New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Are globalists evil or just misunderstood?
Source:
Personal Liberty Digest
URL Source: http://personalliberty.com/are-glob ... ts-evil-or-just-misunderstood/
Published: May 17, 2016
Author: Brandon Smithe
Post Date: 2016-05-17 19:57:04 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 13766
Comments: 88
I recently received requests from two different readers, one asking for articles covering the “mindset” of globalists (why they do what they do), and another request for articles covering globalist “occultism.” I find that these two topics are very difficult to pursue with a large number of people for a few reasons: 1) Many people do not accept the reality that a group of financial elitists colluding (conspiring) to obtain total global power even exists. Therefore, in order to delve into the topic of the globalist mindset with these “skeptics,” I would first have to re-cover page after page of evidence showing that they not only exist and collude, but that they openly boast about their plans on a regular basis. This is time consuming, to say the least. 2) For some of the people that do eventually accept the reality of a globalist cabal, the argument eventually arises that “yes, there is collusion, but it is merely driven by greed and profit motive,” and not as nefarious as we conspiracy tin-foil mad-hatters imagine. 3) For others, there is a full acceptance of the reality of an organized globalist cult, but they argue that these people are simply a product of a corrupt and ill-structured socio-political system. That is to say, they think that the globalists are a symptom of the troubles that plague humanity, rather than a cause. This argument is often made by people promoting their own collectivist agenda in one form or another (socialists, communists, scientific dictatorships controlled by people supposedly much smarter than the rest of us, one world-one mind spiritually unhinged theosophic weirdos, etc.). They claim a new system, their system, is the solution rather than getting rid of the globalists, which they say would only leave a “power vacuum” for more tyrants to take their place. 4)Finally, there are the evangelical revelations seekers obsessed with Armageddon. They fully accept that the globalists exist, that they conspire internationally to gain power and influence towards the goal of a “new world order” and that they are essentially evil minded in their intentions. However, they argue that it is either futile to fight against such people because they are supported by power from somewhere beyond, or they even argue that to fight against the globalists is wrong because it is in defiance of the plan put forward in the Bible. So, as you can see, it is a veritable circus of horrors whenever I write on the subject of who the globalists really are and what they really want. Beyond that, it is very difficult to examine this subject matter, even with ample evidence, without coming off like a wackaloon. It is hard enough convincing people of the obvious economic crisis facing America and the rest of the world and convincing them to put in minimal effort to prepare, let alone convincing them of the psychopathic and cult-like nature of the elite behind that crisis. In other words, if you approach someone new to this information cold and hit them right away with tales of luciferians, Washington D.C. child pedo-rings and gay romp power-club parties in the California Redwoods with a giant stone owl called “Molech,” you probably aren’t going to get your foot in the door. That said, I’ll address the inevitable arguments above very quickly before I begin my analysis of the Globalist mind. 1) Psychopaths tend to naturally gravitate towards positions of power, and despite some foolish assumptions out there that these people are too volatile to play nice with others, they do in fact work together as long as there is a guarantee of mutual benefit. Elites have conspired throughout history, this is documented fact. I find it amazing that some folks cannot grasp the idea that they might also be conspiring today. If you need documented evidence of such collusion, you are welcome to read my articles The fall of America signals the rise of the New World Order and Order out of chaos: The Doctrine that runs the world. One might argue that the problem of organized psychopathy cannot be dealt with unless one confronts individual psychopathy. I’m sorry to say that at least 10 percent of the population (according to psychologist Carl Gustav Jung) at any given time has elements of inborn latent psychopathy and at least 1 percent is actively psychopathic. You will never remove psychopathy from humanity. It is an inborn quality. What you can do, though, is disrupt or destroy organizations of people that foster and elevate psychopaths. Organized psychopathy is the real and pressing problem. 2) If you need convincing that the globalists are not just “greedy capitalists” out to make a buck at the expense of the world, check out my article Global elitism: The character traits of truly evil people and read some of their quotes. Their goal is to gain as much power over the masses as possible. They see themselves as modern Pharaohs, not as businessmen. Wealth is a side-note. 3) There have been only fleeting instances of societies without the all-pervasive influence of organized elitism in history. From these minor instances, though, we can see bursts of human potential, productivity and invention, as well as greater respect for inherent conscience and justice. Anyone who claims that the globalists are nothing more than a “symptom” is probably trying to sell you on an ideology rather than a real solution. The fact of the matter is, we have never lived in a world without the influence of globalist conspiracy. They are like a cancer that has turned psychopathy into a religion. Removing the globalists should be a top priority. No system is going to succeed, regardless of how brilliantly conceived, unless the elitists are out of the picture. I would even venture to say that the people who argue that the globalists are nothing more than a symptom are in fact helping the globalists by distracting activists away from the real task at hand. Playing at philosophy and theoretical society building will not change the existing power structure in any way, nor will it remove the muzzle of a rifle from the back of your head as you stare down at the ditch that is to become your final resting place. 4) The majority of the Bible is composed of stories of good standing against evil, and I simply cannot take anyone seriously who argues that the Bible demands we sit idle in the face of despotism. I don’t believe in the modernized “Left Behind” interpretations of “apocalypse” and even if I did, different groups have been saying that the end times are right around the corner for ages. Frankly, no one knows or will know if such an event of metaphysical proportions is taking place anyway. Now, I do believe in full-spectrum crisis and societal collapse, because these events have happened over and over again and can even be reasonably predicted according to past indicators. I also believe that current events are rife with such indicators and that a collapse is taking place in stages today. I also know that there are groups of elites engineering this collapse and I know exactly why because they have openly admitted their goals (read my article The economic end game explained). Apocalypse is not my concern. Right and wrong, justice and tyranny are my concerns. I’ll leave the rest to more omniscient and omnipresent beings. Now that the above questions are out of the way we can jump into the core of the problem. And no, the core of the problem is not the “system” we live in per say, or our methodology of living and progressing as a species. Again, there are too many eggheads in the liberty movement that like to pretend they have grand and ingenious new ways of looking at the world, and if only we would just “listen to their brilliant vision” everything would change for the better. When you boil down their philosophies you often find they have no new ideas whatsoever, or that their ideas cannot be implemented because they have not dealt with the elephant in the room — the globalists. Philosophy without tangible action and verifiable results is ultimately useless in the face of true evil. Intellectual warriors rarely win wars, but they do often die horribly as a result of their naivety and defenselessness. To answer the question in the title of this article, yes, the globalists are in fact evil and the only misunderstandings are on the part of wide-eyed skeptics that have bought into the idea that “evil” is a moral conception created by religion rather than an inherent quality of human beings. This is false. As Carl Jung discovered in his studies on the collective unconscious, people are born with inherent and conflicting conceptions and traits, or “dualities.” Good vs. Evil is an important duality we all come in to the world dealing with, it is not a mere product of environment or religious influence. That which is “good” is often dictated by what we call “conscience,” which again is an inherent idea or “voice,” and is only partly influenced by environment. The fact of inherent character traits and universal moral codes is present in anthropological studies as well as psychological studies beyond Jung’s very extensive work. To define evil, we would have to look at those ideas and actions that are opposite inherent conscience. The globalists have basically constructed a festering belief system around everything that is contrary to our moral compass. I will attempt to dissect some elements of that belief system from a secular point of view. Wish me luck… Occultism in itself is not necessarily “evil,” it only means “secret knowledge.” But the history of occultism is plagued by rather evil deeds and attitudes. John F. Kennedy once warned of secret societies and secret proceedings, and with good reason. For thousands of years, occult groups often withheld valuable knowledge from the masses as a means to influence behavior and control the direction of society. This did not have to be “magical” knowledge, whatever that means. Usually, it was scientific or psychological knowledge. Say for example that a group of elitists withheld detailed knowledge of an impending economic collapse because this knowledge gave them a feeling of superiority and an advantage that they could exploit to gain power over others. Often, occult knowledge, secret knowledge, is driven by the selfish desire of one group to maintain a sense of dominance over another. Is it evil to withhold knowledge that could save lives for the sake of self-elevation? I would say absolutely. So yeah, it’s almost impossible to broach this subject without sounding crazy to people who aren’t already familiar with it. But as requested, I’ll take a stab at it. Do globalists really believe in a devil with a pitchfork and hoofs and horns? I really don’t know. What I do know is that many of them believe in the ideas behind the mythology of the figure (even Saul Alinsky dedicated his book ‘Rules For Radicals’ to Lucifer). The Lucifer mythology is one of rebellion, a rebellion against the the Christian God. But how would this translate to elitist behavior? They define inherent conscience and moral compass (checks and balances put in place by God?) as a “restriction” or imprisonment of the individual, and they seem to only esteem individuals as those seeking their own “Godhood.” The way liberty proponents value individualism is very different from the way elitists value individualism. Lucifer as a archetypal figure represents a rebellion against everything, including nature. Of course, nature is not a toy to be played with selfishly because catastrophe inevitably results. Moral compass is a guide that keeps humanity from destroying itself, and without it civilizations fall. Luciferianism, at the very least, fosters destructive tendencies. With such people at the helm of entire nations, innocent people will suffer in the scorched path of elites seeking to rebel against inherent moral and natural boundaries, and this is without a doubt evil. Attributed to Aleister Crowley, a self-professed satanist, you will see this ideology pop up in globalist circles and pop-culture icons alike. Crowley apologists often argue that the quote it is taken from refers to the “law of love.” But the love of what? The love of others, or the love of one’s self? Do what thou wilt as long as it does not hurt others, or do what thou wilt regardless of the consequences? The latter interpretation is clearly the one globalists have taken to heart. Since elitists consistently treat the lowly masses as vermin that need to be eradicated for the good of the planet, I see little indication that they have the ability to conceive of love, let alone adopt a philosophy of love. Do what thou wilt, however the idea was originally intended, has become a rationale for the globalist propensity of crushing others in the name of “greatness”. Evil people are not as immune to the judgments of others as you might think. In fact, many of them become a bit obsessive about people accepting or even praising the things they do. I can only theorize that if in their minds everyone else subscribes to an evil behavior then it is no longer evil, but normal. Moral relativism is the act of rationalizing a destructive or evil process by claiming a positive end result or intention washes away responsibility. The ends justify the means. Globalists could not care less about the consequences of their actions to others, but they do feel the need to justify those actions in a way that people will embrace. From my observations, the majority of globalist propaganda revolves entirely around the concept of moral relativism, and the lie that good is only about perception while evil is a “gray area,” or an illusion. As Kevin Spacey says in the movie The Usual Suspects, “The Greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist…” As stated earlier, it really does not matter what brand of social system we implement. It really does not matter what kind of economic model we employ. It really does not matter if we somehow find a way to promote enlightened thinking on a massive scale. None of it matters if we do not also confront the organized evil of the globalist cabal. It is interesting how many people strive so hard to avoid acknowledging the fight that is coming by clinging to the notion that the globalists are “misunderstood” or “not important” in the grand scheme of things. While I work to promote alternative trade models through localism and alternative-security models through community preparedness teams, I also accept that these efforts are a half measure; mere preparation for an unavoidable conflict between people who hold the contents of their conscience dear, those who view the non-aggression principle as an integral part of a free and healthy civilization and the globalists, who hold nothing dear accept themselves, their cult and their ambitions. Evil is a part of every human being, just as good is a part of every human being. It is a battle we all struggle with until the day we die. But organized evil is something else entirely. It is not something we have to tolerate, and it is something we can change. Until it is expunged from our society, no other solutions can be fully enacted. Therefore, the solution begins with the end of organized evil, and it is a solution I plan to enact in my own way. The solution begins with the eradication of the globalists. The problem we face is organized evil
Occultism
Luciferianism
Do what thou wilt
Moral relativism
The solution
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-47) not displayed.
.
.
.
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
Not trying to be an asshole. Just trying to get you too see that government's natural state is evil. God can use it but man's natural ways keeps perverting it to evil.
God never said that clearly and unequivocally. The closest to the point SOSO was making is actually in Genesis chapter 3: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread." Working to provide for your family is a moral theme throughout TaNaKh. Plus Paul when he said "if you don't work you don't eat" was addressing a specific laziness reported to him for a specific church. However, the principle is sound with regards to TaNaKh. Don't think Paul meant those who could not work should starve as some atheist detractors try to assert. The text provides no evidence for such. However an expository approach shows Paul and all of the apostles preached compassion and Christian community easing the burden of the elderly, weak, orphan, widow and handicapped. Of course they did because they knew the Torah and more importantly the example of Jesus Christ. The predictable outcome to our generation's consumer culture has redefined who is 'poor', who is 'unable to work'. If we applied the 1st or even 19th century standard of basic shelter/food, means to provide (farms or jobs), etc. to what our generation considers the 'poverty line' then we find ourselves with mostly Westerners demanding things outside of the basics. Now of course a consumer generation needs entities which drive the consumerism. That is the other side of the coin. We as a society have created our own monster bloated crony capitalists who have no problem providing everything the heart desires and offering 'credit' to get what we truly cannot afford. It is the new 'lord and serf' relationship. I think the first step is to do what our parents and grandparents did. Only get things you truly need and only go to the bank for a loan to buy a house you can afford the mortgage on. Then give generously to church and community and directly to those in need. The commands/actions of Christ for us to give generously and mission to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves was given to Christians, His followers.
Nor was it tresspass. It's a Common Law concept that you can bad people from crossing your fields. It's clear under God's law for Israel that the poor had the right to enter, and eat. To you, that is tresspassing and theft. Good thing for Jesus that God doesn't agree with you, otherwise he would have been a tresspasser, and his apostles, thieves. You are correct. YHWH also prescribed portions of the fields for the gleaning and the corresponding respect of the remainder of the fields.
What are those laws? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The entire legal content of the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. In them, God directly led his people to the Promised Land, ruled them directly, and gave them all of the laws, judgments, etc. - the whole constitution - of the Israel they would found. The "Law" - the Mosaic Law - was God's constitution for Israel. It is markedly different from ours. For starters, there was no permanent executive. God promised to send a prophet in times of crisis. And there was no legislature at all. God gave the Israelites NO power or authority to make ANY rules. The laws and ordinances he gave were the ENTIRETY of the law. He forbade them from adding any laws, or subtracting any, so he gave them no legislative body, no ability to add laws, or subtract them, or change them. The laws he gave were foreseen by Him to be, in totality, perfect. He gave them judges. Lots of them. But he also gave the canned decisions the judges would have to make in all of the various cases. They were not independent. They were to hear the facts, follow the procedures that God laid down, and then the content of their decision was based upon what God fixed. Essentially, there was no role for politicians in Israel, as there was no "government" as such. Just God, His law, and judges to enforce it. If you read Exodus through Deuteronomy and jot down all of the laws you see (many of them repetitions), you will have all of those laws. This was "The Law" to which Jesus and the Apostles referred. To that Law had also been added thick layers of tradition by the time of Jesus.
In one of Paul's letters he writes "He who will not work shall not eat."
Yes I knew SOSO was referring to 2 Thessalonians. I gave the context of the quote which reaches back to the TaNaKh understanding.
The closest to the point SOSO was making is actually in Genesis chapter 3: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread." I don't recall making a point on this thread remotely related to this. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Christianity was never based on Christ. It was based on the law and practices of Roman law. Where do you think the idea of Christmas and Easter celebration came from? Jesus law was for the Jews and for the Jews to teach the generations to come. The Romans and their Christianity were worshippers of many gods and strange feasts and always have been an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. The bible from the Dietary laws to the Ten Commandments were set in place for the Jews as directed to them by Moses... not Christians (gentiles). The Jews were and always have been the apple of God's eye but even the Jews strayed away from His laws and denied His only son, Jesus Christ. Leave Christianity out of this for it is manmade. God and the bible are the sole truth and have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Religion is manmade used to keep men/women in their place and manipulate the masses by stealing their money and then their souls. Even Jesus was strongly against orthodox religion because He referred to them as thieves in the temples and that those temples were actually synagogues of false worship.
My apologies it was AKA Stone who was quoted first.
I don't see where Justified's "construct" in post #26 is contrary to those laws as you said in your reply to that post.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Utterly false, in just about every detail. You really believe this?
The real church is said to have all authority on Earth. It doesn't act like it
he made one mistake he used the word christianity, a very misunderstood concept. What he is talking about is religion that calls itself christian. Christianity is about relationship with Christ. Jesus is the head of every man, we need no other. Religion in the roman empire put on a cloak of christianity but in reality they just changed some names. Centuries later they still haven't unravelled the mess
So, you really believe the rest of that - all of it - as long as that one word, "christianity", is changed? If you rewrote that text, what would you substitute for "christianity"?
Not only do I believe it but its based on the bible. God is not religion at all. God is a Holy Spirit and His word is the bible and truth. And yes, those Ten Commandments and Dietary laws were put in place for the Jews as given to them by Moses directed by God Himself. The Jews were a special people of God and He wanted for them to lead the generations to come through His commandments...not the Roman Catholic Church. There is only One true God and He is a very jealous one. And He is not very happy with what taking place on this Earth these days. He has a major controversy with all the nations of the world. And it is during these times that He is making his displeasure known but we as a nation are not paying attention or just don't give a damn. We will get our justly rewards.
Loosely...like a novel
catholicism
As long as you recognise that Christians are part of a different covenant, The mosaic covenant was instituted for the jews and they failed to keep it so God instituted an new covenant through Christ in which all people could participate, not by the keeping of rigorous rules but by belief in Christ
If Christians are part of a different "covenant" than that explains why we do not have the Ten Commandments in our courtrooms. Whatever covenant they have is not with Christ. The mosaic covenant was set in place for the Jews to teach the generations to come (and also through Abraham) of God's covenant which also included non-Jews (the gentiles). God has never changed those rules. Never! Man has done this by tampering with God Word and adding and changing the bible to confuse and mislead His sheep. Such an act is not only unholy but is blasphemy.
You're right. But the terms of those rules were: You Jews, do all this and you get a farm. God's general rule for man, given to Noah, was: eat any animal you want, kill it first. To the Hebrews, only, he took away pork and shellfish and other things, to keep them healthy specifically in Canaan. So, God made a new special set of rules, just for Hebrews. He didn't revoke the earlier law. Later, Jesus came along and made it clear that in the New Covenant, the one that gives eternal life, that all foods are ok - same as God said to Noah. Jews who eat pork lose out on the farm in Israel promised under their special covenant, but they still have the promise of life eternal, because the Jewish covenant was never about life eternal. You talk about men changing the Bible. Actually YOU are the one changing it. The Mosaic Covenant makes its terms, what it's about, explicitly clear. God says over and over again to those people that if they keep it, they will have quiet enjoyment of a farm in Israel. That's all he promised. He says nothing whatever about eternal life, and it isn't ABOUT eternal life. The Eternal Life covenant comes from Jesus alone, and it is new. The Mosaic Covenant has not one thing to do with it at all, other than the fact of it conditioned the Jews minds to be able to accept the authority of the One God making the rule , and the knowledge that the One God is for real and can be trusted. The pagans with their many gods had no such experience. The Old Covenant prepared the Jews to be the first audience for Christ, but it did not include the law of Christ or the promise of Christ's covenant. You say it did, and there it is YOU who are tampering with God's word and changing what the Bible actually says in order to follow your own erroneous tradition, just like the Pharisees did, and for the same reason.
You need to understand that the new covenant isn't libertarian, the Ten Commandments haven't been suspended but the Law is not what defines our lives it is Jesus. the thing is; you can either be under the old covenant and the Law or be under the new covenant of grace under Jesus Christ. So do it the hard way or do it the easy way, the choice is yours. i won't tolerate anyone trying to bring me back under the old covenant
That is stupid, and not true. Daniel 12:2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. The New Testament just reveals more clearly. Ezekiel 37:12-14 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’” Psalm 71:20 Though you have made me see troubles, many and bitter, you will restore my life again; from the depths of the earth you will again bring me up. Isaiah 26:19 But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.
Daniel 12:2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. The New Testament just reveals more clearly. Ezekiel 37:12-14 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’” Psalm 71:20 Though you have made me see troubles, many and bitter, you will restore my life again; from the depths of the earth you will again bring me up. Isaiah 26:19 But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead. Nothing you have quoted is the Mosaic Covenant, The Law, which is contained in the Pentateuch.
I disagree with your entire statement. Nothing of what I said was tampering with God's law. I refrain from eating certain meats because they are forbidden and unclean. I refrain from celebrations of pagan holidays because they are forbidden and unholy and God hates them.
You cannot have it both ways, paraclete. God is not something to be toyed with nor used for political persuasions. Everybody keeps saying the U.S. is a Christian nation . If that is true, then why the hell are those Ten Commandments not seen or posted in those courtrooms (as they really should be)?
Then you defy God three times. God gave ALL animals to Noah and mankind as the general law given after the Flood. No animal is unclean to mankind. God made CERTAIN animals unclean, only for Hebrews in the Exodus and in Israel, nobody else. That was part of the Mosaic Covenant, which was made between YHWH and the Hebrews at Sinai (and their circumcised descendants), and nobody else. You were never part of that covenant. Jesus made all foods clean when he said that nothing a man eats makes him unclean, and the Holy Spirit made this quite explicit when he lowered foods that were unclean for Jews to Peter and told him to kill and eat, and then rebuked Peter for calling them unclean. God said to Peter three times: do not call unclean what God has made clean. Nobody but the Jews were ever under the "uncleanliness" regulations of the Torah in the first place. You are not a Jew, and your ancestors weren't, correct? Then at no time after Noah was eating pork EVER unclean for any of them - "cleanliness" applied to Jews alone - and it has not been illegal either, since Noah, as God gave ALL animals to mankind. You have made the grand theological error of pretending that the Mosaic Covenant was Law binding on the whole world. None of it ever bound anybody but Jews, and none of it ever promised anybody but Jews anything. The Law of Jesus is what binds us, if we want salvation anyway. We do not become Jews by following Jesus, and we do not have to become Jews to be acceptable to God and enter into eternal life. Becoming a Jew merely multiplies the rules one must obey, to remain "clean" so that one can participate in the required rituals of a Temple that God destroyed two thousand years ago. You've made an idol out of the Jewish law, and its shadow is obscuring the actual law you have to obey.
Because the Ten Commandments were given to the Jews and do not apply to Christians. There is overlap, to be sure, but there are things that will get you damned (such as sexual immorality of any stripe) that will not get you damned under the Ten (which merely mention adultery), and there are things under the Ten that are not damnable sins (such as wanting, but not stealing, your neighbors goods), or that are not sins at all (such as not keeping the Sabbath).
You have just answered your own question. The US is a secular nation defined as such by its constitution. That Christians live in the US doesn't make it a Christian nation. The US has chosen to pander to minority points of view in effect saying we will not use the name of God lest we offend any man and carrying further by saying we will not apply the laws of God lest we offend any man
Ok that's your opinion. Now what do you think of this as from Deckard's thread here? "Luciferianism So yeah, it’s almost impossible to broach this subject without sounding crazy to people who aren’t already familiar with it. But as requested, I’ll take a stab at it. Do globalists really believe in a devil with a pitchfork and hoofs and horns? I really don’t know. What I do know is that many of them believe in the ideas behind the mythology of the figure (even Saul Alinsky dedicated his book ‘Rules For Radicals’ to Lucifer). The Lucifer mythology is one of rebellion, a rebellion against the the Christian God. But how would this translate to elitist behavior? They define inherent conscience and moral compass (checks and balances put in place by God?) as a “restriction” or imprisonment of the individual, and they seem to only esteem individuals as those seeking their own “Godhood.” The way liberty proponents value individualism is very different from the way elitists value individualism. Lucifer as a archetypal figure represents a rebellion against everything, including nature. Of course, nature is not a toy to be played with selfishly because catastrophe inevitably results. Moral compass is a guide that keeps humanity from destroying itself, and without it civilizations fall. Luciferianism, at the very least, fosters destructive tendencies. With such people at the helm of entire nations, innocent people will suffer in the scorched path of elites seeking to rebel against inherent moral and natural boundaries, and this is without a doubt evil."
False statement right there. The Dietary laws were commanded to the Jews by God so therefore it is God's law. See here: www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fus...9/Clean-Unclean-Meats.htm I never made any idol out of any Jewish law; particularly the Sanhedrin which denied Jesus just as the Romans did. Both of them are equally guilty of this. The Mosaic law was passed onto Moses as instructed by God to His people. It was then passed onto Abraham to pass onto the next generations. One God and One people. And true, the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple because the Jews were using false worship which angered God. That is why the only temple worth mentioning is your body. Your body is the temple and the spirit of God dwells within you. If you seek you shall find him. You will never find him in man-made constructions.
God told Peter, a Jew, to break the dietary laws directly - providing him the miracle by which he was explicitly told to do it, much against his will.
I think that before you start spouting scripture you might read it and obtain an understanding. The Abrahamic covenant came first, Abraham lived much earlier than Moses. When Moses led the people out of Egypt he saw that they lacked any idea having been slaves fro hundreds of years so he provided a set of laws for them to follow
It's pointless to make further discussion with you. You choose what you will according to your god. If you choose to treat your body like a garbage can, then so be it. I choose to treat mine as a temple.
It isn't pointless from my perspective. You have picked and chosen all sorts of rules out of a rule set for a covenant of which you are not a part, and disregarded direct commandments of God in the rule set of which you are. You call eating certain foods "treating your body like a garbage can", but God says to you, sternly, thrice, what He has made clean, don't you dare continue to call unclean. It isn't. But since you're obsessed about those food laws, let me ask you, do you shave? You should have a full length untrimmed beard, for to trim the beard is forbidden - to Hebrews under the same covenant that has the food laws. Do you only buy kosher meat, meat that has had all of the blood drained out of it? Are your clothes 100% cotton, or 100% wool, or 100% linen, or 100% polyster? For God forbade the Hebrews from wearing any garments of mixed fiber. Do you ever shop on Saturday, or cook, or eat meals cooked by others? God forbade the Hebrews from any work, or from causing anybody else to work for them. Do you pay a head tax every year to whatever you call church, and also give your first fruits, and also tithe you 10%? Surely you do not cheat God? You don't take a tax deduction for that, do you? Surely you are not letting your right hand know what the left is doing. Why don't you obey all of the Laws of Moses? Why is it that you just obey the food laws? Of course you never, ever lie - no false witness for you. And sexual impurity? None of that ever, right? No porneia. No lustful thoughts. Those last bits actually ARE binding, as they're from Jesus to the whole world. I'll bet that you think that you're forgiven those sins, but that the earlier list is more important - a strange inversion of priorities.
No from what I have read Jesus was no politician at all and despised government and big church for its corruption. It was the big church and big government that went after and murdered Jesus?
Jesus despised hypocrisy. But where did he condemn "big government" as such, or "big church" either? Those are political positions. Jesus didn't take political positions.
He spent all his life fighting against big government and big church. It was big government and big church that murdered him. You want to support both big government and big church?
It was big government and big church that murdered him. You want to support both big government and big church? Jesus was somewhere around 33 years old when he died. The first 30 years of his life are obscure. We know of his conception and birth, that he was taken as a baby to Egypt, and we know that around the age of 12 he went to Jerusalem with his parents and wandered off to the Temple, where he was found by them later, speaking with the sages. And then we know nothing about him until the last three years of life, more or less, when he engaged in his public ministry. So no, he did not "spend all his life fighting against big government and big church". Half of his life was spent as a minor child living with his carpenter father and his mother in a Galilean town. We know that in his childhood, the son of God did not preach against the Temple - he went to it to be circumcised, and he gravitated to it to teach the men there when he was as young as 12. So you first point the "all his life fighting" business is a fantasy. Then there is the matter of "big church". "Church" is the English word for "ekklesia", which is what Jesus founded. "Ekklesia" means "those called out an assembly". The "assembly" out of which those who became followers of Jesus were "called out of" was, at first, the synagogues and the Temple of the Jewish religion. There was no "church" to fight against in Jesus' time. He FOUNDED the Church, not fought it. By "church" you mean the Jewish establishment. You say that Jesus "spent his whole life" (really, just three years) "fighting against it". This is utterly false in every detail. Starting with his circumcision and his 12-year-old pilgrimage, Jesus made at least two other pilgrimages for feasts to Jerusalem. There are two separate accounts, at different times in his ministry, of him driving money changers and merchants out of the Temple courtyard. When he did that, he was not "fighting big church" - merchants and money lenders were not ever part of the Temple. He was driving non-religious elements out of the Temple precincts specifically to CLEANSE them of bad influences. He did not seek to destroy anything there. Indeed, he referred to the Temple - the biggest part of "big religion" in ancient Israel, as "His father's house". He warned people not to swear by the Temple, for it was God's place. He spoke of the High Priests as "sitting in the seat of Moses". His first public miracle was at a Jewish wedding in Cana. Jesus did not oppose Jewish traditions. Jesus spoke in synagogues in the towns to which he went. He did not seek to destroy the structures of Jewish religion. He was driven out of the synagogue of his own town because of some of the things he said there, but what he said there was not "tear this down!", rather, it was that he read Isaiah, and then said that the prophesy in it was fulfilled right there in their hearing - in essence, HE was was the prince who was promised. That's not "war on big religion". He met with Nicodemus, who was of the high priestly caste, and discussed the theological points that Nicodemus did not understand. Jesus did not tell Nicodemus to leave the priesthood, or demand that the Temple be torn down. In fact, Nicodemus was the Jewish priest who presided over the rites of Jesus' burial in the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. Jesus had disputes with Pharisees, who were NOT priests and NOT Levites - they were laypeople, the Jewish equivalent of fundamentalist Baptist preachers. They were not WITHIN the Jewish Temple structure or the hereditary priesthood. They were lay people outside of all of that who had excessive zeal for ritual purity. Jesus certainly disputed a great deal with THEM, but in doing so he was NOT "fighting big church", because the Pharisees WEREN'T the clergy at all! Jesus never told men to leave the Temple or to destroy it. He mourned over the destruction that he foresaw for it. Yes, Jesus was tried and damned by the Temple authorities, the Sandhedrin, in a trial that was a sham of Jewish legal procedure. Jesus was lynched by the Sanhedrin with Roman help. His execution did not transform his life into a lifelong war with the Temple. It did doom the Temple and the priesthood at the hand of Jesus' father. As far as Jesus fighting against "big government", that's even more ludicrous than the charge that he fought against "big church". Which "government" was Jesus fighting? The Jewish "government"? What was that, the Temple and priesthood? We've already discussed that? Herod, King of Galilee? Jesus never raised anybody against Herod. He referred to Herod as "that fox" once, when Herod wanted to see him, and said of him "Go tell that fox, 'I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.'" At Jesus' trial before Herod, he said nothing at all. Jesus never spoke against the Jewish government of his Galilean home. He ignored it. When it came to the Romans, Jesus also said nothing other than to tell the Jews to pay their taxes to the Romans. He encountered two Roman centurions in the course of his preaching. The first centurion recognized Jesus' power, asked Jesus to heal a servant and, when Jesus offered to go to the centurions house, the centurion said that all Jesus needed to do was say the word and he knew that his servant would be healed. In response to this Roman military official, Jesus said that he had never seen such faith in Israel. Given that "Israel" included the apostles ranged around him, what Jesus said there was that this foreign, Gentile, Roman government official had more faith than the Apostles themselves. That is hardly damning of the Roman government. It's not praising the Roman government either. The second centurion, at the foot of his cross, is the first to publicly proclaim "Surely this man was the Son of God." Peter, head of the apostles, had said that to Jesus in the close company of the apostles, and for that statement of faith had been made the head of the apostles. The Roman centurion, executioner of the government, was the second man to proclaim Jesus' divinity, and the first to proclaim it publicly. The only other encounter with, or reference to, the Roman government during Jesus' life was his trial before Pontius Pilate, during which Pilate twice pronounced the man innocent. He succumbed to fear of a riot and did not do his judicial duty, leading to Jesus' execution, but of him Jesus merely said that he bore the less guilt. And Jesus never made any verbal attack on the Roman government itself, nor on the concept of government. Not ever. Indeed, after Jesus' resurrection and ascencion, God did one more thing that puts the kebosh on your nonsense about Jesus "fight his whole life against big government". The first Gentiles baptized, after a special miraculous vision sent by the Holy Spirit to Peter, chief of the Apostles, was yet ANOTHER Roman centurion, Cornelius, of the Legion Italica (an Italian-named man in a legion that was on deployment from Italy), and his entire family. So, in fact it was three agents of the Roman government - three centurions of the military occupation - that were the greatest exemplars of faith, of public pronouncement of divinity, and the harbinger of the conversion of the rest of the Gentiles. And Pilate, the weak and cowardly judge, twice pronounced Jesus innocent - Jesus was ACQUITTED by the Roman state. He was killed anyway because of Pilate's fear. Jesus wasn't murdered by the Roman government. He was lynched by a mob of corrupt Jewish priests, with the complicity of a cowardly Roman judge. What you are doing is what Caiphas did. You are consumed with hatred towards government - be it civil or church. And therefore, you're making up a series of false statements. In Caiaphas' case, he was seeking to destroy Jesus. In your case, you are making Jesus say things he never said, giving him positions he never had, because you want to enlist Jesus to your anti- government crusade. This will not end well of you. Regarding church and state, Jesus said respect the authorities, pay you taxes, but focus on obeying God. He didn't CARE about the authorities, and he didn't CARE about money either. You are much more concerned with money (particularly taxes) and with power - things of this world. You think Jesus is with you on this. He manifestly was opposed to you. He tells you to stop focusing on the things of this world, pay your taxes and forget about all of that, and focus your eyes on God. And be peaceful, not warlike. That's the real Jesus. Your Jesus sounds like a Confederate.
Yes he spent his life fighting against the big government and church. I guess that part were they were going to murder all the children of his age is not in your bible, either? Do I really need to quote bible verse to make you happy? Your bible must be different than mine? They try to kill him from the day he was born so his parents hid him from? Big church and big government. Yes he spent his whole life fighting both big government and big church. Its not even a question its fact! Big government is for big government and big church is for big church. Im sorry that you have been brain washed into believing something else. Im sorry but the new Testament is based on I guess my bible doesn't have the bible verse were
Your bible must be different than mine? They try to kill him from the day he was born so his parents hid him from? Big church and big government. Yes he spent his whole life fighting both big government and big church. Its not even a question its fact! Big government is for big government and big church is for big church. Im sorry that you have been brain washed into believing something else. Im sorry but the new Testament is based on *self responsibility of the individual *self sacrifice of the individual *help others who are truly in need as an "individual".[You can't have big government force others to give and redistributes wealth because corruption always rears its ugly head and thats why the individual must give as they see fit to other individuals they see as needy. This can never be done by government without major corruption which in the end steal all the money and the truly needy never see a fricken dime!] I guess my bible doesn't have the bible verse were "you must steal from others especially if they are rich and give to the poor even if they do not deserve it" Jesus didn't spend his life "fighting" anything but Satan. Certainly Herod wrongly sought to kill him as an infant. His family fled to Egypt, which had the same overarching big government - that of Rome - and that "big" government didn't seek his harm at all. In fact, the BIG government, Rome, never SOUGHT Jesus' harm. A Roman centurion sought him out for a healing. Jesus was sometimes threatened by crowds - notably in Nazareth - but that wasn't either the government OR the church, but a local mob. Herod tried to kill him as a child, but Herod wasn't "big" government, he was the Roman equivalent of state government. BIG government , the imperial government, was Roman, and the Romans didn't know a thing about Jesus until Pilate met him at his trial. The Roman law actually kept Jesus alive - by providing the refuge to which Jesus' family could flee in Egypt, and by depriving the local Jewish authorities the ready power to kill him. After convicting him of blasphemy, the Jewish Sanhedrin lacked the power to execute him, and the Roman procurator said "No", twice, before finally being intimidated by a mob into it. So, BIG government barely features at all in Jesus' life. Jesus heals a centurion's servant, is recognized as Son of God by another centurion, and a third centurion is the first Gentile chosen by God for baptism. Jesus told the Jews to pay their taxes to Caesar. So much for Jesus' war on "big" government. Littlle government, local "state" government - Herod and the Sanhedrin - conspired to kill him, they conspired to kill Paul too, later. Big government, REALLY big government, Roman imperial government, actually provided the armed peace that prevented the Jews from just killing Jesus because they were pissed off religious fanatics, and saved Paul's life from angry local Jews more than once. Jesus never preached against government as such. Neither did Paul. And most certainly neither of them preached against Rome, which was the biggest of big government. Jesus pretty much ignored Roman government, told the Jews to pay their taxes to the Romans, and treated Roman officials like people. Paul actually preached obedience to the Roman authorities. So yeah, if you're going to assert the Jesus spent his life fighting the Roman government, which was the BIG government, you're going to have to cite the verses. You will look in vain. You have the same Bible I do, and what you are looking for is not there. Jesus FOUNDED the Church. He didn't spend his life FIGHTING it. What sect do you belong to to believe such nonsense as you have asserted time and again? The Baptists don't teach that Jesus spent his life fighting the church. Neither do the Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Quakers, the Methodists, the Pentecostals or the Jehovah's Witnesses. The AME Churches don't. No church I have ever heard of preaches that Jesus spent his life fighting the church. They don't because it's NONSENSE, pure and utter. So yes, by all means line up those passages about Jesus at war with the Romans and at war with the church. "The Book of Nonsense Chapter 3 says..."
#49. To: Vicomte13, SOSO (#38)
God said clearly and unequivocally if you don't work you don't eat.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
This was not theft - God authorized the hungry to do that on farmland they pass through.
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
the laws that God actually made for the state he made.
#52. To: ConservingFreedom (#51)
What are those laws?
#53. To: redleghunter (#49)
The closest to the point SOSO was making is actually in Genesis chapter 3:
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
In one of Paul's letters he writes "He who will not work shall not eat."
#55. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#49)
God said clearly and unequivocally if you don't work you don't eat. God never said that clearly and unequivocally.
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#39)
(Edited)
#57. To: SOSO, A K A Stone (#55)
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#52)
#59. To: goldilucky (#56)
Christianity was never based on Christ. It was based on the law and practices of Roman law. Where do you think the idea of Christmas and Easter celebration came from? Jesus law was for the Jews and for the Jews to teach the generations to come. The Romans and their Christianity were worshippers of many gods and strange feasts and always have been an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. The bible from the Dietary laws to the Ten Commandments were set in place for the Jews as directed to them by Moses... not Christians (gentiles). The Jews were and always have been the apple of God's eye but even the Jews strayed away from His laws and denied His only son, Jesus Christ. Leave Christianity out of this for it is manmade. God and the bible are the sole truth and have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Religion is manmade used to keep men/women in their place and manipulate the masses by stealing their money and then their souls. Even Jesus was strongly against orthodox religion because He referred to them as thieves in the temples and that those temples were actually synagogues of false worship.
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#59)
You really believe this?
#62. To: paraclete (#61)
he made one mistake he used the word christianity, a very misunderstood concept.
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#59)
#64. To: goldilucky (#63)
its based on the bible.
#65. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
what would you substitute for "christianity"?
#66. To: goldilucky (#63)
(Edited)
And yes, those Ten Commandments and Dietary laws were put in place for the Jews as given to them by Moses directed by God Himself.
#67. To: paraclete (#66)
#68. To: goldilucky (#67)
(Edited)
God has never changed those rules. Never!
#69. To: goldilucky (#67)
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#68)
(Edited)
You're right. But the terms of those rules were: You Jews, do all this and you get a farm.
#71. To: A K A Stone (#70)
That is stupid, and not true.
#72. To: Vicomte13 (#68)
#73. To: paraclete (#69)
#74. To: goldilucky (#72)
I refrain from eating certain meats because they are forbidden and unclean.
#75. To: goldilucky (#73)
If that is true, then why the hell are those Ten Commandments not seen or posted in those courtrooms (as they really should be)?
#76. To: goldilucky (#73)
Everybody keeps saying the U.S. is a Christian nation . If that is true, then why the hell are those Ten Commandments not seen or posted in those courtrooms (
#77. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
#78. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
(Edited)
You've made an idol out of the Jewish law, and its shadow is obscuring the actual law you have to obey.
#79. To: goldilucky (#78)
#80. To: goldilucky (#78)
The Mosaic law was passed onto Moses as instructed by God to His people. It was then passed onto Abraham to pass onto the next generations. One God and One people.
#81. To: Vicomte13 (#79)
#82. To: goldilucky (#81)
It's pointless to make further discussion with you. You choose what you will according to your god. If you choose to treat your body like a garbage can, then so be it. I choose to treat mine as a temple.
#83. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
Apparently you have a Bible in which Jesus was a politician, consumed with the same sort of political obsessions that consume you.
#84. To: Justified (#83)
No from what I have read Jesus was no politician at all and despised government and big church for its corruption.
#85. To: Vicomte13 (#84)
#86. To: Justified (#85)
He spent all his life fighting against big government and big church.
#87. To: Vicomte13 (#86)
So you first point the "all his life fighting" business is a fantasy.
*self responsibility of the individual
*self sacrifice of the individual
*help others who are truly in need as an "individual".[You can't have big government force others to give and redistributes wealth because corruption always rears its ugly head and thats why the individual must give as they see fit to other individuals they see as needy. This can never be done by government without major corruption which in the end steal all the money and the truly needy never see a fricken dime!]
"you must steal from others especially if they are rich and give to the poor even if they do not deserve it"
#88. To: Justified (#87)
(Edited)
Yes he spent his life fighting against the big government and church. I guess that part were they were going to murder all the children of his age is not in your bible, either? Do I really need to quote bible verse to make you happy?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]