International News
See other International News Articles
Title: World War 3 Could Start This Month: 350,000 Soldiers In Saudi Arabia Stand Ready To Invade Syria
Source:
The Economic Collapse
URL Source: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/ ... abia-are-ready-to-invade-syria
Published: Feb 15, 2016
Author: Mike Snyder
Post Date: 2016-02-15 19:41:12 by U don't know me
Keywords: None
Views: 27586
Comments: 172
World War 3 Could Start This Month: 350,000 Soldiers In Saudi Arabia Stand Ready To Invade Syria By Michael Snyder, on February 14th, 2016 War Soldiers - Public Domain350,000 soldiers, 20,000 tanks, 2,450 warplanes and 460 military helicopters are massing in northern Saudi Arabia for a military exercise that is being called “Northern Thunder”. According to the official announcement, forces are being contributed by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Sudan, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, Oman, Qatar, Malaysia and several other nations. This exercise will reportedly last for 18 days, and during that time the airspace over northern Saudi Arabia will be closed to air traffic. This will be the largest military exercise in the history of the region, and it comes amid rumors that Saudi Arabia and Turkey are preparing for a massive ground invasion of Syria. If you were going to gather forces for an invasion, this is precisely how you would do it. Governments never come out and publicly admit that forces are moving into position for an invasion ahead of time, so “military exercises” are a common excuse that gets used for this sort of thing. If these exercises are actually being used as an excuse to mass forces near the northern Saudi border, then we should expect an invasion to begin within the next couple of weeks. If it happens, we should expect to see the Saudi coalition storm through western Iraq and into Syria from the south, and it is likely that Turkey will come in from the north. The goal would be to take out the Assad regime before Russia, Iran and Hezbollah could react. For the past couple of years, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their allies have been funding the Sunni insurgency in Syria, and they were counting on those insurgents to be able to take down the Assad regime by themselves. You see, the truth is that ISIS was never supposed to lose in Syria. Saudi Arabia and her allies have been funneling massive amounts of money to ISIS, and hundreds of millions of dollars of ISIS oil has been shipped into Turkey where it is sold to the rest of the world. The major Sunni nations wanted ISIS and the other Sunni insurgent groups to take down Assad. In the aftermath, Saudi Arabia and her allies intended to transform Syria into a full-blown Sunni nation. But then Russia, Iran and Hezbollah stepped forward to assist the Assad regime. Russian air support completely turned the tide of the war, and now the Sunni insurgents are on the brink of losing. Aleppo was once the largest city in Syria, and Sunni insurgents have controlled it since 2012. But now relentless Russian airstrikes have made it possible for Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah ground forces to surround the city, and it is about to fall back into the hands of the Syrian government. If this happens, the war will essentially be over. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their allies have invested massive amounts of time, money and effort into overthrowing Assad, and they aren’t about to walk away now. If the war was to end right at this moment, a weakened Assad regime would remain in power, and Iran and Hezbollah would be the dominant powers in the country for years to come. And once Assad died, it would be inevitable that Iran and Hezbollah would attempt to transform Syria into a full-blown Shiite nation. This is something that Saudi Arabia and Turkey want to avoid at all costs. So they are actually considering what was once absolutely unthinkable – a massive ground invasion of Syria. But if Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their allies go in, they run the risk of a full-blown war with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Just consider some of the comments that we have seen in recent days… Reacting to a potential troop deployment, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said Saturday, “Let no one think they can attack Syria or violate its sovereignty because I assure you any aggressor will return to their country in a wooden coffin.” Pavel Krasheninnikov, a deputy of Russia’s State Duma, has warned Saudi Arabia that any military ground operation in Syria without Damascus’ consent would amount to a declaration of war, Press TV reported. We could literally be looking at the spark that sets off World War 3. I can’t believe that Saudi Arabia and Turkey are actually considering this. And if it does happen, you can rest assured that Barack Obama gave them the green light to go in. Unfortunately, it sounds like the decision may have already been made. Just consider what Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu is saying… “If we have such a strategy, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia may launch a ground operation,” he added, fueling concerns that a foreign troop invasion may soon further complicate the already turbulent situation in the war-torn country. Earlier, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE voiced their readiness to contribute troops for a ground operation in Syria on the condition that the US would lead the intervention. Damascus and its key regional ally, Iran, warned that such a foreign force would face strong resistance. And in addition to all of the forces massing in northern Saudi Arabia, the London Independent is reporting that the Saudis have sent troops and aircraft to a military base in Turkey… Saudi Arabia is sending troops and fighter jets to Turkey’s Incirlik military base ahead of a possible ground invasion of Syria. The Turkish foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, confirmed the deployment in a statement to the Yeni ^afak newspaper on Saturday, days before a temporary ceasefire is due to come into force. There are reports that Saudi officials are saying that the decision to send in ground troops is “irreversible”, and Reuters is reporting that the Syrian government claims that some Turkish troops have already entered the country… The Syrian government says Turkish forces were believed to be among 100 gunmen it said entered Syria on Saturday accompanied by 12 pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, in an ongoing supply operation to insurgents fighting Damascus. “The operation of supplying ammunition and weapons is continuing via the Bab al-Salama crossing to the Syrian area of Azaz,” the Syrian foreign ministry said in a letter to the U.N. Security Council published by state news agency SANA. Of course the Turkish government is not going to confirm that report, but what we do know is that Turkey is shelling Kurdish forces on the Syrian side of the border. The funny thing is that these Kurdish forces are actually being supported and supplied by the U.S. government. So the Turks are not supposed to be doing this, but according to Reuters they have been doing it for two days in a row anyway… The Turkish army shelled positions held by Kurdish-backed militia in northern Syria for a second day on Sunday, killing two fighters, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said. Turkey on Saturday demanded the powerful Syrian Kurdish YPG militia withdraw from areas that it had captured in the northern Aleppo region in recent days from insurgents in Syria, including the Menagh air base. The shelling has targeted those areas. The hostility between Turkey and the Kurds goes back a long, long way. The Syrian Kurds are not threatening Turkey in any way right now, but Turkey is using the instability in the region as an excuse to lob artillery shells at a hated enemy. It is an act of naked aggression that the Obama administration should be loudly denouncing. In addition, it is being reported that Syrian government forces have also been getting shelled by the Turkish military… Anatolia news agency reported that the Turkish military hit Syrian government forces on Saturday, adding that the shelling had been in response to fire inflicted on a Turkish military guard post in Turkey’s southern Hatay region. Turkish artillery targeted Syrian forces again late on Saturday, according to a military source quoted by RIA Novosti. The attack targeted the town of Deir Jamal in the Aleppo Governorate. Needless to say, the Russians are quite alarmed by all of this. In fact, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev is warning about what could happen if things spiral out of control… In the wake of Saudi Arabia’s proposal to send in ground troops on Thursday, the Russian Prime Minister claimed the move could spark a new world war. “A ground operation draws everyone taking part in it into a war,” he told the Handelsblatt newspaper. “The Americans and our Arab partners must consider whether or not they want a permanent war.” If Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their allies launch an invasion and make a mad dash to take out the Assad regime in Damascus, the Russians will inevitably respond. And if tactical nuclear weapons are necessary to keep the invading forces out of Damascus, the Russians will not be shy about using them. I don’t know if I have ever seen a scenario which was more likely to initiate World War 3 than the one that we are watching unfold right now. So what has the mainstream media been saying about all of this? Incredibly, they have been almost entirely silent. When he went looking for news about these events, James Bailey could find almost nothing on either Fox News or CNN… I just visited the home page for Foxnews.com and found not one single mention of the insane events now unfolding in the Middle East. I could not believe it, so I used my Find tool to search for Syria and Saudi Arabia. Not one mention! Of course that could change at any moment, but nothing there when I checked. Their stories were all about the meaningless Presidential election, which has already been decided regardless of what we think about it, and other stories about entertainment, sports, Congressional political theater, etc. So I went to CNN and found just about the same thing with one news story about the Syrian cease fire, but when I read it there was no mention of any of the big events that have developed this week. This is truly an amazing media blackout! But Fox News does have space to run headlines like these… –Spanish man skipped work for 6 years, still got paid –48 people rescued from stuck tram cars at New Hampshire ski resort –Lovelorn elephant takes out his rage on more than a dozen cars And CNN apparently thinks that these news stories are more important than the potential beginning of World War 3… If Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their allies are going to conduct an invasion of Syria, the most likely time for this to happen will be by the end of this month during these military exercises. If we can get to March 1st and no invasion has happened yet, perhaps we can breathe a little sigh of relief. But if it does happen, and the Russians and the Iranians decide to shoot back, it really could be the start of World War 3. If you have not been paying attention up until now, you need to start, because this could literally change everything.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-132) not displayed.
.
.
.
#133. To: Fred Mertz (#132)
Given the year 312 I figured it was Constantine's vision at the Milvian Bridge, but why would seeing a cross in the sky be a sign of Christ's return. I myself saw the Holy Dove, which flew into my face and knocked me down, driving away a visible demon that was attacking my mind, a few years ago. A personal visitation or revelation doesn't mean that Christ has returned. When Christ returns, it is to be on a cloud in glory and it marks the end. A sign in the sky that empowers Constantine is certainly divine in origin, but it didn't signify Christ's return in glory.
Did it look like this?
Sort of, yes. It was white, had black eyes and an orange beak and feet. It hovered in the air above me, flapping as I looked up at it. Then it dove downwards, looking somewhat like that as it came. It's beak passed through the bridge of my nose between my eyes, and the leading edges of its wings passed edge on straight THROUGH my eyes, with the tips of the wings whisping through the outer corners of my eyes. I was knocked flat by the impact. It passed INTO my head, and as it did, my head exploded with the most brilliant of lights, that filled my whole body with utter joy and utter peace. It was the single most wonderful moment of my life. The second most wonderful was being embraced by Jesus in a dream, but that was a dream - maybe a revelation, maybe just a dream. The "Dove strike" was a wide awake broad daylight event. The demon that had me in a mind-lock was gone.
That's just your opinion.
It may have come back in an invisible form, but at that moment, in its visible form, it fled. And all of the ideas that it was pressing were cut off by the peace and light. That's what happened. Let's talk about something else.
You could just be ... the complete embodiment of pure evil. Evil looks at itself, never recoginising what it is.
His cronies? Are you sh*tting me? One of the world's great leaders, who defeated the brits and established our government. Silly canadian, do less drugs and you won't have any more "little trips into outspace".
Muahahahahaha! Eh...doesn't seem likely. How would I know that I was the "complete embodiment of pure evil"? I'd figure that I've have the trappings of things that Satan promises to people...wealth (nope), power (nope), lots and lots of sex with lots of interesting partners (not for over a quarter century). I'd figure my kid would be bad and my wife would be gone. I"d figure I wouldn't agonize over things like the death of a goldfish or a mouse or a lizard. I'd figure that I'd have tried all sorts of drugs, because, you know, sensuousness. I am pretty good looking, so I guess I have that going for me - but that's a gift from God, not a mark of evil. Angels are beautiful. Curiously, the Gematria number of my name is the same as the name "Jesus of Nazareth" and "Shroud of Turin" (and that number is 1128, not 666). So if the Jewish kabbalists are correct it would be no surprise to them that I have a particular delight in the specific words of Jesus of Nazareth, and a particular affinity for the Shroud of Turin. And I am Basque, and our own story of our own origins - given that we are unrelated to any other people on earth - is that we are Nephilim, descended from the offspring of the matings of angels and a woman or a few women after the Flood. That would explain the weird language, the odd blood type, the difficulty of cross-fertility with others, and other assorted weirdness. There are those would say that Nephilim are literally the embodiment of evil, physical descendants of fallen angels. But Jesus would never say that. So no, I'm not the embodiment of evil. Or if I am supposed to be, I'm really crappy at it.
Says what? If your talking about the return of Jesus in 312 AD, that is not mentioned in the BCP. According to the Constantinople version of the Nicene Creed (used by the Episcopalians and most Churches), the return of Jesus is in the future. But the original Nicene Creed, before Constantinople added some controversial words to it which led to great schisms, can be interpreted to mean Jesus had already come. (My view of the Nicene Creed is why I was not allowed to join the first Episcopal Church I tried to join).
I'm not a Canadian. I'm an American citizen. My drug of choice is two cups of coffee a day. Instead of hurling insults at other posters, calcon, perhaps you really should do some research and fact-finding before you post garbage like what you did. Post something that has actual substance to it instead of useless drivel.
First of all NONE of our Founding Fathers EVER founded this country on any form of religion at all. It may be that the reason they didn't was because they wanted to be free from religious persecution. In the Old World (Europe), you had (and still do to this day) to be associated with a religion, in order to be accepted in society or face death. The United States was never founded on any form of religion and proof of that lies in the First Amendment. Please refer to here regarding Establishment Clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
Like many things in the Revelation, you have to read several verses and put two and two together. The 24 thrones are first seen in the vision of heaven (in chapter 4, verse 4). The things seen in heaven reflect (or signify)what will also happen on earth at some point. The thrones are next mentioned in chapter 20, verse 4 -- which occurs after the last vistage of Satan is soundly defeated (in the Battle of Ar Mageddon now underway) and Satan is locked away for a thousand years. In verse 4 John says, "And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgement was committed to them ... for a thousand years." The best way to know what the Revelation is talking about is to compare it to the news. If you have been watching the news, you know that a 24th Christian nation will be added to NATO this year. And you would know that many nations in NATO are calling for NATO to launch a major offensive against ISIS.
Please refer to here regarding Establishment Clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause LOL. George Washington and several other founders said US laws should be based on the Bible. The establishment clause only says the US government is not to establish a national Church that everyone has to belong to. We are free to join any Church we want to join. For close to 200 years there were only Christians in the US except for a sprinkling of Jews and maybe an atheist or two and maybe a few (but very few) Muslims who snuck in illegally. Then in 1965, LBJ and the Democrats got a wild hair up their ass and enacted the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 that let pagans in by the droves. Attempting to be "multicultural" has proved to be a disastrous experiment, and the law needs to be repealed ASAP.
I myself saw the Holy Dove, which flew into my face and knocked me down, driving away a visible demon that was attacking my mind, a few years ago. A personal visitation or revelation doesn't mean that Christ has returned. When Christ returns, it is to be on a cloud in glory and it marks the end. A sign in the sky that empowers Constantine is certainly divine in origin, but it didn't signify Christ's return in glory. LOL. It was not a "vision" and it wasn't a cross per se. Every eye on earth saw the sign of Christ. It was a superimposed X and P, the first two letters of Christ in Greek (Constantine's native language). You too can see the sign of Christ with any star-tracking software. Just set the date for Oct. 27, 312 AD. (It was an unusual alignment of the planets that formed a cross or X, and the P is always there for the most part). Jesus prophesied that His return would be marked (or preceded by) "the sign of the Son of Man in the clouds" and indeed it was. Later that night, in a dream about the sign, Jesus appeared to Constantine and said, "By this, conquer." And in one day, Christians went from being the ones being persecuted and killed to being the ones doing the killing.
Please provide to me that citation that says the United States is based on the bible. American was founded under the English Common Law and not the bible nor the Ten commandments. http://www.jdnews.com/article/20130607/Opinion/306079926 And here www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
Still TO THIS DAY? You have to associated with a religion? Or face DEATH? In EUROPE? Ummmm... I think you should probably restate that.
Look what's happening in Europe these days. People are being raped and slaughtered for refusing to convert or bow down to the Muslim way of life. That's why we have a mass flux of refugees in the U.S. They are fleeing for their lives.
There are hundreds of citations on this website: https://www.usa.church/us-history-quotes-about-god-and-the-bible/
You source provides nothing about the true nature of the foundations of our country. The Federalist Papers clearly point out that several of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, were clearly leery about invoking any form of religion. Most of the founders were deists and some were even atheists and even few were Christian. If you visit your state and federal courts you will notice there are no posted Ten Commandments anywhere to be seen. If the courts had wanted to have the Ten Commandments posted by the Judge or Court Clerk's area, they would have done so. Nowhere will you find these commandments posted anywhere in a public building and nor will you find it in any public school system. Read section: James Madison – Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785) https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/james-madison-quotes
Read section: James Madison – Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785) https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/james-madison-quotes LOL. All of the founding fathers were Episcopalians. Every one of them. The ONLY reason the ten commandments are no longer prominently displayed in the majority of our courthouses is because the ACLU made them remove them. The ACLU is an atheist/Satanic organization that strives to thwart the will of our founders. Our founding fathers made sure that no one would ever be able to remove the ten commandments from our most important court house, the Supreme Court building, by building them into the architecture. I suspect the ACLU lawyers will burn in hell forever for removing mankind's first laws. They are sacred.
Not all of them: http://www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/christian-nation/declaration-of- independence-signers.htm For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Not true: http://www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/christian-nation/declaration-of- independence-signers.htm There were no atheists back then. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Take your own advice and read a few books about George Washington. You'd be surprised at what a great man he is. Sorry if I offended you but you INSULTED our greatest president so what do you expect.
http://www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/christian-nation/declaration-of- independence-signers.htm Your link is not working. Please tell me who you think was not an Episcopalian.
Try this one:
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
John Carroll certainly wasn't. Nor were the Adamses. New Englanders were Puritan, re-dubbed "Congregationalists". If you look at the faith of the men actually doing the fighting, the frontiers of America were heavily peopled by Scotch-Irish Presbyterians. They were the most reliably pro-independence group of all. The French Huguenots, mostly centered in New Jersey and South Carolina, were Calvinists and in their own French Reformed Church, which was not Episcopalian. Generals Du Portail and St. Clair were Catholic. So was Lafayette. Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox" immortalized (and heavily editorialized) by Mel Gibson in "The Patriot", was a French Huguenot The Dutch, notably Major General Philip Schuyler, were Dutch Reformed Calvinists. Truth is, religion ran by colony. The South up to Maryland was Episcopalian in the Tidewater, Presbyterian in the hills. Maryland and Delaware were too, mostly, but Maryland had a significant Catholic presence. Pennsylvania was Quaker in the East and Presbyterian in the West. Same division for New York: Dutch Reformed up the river, Presbyterian in the West. New Englanders were Congregationalists. Sure, the Episcopalians figured very prominently, as most of the Southern political leadership were Anglicans, but the religion of most of the fighters depended on the colony, and the Presbyterians bore an outsized portion of the fighting burden, though few of them were of senior rank. Before the war, Catholics were not well treated in the British colonies, and there were plenty of religious zealots who, after the war, would have liked to have seen religious tests excluding Catholics. But Catholics had fought for Independence too, had leaders who had signed the Declaration of Independence, some well-known generals, and of course the French were Catholic and more than a few of them stayed on. Those who would have keep the British "anti-papist" statutes in place were unable to carry the day, and the Founders - Anglicans, Presbyterians, Calvinists, Quakers, German, Dutch and French Reformed, and Catholics, established a nation without religious tests, precisely because everybody acknowledged that all had fought alongside one another, and because that sentiment of common cause was stronger than the objections of the fanatics who would have preferred to maintain the religious tests. So yes, Episcopalians were prominent leaders. But no, "all", nor even substantially all, of the Founding Fathers were Episcopalian. They were everything.
To my list I should also add Generals Pulaski and Kosziusko, who were Polish Catholics, but certainly Founding Fathers. That was the thing about the Revolution: at the beginning it was a third, a third, a third. But as time went on and the British did bloody-minded things like unleashing the frontier Indians on the frontier farmers, or marching Hessians across the American landscape, what had been a theoretical fight farway became local, and brutal, and neutrality, and affection for the Crown faded away pretty fast when the fact of what the Crown really WAS was marched through town with all of the injustice and looting. By the end, support for the Revolution was overwhelming, and every group was fighting. That was a good thing, because it meant that when it was done, every group had done its part, and they were able to vault past the sectarian differences that had kept them apart before that.
The religious issue among the founders was that there was no religious majority in America. The war was fought and won by a constellation of Anglicans and Presbyerians, Quakers, Lutherans, Dutch and French Reformed, Congregationalists and Catholics. The colonies were so different one from another precisely BECAUSE of those religious differences, and most of the first states had their own established religions. But the anvil of war brought everybody together to fight the British, We have to remember too what "religious tests" really meant in 18th Century English and English colonial culture. It meant, above all, that CATHOLICS, specifically, could not hold office. The OTHER religious groups, particularly the Quakers and the Puritans, had each gone through their OWN periods of being repressed by the Established Church in England, and they were all leery of each other. There was not a desire among the Founders to protect themselves from RELIGION, but to prevent themselves being dominated by somebody ELSE'S religion. Because of the prominence of Catholics in having secured American Independence, no barriers to Catholics would be permitted in the new country - leaders like Washington would never permit it. And as to the rest, New England was going to stay Congregationalist, the South, Anglican (redubbed "Episcopalian"), the West, Presbyterian, etc. At home in their states, Americans could do what they pleased, but the national government could never pick ONE of those religions and put it on top. This was a good thing, but its purpose was to keep the peace and camraderie hard-won in the war among Americans, and not have it all dissolve back into religious bickering. It wasn't to banish Christianity. That would have been silly. Almost all of them thought of themselves as Christian.
Faith of our Founders That's an awful long list of founding fathers. When I say founding fathers, I'm talking about the main ones: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. They were all Episcopalians. I suppose you could include John Adams, a non-Episcopalian, in the list of founding fathers, but 5 out of 6 is still nearly all of the founding fathers. But the Revelation, in chapters 6 and 19 is not talking about minor supporting roles, it's talking about conquerors who became the first king (or president) of a new Christian world power. The 4th horseman/conqueror who rides a pale horse is clearly George Washington and he definitely was a member of a Church descended from St. Peter like all the other horsemen. And, like I said, until Obama, most of our presidents were members of a Church with priests directly descended from St. Peter (through the process known as "the laying on of hands").
Excellent post. As far as I know, all of the founders were Christians.
Thanks for injecting some real history on the thread.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
There were some Unitarians and a few deists. But insignificant in comparison to the larger group.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
I think there were only a handful of Jews in the colonies at the time of Independence, and they were all concentrated in a couple of port cities. Everybody was in some sense a Christian. Thomas Jefferson didn't really believe that Jesus was God, but he did ascribe excellence to him. Thomas Paine was not religious, and few of the leaders were what one could described as religious fanatics, or anything very close to that, but they were definitely Christian.
Excellent post you made. I have no dispute at all.
Don't be sorry if you never intended to be.
Thomas Jefferson was an atheist. And some would even say that Benjamin Franklin was too. Both were rebellious about religion.
Jefferson and Franklin were Episcopalians. There were no atheists back in their day.
They all signed the DoI. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Both believed in a Divine Creator God. Jefferson was most likely a Deist. Franklin in today's terms a Unitarian. Unitarians believe in God as not manifest in three Divine Persons. Therefore, Franklin by his writings believed in God but was a skeptic as regards to the full Deity of Jesus Christ. Again no atheists. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Okay, I give you credit for that one. I never expected it to happen, although the past week it was looking like a possibility. Good work!
#134. To: Vicomte13 (#133)
#135. To: Fred Mertz (#134)
#136. To: Vicomte13 (#135)
The demon that had me in a mind-lock was gone.
#137. To: buckeroo (#136)
That's just your opinion.
#138. To: Vicomte13 (#137)
#139. To: goldilucky (#116)
Washington and his cronies
#140. To: buckeroo (#138)
You could just be ... the complete embodiment of pure evil. Evil looks at itself, never recoginising what it is.
#141. To: paraclete (#128)
What a load of rubbish, cite for me where it says that in the Book of Common Prayer
#142. To: calcon (#139)
(Edited)
#143. To: interpreter (#120)
#144. To: A K A Stone (#129)
What chapter and verse is that foretold in.
#145. To: goldilucky (#143)
(Edited)
First of all NONE of our Founding Fathers EVER founded this country on any form of religion at all. It may be that the reason they didn't was because they wanted to be free from religious persecution. In the Old World (Europe), you had (and still do to this day) to be associated with a religion, in order to be accepted in society or face death. The United States was never founded on any form of religion and proof of that lies in the First Amendment.
#146. To: Vicomte13 (#133)
(Edited)
Given the year 312 I figured it was Constantine's vision at the Milvian Bridge, but why would seeing a cross in the sky be a sign of Christ's return.
#147. To: interpreter (#145)
(Edited)
George Washington and several other founders said US laws should be based on the Bible.
#148. To: goldilucky (#143)
In the Old World (Europe), you had (and still do to this day) to be associated with a religion, in order to be accepted in society or face death.
#149. To: Vicomte13 (#148)
(Edited)
#150. To: goldilucky (#147)
Please provide to me that citation that says the United States is based on the bible. American was founded under the English Common Law and not the bible nor the Ten commandments.
#151. To: interpreter (#150)
(Edited)
#152. To: goldilucky (#151)
(Edited)
You source provides nothing about the true nature of the foundations of our country. The Federalist Papers clearly point out that several of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, were clearly leery about invoking any form of religion. Most of the founders were deists and some were even atheists and even few were Christian. If you visit your state and federal courts you will notice there are no posted Ten Commandments anywhere to be seen. If the courts had wanted to have the Ten Commandments posted by the Judge or Court Clerk's area, they would have done so. Nowhere will you find these commandments posted anywhere in a public building and nor will you find it in any public school system.
#153. To: interpreter, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#152)
LOL. All of the founding fathers were Episcopalians. Every one of them.
#154. To: goldilucky, GarySpFc, TooConservative (#151)
Most of the founders were deists and some were even atheists
#155. To: goldilucky (#142)
#156. To: redleghunter (#153)
Not all of them:
#157. To: interpreter (#156)
#158. To: interpreter (#156)
#159. To: All (#158)
#160. To: goldilucky (#151)
#161. To: redleghunter (#157)
Try this one:
#162. To: Vicomte13 (#160)
#163. To: Vicomte13 (#160)
#164. To: interpreter (#161)
#165. To: interpreter (#162)
#166. To: Vicomte13 (#160)
#167. To: calcon (#155)
#168. To: redleghunter (#154)
(Edited)
#169. To: goldilucky (#168)
#170. To: interpreter (#161)
That's an awful long list of founding fathers.
#171. To: goldilucky (#168)
Thomas Jefferson was an atheist. And some would even say that Benjamin Franklin was too. Both were rebellious about religion.
#172. To: interpreter (#106)
I predict that Islam will likewise be defeated and very soon --when Trump is elected president, and also 23 strong leaders in Europe are elected to replace the Muslim-lovers now in power.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]