Conservatism is a Loser’s Religion [Archive]

View Full Version : Conservatism is a Loser’s Religion

TheGeneral

9th August 2005, 06:40

Areopagus

16th October 2005, 07:45

I suppose this is a tautology, but Christendom will not prevail in a culture that refuses to promote Christ. Of course I don't expect the "world" to promote the Name above all names, the King of kings, but I (in my naiveté) did at one time expect that the Church would. Instead, we have countless leaders from the Religious Right recommending that we refrain from using that Bible or any "Christian arguments" to make our case against abortion, same-sex marriage, &c., since the five major world religions, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism recognize and uphold that traditional value. We are told that by putting the Christian God aside, we can appeal to "religion" which is much less offense, and reach a greater audience of people with whom we would agree.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=7

As justification for its decision requiring the Legislature to grant civil unions to homosexuals in Vermont, the Supreme Court there took notice that our Founders opened a radically egalitarian Pandora’s Box in 1776 that would lead ultimately to the dispossession of the “Aristocratic Elite” framers of our government.

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least. [1778 Papers 2:492--504, The Founders' Constitution, Volume 5, Amendment VIII, Document 10, The University of Chicago Press, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Julian P. Boyd et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950--.] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html

Why did Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, write that about sodomy?

"….which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them….We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Is there any doubt about the source of rights? Is there any doubt that sodomy is contrary to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God? The Torah condemns sodomy in the strongest possible terms - to'ebah" in the NKJ - "abomination" or "detestable" in English. It is self-evident that the pursuit of sodomy is the pursuit of misery, and not Happiness. The pursuit of Happiness is rooted in marriage when a man and a woman join in marriage - they form a household, and that’s the basis for economic productivity. These assumptions were in place in 1776.

http://www.jewsformorality.org/moral_decline.htm

The 1741 sermon by famous clergyman Jonathan Edwards of New England created a sensation throughout the American colonies. It describes the terrible fate that awaits those sinners who persistently ignore the Creator's Biblical commandments.

Americans knew exactly what Edwards was talking about, because the Bible was the most widely-distributed book available and most Americans knew how to read.

Americans believed in the Creator, believed in the sanctity of the family, and severely punished adultery and homosexuality (Sodomy).

It was unthinkable that their children should be raised in ignorance of the Creator, and they insisted that their church-sponsored schools teach honesty, loyalty, piety, and industry. They insisted that daily prayers be recited at home and in school.

In their Calvinist-Christian world-view, the Bible was the only source of moral authority and it was Man's duty to preserve the orderly world that the Creator had created.

And Protestant America was rewarded with stable families, spiritual success, and material wealth.

When Jonathan Edwards preached his religious revival, known as the Great Awakening, Americans understood and approved in overwhelming numbers.

They clearly understood that they were "endowed by their Creator" with the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

In the American Revolution of 1776, they were inspired to risk their "lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor" in order to throw off the yoke of British oppression and create the United States of America.
The only source for unalienable Rights is the God of Genesis 1 & 2. Apart from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - who so loved so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life - you will search in vain for a society in history where these right were inviolable.

Why did the judges in Vermont issue an opinion diametrically opposed to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God?” They opine to steal, kill and destroy (John 8:44, John 10:10). Rather than restrain evil (Rom 13), they advance it, and they are fully aware of the consequences of their decision:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html

When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/decline.html
Nations most often fall from within, and this fall is usually due to a decline in the moral and spiritual values in the family. As families go, so goes a nation.

Christian conservative leaders must stop substituting the characteristics listed in Romans 1: 28 - 32 http://www.bible.org/netbible/rom1.htm and 2 Timothy 3: 2-7 http://www.bible.org/netbible/2ti3.htm for those in Exodus 18:21 http://www.bible.org/netbible/exo18.htm when they endorse political candidates . For commentary on these concepts, see Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785262202/102-5065175-6717747?v=glance & http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1755

There are two quotes that are most revealing. Both quotes come from Democrats, and one of those Democrats spoke at the most recent Republican National Convention.

http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1755
I quote in there Robert Byrd, who said, If the American public really knew what we were doing, they`d throw us all out.

http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2003/060503miller.htm
If they ever really understood what a sorry mess we’ve got in this Senate over this issue in they would rise up like that football crowd in Cleveland a couple of years ago and run both teams off the field.

A Gallup Poll conducted November 7-10, 2004 found that; "A third of adults, aged 18 and older are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word." http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?CI=14107

73 million voting age Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, except on Election Day.

exmarine

17th October 2005, 10:06

...Instead, we have countless leaders from the Religious Right recommending that we refrain from using that Bible or any "Christian arguments" to make our case against abortion, same-sex marriage, &c., since the five major world religions, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism recognize and uphold that traditional value. We are told that by putting the Christian God aside, we can appeal to "religion" which is much less offense, and reach a greater audience of people with whom we would agree.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=7

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

It is not surprising that Republican sycophants are giving legitimacy to other religions. Let us not forget that a week before the 2004, President Bush said on national TV that Christians and muslims worship the same God. I didn't hear a peep from any of the leaders of the "religious right" after that blatantly heretical statement. How can people just look past such a statement?

First of all, such a statement contradicts Scripture, which teaches us that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

Second, it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. The muslim God is not triune in nature, and Jesus Christ, who claims to be THE Way and THE Truth, clearly is not Allah. Simply stated, Jesus cannot both be God (Christianity) and not God (Islam) at the same time. That is a violation of fthe Law of Non-Contradiction. Therefore, the musliim god and the Christian God cannot both logically exist simultaneously. Thus, Bush's statement is not only heretical, but is illogical on its face.

What this shows is that conservatism has drifted away from its Christian roots and moral absolutism, and is increasingly embracing multiculturalism and moral relativism.

For Christians, it is clear that we are not to put Jesus in a closet in our political lives. Jesus is LORD over ALL of life, not just our little chosen compartments:

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Mt.5:13-15

TimV

17th October 2005, 10:49

The muslim God is not triune in nature

Neither is the Jewish god or the Hindu gods. Your fixation on Islam clouds your thinking.

To the poster from Mars Hill, I appreciated most of what you wrote, but you can see from many places in Scripture that marital fidelity wasn't invented by Judaism, look at the example of Abimelech and Sara. It is something that many ancients saw as obvious, like homosexuality being a perversion.

exmarine

17th October 2005, 11:39

Neither is the Jewish god or the Hindu gods. Your fixation on Islam clouds your thinking.

To the poster from Mars Hill, I appreciated most of what you wrote, but you can see from many places in Scripture that marital fidelity wasn't invented by Judaism, look at the example of Abimelech and Sara. It is something that many ancients saw as obvious, like homosexuality being a perversion.

I have stated before and I state again, Jesus is the ONLY name under heaven by which man must be saved. That includes, Jews, hindus, buddhists, or any other man-made religion in the world. Any other view is heterodox.

My statement was a direct reply to Bush who said that muslims and Christians worship the same God. Don't you ever cease with your straw man?

TimV

17th October 2005, 01:42

It isn't a strawman as you've shown in the past, but it seems I was mistaken. I thought bush lumped all three together but I couldn't find anywhere where he included the God of the Jews. I'm sorry for the error.

bluebird

17th October 2005, 02:14

I believe that if a person in the practice of their own religion or beliefs do not violate the United States Constitution, they are Free to worship as they please. However, the Freedoms that they enjoy as a citizen of the United States of America can only be articulated in a distinctive Christian manner.

There is no denying the Founding Fathers were Christians. They wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution based on their Christian beliefs. Without their Christian beliefs we would not have the SAME U.S. Constitution that we have.

Christianity is the the religion that acknowledges God and the inalienable rights given to each human being by Him, not government. Others do not, and they do not guarantee that the "one" they worship will. Without our Christian beliefs enacted into law, others would not have been welcomed into this country nor have the opportunity to worship, work and play without threat of imprisonment or death.

It would seem that those trying to inject a "universal" version of who God is or isn't would violate the original intent of the founding fathers. They knew specifically what God they were talking about.

The teachings of Christianity are clear: Jesus Christ IS God, and the failure to acknowledge that is in essence, a denial of Him. Christ said if we acknowledge Him before men, He will acknowledge us before the Father, but if we deny Him before men, He will deny us before the Father.

This point is SO important, that a number of our Christian ancestors lost their lives (were martyred) for refusing to deny Him.

The present day is no time for so called professed Chrisitan politicians to deny Christ by refusing to acknowledge Him in our country's laws, nor allowing Him to be acknowledged in the public square.

endangered

21st October 2005, 04:35

This topic cuts pretty close to an issue of concern with me. I hold that as Christians our one and only interest and priority should be to lift up the Name of Jesus who died for us. Therefore, why all this talk and energy spent on ‘re-taking America’ etc.?

It is certain that God calls some of His children to politics. I spend a lot of time reading about politics, but to be involved with it (other than voting), it is on the same page as sports. That is just me I guess.

Brenda says, “There is no denying the Founding Fathers were Christians.” My current thought is to disagree with that. George Washington was a Mason, which is paganism. I do not think it is possible to be both Christian and a Mason. Benjamin Franklin was of the Rosicrucian Order, which also excludes the possibility that he was a Christian. Thomas Jefferson did something very peculiar to his Bible and I do not understand why he did that. Of the others there is no doubt that some of them were Christians but the influence of non-Christians is more evident than Christianity.

It was Masons, not Christians who put scripture all over the buildings in Washington. Masons put “In God We Trust” on our money. If you look at a map of D.C. notice that the US Capital Building sits in a Masonic compass formed by Pennsylvania and Maryland Ave. The White House is the bottom point of a Satanic Pentagram and exactly 10 blocks to the North is a Masonic lodge. The foundation stone for many of the important buildings in Washington were laid with Masonic rituals. Masons masquerade as Christians.

Things are not much different now from what it was then. George bush professes to be Christian, but everybody knows he is Skull and Bones. He makes no distinction between Jesus and Allah or any other deity.

I believe we should obey the Word and pray for those in our government. We should pray the prayer Jesus gave His disciples, which starts out “Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name”. But I don’t see there is anything to “take back” other than for us as individual believers to ‘get back’ into the Word and win souls for the Kingdom of God. I would rather have more preachers like Jonathan Edwards roaming the country than the politicians who founded its government.

Joe_Liberty

21st October 2005, 08:33

Endangered,

I could not disagree with you more, and I believe your view is contrary to The American View and that articulated by the Peroutka presidential campaign.

As a Christian I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government. Therefore, the civil ruler is to be a servant of God, deriving his authority from God and duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God. The civil government of our nation, its laws, institutions, and practices must be conformed to the principles of Biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

endangered

21st October 2005, 01:08

Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life. We have the opportunity by God’s grace, as Christians, to serve Him through our own volition, while the rest of the world serves Him through their rebellion and ignorance.

Which camp do you suppose GWB is in?

Our Constitution is clearly the product of men heavily influenced by our Christian worldview and its laws are only suitable for those willing to live according to Christian morals and the rule of law. We are seeing fewer people who qualify for that these days and lawlessness is increasing at an alarming rate. (Just watch how people drive, too many care nothing about law if a policeman is not sitting in plain sight.) As that balance shifts we will see an end to our liberties. (Very soon, I think.)

It seems, from what I read on the Internet all the necessary preparations for the transition to martial law are already in place. All that is lacking at this point is a crisis of significant magnitude to bring it about. Our President has already expressed his eagerness to do it. It can’t happen soon enough for him.

Rather than government being God's instrument to protect liberty, it will be God's instrument to take it away.

bluebird

21st October 2005, 01:46

I've only read a few books on the Masons and am not aware that they were responsible for the scripture in Washington DC buildings and monuments.

I'm Catholic and I do know Masons are anti-Catholic, however, in regards to the U.S. Constitution, I believe it is very clear about who we are as Americans.

Each of us may worship as each of us sees fit. Our rights do not trump the rights of another individual to worship as they see fit. Our "worship" rights do not allow us to harm another person.

In an ideal world, we will all be christians and will acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and that Day is coming. In the meantime, we must exhibit Christ-like behavior and win others over through the witness of our faith, hope and charity. Hammering others with the gospel is not the way Jesus would have done it.

Jesus would have led by example, charitable example as in the Good Samaritan, the woman at the well and the adulterous woman being stoned.

Being patience, kind and loving is more difficult and I'm sure the "narrow" road.

Putting the Truth of the Gospel out there everyday is required of us by scripture -- but as soon as we say it, we should be prepared to live it.

In essence, we should expect the most from ourselves and be patient with others, as our Heavenly Father is patient.

Joe_Liberty

21st October 2005, 01:57

Endangered,

I don't have much disagreement with your post of 12:08, but I have difficulty reconciling that with your post of 3:35.

Apparently you agree with me that Jesus Christ is Lord of all aspects of life. Why then, would you say that to be involved in politics is on the same page as sports? For that matter, as Christians, we are to conform athletics to biblical law as well. Whatever our gifts are, we are to conform that field of endeavor to biblical law. Since you admit you spend a lot of your time reading about politics, it sounds like that, like me, civil government is a passion of yours. I submit that if we are going to be involved in civil government, we have a duty to adhere to God's will for civil government.

It is even more confusing, because you argue that we shouldn't be involved in politics "other than voting." Why the exception for voting? By what biblical principle do you draw the line between voting, and, for example, writing a letter to the editor on a policy issue, writing to a civil magistrate concerning an issue, or collecting signatures to get a candidate on the ballot? Why is the one ok, but not the others? I campaigned and voted for Michael Peroutka instead of George W. Bush because Peroutka's views on law and government are closer to my own.

There is much controversy surrounding the issue of Masonry and the Founders. Some have argued that any connection between the Masons and George Washington discredits his Christian testimony. Others denied that a relationship ever existed, or try to argue that 18th century Masonry was not really unbiblical. I reject both of these views. I do believe that Washington was in fact a Mason, but that his relationship to the organization was essentially honorary, and that he was not in any way active, nor was he aware of the full implications of the association. It was simply an honor conferred on him. The Masons claim him as their hero, of course, but this does not establish a strong Masonic connection between the President and the organization.

Before we dismiss Washington, a little perspective is needed. As Christians we must judge actions based on an absolute standard of right and wrong. Any Christian who joins a society like the Masons which requires self-maledictory oaths would flunk such a test. On the other hand, the Bible is replete with stories of the greatest men in history who fell into serious error. We don’t condone the error, but we must have a little bit of historical perspective. An honorary membership in the Masons is nothing compared with a patriarch giving birth to a child through a handmaid, David with Bathesheba, etc. As serious as the Masonic issue is, we should keep in mind that in each generation Christians have acted with inconsistency. For example, I wonder how future generations of believers will judge those Christians who allowed their children to be educated in God-hating, evolution-loving government schools. This, to me, is even more serious than Masonry, although I am confident that both grieve the Lord.

We believe that only God is to be adored. But God works through imperfect men to accomplish his goals. He commands us to remember them (Hebrews 11) and all those men and women who make up the "great cloud of witnesses." Jesus, himself pointed to men like John the Baptist as earthly examples for men to emulate, even though such men were only sinners saved by grace. These earthly examples are imperfect, of course, but nonetheless important. The Bible is a record of God working through such imperfect men.

It is my view that cynicism concerning God's providential hand in American history leads to ingratitude and national judgment. We must tell the stories of the great deeds of God (Psalm 78). We realize that there are blind spots in every generation, blind spots that lead to unfortunate consequences. The Founding Fathers had such blind spots, but were nonetheless one of the more remarkable groups of men in history. Notwithstanding his unfortunate connection with Masons, Washington remains the single most important military and political leader in our history, and a man who personified Christian character. He is a personal hero.

endangered

21st October 2005, 03:37

Brenda says, “Hammering others with the gospel is not the way Jesus would have done it.”

That is sure what John the Baptist did and the disciples. That is why they were imprisoned and killed even though they did it charitably. (Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee, in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and walk. He went walking and leaping and praising God.)

Masons work very quietly in the background so you won’t notice they do anything at all but they are in every level of society and have had a tremendous impact. One that is difficult to evaluate whether it is great or small, but I lean toward the great and grossly underestimated. The streets in Washington are an example. Something no one would notice if it were not pointed out.

Masons are an esoteric cult and they individually function on many levels of enlightenment but I don’t believe any are simply “honorary” members. They are all duly initiated through occult ritual, which is not a simple moral failure. That Washington was one of them is irrefutable. As were many of his contemporaries. (Incidentally, contemporaries on both sides of the battle field during the revolutionary war. I think that fact alone is very significant in effecting the outcome of the war, especially Washington’s escape from that island after evacuating from Boston. If the British had fought logically, it would have ended that day with his capture.) I think that when Washington surrendered his sword at the end of the war, he was acting under Masonic orders. If they had told him to take command of the country, he would have done that.

I agree and also believe Washington is the “single most important military and political leader in our history” and all history except for Alexander the Great, but he was a Mason and a pagan, not a Christian.

bluebird

21st October 2005, 05:35

Endangered:

You and I see hammering differently.

John the Baptist was an evangelist. Proclaiming the Good News about Christ is not "hammering" in my view. Proclaiming the gospel is our duty as christians.

Hammering to me is preaching the Word and then instead of being patient and praying for conversions, we want to co-hearse others to accept Christ in a time-table that fits our agenda, rather than God's.

As christians we are to be kind to people and patient with people Even If they don't get the gospel the First time we throw it out there. All we need do is refer to our own individual lives and see whether or not we responded immediately to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and If we responded perfectly. I think not. Then we should not demand it of others, we should pray that with God's grace and mercy, more and more will come to know their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Patience is our duty. Judgement belongs to God.

John the Baptist was trying to prepare the way of the Lord by proclaiming the coming of the promised Messiah. Those in power were not interested in a "new king" showing up and usurping them. They didn't like John the Baptist, they didn't like Jesus Christ, and they didn't like His disciples.

There are strongholds of power operating today that do not want the Jesus to have his followers. There are spiritual strongholds exist today and they must be faught spiritually with prayer and fasting.

Those that persecuted John the Baptist, in my opinion, were similar to the modern day secular humanist. They don't want any mention of God in the public square and certainly no memorial monuments.

endangered

22nd October 2005, 03:25

What ever we do, it must be done with love or it isn’t worth anything. 1 Corinthians 13.

I pray that the Lord would make us more effective witnesses for Him.

Areopagus

22nd October 2005, 11:31

Washington is the “single most important military and political leader in our history” and all history except for Alexander the Great, but he was a Mason and a pagan, not a Christian.

The skeptic might question the seriousness of Mr. Washingon. The historical record indicates that he was a very serious man who lived in very in serious times.

What did God, through Paul, proclaim in Romans 10:13? Acts 4:12 excludes all other means, and John 10:1 classifies alternatives as criminal.

George Washington's Prayer Journal From William J. Johnson George Washington, the Christian(New York: The Abingdon Press, New York & Cincinnati, 1919), pp. 24-35. http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/george.html

“I beseech thee, my sins, remove them from thy presence, as far as the east is from the west, and accept of me for the merits of thy son Jesus Christ.”

The letter below was written by George Washington's adopted daughter (also his step-granddaughter) Eleanor (Nelly) Parke Custis Lewis. It was written in 1833 in response to author Jared Sparks [who compiled a set of Washington's Writings] request for info on Washington's religious beliefs for a book he was writing that was published under the title "The Life of Washington".
http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/youasked/060.htm

It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock, where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun, and remained in his library until called to breakfasdt [sic]. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men." He communed with his God in secret.

His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."

Thomas Jefferson remembered Washington fourteen years after his death, in a letter of January 2, 1814, to Dr. Walter Jones http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/father/qualities.html

DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, (signed) G. Washington.
http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/thankstext.html

Washington's Farewell Address 1796
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

endangered

22nd October 2005, 01:29

Thank you for your reply Areopagus.

I would explain that I am only interested in the knowing truth about things. If my opinions don’t hold up, I easily change them. I am a factory worker, not a scholar. Most of my information comes from the Internet and only a few books. (I have to add my own imagination as well.) All of which has led me to a very different understanding of history than what I was taught in skool. I have been hoping to find some place where there might be some one to help me sort out whether those things be so or not.

I had read about his prayer journal being published but I have not seen it. Of course it is impossible to second-guess if he or any one for the matter was a true Christian or not. That he was a religious and a very pious man there is no doubt. He attended church regularly. There is really no basis on which to question his walk with the Lord, except that he was a Mason.

You reference Romans 10:13. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Some scriptures make salvation extremely easy, others make it very difficult. Jesus said, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Mat 7:22-23

There also are a couple of accounts in Acts that require careful study, chapters 5 and 8.

Men look on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart. Hebrews 4:12

My opinion, that Washington was a pagan and not a Christian is based on what I have read about Masons. He can not have been both a Mason in good standing and a Christian. Proof that he was in good standing at the time of his death is plain for all to see. The Washington memorial is testimony to that.

All of his piety which people interpret as “Christian” is perfectly consistent Masonic teaching. Even his prayer journal.

Areopagus

22nd October 2005, 04:50

All of which has led me to a very different understanding of history than what I was taught in skool. I have been hoping to find some place where there might be some one to help me sort out whether those things be so or not.

Some scriptures make salvation extremely easy, others make it very difficult. Jesus said, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Mat 7:22-23

My opinion, that Washington was a pagan and not a Christian is based on what I have read about Masons. He can not have been both a Mason in good standing and a Christian. Proof that he was in good standing at the time of his death is plain for all to see. The Washington memorial is testimony to that.

All of his piety which people interpret as “Christian” is perfectly consistent Masonic teaching. Even his prayer journal.

I greatly appreciate the civil manner of your reply. You may be quite surprised to meet Mr. Washington in the distant future.

I see that we disagree on sotierology, and we are by no stretch of the imagination, the first, or last to disagree on this fundamental doctrine. It is the most vital of all doctrines. Philippians 2:12 gives an excellent description of how this doctrine should be approached. Some have settled this doctrine quite easily, but for me it was as tortuous a path as found in http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bunyan/pilgrim.iii.html .

There are three possibilities: 1) Christ alone; 2) Works alone; 3) Christ + Works. A casual reading of the Biblical text eliminates #2, but it takes some serious investigation to decide between #1, and #3. The case for #1 is presented @ http://www.faithalone.org/journal/ .

I was very open minded to various vain philosophies, and various denominational interpretations of the Bible, but no longer. Thousands of books, and decades of though have closed it. The most concise, and accurate statement of those fundamentals is found @ http://www.dts.edu/aboutdts/fulldoctrinalstatement.aspx .

Nevertheless, I am flexible enough to get along with other folk who have very divergent views on ecclesiology, and eschatology, but I have zero tolerance for deviation on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the veracity of the written record that describes those events for the eternal benefit of sinful humanity.

END OF PARENTHETICAL STATEMENT ON THE DEFINITION OF CHRISTIAN!

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/social_issues/faithofo.htm
Os Guinness pointed out that Christians have not been out-thought. Rather, they have not been around when the thinking was being done.
Choosing cultural monasticism rather than hard-thinking advocacy, Christians abandoned the public square to the secularists. When the disciples of Jesus Christ retreated, the disciples of Dewey, Marx, Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche, Skinner, and a host of others replaced them.
The faith of our Founding Fathers was Christianity, not deism. In this regard, many secularists--and even some Christians--have been wrong in their assessment of our history.
If you have any doubt about Koukl’s assessment, see How Textbooks Distort American History
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/summer_2001_5.html and see Gramsci and Tocqueville in America http://www.policyreview.org/dec00/fonte_print.html to understand why Textbooks Distort American History.

The following three books may give you a better understanding of American History.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801052319/102-3977075-3531347?v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0890512019/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-3977075-3531347?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1880563096/ref=pd_sim_b_5/102-3977075-3531347?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

endangered

23rd October 2005, 03:42

I hope the moderator will be patient with us. I don’t mean for this to get too far off topic and become a theological discussion. My pastor is a graduate from Dallas and I have no problem with the statement of faith you link to. I was simply making the point that there is more than one verse in the Bible regarding salvation and that not all who think they are saved or profess to be, are. The two chapters in Acts (5 and 8) make that very clear.

My statement about GW is not so much about what the Bible says, as it is in what it really takes and means to be a Mason. Not very many people investigate Masonry. Walter Martin doesn’t deal with it at all in “Kingdome of the Cults”. (There are a few pages about Rosicrucian Fellowship, Benjamin Franklin, in an appendix.) John Ankerberg (sp.) did a few shows about it way back when. There is plenty on the Internet though and if anyone looks at the evidence, I think they would agree with me.

Jesus said no man can serve to masters and Masonry is, if it is nothing else, another master that totally conflicts with serving Christ.

So, here are the three essential founders of America: George Washington – Mason, Benjamin Franklin – Rosicrucian, Thomas Jefferson – unknown but not a Christian.

That should make a person rethink their Christian heritage.

Areopagus

23rd October 2005, 10:54

I don’t mean for this to get too far off topic.

Getting back on topic, the text in post #1 of this thread states in part:

we have countless leaders from the Religious Right recommending that we refrain from using that Bible or any "Christian arguments" to make our case against abortion, same-sex marriage….

Later on in this thread we find your POST #8 which states in part:

I hold that as Christians our one and only interest and priority should be to lift up the Name of Jesus who died for us.

It is certain that God calls some of His children to politics. I spend a lot of time reading about politics, but to be involved with it (other than voting), it is on the same page as sports.

I believe we should obey the Word and pray for those in our government. We should pray the prayer Jesus gave His disciples, which starts out “Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name”. But I don’t see there is anything to “take back” other than for us as individual believers to ‘get back’ into the Word and win souls for the Kingdom of God. I would rather have more preachers like Jonathan Edwards roaming the country than the politicians who founded its government.

I strongly identify with the import of your comments. I have vacillated between T.A.V. and your view (2Tm:2:4) .

Is it possible to advance the King of King’s Kingdom without directly influencing American government for the common good? Those favoring your view would probably respond with yes, and confine themselves to divine revelation. The Religious Right would probably answer yes to the next question: Is it possible to directly influence American government for the common good, without advancing the King of King’s Kingdom? The Religious Right would confine their efforts to natural law.

Evangelism is tasked with preaching the gospel, while teaching, and exortation are tasked with making disciples. Together, these are tasks performed by the church, and will be performed with, or without resistance by the state (Matthew 16:18).

Most folk in this country don’t live in a Lockean State of Nature. Even the Amish http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm aren’t exempt from the IRS. Madison, in Federalist #51 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed51.htm
explained it like this:

“….what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

Jeremiah 17:9, Matthew 15:19, Romans 1:18-32 clearly demonstrate that mankind isn’t basically good , needing only the perfecting influence of a socialist education, and cradle to grave care by government to become utopian citizens of the world.

Romans 13 http://www.cforc.com/kjv/Romans/13.html uses the words ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (KJV) three times each in relation to government and the governed. Is it possible for folk to get those confused? Isa 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Yes, but has it actually happened that such folk controlled government? “Pray tell, my brother, Why do dictators kill and make war? Is it for glory; for things, for beliefs, for hatred, for power? Yes, but more, because they can.” http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

Is there a remedy?
Matthew 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled on by people. 5:14 You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill cannot be hidden. 5:15 People do not light a lamp and put it under a basket but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they can see your good deeds and give honor to your Father in heaven. http://www.bible.org/netbible/mat5.htm The remainder of that chapter covers anger and murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation, and love for enemies. Also, see (Eph. 5:8-13)

Madison sums up what they designed in Federalist #55: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed55.htm

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.

Eph. 5:8-13 reveals that folk do respond to the salt and light of the church, but no claim is made that all will. Among those who don’t will be those that commit crimes, and Romans 13 reveals that government exists to punish those who do.

Madison, in Federalist #51:
“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker [ABORTED], anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker [ABORTED] individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition [EUTHANASIA], to submit to a government which may protect the weak [ABORTED] as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.”

STENBERG v. CARHART Justice Scalia
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZD1.html

I am optimistic enough to believe that, one day, Stenberg v. Carhart will be assigned its rightful place in the history of this Court’s jurisprudence beside Korematsu and Dred Scott. The method of killing a human child–one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child–proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion.

Today’s decision, that the Constitution of the United States prevents the prohibition of a horrible mode of abortion, will be greeted by a firestorm of criticism–as well it should.

Pray tell, my brother; why do federal judges break state laws prohibiting murder and ignore the Supreme Law of the Land? Is it for glory; for things, for beliefs, for hatred, for power? Yes, but more, because the salt has lost its savor, the light is hidden, and David meets Goliath in Saul’s Religious Right armor without his sling, and stones. (Ephesians 6:12, & 2 Corinthians 2:11)

endangered

24th October 2005, 02:46

The religious right is wrong. Their struggles with the powers that be amount to nothing more than Saturday night football does. (Or is it Monday night?) Anyway, all it accomplishes are ticket sales and diversion. Ears are tickled and people get a warm fuzzy feeling that they have somehow done a good a work but it is hay, wood and stubble. The religious right is not a shred different than the secular right, except for their clothes and the secular right is no different from the left except for their rhetoric. Behind closed doors they all sing together. What was that about Deeds, not Words?

We advance the Kingdom of God through obedience to the King. This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (John 6:29) Anything else is none of our business. (2 Kings 3:13)

The way I see things, the main argument for trying to influence American government though direct, personal involvement in political activities is based on the false doctrine that our government was founded by Christians on Christian morals and teaching, our “Christian heritage”. We should be like them and take our country back, they say. Well, “It Just Ain’t SO”.

Masons founded the country on Masonic morals and teaching that look, on the surface, like Christian ones but they are fundamentally different. They are anti-Christian. Masons, etc. (i.e. the ruling elite, Skull and Bones, Illuminati, Shadow government, international bankers, etc., ect., etc., or simply - the kingdom of darkness) (Ephesians 6:12) control the left, the right and the religious right. A few years back, I saw Billy Graham’s name published on a list of “Famous Masons” (search that one).

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Paying taxes and voting are civil responsibilities that belong to us but I am persuaded that nothing short of the second coming will wrestle power from the hands of the men who run this country and are trying to take over the world. It has been in their families from generation to generation for thousands of years. It is THEIR heritage, not ours. We look for a different sort of Kingdom and City altogether. The funny thing is, they only do what God allows them and therefore the prayer closet always trumps the voting boot and every weapon that could possibly be formed against us and even if it doesn’t, will still win because we don’t fight FOR victory, our fight is FROM victory. (Daniel 3:17-18; 1 Corinthians 15:53-58; 1 John 5:4)

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

"Deeds, not Words" and "For God and my Country." Are good mottoes for a Mason. They kind of seem to go along with “God helps those who help themselves”. They don’t exactly fit anything the Word teaches us though do they? Does the Bible minimize words over deeds? I don’t think so. Did Jesus or the Disciples ever encourage patriotism? I don’t put God first on list of ten or even two. He is first on a list of ONE.

Christians tend to focus all their attention on the Kingdom of God and pay very little attention to the other kingdom and how it works. Prince of the Power of the AIR, is that like a cloak of invisibility?

Speaking of evangelism, who does that these days? The religious right? They are the very people who tell us to leave the Bible out of it! Billy Graham stood for evangelism for a whole generation, but he was close friends and confidant with more presidents than other presidents were (which is pretty bad company for a Christian, IMO) and who made disciples of those ‘converts’ in his crusades? No one, I fear. He had only the very weakest of structure to accomplish that most important task.

SWhiteman

24th October 2005, 05:29

I hope the moderator will be patient with us. I don’t mean for this to get too far off topic and become a theological discussion.
I am not being patient in this conversation, I am watching it. This particular exchange, the manner of it and the civility of it is worth noting.

I have theological issue with some of the statements, but to the degree that the conversation is not blasphemous or profane, TAV encourages it. The TAV is not not talking about religion, nor it is talking about religion as if they are all alike or equally valid. The Christian Religion is the only true religion, and to the degree denominations within the religion want to hammer out some distinctives, and you can articulate those distinctives, please do.

Areopagus

24th October 2005, 07:59

Masons founded the country on Masonic morals and teaching that look, on the surface, like Christian ones but they are fundamentally different. They are anti-Christian. Masons, etc.

Your POST #8 http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1584#post1584

Of the others there is no doubt that some of them were Christians but the influence of non-Christians is more evident than Christianity.

I would rather have more preachers like Jonathan Edwards roaming the country than the politicians who founded its government.

Your POST #10 http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1593#post1593

Our Constitution is clearly the product of men heavily influenced by our Christian worldview and its laws are only suitable for those willing to live according to Christian morals and the rule of law.

If this is true, “the influence of non-Christians is more evident than Christianity,” then how does it follow, “Our Constitution is clearly the product of men heavily influenced by our Christian worldview and its laws are only suitable for those willing to live according to Christian morals and the rule of law.”

How is that demon possessed Masons, who had great influence, produced a Constitution heavily influenced by our Christian worldview? It sorta reminds me of these verses:

Matthew 12:25, 26 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Also, you mentioned Jonathan Edwards who played a substantial part in that Great Awakening. Would the same God who said: 2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people who are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and I will forgive their sin and I will heal their land," reward those folk with demon possessed Masonic leaders a few decades later?

St. Paul was the most frequently cited person during the founding era. http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html. Does the Masonic School claim that Paul was also a mason?

What do we make of all the Religious Clauses of State Constitutions demonstrating that most states had establishments of religion? http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/state.html .

What about, "Christianity is part of the law of the land," that "We are a Christian people," Chief Justice Kent in People v. Ruggles, 1811, 8 Johns., 290. "This is a Christian nation." Justice Brewer in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143, U.S. 457 (1892).

The most celebrated American historian, George Bancroft, called Calvin "the father of America," and added: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty." To John Calvin and the Genevan theologians, President John Adams credited a great deal of the impetus for religious liberty (Adams, WORKS, VI:313). http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/primarysources.html

The Creationism of America's Founding Fathers
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=821

Sweet Land of Liberty
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=805

Summarizing the Biblical Christian, creationist faith of our nation's founders, Ostrander has said:

The American nation had been founded by intellectuals who had accepted a world view the t was based upon Biblical authority as well as Newtonian science. They had assumed that God created the earth and all life upon it at the time of creation and had continued without change thereafter. Adam and Eve were God's final creations, and all of mankind had descended from theme.

John Adams' Diary
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/adamsdiary.html

The Christian religion is above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modem times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity, let the blackguard Paine say what he will; it is resignation to God, it is goodness itself to man.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights strongly influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the first part of the Declaration of Independence. It later provided the foundation for the Bill of Rights. http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html Virginia Declaration of Rights http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/virginia.htm

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

Northwest Ordinance, Article 3 contained the following language: "Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006502.jpg

Religion and the Federal Government http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built—a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined. In accord with what was so accurately stated by George Washington, we believe that “the propitious [favorable] smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation which disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained.” http://www.wallbuilders.com/aboutus/index.htm

Alexander Hamilton stated, `No human laws are of any validity if contrary to [the law dictated by God Himself].' Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution, Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. I, at 87 (Harold C. Syrett ed., Columbia Univ. Press 1961) (quoting William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol I, at 41).

Rehnquist's Dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm

"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, [ OR MASONRY] by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.)

O.K., O.K, O.K, I’m convinced! Your POST #10, as quoted above, IS CORRECT!

bluebird

24th October 2005, 08:03

Endangered:

I'm very much interested in maintaining a balance between National Security and civil rights. Could you please tell us where the necessary preparations are being set up to implement martial law? I've not seen it, but maybe I'm not paying enough attention.

This avian flu virus and all the scare and overkill about protection makes me think there are those in the federal government who have a plan to "quaranteen" any area of outbreak. Interesting.....because -- if you listen to the experts talk about it, they don't think it's going to mutate very easily. Right now, it is a bird virus, and some humans have gotten it directly from a bird. In fact, they say, the possibility of it mutating to a human to human virus has been around for over 10 years.

So why the panic now, all of a sudden? Naturally, my skepticism kicks in when I see the government's plan to quaranteen by military enforcement and the like. I just wonder where all this is coming from and who would "profit" from a major flu virus or the "potential" of a major flu virus worldwide?

Am I being too cynical to suggest it might be profit motivated by pharmaceutical companies and the like? I hope I am, but it wouldn't be unheard of ...would it? And, no I haven't read "1984."

Areopagus

24th October 2005, 08:09

endangered

25th October 2005, 06:11

Areopagus, I see I am making a mess of this. I don’t blame anyone for being totally confused.

It seems what would be most helpful would be a better understanding of what Masons believe etc. I have only known one Mason that I know of. I met him at a Bible study we both attended at the YMCA for a period of a few years. This was way before I knew anything about them or was the least bit interested. He attended the Congregational Church, I think. I never noticed that he believed anything unusual. He just mentioned one day that he was a Mason. So they are not anti-Christian in the sense of against, but in place of. They don’t oppose Christian beliefs they simply add to them.

Atheists can not become Masons. Candidates are required to believe in a god of some sort. Naturally the founders were from Christian backgrounds. They would confirm as true all Christian doctrine. They were creationists. (Also remember this was before Darwin, there really was no competing world-view.) They would easily talk the same talk.

If they believe as Christians do, then why are they not Christians? By becoming Masons their entire sense of loyalty is diverted from Christ to each other, the brotherhood. They take vows upon penalty of death to guard the secrets of the craft. Obedience to the order takes precedence over all other authority. Then they are told this whole apocryphal story about Solomon’s temple and a guy named “Hiram Abif” (search). They are similar to Mormons but I think the best way to describe them is that they are a gentile version of the OT priesthood.

That is a rather poor explanation. They really are difficult to research. This is an area where a few books helped.

Also, you mentioned Jonathan Edwards who played a substantial part in that Great Awakening. Would the same God who said: 2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people who are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and I will forgive their sin and I will heal their land," reward those folk with demon possessed Masonic leaders a few decades later?
Washington was the only President who received 100% of the vote. The account that I read, no one voted against him. His death was probably the greatest national tragedy we ever had as far as pure grief is concerned. No generation has ever had a more honest leader and one who gave more of him self to the good of the population than he did. Being a Mason doesn’t take away from his greatness. It only means he wasn’t a Christian.

endangered

25th October 2005, 06:13

Brenda, do you remember Bush visiting a place called NorthCom or “Northern Command” (search) located in Colorado a few weeks ago just before Rita hit? It will serve as the means to militarize the Federal emergency response.

The threat of martial law is a pretty hot topic with considerable history. Most, if not all, of the legal steps have been taken by executive order from the President for the past several decades. What I have read is that when the President declares a state of National Emergency all kinds of things happen. The constitution is suspended, congress can not assemble for a period of three or six months. Government is replaced with an un-elected shadow government. FEMA is put in control of all transportation, power plants, hospitals, fuel, food, pharmacies, or just about anything that anyone would need and they can confiscate anything you have. They can quarantine or relocate communities and they can put people into forced labor.

I can’t say how much of that is true. It’s just stuff that’s out there on the Internet. If you had been watching closely, you would have seen some pretty severe draconian measures taken by FEMA recently. I really don’t perceive the government as being very concerned with either national security or civil rights especially when the media has limited or no access.

SWhiteman

26th October 2005, 12:49

ERight now, it is a bird virus, and some humans have gotten it directly from a bird. In fact, they say, the possibility of it mutating to a human to human virus has been around for over 10 years.

So why the panic now, all of a sudden? Naturally, my skepticism kicks in when I see the government's plan to quaranteen by military enforcement and the like. I just wonder where all this is coming from and who would "profit" from a major flu virus or the "potential" of a major flu virus worldwide.

I am not a conspiracy type of guy. In fact, there have been times that I've received facts and kept they hidden from conspiracy types since I expected that they would misinterpret the information.

Still, not being a conspiracy guy, my wife brought something to my attention. She went to CDC to read about the flu vaccine (she is in a "target" group). She read, among other things that lead she and I to believe that the flu shot is ineffective, that one of the reasons to get the flu shot is to prepare yourself, and one of the reasons the CDC is pushing the flu shots is to prepare the country, for the Avian Flu mandatory vaccinations. I have not read that story myself, so I will ask my wife to provide me the hyperlink to it, and update this post with it if I can get it.

endangered

27th October 2005, 04:04

I have been a strong believer in conspiracy for most of my life. I can give you the exact date I became one. It was the day that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. I was 12 years old. Too much television I guess.

I think knowing that our country was no less corrupt than the worst banana republic is what put me on the path looking for a Better Place. I was 21 when the Lord gave me entrance to my present Homeland.

In recent years I have investigated the issue in much more depth using the resources available on the Internet. I have to say it really baffles me when people ignore conspiracy. The CFR and the United Nations are a somewhat open conspiracy to bring about a world government. What else can you call it?

Of course there is a great deal of false information that I suppose makes people conclude that none of it is true but that is not logical. Some of it has to be true or Ruby would not have shot Oswald and we would know who was responsible for Kennedy’s murder. How could such an act be so thoroughly covered up except by a very powerful group of collaborators at the very heart of America?

Doesn’t the Bible teach that there are spiritual kingdoms and realms that are opposed to the Kingdom of God?

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:

The Lord has always had a faithful remnant of believers and Satan has tried to maintain the same thing. God’s Kingdom is exoteric and open of all to see; though they can’t really see it unless they are born again. Satan’s is internally esoteric and externally unperceived by all but a few even though they are part of it, if they have not been born again. (Colossians 1:13)

We can easily trace our spiritual heritage back through time to the disciples, to Abraham and to the very beginning of history. That is totally impossible to do with Satan’s kingdom, especially since it is a divided kingdom, but I imagine that links do exist. The Masons for example have very close ties to the Templars; the Templars have possible ties to the Cathars; the Cathars followed the Merovingians, Merovingians could have sprung from the Gnostics of the first century. I suspect that they shared knowledge with the very men who crucified our Lord who could be traced through Jewish history to Egypt and to the Tower of Babel. There is also the Catholic/ Muslim side of secret societies.

Masons, themselves claim that their craft originated at the time of the building of Solomon’s temple, I would say that, in a way, it probably did. I think that the “builders” - referred to by out Lord on the day of the triumphant entry when He said, “The stone, which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?” (Matthew 21:24) - were the spiritual ancestors of our present day Masons.

Most Masons are like George Washington and my deceased friend who know nothing about the existence of the truly hard-core believers that knowingly serve Satan. In one of Washington’s letters he did mention knowledge of the Illuminati and that he seriously opposed them.

I think that when one takes the time to study what can be learned about these groups and their effect in history it really is quit fascinating. It might even yield considerable insight into current events like this war in Iraq. If it was not about national security, WMDs and all that, which is becoming more and more clear, then what is it about? I can’t know for certain that it is this or that but I have suspicions. Of course we never really know anything until the Lord pulls back the curtain and we see the man. (Isaiah 14:16)

SWhiteman

28th October 2005, 09:34

I have been a strong believer in conspiracy for most of my life. I can give you the exact date I became one. It was the day that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. I was 12 years old. Too much television I guess.

Let me clarify, then. It is not that I don't believe that various people are pulling strings, nor that they are wittingly or unwittingly sons of Satan -- its just, "So what." Psalm 2 shows that God laughs at such planning, Psalm 73 teaches us to be confident, for God has established even the evil man's steps -- and can take them away in a moment. I almost regret bringing up the term "conspiracy" the way in which I did, because the conversation will tend there now, but I believe that all too many are too narrowly focused on the conspirators and fail to pick up the small rock they have the ability to use and sink it into the forehead of an uncircumcised dog who dares to mock the Lord.