Submitted by Terence Blackett
By 1540, the Society of Jesus or the Jesuits as they are called were established with the principal function to win back the Protestant countries of Europe by any religio-political means necessary and to bring the World Order under the aegis of Vatican rule.
The underhanded working of the “Black Prince” became diabolically subterranean and sinister. In its ethos, where its reach has now been felt for the last 460 years the “dark forces” of the underworld planned, schemed, concocted and spun a web of lying intrigue and subterfuge to mask their evil deeds of deception. We know however that these malignant powers have been at work for thousands of years, mangling the world in its tentacles even long before this Order came of age.
The sinister timeline of Jesuit theology and its influence has been such that it has infected every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It has created storm clouds of the magnitude that 2 major world wars have been fought in its name resulting in what Edmond Paris describes as:
“A great accumulation of clouds, where lightning is powerful and the storm is bound to break out… Between 1939 and 1945, the storm killed 57 million souls ravaging and ruining Europe. We must be on our guard; another and even worse catastrophe may lie hidden in these same clouds; lighting may strike again, throwing the world into “abysses human wisdom can foresee”, but out of which, if it had the misfortune to let itself be thrown into, no power (on earth) could rescue it.” [Emphasis supplied is mine].
Modern Christianity has largely forgotten the importance of the Protestant Reformation of the 1500’s. Moreover, its resemblance to the church set up by Christ at His ascension pales in comparison today for what passes off as the Christian faith.
After 1260 years of papal oppression, the church awoke after a deep, dense, dark night of sleep to realize that superstition was rife and the witness for Biblical truth that was slain and martyred was left for dead, lying in the streets in an age of reason – a Renaissance bolstered by a move away from feudalism to modernity. But the dawn of the light of the Reformation meant that the opening of prophetic revelation (once sealed up) had finally been opened.
On the scene of action came Martin Luther. It has been said that the Reformation first discovered Jesus Christ, and then, in the blazing light of Christ, it discovered the Antichrist. This mighty, Spirit-filled movement, for Christ and against the Antichrist, shook the world.
H. Grattan Guinness wrote these memorable words: “From the first, and throughout, that movement [the Reformation] was energized and guided by the prophetic word. Luther never felt strong and free to war against the Papal apostasy till he recognized the pope as Antichrist. It was then that he burned the Papal bull (shit*) [Emphasis supplied is mine].
But the Jesuits answered!
“In the reaction that followed, all the powers of hell seemed to be let loose upon the adherents of the Reformation. War followed war: tortures, burnings, and massacres were multiplied.”
So in 1545 the Council of Trent was set up to counter the Reformation and ending its 3rd session in 1563 where the Catholic Church hierarchy gave the Jesuits the specific assignment of destroying Protestantism and bringing people back to the Mother Church. This was to be done not only through the Inquisition and through torture, but also through insidious and pervasive theology.
At the Council of Trent, the Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bible’s Antichrist prophecies to the Roman Catholic Church. Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a brilliant Jesuit priest and doctor of theology from Spain published a commentary on Revelation as a counter-interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation but the earliest chapters to the end time rather than to the history of the Church. According to concocted Jesuit theology – The Antichrist would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and would rebuild Jerusalem at the end of time.
Ribera’s antithesis on the Protestant Scriptural Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2) as seated in the church of God —asserted by Augustine, Jerome, Luther and many reformers was now dispelled and they set up an infidel Antichrist, outside the church of God. “The result of his work [Ribera’s] was a twisting and maligning of prophetic truth.”
On the heels of Ribera was Jesuit scholar, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621). The (Futurism) teachings of these Jesuits has paved the way for much of present day Christian eschatology especially of the role that the Antichrist will play in world events in the Last Days – a damnable “LIE” perpetrated against the Holy Writ – Scriptures which clearly states that the “spirit” of Antichrist has always been in the world and Paul acknowledges that the “man of sin” would be revealed in the Apocalyptic discourse.
So Jesuit Futurism swept 1,500 years of prophetic history under the proverbial carpet by inserting its infamous “GAP” theory – a heresy which teaches that when Rome fell, prophecy stopped, only to continue again right around the time of the Rapture, thus the “gap” was created. The ten horns, the little horn, the Beast, and the Antichrist have nothing to do with Christians until this “last-day Antichrist” should appear. According to this viewpoint, there were no prophecies being fulfilled during the 1260 years of the Dark Ages!
However, it was during the 19th century that this Jesuit form of theology took on a spurious global dimension where the likes of Dr. Samuel Roffey Maitland (1792-1866), a lawyer and Bible scholar, became a librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury and found Ribera doctrines and began to widely publish and advocate these deceptive teachings.
After Dr. Maitland came James H. Todd, a professor of Hebrew at the University of Dublin. Todd accepted the futuristic ideas of Maitland, publishing his own supportive pamphlets and books. Then came John Henry Newman (1801-1890), a member of the Church of England and a leader of the famous Oxford Movement (1833-1845). Newman soon became a full Roman Catholic, and later even a highly honored Cardinal. Then came the much-respected Scottish Presbyterian minister, Edward Irving (1792-1834), the acknowledged forerunner of both the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. When Irving turned to the prophecies, he eventually accepted the one-man Antichrist idea of Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera, yet he went a step further. Somewhere around 1830, Edward Irving began to teach the unique idea of a two-phase return of Christ, the first phase being a “SECRET RAPTURE” prior to the rise of the Antichrist.
Then came John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) – a brilliant lawyer, pastor, and theologian, who wrote more than 53 books on Bible subjects and is credited as the father of Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is the theory that God deals with mankind in major dispensations or periods. Darby’s contribution to the development of evangelical theology has been so great that he like Edward Irving also became a strong promoter of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture followed by a one-man Antichrist. In fact, this teaching has become a hallmark of Dispensationalism. John Nelson Darby laid much of the foundation for the present popular removal of Daniel’s 70th week away from history and from Jesus Christ in favor of applying it to a future Tribulation after the Rapture.
The greatest of all these Jesuits subliminal adherents was Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), a Kansas lawyer who was greatly influenced by the writings of Darby. In 1909, Scofield published the first edition of his famous Scofield Reference Bible. In the early 1900s, this Bible became so popular in American Protestant Bible schools that it was necessary to print literally millions of copies. This was the beginning of the end of American Protestant Christianity and a proper exegetical understanding of prophecy and the Scripture.
The Moody Bible Institute and the Dallas Theological Seminary have strongly supported the teachings of John Nelson Darby, and this has continued to fuel Futurism’s growth. Then in the 1970s, Pastor Hal Lindsey, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, released his blockbuster book The Late Great Planet Earth. This 177-page, easy-to-read volume brought Futurism to the masses of American Christianity, and beyond. 30 million copies later and in over 30 languages. Through The Late Great Planet Earth, Jesuit Futurism took a strong hold over the Protestant Christian world.
So in the 1990s, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins took the future one-man Antichrist idea of Scofield, Darby, Irving, Newman, Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera, and turned it into Blockbuster books and movies like Left Behind produced by Jack Van Impe, Peter and Paul Lalonde, and John Hagee. This has been the direction of American Protestant theology which has been pervasive across the globe for the last 30 years.
“The proper eschatological term for the view most widely taught today is futurism which fuels the confusion of Dispensationalism. The futuristic school of Bible prophecy came from the Roman Catholic Church, specifically her Jesuit theologians.”
Who has the right theology—those who were burned at the stake for Jesus Christ, or those who lit the fires? Who has the true Bible doctrine—the martyrs or their persecutors? Who has the correct interpretation of the Antichrist—those who died trusting in the blood of Christ, or those who shed the blood of God’s dear saints? This is the real issue today in Christianity…
You be the judge!
Am I the only one that thinks God must have a real cruel and sadistic streak for creating a system that says if you don’t believe the right way, you are going to burn alive in hell for eternity and then at the same time make it so damn easy for the tricksters like the Jesuits, Jehovah Witness, Mormons (or pick your own favourite “false” religion here) to deceive millions (trying their best to only do what their finite minds and understanding tell them God wants them to do) into believing the wrong way thereby consigning themselves to the eternal flames of hell.
Of course you are not the only one GM!
That is the exact conclusion that any sane, intelligent person would come to – if they depended on the likes of GP, Dictionary, Zoe and Terence (or any highly educated preacher) to explain the mysteries of God.
@ Green Monkey
I am with you there! There are lots more like us.
@TB
Did you cite source to support the above?
@DAVID
“Did you cite source to support the above?”
In the condensed annotated version, brevity would not allow but in the expansed version citations and references are duly noted as in this case – DR. MALACHI MARTIN* former eminent theologian – thirty years an Exorcist, expert on the Catholic Church, former Jesuit and professor at the Vatican’s Pontifical University…
Dr.Ronald Cooke argues that “it is obvious to anyone who is even remotely interested in the Vatican conspiracy that times have certainly changed the attitudes of Protestant Christians toward the Jesuits. The word “Jesuit” used to conjure up in the minds of those who heard it a malevolent and satanic rictus. But times have changed. Today Jesuits are
accorded reverence and respect in all segments of Western society, and yes, even allowed back into Eastern society after being banned from countries like China for almost thirty years…”
What is remarkable to a handful of theological scholars is the emphasis being placed on ISLAM & the CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS that is going on between Western strands of so-called democracy and the much heralded resurgent epiphenomena of Islamization that is portrayed in mass media to be sweeping the world under the guise of ISLAMIC TERROR*…
All the while, no one is paying attention to the dark forces at work under the guise of legit religion where a combination of ancient sociopolitical and spiritual powers are at work to bring every stratum of our world under the behest of an enemy that will remove every liberty we have held dear….
For the students of history know only too well – “HISTORY HAS A WAY OF REPEATING ITSELF”….because men refuse to learn the lessons…
There is so much Religion and so little “love” in the world, if one tenth of our religion could be transformed into love for each other, a much better world we would have but that would not allow for the rightness of a myriad of religious views; so the wheel spins on its axel scattering even those who are in silent prayer.
you can’t criticise any one for their beliefs
because nobody really knows anything
it’s all abstract concepts and theories
jah know
BU made the following comment on another blog which maybe equally relevant given Yardbroom’s comment.
Why should a GOD want me to be forever damned with Lucifer simply because I refused to believe.Check this out, I didnot have a choice wether I want to come into this world and if I did and knowing what I know now about the human race I would certainly take a pass on that one.
Well said, Pat, Green Monkey and Yardbroom.
Religion wether organised or disorganised is a social construct to explain the unexplain of the physical world.And this construct is brought about by an inherent biological impulse of wanting to” believe in something”. Not many of us are able to escape this social schackle. At best most become blind followers and at worst others become slaves/fundamentalists.
The question is, what good deeds have religion done for the world lately? If the present state of the human condition is by any means of judging our virtures that is buttressed by our religious beliefs – then our religosity have been weighed in the balance and have been found wanting.
I always believe with our deep flaws it was a great sin to bring the human race into existence.
Batman and Robin taking real long to get out the batcave and jump all over this.
David..is the Bat signal up and working?
Religion is bare boo. Those who “believe” do so because they are brainwashed by being raised in homes by other brainwashed. Here is something I want all the bare boo people to think about. Millions of non-believers inhabit the planet and lead happy and successful lives. The devil has not visited them once.
Amen to that, Anonymous.
The paradox that one religion is better than the other has been battered from day one.
I find peace in ignoring “formal religion”, and believe me, I’m happier without it!!!!!!
All:
Noticed this thread while sorting out some web page manipulation headaches.
Noticed some pretty hot words.
Not so good.
I think a few balancing remarks are in order.
1] Vatican c 1500 vs c 1960 – 2010
We must not forget that in the era TB in the main discusses, the Vatican was a state in the system of states in Europe; and that many who became popes, cardinals, etc were more the statesman a la Machiavelli than the servant of God. This included open wars and cloak and dagger operations, with all the nasty conspiriacies that go with that.
No doubt about it.
This is a part of the backdrop of the Protestant reformation, and of the very horrible wars and outrages that accompanied that.
For centuries thereafter, Rome was — for good reason – suspect, and especially the Jesuits, who often provided secret agents. [And here Wiki -- warts and all -- gives us some backdrop that is otherwise hard to find.]
And, unfortunately for the church of Rome, the Tridentine Council of the 1500s met against that backdrop and locked into place somethings that are probably at minimum a bit questionable. For, the reformers — who had sins aplenty on their own accounts — had a point. (BTW, as John Paul II acknowledged.)
But it is 400+ years later now.
So, let us learn from history, let us note duly the sins of the Jesuits, and let us learn to move on. For instance in recent years conservative Jesuits fought a rearguard theological action to defend form the radicals who — fellow Jesuits — were actually in some cases taking up guns to fight alongside marxist guerrillas as the militant wing of liberation theology.
As a result the last pope took the nuanced position that liberation is important but must respect historic Christian teaching and the centrality of the gospel. This is the backdrop of events in the Philippines and Poland, where Cardinal Sin and the pope himself were significant figures.
So, though I have principled theological differences with Rome, I am not inclined to nasty accusations or quarrels.
2] RE: “Am I the only one that thinks God must have a real cruel and sadistic streak for creating a system that says if you don’t believe the right way, you are going to burn alive in hell for eternity” and “Why should a GOD want me to be forever damned with Lucifer simply because I refused to believe.”
Whenever we start pushing God into the dock, that is a point where our reasoning has gone off the rails!
And, that is what is happening here, for there is a lot more to the story than the sort of unfortunately strawmanised, demonising and deeply polarised remarks just excerpted suggest.
Perhaps we need to read Paul in Rom 1 – 2 a bit more carefully (and this, on all sides):
a –> Paul is pretty explicit that the big problem is resenting and rebelling against the truth we do or should know then substituting what we do or should know is a lie, and that God frowns on this.
b –> So the issue, first, cannot be that one is merely IGNORANT of relevant truth (especially as it is innate: “you unfair me”! we protest, testifying to the binding nature of moral truth).
c –> Instead, it is that of rebelling against the truth we know and where it points, e.g the fact of consciousness and mindedness points to the Source of mind. (And likewise the orderly organised balance of the world and of life in it point to the author thereof.)
d –> Likewise, our consciences crying out for justice — including when we would put God in the Dock and cry out against real or apparent evils — testify to the fact that we find ourselves morally obligated. This can only be grounded in a cosmos in which the ultimate reality is a Morally Just Creator so that good is reasonable and morally compelling as reasonable and fair, not arbitrary. Otherwise the is-ought gap swallows up the ought in the is.
e –> But things get hotter. For in Ch 2 Paul takes in the man who does not know enough to know Jesus and the gospel, or who misunderstands it, contrasting him to the one who rejects truth he knows or should know and lives by evil in darkness:
f –> Here, we first see the ordinary man who by light of conscience — and inevitably stumblingly so — penitently perseveres in the path of good and truth, based on what he knows of good and God, by dint of nature, prophets, wise teachers, philosophers, scripture or even the manifest presence and power of the gospel. (The attitude is instantly recognisable, and so is its opposite.)
g –> The scripture is plain that to such God gives eternal life: >>Rom 2:6 He [God] will reward each one according to his works: 2:7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality >>
h –> Very simple, but so very easy to lose sight of: God is fair and loving, so he will save anyone he can. If you walk in the truth and the right you know or should — important caveat! — know, penitently and persistently getting up when you err or stumble, God will receive you with open arms.
i –> Such salvation is based on his lovingly and freely offered self-sacrifice by which he took our self-destroying sin into his own self and expiated its consequences and penalty. (The exchange is explicit in many cases, implicit in others [e.g Abraham, Melchizedek, Job, Moshe, David . . . many others down to today who may not have a clear access to a higher -- much less, the highest -- degree of truth or light ], but it is the basis for salvation and eternal life.)
j –> But, not all turn to the good and walk in the path of the right and the truth, however stumblingly. Some — sadly — rebel even against the undeniable voice of mind and conscience. Others are wiling to follow any rhetoric that excuses them in sin and in untruth, some even going so far as to actively suppress the truth they know or should know; up to and including in the case of those who have heard the gospel and have effective access to the compelling evidence of its truth. [This includes the millions all around us and over the years who have met and come to know the real God in the face of Jesus and have had their lives transformed by the resulting release of resurrection power through the "great and precious promises" of the scriptures. (Advice: a little humble listening to people who however ill-educated and lacking in eloquence actually know God, would save many of us the highly educated a lot of grief here and in eternity.)]
k –> For good reason, rebels against the truth and the right face a very different fate.
l –> And, it is such who need to heed the stern warnings Paul also gives: >>2:8 but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness >>
__________
So, commentators and onlookers:
1: what is the truth and the right that you know or should know?
2: Are you seeking to turn to it and live by it, however much you stumble and must regret it and get up and try again?
3: Or, are you resisting the truth and following evil, in rage against what you know you should do?
That is the issue we must all face.
Grace and peace to all
D
PS: on evidence on the gospel, you may wish to start serious investigations here [a prime source doc dating to 57 AD] and here [a current discussion by a leading scholar], following up by actually sitting down with the kind of serious Christians whose lives reflect the gospel’s supernatural life-transforming power at work.
Holy WordPress!!
Like moths to the flame !!
ROFLMAO!!
that was too easy
Onlookers:
See what I mean?
Technician,
You need to get more serious about the truth you know or should know. Rom 2: 6 – 8 tells you why.
Dis ting WAAY too serious for jesting and brushing aside, mon.
G’day
D
Oh no Dick….
It is you who make this life and take it too seriously…so seriously that people like you almost always zoom past the BASIC things in life that makes one happy.
You HAVE to be right!
No one can disagree with you without being labeled.
Dick MUST have the final say and is THE authority on all things LIFE.
NEWSFLASH!!
Some of us who do not conform to your rules ( millions at last count) ARE happy in this life…..DEAL WITH IT!!
You remind me of yardfowl, picking and scraping at every bit of scrap thrown out……you just cant help can you….that ego is going to kill you man!
Lets just sit and wait now…..your sidekick cant be that far behind.
ROFLMAO!!
Laughter IS good for the soul.
Technician:
I do not know where you got the sort of strawman caricatures of me that you have put up, but they are wrong; seriously wrong.
(And if the slanders put up against me by others elsewhere are what are leading you astray [.e.g Mr Boyne's attempt to cover the error of covering implicit support for onstage dancehall culture lewdness by slandering Evangelicals, and then furhter slandering those who pointed out his basic errors, or those who have yet to face some basic facts about what pre-loading targets in alleged random search algorithms implies], I have already corrected those elsewhere in this blog, for your specific attention. Similarly, you know that I am correct in my description of two-point linear implosion design nukes, and what that implies since IAEA is concerned that the Iranians have been testing the design. Namely this is an opportunity for suicide nuke terrorism using suitcase nukes or footlocker nukes or backpack nukes. So, I think you need to look in the mirror when you project the attitude of being a know it all. FYI there are many things I do not know, such as the details of biochem, and I simply listen to those like GP — whom I now know to be a physician and med school lecturer — who do on that. You will note that my petrochems plant comparison is on a poster set up by the Int’ls union of biochem and molecular bio. I know about plants and design,and implications of information that is functionally specific and complex.)
And, just above, I am pointing to an issue that you need to face, with your basic integrity on the line.
THAT IS WHY I HAVE COUNSELLED YOU TO TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK.
A word to the wise . . .
G’day
D
The harsh critics of modern-day Christianity are justified in their assertions as to the machinations of a religion that has truly lost its way given almost 2000 years of subliminal indoctrination from the spirit of Antichrist which has been existent in the world since the days of JESUS*…
My Catholic brothers including my dearly beloved Cousin Harcourt Blackett tend to get their “knickers” in a twist over this kind of scrutiny given the fact that the Catholic Church and especially the JESUIT* wing of the orthodoxy has been conceited, malevolent, capricious and down-right damnable in its practices for well over 400 years….moreover Church history which spanned 1260 years during the DARK AGES* from (538ad – 1798) where ROME* ruled with a rod of iron…
If as a Christian, I cannot pin-point the failures of established religion with a degree of objectivity, censure and analysis – then who can?
Too many good religious folks are blind, deaf and dumb to the insidious workings of the said Church within its long march to bring the world under its aegis once again.
Even the modern Evangelical Church Movement is being led blindly down in the garden path as men accept Biblical teachings which are nefarious to say the least and down-right diabolical to say the worst… The sad irony being they read from the same BIBLE* but cannot agree on whether to have a “ham sandwich or tuna sandwich for lunch”…
What is even more sad is that as one commentator said (I think my dear BRUV*Bush Tea) that men are still trying to explain the mysteries of God as “if they have some patent on God…”
Another comment highlights the issue of “LOVE”* (or the lack thereof) amongst religionists – what an epiphany!!! Sorry, I didn’t mean to be facetious – that just slipped out!!!
The issue is really because men do not love the truth and would rather believe a lie is the reason why our condition is so pathetic and for that reason and that alone is my we have such a hard time convincing men of the truth… God already knows who will be saved and who won’t but we take it upon ourselves to damn folks into Hell* forgetting that according Jewish mythology – there are 7 levels of HELL*… Which one do we relegate our brothers & sisters to?
Again for the record, religion is NOT* salvation. Religion is man’s own witches brew – a alchemists’ concoction thrown together and shaken (not stirred) in the cauldrons of Hell by demons who have infiltrated the minds of men to lead the masses of sheep over a cliff…
I know this maybe hard for some to swallow and God knows that I am not trying to rock the boat – (actually I am attempting to throw the “bloody” thing over)…
Whatever the opinion on this issue – the debate will scupper on I’m sure with no consensus reached…
In the end all men have to be fully persuaded for themselves because I sure can’t save a single soul!!!!
Dick….I really could care less about what you know or dont.
How many letters of the alphabet follow Gordon Mullings name has no interest whatsoever to me.
You are yet to bring proof of the suitcase nukes in Iran…proof , not feelings..show us the proof of their existance…after all..the head honcho of their program under the Shah (who by the way started Irans Nuclear ambitions)taught you.
I do not follow the other issues except one I previously highlighted, which because of my perception of you made sense ( blame me for my thoughts)
I stand by what I say regardless of who sees me in another light, I think for myself. I dont know everything either, I am a network cabling /telephony technician/installer with no letters behind my name but I do have enough common sense to question.
I am a “simple man” and feel comfortable in my simplicity, I therefore leave religion to those who know more about it than I do…Dr Georgie Porgie et al. My simplicity allows me to be silent, for I speak not of what I do not know, but I listen for I might hear a voice – through its examples set that I can follow…I am still listening.
@ Anonymous, Anon, Voice of Reason and Yardbroom, Bush Tea, et al.
Please, please, dont upset the religious “tryptch” of BU. Let them go where us simpletons refuse to tread.
In the meantime, continue to enjoy your lives to the max. This is it. When you dead, you dead. There is nothing after.
The Christian religion cannot at this time be of concern to me. Not so when Islam, or actors in the name of islam to whom I am but an infidel, has justified in themselves that I can be blown to bits with Allah’s blessing if I do not surrender to their dictates.
As a practicing heathen, the christians have only warned me of eternal damnation after I physically die of natural causes, should I not repent and seek salvation while alive.
The choice is a no-brainer for me. LOL!
Isn’t it fascinating how scoffers, denyists, protagonists, atheists, naysayers and others surface like the LEVIATHAN* when a sound intellectual discussion on the Christian religion is given some resonance in contemporary social discourse forums…
For the OTHERS* here is a link that should enlighten you a bit about your world….
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869614609770971945#
Yes Terence, as you and others continue your internal christian wars, Islam continues to grow with the intent that no christian entity should exist.
@Terence: “For the OTHERS* here is a link that should enlighten you a bit about your world….
Did anyone else waste your time watching this carefully manufactured and controlled bullshit?
There was no audience there… Other than those paid to be there (and they (read: the ugly blond) were involved with the production)…
If you haven’t watched this, don’t waste your valuable time….
@ CH
ha ha ha. You actually watched? I never watch videos or follow any links in blogs from the religious pundits. Why it will be something, to boost their arguments, in which I have no interest.
@Bro’ Terence, I could not concur more with you re the *Jesuits* and their sinister plan to counter the Reformation, etc, etc.
However, I could not help but notice your general ‘sweep’ across Protestantism, notwithstanding the many ‘ills’ within it, I quietly suspect that you [may] have a subtle agenda here, in attacking Prostantism for a far more covert reason than you presently want to declare, hint… ‘Blue Law’ concept of your denomination… [maybe!). Just asking!
David:
I bear record that technician has elected to again violate my privacy.
D
Dicktionary…..are you stupid?!?
What privacy what?!?
Anyone with fingers knows who you are, bu your own making too.BU is not the only place that you blog, my neighbor knows you even. What will David do…ban me? You must really think I am one one your students and BU is your class room.Dont make me laugh man, grow up and suck in that ego. You want to be famous and anonymous at the same time….stupse.
You have really outdone yourself here man. This is NOT your blog and you are well known to the internet……deal with it…..pompous fool!!
The record IS there to show that anyone reading BU knows who you are…violate your privacy my ass!!
Onlookers:
Observe how studiously, now that some pretty harsh shut-up rhetoric has been answered — cf. point 2 above, here, after some balancing words were made on the sett heme for the thread — step by step through the examination of foundational Christian writings and related key worldview and responsibility- to- truth issues, we see scant signs of serious examination of the question of the truth and the right that we may follow it.
That should tell us a lot — and very little of it happy news — about the underlying attitudes and intents behind the disparaging rhetoric, and it underscores the force of the warning in the linked.
For it is plain that we have a duty to seek and to live by the truth we know or should know.
D
PS: Technician, above, shows his saddening irresponsibility, not only by again violating my privacy, but by making an assertion that slanderously fails to acknowledge that from the very first point of remarking on the IAEA’s concerns on Iran’s bomb making experiments — cf point 5 on my post in the Muslim Mafia thread Nov 9 [over a month ago now . . . ] here — the source, an article in that notorious right wing rag — NOT! — the UK Guardian has been consistently cited or summarised and/or linked. And since I know enough to understand what sort of bombs would come out of such a two detonation point implosion design [with possible fusion boosting . . . takes it up to the 1 - 10 K ton TNT equivalent class, i.e Hiroshima level], I raised the issue of suitcase suicide nukes, and of small tac nuke warheads for missiles. The relevant paragraphs, just for the record, are:
Onlookers:
Kindly note the blatant incivility and disrespect for others and their privacy that Technician now so clearly manifests.
(Thankfully, he and others of like ilk are in no position to play “outing” games with me that cause career harm. What he can do is cause me some unwelcome email spam surges. As I have explained more than once to those who would imagine that if they can with searching learn an identity, they can plaster it on any handy forum with slanders against the person so such viral lies can propagate far and wide; as happened withthe Boyne slanders inthe rpevious thread: kindly note onlookers, that the FGleaner had to correct the record by publishing a corrective, and that the accusations that would push Evangelicals into the same boat with the Taliban, were about Christian objections to public lewdness by Dancehall singers like Lady Saw — who with others ended up before the courts for lewd conduct That should tell us a lot, and none of it any good.)
Technician, surely you can do a lot better than that.
G’day
D
After reading through all that BS above…where is the smoking gun because that is the only way to justify a strike ( which is what all this posturing is about)
You really think the world wants another war based on fear and lies or deceit?
Show us the suit case , not the ‘probability’ of one. Is this so hard for you to do…stupse.
All I see is words like ‘evidence suggesting.’
..’Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design.
What MAY..did they or not?
You really think people so stupid that they cant see you and others of your ilk’s agenda here?
Education really aint common sense and when soaked in religion it is a dangerous thing.
This was posted on BU..
Rasputin // November 14, 2009 at 6:45 PM
For those of you still replying to Dictionary (aka kairosfocus, aka Gordon Mullings), I suggest you take a look at his ability to produce prodigious nonsense at places like Uncommon Descent. He never admits error, even when his nose is rubbed in it, and never, ever stops posting. Pat him on the head like a good little bot and save your intellectual energy for a worthwhile discussion partner.
This is the article by Mr.Boyne that I happen to agree with.
Religious threat to freedom
published: Sunday | October 15, 2006
Ian Boyne, Contributor
Many persons have been expressing genuine worry for my life now that I have taken a strong stand against Islamic fanaticism, with some Christians saying that they are praying for my safety. But some Christians have also been offended by what they see as my lumping together Christian fundamentalists with Islamic fundamentalists.
There is no moral equivalence between the two, they insist. And, of course, I never suggested that. But what I have maintained is that the Christians are also prone to bigotry, intolerance and the desire to impose their will on others just as the Islamic militants. The Christians have been more restrained in establishing their Kingdom of God on earth not because that desire has extinguished among them but because they live in secular states which have long disposed of the concept of the Divine Right of Kings and other theocratic notions.
Yet have no doubt that there are strong currents of theocracy among Christians, not the least among groups like the Moral Majority and other right-wing Christian groups in the United States. There is also a militant, activist group of Christians in America and other places who believe that secularism has too much of a hold over people and that it is time that the disciples of Christ rise up and establish the kingdom, taking back from the devil what he has stolen.
They are not willing to use violence as the Islamic militants and jihadists, but in their Christian hearts burns the same passion for righteousness and divine justice that well up in the hearts of the Wahabists. Some Christians have been saying on a website that I have been distorting history by ascribing to secularism the birth of the concept of freedom when that glory should rightly go to Christianity.
Missing the point
The Christians have missed the point I have made. The issue is not whether, as the people on the Kairos website point out, the concept of personal freedom came from early Christians or from Christian philosophy. Professor Orlando Patterson has, indeed, demonstrated in his book Freedom that Pauline Christianity did play a pivotal role in establishing the concept of personal and individual freedom. But Gordon Mullings, well-meaning but with a surfeit of zeal over knowledge, implies that there is a necessary conflation between theology and action.
The fact that Christian theology or philosophy posits something does not automatically translate into Christian practice. How do Gordon Mullings, Shirley Richards et al explain the fact that the Christian Church – for that’s what it was, not some fringe group – carried out such dastardly acts in the Middle Ages? How do they explain the Crusades, the forcible Christianisation of nations, the brutal imposition of sectarian rule over people? Merely dismissing the dominant church as “the Biblically illiterate Christianity of the Middle Ages” (as Mullings does) is disingenuous and would leave the historically challenged with the view that one was referring to some fringe group in the Middle Ages.
Succumbing to the normal Protestant temptation – historical amnesia – Mullings glorifies “the world that resulted from having the Reformation sola scriptura principle” in putting the Bible in the hands of the ordinary man: liberation.” Mullings does not mention – or does he not know? – that Luther and the early Reformers eventually became some of the biggest persecutors of other Christians who did not follow their particular version of Christianity. Luther spoke in the most contemptuous and vehement ways about his opponents, displaying a spirit of intolerance at the liberty exercised by others who had been reading the Bible differently. The fact is that despite the fact that the Bible does place – from Old to New Testament – a strong emphasis on individual liberty, if secular society did not place as strong an emphasis on pluralism and democracy, there are Christians, not just on the fringe, who would seek to establish their version of God’s rule on the rest of us. The desire to establish a theocratic system is not just limited to evil Middle Ages Christians.
If the secularists and the forces of democracy were not as strong in America, people like Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson and James Dobson would set up a Fundamentalist Christian state in America that would suppress the freedoms of non-Christians. They read the same Bible which Gordon Mullings, Shirley Richards and others read as giving the blueprint for individual liberty, respect for individual conscience etc., but those passages would all be interpreted to suit their theocratic designs.
Narrow-mindedness
We must simply face up to the dangers and pitfalls of the fundamentalist mindset. This is not to suggest that fundamentalism is evil or even necessarily misguided. But it is to acknowledge that it is usually associated with narrow-mindedness, bigotry, intolerance and sometimes mean-spiritedness. And often with a persecution complex.
Shirley Richards is right that the struggle of some Christians against the dominant church and for respect for individual conscience was crucial in the struggle for freedom in the West. But remember, the Bible has been used by both the oppressor and the oppressed for their causes. Because of the pliable nature of the Bible -or the Bible’s being used that way – it must be admitted by Christians freely that fellow believers are not immune to the temptation to establish a Christian state.
Would it be okay for a Christian Prime Minster to ban horseracing, the lotto and carnival on Sunday even if the majority population has no problem with such practices? I am a firm believer in pluralism and I believe that a secular state better protects freedom of conscience than any religious state. Whenever people hold totalist views-such as Marxism, Salafism, Christian Fundamentalism, Mormonism, old-style conservative Catholicism – there is always the temptation to minimise the freedom of people who are outside that ideology.
Castro still refuses to allow his people to hear broadcasts emanating from the United States; still disallows their free subscriptions to Western magazines and won’t allow people absolute freedom to travel because he has a totalitarian ideology which assures him that scientific socialism is right and competing ideologies are non-scientific and, therefore, wrong.
Various Muslim Sheikhs hold to their rigid interpretation of the Koran and if they could get political power from the secularists who hold power in certain Muslim societies, they world impose their narrow view on the populace.
Sunnis have no problem imposing their rule on Shias and vice-versa.
Secularist impulses
Christians might have been in the forefront of early struggles to establish freedom, and the Protestant Reformation was certainly a catalyst but we cannot underplay the significance of secularist impulses in cementing the culture of freedom and democracy.
And those who write and talk glibly about Christians being necessarily worlds apart from the Muslims in terms of behaviour and ideology must remember that the history of Islam is not uniformly one of violence and mayhem. We must not do a disservice to history and truth by caricaturing Islam as being just coterminous with violence, terror and intolerance.
In his book What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (2002), the esteem historian Bernard Lewis reminds of the contributions of Islam to Western civilisation.
“For many centuries the world of Islam was in the forefront of human civilisation and achievement. In the Muslims’ own perception, Islam was, indeed, coterminous with civilisation…It had achieved the highest level so far in human history in the arts and science of civilisation … In most of the arts and sciences of civilisation, medieval Europe was a pupil and in a sense a dependent on the Islamic world, relying on Arabic versions even for many otherwise unknown Greek texts.”
This is not known to many persons who only know about the terrorist actions and barbaric intolerance of rable rousers on the Arab streets-not representing all Muslims today.
A fascinating book which is a must-read for those ignorant of the Islamic contribution to Western civilisation and Western scholarship is Professor Richard Rubenstein’s 2003 book Aristotle’s Children: How Christians, Muslims and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Dark Ages.
Says Rubenstein: “Aristotle’s work, like the rest of Greek culture, had been lost in the centuries after the fall of Rome when the Greek language was forgotten. But in the Muslim world, the wisdom of the Greeks was never lost and contributed to the flowering of Islamic culture.
Then in the twelfth century in Toledo, Spain, groups of Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars collaborated on translating the ancient classics; and ideas long forgotten galvanised Europe, turning Western thinking away from the supernatural world and toward the world of nature”.
Religions are capable of transforming themselves or of being corrupted by practitioners or adherents. In religion there is a vast difference between the ideal and the real. So making the point about what the ideology of Christianity advocates and the proclivities of living breathing Christians is not one and the same thing.
@All…
For the record…
Even the *great* US of A is unable to produce a “suit-case” (read: human carried) nuclear device able to deliver more than about 200 tons (0.2 kilotons). And even that isn’t for certain…
Iran hasn’t even tested a single device yet.
North Korea have, and the results were less then impressive.
The best the “rogue” states could do is produce a “dirty bomb”. That is, a non-nuclear explosion spreading nuclear material around.
But then, so could anyone with enough time, a great deal of matches, and a great many old “glow-in-the-dark” watches….
..and this is the other post where I followed up om what Rasputin had to say.
Tell me Dictionary, where did you get the ignorance about Lady Saw et al?
Could it be that you ,the Great Dictionary, made a mistake??
link did not post….here it is
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/09/romans-13.html
Dont want to miss my train…Good night.
David:
Sigh.
Technician has resorted to further propagating slander, in an clear intent to side track the thread into strawman attacks soaked with ad hominems ignited to poison and polarise rthe atmosphere.
This is sad.
On right of reply, however I must give a corrective to the core issues.
First on the roots of modern liberty that Mr Boyne does not understand, cf here.
(And onlookers, if one has easy access to the truth but sets out to studiously ignore or suppress or slander it, that is a serious sign. And such behaviour is precisely an illustration of the point about the real problem we have with God, above.)
Second, I again must excerpt the previously linked corrective on the slander that Christians are like the Taliban, in the context of objections to Dancheall culture lewdness:
______________
>>THIS, Technician, was what was at stake, and I think you will see why Mr Boyne’s rhetoric as you cited above was utterly inexcusable, and should not be used by any decent person:
++++++++++++++
On “Theocracy,” 12: Rom 1 – 2 & 13, liberty and the public vs. private spheres
. . . . We sometimes refer to certain parts of our bodies as “private,” and as a rule will refuse to put these parts of our bodies on public display, through a sense of shame, or a commitment to modesty, or in some cases a fear of possible legal consequences.
At the same time, the very existence of pornography, peeping toms, flashers, utterly immodest dress, indecent entertainment acts, date rape and prostitution tells us that there are those who take inappropriate pleasure or profit from the breaching of this barrier — often trying to make the claim that they are championing “liberty” as they do so. (In fact, we need to distinguish between liberty on the one hand, and licence, libertinism and amorality [often disguised as "tolerance" and "diversity"] on the other. For, as Rom 13:8 – 10 reminds us, neighbour-love does no harm. )
Why, then, do we instinctively draw a line between the public and the private, and why is there a clash between shame and pleasure over its breach?
. . . .
For instance, we can observe that while some people will wear provocatively immodest clothing that suggests, presents and hints at their private parts, passions and sexual availability — and will champion publicly funded or displayed artwork that is far more prurient than that — the same people would as a rule be utterly embarrassed to be caught helplessly naked in the middle of a major traffic intersection.
[In case the reader thinks this is a mere hypothetical, s/he might wish to consider the case of the publicly funded and controversial Redemption Song nude statue group at the corner of Oxford Road and Knutsford Boulevard in New Kingston, Jamaica; which is so posed as to put the exaggerated male and female pubic regions at the eye-level of passersby. (Note how -- ever so tellingly! -- one of the dismissers of moral concern has to ask passersby to "elevate their eyes to the expression of spiritual yearning and hope," as noted here in a Florida newspaper report. That means that something that is usually regarded as intensely private, and in much larger than life size, has been put at eye-level and it obviously is not the upturned "spiritual" faces!) Moreover, it is not without relevance to note that: (1) this site was precisely the location of a public protest against the institution of Playboy porn channel Cable TV-sponsored mass nude weddings at Hedonism III in February 2001, and (2) in the Emancipation Park for which the statues were commissioned, at opening, not one historical monument to the history of emancipation, nor the Biblically rooted motivations of many of Jamaica's heroes or ideal was to be found. Indeed, (3) major national symbols such as the Pledge, Motto, Coat of Arms, and Anthem were conspicuously absent. Not even the incorrect date of emancipation -- 1838, much less the correct date -- 1834, was to be found.]
Or, getting back to the more sordid parts of our history raised by slavery, even the most immodest people would find themselves utterly humiliated to be put up, more or less naked, on an auction block and sexually inspected and commented on by interested buyers and bystanders as part of the “tomato-pinching” before being auctioned off to the highest bidder.
In short, there is an obvious and vast, intuitively recognised difference between what is suitable for the privacy of the God-blessed marital bedroom or the doctor’s office, and what is appropriate for the public context — however much some may wish to play around with the borderline. Selective hyperskepticism about this, therefore only reveals an intellectually and morally indefensible agenda at work.
The distinction between the public and the private spheres, clearly, also fulfills some very important protective — and even liberating — social functions:
First, our children need a safe public space in which they can be appropriately stimulated and educated without fear of exposure to images, ideas, agendas and situations that they are neither mature enough to handle well, nor capable of defending themselves from.
Second, through institutionalising modesty, in part through recognising, protecting (and sometimes subsidising) marriage and the family, society is able to promote the healthy rearing of the next generation, helping to preserve itself.
Third, in light of the classic observation that men in particular are prone to leave a trail of havoc across a community through abusing physical, social and sexual prowess — witness the fact that rape is as a rule a crime committed by men — societies require several key institutional walls of protection.
Fourth, since it is now common to encounter the notion that activist judges or legislatures can freely and safely decree at will that marriage needs not be reflective of the natural difference between men and women, it must be noted that not only is the heterosexual bond a basis for procreation and sound child nurture, but that the associated denigration of the limits of nature is not only physically unhealthy but also is fraught with implications for the fabric of protection of children in the community based on the public/private distinction.
Fifth, we must never forget that liberty always has proper limits: my right implies your duty, given the basic fact that we are equals in nature under God, and so we have mutual obligations under the principle that neighbour-love does no harm. Nor, are we justified to assume or assert without further proof that lawful restrictions imposed by legitimate authorities that do not suit our preferences on public morality are to be derided and dismissed as oppressive impositions of “censorship,” without specific and good reason for such a conclusion.
All of this speaks to a common voice of conscience-guided reason that whispers within, echoing, in turn, some telling but sometimes unwelcome insights from the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, a now often unacknowledged foundational work for Western Culture as we know it:
In short, there is an intuitively recognised core of conscience-guided reason and awareness of the creation-based, morally conditioned nature of reality that leads us to God; if we would but listen. Sadly, we are instead tempted to suppress this as it is often inconvenient to our desired agendas, profits and pleasures. If we do so, we have no excuse and find ourselves victims of darkened understandings, benumbed consciences and out-of-control, sometimes perverted passions — leading to massive social disruption and disintegration. In turn, when anarchy reaches a critical point, as Germany in the 1930s showed convincingly, the public will accept tyranny on the hope that it will restore order. In short, once we ignore the moral context of liberty, it becomes suicidally self-destructive.
So, in fact, the sort of inconsistency on the moral issue of modesty just highlighted is quite revealing on our core moral challenge: our willful, sinful alienation from our Creator. Such a rebellion easily leads us to proclaim that our bondages are our liberties and also to refuse to accept — especially when it cuts across our profits or pleasures — that it is a core criterion of sustainable liberty that we should we should do no harm to our neighbours. (Thus, in effect, we have now arrived at a core issue connected to our need to repent in light of the credibility of the Gospel; but that is a side-point relative to our current focus.)
So now, we are in an excellent position to evaluate and respond to the sort of comment that Mr Boyne recently made, in portraying those he insists on smearing as “fundamentalists” in the following light:
First we observe the warning-sign of dismissive rhetoric and assertion of irresponsible [im]moral equivalency: mindless Bible-thumping fundamentalists more or less at the same moral level as the fanatical and oppressive Taliban of Afghanistan — as if the differences between Jamaican evangelicals and the like and the Taliban are not obvious, material and even vast. But more on the point, in light of the issue of the importance of distinguishing the public/private spheres and the issue of appropriate behaviour in the public sphere, issues of modesty are not automatically to be equated to censorship and oppression.
Indeed, on the dance hall behaviour question, I once recall a case where videos of the audience at a public dancehall event were repeatedly shown for several days on my local access cable tv channel in Jamaica, at all hours of day and night.
My wife drew my attention to it, and late one evening I took time to watch; only, to see an informal lewdness contest by a circle of women, “won” by one who shocked her companions by . . . When I complained to the management of the company, at first they were skeptical of my perceived attitude of “censorship,” but when I then explained in a bit more details than I will here, they at once indicated that this was unauthorised, and that they would have to act to see to it that such lewd and illegal public displays would never happen again on their channel. [Note how, in attempting to "justify" the mass nude weddings at Hedonism III, another commentator corroborates these observations here. Cf my objection to the now annual nude weddings event at the time it was started, here. I have now added a copy of this post to that page.]
Plainly, given what is at stake at length, serious moral concern to defend public morality in the face of a subculture that evidently encourages public misbehaviour and associated immodest patterns of dress — is plainly warranted. [Recall here the case of Lady Saw and why she became controversial for lewd behaviour and indecent lyrics, especially what the Jamaica Observer calls "her signature crotch patting" which in the linked case led up to her "calling dancer Ice on stage who engaged a female patron in dry-humping."] So, while we indeed need to be careful of the line between liberty and censorship, it is plain that obscenity has long been recognised as objectionable and actionable under law, for excellent reason. Similarly, morally concerned people — and this, classically, includes Bible-believing Christians — are well within their rights to object to and boycott immodest public [or even on-private-property "entertainment"] behaviour, speech, broadcasts, dress and yes even television programming that fall far short of legally actionable obscenity.
In such a context, we are equally well within our rights to ask pointed questions on the underlying attitudes and motivation of very well informed public figures such as Mr Boyne, who — without adequately reckoning with serious concerns and issues such as the above — try to push those who raise such concerns into the same boat as Islamist terrorists and oppressors.
For, that sounds a lot like bigotry and stirring up of misunderstanding, leading to unjustified resentment and hostility to me. For shame!
++++++++++
Technician, you owe me and all decent people whom you misled by citing an utterly indefensible attack as though it was the last word, an apology. >>
______________
Onlookers, it is sad to have to defend oneself from such an out of control slanderous personal attack.
D
D,
Explain how “limited strikes” mitigate the threat from “suitcase nukes”?
Should the US make a “limited strike” against Iran and Amadinejad wont have the to steal another election.
(Be a christian and think of others and keep your posts to a ‘polite’ size)
Footnote: Mr Halshall,
Maybe you would want to read here to see what fusion boost can do to a 2-point implosion warhead; precisely as I described. Excerpting:
In short all you have succeeded in doing is documenting that you have not done your homework carefully enough.
As intelligent beings we should learn from mistakes. We have debated long enough on BU to have established some ground rules to take the debate to another level. If we can’t do this how can we be described as intelligent?
Finally for now:
Rasputin, sadly, is simply a cross-threading anonymous slanderer.
As I noted in the previous thread in response to his attempt to spread a dismissive slander — something which Technician had immediate access to (i.e the issues of responsibility to the truth are right there on the surface as I discussed earlier today]:
________________
>> My attention was drawn to remarks above by Rasputin, who has engaged me elsewhere in brief.
Observe, therefore, that both here and elsewhere he has not documented, just smeared and condescendingly dismissed.
Nor has he engaged the matter in the main above on the only grounds relevant to sound conclusions on the matters in this thread; the material facts and reasoning relative to these.
So, think about what the actual pattern above shows on where the balance on the merits lies.
D
PS: There was indeed a case where there was a long exchange over months, on a semi-technical issue where I was held by many opponents to be stubborn on error, in pointing out the ways that Dawkins’ Weasel program worked or could work. The recent thread here shows that I was in fact right all along on the main issue, now that he credible original code used for Dawkins’ Weasel has emerged. (As for the issue that was recently raised, I still find it odd how disputants on the other side try to insist that what was called implicit latching was not real, since it was actually demonstrated months ago once we had Atom’s adjustable Weasel to work with!) And, Rasputin still has not accounted for the origin of functionally specific, complex information beyond say 1000 bits as a threshold of “beyond the reasonable reach of chance + necessity alone in the observed universe” — including the origin of the bioinformation of cellular life and of major body plans. Intelligence is the only observed source of such FSCI, and I and others are entitled to take it as a credible empirical signature of such. >>
____________
Onlookers
All of this is sad, but it is showing the force of the concerns on one’s spiritual conditions that I had to point out earlier today.
You will note a conspicuous silence on the issues on the merits, but a willful and sustained attempt to attack the messenger bearing an unwelcome message.
That should tell us a lot about what is really going on.
So, let us keep our eyes on the ball.
D
@Dictionary… Bullshit.
If it was so easy, everyone would be doing it.
What you fail to admit (or perhaps, understand) is that creating the spherical implosion around the “single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions” using high explosives and precisely timed triggers is a non-trivial problem.
Let’s ignore the purity requirements of the fission (not fusion) material, or the size and weight of the high-explosives….
@Technician, Every chance you get to slander Dictionary, is used to ‘disguise’ the fact, that you CANNOT offer ANY objective, rational, refutation to ANY of his sound, well-reasoned, factually based arguments; so what do YOU DO, nothing but childish retort, nothing of ANY substance, is this right?
It would be so much better, as many others do, when they DON’T know or understand the subject matter, to try and learn, ask meaningful questions, rather than ATTACKING the MESSENGER, because you are unable to deal coherently with his MESSAGE!
Is this too much to ask? I think not, as it is the mature, reasonble way it should be dealt with!
Ah..I see that Robin has joined the party….true to form!
I posted above to show that Dictionary IS known to people on the net and it was not me who ‘outed ‘ him.
I then posted the passage that I agree with, which is MY right whether it is right or wrong in others eyes.
In all of Dicks post, I am yet to see PROOF that the suit case nuke he speaks of exists. All we read are suppositions and maybes. Does this justify Strikes on another country?
is the world ready for another war based on fear-mongering rather that facts.
Rather than show us the PROOF, Dick goes on and on with pure BS.
I may not be able to post those long lectures as that is not my forte but Lets get to the point..There is NO PROOF that these devices exist.
So who is misleading who???
An apology??…..grow up man…it will be a cold day in your version of hell before I bow to you.
You think too highly of yourself man.
@ Zoe..
Where do I slander Dick every chance I get?
As a ‘christian’ you should know lying is a sin.
This is the first in a long time that I even responded to one of his posts and I did because of lack of proof in what he is implying.
You should take your own advice and stop regurgitating everything that Dick says and come with some original thought. You are too quick to jump on the bandwagon like some star crazed groupie.
@ Chris Halsall
In the above footnote, Dick posted a PART and not all of the excerpt, only the part that would seem to go along with his ideas. Now read the passage in its entirety and tell me who is deceiving who.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html
@Tech,
Irrespective of whether such easily concealed ‘nukes’ exist, I am not clear how the “limited strikes” suggested by GEM and others of the ultra right wing mitigate the threat.
Not Saved
Not seen you around for a while.
You wrote to Dictionary thus: Be a christian and think of others and keep your posts to a ‘polite’ size.
Could you kindly explain the relationship betwen one’s Christianity and the length of one’s posts?
Onlookers:
The above pattern over the past day or so is a classic example of the tactic of dragging a red herring across the track of truth, leading it out to a convenient strawman or two soaked in oil of personal attacks, and igniting them to cloud, poison and polarise the atmosphere.
Such a stratagem too often succeeds in derailing a discussion or debate from looking at truths that are inconvenient tot he ones who resort to such closed minded, uncivil and often dishonest tactics. So, a main response is to draw our attention back to the truths that they would draw us away from. (NB: DV, I will pick up some brief corrective points on further objections. Note, too, the irresponsible pattern of secularist debaters above — and generally — simply letting corrected objections fall to the ground in silence as further objections are rushed on to, as though there is not a problem of slander to answer for. )
Such as that in fact the Vatican state and its operatives in former centuries were indeed implicated in aggressive warfare and associated clandestine operations including assassination attempts; which did include members of the Jesuit order. Thus, its actions have made it a target for suspicion for centuries. However, in recent times, while there are many serous theological issues that may be debated, on fair comment the Vatican has not been a significant part of the sort of cloak and dagger nastiness that still dogs the more contentious parts of the world.
The most important of these, however, is — surprise [NOT!] — the significance of suppressing the truth as a main focus of God’s judgement. (That is, contrary to earlier objections, from Rom 1 – 2, God does not so much judge one for merely failing to believe the right thing, as for resentfully rejecting the truth one knows or should know and following the way of evil as a result.)
So, let us refocus on:
+++++++++++
RE: “Am I the only one that thinks God must have a real cruel and sadistic streak for creating a system that says if you don’t believe the right way, you are going to burn alive in hell for eternity” and “Why should a GOD want me to be forever damned with Lucifer simply because I refused to believe.”
Whenever we start pushing God into the dock, that is a point where our reasoning has gone off the rails!
And, that is what is happening here, for there is a lot more to the story than the sort of unfortunately strawmanised, demonising and deeply polarised remarks just excerpted suggest.
Perhaps we need to read Paul in Rom 1 – 2 a bit more carefully (and this, on all sides):
a –> Paul is pretty explicit that the big problem is resenting and rebelling against the truth we do or should know then substituting what we do or should know is a lie, and that God frowns on this.
b –> So the issue, first, cannot be that one is merely IGNORANT of relevant truth (especially as it is innate: “you unfair me”! we protest, testifying to the binding nature of moral truth).
c –> Instead, it is that of rebelling against the truth we know and where it points, e.g the fact of consciousness and mindedness points to the Source of mind. (And likewise the orderly organised balance of the world and of life in it point to the author thereof.)
d –> Likewise, our consciences crying out for justice — including when we would put God in the Dock and cry out against real or apparent evils — testify to the fact that we find ourselves morally obligated. This can only be grounded in a cosmos in which the ultimate reality is a Morally Just Creator so that good is reasonable and morally compelling as reasonable and fair, not arbitrary. Otherwise the is-ought gap swallows up the ought in the is.
e –> But things get hotter. For in Ch 2 Paul takes in the man who does not know enough to know Jesus and the gospel, or who misunderstands it, contrasting him to the one who rejects truth he knows or should know and lives by evil in darkness:
f –> Here, we first see the ordinary man who by light of conscience — and inevitably stumblingly so — penitently perseveres in the path of good and truth, based on what he knows of good and God, by dint of nature, prophets, wise teachers, philosophers, scripture or even the manifest presence and power of the gospel. (The attitude is instantly recognisable, and so is its opposite.)
g –> The scripture is plain that to such God gives eternal life: >>Rom 2:6 He [God] will reward each one according to his works: 2:7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality >>
h –> Very simple, but so very easy to lose sight of: God is fair and loving, so he will save anyone he can. If you walk in the truth and the right you know or should — important caveat! — know, penitently and persistently getting up when you err or stumble, God will receive you with open arms.
i –> Such salvation is based on his lovingly and freely offered self-sacrifice by which he took our self-destroying sin into his own self and expiated its consequences and penalty. (The exchange is explicit in many cases, implicit in others [e.g Abraham, Melchizedek, Job, Moshe, David . . . many others down to today who may not have a clear access to a higher -- much less, the highest -- degree of truth or light ], but it is the basis for salvation and eternal life.)
j –> But, not all turn to the good and walk in the path of the right and the truth, however stumblingly. Some — sadly — rebel even against the undeniable voice of mind and conscience. Others are willing to follow any rhetoric that excuses them in sin and in untruth, some even going so far as to actively suppress the truth they know or should know; up to and including in the case of those who have heard the gospel and have effective access to the compelling evidence of its truth. [This includes the millions all around us and over the years who have met and come to know the real God in the face of Jesus and have had their lives transformed by the resulting release of resurrection power through the "great and precious promises" of the scriptures. (Advice: a little humble listening to people who however ill-educated and lacking in eloquence actually know God, would save many of us the highly educated a lot of grief here and in eternity.)]
k –> For good reason, rebels against the truth and the right face a very different fate.
l –> And, it is such who need to heed the stern warnings Paul also gives: >>2:8 but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness >>
__________
So, commentators and onlookers:
1: what is the truth and the right that you know or should know?
2: Are you seeking to turn to it and live by it, however much you stumble and must regret it and get up and try again?
3: Or, are you resisting the truth and following evil, in rage against what you know you should do?
That is the issue we must all face.
+++++++++++
And that is the main issue we must bear in mind as we address whatever particular points are necessary.
D
Yardbroom
Your comment on December 15, 2009 at 4:32 AM is noteworthy, more so than most of the nonsense on this thread so far in response tio the opening article- but I guess that this is the accepted norm on BU!
You have hit the nail on the head. There is so much Religion— which is essentially any method by which men try to appease their god, whether it is the Almighty, or to an idol of their own making (c.f Psalm 115)
Religion per se if so little consequence that the word “religion) appears only five times in the whole Bible, and never really in a savoury way! (c.f Act 26:5, Gal 1:13, Gal 1:14, Jam 1:26, Jam 1:27. Religion in all of these verses is something that men DO! It is of WORKS and not of GRACE By FAITH in the shed blood of Christ on the cross.
People who truly believe in Christ as Savior and who are not depending on their WORKS for salvation tend to exhibit love. They are not at all perfection as Romans and Hebrews make it plain that true believers are struggling towards spiritual maturity (translated perfect or perfection 9 times in Hebrews).
Since religion per se does not “breed “ or spawn love is there any wonder that as you correctly opine “There is so much Religion and so little “love” in the world?”
Neither the world system (the cosmos diabolicus) described in 1 John 1:15-17 or religion will be “transformed into love for each other” since both are about self! And both will be ultimately destroyed as destroyed in Revelation 17 &18!
Note that there is also a tendency in Barbados to call a “denomination” a “religion.”
Hope this helps a bit.
Now, on various side points that require a responsible note or two:
1] Length vs substance:
It is far quicker and easier to state an objection, especially when it is an irresponsible distraction, distortion and demonisation attack, than it is to responsibly address an issue and correct said objection(s).
But, as was just pointed out; in the end we are accountable for the truth and the right we know or — even more important — should know. So, the time for irresponsible rhetoric is long since past.
2] What you fail to admit (or perhaps, understand) is that creating the spherical implosion around the “single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions” using high explosives and precisely timed triggers is a non-trivial problem . . .
Irrelevancy. We are dealing — on the report of the guardian tracing to the IAEA’s inquiry on Iranian reports disclosed under international pressure — with two-point LINEAR implosion designs, esp. with fusion boost; which designs are much easier to do once you have the ideas, than multi-point spherical implosion designs. We should also note, onlookers, that Pakistan’s first nuke test was of a fusion boosted design. Some of the Pakistanis involved were running a nuke technology supermarket. And, of course, a major part of the current interest in Iran is that by the turn of the new year, from their known centrifuge programme they will have enough HEU to go for the first bomb.
And of course the capability to master such technical issues as were raised was precisely the point of my referring to my old prof who ran the Iranian nuke physics reactor and research programme under the days of the Shah. (It should be noted, too, that as a part of the Atoms for peace programme in the 1950′s, many of the key documents on the Manhattan project were made available in the 1950′s.)
2] In all of Dicks post, I am yet to see PROOF that the suit case nuke he speaks of exists. All we read are suppositions and maybes.
Here the objector refuses to simply read the already relinked and cited Guardian article on what the Iranian documents have stated and led the IAEA to inquire upon. He also fails to recognise that his is a part of a broad pattern of behaviours that together make it clear that within a few months now, Iran will credibly be over the nuke threshold, in a context where for 30 years it has been a major global sponsor of terrorism. Not to mention the implications of its Mahdist Islamism that envisions global conquest; with Iran playing a vanguard role.
As to the existence of the class of warheads in question: they have been in use since the 1950′s in various guises — artillery shells (down to 5 – 8 inch diameter shells), at least one rocket weapon, nuke mines, demolition weapons. This last class credibly includes footlocker, knapsack and suitcase formats. (In the most simplistic sense — and as a US Congressman demonstrated on TV on the eventing of the 9/11 attacks — a nuke shell can easily fit in a suitcase or even a fat format attache case.)
3] Dick posted a PART and not all of the excerpt, only the part that would seem to go along with his ideas. Now read the passage in its entirety and tell me who is deceiving who.
Having already cited the relevant part to demonstrate the plain feasibility of the technology, I have no further need to elaborate on the debate as to whether the KGB actually implemented a class of 600 suitcase based nukes.
In short, this is a clear instance of the turnabout false accusation rhetorical tactic; which is of course a slander. And, on that point, T has in this thread reiterated already corrected slanders from a previous thread. As already linked in this thread.
4] Irrespective of whether such easily concealed ‘nukes’ exist, I am not clear how the “limited strikes” suggested by [redacted] and others of the ultra right wing mitigate the threat.
First, note the gratuitous assertion of “ultra right wing” politics. In today’s world, properly, that is anarchism; and I am no anarchist but a convinced democrat. (This is in fact a demonising and dismissive way of saying that I do not line up with strong form statism and associated state control of the means of production, distribution, exchange and information etc; often in the name of helping the poor and oppressed. Historically, whether in the communist, radical socialist or fascist forms, such statism has consistently led to economic chaos and tyrannical oppression; over the last 100 years accounting for over 100 millions dead. in milder forms, the failure of the postwar social welfare state was so manifest by the turn of the 1980′s that today’s UK Labour party is classified as conservative on at least one major metric of the political spectrum!)
next, I happento thingk tha the surest way to guarantee a major nuke threshold war soon from now is to fail to have a serious negotiating stance now — actually, over the past several years — backed by a credible seriousness that would force [have forced] the Iranians to deal with the matter seriously before it got out of hand.
I expect (and am concerned) that — on the current track — in a matter of months, the situation is very likely to boil over; which is not at all the same thing as promoting strikes. I hope I am wrong in that expectation, and I hope that the Iranian leadership will belatedly come to their senses when they realise that their Arab neighbours, e.g. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and some of the Emirates, are collaborating with Israel to facilitate air and submarine [precision cruise missile] strikes and maybe targetted commando raids.
I do note that a limited programme of such strikes that knock out key elements of the Iranian weapons programme, might buy us back a few years. This is not at all a desirable outcome, but it is probably better than the increasingly likely third possibility of waking up one morning to news headlines announcing the birth of the age of suicide nuke bombings. [It should be noted that on 9/11, many of the major policy and media figures were very afraid that that day had already arrived.]
And if we do wake up on such a morning of horror, onlookers, you can rest assured that those who spent years agitating to hinder the sort of negotiation from strength that would have averted the problem will be very busy distracting us from their contribution to the problem.
_____________
Let us think soberly, and discuss civilly on the merits.
D
Footnote:
On a subsidiary point.
Much of the original post is taken up with debate points and assertions on several eschatological and linked movements in theology over the past 150 or so years. in addressing these, TB on the whole simply tars the thinking with the brush of claimed antecedents in Roman Catholic thought.
The basic problem with that is that much of Christian theology has passed through the various Doctors and Councils of the church across the ages, many of whom/which can be tagged as “Catholic.” For that matter, many of the monks who copied and transmitted the text of the scriptures over the years can be similarly tagged Catholic. The leading theologians of the reformation were of course trained under Catholic auspices too.
In short, if one simply attacks sources, one can dismiss almost anything. Instead, we need to focus on the merits and assess the relevant degree of warrant.
When we do so, we will rapidly see:
a –> The text of the NT and OT scriptures (on the fruit of 200 or so years of serious textual scholarship) is authentic, and is well preserved at all essential points.
b –> Core creedal theology, e.g as preserved in the 325 and 381 Nicene creed, is manifestly based on the Scriptures. [E.g. that creed is in large part basically an augmented version of what is taught in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, with background materials.)
c --> While there have been many views on and particular suggested scenarios for eschatology over the years, by and large these have been argued on at least attempted exegesis, rather than blind following of any one source or position.
d --> Indeed, the much derided Schofield Reference Bible -- cf the collection of notes here [NB: eSWORD - and the 3rd party books and tools -- will allow you to create an electronic version free, and will allow you to compile a free collection (worth US$ 1,000's) of classic dictionaries, commentaries and reference works that would allow you to explore the issues in details for yourself] — is a major semipopular attempt at such exegesis!
e –> It would well repay the interested reader to familiarise him/her self with several major NT texts on eschatology: Matt 24, Acts 1 – 2, 17, 1 Cor 15, 1 Thess, 2 Peter 3, Rev. Key OT books and texts would include Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel 35 – 39 etc. Suffice to say that a full bore study is an effort that takes years.
f –> However, for our practical striking a balance purposes, one can first focus on a much narrower scope of key passages, here using the open source NET Bible:
g –> Without getting into eschatological scenario speculation and the temptation to set dates and over-read trends, we can see a clear pattern in the above: Jesus’ coming marked a new departure in God’s dealings with man, and in the power of the Spirit the gospel goes to the nations in the teeth of chaos, resistance to the truth and deception caused by sinful rebellion against God. this will culminate in the parousia, in which Jesus will establish God’s realm over all rebellion — the steps are a matter of details. And, once that is done, he will bring us to account before the bar of eternal judgement, the dead rising to account before God.
h –> Without going into too many details, it should be clear that the gospel is indeed approaching that climax globally, and many other prophetic signs are lining up to suggest we are quite close now. (And if the prophecies of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ came to pass, e.g. cf Isaiah 53, then we can have confidence in onward prophecies; especially those of us who have found that in and through the Scriptures we meet God in power in the face of Christ. never mind the mockers who are inadvertently proving the accuracy of the same prophecies . . . ]
i –> In the context of the various deceptions, it is worth pausing to note on the chief of all such deceivers:
j –> So, we know enough to see our duty to receive the gospel, and to carry it forward in the power of the Spirit to all nations; refusing to be taken in by mockers and deceivers. And, we can see that in the culmination, the systems of deception will have many a champion, including an ultimate one who will set himself up as if he were God. But such a one, God will overthrow.
k –> And so, in light of our accountability before God let frst and foremost us listen to what Acts 17 counsels:
____________
We may not have all the light we would desire to satisfy our curiosity and answer tot he speculations out there, but we have more than enough to guide us to our plain duty in light of well-warranted truth under God.
G’day
D
PS: I cannot resist just one point of interest. On several converging studies [e.g. on historic water flow levels and the line of sight from a herodian palace into the temple sacrifice processing area) it seems that the actual location of the temple is south of the site of the Dome of the Rock; i.e. it is possible to build the temple without destroying that Muslim edifice built on what was then thought to be the site of the temple. [NB: Conquering Islamic armies and rulers had a habit of setting up mosques on such holy sites; which has sparked many conflicts in recent years, esp. in India.]
Dearest Lord,
teach me to be generous;
teach me to serve You as You deserve;
to give and not to count the cost,
to fight and not to heed the wounds,
to toil and not to seek for rest,
to labour and not to ask for reward
save that of knowing I am doing Your Will
Suzanne Beware Of The Devil
Amen
[PS: The prayer is that of Ignatius Loyola.]
Footnote: A sobering read on the ME situation; by someone who has done his homework.
Technician // December 15, 2009 at 11:06 AM. “Holy WordPress!! Like moths to the flame !!”
How true, how true. Are you seriously telling me that Dictionary is actually allowed to teach young minds? Hopefully it is only in a mental ward for incurable cases – like him and the rest of the contents of the Bat Cave. I have rarely come across anyone so filled with hate.
Well, I was not going to venture into posting on the religious aspect, but as the thread has evolved into one of the Middle East situation and potential outcome.
Of course the Middle East is about to blow.
It is fairly simple to understand. Not only do we have the religious situation which is inherent to the issue, but two words compound the issue.
Oil, control.
We have the oil situation worsening and the countries in question generally hold the most reserves.
We have the western economies and by extension, the international economies, going to hell in a handbasket and this is continuing, despite anything else that you might read.
The logistics of the oil issue and the impact of economic forces will be as a catalyst to the religion and power issue, bringing the situation to a head.
Then, all of us will have to bear the fallout, of both military methods and economic.
It shall not be pretty.
And, it is not too far off.
On a lighter note (if there can be one in such a situation) maybe, just maybe, the debt issue may not be an issue after all.
If the world is in a handbasket, who will be thinking about debt?
Only survival will matter.
Get your fishing boats and hope there are fish left, get our water infrastructure up to shape, may not be able to buy plumbing installations and supplies for a while, get our food production both animal and vegetable up to shape, get our transport off oil reliance, if possible, as much as possible.
All the result of one big, Bashment.
Sorry, as the cartoons say, ‘that’s all folks’.
I’ve dedicated the rest of my life to living even closer to the principles of God than I was living before. In so doing I live by the simple method of love for God and my neighbour. The reason why this world is in crisis right now is just greed and unless we get back to Godly principles, it will get worse. We have too many academically educated people in this world but few with common sense.
@ Crusoe 5:47 A.M.
Words of great wisdom sir.
After all that and more BS above, we are yet to see the Proof that these nukes exists, are ready to be used , to justify a strike in Iran.
Look carefully and tell me who is dragging the strawmen, this time soaked in biblical rhetoric , to distract and confuse others, this man is a piece of work .
It is so scary when you see what educated people with obvious agendas can do to this world….and some have the gall to call him a messenger!!
In less than 100 words can you please post the EVIDENCE OF THE EXSISTANCE OF THE SUITCASE SIZED NUKES IN IRAN, WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY A STRIKE ON THAT COUNTRY.
I dun wid you man !!
Onlookers:
Having side tracked the thread, T now wishes to complain against restoring its focus.
D
PS: Technician is also simply being stubbornly closed minded and abusive. He knows or should know the Iranians have documented to the IAEA [under international pressure] that they have tested the explosive components — the part that makes such a bomb work — of a two detonation point linear implosion weapon. The ONLY use of such a test is to prepare for building such a weapon; i.e. this is proof of intent. Such weapons have one significant use: mini nukes, delivered by artillery, or by small missiles and rockets, or by emplacement. (The last class would be well suited to suicide terrorist attacks and are variously called knapsack, suitcase or footlocker nukes.) As a signatory to the NPT, Iran’s solemn commitment is to not develop such, subject to international sanction; and this in a context where Iran has repeatedly threatened to wipe out a member country of the UN and has been a leading sponsor of terrorism for the past 30 years, including suicide bombing campaigns.
All this from a man who champions truth but quotes from the Gaurdian.
Take a look at their track record on lies and deceit before and after 9/11….no wonder though…birds of a feather.
ya good Dick…but not that good.
You have the floor because in my simple, laymans mind….I see you for what you really are and I am sure I am not alone.
See you on judgement day…Goodbye!!
Onlookers:
Again our man would side-track.
I will inform.
The Guardian is a well known LEFT-WING newspaper in the UK; one that was well known for its opposition to the recent interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. So, we are here looking at potentially embarrassing admissions against interest; inherently highly unlikely to be made falsely.
It is here citing an IAEA report on documents to them from the Iranians.
What is really going on is the fallacy of selective hyperskepticism, where one (often militantly and too often abusively) professes not to know what is inconvenient to one’s agendas, then throws up barrier after barrier to object; where if one were to consistently apply said barriers, the result would be to collapse the entire class of comparable knowledge claims.
And of course this underlying mind-endarkening, self-deceiving attitude is precisely the attitude that the Spirit-inspired Paul addresses in Rom 1 – 2.
So, we can see the suggestively obscene short form for Dictionary, the resort to slander, the selective hyperskepticism etc and such like for what they sadly are. Especially when we can ever so easily see an utter want of substantial contribution for several threads now.
Pray for this mind- endarkened man, and those who are like him.
G’day
Dictionary
Georgie,
Yes I do not always have the time to spend here !
I will answer your question in reverse:
- Long book length posts are often considered “impolite” in the blogosphere.
- Think of others before being impolite and inconvenient to them.
- I understand “thinking of others” is a virtue often promoted by christian teachers, ministers etc.
You can correct me on the last point.
@Dictionary
No doubt we will get the discussion back on track but Technician is trying to establish an important point.
Question from BU is why did Scott Ritter et al in the position he did as a UN weapons inspector for 14 years argue that Iraq had no significant WMDs? Certainly not enough to merit throwing the world in economic and religious turmoil.
@D,
“happento thingk tha the surest way to guarantee a major nuke threshold war soon from now is to fail to have a serious negotiating stance now”
—-
How are strikes necessary to a “serious negotiating stance”?
Is Iran unaware of US military capability?
Does threatening strikes encourage or discourage a country to secure weapons?
++++
“I do note that a limited programme of such strikes that knock out key elements of the Iranian weapons programme, might buy us back a few years. ”
—–
How can such strikes “knock out” key elements? Is this a reasonable proposition?
What if there are a 100 suitcase facilities and your “strike” is 99% effective, does this not leave us with one leveled western city in retaliation?
How many innocents lost would justify the time bought, if any?
How do we (the west) condemn terrorism and then practice it?
++++
And for the man who scolds anyone for “distractive comments”…
“the failure of the postwar social welfare state was so manifest by the turn of the 1980’s that today’s UK Labour party is classified as conservative”
—-
What parts of the postwar social welfare state have been dismantled by either party since the 1980s?
- National Insurance?
- National Health?
- Universal Child benefit?
- National assistance?
What has failed and been removed?
@Anon, Dec 16, 09 @5:01 AM.
Technician December 15, 2009, at 11:06AM. “Holy WordPress!! Like moths to the flame!!”
‘…Are you seriously telling me that Dictionary is actually allowed to teach young minds? Hopefully it is only in a mental ward for incurable cases – like him and the rest of the contents of the Bat Cave. I have rarely come across anyone so filled with hate.”
To you and those of your ilk, the Word of God, says:
“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.” (Isa. 5: 20). emphasis added.
You, Technician et al, are classic examples of what Jesus said would come forth from those of your mind-set.
There are numerous references to the *enmity* *hostility* and *opposition* which the world displays toward Christ, the believer, and the Church of Jesus, He said:
“The world…*HATES* Me because I testify of IT that its *works* are EVIL” (John 7:7). He also made it clear that the world *hates* His disciples because they are not of of it (John. 15: 18-19). Emphasis added.
For you to read into Dictionary’s deep, abiding, well-founded, carefully articulated concerns for so many things that are wrong, evil, and pose such dire consequences for ALL of us, as ‘…so filled with hate.’ blatantly confirms how ‘spiritually’ and intellectually *BLINDED* you are!!!
But, IF the Creator of the Universe and Only Saviour of mankind, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST be called “Beelzebub’ by those who rejected and HATED Him, then, it follows, as He said it would, that Dictionary and those of us who are His disciples will likewise be scorned and hated like Him.
Hear Jesus:
“A disciple is not above His teacher, nor a servant above his Master.”
“It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his *Master*. If they have CALLED the Master of the house Bellzebub, HOW MUCH MORE they will call those of His household. Therefore, do NOT fear them. For there IS nothing covered that will NOT be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.” (Matt. 10: 24-26) emphasis added.
The Lamp of YOUR body IS in DARKNESS!
Jesus said:
“The lamp of the body is the eye. IF therefore your eye IS good, your whole body will be FULL of light. BUT, if your eye is BAD, your whole body WILL be FULL of *DARKNESS*. IF therefore the light that IS IN YOU, is *DARKNESS* how GREAT is that DARKNESS!” (Matt. 6:22) emphasis added.
Anon, you are of your ‘father’ who leads and fills you with such utter distortion of TRUTH, as he HAS always done with those who REJECT the true LIGHT of this world, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!
@Zoe..
You were once a devout Catholic, now you despise them.
What will you be next?
When will your religious evolution end?
Dictionary, Let us not forget the *Leftists* DENIAL-EXCUSE- JUSTIFICATION syndrome of the likes of Technician, NS, etc, and the game(s) they play.
These ‘Lefties’ even though some of them DON’T even understrand what they are supporting, nevertheless, cling to their underying Marxist conviction, that capitalism IS evil and that forces of revolution are rising to overthrow it, and IT must be supported, i.e., Iran, and the self-styled socialist revolutionary Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, who perhaps best exemplifies the forging of a red-green alliance on the international stage.
Chavez’s unrelenting *hated* of globalization and of America, has led him to adopt the *death* cult of Iran, as an energy partner, and to defend it against what he describes as ‘the most perverse, muderous, genocidal immoral empire that this planet has known on one hundred centuries.’
Surely, by now, it must be known, as journalist Christopher Brown reports, Iranian geologists “are working with a team of chevez loyalists in the exploration for *urnanium* deposits within Venezuela.” Such an alliance could very well lead to the emergence of a nuclear Islamist state, bent on destroying Isreal and America. Chavez has also reached out in solidarity to *Hizbollah*, proving funds and refuge to the terrorist Islamist organization.
There IS the most crucial commonalities between the *Leftists* AND the Islamic fundamentalists, the hatred of individual freedom and of the individual himself. In today’s romance with Islamism, as in the twentieth century romance with communism and fascism, the *Leftist* must CONCEAL his own malicious agenda, as seem here on BU, from others, and from himself. This is cleaverly cloaked in the needed camouflage with a pattern of behaviour, the denial-excuse-justification syndrome.
In light of the OVERTLY declared INTENTION of Hamas, Hezbollah, and that mad-man in Iran, THAT Israel must NOT exist, it must be annihilated from the face of the earth, JUST, give us enough TIME, and America will go too, just give US a little more time, to develop our NUKE’s and NOT SAVED, continues to ask silly questions, over and over again, such as:
“…I am not clear how the ‘limited strikes’ suggested by GEM and others of the ultra right wing mitigate the threat.”
Which planet NS are you living on? You don’t have a clue what is really going on, and after all that has been posted over the months, on this ME subject matter, the vehement intent, expressed NOT only in the Hamas charter THAT their agenda IS to annihilate Israel, coupled witnb AH-MAD-DINE-JAD’s equally declared intent toward Israel, Chavez’s alliance with Iran, and their HATED for Israel and America, AND you STILL don’t get IT!
@Zoe…
Thank you for your immediate above.
It explains a great deal of your et al motivation and actions….
chris is a leftist buddhist scientist
and zoe is snot
Dictionary, Let us not forget the *Leftists* DENIAL-EXCUSE- JUSTIFICATION syndrome of the likes of Technician, NS, etc, and the game(s) they play.
Wow….Dick would rather go to war (strikes on a sovereign nation) on the premise of a notion,suppositions ad maybes, rather than a fact.
These strike would most certainly lead to retaliation by Iran (which I suspect is what he and others would love to see).
This, in turn would then justify what ever response comes next.
The killing of thousands of innocent people doesnt worry them a bit (collateral damage) even though it would be done without PROOF.
Dick is always admonishing us to learn from our mistakes but has he or others of his ilk learnt from theirs?
Whatever your agendas, prove that Iran has tested and possesses suitcase nukes and that the threat of their use is imminent before we go off on another unnecessary war just to appease a religious agenda.
Now tell me, who has this so called DENIAL-EXCUSE- JUSTIFICATION syndrome?
@Z0e..
It is amazing that the very people who might be able to impliment regime change are the very ones you and your cohorts are ready to slaughter at a lie at best….such christian like behavior.
Only the dead have seen the end of war!!
@ Technician // December 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM
@Zoe..
You were once a devout Catholic, now you despise them.
What will you be next?
When will your religious evolution end?
========================
Techie ma boy. This is nothing new. There are many once devout Catholics, who upon salvation despise the regime that enslaved and blinded their eyes. I have heard many ex-Catholics say this; and there are many books around with testimonies of folk who converted from this “religion”, and this religion.
(Words carefully chosen there OK?
@Technician: “…prove that Iran has tested and possesses suitcase nukes…
It is *known* that Iran has never “lit off” a nuke. Let alone a suitcase nuke… Hell, they don’t even have enough centrifuges to reach the purity required…
You don’t really think all those sensors (and all that money) watching for earthquakes are there only to measure earthquakes?
Do you?
@Chris…
No…i didnt think so….lol.
@GP…
My point exactly.
Stick with the DLP and suffer or turn-on to the BLP and prosper
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you want to be out of a job and on the bread-line; deeper in debt; deeper in poverty and deeper in crisis with a tired-DLP-Government that does not know what it is doing? Then, secure your future!!!
Give the competent, experienced and skilled Team of the Barbados Labour Party the chance to put Barbados back on track. Why settle for the bronze?
Protect your pockets and your bank account from the DLP, which imposes high taxes and confiscates what little to poor have, while quick to give the rich millions.
The time is right to give Barbados a chance to be better than it was between 1994 and 2008 – when there was much prosperity.
IT WOULD BE THE CHRISTIAN THING TO DO, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE DLP HAS CANCELLED CHRISTMAS THIS YEAR!!!
@ Dictionary:
So, commentators and onlookers:
1: what is the truth and the right that you know or should know?
2: Are you seeking to turn to it and live by it, however much you stumble and must regret it and get up and try again?
3: Or, are you resisting the truth and following evil, in rage against what you know you should do?
That is the issue we must all face.
+++++++++++
Is this not what you have on your blog? Are you trying to set the agenda here too? cheupse
David:
There is a legitimate question, but the answer is not as simplistic as many imagine; and it is easily caricatured by those willing to play red herring strawman and ad hominem tactics to poison the genral atmosphere of discussion. (As blog owner, you must by now realise that when the tone deteriorates beyond a certain point, the blog becomes of no use to those who want to deal with serious matters responsibly. And that is a predictable consequence of the patterns we see already in this thread, if they are unchecked.).
With serious reservations on the tangentiality of this topic as noted, I comment for record [not debate] because you ask:
a –> We need to first recall that it is reasonably in evidence that Iraq had for years been in gross violation of its ARMISTICE — not peace treaty [i.e. a state of war continued to exist from 1990/91 on, and you will recall a steady stream of relatively low level hostilities . . . e.g. that Iraq did not shoot down overflying jets patrolling the no-fly zones set up to protect Kurds and groups in the south SH had tried to massacre in the aftermath of the first ground campaigns had to do with lack of capacity, not lack of attempts ] — including among other items, failure to comply with reasonable inspection and destruction of known efforts towards WMDs.
b –> In the context of material and growing violations, Iraq had set up a definite offshore nuclear weapons development programme in Libya, and from Sada’s remarks and other pointers, may have contributed to another in Syria. (You will doubtless recall that an Israeli shadowing sub spotted shipments into Libya and under pressure Ghaddafi backed down post the 2003 resurgence of large scale campaigning. A bit under 2 years ago now, the Israelis knocked out the Syrian plant, on the side of Syria nearish to Iraq and Turkey. North Korea — the horse that got out of the barn already — was also implicated.)
c –> Iraq under Mr Hussein had also managed to convert the oils for food etc programme into an international bribery scheme to the certain tune of billions; a scheme that perverted the very sanctions enforcement regime. [This BTW included specifically bribing Russian, French (and I believe too, Chinese) officials of influence on the international positions of these key veto holding members of the UNSC.]
d –> Notwithstanding, the pattern of Iraqi behaviour and dealings over the period led the international community of intelligence agencies to the consensus that Iraq was continuing its WMD efforts, on bio, chem and nuc components, as well as missiles of range beyond armistice terms.
e –> In this context of in-Iraq and offshore violations and bribery induced distortions of the international system of sanctions meant to keep Iraq in check, Iraq then proceeded to produce patently false declarations when the UNSC asked for documentation on the accurate status quo, and for the return of a credible inspections regime.
f –> Under such circumstances, strictly, the primary responsibility for the resumption of major hostilities is that of the Hussein regime. So, even if there were no contraband WMD programmes on the ground in Iraq, the intervention on material violation and plain intent to continue was arguably justified. (NB: What distorts our ability to understand this, is that we are conditioned by our own bitter colonial past to see the West as the locus of evils in the world; and the dominance of leftism and related ideologies in the intelligentsia of the West also reinforces that view through influential spokesmen and the tendency of major international media; e.g. BBC, CNN etc. As Aristotle warned, our judgements when we are pained and hostile differ form those we make when we are in a happier frame of mind. But, we need to learn some lessons from the history of Europe in the 1930′s that are simply not to be found in our headlines, movies, documentaries and declarations by pundits.)
g –> So, despite what Mr Ritter et al suggest — or what such may be sound bited and headlined as saying — there was considerable evidence of an onward contraband WMD programme in and surrounding Iraq; starting with missiles of ranges beyond the armistice limit, and going on to evidence of components and programmes to develop the three main classes of WMDs.
h –> What was not found [to date -- remember the MiGs that turned up when a sandstorm blew the covering dunes off . . . Iraq is the size of France or California] was for instance an assembled nuke, or a built up stockpile of fresh chemical shells [older ones were found] or weaponised anthrax devices, etc. But failure to date to find such end products are not at all the same as the continuation of a contraband programme coupled to a weakening sanctions regime that would in months to a few years have passed the point of no return.
i –> Pre-emption of such under the violation of armistice is at least arguably warranted, especially given the known, sustained track record of aggression, oppression and mass murder by Mr Hussein.
j –> Of course the manner of implementation of the return to large scale operations is another question, and the handling of the aftermath of defeat of the Baathists is another; for the situation was clearly allowed to spiral out of control. (Suffice to say that the ultimate strategic success of the surge in the last years of Mr Bush’s regime shows that once events had spiralled out of control, it took time to build up the support base [e.g. Anbar Awakening] and the techniques that could trigger a breakthrough campaign. But, war is full of errors and horrible incidents and costs; and, its course is inherently hard to predict and often costly beyond what may at first be imagined. That is why it is a foretaste of hell.)
___________
This brings up the wider issue that was discussed in an earlier thread, on the justification of the use of the sword by the state. (And, note that the foundational Christian teachings make it very plain that while we should not be waspish in personal relationships, governing authorities have the power of the sword to protect the civil peace of justice from the wolves who would prey on ordinary people going about the ordinary business of life. Starting with the policeman on the street corner. the use of the sword may be hard and is prone to abuse, but to not have the sword in the hands of the civil authority is to open up room for much worse. And, let us never forget that the principal civil authority in view in Romans 13 was Nero Caesar, admittedly in the good years under tutelage of Seneca and Burris; before he went utterly mad.)
Again, for record, I note that in a world of the disrespectful, violent and oppressive — ranging from those who start with verbal abuse and disrespect in a blog [note the continuation of the use of an obscene and disrespectful double ententre abbreviation in referring to me in the thread] to those who turn neighbourhoods into ghettos dominated by gangs of violent bullies, to ruthless and aggressive international statesmen and ideologies — the shepherds need to be armed to defend sheep from wolves.
And, those who would disarm shepherds, or who would so hamper them from acting in good time to protect the sheep bear responsibility for the predictable consequences.
G’day
D
PAT:
The truth you know or should know is truth that is evident to all men, starting with the implications of having a mind that credibly can reason and know; and the point that we are under moral government.
Much can be inferred from this, as is discussed above and elsewhere.
We have a plain duty to seek and to live by the truth and the right, however stumblingly and imperfectly.
And to turn from this duty by rejecting the truth and following the way of evil is indefensible — not only before man, but ultimately before God.
G’day
D
@Dictionary — December 16, 2009 at 5:59 PM… Amazing… 1258 words (7349 bytes).
@Dictionary: “I comment for record [not debate]”
[No serious response to any other commenter within the 1258 words...] Oh, no. Of course not…
Tell me Dictionary…
Are you satisfied with auto-gratification?
Dictionary // December 16, 2009 at 6:03 PM
My dear good man. Your truth is just that. Yours. Please dont try to ram it down others’ throats, especially when you see that it is not appreciated, valued or wanted.
You have a reputation around the net for being a Caribbean fundamentalist of the extreme sort.
@ Not Saved // December 16, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Re Georgie, I do not always have the time to spend here ! THAT IS UNDERSTANDABLE IT CAN BE TEDIOUS AT TIMES.
Re – Long book length posts are often considered “impolite” in the blogosphere. SURELY YOU EXAGERATE HERE LOL
But the Father of our Nation once asked in 1971 HOW LONG IS TOO LONH IF ITS GOOD.
Didnt know they had all these rules in the blogosphere! LOL. I for one dont consider that I blog; but then I am probably a rebel, and so do others who think out of the box. But I d prefer to read somethng lengthy with substance, structure, style and sequence that a short bit of verbal diarrhoea.
I f a person does not want to read a long post, I think there is a facility on the key board that allows you to scroll past. LOL. Much like the tv clickey. lol
I consider impolitenes unwanton worthless word attacks on folk who have done nothing except sought to inform the forum.
Unlike most who have posted here on this thread NS, you do get things correct sometimes, such as …..-”I understand “thinking of others” is a virtue often promoted by christian teachers, ministers etc.” LOL
At least you will agree or concede when your opponents are right, and font continue making your self stupid. I dont mind debating with such.
Be good, man.
@Technician Dec 16, 09 @ 12:33 PM.
“You were once a devout Catholic”
For the record, I NEVER said in any posts, that I WAS a devout Catholic, never!
I said that I WAS deeply involed with the Catholics, but never became one, THANK GOD!
Stop putting words in my mouth, as you TWIST almost every thing that is said in defense of the Christian world view!
@C HALSALL, You wouldn’t KNOW, and probably NEVER WILL!!!
Darkness IS not something, it IS the absence of LIGHT.
You are in DARKNESS!!!
Yes Georgie I exaggerate a bit but the point is the same, long posts are not kind to everyone.
If the commenter has a lengthy but valid and substantive point it could be linked or posted like a pdf as you have done !
“thinking of others” is really a manifestation of the golden rule and that rule is common to just about every religion that comes to mind !
Some idiot further up the thread, said that when ‘…you dead you dead…’ Annihilation, no consequences whatsoever hereafter!
A very misunderstood thing, even by some ‘denominations’ IS the true meaning of the words, ‘Life’ and ‘Death’ used in God’s Word, the Bible.
The Greek word rendered ‘Death’ in the Bible is ‘Thanatos’ and the Gk word for ‘Life’ is Zoe.
Interestingly, neither of these two Greek words, are referring to what most people think they mean. In truth, Zoe (Life) is referring to a ‘qualitative’ reality that begins at the moment of ‘spiritual’ regeneration the (new birth) when the saints receive “everlasting life” AS a present possession (John 3: 15, 16, 36; 5:24; 6:47, 54; 10: 28: I John 5:13. 14, etc).
This IS not referring so much to ‘duration’ or ‘quanity’ of life, BUT, to experiencing *endless* and abundant *QUALITY* of life, i.e., a life of satisfaction and joy.
Whereas, DEATH, (Thanatos) IS not referring to ceasing to exist, or annihilation, BUT, continued conscious *existence* completely removed FROM the providential, earthly reality of physical life, into, everything that IS the opposite of Joy, peace, satisfaction, fulfillment, etc, in other words, Hell, and outer darkness, in everlasting, conscious misery, which the individual HAS CHOSEN, by rejecting God’s universal offer of forgiveness, and Everlasting Life.
Therefore, ‘Life’ (Zoe) does not refer to ‘existence’ any more than ‘Death’ (Thanatos) refers to ‘nonexistence’ The wicked are ‘dead’ while they yet exist in this earthly realm.
This is why when one of Jesus disciples “…said to Him, ‘Lord let me first go and bury me father. But Jesus said to him. ‘Follow Me, and let the DEAD bury their own DEAD.” (Matt. 8: 21b-22) emphasis added.
Can a dead man bury a dead man? Yes, certainly, for what Jesus was saying, let the ‘spiritually’ DEAD people, bury the physically dead man.
There are billions of dead people walking this earth, awaiting the ultimate DEATH, that is the separation of their soul/spirit from their physical bodies, when their true ‘self’ spirit/soul, will continue in eternal, conscious ‘existence’ by choice, having REJECTED God’s loving, merciful OFFER of eternal ‘Life’ in unspeakable Joy, Peace, Righteousness, and bliss, in His Presence, forever!
Zoe…Zoe…Zoe….Zoe….OMG!!
@Dictionary
There is credence to your view and if Bush had crafted his explanation for the invasion using your above it might have deflated a lot of the debate ongoing.
BTW the discussion on BU can become robust at times but we still believe the cogent arguments will win the day.
The Jesuit Order hatched by the Black Prince Ignatious de Loyola (born 1491), validated in Rome by Pope Paul III is often described as the Catholic Church’s Militia (or Secret Service). Those who become members of this Order must take a brutal oath of obedience, where they commit themselves to be a faithful soldier of the Pope, and shall fight to forward the plans and purposes of the church and the Vatican, at any cost.
It was recently discovered where the Jesuits were telling about their work and intentions for this New Millennium. Some of this information is very revealing, and also frightening – given how willingly the Protestant Churches follow the Jesuit plans, especially on the Ecumenical level, which is so strongly emphasized.
Today the Jesuits are located all over the world, but are especially established in Europe, where they number approximately 9,000 strong.
In North America, there is about 5,500 Jesuits; in Africa, approximately 1,150;
and in Asia, approximately 5,400. It is also worth noting that these figures are only the “inner circle” of this clandestine Order.
The Jesuits also have several lower departments, or subdivisions that have been formed and inspired over the many 100’s of years the mitosis from (the Nicolaitans – a plant of Satan) to the Knights Templar to this insidious Order – the Jesuits, to Freemasons & the Illuminati…
No expense has been spared as demons from the Bottomless Pit has used lying intrigue and blatant sophistry as a subliminal marker of deception to dupe the whole world into believing a “LIE” for the truth… Many are even in denial of the historical legacy and the murderous transgressions of this ruthless organization.
Yet somehow men adamantly refuse to take off their blinders…
My Norwegian brethren Bente & Abel Struksnes argue quite strongly that the pervasiveness of Jesuit philosophy and the machinations of the Vatican within an emerging New Catholic European Union mean that:
“We are talking about a widespread conspiracy, the aim of which is to destroy independent nations. European and a Global revolution is a fact. The world’s great financial, political and religious powers are today joining forces. The laws and statutes of independent nations are being overruled by international law.
Why does the elite want more power and control, why the urge for a centralised and international way of governing the world? How great is the influence coming from secret power groups when international decisions are made? HOW do all these forces cooperate? WHO are these people behind the scenes? Which role do the Vatican, the Pope and the Catholic Church play in this game to gain world dominion? Which role do the US, the UN and the international forces play in the Middle-East conflict? Is there a connection between the peace negotiations and the role of Israel in the end-time, and will they ever gain control over the Temple Mount? Are we really heading towards a period of global peace, springing from the Middle-East?”
For anyone to deny (and I AM SPEAKING TO THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST) that we’re fast approaching the unification of Church, State & Economics is frankly a stranger to the truth and clearly chooses to walk in darkness…
So we can hoop, holla’ and dribble on with our ideological arguments, our academic prowess and the rest of it but the PLAIN TRUTH* is we are in for the ride of our lives and we are clueless as to what is about to hit us!!!
The ‘ole devil is about to throw the kitchen sink at us…
David:
Re: >>There is credence to your view and if Bush had crafted his explanation for the invasion using your above it might have deflated a lot of the debate ongoing . . . >>
Sadly, Bush actually did just that, as did Mr Blair. (If you look at, say, a full video of Mr Powell’s speech at he UN, you can see that.)
He was drowned out by the hostile major media and pundits spin machine, as he did not line up with the power elite agendas for the global government in waiting. (A measure of what is going on is to note that on a lot of things Bush was excoriated for, his policies were actually a linear extension of policies by Mr Clinton [e.g. on Kyoto, given the 1997 95-0 Byrd-Hagel bipartisan US senate resolution] , and onward it looks like a lot of what Mr Obama is actually doing on the ground — once he has had to deal with the balance of forces in reality as opposed to in rhetoric — are again linear extensions of Mr Bush’s policies. the proposed mini surge in Afghanistan comes to mind as a capital case in point. And, if Mr Obama loses Afghanistan, I assure you the Black Flag army from the direction of Khorasan agenda of radical jihadist islamism and mahdism will sweep to the centre of the international arena; with Pakistan’s nukes and Iran’s nukes to back it up. I’ll bet you will never hear of this side of the discussion and issues!)
But, TB has put to centre focus a legitimate question, even though I think his main focus is wrong. Here, from Wiki [here, giving access to otherwise very hard to find info . . . ] is a key section of the first, 1877, will of that rapist of Africa, Cecil Rhodes — made before he really got going:
Now, let us make a few adjustments to this summary of the views of what would have been “progressive” imperialists of the late C19 British Toff upper classes:
Now, does this nightmare scenario sound a little too close to current events and trends over the past century or so for comfort?
Maybe, it should!
D
PS: As blog owner, David, you have a duty of care to promote civility and to regulate uncivil conduct. In Commonwealth jurisdictions, libel laws and slander laws are pretty strong and clear.
OOPS: the Wiki link on Cecil Rhodes’ 1877 will: here.
PPS: My pope count may need adjusting. What was that secret annex to the Lourdes prophecies or revelations again? And there was something ancient about 263 or so successors to Peter.
@Dictionary
Surely you know that presentation by Powell to the UN Assembly has been condemned as a 10 year old MBA dissertation?
PPPS: Found the “prophecy,” as attributed to St Malachy, and claimed to be hidden in the Vatican’s archives for 400 years. Catholic Enc online:
Cf discussion of the last ten popes, according to one view, here. Left Behind, of course (and as the Wiki article notes), gives it an inversion; the last pope being the ultimate antipope. [This raises the theme of "almost prophecies" that draw striking attention .]
P4S: Also above it was Georgetown U that I meant.
David:
Take time to actually look at it again; instead of following the spin put on it.
D
Transcript.
@Terence,
“For anyone to deny ( and I AM SPEAKING TO THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST) that we’re fast approaching the unification of Church, State & Economics is frankly a stranger to the truth and clearly chooses to walk in darkness.”
“So we can hoop, holla’ and dribble on with ideological arguments, our academic prowess and the rest of it, but the PLAIN TRUTH* is we are in for the ride of our lives and we are cluless as to what is about to hit us.”
Terence, why don’t you just SPELL out for us, your version of the PLAIN TRUTH* let the ‘cat’ out the bag, and stop beating around the bush, as GP, Dictionary and me, have a pretty good grasp of End-Time prophecy, get the ‘…dribble (and) our ideological arguments…[etc] out of the path of ‘…the PLAIN TRUTH* so we ALL can be enlightened…with the end-time Remnant ideology of your camp of scholars!!!
The Creator Has A Master Plan
THE CREATOR HAS A MASTER PLAN
The Creator Has A Master Plan
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-creator-has-a-master-plan/
methinks arguing with the blessed trinity is like pissing in the wind
David:
Take time to actually look at it again; instead of following the spin put on it.
D
Today was bitterly cold but I am sure my memory wasn’t frozen in time.
When this speech was made (correct me if I am wrong) it was accepted as the main reason for war.
The ‘spin’ came after there was no WMDs to be found and the slogan on the aircraft carrier ‘Mission Accomplished’ turned out to be more like ‘Mission Beginning’.
This said speech, convinced the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to go to war.
Now..knowing what the world now knows about the WMDs (that they were NONE to be found), how then, can anyone with an ounce of common sense, go back and read this ‘speech’ and come away with any other opinion other than what is the general consensus?
Please..some learned one….somebody ….anybody help me to understand ..how to unring a bell.
As my good friend Smokey Burke would say…’I might be wrong and I usually am’.
The Vatican is the center of a never ending web of conspiracy. It’s working day and night to bring the world to the feet of the Roman pontiff.
The Vatican octopus has tentacles reaching into almost every government circle on earth.
When the Red Chinese needed the off-shore oil drilling expertise of the United States (no other country possesses it) a bargain was struck so that the Jesuits were once again allowed into China.
Surely such a move is almost incredible when viewed in the light of the fact that America is still an overwhelmingly Protestant nation at least in the numerical make-up of her population.
So today, every country on the earth, including postmodern Islamic societies have been planted with Jesuits whose sole bidding is to undermine the structural political, religious and socioeconomic integrity of those nations, so as to bring them into subservience to the rule of Vatican authority…
@ TMB…
Continue..please.
Catholic scholar Dr. Malachi Martin, formerly a Jesuit professor at Georgetown University and a confidant of Vatican insiders, flatly declared in a recent New York City interview: “Yes, it’s true. Lucifer is enthroned in the Catholic Church.”
Martin was also interviewed by The Fatima Crusader, a well-known Catholic publication. He again repeated his allegations, and expressed his dismay and distress that the Catholic institution of which has been a part has grown so decadent and morally reprobate since the Vatican II conference of the 60′s.
The contention that there are Satanists in Rome is “completely correct” said Martin, adding:
“Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican in the last 35 years is well aware that the Prince of Darkness has and still has his surrogates in the court of St. Peter in Rome.”
Respected Archbishop, Emmanuel Milingo, solemnly affirm that members of the Catholic Church hierarchy are secretly involved in the darkest kinds of formal Satan worship.
Archbishop Milingo, an exorcist, is author of a bestselling book exposing the occult, Face to Face With the Devil.
In his speech, Milingo called Satan worship the “Third dimension of Evil,” and explained:
“Now, the third dimension (of evil) is the most dangerous. It is subtle and the most terrible–.I could not believe when I discovered this third dimension of evil. The third dimension is people who follow instructions in Satanic sects… Now with this third dimension, I’m sorry to say, our church belongs to it. I’m very sorry, I could not understand myself, and even now I don’t understand. But the only consolation I have is that, well, Judas Iscariot was one. Together with Jesus three years, he never changed. Then I understand that the third dimension of evil existed not only now, but it existed even then. Because nothing could change the heart of Judas Iscariot – nothing.
Don’t mean to be a sceptic TB but if the information is so freely available which exposes the demons lurking within the Catholic Church, why the conspiracy to TODAY?
BU asked
Is it possible that the Anglican Bishop John Holder might see the cause of pushing a national agenda for honesty and selflessness as a #1 priority.
Is this the role of the Anglican church or any church per se? Is this not also a job for the homes, the school etc as it formerly was?
I cant speak of the Bishop’s academics or what being academically equipped to lead the Anglican Church means, and having ceased being an Anglican for over 40years, I know very little about how Anglicans practice their faith can help wider society today. We know that for centuries there was an Evangelical Wing of the Anglican Church (though that never seemed to come to Barbados) that teaches and preaches the Gospel message— I don’t mean reading Collects and passages from the Epistles and Gospels, reciting the model prayer and the apostle’s or Nicene creeds or learning the Catechism or pointing chants. These have a place no doubt, and might have had an influence in yesteryear.
However, with the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in 1969 and the ascendency and growth of certain evangelical assemblies, who have been aggressive on radio television etc, and the ready accessible televangelist, the Anglican Church has lost its way.
I reveled in the church in my teens but learned little. I still enjoy the lovely hymn tunes, and I still glory in listening to King’s College Choir pointing a psalm in the CD from their record of 1966 called Psalms of David.
Green Monkey // December 14, 2009 at 9:30 PM asked
“Am I the only one that thinks God must have a real cruel and sadistic streak for creating a system that says if you don’t believe the right way, you are going to burn alive in hell for eternity”
Sort of similar to the system where if you disobeyed your momma or the school master or the law, you get punished ! Ssometimes you have done nothing wrong—and you still get punished! Ah lie?
“and then at the same time make it so damn easy for the tricksters like the Jesuits, Jehovah Witness, Mormons (or pick your own favourite “false” religion here) to deceive millions (trying their best to only do what their finite minds and understanding tell them God wants them to do) into believing the wrong way thereby consigning themselves to the eternal flames of hell.”
God promises to punish tricksters who deceive millions too- and severely. Check 2 Peter 2 & Jude.
You are not to TRY YOUR BEST TO DO ANYTHING that your finite mind and understanding tells you to do! You are to do what God in his Word tells you to do! Not the preacher, not the pastor not anyone, especially if it does not line up with what the Word teaches.
Bush Tea // December 14, 2009 at 10:33 PM responded in part
“That is the exact conclusion that any sane, intelligent person would come to – if they depended on the likes of GP, Dictionary, Zoe and Terence (or any highly educated preacher) to explain the mysteries of God.”
I gather that this means that you are to listen to dumb preachers not highly educated ones. High education now disqualifies any one from teaching the Word!
I have repeatedly on BU told folk to search the scriptures YOURSELVES to see if what I or any preacher whether highly educated or not says is correct.
zion1971 // December 15, 2009 at 7:05 AM asked “Why should a GOD want me to be forever damned with Lucifer simply because I refused to believe.”
Check this out, I didnot have a choice wether I want to come into this world and if I did and knowing what I know now about the human race I would certainly take a pass on that one.
Actually he doesn’t!
Check 2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
It is true that you did not have a choice whether you wanted to come into this world but you DO HAVE A CHOICE have a choice if you want to go into God’s heaven!
The Vatican has been in bed for hundred of years with the Knights Templars and today the evolution into Freemasonry is a shadowy world where
Satan worship apparently has mushroomed in recent years as Catholic Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests have joined Masonic Lodges across Europe, America, Africa, Asia and throughout the known developed world in record numbers.
Until the papacy of Pope John Paul II, membership by Catholics in any kind of Masonic order was an excommunicable offense, yet however, Jesuits have run Freemasonry since the days of Albert Pike.
Now, however, it is commonplace even amongst nominal Catholics.
Indeed, in 1980, New York’s Terrance Cooke, one of America’s most powerful Catholic Cardinals, addressed a gathering of 3,000 Masons. Cardinal Cooke electrified the assemblage when he said that, as friends, Masons and Catholics should recognize each other.
Refraining from mentioning the name of Jesus – the name despised by many Masons and prohibited inside their Lodges – Cardinal Cooke bowed to Masonry’s worst heresy by remarking:
“I know of your firm belief in the Supreme Being, the Great Architect of the Universe, and of the holy writings appropriate to the religion of your members, and I salute you for your loyalty to these ancient values.”
Cardinal Cooke’s words were obviously well chosen and imbued with hidden meaning and subliminal overtones.
In fact, the Masonic Lodge’s “Supreme Architect of the Universe” is none other than Lucifer, who cloaks himself in Masonic literature with the names of such deities as Zoroaster, Shiva, Abaddon, Appollyon and in other Masonic pagan-god disguises.
As for the so-called “holy writings” of Freemasonry, these have their origins in the Roman mystery religions, in 19th century Occultism, and in Egyptology/Babylonianism.
Such are the “ancient values” of the Satanic Masonic Lodge…
If one has one’s head buried in the book or in the establishment that was given to them by the illusionists, then the deception will appear subliminal. But if one steps back from all the trappings, then it will be crystal clear.
The IMF and global finance are controlled by the Jesuits who control the Knights of Malta, Knights of Columbus and Opus Dei and many other secret societies out there. But they are by far at the top of the game. They along with Rothschild perpetrated the French Revolution.
These ASSASSINS are in the business of deceit, destruction and death.
Makes me wonder why Jesus would want a Secret Society! Or better yet Who is this Jesus?
@GP
THe Church is a key stakeholder/NGO which makes up civil society. In this context a leadership role is expected. Arch Bishop Holder leads what historically has been the dominant and most influential part of the Church in Barbados; not the case some would argue in recent times but the influence of the Anglican Church extends to the other religions BU would add.
On the point of disestablishment it makes you wonder why ecclesiastical affairs is still a duty of a minister.
zion1971 // December 15, 2009 at 7:54 AM wrote
Religion wether organised or disorganised is a social construct to explain the unexplain of the physical world.And this construct is brought about by an inherent biological impulse of wanting to” believe in something”. Not many of us are able to escape this social schackle. At best most become blind followers and at worst others become slaves/fundamentalists.
The question is, what good deeds have religion done for the world lately? If the present state of the human condition is by any means of judging our virtures that is buttressed by our religious beliefs – then our religosity have been weighed in the balance and have been found wanting.
I always believe with our deep flaws it was a great sin to bring the human race into existence.
Working backwards on your statements Zion
When men were created he was not a sinner, so it could not have been either a great or minor sin to bring the human race into existence. Do you see what I mean? Read Genesis 3: 6 on wards to see when and how sin entered, and its consequences in verses 14-19.
Your question what good deeds have “religion” done for the world lately is not a fair one, as many “religions” including “Christianity with its diverse denominations” are all doing some good everday. Don’t be blind, man. Even the RC’s do good. The SDA’s are at the forefront with their schools and hospitals worldwide, man. Ah lie?
You are very correct Sir! our religosity have been weighed in the balance and have been found wanting. That’s exactly what the Scripture says in several places! You see men don’t want religion. All religion is by nature and definition a route to appease a god of man’s choosing. MEN NEED A RELATIONSHIP WITH JESIS CHRIST, my friend!
Re At best most become blind followers and at worst others become slaves /fundamentalists.
This is false! Fundamentalists are not slaves at all (although they ought to be if you follow Paul’s teachings. Actually most believers who are fundamentalists are wishy washy, or else they would be shaking the world up as the early church did!
And FYI a fundamentalist is a believer in Christ who believes in the fundamentals of the Christian faith (note NOT religion) as set out in the Scriptures.
We must remember, however, that Satanism is not only practiced by the Jesuit Catholic clergy but this wickedness is found in some of today’s Protestant Churches – Methodist and Charismatic churches, and especially in Episcopal and Anglican churches.
Some years ago, the Mormon Church hierarchy even went public, admitting that Satanic rituals had been secretly conducted by respected church Elders.
Meanwhile, right in Barbados and across the Caribbean members of the Masonic Lodges, including Pastors and denominational leaders and those within the hierarchy of Protestant theology – men who continue to dominate the Southern Baptist Convention in the Unites States, Episcopalians, Evangelicals of every genre.
Contrary to what some believe, the DEVIL* is not a “Catholic.”
Indeed, he is remarkably tolerant of all false religion, and he is known to be pleasingly nondenominational in his approach to religion.
Satan is proud to be an “Ecumenical Being”.
“Any faith but Jesus and His Pure, unadulterated Word – THE HOLY BIBLE,” is the devil’s handy motto.
And to all those Anglicans who feel some special sense of superiority, don’t forget that your values were handed down by King fatso, guillotine Henry who wanted to divorce and remarry but couldn’t do so as a Catholic, so he split away from Catholicism and went started his own Church, the Anglican Church. So there….you have a clean moral, righteous, foundation.
@ Technician
The Bat signal up and working and I come out to bat for the bat cave men OK?
@ Anonymous(2) // December 15, 2009 at 8:57 AM said
Religion is bare boo. Those who “believe” do so because they are brainwashed by being raised in homes by other brainwashed. Here is something I want all the bare boo people to think about. Millions of non-believers inhabit the planet and lead happy and successful lives. The devil has not visited them once.
1- I have defined religion above. You can call it boo if you like.
2 There are many who “believe” that were never raised up in homes where the members went to church or even owned a Bible
3 It is true that there are millions of non-believers inhabiting the planet and lead happy and successful lives and that the devil has not visited them once. Why should he? He has them fooled, and totally in his grasp. He tends to target believers. .
4 There is a fallacy that true believers can not be happy! You should see happy believers even under intense suffering! You see the JOY OF THE LORD IS THEIR STRENGTH.
BTW there are millions of BELIEVERS inhabiting the planet who lead happy and successful lives DESPITE SEVERAL VISITS FROM THE DEVIL! Jesus taught believers to expect him. You can read about such visits to believers all through the Acts and the Pauline Epistles, and James 1:12-14 . Also in books like Fox’s Book of Martyrs, or the Trail of Blood!
He often visits on BU too , when believers try to present the Word!
@ V O Reason // December 15, 2009 at 10:24 AM
RE The paradox that one religion is better than the other has been battered from day one.
I find peace in ignoring “formal religion”, and believe me, I’m happier without it!!!!!!
So am I So do I . I threw away religion since 1968 and embraced Christ as my Savior!
The revelations of DEVIL worship inside churches which claim to be Protestant “Christian” should not surprise any of us.
Thus power of Bible prophecy is thereby made manifest.
The books of Daniel and Revelation describe the Antichrist as a man who appears as a lamb but has horns. He ordains amongst his flock men and women who are unrepentant murderers, liars, fornicators, homosexuals, pedophiles and adulterers.
Daniel says that SATAN’s Antichrist shall speak “dark sentences – (dark sayings)” and shall worship a “god” his fathers knew not.
Thus we understand why Satanic worship is so fervently and irreverently practiced in the very seat of Rome – inside the profane Vatican temple the popes built, the temple known as St. Peter’s Cathedral, which has the Egyptian sun god obelisk on display in its front courtyard.
Yes, the Mark of the Beast is in its ascendancy and is rising fast.
The Pope, his Vatican, and its hierarchy of Jesuits priests and assassins are preparing the portal for the corrupt Beast.
All those who worship the BEAST* or the Image of the Beast and receive the MARK* SHALL drink of the wine of the wrath of God poured out without mixture…
They, as well as their non-Catholic helpers, are opening a creaking doorway into the abyss – a black hole into the Ultimate Evil.
In 1992/1993, JESUITS* Charles (CHUCK) Colson and Richard John Neuhaus organized a joint project of the organizations they had founded, Prison Fellowship (founded in 1976, it had a budget of $38 million in 1997 – wonder where that stash* came from?) and the Institute on Religion and Public Life (founded in 1989, it had a budget of $1.6 million in 1996).
This “joint project” (the words are Neuhaus’) invited both Roman Catholic and Evangelical theologians to participate in drafting a document published on March 29, 1994, under the title:-
“Evangelicals and Catholics Together.”
“Evangelicals and Catholics Together” was an attack on the importance of Christian theology in general and the doctrine of justification by faith alone in particular, in favor of creating a united religious front for political and social action against secular humanism (a disguise to mask the true intent).
The Colson-Neuhaus attack on the doctrine of justification by faith (an age-old Jesuit strategy) was so obvious that many leading Evangelical churchmen such as D. James Kennedy, John MacArthur, and R. C. Sproul — rejected it openly.
The Trinity Foundation’s response to “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” was to publish two books on justification:-
Charles Hodge’s “Justification by Faith Alone” and Horatius Bonar’s “The Everlasting Righteousness”.
Despite criticism from leaders such as Kennedy, Sproul, and MacArthur, the Colson-Neuhaus Group did not dissolve; instead, they renewed their efforts, meeting twice a year, burning up the fax and telephone lines between meetings, and continued to work quietly until November 1997.
On November 12, they released a new document called “The Gift of Salvation.”
This document, unlike “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” is entirely theological in content; it is not characterized by expressions of concern about social and political action; it is designed, not to effect a political alliance, but to create a theological, and eventually an ecclesiastical, union (under the aegis of the Catholic church).
This is the currency of Jesuit infiltration and is merely a drop in the bucket of the lengths to which this subterfuge has permeated Protestant churches and their theology….
Finally and most interesting is the story of SIR ISAAC NEWTON – a man who some feel is one of the greatest minds to walk the earth (according to the History Channel)…
Born on Christmas day in 1642, the same year that the tragic figure Galileo died, Newton discovered the binomial theorem, the method of fluxions (calculus), the law of gravitation and the composite nature of light – all before the age of 30.
The foundations of modern astronomy and physics are still largely based on theories Newton first presented more than 300 years ago.
A genius (no doubt) of unparalleled proportions whose obsession with the unlocking of BIBLE Code* through the study of Daniel & The Revelation led some to believe that genius eventually morphed into madness.
Sir Isaac Newton was however a key figure in the “invention” of Freemasonry, a fraternal order of scientists and philosophers that sought to move England beyond the civil wars generated by its religious conflicts to a society with scientific progress as its foundation.
This book – Isaac Newton’s Freemasonry: The Alchemy of Science and Mysticism reveals Newton’s role in 17th-century Freemasonry and opens unexplored trails into the history of the order in Europe.
Though a humble and reclusive figure, Isaac Newton was obsessed with the study of the Bible daily and believed that God created everything, including the Bible.
He believed that the Bible was true in every respect.
Throughout his life he continually tested Biblical truth against the physical truths of experimental and theoretical science and never observed a contradiction, according to his many biographers.
Newton’s writings reflected his belief that his scientific work was a method by which to reinforce belief in Biblical truth but the conflicts of trying to unravel Bible Code, the fascination with sacred geometry and the pull of other insidious doctrines drove Newton to the precipice of lunacy.
After he completed his monumental Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he began to devote more and more of his time to researching the Bible, eventually writing a book he believed unlocked the prophecies contained in Daniel and Revelation, two Bible books he viewed as intertwined and which was his obsession to try to figure a date for the Apocalypse – (in 2060).
At Newton death, the body of his literary work was lost for 300 years ( or so we are led to believe – but the truth is out there) – to suddenly re-emerge at Sotheby’s Auctioneers in London where one part of his major work was purchased by Jesuit & economist John Maynard Keynes (who is credited for the fragile current world economic system theory), bought many of the most historically important lots out of his own pocket, and later left some of them to King’s College, Cambridge amongst others he had found in the University archives.
The other mysterious buyer – a Jewish Jesuit academic Abraham Yehuda left the other portion of Newton’s collection in the Jewish National Library in Jerusalem as the startling manifestations of his work set in motion the ultimate setting up of the state of Israel by the ROTHSCHILDS* and the preparations for a future where Jerusalem would become the seat where the Antichrist will try to rule from; Armageddon will be fought and the “Kingdom of Heaven” (all miscategorizations of Biblical prophecy based on the futurology of God’s timeline).
Newton’s Effect is still felt 100′s of years later in The London Psychogeographical Association which is described by Wikipedia as “a largely fictitious organization” (HA’).
Its work, which has been praised by Iain Sinclair, consists largely of grandiose proclamations and calls for geo-psychic revolution stated as follows:
“The integration of non-Euclidean psycho-social space into a post-Newtonian mechanics is faced by the emergence of an anti-Euclidean opposition which will rekindle the fires of revolt with the matchsticks of metaphor. By drawing upon ancient song-lines which reassert themselves within the modern urban environment, psychogeography as the practical application of anti-Euclidean psycho-sacred-geometry offers the third pole in the triolectic between the false universalism of modernism and the universal virtuality of post-modernism.” (St Paul’s Cathedral Signs and Symbols: Spotter’s Sheet )
Dan Brown should have spent more time in London instead of Washington DC for his book – overlooking the fact that the hubris of Freemasonry, Jesuitism and Cabalalism found its greatest resonance in London, England…
TB:
You are labelling a lot of people as “Jesuits” without substantiating, and are making a lot of broader allegations without facts.
I ask you to glance above, where you will see where I do point to certain key facts on that old rapist of Africa, Cecil Rhodes of Rhodesia and De Beers [the diamonds company . . . ) infamy and Rhodes Scholarship fame, and remark broadly on the implications of late C19 "progressive" British Imperialism morphing into modern-day internationalism. Something which, in the Caribbean, generally passes without suspicion. (The UN etc as potential or actual sources of danger to us and our liberty? Perish the thought . . . )
And BTW, a certain half-English, half-American statesman, Sir Winston Churchill, played a key role in much of that transition and transformation. [I suspect there will be some interesting hints in his History of the English Speaking Peoples, but so far I have only run across an early volume.) And, the actual permanent conference structure of the UN traces to South African Premier and former Boer general Smuts' suggestion to Churchill et al on how Wilson's league of nations could be fleshed out. In short,t here are a lot of dots to be connected. And, while the Catholics and the Jesuits have their fair share of sins, an overly tight focus on this institution may distract us from much broader issues, trends and factors.)
As to Newton, Keynes -- who so far as I could see was no Jesuit! [A public school homosexual who simply decided enough was enough and stopped . . . ] — aptly described him as more of the last of the Magi of old than the first modern scientist. though of course, he was indeed the greatest modern scientist. He spent decades on alchemy, and in latter years wrote huge volumes of peculation on apocalyptic biblical literature, in a confused mess that traced to all these strands of influence. I do not know about lodge involvement for him, but that would not be surprising given his occultic leanings.
to getr a measure of just how strange a bird he was, he was once in his digs working when a friend came in and saw dinner on the sideboard, then decided to play the trick of eating it. he then went back out and called for Newton. Coming to the door, Newton passed the dinner and said that he thought he had not eaten yet but obviously he had. It is said that on his deathbed, at 84, he declared his greatest achievement to be that he was dying a virgin.
Yes, there have been some pretty odd birds out there in our history.
D
PS: Technician, even if there were no WMDs to be found, the open, consistent violation of the armistice terms and associated corruption of the international order were plainly warrant enough for the allies to re-open major hostilities. In fact, the evidence — as opposed to the spin — points to the creation of the systems of WMD rearmament and key designs, materials and equipment to carry it out [e.g. recall the military protected “insecticide” factories and storage depots (insecticides and nerve gases being in effect the same thing in different guises) and the 500 tons of Uranium Yellowcake (how th UN allowed this to sit there on site at Tuwaitha is beyond my understanding . . . ), the ballistic missile designs, the biowar research facilities and ease with which say a beer brewery is converted into a biowar plant, etc? Plus, the transcript shows responsible Iraqi officials systematically hiding something from UN WMD inspectors — just what was that they were hiding? THE BURDEN OF PROOF, CONTRARY TO THE MEDIA SPIN, LAY ON IRAQ, NOT THE ALLIES), coupled to slipping incriminating evidence across the border into Syria in the six months of debate in the UN. Note also the subsequent knocking out of the offshore Iraq nuke programme in Libya, and the knocking out of the Syrian nuke programme next door. Syria FYI is the other main Arab National Socialist state — what Ba’ath party means.
@ Anyone..
What does innocent until proven guilty means?
On whom does the burden of proof lies? The accused or the accuser?
Can someone help me to understand?
PS: Technician, even if there were no WMDs to be found, the open, consistent violation of the armistice terms and associated corruption of the international order were plainly warrant enough for the allies to re-open major hostilities.
Yet still (and this is not a strawman soaked in anything) we have a State that spits in the face of the UN , refuses to allow inspections of their own sites and ignores UN resolutions with impunity. This same state, even after these violations is given billions in monetary and technological aid to further strengthen their already nuclear arsenal.
Going by the accusations in the above post, one can easily say this is hypocrisy and double standards in full effect.
Keep on trying to unring the bell and defend the indefensible.
@Terence, Dec 19, 09 @ 12:35 AM, Your general reference to Roman Catholicism, I could not agree more with.
Roman Catholicism IS the most evil, wicked, tyrannical religious/political institution EVER to exist on earth.
Sir. George Sinclair cound not have put it more succinctly:
“Romanism IS A REFINED system of Christianized Heathenism, and chiefly differs from its prototype in being more TREACHEROUS, more CRUEL, more DANGEROUS, more INTOLERANT.” emphasis added.
“CROSS OF SALEM. Called also the Pontifical Cross, because it is borne before the Pope. It is a cross, the up-right piece being crossed by three lines, the upper and lower shorter than the middle one. It is the insignia of the Grand Master and Past Grand Master of the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States. The same Cross placed on a slant is the insignia of the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.” (Ref. AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FREEMASONRY, by Albert G. Mackey, M.D., 33 degree Mason, 1921, Revised Edition, published by the Masonic History Company, New York) Preface The Twin Pincers, Masonary and Catholicism, by one, in the service of Jesus Christ.
While all of this intriguing historical connection between the Vatican and Freemasonary, and other sinister organizations, is true, you only started to reveal and hint* at what I know to be your real agenda in all of this meandering, so…let us get the bottom of what you really want to say, i.e.,:
“Yes, the Mark of the Beast is in its ascendancy and is rising fast.”
“The Pope, his Vatican, and its hierarchy of Jesuit priests and assissins are preparing the portal for the corrupt Beast.
“All those who worship the BEAST* or the image of the Beast and recive the MARK* SHALL drink of the wine of the wrath of God poured out without mixture.”
“They, as well as their non-Catholic helpers, are opening a creaking doorway into the abyss – a bleak hole into the ultimate Evil.”
Terence, as a devout Seventh-day-Adventist, let us get to the ‘crux’ of what your ARE driving at! Seventh-day Adventism, believe they ARE the true End-Time ‘remnant’ church, and that only those who ‘keep’ the Sabbath, are obeying God’s fourth Commandment from the Decalogue; that those who honour and worship the Lord on *Sunday* essentially observing the Mark of the Beast, still to be officially imposed* through the so-called Blue Law, that will come into full force when that man of Sin, the Antichrist, takes control through the One World Government.
“The sign, or seal, of God is revealed in the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, the Lord’s memorial of creation. ‘The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of *Israel*, saying, Verily, My Sabbaths ye shall keep; for it is a sign between Me and you (*ISRAEL*) througout your (*ISRAEL) generations; that ye (*ISRAEL*) may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you (*ISRAEL*)’ (Exodus 31: 12,13. Here the Sabbath is clearly designated as a sign between God and His people (*ISRAEL*). The mark of the beast is the opposite – the observance of the first* day of the week (Sunday). This mark distinguishes those who acknowledge the supremacy of Papal authority from those who acknowledge the authority of God.” (Ellen G. White, Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 8, p.117. Author’s note: Ellen G. White is considered by Seventha-day Adventists to have manifested the thrue gift of prophecy. She is seen as a “messenger of God,’ and ‘…her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth…’ ‘The Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, No. 17, The Gift of Prophecy.’ ( Sabbath in CRISIS, Dale Ratzlaff, p.18) emphasis added.
BTW, Dale Ratzlaff, M.Div., was a fourth generation Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) and was educated in SDA schools from first grade through seminary. He taught Bible at a SDA high school for seven years and pastoed two SDA churches.
So, Terence, I challenge you to let us get with what you are *driving* at, that is, that all of us in the Protestant world, who worship God on Sunday, are partaking in the *mark* of the Beast, yet to be fully IMPOSED by Law, under the Antichrist, and that, ONLY those Sabbatarians, SDA et al, of this ilk, are truly worshipping God correctly, right!!!
Come on Terence, let us get on with this debate, I am ready…if you don’t fully declare you hand on this issue, I will do what I have to to expose the erroneous hermeneutics of SDA, on this and other heretical doctrines that permeate Seventh-day Adventism!
Terrence
Here is my response to your opening salvo.
Whereas you have said much about the RC institution and its evils, I agree with Dictionary that you have labelled many as Jesuits that are not at all Jesuits.
Re 1 Modern Christianity has largely forgotten the importance of the Protestant Reformation of the 1500’s. Moreover, its resemblance to the church set up by Christ at His ascension pales in comparison today for what passes off as the Christian faith.
Why should the contemporary church look back at the Protestant Reformation of the 1500’s.
The contemporary church and the church of all ages was never asked to look at the Protestant Reformation Sir. The church is instructed now, as ever to look Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. And to consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. (Hebrew 12:2&3)
Re 1 After 1260 years of papal oppression, the church awoke after a deep, dense, dark night of sleep to realize that superstition was rife and the witness for Biblical truth that was slain and martyred was left for dead, lying in the streets in an age of reason – a Renaissance bolstered by a move away from feudalism to modernity. But the dawn of the light of the Reformation meant that the opening of prophetic revelation (once sealed up) had finally been opened.
If you read the Trail of Blood or the Faithfull Baptist Witness you will find that God had during this time, as he always does a FAITHFUL REMNANT. The prophetic revelation had never been sealed up, it was suppressed just as in the days of Ahab, but never sealed up Sir!
3 RE On the scene of action came Martin Luther.
What about Zwingli and the others? John Hus, Tyndale, Wyclifs etc? The Reformation was not accomplished by Luther alone. And Luther only brought things back slightly- the reformation never went al the way to the BIBLIO SOLO that Martin Luther harped about.
4- RE It has been said that the Reformation first discovered Jesus Christ, and then, in the blazing light of Christ, it discovered the Antichrist. This mighty, Spirit-filled movement, for Christ and against the Antichrist, shook the world.
Luther discovered Christ! The spirit of antichrist was always around- even in the days of the early church as clearly taught by John in first John. The notion of the antichrist was also clearly taught by Paul I 2 Thessalonians chapter 2
5 RE Luther never felt strong and free to war against the Papal apostasy till he recognized the pope as Antichrist. The pope might have been anti (against) Christ was he was not the Antichrist.
6- Re “In the reaction that followed, all the powers of hell seemed to be let loose upon the adherents of the Reformation. War followed war: tortures, burnings, and massacres were multiplied.”
The same phenomenon occurred in the early church as happened under the Jesuits, and much the same is occurring to the true church in many countries today, even if not by the Jesuits. And soon this phenomenon will be seen in the West including the USA, even if not by the Jesuits.
7 Re bringing people back to the Mother Church
the Catholic Church was NEVER EVER THE MOTHER CHURCH. THE TRUE CHURCH EXISTED FOR 300 YEARS PRIOR TO THE Catholic Church
8 Re According to this viewpoint, there were no prophecies being fulfilled during the 1260 years of the Dark Ages!
Were there any? Please list them!
9- Re Then came John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) – a brilliant lawyer, pastor, and theologian, who wrote more than 53 books on Bible subjects and is credited as the father of Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is the theory that God deals with mankind in major dispensations or periods. Darby’s contribution to the development of evangelical theology has been so great that he like Edward Irving also became a strong promoter of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture followed by a one-man Antichrist. In fact, this teaching has become a hallmark of Dispensationalism. John Nelson Darby laid much of the foundation for the present popular removal of Daniel’s 70th week away from history and from Jesus Christ in favor of applying it to a future Tribulation after the Rapture.
What is wrong with Darby and Dispensationalism? Do explain Sir?.
10- Re The greatest of all these Jesuits subliminal adherents was Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), a Kansas lawyer who was greatly influenced by the writings of Darby. In 1909, Scofield published the first edition of his famous Scofield Reference Bible. In the early 1900s, this Bible became so popular in American Protestant Bible schools that it was necessary to print literally millions of copies. This was the beginning of the end of American Protestant Christianity and a proper exegetical understanding of prophecy and the Scripture.
Are you crazy? Scofield was a drunking lawyer who converted to Christianity HE WAS NEVER A RC OR A JESUIT!
11 RE
The Moody Bible Institute and the Dallas Theological Seminary have strongly supported the teachings of John Nelson Darby, and this has continued to fuel Futurism’s growth. Then in the 1970s, Pastor Hal Lindsey, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, released his blockbuster book The Late Great Planet Earth. This 177-page, easy-to-read volume brought Futurism to the masses of American Christianity, and beyond. 30 million copies later and in over 30 languages. Through The Late Great Planet Earth, Jesuit Futurism took a strong hold over the Protestant Christian world.
The Moody Bible Institute and the Dallas Theological Seminary have been some of the best Theological Seminary anywhere at any time. Some great men taught and still teacg there.
12- Re So in the 1990s, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins took the future one-man Antichrist idea of Scofield, Darby, Irving, Newman, Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera, and turned it into Blockbuster books and movies like Left Behind produced by Jack Van Impe, Peter and Paul Lalonde, and John Hagee. This has been the direction of American Protestant theology which has been pervasive across the globe for the last 30 years.
I don’t know much about Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins Irving, Newman, Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera, or Peter and Paul Lalonde, but Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, and John Hagee are NOT protestants (THEY ARE EVANGELICALS) and THEY ARE AS SOUND AS A BELL WHEN IT COMES TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE SECOND COMING & IN RELATING IT TO ONTEMPORARY EVENTS>
13 Re “The proper eschatological term for the view most widely taught today is futurism which fuels the confusion of Dispensationalism.
There is nothing confusing about Dispensationalism. With out Dispensationalism the WORD would be most confusing. Dispensationalism. Is sound theology, even if you can only see LAW AND GRACE! Start by researching those two. You only need the Pauline epistles.
14 Re The futuristic school of Bible prophecy came from the Roman Catholic Church, specifically her Jesuit theologians.”
Not so . The RC church has been teaching very little but myths certainly no Bible prophecy. Never heard a RC or Anglican or Methodist or the other protestants groups teaching prophecy ever!
The real issue today in Christianity is not about who shed the blood of God’s dear saints, or those who lit the fires when the martyrs were burned at the stake for Jesus Christ, or about who died trusting in the blood of Christ. It is not about the RC church or the Jesuits either.
The issue in Christianity today, as it was since Pentecost is will you receive Christ as your Savior by grace through faith in the shed blood of Christ, whether you are BLACK WHITE OR YELLOW, whether you are JEW or GENTILE, whether you are BOND or FREE, irregardless to which denomination you adhere to!
DENOMINATIONS ARE A DASTARDLY TOOL OF THE DEVIL MEANT TO DECIEVE & DIVIDE THE CHURCH!
Yes some denominations teach error but there are INDIVIDUALS within denominations who have personally trusted in Christ for salvation and NOT in the rituals, of their denomination.
What Reformation what?!
@ Technician
Why are you wasting precious energy and good common sense on persons who are lost in the desert and going around in circles?
@ Pat…
This is where I will stop and get out the snacks…lol
It looks like we will be having an interesting discussion soon, one I was always curious about, lets see if we can learn something.
It seems to me that on BU, EVERYONE has a right to opine except for those now referred to as from “the bat cave.”
But that is nothing new believers were first called Christians at Antioch- but in a derogatory sense. They were mocked and scoffed at because they followed the lowly Nazarene.
Nothing has changed in the last two millenia.
@Georgie Porgie: “It seems to me that on BU, EVERYONE has a right to opine except for those now referred to as from “the bat cave.”
You misunderstand.
Everyone, of course, has the right to opine.
But those who are taken seriously generally answer direct questions directly, rather than simply radiate vast amounts of language (read: lecture) without much information…
(BTW, it is called Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), for those in the know….)
@ David // December 18, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Re
THe Church is a key stakeholder/NGO which makes up civil society. In this context a leadership role is expected. Arch Bishop Holder leads what historically has been the dominant and most influential part of the Church in Barbados; not the case some would argue in recent times but the influence of the Anglican Church extends to the other religions BU would add.
On the point of disestablishment it makes you wonder why ecclesiastical affairs is still a duty of a minister.
I agree with you that the Church whether Anglican, Methodist, Moravian etc is a key stakeholder/NGO which makes up civil society, and in this context a leadership role is expected.
I don’t really think that the influence of the Anglican Church extends to the other religions or denominations except for the music that some denominations use that was written by the early Anglicans and their Methodists offshoot. Not only are the tunes heavenly, but much of the lyrics are good paraphrases of the Scriptures (c.f Isasac Watts, Charles Wesley especially).
The Anglican church was disestablished, but perhaps the government thinks that the church as a whole ought to be considered, and hence ecclesiastical affairs being still a duty of a minister.
But ought we not to expect a diminishing effect of the church in civil society David?
Jesus him self predicted in his rhetorical question of Luke 18 :8 “when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
This is a his rhetorical question in the Greek- not so obvious in the KJV.
So like me, don’t expect much more from the church . Even good Bible teaching churches today are merely good social gatherings.
Acts 1:42 identifies the five roles of a local church – and the local church is supposed to be the effective working unit of the church universal- are WORSHIP, MINISTRY (service), EVANGELISM, FELLOWSHIP & DISCIPLESHIP.
MANY local churches are scarcely doing any of these well, far less all!
Herein is the problem with the church that you are witnessing today. I hope this adds light on the subject and answer your question.
@ Dr. Georgie Porgie
You volunteered some information a few days ago. I sent my e-mail and am still waiting. Did you have it at hand, or are you collecting and collating. Thanks in advance. Pat.
T:
Saddam Hussein was a long since convicted felon, who was trying to escape his sentence and return to his old, murderous ways.
D
Mr Halshall:
The evidence is that your side — sadly — has had little substantial to say, apart from sniping and various degrees of slander.
D
By the way David the present luke warmness of the church everwhere (except the underground church) points to the demise of the church as predicted in Revelation 17.
Many Bible scholars and expositors teach that the seven churches represent or trace seven periods of the church throughout the course of history, and recognize or associate the contemporary church with the description of the seventh hurch.
It is thought (and taught) that when the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit in the true church is removed at the rapture of the true church, that there will be a further and rapid further decline in the rest of “Christendom ” that remains- referred to in Revelation 17:5 as ” MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”
The rest of Revelation 17 describes the demise of this entity.
neva gunna give jah up
Pat:
Take a serious look in the mirror.
This reference may help, as may this. (Or are you of the ilk of the one who boasts of never looking at links from those on the other side of a discussion.)
G’day
D
@Dr. Georgie Porgie…
Let me please ask you again this very simple question which you quoted, but then refused to answer, in another thread here on BU:
“Statistically, what are the chances that a single male individual will ever produce a sperm cell with the exact same DNA sequence as any other sperm cell that same individual (or any other) ever produced throughout their entire lives?
[Stage direction: Halsall now faces the audience and says:]
There is a very particular reason why I ask this particular question.
And there is also a very particular reason why Dr. GP refuses to….
Hopi
Whereas your account of the origin of the Anglican Church is true, remember that “King fatso, guillotine Henry “ was NOT the Anglican Church.
There were many men in the original Anglican Church; and many since then through the years, who were obviously devout, godly men who believed the Bible, and sought to live by its precepts.
This was obviously so, as the Wesleyan or Methodist Church was spawned from such a devout Anglican family.
And it is a fact that many contemporary evangelical denominations emerged from the Evangelical wing of the Methodist Church.
Chief of these in Barbados is the Wesleyan Holiness church (formerly called Pilgrim Holiness).
This group is said to be the result of a disagreement between the powerful preacher and personality George Whitfield (who believed what is known as the eternal security of the believer as clearly taught in John 6:37 & John 10:27-30) and John Wesley who thought differently.
Whereas, I can endorse your opinions stated at December 18, 2009 at 12:08 AM please be informed that the Church of Jesus Christ has never been a Secret Society, even though when persecuted, the true chrch has often been forced to meet in secret, as it is forced to do in many parts of the world today.
I am sorry to hear that you do not know who Jesus is. But if you would take a half hour daily and read the NT through, with an open mind, I am quite sure that you will without a doubt be enlightened—as has happened to many who have mocked and scoffed, just as you do!
@ Pat
Re Pat // December 18, 2009 at 12:24 PM
@ Dr. Georgie Porgie
You volunteered some information a few days ago. I sent my e-mail and am still waiting. Did you have it at hand, or are you collecting and collating. Thanks in advance. Pat.
Have not yet recieved your email.
I will check again, and send promptly.
Why would I volunteer info, and then have to collect and collate?
Checked again Pat………nothing—- nada — zilch
It is lswiltshire@hotmail.com Pat.
first icon is l not 1 – or i (mistakes that some make ) LOL
@ Zoe
Re
Zoe // December 17, 2009 at 9:58 AM
@Terence,
“For anyone to deny ( and I AM SPEAKING TO THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST) that we’re fast approaching the unification of Church, State & Economics is frankly a stranger to the truth and clearly chooses to walk in darkness.”
“So we can hoop, holla’ and dribble on with ideological arguments, our academic prowess and the rest of it, but the PLAIN TRUTH* is we are in for the ride of our lives and we are cluless as to what is about to hit us.”
Terence, why don’t you just SPELL out for us, your version of the PLAIN TRUTH* let the ‘cat’ out the bag, and stop beating around the bush, as GP, Dictionary and me, have a pretty good grasp of End-Time prophecy, get the ‘…dribble (and) our ideological arguments…[etc] out of the path of ‘…the PLAIN TRUTH* so we ALL can be enlightened…with the end-time Remnant ideology of your camp of scholars!!!
=====================
Terrence is a good boy at heart, but some one is leading him astray. He needs to test the spirits as ordered by John in 1 John 4:1-3.
Why does he not heed the words of John in 1 John 2:26-27?
Why don’t you do like Appolos did to Acquilla and Priscilla as recorded in Acts 18:26 and take him unto thee “AND EXPOUND UNTO HIM THE WAY OF GOD MORE PERFECTLY?” ………by exegeting or summarizing Revelations 17 & 18 dor those in cyberspace that might be interested.
@ David on December 17, 2009 at 11:54 PM re
Don’t mean to be a sceptic TB but if the information is so freely available which exposes the demons lurking within the Catholic Church, why the conspiracy to TODAY?
Answer is simple David. I have explained it in a post above to some extent.
The Ecumenical Movement of all Ecumenical Movements is upon us, as clearly predicted in Revelation 17. The forces have been gathering for some time now. In the US for example, Lutherans have been reverting to their RC origins.
It is written in Amos 3:3 How can two walk together unless they are agreed?. So one wonders how denominations who “protested” the RC church in the 1500’s are now amalgamating? None of the evangelical groups who came out of “Methodism” in the early 1900’s ever had anything in common with the RC institution, nor does the SDA’s or the JHW’s who essentially emerged from the Baptist church. So what is wrong? How can two walk together unless they are agreed?.
The answer seems to be given in Revelation 17 & 2 Thessalonians 2, IMHO!
T:
Saddam Hussein was a long since convicted felon, who was trying to escape his sentence and return to his old, murderous ways.
D
Convicted by who?
In which court?
Come on man…now this is a stretch even by your standards.
Technician
Re // December 16, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Zoe…Zoe…Zoe….Zoe….OMG!!
Technician // December 15, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Holy WordPress!!
Like moths to the flame !!
ROFLMAO!!
that was too easy
Techie, if you don’t behave yourself, I will get “Bran” (not sure if that is the write spelling) to go get a bamboo to cut your tail!
(You remember Bran – a chap with a funny eye, that was the porter or something so at the old BFS?)
I see you on Dictionary like policeman boots on corns but his exegesis and explanation from Romans chapters 1 & 2 was a good one, and sound as a bell, man. His statements were true and accorded well with that aught by several renowned Bible scholars man.
Honestly, I had to give him ALL THE MARKS, according to the Kingo rubric! Honest to God! (as we Bajans say) LOL
Look, Tech, GP, Pat and Halsall need to amalgamate. Wunnah makes BU a PLEASURE to read – not forgetting you, David.
But, muh bros and sisters, yuh see the blasted (they call it in the UK) “C U Next Tuesday” from Zoe, that jackass Blackett and our “lovely” friend whose monniker starts with ZED (but not as in Zepplin) but most especially our friend, the “Wikepedia” Pictionary?
Man, these dudes/dames GOT to get a life!!!!! They mad as C U Next Tuesday!!!!!! MEDICATION CAN BE FUN!!!!!!!
@ GP….
I am behaving now…
I just trying to learn something new from now on.
I am not on D..just waiting for PROOF than CAN NOT BE REFUTED!!
See….I am learning
Techie
Were you at BFS in the days of Bran? What was your era again?
I only went 1961-62. But as a Ch Ch dweller with nuff BFS boys in the area, and associating with BFS boys and GFS girls ever weekend at choir practice, church and sunday school (and sitting sometimes with the ex BFS-ers in the old Gerorge Chanellor stand) I up on my BFS- history! LOL
There was also a tall man called Archer.
His brother used to be on our garbage truck.
One day my little brother called him Archer instead of Mr Archer, and my father soaked his tail!
Told him Mr Archer is A MAN FIRST! And must be addressed as a man. MR ARCHER TO YOU! Nothing to do with his occupation.
Tell you the truth I have never forgotten that lesson. Have taken it with me all through life. You see those so called “nobody’s” have always been the salt of our society. But now we so “big up” we look down on such.
But I will tell you a secret Techie. I have found that it is the big ups and those with such aspirations as the greatest pain up in the “shelves of Houston”!
You guys can google good! So go look see where those shelves are! LOL
You will find halall in that general area!
@GP..
I was At Foundation from ’82-’87.
I will digest all you wrote above, have a train to catch and it is freezing, will get back to you later.
Hopi, you are a classic example of how a “little bit” of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Henry VIII was not the head of the Anglican Church as the Anglican Church was not formed during his reign. Henry VIII was mostly in private a practicing Catholic but was open minded to the Protestant faith. He was greatly influenced by his chief advisor, Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury who sought to bring England to the Protestant Faith.
It was only after Henry VIII’s death and during the reign of Elizabeth I, that the two faiths (Catholic and Protestant) were cobbled together into a “one size fits all” faith that we now know as Anglican.
The Scout opined thus on // December 16, 2009 at 7:41 AM
I’ve dedicated the rest of my life to living even closer to the principles of God than I was living before. In so doing I live by the simple method of love for God and my neighbour. The reason why this world is in crisis right now is just greed and unless we get back to Godly principles, it will get worse. We have too many academically educated people in this world but few with common sense.
Well Mr Scout we have no choice but to agree with you. You got it right Sir! Jesus actually did teach L:OVE GOD & LOVE NEIGHBOUR.
As a teenager at Sunday School in the Baptist church we used to sing a chorus JESUS & OTHERS & YOU what a wonderful way to spell JOY! But it aint easy Mr Scout. But we can only try, cause YOU CAN NOT DO THAT ON YOUR OWN AS EASY AS IT SOUNDS. YOU NEED THE HOLY SPIRIT. The reason why the OT Jews could not keep the law. Most of them were practicing a religion, and not obeying God and seeking his will.
But it aint easy Mr Scout, especially when you come in here on BU and have to deal with Pat and Techie, and Hopi and NS and BAFBFP and a certain fella who attended Cawmere whose name I wont call.
[You will notice that I don’t notice those who want to be noticed by posting with their picture and who post verbal diarhoea! LOL ROTFLMAO]
Techie, watch that certain fella who attended Cawmere whose name I wont call, come for my tail now.
He can say what he like, but he is my boy although he like to cuss me every now and again, when he get up on de wrong side or don’t get no antibiotics. (not Pen- V though, but something rhyming with JU- C!.. LOL ROTFLMAO
I learn about that antibiotic while teaching Pharm to some medical students about 5 years ago
Anonymous(2) // December 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Actually, Hopi is correct and you are wrong!
Ding dong! You’re wrong!
Henry VIII was INDEED the head of the Anglican Church and the Anglican Church was INDEED formed during his reign.
Henry VIII was INDEED mostly in private a practicing Catholic but was open minded to the Protestant faith.
Poor Cranmer had to do as he was told, and fight the Pope so that Henry could get his divorce.
The two faiths (Catholic and Anglican) are basically very similar, but there are not now, and never were a “one size fits all” faith that we now know as Anglican.
Go get a proper text of Church History Sir.
As the great apostasy in Christendom approaches RRC’s and Anglicans and others will indeed become a “one size fits all” faith.
It is true that Hopi does talk a lot of cow’s wallop on BU, but when she right and telling the truth she must be defended, just as I would defendthe men from the “bat cave.” LOL ROFLMAO
Actually, GP, whilst you may be some sort of expert on theology you are not an expert in history. I suggest you go back and read some history books, it might make a nice change from that dry Bible stuff.
My Opinion
Tech:
It was you who first used the metaphor of an accused in court.
I simply pointed out, using your analogy as a point of reference, the summary of well known facts that SH had (i) gained power by murder in a party meeting — it is on videotape and sometimes plays on TV, (ii) sustained power by internal mass murder and terror, (iii) set out on aggression against neighbours, including Iran and Kuwait most plainly, (iv) had and USED WMD’s externally and internally [remember the gassed Kurd civilians?], (v) was known to be seeking nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems as early as the turn of he 1980′s, hence the Israeli raid of 1981 [which bough the world what turned out to be a crucial 10 years set-back:1981 + 10 = 1991], (vi) As the inspection process post first campaign showed, he had and continued to be developing such weapons up to and after the campaign, (vii) he kept on evading inspections imposed as armistice terms, (viii) he submitrted useless informaiton on having a UNSC mandate to do so or face consequences.
The burden of proof was on SH, not the world; especially as at he point where armistice terms were in effect with disarmament terms, i.e. 1991.
He willfully failed to comply with the armistice and brought down on his head the renewal of military operations under said terms.
What you have tried to do is to ex post facto switch around burdens of proof the better to set up and knock over strawmen; and exert selective hyperskepticism which tries to exploit he fact that deductive proofs beyond rational dispute are not in the province of the world of fact and experience. the resulting inconsistencies in your reasoning on matters of fact show the fundamentally fallacious and irrational nature of such selective hyperskepticism.
When such an irresponsible stance on international affairs contributes to an opinion climate in which aggressors with the sort of track record described are enabled, and it results in the all too predictable horrendous consequences, let the record show that you were a part of the problem, not the solution.
And it is high tome to refocus on the main point of this blog thread.
Good day.
D
Anonymous(2)
I am not an expert on history but I have read several texts on CHURCH HISTORY! Actually got an A in Church History in my MDiv.
And the Bible is not at all dry to those who find great excitement in discovering nuances in the use of exact and specific words in the Greek or Hebrew
The Anglican church was born ONLY because Henry 8th wanted a divorce. Not only did I read that in at least 4 Church History texts but I learned that in high school in British History class (as we were then taught!)
You may run in again and try another ad hominem. It wont change the fact that Hopi was correct!
Below is a direct quote from The Church of England website: It is not good enough GP to be partially correct. You either get it right or it is wrong.
“Under his son, Edward VI, more Protestant-influenced forms of worship were adopted. Under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, a more radical reformation proceeded. A new pattern of worship was set out in the Book of Common Prayer (1549 and 1552). These were based on the older liturgy but influenced by Protestant principles. The confession of the new reformed church was set out in the Forty-two Articles (later revised to thirty-nine). The reformation however was cut short by the death of the king. Queen Mary I, who succeeded him, returned England again to the authority of the Pope, thereby ending the first attempt at an independent Church of England. During Mary’s reign, many leaders and common people were burnt for their refusal to recant of their reformed faith. These are known as the Marian martyrs and the persecution has led to her nickname of “Bloody Mary”.
Mary also died childless and so it was left to the new regime of her half-sister Elizabeth to resolve the direction of the church. The settlement under Elizabeth I (from 1558), known as the Elizabethan settlement, developed the via media (middle way) character of the Church of England, a church moderately Reformed in doctrine, as expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles, but also emphasising continuity with the Catholic and Apostolic traditions of the Church Fathers. It was also an established church (constitutionally established by the state with the head of state as its supreme governor). The exact nature of the relationship between church and state would be a source of continued friction into the next century.”
I dont care two hoots what the Anglican website says man.
They are splitting hairs man. Every one also read and learned the history you quote. Despite the fact that Mary Queen of Scots or Bloody Mary tried to return the English to the RC church, the FACTS are that the English FIRST MOVED AWAY FROM THE RC organization inthe reign of King Henry 8th over the fact that the Pope would not grant him a divorce! Hopi isright and you are wrong! Ding dong! You are wrong.
Didnt you learn that in school? It was taught by Anglican priests and staunch Anglicans in the days when the Anglican church still controlled the school system in Bim, and when Anglican hymns were sung and Anglican prayers read in both primary and secondary school. Ah lie? At least this is what happened at the schools I attended. LOL
These facts were taught in British History at school and still is taught in every Church History Course in Theological Seminaries using the most popular text books of Church History.
What you expect the Anglican website to say! Eh?
My texts are in Bim, else Id scanned them for you.LOL
You can squawk and ruffle up your feathers all you want GP but it does not change the fact that The Anglican Faith was not enacted as the official religion of The Church of England until the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.
LOL I aint ruffling up my feathers Sir
The Anglican Faith MAY HAVE BEEN t enacted as the official religion of The Church of England until the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, BUT IT MOVED AWAY FROM THE RC CHURCH IN THE REIGN OF HENRY 8th! His first daughter Mary remained faithful to Rome and sought to reinstate the RC church, then Elizabeth 1 came and did what she did BUT HOPI IS RIGHT!
Under Henry 8th the English started their move from the RC over Henry’s divorce. If he had got the divorce, there would not have been an Anglican church ever!
And I not squawking and ruffling up my feathers . I telling you what I learned at school and in Theological School.
You want to unlearn me? ROTFLMAO! LOL
You are splitting hairs. I can split hairs too, and I can also detect splitting of the heart sounds too! (Which you cant!) ROTFLMAO! LOL
Oh me Oh my….
D….
Here is where I will bow out of this discussion with you…dont have the testicular fortitude to continue in this vein.
I humbly agree to disagree .
@GP….
Continue with the history lesson please.
There are lots of different mindsets from blogging on BU. Nobody ever changes their opinions they just become more extreme…
Chant Down Babylon
Beat Down Babylon
Chant down Babylon
Youths of today
GB, you sure that it was only to do with Henry VIII’s divorce? Remember that England had been under attack from other mainland European countries for centuries. It was also trying to claim Normandy and France (a very Catholic country) really objected to that.
The Popes in those days used to broker power and would go with which ever was the greatest power that had the military to protect the Vatican. So, as England was far from the Vatican and there were other nations closer that could do damage to the Papacy, England was really the low man on the totem pole of Papal benefits. Also, the one likely to be most threatened by Papal aggression.
I realize that the attempted reintroduction of the RC church during the reign of Bloody Queen Mary, to fuel which she carried out over 300 executions by burning at the stake in the precursor to the Auto de Fe of the Spanish Inquisition. However, the whole process of the Church of England was relatively easy, considering. Indeed, Elizabeth I had no option but to enfrachise the C of E, as without its legitimacy, her own would not have existed. Indeed, had she alligned herself to RC, likely she would have been betrayed and removed and replaced by her cousin Mary, the wife of Fracois of France, who is, of course, best known as Mary Queen of Scots.
The English really embraced the C of E, despite what their monarchs themselves felt, because of the immunity it gave them from the dictates of Rome and its favourites. Charles I was RC and Charles II, while paying lip service to the C of E, was always thought to secretly attend RC mass. His brother James II was definitely RC and that was a reason he was kicked off the throne in favour of his own daughter, Mary, and her very protestant husband, William of Orange. Then there was his other protestant daughter who succeeded the childless William and Mary, Anne. Anne was married to George of Denmark – and he too was protestant.
It was in 1701 by the Act of Settlement that, for reasons, not of conscience, but of state, the English throne was settled on the Electress Sofia of Hanover and her heirs and the first one of the Hanovarians to reign was George I.
So, I wonder how much it all had to do with divorce and religeous conviction and how much it had to do with politics.
Take one island separated from the mainland by an almost uncrossable (militarily) strip of water, on the other side of which there are a while lot of nations any one of which (or maybe all) might be mobilized into a sort of Papal “jihad”. It could not resist such armies if they managed to land and it would also have probably had a population problem in that many would have felt that they must obey the Papal edict and support the invaders.
So, I have always suspected that Henry’s desire to jump Ann Boleyn’s bones, while a major concern, was fortuitous and used for window dressing to cover other agendas.
Nothing in life is ever pure or simple – and because of the C of E, the Armada of Spain (with a lot of support from France) which had Papal blessing and support, failed. Later, against Napoleon and then Hitler, that strip of water for many years protected the rest of the free world. It meant that, while Britain was unconquered and ruled the seas, we Bajans of African ancestry would not be re-enslaved or, as we were not Aryan, end up in camps like Auschwitz and end our lives choking on poison gas.
Anyway, I am rambling and thinking out loud. But you are right, the C of E was not enfranchised until the reign of Elizabeth I.
I do think that what it all shows, however, is the inability of the State to render unto God…. AND the total inability of any organized religeon to even attempt to render unto Caesar – after all, organized religeon wants it all and as we have seen in this thread and others, will adopt every crack-pot, archaic “competative edge” that it can, while eschewing and denying anything in its Bible (including murder, rape and torture, not to mention slavery) that might not reflect too well on it.
My view is that I need no intermediary to speak to my God, I can do that directly. And I strongly believe that it is time to cut out the self-appointed middle man viz. organized religeon.
@ anonymous 2 can you tell British historians that you would like to rewrite their history according to Anglican church web site (LOL )you are just a distraction
Amused
Your post is extremely interesting and presents a lot of reasoned and reasonable information for further thought!
The divorce is in the history and church history texts, but your account of the fact of the papal control of Europe is not an unreasonable consideration. Thanks for your thoughts.
Lets talk a little about Church History
The Reformation began on Oct. 31, 1517, when the German monk Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany.
Luther was born on Nov. 10, 1483, and died on Feb. 18, 1546. Luther was one of the greatest men that ever lived. He led the world in its break for freedom at the end of the Dark Ages. When summoned to appear before the Emperor at the Diet of Worms to answer for his writings; Luther gave his timeless reply:
I cannot submit my faith either to the Pope or to the Councils, because it is clear as day they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore, I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture . . . I can and will not retract . . . Here I stand, I can do no other. So help me God, Amen!!
The 4 Pillars of the Reformation were:
Christ Alone!
The Bible Alone!
Faith Alone!
Grace Alone!
All of these planks are indeed Scriptural.
Unfortunately, the theological debate between the different positions in the Church that triggered and followed the Reformation did not continue once the formal breaks were made.
Each body sought to build up and solidify its kingdom and the links between the members of the Body became weak or non-existent.
The body’s became COMPETITIVE rather than COMPLEMENTARY .This has occured both WITHIN denominations and across denominatins as well!
It is not only interesting but instructive to note where the major Christian bodies have the most difficulty within their own ranks. If Christian families disagree, not with each other but within themselves, where is this most noticeable?
Calvinists normally fight about theology, rather than liturgy, and when there is a disagreement over the faith a new church is formed.
Lutherans disagree about matters of piety and the way we ought to express our faith in the world, and so foster many different schools of pietism.
Romanists tend to focus on the magisterium of the church as preserving catholic faith and order, and so struggles often centre on the powers of the papacy and appointments.
And Anglicans argue most over worship and our proper response to the catholic faith in the way we approach God.
And then came the Evangelicals!
These are natural areas of tension within each of our traditions and we should not expect it to be otherwise.
Each tradition ought to have had a great contribution to make towards the life of the Church and also undergoes the greatest suffering for its particular gifts, so that it might be offered to Christ in His Church universal.
So where does that leave us now? We have the remnants of these confessing bodies, the old theological schools, still with us today in the various churches.
The Church of England, like the Romanists retained the catholic order of the Church, but like the Lutherans, came up with a series of Articles of Religion.
In 1571 the number was finalized at Thirty-Nine.
The Church of England or Anglican Church therefore did not change its doctrinal position. The Anglican Church began as an act of rebellion by a selfish king—there was no reformation based on a doctrinal position or a Biblio- centric or Christo-centric experience.
The Anglican church is therefore still a good example of dead orthodoxy; there is a form of godliness which denies the power thereof. Their theology is Prayer Book based rather than Bible based. Few Anglicans know the Bible except for some psalms, those passages appointed to be read in the liturgal calendar as the epistle and gospel for a particular Sunday and any theology expressed in many of the doctrinally sound hymns in Hymns Ancient & Modern which is incorporated in the Book of Common Prayer.
Because her theology and worship were contained within a book of common prayer, the Church of England guaranteed that the debates of the Reformation would stay alive, so long as the worship of the English Church was retained.
The METHODISTS led by Wesley evolved from out of the Anglican Church.
The Brethren Church has also emerged out of the Anglican Church led by John Nelson Darby.
Baptists will tell you that they are NOT protestants, since they did not protest anything. Books like The Traol of Blood and The Faithful Baptist Witness, will trace Baptist hisory from the NT church to their undergound and precarious existence until they came to be called “Anabnaptists” because they stressed baptism by immersion- which is the only way taught for baptism in the NT!
Baptists will trace their history through groups like the Lollards, Waldensians, Petrobuchians etc etc
THe SDA’s & JW’s are out shoots from the Baptists.
One of the interesting things in common with the cultic denominations is that they all claim that thier leaders writings are on par with or might even be replced with the Bible.
They also tend to have in common thier founders having had somestrange vision from God to do ……..whatever.
In each of the major schools of reformation thought we can see the same movement, structure and object.
They all began with God as He is in Himself, move to our need and His revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ, then to Christ’s Body the Church and her authority to rule the household of faith, and finally to particular points of interest which arise from their understanding of the primary matters of the faith.
All of the churches (the schools of reformation thought) agreed with each other in holding the classical and western Christian understandings of God, Christ, the Trinity, in redemption, the Bible as the revealed Word of God, and the Church as the Body of Christ and channel of grace.
Where they differed was in their interpretation of the means of grace, how the Sacraments work, the authority of the Church and the way that authority may be discerned and exercised.
In other words, they basically had all of the essential Christian teachings in common and disagreed only on how these teachings are to be applied in the life of the Church.
Many departed from thier original stance. This has caused confusion within and without the church and within the denominations also
The Reformation was not just an unfortunate mistake.
“The Reformed” Church not need to throw out thier confessional documents but rather return to them, so that everyone can better understand each other, and selves, and the correct relation to the whole Church of God.
The church is thus now in a precarious situation. Attempting only superficial kinds of reform (as in uniting our ecclesiastical hierarchies; and as occured in the reformation) we shall fail and be seen by all to fail miserably.
Now is the time for the church to cling fiercely to Christ and to teach people to do the same, to confess our faults and accept our callings, whatever they might be.
With the current break up of the institutional churches we have the opportunity to pick up the debate where it was left off, (hopefully having learnt something in the intervening 450 years!) and, freed from the husks of the old denominationalism, seek our spiritual union together in Christ.
We may just find, if we once again take seriously those old, tried and trusty, confessional documents, that they will breathe new life and vigour into our tired churches and the fresh spirit of the faith once delivered to the saints will equip us for the call to present the gospel afresh to our day and age.
Such a departure from many of the older denominations is being witnessed in Bim and other countries with the advent of “community churches” etc which often emerge from good “cell groups.”
We could learn a valuable lesson from God’s chosen people about Reformation .
Remember how God told the Israelites to conquer their new land, killing all the Canaanites? Remember after a while how they gave up the conquest? Remember how the Israelites fell short of fulfilling God’s command to rid the country of the heathen people? Remember how they were sure that they could withstand the influences of their enemies?
But the Bible records:
“After that generation . . . another generation grew up who knew neither the Lord nor what he had done for Israel.” They had succumbed. False gods were worshiped. The Book of the Law was hidden in the temple.
Then, generations later, King Josiah stumbled upon this Book of the Law, read it, and could not believe that their worship, what they thought was the worship of the true God passed on by their fathers, was so far from what God commanded in his Law. (Read 2 Kings 22, 23 or 2 Chronicles 34, 35).
Taking a lesson from King Josiah and the people of Judah, hadn’t we better find the hidden Book of the Law for our lives? Where is your Bible? Is it still in the same box in which you received it for your confirmation?
King Josiah led his people through a reformation. False gods were destroyed, altars were burned, all the detestable things were done away with so that the people could once again worship the true God.
In October 1517, , the church was in a detestable state. God saw fit to lead a 16th-century Josiah to reform the church, getting rid of the false gods and false altars. Luther was that Josiah of his day. Today we need to continue that reformation in our church and our lives.
Think for one moment how false gods and false altars have come to be almost everyday parts of our lives and let’s remember the past with its many glorious reformers, and let’s continue our reformation.
Turn to the clear, crisp words of our God. They refresh, they renew, they reform!
I. Background to the Reformation
The Reformation, like the Renaissance, was born in the fold of little states. Indeed, without them, it could not have survived, nor could it have survived without the rivalry of Spain and France.
Like the humanists, the Reformers were opposed to the cloister and were thoroughly committed to life in the world. The culture roughly described as humanist, and the Reformation, arose as papal vitality ebbed.
Both movements were movements of emancipation, drawing their inspiration and their legitimacy from an earlier period. In their recasting of values, and their attempt to shape new views of man, the humanists and Reformers were akin, but their visions of life and of human capacity and their sources of authority were quite different.
The Reformers were guided by early Christian authority rather than pagan classics. They were less Greek and Roman than Hebrew. While the humanists satirized the abuses of the Church, the Reformers denounced them; the one group tolerated the papacy and concentrated its scorn on superstitions and on the medieval religious orders; the other was alienated by the practice and pretension of the Renaissance papacy.
It was not simply that Renaissance popes had been derelict in their duty to cure souls, or that they were politically minded and materialistic, and often guilty of gross nepotism and flagrant immorality.
What mattered was the abuse of the spiritual office of the Pope. And the abuse rested on claims that became the focus of the intellectual and theological grievances of the Reformers. By and large the humanists had assumed that they knew the way to salvation and devoted themselves to enriching the possibilities of life, while the Reformers were seeking new avenues of assurance.
Behind this quest lay a deep soul-sickness or, perhaps, sensitivity that had continued in Northern Europe alongside the Renaissance. It existed in the country rather than in the gay and elegant court and it shook the middle and lower orders more than the aristocracy.
A sense of doom had lingered long after the Plague. Even during the Plague the reaction in the North had been more hysterical and ghoulish than in the South. Dancing frenzies and flagellations were less frequent in Italy. And one is tempted to attribute this to climate.
Throughout the 15th century the North was preoccupied with death, judgment, and hell fire, and an abiding pessimism about man.s fate runs through its prose and poetry.
A peculiarly macabre dance fashion cropped up, performed by men with skeletons. The dance was intended to remind watchers of their mortality and their equality before the relentless swathe of time’ Woodcuts popularized the steps and stages of it.
Also, a spate of the early printed pamphlets dealt with the art of dying. In art, morbid undertones took on a bizarre realism. Van Eyck’s The Last Judgment portrayed the subterranean horror to which the evil were to be committed.
Bosch’s strange sermons in paint are inhabited by wild, nightmarish creatures. Even Durer, the realist, flanks his righteous Christian knight on his way to a “city on a hill” with a figure of death holding an hourglass, and a monstrous devil–half wolf, half pig.
Similarly, Schöngauer’s St. Anthony Tormented by Demons crawls with hobgoblins and foul friends. Luther believed deeply in the reality and power of Satan and his demons.
As somber as the Northern climate may be, it was also the proximity to death and the frequency of it that kept morbid pessimism alive.
In France and Burgundy, for instance, the desolation of the Hundred Years War was followed by decimation between rival factions, not to mention recurrences of the Plague. So, from the time of the Plague, through wars, famines, and civil wars, there had been no respite from the threat of death and no guarantee against the onset of disaster.
A high level of death-consciousness was fertile soil for the Reformation, and offers insight into Luther’s unusually persistent concern about salvation. For it was the terror of death that sent him into an Augustinian monastery.
Born the son of a miner and foundry owner, at Eisleben in Saxony (1483). He did so well in school that his father urged him to become a jurist. He studied arts at the University of Erfurt for four years until, in 1505, a flash of lightning struck him to the ground in a thunderstorm.
Without consulting his father he abandoned his intention to go on to law for the robe and cowl. A psychologist, interested in history, has called this Luther’s ”identity crisis.” Then he began to seek a new ”life style.” These phrases are ways of describing the mystery of conversion.
In the monastery the earlier terror of death became a fearfulness and trembling before God. And his inner torment was not eased by the fact that his father disapproved of his course’ Had he done wrong? He felt inadequate to meet the demands of the Mosaic code, let alone Christ’s new commandment. The law condemned him. He was a worm in the dust; how could he stand before the Omnipotent Judge? He underwent vigorous austerities to make himself holier, and could not find assurance. An errand to Rome shook him further. He did not notice the glories of the Renaissance or the reminders of antiquity: instead, he saw the worldliness and levity of the clergy, both high and low. He climbed the Scala Sancta, 28 stairs, with a Pater Noster and a kiss on each in order to release a soul from purgatory, and at the top he found his faith in the indulgence clouded by doubt.
His doubt redoubled on his return. Confession of particular sins seemed inadequate for man’s plight. The whole man needed release from total inner corruption. Piece by piece and doubt by doubt, Luther came to view the all-pervasiveness of sin and the only solution that could satisfy his wounded conscience. Since man was too deeply sunk in sin to do anything for his own salvation, he had to be saved, or justified, by faith alone!
At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Catholic church, modeled upon the bureaucratic structure of the Holy Roman Empire, had become extremely powerful, but internally corrupt.
From early in the twelfth century onward there are calls for reform. Between 1215 and 1545 nine church-councils are held with church reforms as their primary intent. The councils all fail to reach significant accord.
The clergy is unable to live according to church doctrine, and the abuse of church ceremonies and practices continues.
In the first half of the sixteenth century western Europe experiences a wide range of social, artistic, and geo-political changes as the result of a conflict within the Catholic church.
This conflict is called the Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic response to it is called the Counter-Reformation.
The Reformation movement begins in 1517 when a German Augustinian friar named Martin Luther posts a list of grievances, called the Ninety-Five Theses, against the Roman Catholic Church.
As the spirit of reform spreads other leaders appear: Ulrich Zwingli in Switzerland, French-born John Calvin who settles in Geneva, and John Knox who carries Calvin’s teachings to Scotland.
In the Roman church a series of powerful popes including Leo X and Paul III will respond to reform demands in various ways.
Mendicant orders such as the Jesuits are formed to reinforce Catholic doctrine, and the Church will continue to be supported by the major European monarchies.
Ultimately, the Reformation creates a north-south split in Europe. In general the northern countries become Protestant while the south remains Catholic.
The Reformation and Art
Protestant reformers reject the use of visual arts in the church. A wave of iconoclasm sweeps through the north. Stained glass windows are broken, images of the saints are destroyed, and pipe organs are removed from churches.
The Catholic churches respond to this iconoclasm with an exuberant style of art and architecture called the baroque. The baroque is in ideological opposition to Protestant severity. Not until the Neoclassical style of the eighteenth century will there be an effective attempt to re solve this dichotomy.
The theatrical designs of Saint Peter”s and the Gesù in Rome are a triumphant symbol of the Roman Catholic church’s belief in itself and its history. The plain churches of the north are reminders of Protestant beliefs.
Martin Luther (1483-1546) while studying law at the University of Erfurt in Germany experiences a spiritual conversion.
He joins a monastic order, the Augustinians, and is eventually assigned as a lecturer at the University of Wittenberg.
While working as a parish priest, Luther becomes disgusted by the Catholic Church’s practice of selling indulgences. The purchase of an indulgence assures the buyer a remission of sins and thus a shorter period in purgatory. The selling of indulgences is a papal privilege which has been worked to the breaking point.
In 1517 a jubilee indulgence is being preached near Wittenberg to generate funds for the building of Saint Peter”s in Rome. Luther uses this opportunity to draw up a list of church activities for which he demands resolution and change.
This list, the Ninety-Five Theses is centered around a call to eliminate the sale of indulgences. The Church demands that he retract a number of his protests. Luther refuses.
Luther is summoned to an imperial Diet in Augsburg in 1518. Retribution for his crime should have fallen rapidly, but the election of a new emperor, Charles V (1500-1558), slows the justice system. Luther uses his time to plan a complete reform program for the church. His reforms include:
•1. national, rather than Roman, control of church finances,
•2. permission for the clergy to marry,
•3. a series of sacramental reforms which reduce the sacraments to Baptism, a reformed Mass, and the Holy Eucharist.
Due to the invention of the printing press, Luther”s reforms are quickly spread through Europe bringing much support. However, Luther is condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo X in the Edict of Worms. He is is forced to escape and live for a year in h iding, but his reforms have taken root. The split in the Roman Church is now irreconcilable.
@ annymous 2
Some good history
The English Reformation
1531-1559
•1531: Henry VIII is recognized as Supreme Head of the Church in England.
•1533: Henry VIII marries Anne Boleyn.
•1534: The Act of Supremacy: The King is declared head of the Church in England.
•1535: Thomas More is executed for refusing to take the oath of the King’s Supremacy.
•1536: Henry VIII dissolves 376 monasteries and nuneries.
•1539: The Six Articles.
•1547: Edward VI (r. 1546-1553) becomes King of England.
•1549: Thomas Cranmer issues the Book of Common Prayer.
•1553: Mary I (r. 1553-1558) becomes Queen of England.
•1554: The Catholic Church is restored in England.
•1556: Thomas Cranmer is burned at the stake.
•1558: Elizabeth I (r. 1558-1603) becomes Queen of England.
•1559: Elizabethan “Book of Common Prayer” issued.
Why is the christian religion so complex?
Different interpretations (divisions ) of the divine word as described by different interpretors.
If one was to divide say a Harry Potter novel, would the scholarship necessary to disseminate Rowling’s work make the meaning not as written, but as opaque as the dividers
assume through their due diligence,
and extensive study, assume it to be.
Division, it seems to me, is an arbitrary effort to make the facts fit the reality, or faith in that reality.
Scholarly research into the Greek roots of the original text illuminate the contradictions and therefore validity of the King James “version” of God’s word.
“God said this , but he really meant that” type of convenient truths to live your life by.
Treating the bible as a puzzle to be solved before we quit this mortal coil
is not living, it is a time consuming, life squandering, obsession.
@Anonymous [2]……Have you ever heard this brilliant piece ‘Touch not God’s Anointed nor do his……..no harm?’ Hahahah! Ooohh lalala!
You see how the head of the BU Trinity with whom I usually disagree, used his historical ‘WISDOM’ in my defence because he knows very well that it was that same cow wallops that nurtured him. You think he got ‘G’ in GP for fun?
Why look to the Anglican to find out their dirty little secrets? If you were a thief would you let people know?
Thanks GP!
Hopi
Even though we always disagree, when you are correct you must be defended. LOL
But I didnt defend you because you were a prophet though…..Ooohh lalala!
LOL
@ Straight talk
Re Why is the christian religion so complex?
BECAUSE THE DEVIL AND MEN MADE IT SO
Christianity is really quite simple! In a nut shell HAVE FAITH IN CHRIST & BE FAITHFUL TO CHRIST’S CALL ON YOUR LIFE
Re Different interpretations (divisions ) of the divine word as described by different interpretors.
There are only TWO DIVISIONS of the WORD really. RIGHT DIVISION & WRONG DIVISION.
Re Division, it seems to me, is an arbitrary effort to make the facts fit the reality, or faith in that reality.
The key words in your sentence are “it seems to me, “
2 Timothy 2:15 states very clearly STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be afraid RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH.
In John 5:39, Jesus said Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Jesus said SEARCH the scriptures……because they testify of him!
RE Scholarly research into the Greek roots of the original text illuminate the contradictions and therefore validity of the King James “version” of God’s word.
FALSEHOOD BASED IN IGNORANCE
the King James “version” of God’s word. Is the RESULT OF A TRANSLATION.
The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in koine GREEK, which was the language spoken by the then world . The English language was not then even invented!. Where as the Greek language.like Latin are very EXACT languages, English is not!
E.g What does the English word “dear” mean? Or “honey? Or “tire” or “lead” and we can go on. With out context you are lost.
Theologians therefore study language, historical backgrounds, manners and customs etc to facilitate the correct interpretation or better interpretation.
What does Jesus needs go through Samaria mean in I John 4 for example? Studying the historical background allows you to understand that needs means that he had a specific purpose in going there , i.e to meet the Samaritan women at the well. There were actually other ways to get to his destination, so he did not NEED to go through Samaria. In fact Jews because of their hatred for the Samaritans went a much longer route!
Similarly in the Hebrew. E.g read Genesis 4:7 “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door
Did you know that the SAME Hebrew word translated SIN is also used to mean SIN OFFERING? Read the text with sin offering instead of sin, and see if it does not make more sense.
Re “God said this , but he really meant that” type of convenient truths to live your life by.
This statement is bred in deep ignorance also. God said exactly what he wanted to say in the original languages, and it is a joy to discover and understand this. Such an understanding is facilitated by the use of certain books like String’s concordance which not only lists the words used but issues a number besides the verses so that you can know when a different Hebrew or Greek word is used in the original text, but translated by the same English word.
Idiots on this forum have condemned the use of such a book in their pride and ignorance because they think they understand the Word better than anyone else by just reading it. FOOLISHNESS!
Men have devoted their entire lives to studying Shakespeare. Some have devoted theirs to studying the Word, and the origin and etymology of words used in the Bible to help others understand the word better.
Re Treating the bible as a puzzle to be solved before we quit this mortal coil
is not living, it is a time consuming, life squandering, obsession.
Some men like walking behind a white ball; some men run behind a red one. Some drink til they get drunk, some womenize. Some read fiction; some love porn . Are these not time consuming, life squandering, obsession also
Some men spit in the air and the spittle falls back in their faces as they pretend to have sense.
@ GP
Re Why is the christian religion so complex?
BECAUSE THE DEVIL AND MEN MADE IT SO
Christianity is really quite simple!
*************************************
May I humbly differ sir?
It is likely complex and confusing because God made it so…. at least, that is according to what I saw in my bible when I used to read it…
“Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk. and drawn from the breast?
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line; line upon line; here a little; there a little.
For with stammering lips and a strange tongue will he speak to this people….”
Also;
As I have previously explained to you at great length, Jesus operated in exact like manner by speaking to ALL except his disciples in parables which were DESIGNED to ensure that those folks DID NOT UNDERSTAND what he was talking about……
…well at least that is what Jesus said when asked by the disciples in private why he spoke in parables…
I know it dosn’t fit well into your theological reality GP, but that is what is written.
On the issue of how deep the Jesuit influence runs – GREG SZYMANSKI WAS ASKED THE QUESTION:
“Is it true that many of the world’s leaders from dictators to presidents have been trained by Jesuits and if so could you tell us some of the people in positions of power that have been trained by Jesuits?
Yes. The list is huge. Here are a few.
Marx was tutored by Jesuits in the British Museum for nearly thirty years; Lenin and Mussolini were both trained by Jesuits when in Geneva—the Order’s international banking haven for which reason Switzerland never goes to war; Stalin was trained by Jesuits while in the Tiflis Orthodox Seminary in Georgia – openly admitted by “Koba” himself to journalist and Masonic Jew Emil Ludwig (Cohen).
Fidel Castro was trained by Jesuits for seven years in Cuba, was put in power by the CIA, and advised by a Jesuit, Fr. Armando Llorente, during the revolution.
Masonic Douglas MacArthur was trained by Jesuits according to an Army Colonel who personally knew him.
Masonic Lyndon Johnson was trained by Jesuits at Georgetown University for a time, as was “the graduate” President Bill Clinton.
Don Shula of the Miami Dolphins was Jesuit-trained along with Denzel Washington, that traitor to his own Black people.
The star of Mash was Jesuit-trained while Martin Sheen (who changed his name after the name of Cold Warrior Bishop Fulton Sheen) has taken Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises and recently dedicated a new library at the Order’s Marquette University.
John C. Gannon, the real father of the Order’s Department of Homeland Security (our American Gestapo) was a member of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps and is affiliated with Georgetown University while an ex-CIA officer and CFR member.
Pat Buchanan, a Knight of Malta (SMOM), is affiliated with Jesuit John McLaughlin of the McLaughlin Group, and was Jesuit-trained at Georgetown, as was SMOM and former CIA Director, Geoge J. Tenet – the man in charge of bringing down the WTC and attack on the Pentagon via a Cruise missile. This is one of the connections, along with SMOM Rudolf Giuliani, that enables us to connect the Archbishop of New York, Edward Cardinal Egan, to 911 and thus Bush’s “War on Terror.”
Chris Matthews of Hardball was Jesuit-trained at College of the Holy Cross, he serving for many years as the assistant for another Jesuit-trained Coadjutor and Kennedy assassin, Speaker of the House and Jesuit Boston College trustee, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill.
The head of the Pope’s Federal Reserve Bank of New York—where all of the nation’s gold is in storage thanks to FDR’s gift of our Ft. Knox gold to the Fed according to “the man who opened Ft. Knox,” the late Roman Catholic Washington attorney Dr. Peter Beter – is CFR President Peter G. Peterson, holding an honorary doctorate from Georgetown University.
Even JFK attended Georgetown for a while as well as the Order’s Fabian Socialist London School of Economics. (The Order prepared him for the presidency, obtained his “election,” and then killed him for being a disobedient “tyrant and a usurper.”)
Indeed, the Jesuits train or influence those who will rule on their behalf.
The State Department is full of those having graduated from the Order’s School of Foreign Service started by Jesuit Edmund A. Walsh – the master of both military tribunals after WWII and backer of Jesuit-trained inquisitor Joseph McCarthy. Again Wylie writes on p. 388:
“Wherever the Jesuits have planted missions, opened seminaries, and established colleges, they have been careful to inculcate these principles in the minds of the youth; thus sowing the seeds of future tumults, revolutions [the Black Civil Rights movement], regicides [the murder of JFK], and wars [the Vietnam War].”
Read the whole excerpt:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/13-Jan-2008.html
It is remarkable for any intellectually honest person to disavow knowledge of Keynes’ Jesuit affiliation, training and association – same thing for Isaac Newton (already documented in 17th century research materials)…
Equally, John Maynard Keynes associations within the FABIAN SOCIETY* ran deep – re:
http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-crimes-of-the-fabian-socialist-nwo/#more-4164
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnUUMs9WIC0
When Newton’s work was discovered 300 years after his death it was probably the greatest find in modern academic history. For in the million or so words penned by “hand” (by quill) – Newton discoveries outside of PHYSICS, ALCHEMY, LAWS OF GRAVITY & MATHEMATICS was dwarfed by his real passion in life – THE UNFOLDING OF THE REVELATIONS OF DANIEL & THE REVELATION…
The religious collections of Newton’s work not seen by the world which sat in the home of the DUKE OF Portsmouth for well over 200 years which was bought by the late Jesuit trained Jewish scholar, collector and Cabbalist Abraham Yehuda, an Iraqi professor of Semetic Languages where upon his death left the documents to the State of Israel’s Jewish National Library preserved in Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Newton’s more secretive Biblical discoveries which are still kept under lock and key in Jerusalem (the world only seeing what needs to be seen) was haggled over by the Kabbalah since the mid 90′s, knowing the importance of prophecy to the existence of Israel as a nation in the Diaspora awaiting their ultimate amalgamation as a nation based on the prophecies of Jeremiah.
For many, DENIAL is still the best form of defense….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0meVCKe3q4
BT
@ GP
Re Why is the christian religion so complex?
BECAUSE THE DEVIL AND MEN MADE IT SO
Christianity is really quite simple!
*************************************
May I humbly differ sir?
YOU MAY SIR.
Do not think that I dont understand what you are saying, and that I deny that there is much merit in your arguement. But you obviously understand MUCH. So it can be understood and simplified.
You admit to having read the Bible, which partly accounts for your understanding, since you cant begin to undrrstand that which you have not read.
To those who have read more, they might understand more, and thus with the aid of their indwelling Resident Tutor understand more.
Now few church goers of ALL denominations scarcely read their Bibles. So how can they put precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line; line upon line; here a little; there a little?
Now the verse you quote from Isaiah mirrors the two major NT truths that I quoted about STUDYING & SEARCHING.
You study and search and master a line or precept, piece by piece and if you continue in that vein for lonfg enough it starts to fit together like a jig saw puzzle. If you have hood teachers, books and study guides, you facilitate and speed up the process.
I hope that this helps to clarify my position on the simplicity.
Let me give you a little puzzle. The concept about the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life comes towards the end of the Bible in 1 John 2:16; but we get the account of our forpartents disobeying these precepts in Genesis 3; and the Lord Jesus whom Joghn says did no sin passing the same tests when put to him by the same devil in Mathew 4 and Luke 4.
Such a connection is not readily made; unless you have read the passages and understood each of them, then, and only then can you put precept upon precpt upon precept and line upon line.
THIS BECOMS EASIER AND EASIER THE MORE YOU STUDY AND SEARCH. What do you think?
I stand on my view that the devil makes the process harder by propmoting men who terach false doctrine and muddy up the waters- making it even harder especially for those who neither SEARCH or STUDY.
BT trust me. I know of what I speak.
i obviously need a new key board lol
@ GP
Yours is tenuous and far-fetched explanation I would suggest. The idea of studying long and hard with good teachers goes directly AGAINST your much touted phylosophy of salvation by grace and not by works.
It places unfair and unreasonable bias against dummies like Bush Tea who did not make it to HC (thank God) and generally does not fit into any logcal basis of intelligent design.
For example, I am pretty sure that MME would not design a system like that.
Interestingly, I note that you steered clear of Jesus’s position with respect to parables. I really LOVE Jesus – the man was just tight then. You check how plainly he answered the question of why he spoke in parables?
“Because it is given to YOU to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it IS NOT GIVEN”
….can anyone be clearer than that?!!
Man what devil what GP?!?
Gentlemen:
Been busy with a web page update, related to what I am seeing here in this thread [also see this].
1: On Bible matters,
I simply strongly recommend that you download the eSWORD resource, freely available here, and with a wealth of onward resources, e.g. try D Cox. (Or if you want an easier all at once go for the Word English package here.)
The wealth of resources accessible though such free materials will enable a deep and comprehensive study, with all the original language inputs a layman would want.
2: The Jesuits . ..
TB, I see the cluster of claims and links.
Comes across as a little overdone [and not with first rank sources], e.g. when he came to the UK Marx was already a PhD philosopher and established journalist. He had already written on Fuerbach, in which e.g. here, one can find the germs of all his main ideas.
Similarly, since Jesuits have long been established in education at secondary and tertiary levels, it is not hard to find a long list of prominent statesmen etc who have been trained by Jesuits.
And, the days in which the Jesuits served as spies, assassins etc for the Vatican state are long past.
__________
As I have pointed out, secularist humanist internationalism developing from progressivist Victorian era imperialism is a far more clear case of dominant — ands in significant parts dangerous — influences in our day.
G’day
D
Bush Tea
Dealing with you can sometimes be very tedious and like pulling teeth.
My explanation is neither far fetched or tenuous.
Salvation by grace and not by works HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND SIR..
The Apostle Paul certainly studied long and hard with good teachers and he is the major teacher of salvation by grace and not by works in the NT. He himself admits to studying hard and long under Gamaliel. Remember?
Furthermore, I can present to you several pastors in Barbados who neither attended HC or Cawmere, and who teach the Word very well. I was blessed sitting under the ministry of two such men who helped to disciple me. NEITHER OF THEM EVEN WENT TO SECONDARY SCHOOL AT ALL!
In my travels in the islands and elsewhere, I have met several men, who though not attending the prestigious schools in their islands or even SECONDARY SCHOOL AT ALL, teach the Word and present the Gospel extremely well! In fact men like Dictionary and I are a rarer breed, especially as the islands get smaller, and the populations smaller.
In fact it has probably always been so. NO wonder in 1 Corinthians 1 26 Paul writes not MANY mighty, not MANY noble are called. The early church was not filled with men like Paul and Dr Luke, but ordinary fisher men also taught the word—although it is true that unlike contemporary jokers they would have been well versed in the OT, as part of their culture. This is evident as when their eyes and hearts were opened, they quoted the OT scriptures appropriately.
There was no need to talk about Jesus and his parables- which seem to be all you know. I love Jesus too. He is the main character of the ENTIRE BIBLE. He is there first as creator and then in type and Christophany, before appearing as the Word made flesh.
I also like his teachings, and I also under stand that he often but NOT always spoke in parables. And yes Jesus did say “Because it is given to YOU to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it IS NOT GIVEN”
The Word also says in Hebrews 11: 6b for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
This not only corroborates that phrase which you hang on to as if it is all the truth on the subject. The SAME Jesus in John 5:39 said SEARCH the scriptures, and the HC type Paul said STUDY. ….can anything be clearer than that?!! That is what is called RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH. That is the meaning of the text in 2 Peter 1:20 that is very germane to this argument Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Which basically means that YOU MUST USE SCRIPTURE TO INTEPRET SCRIPTURE. You must understand what scripture x says to facilitate your understanding of passage b. You cant build a teaching on one verse that you like to hang on to.
This is why there are cults and divisions in the church; and the DEVIL is behind it all- whether you like it or not! The devil is the author of confusion and false teaching especially for those who refuse to SEARCH and STUDY the scriptures for them selves whether with or without teachers or texts or approved tomes!
The SCRIPTURE ITSELF TEACHES THIS AND WE ARE WARNED BY
1- JESUS
2- PAUL in Acts 20:28-30 for example
3= PETER
4-JUDE
5- JOHN
That false teachers would arise.
With all due respect BT you need to do some more SEARCHING & STUDYING before you contradict me ALL THE TIME about things about which I have a sound grasp, and stop holding on to a few passages that you understand or think you understand. The purpose of SEARCHING & STUDYING is to better understand the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD!
The devil is very important in this matter because
1- THE SAME JESUS TAUGHT IN THE PARABLES that the wicked one comes to snatch away the SEED (of the Word) when it is sown
2- He keeps folk away from SEARCHING & STUDYING so that they may better understand the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD!
3- He promotes those who WRONGLY DIVIDE THE WORD for their own personal gain as taught by Peter in I Peter 5 and 2 Peter 2
4- He robs local churches of tithes and offerings that might better be deployed, that is sent to EVIL MEN on radio and tv who are daily BEGGING FOR MONEY and begging folk to sow seed into their ministries i.e their personal pockets.
The devil and men are thus involved in making the teaching of the Word MORE DIFFICULT! For those of us who have sought to know, and better understand the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD, SEARCHING & STUDYING has helped a lot.!
I rest my case………….for now!
You see BT I am not a fanatic. Just slow sound steadfast and thus sure. LOL ROTFLMAO!
ME contradict you GP?!! the very thought!!!
Bush Tea has nothing but respect for your knowledge and learning. It is only with your understanding that I have some small issues…
…seems to me that the guilty contradictor is JC.
You are obviously one of those people who start a discussion from the premise that you are absolutely correct, and that the only challenge is to drag the ignorant masses into proper understanding. (a common trait of ‘bright’ folks.
…in short, you are sadly misguided.
You say Paul studied long an hard? ..and he probably did (who cares?) Was this before or after he was struck by the blinding light and CHOSEN to do the mission assigned him..?
Re
You say Paul studied long an hard? ..and he probably did (who cares?) Was this before or after he was struck by the blinding light and CHOSEN to do the mission assigned him..?
We must care that Paul studied hard.
God chose Paul to write most of the NT along with Luke…………and ………..the Holy Spirit instructed himto teach us to STUDY!
Clearly Paul had studied BEFORE he saw the light, and he continued no doubt to study thereafter. He no doubt obeyed Jesus’ command in John 8:31 TO CONTINUE IN HIS WORD.
Thats why he wrote in Colossians 1:23 If ye CONTINUE in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
re seems to me that the guilty contradictor is JC.
NO Jesus does not contradict anything.
How could he? He knew the beginning from the end. He knew what was already said AND WHAT WOULD BE SAID.
IT is YOU that can NOT get past one litle concept that you understand, and tenaciously hold on to.
Open your mind man. STUDY SEARCH and LEARN.
Re You are obviously one of those people who start a discussion from the premise that you are absolutely correct, and that the only challenge is to drag the ignorant masses into proper understanding. (a common trait of ‘bright’ folks.
Well first I opine ONLY ABOUT THOSE WHICH I KNOW WELL.
I NEVER TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT I DONT KNOW or think that I know.
I OPINE ON THINGS THAT I KNOW THAT I KNOW.
And one of the things that I KNOW well is that it is VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to drag the ignorant masses into a proper understanding of anything……..because it is very clear to me that the ignorant masses are content to remain in thier ignorance.
I opine on BU in the hope that many in cyberspace who want to learn might indeed learn something.
I KNOW too BT that certainly cant teach you anything …. because you apparently THINK you know it all.
Meanwhile, I will continue searching and studying, because there are places that I teach, and persons that I teach who want to know more than they already know.
Do have a nice holiday season Sir
Oh by the way BT……. “THE FAITH” in the Collosians reference is “pistis” in the greek, and it refers to THAT BODY OF INFORMATION GIVEN TO US TO STUDY, SEARCH, AND HENCE BELIEVE.
We are reminded in Romans 10:17 that faith cometh by hearing the word of God
@ GP
I OPINE ON THINGS THAT I KNOW THAT I KNOW.
***********************************
I rest my case!
It is not your fault though – that HC attitude….
It looks like I will have to fall back to my last resort for you- Plan C.
I gwine have to pray for you. I apologize in advance. You need to know that I ALWAYS get what I pray for….
My prayer will be that you not continue to be so blind that you would not see…
Cud Dear Man!
1-Paul used to study a lot – and terrorize christians.
2- He got struck down by a blinding light – and saw the light of the holy spirit
3- He continued to study (you guess) – and becomes a leading minister of the Gospel
…. and you conclude that the critical factor here is study???!!??
Man GP, what study what! the key is the holy spirit.
BT
1- Does it really matter that much that I attended HC? What HC attitude what!?
2- Don’t pray for me BT. I might just turn out to be an idiot! I am happy in my blindness. OK?
3- Yes Paul had studied the OT and like many of his peers did not understand who Jesus was. They could not understand how the Messiah could be a suffering savior. That is one of the nuances of the OT that escaped the Jews. So in his ignorance he did indeed terrorize Christians as you say.
However, when the glorious light of the gospel shone into his heart and with the Holy Spirit of Truth, who guides into all truth; and who is also the Indwelling Resident Tutor he BETTER UNDERSTODD WHAT HE HAD STUDIED.
How do I know that? Because he quotes from the OT repeatedly in his writings.
Read Romans 9-11 and see how many times he quotes from Deuteronomy. (Also a favorite book of Jesus).
The Holy Spirit does NOT impart knowledge to folk who do not study.
How can you know unless you study? I didn’t learn Medicine by sitting on the beach or somewhere, and having the information enter my brain by osmosis, or by aerosolization or by droplet spread. I actually STUDIED! You might be surprised to learn that.
I didn’t learn BIOCHEMISTRY OR PHARMACOLOGY by sitting on the beach or somewhere, and having the information enter my brain by osmosis, or by aeroloization or by droplet spread. I actually STUDIED! I bet you didn’t know that.
I didn’t learn the BIBLE that way either. I STUDIED, and as I did so the HOLY SPIRIT INTERPRETED and facilitated my understanding; just as he did for the many persons who taught me face to face, or by listening on tv or radio or via the good books that I have read.
Yes the HOLY SPIRIT IS THE KEY, but he only comes into play when you obey the WORD that HE DIRECTED THE WRITING THEREOF.
And in that word he directed John to record the fact that JESUS HIMSELF taught us to SEARCH THE SCRITURE.
The Holy Spirit directed Paul to write in 2 Tim 2 :15 to command believers ( and note the VERB IS IN THE IMPERATIVE IN THE GREEK)
STUDY TO SHOW THYSELF APPROVED UNTO GOD, A WORKMAN THAT NEEDETH NOT TO BE AHAMED RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH.
The same HOLY SPIRIT directed Peter in 1 Peter 2:2 to command us ( and note again the VERB IS IN THE IMPERATIVE IN THE GREEK)
DESIRE (THE SINCERE OR PURE OR UNADULTERATED) MILK OF THE WORD that we may grow thereby.
Don’t pray for me BT.
I have been well taught……..and I DID NOT LEARN BIBLE AT HC!
And I don’t think that you can teach me much or anything about the Bible, that I have not or will not learn from much better sources.
I RESPECT MEN WHO STUDY THE SCRITURES AND MEN WHO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A NEED TO STUDY THE SCRIPTURES AND SEARCH IT AND DESIRE IT etc
I HAVE NEVER EVER MET ANYONE ANYWHERE WHO CAN TEACH OR EXPLAIN SCRIPTURES WELL WHO HAVE NOT STUDIED IT, AND I DON’T EXPECT TO EVER MEET ANY SUCH PERSON.
Any one and everyone that I know who knows anything well that I have met in my life HAS ATTAINED THAT KNOWLEDGE BY STUDY OF SOME SORT.
And I am mortally afraid of miracle workers, as my understanding is that the next real miracle worker will be ANTICHRIST.
So please don’t pray for me BT. I beg you please. OK? Thank you Sir!
I “found” Handel’s Messiah this Christmas.
I am beginning to understand what the composer was trying to express and just can’t get some of it out of my head.
I survived Music Appreciation at Harrison College with Mr. Billington although I grasped the pinciples he attempted to teach us dull laggards and could actually pick out the major musical instruments in an orchestra.
Solos in classical music I used to find boring and never listenend so never heard the message.
In my day at school if you showed even the slightest tendency to appreciate any classical music you were considered weird.
Nowadays it is routine for schools to have orchestras.
Classical music is way beyond me but I listened at a performance of the Messiah, first to the music of the orchestra as it brought back boyhood memories of Music Appreciation …. and then to the words of the soloists and choir.
I was fortunate the program itemised each section and for the first time I grasped that there was a whole made up of many parts.
I understood for the first time that the music and words tell a story and for the first time I begun to understand what they were all about.
The Bible is in some ways like Classical music.
Attitudes toward it are learnt in youth and often die hard.
John
I am happy to hear that you “found” Handel’s Messiah this Christmas, and that you were able to understood for the first time that the music and words tell a story and for the first time I begun to understand what they were all about. PRAISE GOD!
Unlike you, Mr. Billington’s era and the classical musical renaissance at HC started by “Tank” (whose dad who I understand was at one time organist at St Mathias church) was too late for folk like me to benefit therefrom at HC. So my love for classical music and classical music of the Handel’s Messiah genre ( as was my love for and knowledge of the Bible) did not begin at HC either, but at home and in that great Christ Church Parish Church Choir of the 60’s. under Winston Hackett in the rectorship of AI Johnson.
And you are absolute right when you state that “The Bible is in some ways like Classical music. Attitudes toward it are learnt in youth and often die hard.”
I first heard Handel’s Messiah as an eight year old boy in my home, when my father incessantly played a set of records on one of his trips to the UK.I would later sing parts of it as a treble boy in the Christ Church Parish Church Choir. And as I learned the Word in my teens I was able to recognize that the words that are sung are ALL taken directly from the Scriptures! And RELEVANT SCRIPTURES TOO.
Do you know why in ALL performances of this great work that it is tradiotional for the audience to stand during the performance of the most popular and simplest of the choruses in this three part Cantata or Oratorio?
Well it is because during its very first public performance before the then King of England, when the chorus swelled at KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, the mere mortal King recognized his relatively lowly status in comparison to the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, of whom the following is said in Philippians 2;9-11.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father
May the God of Heaven hasten the day of his exaltation!
Bill Clinton’s Jesuit professor at Georgetown University, Carrol Quigley, writes that the purpose of the capitalistic forces has been “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.”
For anyone who has been asleep – “Money is power.”
Today we see this has materialized.
The banks, especially the big banks will be paying out huge bonuses this week (just before XMAS),and these are mainly privately owned, and nations having great economic problems borrow money from these bastard entities because where else can they go.
Several nations, like the USA, Canada, Sweden and others have such large loans that they hardly know how to remedy the situation (all under the aegis of their CENTRAL BANKS)*.
They have become slaves to the money-barons, as well as a tool in the hands of the power elite, who then can influence and control the nations as they want.
Those who have the money are often important members in one or more of the international, secret societies or are simply JESUITS*.
They rule much of the things going on in the world by finance.
A common currency and the central bank are factors the Europeans and the global elite use, in order to bind up the world.
That is in part due to the process which leads to the dialectic that more and more power is transferred from the national government to the international bureaucracy.
So the same manifestation is going on in the parallel universe of modern Christianity where within the religious field there is a centralization going on – bishops and priests have made their own system, a hierarchical system, where new guidelines are elucidated by the religious power elite, through the big church councils like the World Alliance, the Lutheran World Association, the World Council of Churches and others.
They try to unite through “buzz words” like ecumenic, solidarity, charismatic, mutual divine services, prayer meetings, an ecumenical/Catholic Communion, new theological songbooks and a never-ending list of which most well-meaning Christians have never even heard of…
For a long time they have tried to find common profession of faith, that frequently is not a “thus saith the Lord!”.
Points of belief upon which they cannot agree, even if it is a clear Biblical teaching, they just let it be.
In all this ecumenical furor we witness how the walls of Protestantism are breached and broken down, and little by little give way to Catholicism.
This is not the unity that Jesus talks about. True Christian unity is built on all that Jesus stood for and preached both in His life and His teachings.
Ecumenism and Catholicism are something completely different from Biblical unity.
In reality they are obstacles in the way to TRUE Christian unity, teaching and practice.
Jeremiah ask the question in chapter 5 and the last verse – “But what will you do in the end?”
Something we will all have to ask ourselves!!!
In the uk some of those with financial and political power are declaring they allegiance to the roman catholic church,The church of England (Anglican)don’t know where their are going talking about ordaining women, unable to say that homosexuality is wrong i even think Rowan Williams said he is a druid ,he has even claimed that muslims and Christians pray to the same God and yet we know this to be false because 1 Timothy ch 2 v5-7 states other wise i would like to know what your thoughts are on this especially with regards to muslims faith I may be wrong but it seems to me after they Fridays prays it is time for killing in the name of their god ..bro, D ,GP,TB,ZOE
@Terence, My brother, while much of this ‘Jesuit’ meandering through the halls of the ‘elite’ World Order intelligentsia, and their wicked, evil plans to control EVERYTHING, is true, it will NOT have anything to do with, contrary to your ‘denominational’ persuasion of ‘Sabbath’ keeping, vs Sunday Worship, that the SDA believe, will ultimately be enforced via Blue Law imperative, by the same World Order, Antichrist, End TIME One World Government.
So, Terence, let us get to the bottom of what you are really driving at!
Terrence
Is essentially saying much of what Hal Lindsey say he has witnessed on US University campuses starting in the 60′s.
It has certainly borne fruit the seeds that were sown.
ALAS THE FRUIT HAS A BITTER TASTE!
Want to see the seamy side of pretrib dispensationalism? Google or Yahoo or MSN “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty.” Now you know what Christ had in mind when He said that many would come in His name and deceive many! Angel
@ANGEL*
WERE NOT THOSE DAYS SHORTENED….((just up ahead)
If it were “POSSIBLE” the every ELECT* would be deceived…
What about the rest of humanity?
Lord have mercy!!!
Footnote: read Mark Steyn here.
And for dessert allow me to serve up “Pretrib Rapture – Hidden Facts” and “Pretrib Expert John Walvoord Melts Ice” which Google provided for me – and you!
Victoria