray this is true in my life. If I gave a public testimony, it would sound incomplete, as if God didn't finish whatever He's doing. THis is one reason why I never talk to people about my suffering -- there isn't, yet, a happy ending. I haven't been restored or redeemed. Thus, it seems wiser to be quiet and not test other people's faith in God's goodness.

I’m hard pressed to think of any political leader who is not proud. The trappings of power almost necessarily cause pride in leaders, even religious ones. Right now, many leaders who are failing and soon to be booted from their position seem proud on their way out, leaving with their “head high,” as a friend put it. I’m not surprised, then, that Nebuchadnezzar was proud even as he fell apart -- consider all the sycophantic and greedy people who cuddled up to him for favors. Having said this, it must be possible to be a humble leader, and, if one is a Christian, such humility is required, even demanded, by God. The past few years, I’ve been crushed by life and am angry about it, which is a form of pride. I know God won’t use me until I deal with my pride. I’m doing this now, though not very successfully. The acting of humility can’t be kept up very long … it tends to self-expose as hypocrisy. I think most Christians try to temper their own sinful tendencies – all of them, not just pride – by overcompensating in the opposite direction, which doesn’t get to the root of the problem, and so the sin remains. I’m not sure this is a bad thing to do because it is the first step toward dealing with a character issue, that is, it's recognition and embarrassment/confession.

People tend to both exaggerate as well as denigrate the power of words. But when God spoke, he simultaneously created ... words are very important in the Bible. They create realities. Furthermore, we do much "in His name." But, having said this, it's also the case that it's easy to say a few words and do nothing, and far more costly to serve/love without words. To prove to ourselves that our repentance is sincere, we often look for signs of change -- this means "actions." If I say I love you but do not show or demonstrate my love for you, it is probably the case that my love is insincere. If Nebuchadnezzar says he repents, but didn't change his behavior, the sincerity of his repentance would be in doubt. I know that religious pollsters use two basic parameters: beliefs and behaviors. If a person claims to believe all the right stuff, but doesn't pray or tithe or do whatever his particular church requires, the pollster determines that his faith is not "salient" or heartfelt. Most evangelicals take repentance too lightly. I know I feel that God forgives me when I ask for forgiveness, though I'm more certain of His grace toward me if my asking is done in anguish and tears. Perhaps I should "prove" to Him my sincerity by changing my behavior every time I ask to be forgiven. I do have persistent sins ... To be kind to the poor means to regard them as equal in every way. Ditto with social class, educational achievements, etc. As a king, the huge disparity between his own wealth and that of his poorest subjects must have seemed unbridgeable, but still Daniel suggested to Nebuchadnezzar that he treat the poor more kindly. Of course this was within his ability, though it may have required checking his words/acts and changing the way he thought. -- This is what interests me the most in this passage -- God's decrees being conditional. I wonder if there are different levels of decrees. We certainly treat some decrees as unchangeable and eternal such as statements about the divine nature and the possibility of our own secure salvation. But other decrees seem less weighty, even changeable. Such was the decree that Nebuchadnezzar had made. But, in my faith, do I expect God to pivot after my prayers? Not really. Many times I feel condemned by my own mistakes. I have done things (marriage and divorce) that were simply stupid, not only spiritually, but emotionally. Consequences have lingered. I don't think I've ever had a rhema=decree that I disobeyed, but if I did, I wonder if God would see my repentant soul and reroute the channel of history that normally would have been carved for me. To change His mind seems the same as erasing consequences. This could happen, but seems rare. So I wouldn't and don't expect God to decree conditionally. I expect him to continue down the same channel/course He had originally pronounced. Perhaps this is the case only in my life, but frankly, I'd do almost anything to get Him to erase the past and wipe the slate clean IN THIS LIFE ON EARTH.

It is very difficult for a woman/man such as this king who is a person of sublime ability and earthly power, to ascribe his own talent and power to someone else, even God. It’s the old question of agency – it must have felt as if he were making his own decisions and improving his own skills and abilities. And, to some extent, he has been using his own strengths to rule. But God covers over all of our strength ike a blanket. Our abilities are under that blanket, not on top of it. Nebuchadnezzar’s sin of pride was, then, in a strange way, an acknowledgement of the truth (of his own talents and power.) He WAS a great man. But in his own mind, He became greater than God. He didn't quite know where his own abilities ended. He didn't have the truly exhausting ability to submit … submission is a power greater than most of us. Submission is self-denial, after all. To acknowledge that heaven rules is to acknowledge there is a power over all. Most of us will be willing to do this, most of the time. But it still feels – doesn’t it? – as if we’re making our own decisions -- even the decision to submit, ironically -- and carving our own way. We have agency. God-given agency. Determining where we are supposed to humbly submit and, conversely, where we are supposed to use our God-given abilities is extraordinarily difficult. Knowing that line is between pride and a mature use of gifts, we still end to err on either side, over-shooting the truth.

I assume that the biblical record is true when it ascribes fear to Daniel. It says, in so many words, that "his thoughts terrified him." No one likes to hurt others with either the truth or lies. It's not the truthfulness of the statement that causes people to hesitate, but the damage that the statement can do to another person. Sometimes it's simply not right/appropriate/His-will to reveal critical things about other people. In fact, most of our critical thoughts should stay within ourselves. Rarely does God ask us to confront other people. Rarely.

I am seeing two sorts of rescue. First, God rescues slowly, but changing a horrible situation into a positive one. The life of Joseph who was twice imprisoned unjustly but after many years became the defacto ruler of Egypt is an example of His slow rescue. It seems to involve character "adjustment." The speedier sort of rescue happened to the Hebrews in the lion's den. Instantaneous, or nearly so, they were simply brought out of danger ... rescued by angels. And then, there are times when God chooses not to rescue. Stephen's stoning comes to mind. Why God rescues some and not others is a question I'll never be able to answer. Daniel seems to realize that the king could not rescue him, though he wanted to, so his life was in the hands of God alone. His final words (in the message version): “My God sent his angel, who closed the mouths of the lions so that they would not hurt me. I’ve been found innocent before God and also before you, O king. I’ve done nothing to harm you.” In a way, Daniel did focus on the injustice did to him. His final words in the den were both self-exonerating as well as praising God. It would have been easy for him to stop talking after "... they would not hurt me," but Daniel went on to proclaim his innocence. -- I am praying to be rescued right now.

What do we learn about Daniel’s character qualities as a government official from verse 4? How do such qualities reflect on Daniel’s God? Does your employer or supervisor see those qualities in you? I love how Pastor Ralph describes Daniel -- trustworthy, diligent and honest -- and wish our own government officials had these qualities. This is what we should aspire to be, as workers/employees, every working day. We should not only do the minimum (not lie, doing necessary work only) but the maximum (work as hard as we can and be scrupulously honest.) My oldest son, who has a mid-size business, has a difficult time hiring employees with these attributes so I know how rare they are and how, as Christians, we would stand out if we followed this formula.

I've never thought about practicing private, ritualized prayer. In my tradition, prayer is ritualized in church but not in private. In fact, spontaneous and constant prayer is considered the ideal for the Christian who takes her faith seriously. I want to do both -- to pray spontaneously during the day as well as pray ritually or intentionally. 1. I have never faced east or in any other direction while praying, but when praying for someone in the congregation, it is common that everyone lifts their hands in that person's direction or even touches the shoulders of that person. I don't think I'll adopt praying facing a particular direction, however, in my personal prayer. God is everywhere. 2. I like the idea of morning, afternoon and evening prayer. In a way, I do this, but not with an eye to the clock. For now, I'd like to incorporate a NOON prayer as the middle of the day is often the busiest and when I tend to neglect talking to God. I'll set an alarm on my phone to notify when to pray and try to stop everything in order to focus only on God. Twenty minutes seems about right. 3. I have never thought that the position of the body -- kneeling, bowing, genuflecting, etc. -- mattered to God ... and still don't. The attitude of the heart is what He's looking for. 4. Praise/thanks/petitions and seeking mercy ... good practice which I mostly do, now. I need more praise. Mostly, I'm going to ritualize my prayers as well as keep the current spontaneity. The ritualized part will be a noon, daily, and will be an intentional time of doing nothing but worshiping and praising Him. I already have a morning routine (this is a part of it!). IN the evening I generally listen to a sermon. So, it's only in the middle of the day when I need to routinize my worship time. I hope to do this.

I lost my glasses so am tying mostly blind ... One of my biggest fears is a God who stands back and lets me be tortured or wrongly imprisoned/accused. It flies in the face of a good God, the God who leads me beside still waters ... etc. God rescued these three boys, but what about the thousands (millions?) of Christian martyrs who were not rescued, but died in their own "fiery furnace?" The king said the boys "trusted" God. Yes, they did. They even had a caveat in their thinking, that God may not rescue them, and if so, He would still be sovereign, with which I agree, of course. But it does cause me to question God's fatherliness and love, his essential goodness, that is. Would a good father give a daughter a stone? Isn't death in excruciating pain a stone? I can't resolve this. I expect to defy a Western government in the near future. The corruption is rampant and power-hungry behavior just abhorrent. We are no longer run as a democracy, which may be why the thetoric about democracy has become so shrill, as of late. The government is actively AGAINST the people, not for them, which is why the question of civil disobedience is so important. It's soon to happen. To all of us. Am I willing to be martyred for my faith in Him? Yes, but I don't want to be! I'm more afraid of the pain before death than death itself. Yesterday, the government of a European country jailed the founder of Telegram because he would not censor, propagandize and let the spooks rifle through people's private smails. Soldiers on both sides use Telegram to talk to each other. The gentleman in jail had given up his Russian citizenship to be European, but it mattered not -- they were out to get him and today he languishes in jail, on principle. Most of the time when we defy the government and land in jail, it's not for explicitly Christian principles, but for Christian-derived principles such as free speech and human autonomy apart from government coercion. Because our "martyrdom" is one step removed from the Bible, it's more difficult to justify and feel confident about. This would hold me back, I'm afraid. I'd worry that it was my political principles, not God's principles, for which I was suffering unto death.

The miracle of the three unburnt boys was seen by the king as well as his officers and seems to be acknowledged as a true miracle of God. I wonder if they talked to the boys afterward about the fourth man and what they experienced while in the furnace. I'm sure, if they did, that the boys described to them their God and His power which would be difficult to deny after such a miracle. That seems to be the point of miracles, not just to heal or deliver, but to create a situation in which an observer/participant would have to either deny the obvious, that something had occurred that cannot be explained, or accept that God exists and His powers exceed human understanding. I'm curious about the effect the miracle had on the boys.

The Jews answer the king defiantly. By refusing to obey His command they claimed the "god' high ground. IN essence, they told the king that their God was more powerful than him and his-god. Obviously, this sort of insubordination has to be met with punishment or the king's authority would be publicly diminished. I disagree with posters here who say that their attitude was commendable and level. I think they threw down the gauntlet and challenged the king. They chose not to deal with this situation tactfully and gently, with less confrontation. Remember, just a few verses ago we were admiring their tact -- now, they're anything but diplomatic. Their attitude is defiant. I find their comment about God fascinating because they hedge their bets, so to speak: If they are saved from death, it's because God rescued them; If they are not saved from death, well, God also rescued him but in an eternal sense, not a this-worldly one. They faced the king and his edict with defiance. I don't know how they felt about their own potential deaths. I do admire them for sticking to their faith in the face of death. They were willing to be martyred as so many Christians have been over the centuries. They were willing to trust God to give them some sort of reward, eternal life (Jews are not clear on the afterlife) or rescue. I believe they hoped for rescue but were willing to be killed. The same God who had rescued them in the past was relied upon. I think this is the reason why trials get more difficult as we age -- we are building up memory ... we can recall what God has done in the past and MAY do in the future, if He so wills. If we look back and recall how God has extracted us from tight situations, provided, healed and delivered, we can more easily look forward in expectation that He'll do the same again. Of course, there's always that doubt, which the Jewish boys expressed, that this time, God will not save us, but will take us home. To heaven. As martyrs.

When real work has to be done and the stakes are high, even government bureaucrats are able to find competent individuals to lead and advise. I don't think that anti-semitism or religious bigotry was the cause of their rejection of the three young men but rather an inability to figure out who actually can get work done. This assumes that they are faced with real problems that need to be solved, that real work needs to be done. When there are layers of unnecessary and unneeded bureaucrats and the stakes are low, which is often the case, and real work does not need to be done, then government bureaucrats promote untalented and less capable people than themselves to preserve their own power and status in a system that accomplishes nothing. As time passes, a bureaucracy becomes clogged with incompetent people in jobs that really don't need to be done. At this point, politics prevails. The sort of person who rises to the top in these circumstances is a backroom dealer, a schmoozer and flatterer ... you know the type: people driven to promote the system and each other, not the people. They exist to serve themselves. The three young men seem to have been capable workers within a bloated bureaucracy, one that promotes sleazy politicians who backbite and promote incompetence. So when the command came to worship the silly idol, the most incompetent workers who filled unnecessary positions quickly fell prostrate before it. These workers knew that their status was not contingent on ability or output, but on placating the powers that above them. Their fear of being outed as unnecessary propelled them to do whatever it took to assuage and stroke egos. Again, when the need to perform a real task is lowest, the need to conform to irrational demands is highest. The three young men didn't seem to understand that they represented competence in a system that rewarded incompetence. They could have found a way to be absent when the command to worship the idol was made, to make a "foreign jaunt." But, they didn't do this. They blurted out their real concern. They told the truth in a system that rewards lying and keeping up pretense. And so, they outed themselves. The king seems like a man who rose to the level of his own incompetence. He was a cog in the system ... the titular head of a house of cards. He knew his own place at the top was contingent NOT on achievement, good governance and competence but rather on maintaining the delicate balance of egos, lies and delusions. The king couldn't handle challenges to the system. And so, the boys who had proven themselves capable were instantly turned into villains. I can't help but think this is the same situation that exists in Western nations today. We have an incompetent, multi-layered, self-serving class of bureaucrats who are more interested in maintaining the status quo than actually doing a job. At the top, we have politicians who are elected because of their ability to deceive, not serve. More than anything, they fear people who shine a light on their position for they know, deep inside, they're not needed or wanted and are merely an expensive encumbrance on the body politic. Incapable people want to be worshipped, not challenged. They want to be feared, not respected. The golden calf was a meaningless challenge that separated the competent from the political. Those who were competent didn't need or care about the silly idol -- those who were incompetent made a fuss over being seen conforming to the demand, that is, being pegged as a team player who would do anything to keep the system afloat.