Many state – and some emphatically – that the date of the birth of Jesus Christ is of no theological or doctrinal consequence, for if it were the Bible would have given it and told us to commemorate it. Well, Abrahamic-Faith.com does a good job of not only making the case for the time of Jesus Christ’s birth, but its meaning to Christians. The meaning to Christians is probably best expressed in Hebrews 11, with the key verses being 14-16, which reads “For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.” Think, for a second how injurious that passage is to some of the doctrines of Christian Zionist dispensational pre – tribulationists like John Hagee, and consider how Jesus Christ being born during the feast of tabernacles shows how Christians should not be conformed to or otherwise try to hold onto this world but rather live our lives in preparation for and expectation of the next. The late Dr. Vernon McGee used to say of this world “You don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.” That statement puts the agendas of both the dominionist religious right (which dispensational Christian Zionism is a strange manifestation of) and the social gospel religious left into proper perspective, does it not?
Archive for the ‘Zionism’ Category
Christian Zionist Elwood McQuaid Lies On Christian Left By Claiming That They Are Replacement Theologists!
Posted by Job on January 15, 2008
Now of course, I have no regard for the Christian left. But claiming that their advocacy of the Palestinians is motivated by replacement theology is a lie, and this fellow knows it. If you believe in replacement theology, then you believe that the Bible is inerrant (or infallible) and authoritative, and therefore the commandments of the Bible, including God’s covenant with Jews and Christians, should be a determinative influence in contemporary secular politics. What member of the Christian left believes this? Do you honestly expect us to believe that the same people that are baptizing murdered fetuses at abortion clinics and marrying and ordaining homosexuals have anything resembling the sort of mindset that would support replacement theology? McQuaid knows that this is not so, and he is willing to lie to frightened Jews as a way to get their political support. McQuaid knows that Jews have been raised to believe that replacement theology is the source of all evil that has befallen the Jews, from Muslims turning against them (or so they say) to the Holocaust. McQuaid is exploiting this in order to gain the political support of Jews, which is key to evangelicals gaining more political power in America.This proves that so – called Christian Zionists are not the true friends of the Jews, but are exploiting them for their own purposes. So now, we see that these people are so depraved that they are trying to convince Jews that the same people that cast aside what the Bible says about adultery, fornication, murder, homosexuality, women pastors, etc. when running their own churches are willing to impose a Biblical view on determining who gets political control of Israel. Also, the increasingly confrontational mindset of evangelicals is disturbing. We see in this Christianity Today link, for instance, where they are convinced that fundamentalist Christianity is the greatest evil in the world (actually preferring evil sinners to born – again Bible believing Christians it seems), in this link in Frances Beckwith their increasing opposition to Christians that believe that the Reformation happened for a reason and are unwilling to accept Roman Catholicism today (and Mormonism tomorrow) as just another Christian denomination, and in this very story they are telling Jews that the religious left is seeking their genocide. Whatever side you have taken in the Middle East peace process, do not join yourself to the Christian Zionists! See article below.
An interesting contest seems to be heating up as the world paves a road to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The American religious Left has felt compelled to issue a series of documents slanted toward the Arab and Palestinian points of view, urging the powers that be to muscle Israel to accede to demands that will place Israelis in a virtually untenable position regarding their future security.
Signatories to these documents propose that they speak for the majority of evangelical Christians (as do you you!) and, therefore, are in a position to pontificate on the direction the United States and other Western powers should take in (1) determining the future shape of the new Middle East and (2) correcting what they claim are the egregious malefactions of the Israeli government and its friends in the Zionist evangelical camp (apparently friends lie on each other).
Their criticisms are based on the concept that Israel’s day is over, both biblically and historically. Consequently, Israelis have no more right to the land than their Muslim/Arab antagonists. Theologically, this position is popularly known as Replacement Theology, which claims that God’s promises to the heirs of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were conditional and therefore abrogated by Israel’s disobedience. So the church stepped in as the true “Israel of God” and possesses the spiritualized, redefined covenants of promise. (In addition to being a liar, this fellow is an apostate heretic, denying Jesus Christ before men that the old covenant is passed away – see the Book of Hebrews – and the new covenant is not of dead works but of spirit and is based on better promises – see Hebrews, Galatians, and Romans.)
From this lofty, self-ascribed position, modern Israel is seen as a squatter on property it seized from militarily inferior Palestinians who should receive it back, so much so that Israel has been called an apartheid state equal to South Africa, which practiced legal racial segregation and suppressed human rights from 1948 to 1994. (First off, few members of the Christian left do as “pastor” McQuaid is doing, which is to lie on history. The overwhelming majority of the Christian left wants the same two – state solution that has been advocated by the international community ever since 1948. Also, great job of lying on the South Africa analogy, pastor. Totally ignore the fact that Israel was apartheid South Africa’s biggest supporter, continuing to support them even after international sanctions were imposed. When apartheid fell, the #1 fear by the Israeli government was that new South African government would turn anti – Israel and take the rest of black Africa with them.)
ZIONIST Christians (those of us who believe the land promises to the Jewish people are irrevocable-biblically, historically, morally, and legally) are written off as an illegitimate theological mutation, unworthy of serious consideration. Furthermore, we are accused of being anti-Palestinian political meddlers who say, “Israel right or wrong.” This point of view elicits a number of responses that are perfectly in order considering the seriousness of the accusations.
First and foremost, on the matter of believing God’s biblical promises regarding Jewish rights to a homeland in Eretz Yisrael, we are guilty as charged. The birth of the church as God’s grace gift to the Gentiles did not contain a deed to property in the Middle East. Nor does it give Christian leaders, as some have wrongly concluded, a mandate to dictate what land is actually His land.
Second, the accusation that we are anti-Palestinian is totally without foundation. The Palestinians are caught in the middle of a conflict created and maintained by the manipulative mismanagement of their leaders who act in their own behalf, disregarding the needs of their people. The most unfortunate are Palestinian Christians. Witness the exodus of Christian Arabs to the West and Europe in recent years. Some have gone so far as to blame this evacuation on Israel and economic oppression and despair caused by the continual “occupation.”
Hardly mentioned is the fact that the Christian exodus from the Middle East is a response to the Islamic drive to exterminate Christians and Jews from the region.
Criticism of Israel’s 8,000 settlers in Gaza was a popular theme for many years. If the Jewish infiltrators were eliminated from the Gaza, the mantra went, Palestinians could elevate their social and economic status, which would change their lives and lifestyles. So the Jews left, at great cost. The result? Gaza became a staging area for terrorists; Hamas rules the street; and Christian Arabs are hunted, assassinated, and forced to find safe haven somewhere other than Gaza.
With regard to the charge of meddling in politics, let it be said that Christian Zionism is not primarily a political action movement. It is not the legitimate province of outsiders, however benevolently motivated, to dictate the political policy of a foreign government. The Israeli people are perfectly capable of determining the course their nation should pursue. That said, there is a point where politics and biblical, prophetic realities converge. This is not a matter of dictation but observation; and there is no doubt that current events, when compared with scriptural predictions, help us discern where we are and where history is heading.
For Israelis and the Jewish state, the issue is survival within secure, recognized borders. And for Palestinians, Christians, and others, it is the right to pursue productive and tranquil lives without fear of radical Islamist discrimination.
The writer, a pastor, is a veteran leader of the Christian Zionist movement in the US.
Posted in apostasy, Bible, blasphemy, Christian hypocrisy, christian left, christian liberalism, Christian Persecution, Christian persecution Palestinian Israel, Christian Zionism, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church scandal, dual covenant theology, evangelical christian, GOP, heresy, Israel, John Hagee, Judaism, liberal christian, Middle East peace process, replacement theology, Republican, Zionism | Tagged: Christianity Today, elwood mcquaid, evangelicalism, middle east, palestinians | 13 Comments »
Posted by Job on December 29, 2007
In my old religious right GOP days, I would have hailed this as a victory for conservatism. But now, I am forced to reckon with the fact that Bill Kristol is not a Christian, but a very aggressive big business neoconservative Zionist who is extremely hard – hearted towards the poor and the dispossessed. As a matter of fact, Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol, who is called the father of neoconservatism. Now is not the time to be worried about being labeled “anti – Semite” or be distracted with ideological or partisan political games. As much as I oppose Mike Huckabee, it is interesting to note, for instance, that the neocons are trashing the fellow because he represents people that actually takes their Christianity seriously rather than worshiping a false god of state, tradition, heritage, values, etc. These same people actually went ballistic over Mike Huckabee’s saying “the purpose of Christmas is to honor Christ”, hounded him until he stopped calling himself “a Christian leader” in his ads (despite the fact that it was a literally true statement from a former megachurch pastor and head of the Arkansas Southern Baptist Convention), and actually dedicated several days to analyzing whether Huckabee used special lighting effects to make the light reflecting off a bookshelf behind him take the form of a crucifix! They have spent the last month emulating the New York Times, NPR, and what have you in calling Huckabee’s supporters ignorant bigots out to start a holy war. The best part is how they trash Huckabee for having the same record and positions on issues that Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have.
If that is what people think of those that follow the false Christianity that tolerates people like John Hagee and Kenneth Copeland (whose support Huckabee has aggressively courted) and if they went apoplectic over hateful Anne Coulter’s dual covenant theology, then what do they think of real Christianity and actual Christians? The New York Times’ hiring this fellow really does show that when it comes down to it, the mainstream left and the right are on the same side when it comes to the globalist agenda. Kristol is going to use the influence of the New York Times to win over as many liberals to that agenda as possible just as a generation ago William F. Buckley used the National Review to transform the conservative movement into its current neoconservative manifestation.
Proof positive: Bill Kristol agrees with George W. Bush, the Wall Street Journal, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc. on amnesty for illegal immigrants and not enforcing our borders in general. Kristol, when it comes down to it, is just another Council on Foreign Relations/Rockefeller guy, and he is going to use his position at the New York Times to lead a lot of liberals, conservatives, independents, etc. down that path.
Posted in anti - Semitism, Christianity, conservatism, Council on Foreign Relations, illegal immigration, immigration, Israel, New York Times, Zionism | Tagged: Bill Kristol, neocon, neoconservative, new world order | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Job on December 21, 2007
Please click on link above and read the article therein. It is important!
Update: the story from the survivors of the attack – www.gtr5.com
Posted by Job on December 21, 2007
First, you had Roman Catholics declare that evangelicals had BETTER back Mitt Romney or be declared bigots. Second, you had evangelicals going after Mitt Romney. Third you have Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Giuliani. Fourth you had Mike Huckabee’s rise after his outstanding debate performances, especially the Youtube one. Fifth, you had the hateful Mormon reaction towards Huckabee’s rise, aimed not so much towards Huckabee as his evangelical supporters. Sixth, you had the GOP leadership attacking Huckabee for basically having the same positions as Giuliani and Romney (yes, we know Giuliani openly courted illegal immigrants and blocked enforcement attempts by federal officials, and that Mitt Romney raised taxes and negotiated and signed a $50 abortion universal healthcare plan that will lead to more tax increases in the future, but it was OK when THEY do it because THEY are so like electable or principled or something and Huckabee is not!). Now, we have the clearest example of why the GOP establishment hates Huckabee: the tiff between Roman Catholics and evangelicals. Now the last Vatican Council closed the rift between Catholics and mainline Protestants. Billy Graham and religious right politics brought Catholics and mainstream respectable evangelicals closer together.
But it appears that Huckabee has no interest in being a mainstream respectable evangelical leader like Billy Graham, who sat right before Richard Nixon and did not raise a single voice of objection or even silently get up and leave when Nixon was ranting racist statements in his presence (please keep in mind that Graham is regarded as a civil rights leader) against not only blacks but also the low income whites that made up the bulk of Graham’s most faithful followers. Now if Huckabee were willing to play ball, he could have simply gone to the powers that be and gotten himself a fistful of cash. As it is, Huckabee is going his own way, and it is not a way that pleases the Vatican.
Take Mike Huckabee’s visit to the “church” of John Hagee, whom IndependentConservative has labeled the biggest heretic of 2007 for his preaching a form of dispensational pretribulationism that is so extreme that it denies Christianity. Now Hagee does appropriately oppose the Vatican, but only in a distorted fashion that supports his own devil’s doctrines. But even that is too much for the supporters of the replacement of God on earth, so now we have the National Review’s token minority, Roman Catholic Kathryn Jean Lopez, demanding that Mike Huckabee NOT preach at John Hagee’s church on the grounds that it would divide the Republican Party. Quoting Lopez with my comments, as usual, in italics and parentheses:
With great power comes great responsibility. And Mike Huckabee, once and future Baptist preacher, could afford to watch where he’s taking to the pulpit. That’s “future” because the former evangelical pastor will be at John Hagee’s Cornerstone Church on Sunday. According to a San Antonio Huckabee meetup site, Huckabee will be speaking at two Sunday services at the Texas megachurch. He’ll be making the appearances just days after he told CBS News that “It’s not like [I’m] stepping from the pulpit last Sunday and running for president.”
But maybe next Sunday . . .
The problem with this particular church is its pastor. It is no secret that evangelicals and Catholics have their theological differences. If we didn’t we’d all be under the same church roof like once upon a time. But Hagee has been particularly outspoken beyond his Cornerstone Church, as a supporter of Israel and a prolific writer. His activism has brought some attention to his views on the Catholic Church. In Hagee’s “black history” of the Catholic Church, for example, Catholics were far from only guilty of sins of omission when it came to the Nazis, they also gave Hitler his blueprint, according to Hagee. In a speech this year, Hagee pointed to the Catholic Church as having provided the jumping-off point for the Holocaust, claiming: “That was really drawn by the Roman church. [Hitler] did not do anything differently. He only did it more ruthlessly, and on a national scale.” (This is where Hagee’s doctrinal history is wrong; the Lutheran Church in Germany, which by that time had become a typical secular liberal “Christian values” state church, fully endorsed and supported Hitler to the point where they proclaimed that God had raised up Hitler to restore Germany to greatness. Liberal theologian Karl Barth’s claim to fame was opposing the Lutheran Church in this matter and being proven right by history, even if Barth was right on little else.) The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has long been concerned about Hagee’s rhetoric, calling him a “veteran bigot,” accusing him of distorting Catholic teachings and misrepresenting Church history. The League has cautioned that, “Tone matters … and Hagee’s tone is nothing but derisive.”
Hagee is politically active and has had candidates at his church before and is likely to again. It’s probably only natural that Huckabee would be among them. And certainly other candidates have courted or been endorsed by religious figures who are not known for their ecumenical diplomacy. But after weeks of being a divider, not a uniter — pretending to innocently raise questions about Mormon theology to a New York Times reporter, informing Today Show viewers that he is really the choice for evangelicals — Huckabee should be sensitive to his unnecessarily exclusionary tactics.
As the former governor of Arkansas, successor to the Little Rock Clinton administration, Mike Huckabee above all people should understand the importance of having a strong coalition to BEAT HER in the fall. Speaking like a man seeking to be president of evangelical America, not president of the United States, Huckabee told Meredith Vieira earlier this week: “There’s a sense in which all these years the evangelicals have been treated very kindly by the Republican party. They wanted us to be a part of it, and then one day, one of us actually runs and they say, ‘Oh, my gosh! Now they’re serious.’” (Of course, this is precisely how non – evangelical supporters have been acting towards his campaign. None of them have even so much as stated that they want to see an evangelical in this race or any other. Quite the contrary, they have made a point of making it clear that they prefer Mormons or even secular candidates to evangelicals at every turn.)
Huckabee, meanwhile, is leaving some non-evangelical conservatives wondering, “Oh, my gosh. Maybe they never wanted to be allied with us.” (No mention that evangelicals are wondering the same.) Huckabee is working right now, intentionally or not, on breaking down a winning coalition of religious conservatives. (Right. The previous traditions of having religious conservatives voting for necromancers like Ronald Reagan and universalist occultists like George H. W. and George W. Bush was so much better, just like everything would be just fine were religious conservatives to vote for Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney now.)
When Pope John Paul II died in 2005, some of the most moving statements coming out of congressional offices were from evangelical conservatives who viewed him as an important leader in defending the sanctity of human life. (Again, you would be fine with evangelicals supporting pro – death Roman Catholic Rudy Giuliani, don’t you? Of course you would.) Many of them had adopted his “culture of life” language and thinking. (Sure, as if evangelicals hadn’t been using that phraseology for decades.) They saw him as an ally and were inspired by his leadership. They joined him, despite theological differences, in important cultural and political fights. It was and is a natural pairing. (It was never a “pairing” but rather Rome using evangelicals to gain power for themselves, a situation that you wish to preserve.) Mike Huckabee, who is not a conservative on all things (Rudy Giuliani is not a conservative on anything but do you mention him? no because he is from New York and a Catholic), but is on social issues, should know that and treasure and protect and foster these alliances. He’s a riveting speaker who could rally social conservatives, at least to whip them up to fight another day. (There. You said it. That is what you want. You have no desire to see an evangelical ever become President or a legitimate leader in the conservative movement. Your only desire is to create another pawn to replace the compromised or fading Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ralph Reed, etc. to deliver votes to you people.) Instead, he’s executing a divide-and-conquer strategy. (Speaking of “divide and conquer”, what are the many Republican Jews that love John Hagee going to say about your demands that Mike Huckabee not speak at John Hagee’s church because a conservative Catholic insists on a revisionist form of the Holocaust favorable to the Catholic Church be adhered to?)
When Mitt Romney was convinced he had to give a “Mormon speech,” he gave a speech about religious liberty and America. It wasn’t, in other words, about him. Of course, that was, in part, a political calculation — how much could be gained by talking about Mormon theology during a political campaign? But it was also just the right thing. (OK, so willfully deceiving people on matters of faith in order to get them to vote for you is the right thing to do. Gotcha. Thanks for admitting that this is precisely what the GOP has been doing to evangelicals for all these decades and you are angry at Huckabee for not willing to keep the scam going.) It’s a political campaign and people want to hear about his political thinking — what America means to him and how he fits into it all, what he can offer Americans in terms of leadership. (No, evangelicals want to hear him stop claiming that Mormonism is Christianity because unless he does he shows that he has no respect for the same Christians that he hypocritically demands respect from, and is fundamentally dishonest and cannot be trusted in office, as if his betraying the Massachusetts voters by flip – flopping on every single social issue did not demonstrate that already. Ironically, Roman Catholic religious right commentators like yourself and Bob Novak claim that Mitt Romney’s being able to lie and get away with it to the voters of Massachusetts is precisely why evangelicals should support him! In reality, Roman Catholics could care less about whether Romney is going to go back on his promise not to use the White House to promote Mormonism, because they know that relatively few Roman Catholics convert to Mormonism as opposed to huge numbers of evangelicals, and as a matter of fact I would bet they get some sort of perverse pleasure out of seeing evangelicals become Mormons.) Since Mike Huckabee has found himself at the front of the Republican field, it’s been more The Mike Show than not. (And that is different from the other candidates in the race how? Oh, that is right. Only the other candidates are supposed to run races with an actual expectation of winning. Everything evangelicals are supposed to do is to promote the GOP while receiving absolutely nothing in return.) In a treadmill interview with the New York Times earlier this week, he claimed “I’m being questioned about the details of my faith like no one else.” Mitt Romney and Barack Obama might legitimately argue that point, Gov. He’s cast aspersions on another candidate’s religion. (You mean like you are doing his right now?) He’s highlighted hostilities among evangelicals and others in the Republican party. (You mean like you have done with about four or five of your own columns including this one?) If he keeps this up, he’s going to do some unholy damage. (You mean force evangelicals to admit that the GOP is never going to push their agenda and that they have been taken for a ride all this time?)
With all due respect to Hagee and his congregation (who are, of course, entitled to believe and say as they choose), Mike Huckabee should cancel his Sunday plans with Hagee. It can be his Christmas present to his party — to hold it together instead of continuing to tear it apart. (No, even if he does cancel this visit, you will still tear down Huckabee’s campaign by claiming that evangelicals are a bunch of ungrateful dumb bigots like you have been doing for the past month. What you are doing is demanding that evangelicals not fight back.)
This is really what it is all about: Huckabee’s populist economic rhetoric. While Huckabee has not overtly come out against free trade and other forms of economic globalism (regrettably he has done the contrary) Huckabee has been more than willing to rally and exploit the feelings of those harmed and alienated by economic globalism. That was why hypocrite heretic Ron Paul went after Huckabee: he and the Huckster are going after some of the same people. But in doing this, Huckabee is treading on very dangerous ground for the GOP. The left has for years pointed out how the GOP has maintained the support of low – income whites despite their pro – rich and pro – corporate economic views by baiting Hollywood (and our universities) as bastions of anti – Christian elitism. And they are right. But this is the trick. The GOP bashes the liberal PROFESSORS at these universities, not the corporations that endow their chairs and give these universities tons of money. The GOP bashes the liberal Hollywood ACTORS, DIRECTORS, and SINGERS that create anti – Christian movies and songs, NOT Sony, Time Warner, Disney, etc. that have made the conscious decision to pervert the masses.
By keeping the focus on Madonna, they draw the spotlight away from the fact that no one would have heard of this woman in the first place had corporate America not signed her to a record deals, constantly bombarded us with her music, videos, and movies, and continued to keep her in the public eye even after her many artistic and commercial failures (of which she has actually produced more of than her successes). You hate MTV? Good for you. But what about the corporation that owns MTV, and the other corporations that carry it as part of basic cable or satellite? You hate pornography? Good for you. But the Internet pornography industry would dry up overnight if the big banks stopped allowing their credit cards and similar to be used to support this stuff. And then there is the fact that many things vital to conservatism including Fox News are owned by the world’s biggest pornographer Rupert Murdoch!
So when one looks at it, the anti – corporate message (and by that I mean amoral unaccountable global corporations that not only are only interested in money but seem to have figured out that the more they do to destabilize cultures in nation – states the more power they have to control the governments and markets in these nations … if you have a population that is strung out on porn, rock music, sports gambling, and unhealthy foods whether we are talking about the high fat high sugar junk foods or the even more harmful chemically engineered health foods for the body image worshiping diet and exercise fanatics a corporation can easily manipulate it to maximize its power and profits) is actually a pro – Christian, pro – family, and pro – freedom message. What the GOP and the religious right have done is successfully convince white evangelicals that big government is evil (which is true because the Bible says so) BUT THAT BIG BUSINESS IS GOOD (when the Bible says opposite).
Now initially, Jerry Falwell and a lot of the others understandably signed onto the “business is good for Christianity” message to oppose communism, and that is understandable, as in addition to the external threat of the Soviet Union communism was a huge INTERNAL threat as well. But in the process, these folks forgot that the definition of fascism according to Benito Mussolini is “the corporatization of government power.” If you read Daniel and Revelation, the anti – Christ regime and the regime of the great harlot Babylon is not a communist one but a hypercapitalist fascist one where any filthy perversion that one wants can be had at the right price. Also, consider the figure of the false prophet … the anti – Christ’s rule will not be based on atheist Marxist ideology but will include a false religious ideology that will be very important to it. Religious right leaders at the time claimed that the atheist and Marxist doctrines of communism was a religion in its own right, and while I do not disagree, what the eschatological scriptures of the Bible seem to point to resembles much more closely the emperor/sun worship of the Roman Empire or the state religion of fascist Nazi Germany. So it appears that the Christian leaders that hopped onto the pro – business agenda of the Ronald Reagan (who was the first president to have official diplomatic relations with the Vatican) GOP in their zeal to oppose communism might have actually enabled a worse evil. And then you have the fellows that came up after Falwell: Pat Robertson and James Dobson. Pro – business religious right politics was very much in the interests of building their own financial empires … Robertson is reportedly a billionaire (and you know that with his many oil interests he is not the least bit concerned with how the tripling of the price of gas under the Bush administration has harmed the poor) and though Dobson’s finances are not as well known the fellow is obviously extremely wealthy.
But at what cost? China has cast off Maoism because they have discovered that one can become a more powerful and effective aggressor and imperialist using economics than with a military, and is also experimenting with a version of state – sponsored false Christianity that they find is useful to their purposes, and Pat Robertson is helping them in that regards. In Russia meanwhile Vladimir Putin has for all intents and purposes made the Russian Orthodox Church a state church, and the Through The Bible ministry reports that both are working together to oppose evangelical outreach efforts in that nation, and we also know how aggressively Russia has used economics to pursue its own interests. And yes, some would add Israel to that mix. “Christian Zionists” like John Hagee and Pat Robertson do their best to prevent you from knowing this, but Zionism was originally a secular socialist movement, and as such Israel was originally a secular socialist state, but over the decades Israel has become increasingly theocratic and aggressively capitalist. It is interesting to note that their relations with the Vatican have greatly improved during that time. It is even more interesting to note that so has their relations with supposed anti – Catholic evangelicals such as John Hagee. Prior to this, Israel’s support came mostly from the Christian left and the secularists (who have now largely shifted sides to the Palestinians).
So what does this have to do with Rome? Well, the Roman Catholic Church supports globalism. Always has. Now originally, even after Constantine made Christianity the church of the Roman Empire, the bishop of Rome did not have ultimate authority over the church and considerable influence over state matters. As a matter of fact, no one even claimed that the bishop of Rome should have this authority until Leo the Great in about 450 AD (Constantine’s Council of Nicea was 325 AD), and when he did there was considerable resistance from not only the state but the church also! It was not until 150 years later when Gregory I achieved virtually any of what Leo the Great first asserted for the bishop of Rome, and hundreds of years more until the bishop of Rome achieved primary (though not full) power over the church and enough over the state to crown Charlemagne emperor (by Leo III, the namesake of the first fellow to assert full power for the bishop of Rome).
Leo III had reasons for doing so that fit the modern globalist agenda quite nicely. Not only was there substantial opposition inside the church to the growing power of the papacy, but there was state opposition too. The solution: reduce the number of states! That was the result of declaring Charlemagne the sole political ruler of all of the territories that the church saw fit to lay claim to in the west (the eastern church and its lands was a different, more complex story). All dissenters faced the full force of Charlemagne’s army. This was in the papacy’s interests because even having to deal with one secular ruler that proved to be hostile was preferable to dealing with many rulers with varying degrees of support for and opposition to the bishop of Rome. Propagating the power of the bishop of Rome was what was really important, not the attitudes of a particular leader who incidentally can always be replaced (isn’t that right Saddam Hussein?).
So while the nations of this world still have their powerful armies, that is not where the real power in today’s world lies. No, that power rests with 1) financial markets and 2) technology. And just as it was in the 9th century, the more distinct economic and political entities there are, the harder it is for any one person or group that wishes to assert central authority. Despite what we still choose to call or regard ourselves, the net effects of things like global corporations, economic integration, participation in international governing bodies, treaties, and open immigration is the removal of these distinctions. The result is that when individual nations – and the people in them – have less power, stateless global rulers have more. The best part is that whether you sign your national sovereignty away by allowing EU style full economic integration, with a series of military and economic treaties to the United Nations NATO and similar, having an open immigration policy (or simply refusing to enforce your border and not punishing nations like MEXICO that commits economic and cultural acts of war by actively encouraging, aiding, and abetting their citizens – and anyone else – in crossing it) or by simply handing the keys over to AOL Time Warner and British Petroleum and allowing them to run the show, the end result is actually the same. Anyone who refuses to play ball, it seems, either winds up assassinated or seeing their nations turn into economic and political basket cases. If you have huge reserves of oil, uranium, or gold you can stave it off for a time, but only for a time. Never forget that Pat Robertson did urge George W. Bush to assassinate Hugo Chavez, for instance.
Now the folks behind all this are rather crafty. They know that universal acceptance of this situation in this day and time will not come. So what do they do? They take half of their agenda (say corporate globalization by monopolies) and promote it to the right, and then take the other half (unrestricted immigration and global warming treaties) and promote it to the left. Then contrive (and contribute to) a bunch of hot – button issues (i.e. racism, which these folks contribute to by disseminating racist images of blacks to through the media that causes whites to fear the images and blacks to conform to them … by the way the founder of Black Entertainment Television Bob Johnson became a very rich man in a short time thanks to federal rules forcing cable companies to carry BET on basic cable, and please note that both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have Bob Johnson on their speed dials) that keep the two opposing groups so distracted by emotionalism that its members cannot recognize that they were really advocating opposite ends of the same agenda, and causes them to completely ignore it when both groups push precisely the same thing.
The Democrats that opposed NAFTA when George H. W. Bush first proposed it joined in the mocking of H. Ross Perot and later supported it when Bill Clinton enacted it. And the Republicans that called Bill Clinton a communist traitor for working so hard to get China into the WTO – including evangelicals that opposed China’s persecution of Christians not in their state church – either said nothing or supported George W. Bush’s finishing Bill Clinton’s job of getting China into the WTO. NRA – type conservatives that successfully defeated Bill Clinton’s version of the Patriot Act after the Oklahoma City bombings but were either silent or generally supportive of George W. Bush’s Patriot Act after September 11th, which either the Clinton or Bush administration could have easily prevented. Now these same NRA – type conservatives are almost certainly going to back either anti – gun Mitt Romney or anti – gun Rudy Giuliani because one of them is “the most electable” against the even more anti – gun Hillary Clinton. And so on.
Meanwhile, the various interests groups of these camps that think that they oppose each other are conditioned over time to accept just about anything. For instance, had Jimmy Carter signed welfare reform in the 1970s, there would have been a massive leftist uproar. But after the perceived horrors of the Reagan administration and the threat of Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton was able to invite an overweight black single mother to the welfare reform bill signing without a peep from a single black leader other than Juan Williams. In a similar fashion, had Reagan appointed an openly homosexual man to be his AIDS czar with his vice president refusing to support a political war against gay marriage (and his own homosexual daughter goes on to become “a parent” with her lesbian partner) with Nancy Reagan stating on the Today Show that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, it would have led to an evangelical walkout from the GOP. But Bush does these things and more and evangelicals remain his most loyal supporters, and now prominent evangelical leaders are lining up behind either $50 universal healthcare abortion Mitt Romney who tried to run to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights or late term abortion supporting cross – dresser for gay pride parades Rudy Giuliani. It is also interesting that the frontrunners in both races: Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Romney, are considered “moderates” whose primary function is to get members of their own globalist coalition to accept as much of the agenda of the (alleged) opposing side as possible.
And that goes back to why Huckabee is so hated. Right now, the dogma on the right is that it is completely unacceptable to oppose corporate America even if they replace as many American workers with foreign workers as they can, even if they adopt domestic partner benefits that the government then copies to write their civil union bills, even if they make tons of money by dealing with governments like Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, etc., and even if their CEOs are brazen criminals that loot their companies for billions without any accountability. All Huckabee is doing is stating that, you know, maybe it is kinda sorta OK to oppose how these corporations have betrayed not only your personal financial self – interest but are daily committing acts of high treason against your own nation.
And that is making the GOP leadership apoplectic. MAYBE if evangelicals start resenting corporate America for outsourcing his job to India, relocating his son’s factory to China, and refusing to hire his other son for the construction job that would have paid his way through college or trade school because it can hire an undocumented Guatemalan for 1/3 the price, then they will start resenting corporate America for zealously doing business in these Marxist and Muslim nations that treat Christians so bad. And then MAYBE they will stop associating “Brokeback Mountain” and Madonna with the liberal Hollywood talent and media that produces and publicizes these abominations but the corporations that truthfully owns it all.
If that ever happens, the religious right will start thinking “Why am I so dirty, bruised, smelly, and disease – ridden? Oh, that’s right. I got into bed with the Rockefeller Wall Street Republican Party and then allowed it to do with me whatever it pleased.” And then the whole deal falls apart. Since joining up with the Democrats is not an option, you would see evangelicals leading – or joining – an effort to oppose the very sources that are undermining this nation – and let us face it the evangelical movement with it – that they are currently unwittingly supporting. Do not get me wrong, these people don’t REALLY fear a third political party movement. The multiparty parliamentary systems that Europe, Israel, and pretty much every “democratic” nation on earth have has not inhibited the globalist agenda that I am speaking of; if anything it has made it easier for them. Rather, it appears that what they most fear is a large group of unaffiliated yet active, engaged, and involved people. As a matter of fact, Gary North, a person prominent in the founding of the religious right says in The Silence Of The Fundamentalist Lambs at lewrockwell.com/north/north575.html (please read it even if you disagree with his theological views) asserts that the religious right was founded in large part by the same people who founded the religious left (including the civil rights movement!) precisely to make sure that the then – unaffiliated white evangelical and fundamentalist Christians chose a side. Since these people were successfully manipulated into supporting first Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Ronald Reagan in 1980, it really did not matter which side they chose so long as they picked one.
Now do not get me wrong. Huckabee, who is joined at the hip with the people who represent the worst of false evangelical Christianity (see Ties Between Mike Huckabee And John Hagee Discovered! He Also Has Ties To Kenneth Copeland, Tim LaHaye, And Rick Warren!) is not some contender for righteousness. Quite the contrary, Huckabee supported these people by going as far as to give scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants as a way of inducing their parents to move to Arkansas and work for Tyson Foods. Mike Huckabee also supported the Marxist National Education Association’s war against homeschoolers in Arkansas (see here and here). Now please note that Lew Rockwell is a pro – Ron Paul outfit and I regrettably have had to cease supporting him, so view it in that context, but everything that they say about Mike Huckabee is still nonetheless true. The national homeschool association endorsed Huckabee, but this was their reasoning: “When you understand he’s a Baptist minister, you don’t have to ask what he stands for.” With such logic the anti – Christ would be well – pleased! But it is very possible that the RHETORIC of Mike Huckabee might open some evangelical eyes that the GOP would rather remain wide shut.
Then again, it could be part of the game. After all, illegal immigration fighter Tom Tancredo, after helping scuttle an immigration deal that would have shut down the border over the fantasy that we could actually identify and deport 15 million illegal immigrants or even get most of them to voluntarily repatriate to Mexico, did endorse Mitt Romney yesterday. Calling it amnesty is one thing, calling it logistical reality is another.
Posted in Bible, big business, capitalism, catholic, Christian Zionism, Christians United For Israel, church state, civil rights, endtimes, eschatology, fascism, GOP, government, illegal immigration, immigration, James Dobson, John Hagee, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Mormon, mormonism, Pat Robertson, politics, prophecy, religious right, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Zionism | Tagged: apocalypse, BET, black entertainment television, Bob Johnson, Cornerstone Church, culture war, evangelical, Fox News, hugo chavez, Israel, Karl Barth, mexico, presidential politics, presidential race, Revelation, Roman Catholic, Roman Catholicism, ronald reagan, Rupert Murdoch, Tom Tancredo, Tyson Foods | 28 Comments »
Posted by Job on November 20, 2007
Up until very recently I sincerely felt that Christians could speed the return of Jesus Christ by doing works, such as spreading the gospel. But now I find out by reading “Messiah In The Old Testament” by the (rather liberal but still orthodox) Walter Kaiser out that the Pharisees had that same error. They were correct in presuming that their failure to keep the law resulted in their nation being sent into captivity and subjected to brutal subjugation. They were correct that the prophets who foretold their current fate also spoke of a coming Messiah. So then, what was their error? A perfectly understandable mistake: that if disobeying the law caused them to lose their nation, monarchy, and sovereignty, then keeping the law would cause these things to be restored by the Messiah that their prophets spoke of. Of course, the natural progression was that the Jews could speed the return of the Messiah by being VERY ZEALOUS, but that being “less than zealous” would hinder his coming. That is why their actions against Jesus Christ, who like John Hagee His being Messiah they rejected, were very understandable … they thought that His using His influence with the people to disobey their interpretation of the law was hindering the restoration of Israel and the Messianic age.
This belief did not die, incidentally. The reason why Jews went from tolerating Jesus Christ’s Jewish followers as a sect within Judaism (if an errant bothersome one … though they far from the only ones considered errant and bothersome) to expelling them from their synagogues as apostates and heretics was because they were ultimately scapegoated for the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and Jerusalem in 117 AD. Why? Because they were following the Man who taught them to disobey the law, causing God to punish us as He did in 586 BC. (Of course, this is not said directly, instead they say that the reason why the second temple was destroyed was “the lack of unity.”) And though this is similarly rarely spoken of, some Jewish leaders blamed the Holocaust on a number of Jews going after secularism and liberalism (Conservative and Reform Judaism) and a general failure to keep the Sabbath. And to this day, the goal of rabbinic Judaism is to cause God to grant the Jewish nation their Messiah.
Is it an oversimplification to say that the Pharisees were too preoccupied and self – assured in their doctrines that they could bring cause the Messiah to come through works that they did not recognize the Messiah when He came to them not by their works to do their Will but by God’s grace to do God’s Will? For it must be said: the Word of God says that if a man labors, he must reap the benefits thereof. If even the ox that treads the corn should not be muzzled, how much more so should a man that labors be? So the inevitable conclusion is that with anything that man produces with works, man can take some credit for it. Man can take some ownership of it. Man can have some control over it. As such, the Messiah produced by works would have been THEIR Messiah to do THEIR Will, even if only least in part. So when Jesus Christ came to do not their Will in any sense but God’s, and was so not owned by or beholden to man that He did no so much as have a human father, they rejected Him because He was not the creation of their own hands. Nay, He was not the creation of ANY, but rather the uncreated God, the Word of the Trinity.
That is why our own salvation cannot be the result of works. If we labored in any least sense, in any jot or tittle, then that would give us that much ownership rights and control over our souls. That would deprive God not only of His due glory, but His ownership rights as our sole creator and sole managers of our destiny. And since works produce works, it would give preachers and evangelists ownership rights over those converted by their efforts! Now imagine the effect of this … the great masses of the redeemed dwelling with God in heaven, not only with each having a claim on himself and many having claims on others, but the combined net worth effect of their collective claims! For eternity! (Believe in interest perhaps?) So I say “God forbid!” Such a thing cannot not be and will not be. What say you?
And that brings us to the Imminent return of our Lord and Savior Y’shua HaMashiach, better known as Jesus Christ. If it were possible to facilitate or speed His return by the gospel or any other works, we would have a claim on His Return and Him with it! Since all things were created by the Word (John 1:3) through Him we would have a claim on the entire creation. And since He is one with the Holy Spirit, we would through Him have a claim on the Holy Spirit. And since He is one with the Father, we would through Him have a claim on the Father. And because sinful man would have a valid legal claim on the Father, the Father would no longer be holy and no longer sovereign. The result? He would be a false god, no god at all! God forbid that such a thing should happen. So now, Christian, do you see the error of works based theology?
Yet works based theology is alive and well in Christendom, and it is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church. It is alive and well in the Protestant movement too. Let me give you three ways.
1. Tithing. The practice was for the Old Testament only and for a specific purpose: to support the priests who stood before God’s presence as man’s mediator. The Book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus Christ is our priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. From that, if you continue to tithe to your pastor or church, two things can reasonably be inferred. A. It is your pastor and your church and not Jesus Christ that is the mediator between you and the Father. Please realize that such is the position of the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot help but – after a somewhat whimsical fashion – wonder if Matthew 23:9 “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” is a prophetic polemic against the Roman Catholic practice to come. B. That Jesus Christ either never came, never died, or never resurrected. Those who continue this practice in ignorance of the truth do so in ignorance of the truth. But to those that have come into the knowledge of the truth, new covenant giving is to be directed by 2 Corinthians 9:7 which reads: “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”
2. The prosperity/Word of Faith movement, where we are taught that we receive things from God not according to grace, but by works. The prosperity doctrine the works are actually somewhat indirect through obedience (to quote Jesse DuPlantis, “the prosperity doctrine is an obedience doctrine”) and compulsory giving (John Hagee teaches that those who do not tithe will have their wages cursed by God, and that you will receive a greater blessing for giving to Jews and Israel than elsewhere). But the Word of Faith movement is more direct in telling people that you can bit a bridle and harness in the mouth of God, hop upon His back, and drive and command Him to use His Power to control nature and history as you see fit! It was from Albert Pendarvis of http://www.radiomissions.org – who ironically is located a few miles away from Jesse DuPlantis – whom I first heard warn Christians against those preachers that were “commanding God, not respecting Him, and misusing His Name” in the charismatic movement, especially the faith healers. Of course I was a full gospel Kenneth Hagin Word of Faith/prosperity adherent at the time so I rejected him at the time, but now I must acknowledge the truth in his preaching in this matter. These doctrines deny grace and try to co – opt, manipulate, and control God.
3. Christian Zionism. If you are a dispensational pre – tribulation rapture doctrine adherent, I shall not speak against you for believing in that doctrine. What I do speak against is how so many pastors who hold this view teach that we can speed or facilitate the return of Jesus Christ based on it! For instance, some Christians are helping finance the return of Jews to Israel. But the Bible says that it is the Messiah’s job to do this in Jeremiah 23:3-6. Some Christians are helping Jews breed red heifers so that the Jews can restart their sacrifices in the temple. Why are we facilitating that which we no there is no profit but instead is a snare, an act of rebellion against everything that Hebrews says? Are we helping the Muslims practice their religion? Why not? Are they not the children of Abraham too? Are we aiding the Hindus, Mormons, and Scientologists in their abominations? Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh, die on the cross for our sins, and rise again on the third day or not? Did He do such a thing for the Jew first and then the Gentile or did He not? Are we ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the Jews’ presence? For the Jews’ sake? Well what John Hagee is now preaching is merely the fruition, the logical conclusion of that mindset!
And speaking of John Hagee, it is not enough to speak of his dual covenant theology, though it is bad. Hagee, Robertson, and their fellow travelers use “defending Israel” as an license to justify whatever level of atrocity and militarization of the Middle East they desire. With Hagee, his running a “Christian AIPAC” gives a third tier televangelist from San Antonio great wealth and power. And as for Robertson, who does own oil interests, how much is his personal wealth increased by oil being over $100 a barrel? And how much higher will the price of oil go if our government assassinates Hugo Chavez as Pat Robertson suggested? How much higher will it go if we invade Iran as Hagee demands? Now Hagee prophesied (back when I was a fan of his show) that we would be at war with Iran by now and that Jesus Christ would come back a few months later. Put all the details in his best – selling books. A false prophet that no one has held accountable? Of course!
But consider what would happen if Hagee was RIGHT. That would mean that it would be possible for even crooks, liars, thieves, and false prophets to have a claim on God if works doctrines be true. Though they are false preachers, the gospel is preached through these fellows, and people are saved by it. But you can see the effects of people perceiving works doctrines to be true? These pastors have tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of people at their command, onward Christian soldiers marching to war! Blood, violence, disease, starvation, death, and poverty for the many. All for the profit of a few. Is that the gospel of Jesus Christ? Maybe a false Jesus Christ that you can own through works, but not the true Jesus Christ obtained only by grace. We are to show love to God’s people and His holy city, certainly, but the way that the Bible tells us to. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Support the legitimate needs of Jews out of love and obedience to God, not expecting blessings in return or in support of a political agenda. And to also give aid to the Palestinians so as to not show partiality.
So in the final analysis we must come to the conclusion that man can do nothing to speed the return of Jesus Christ. No one knows the day or the hour. Jesus Christ is returning when the Father sees fit. The sovereign God will determine when Christ will return. God is not hindered by man, He is not frustrated by man, He is not dependent upon man. God is sovereign. 2 Peter 3:9 declares that it is by the grace of God and not the works of man that has hindered the coming of Jesus Christ to this day, and it will be by that same grace that Jesus Christ comes to rescue the church from this life and punish all else for its uncleanness. Yes, it is said that Christ will not return until the gospel is preached throughout the world, and that does mean that evangelism and missionary work should be done in Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth from the least to the greatest, the youngest to the oldest. But even that will not be our doing lest any man should boast, but rather God’s doing. I am going to co – opt the words that so offended the renowned missionary William Carey and say that when it pleases God to evangelize the world He will do it without your help or mine. He will do it without the ecumenical movements. He will do it without the TBN satellites that Paul Crouch asserted in one of his mass mailings was the angel flying around the world proclaiming the gospel in Revelation 14:6.
The sovereign God will do this by His grace! And when history comes to a close, all creation will see that God does not need us. Instead, it is we that need Him. The only question is whether people realize this in due time or in past time. Those who do so in due time will receive eternal life as a reward. Those who fail? Eternal wrath and destruction. Will you do so know? Will you bow before the Great King of creation, acknowledge that you need Him, and submit yourself to Him? I urge you to do so now, for tomorrow is not promised. There are many people that were here yesterday that presumed that they would be here today that are not. Are you better than they are? If so, how? I say this not to frighten or manipulate you but rather because I am concerned about you, and also because it is undeniably true. If you have not acknowledged the sovereignty of God, please do so. Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan right now.
Posted in Calvinism, catholic, child evangelism, christian broadcasting, Christian hypocrisy, christian left, christian liberalism, christian right, Christian salvation, christian worldliness, Christian Zionism, Christianity, Christians United For Israel, church hypocrisy, church scandal, church state, church worldliness, dual covenant theology, election, endtimes, eschatology, evangelism, false prophet, fascism, George Bush, GOP, Islam, Israel, Jesus Christ, John Hagee, Kenneth Copeland, missionary, Moshiach, Muslim, New Age, oneness pentecostal, palestine, Pat Robertson, predestination, prophecy, prosperity doctrine, Republican, TBN, TD Jakes, televangelism, trinity broadcasting network, venezuela, Word of Faith, Y'shua Hamashiach, Y'shua Hamashiach Moshiach, Yeshua Hamashiach, Zionism | Tagged: AIPAC, Albert Pendarvis, Augustine, Bishop Earl Paulk, Bishop Paulk, Charles Capps, Christendom, Dispensationalism, doctrine, dualism, Earl Paulk, full gospel, full gospel baptist, God, Hagar, Hinduism, Holy Spirit, hugo chavez, Ishmael, Jesse DuPlantis, Juanita Bynum, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Melchisedec, Mormon, mormonism, Paul Crouch, Paula White, pentecostal, pray for peace of Jerusalem, pretribulation, red heifers, Roman Catholicism, Saint Augustine, salvation, Scientology, second coming, sovereignty, sovereignty of God, Theology, tithing, William Carey, works | 22 Comments »
Posted by Job on November 4, 2007
Posted in atheism, baptismal regeneration, catholic, Christianity, Council on Foreign Relations, George Bush, GOP, liberal, masonry, Orthodox Church, politics, religious right, Republican, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Scientology, sexual violence, terrorism, Zionism | Tagged: civil liberties, civil rights, FBI, national security, Terrorism Exposed By A Former FBI Chief, war on terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Job on September 12, 2007
Posted in Bill Clinton, Christianity, GOP, illegal immigration, Jesus Christ, Mike Huckabee, Orthodox Church, persecution Palestinian, politics, religious right, Republican, Ron Paul, Scientology, Y'shua Hamashiach, Zionism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Job on September 11, 2007
Posted in Bill Clinton, catholic, Christian Zionism, Christianity, GOP, illegal immigration, media conspiracy, Orthodox Church, politics, Republican, Ron Paul, Scientology, Zionism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Job on August 30, 2007
What is my basis for saying such a thing? The same as everything else: scripture. The words of Jesus Christ as recorded in Luke 22:36 – Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Accuse me of taking scripture out of context, will you? Well this same Jesus Christ said in Matthew 10:34 – Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. So, if you are a Bible – based Christian, it is your duty to arm yourself, and to oppose gun control measures.
It is the people that portray Jesus Christ as a pacifist that take the holy scriptures out of context. Jesus Christ’s admonition to “turn the other cheek” refers to how Christians should deal with others in private matters, not to whether someone should defend themselves or another innocent person from being murdered or violated. The references to Jesus Christ being “the Prince of Peace.” Andrew Wommack makes the excellent point in this devotional (http://awmi.net/extra/article/war_over) that the “peace” that Jesus Christ is prince of is between God and the righteous, the saved, the redeemed of the brethren. For everyone else, their future is not peace with Christ, but being overcome by Christ. Take Revelation 19:11‘s picture of the warrior Christ: And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. And who will this Christ make war with? Why you, unsaved person who continues to resist the Holy Ghost, and all the other rebellious and wicked of the earth! Tell me, people, how this pacifist false Christ that people bear false witness of would have overcome Satan and death?
Jesus Christ Himself specifically sought to correct misunderstandings due to these same false doctrines in His day. I give you Luke 12:51-53 “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” And this is very important, not just as a mere worldly political issue. Nay, it is all theological. The false image of the pacifist Christ is one of the primary things used by people to make the false claim that the depiction of God in the Old Testament is inconsistent with the depiction of God in the New Testament. The only possible thing to make of this consistency, they say, is to deny that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, literally true, and the final authority. So, you start to interpret the Bible as a political document to fit your sensibilities.
The reason for making this claim is they want to run away from how the Old Testament deals with sin, the punishment of sin. But this is their problem: the New Testament deals with sin and the punishment of sin too. Thus, there is no inconsistency, no disconnect. So what really is going on is that these people are using a few verses out of context to deny what both Testaments say about a holy righteous sovereign God that will judge and destroy all sin and sinners. You go one way, and you get universalism, like what Carlton Pearson is preaching now. You go the other way, and you get deism. Either way, denying that Jesus Christ came to oppose and overcome the sin and wickedness that are this fallen world and all who love it is denying the whole meaning and intent of the Bible itself.
So am I saying that you should go out and get a gun? Let me say this: any Christian adult that is afraid of guns or is harboring concerns over whether they can be responsible with it is in need of spiritual deliverance. If you have faith in God that He has made you righteous through Jesus Christ’s Blood, then that includes faith that you would use said gun – or anything else that God suffers you to receive – righteously. And further, look at statistics. How many things do you own or operate that are more dangerous and used to wreak more havoc than guns?
Consider this, Christian. If these people deny that the Bible is inspired by God and therefore true, why is it so important to them? Why do they use it to create and promote a political theology of pacifism? Well, the thing that you must know about evil people is that they hate opposition. Evil wins when good men fail to act. Their goal is to convince the righteous people to reject arms (and resistance in general … Christians are told that even speaking out against sin and saying that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven is “hateful” and “divisive”). You are familiar with the old adage “make guns illegal and only the criminals will have them”? Well, if the godless are able to get the godly to reject self – defense and opposing evil, then the godless will be unhindered to inflict their evil upon whoever they choose.
So yes, if the lawful give up their guns, the only ones left with the guns will be the lawless. And when I say lawless, I speak not of the street criminal … the disproportionately black and brown members of the powerless underclass that our media and Hollywood has you so afraid of. They use these images to make you think that the only way to be safe is to ban firearms so that the criminals will not have access to them. You are supposed to be so afraid of the black male yesterday, the Mexican immigrant today, and the Muslim terrorist tomorrow that you are supposed to nullify the thinking portion of your brain to the point where the idea that a law against owning a gun will somehow prevent a criminal who is lawless by definition from possessing one?
I can just imagine Rudy Giuliani, who supposedly is the best choice for president because “he will keep us safe” in the estimation of so many people, telling us that the way to be safe is to renounce our personal God – given responsibility to defend ourselves? If Rudy Giuliani is so immoral that he opposes protecting a viable full term baby in the womb, what makes you think that such a man who has no respect for God or man (as such a person who would take so evil a position could only be) would lift the grimy fingernail that still has the residue of the polish on it that he used to dress like a woman (for the sole purpose of mocking Christians to curry favor with the God hating elites that have driven him to frontrunner status in this campaign, trying their best to set up a Rudy – Hillary campaign so that heads they win tails you lose!) to protect you?
So people like Giuliani and entities like Fox News will make you so fearful of the black, brown, and Arab or Muslim small time criminals that you will give up your right of self – defense and ability to defend the poor, the widow, the fatherless, and the oppressed as the Bible clearly tells us to do in Psalm 82:3 – Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy (and how will you defend them if YOU HAVE NO WEAPON?). And when that happens, the REAL CRIMINALS will begin their reign of terror. And what criminals am I speaking of? Why, the criminals of THE STATE, FALSE RELIGION, and BIG BUSINESS. And let me tell you something, there are no criminals like those criminals … the very criminals that nailed Jesus Christ to the cross: Rome, Caiaphas, and the merchants upset with Jesus Christ after He broke up their ponzi scheme and ran them out of the temple! Now do not take this to be an endorsement of the open advocacy of cold – blooded murder as the false Christians depict in their utterly ascriptural “Left Behind” movies, but we must face facts: it is your duty as a Christian to oppose the real criminals and the Satan that will give them power.
And this is why I support Ron Paul, people. Other GOP candidates may be willing to keep your guns, but only Ron Paul is talking about why … because of the danger that the state poses to all righteous people. . . .
Posted in Apologetics, big business, Christian persecution Palestinian Israel, christian worldliness, Christian Zionism, Christianity, church worldliness, civil rights, evolution, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, Hal Lindsey, innocent blood, Left Behind, media conspiracy, modalism, NAACP, Republican, Ron Paul, Scientology, syncretism, trinity broadcasting network, Zionism | 20 Comments »
Posted by Job on August 17, 2007
Located on this weblog: http://kennethjr.info/?p=102
Posted by Job on July 31, 2007
By John Derbyshire of National Review. Original link here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDkyYzdkNDNjM2QzMmI1NGEzZmEzYWRjYzQ0OTgxNmU
Go on, admit it: you have felt the Ron Paul temptation, haven’t you? And it’s not just the thrill of imagining another president named Ron, is it? Ron Paul believes a lot of what you believe, and what I believe. You don’t imagine he’s going to be the 44th POTUS, but you kind of hope he does well none the less.
And why not? Look at those policy positions! Abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve; balance the budget; go back to the gold standard; pull out of the U.N. and NATO; end the War on Drugs; overturn Roe v. Wade; repeal federal restrictions on gun ownership; fence the borders; deport illegals; stop lecturing foreign governments about human rights; let the Middle East go hang. What’s not to like?
We-e-ell. We all have nits to pick, though we wouldn’t all pick the same ones. The gold standard? Wasn’t it going off the gold standard that gave us full control over the wilder swings of the business cycle? Which was, like, a good idea? I am by no means as willing to surrender to the collective wisdom of modern economists as Bryan Caplan wants me to be, but — the gold standard? Come on. And stopping the War on Drugs? Where would that take us? — Philip Morris brands of crack cocaine available over the counter at Walgreens? You pick your own nits.
That’s not the point, though. Nits aside, the broad outlook there is conservative in a way we don’t often see from a presidential candidate. It is, in fact, conservatism of exceptional purity. Reading through those policy positions, an American conservative can hear the mystic chords of memory sounding in the distance, and hear the call of ancestral voices wafted on the breeze: Hayek, von Mises, Rothbart, Nock, Kirk, John Chamberlain… Unlike the product in that automobile commercial, this is your father’s conservatism — the Old-Time Religion. What is there among Ron Paul’s policy prescriptions that the young William F. Buckley would have disagreed with?
So why aren’t we all piling into the wagon behind Dr. Ron? It’s not that the guy is personally unacceptable in any way. A pious family man, he has worked in an honorable profession — Ob/Gyn medical practice — all his life. (Paul has the slight political advantage of having brought several hundred of his constituents into the world.) He is personally charming and likeable. If not exactly eloquent in the florid, gassy manner American voters are used to from their politicians, he speaks clearly and well, keeps his wits about him, minds his temper, and holds his own in debate. With the positions he has, it’s easy to see why he’s not ahead with the media or the polls, but why isn’t he leading the pack among conservatives?
I doubt it’s his anti-war stand. Outside a dwindling band of administration loyalists in the wagons circled around George W. Bush, I can’t detect much enthusiasm for the Iraq war among conservative commentators and e-mailers. “We gave the Iraqis a fair shot, now let’s leave them to it and concentrate on chasing down worldwide terrorism,” is the dominant sentiment. I’m not clear about Ron Paul’s position on routine counterterrorism and covert ops, but on the war in Iraq, I don’t see much of a problem for him base-wise.
And so far as domestic counterterrorism is concerned, his robust attitude to our nation’s borders and to illegal immigrants is likely to do far more for our security than W’s lackadaisical ethnic pandering. It is hard to imagine that under a Paul presidency, gatecrashers would still be streaming in across an undefended border six years after 9/11.
Is it the fact that the Ron Paul campaign has attracted a lot of loonies that cools our ardor? I don’t think so. For sure, Ron Paul has attracted loonies to his cause. Christopher Caldwell’s piece on Paul in the July 22 New York Times describes one such:
Victor Carey, a 45-year-old, muscular, mustachioed self-described “patriot” who wears a black baseball cap with a skull and crossbones on it, drove up from Sykesville, Md., to show his support for Paul. He laid out some of his concerns. “The people who own the Federal Reserve own the oil companies, they own the mass media, they own the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, they’re part of the Bilderbergers [?? — JD], and unfortunately their spiritual practices are very wicked and diabolical as well,” Carey said. “They go to a place out in California known as the Bohemian Grove, and there’s been footage obtained by infiltration of what their practices are. And they do mock human sacrifices to an owl-god called Moloch. This is true. Go research it yourself.”
(That word “unfortunately” is a rhetorical master stroke.) But Caldwell is being very unfair to Paul here. You could turn up people like that among the camp followers of any candidate, from any party. Send me out to poke among activists for Giuliani, Clinton, Edwards, or — for sure! — Obama: I’ll come up with worse than that. And around the hard core of Venusians there is always a penumbra of people who are just not quite right in the head. I got talking to a local Ron Paul activist here in my home town the other day. She is a very pleasant and charming lady, but I could hear the distinct rustle of bats in the belfry.
It is a fact, a sad but a true one, that grassroots political activism, the heart and soul of any democracy, attracts a lot of lunatics. I used to be a constituency activist for the Tory party in Kings Cross, London. Of the twenty or so people who turned up regularly to meetings, four or five were noticeably deranged (or, as an elderly fellow-Tory was wont to murmur in my ear when one of these cranks sought the meeting’s attention, “not quite sixteen annas to the rupee”). One or two were barking mad. My favorite was a gent with an Albert Einstein hairstyle and a permanent ferocious glare who, at every darn meeting, would try to advance his pet project for a law against class discrimination. (This was at a time, in the early 1980s, when laws against racial discrimination were being passed, to much controversy.)
If it’s like that in the Tory party, one of the Anglosphere’s oldest and solidest, at the heart of an ancient metropolis, I can imagine how thing are further away from the political center. A friend of mine, a brilliant, charming, and highly civilized man I shall call X, runs a fringe political group here in the U.S. He invited me to one of the group’s annual conferences. Not sure what to expect, I asked a mutual friend, name of Y, who had attended a previous year’s conference. “Well,” said Y, “there are a dozen or so people like X, thoughtful and well-informed — people you’d be happy to hang out with. And around them buzzes this big cloud of latrine flies.” I decided not to take up X’s invitation.
So, I ask again, if it’s not the man, or the war, or the latrine flies, why aren’t we conservatives all on board with Ron?
By way of an answer, let me introduce you to my friend Zhang (not his real name). Zhang came here from China after the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. An energetic and clever young man, he worked at odd jobs around New York City while looking for an opportunity to make his fortune. The opportunity soon arrived. He happened upon a business opportunity — a new method of engraving on stone, the patent held by a fellow-exile with whom he had struck up a friendship. The two of them were sure they’d be rich in no time. They struggled for a couple of years to bring the thing to market. At last, defeated, they gave up. Zhang took a desk job as a clerk for a credit card company.
What was the cause of the failure? I asked him. He: “We didn’t realize this is a mature economy. So many permits, regulations, accounting rules, taxes! In China, we could have got this off the ground in no time, working out of back rooms and sticking up poster ads. Here — forget it! You’re killed by lawyers’ and accountants’ and agents’ fees before you get started. Stick up an ad, the city comes after you.”
Something analogous applies to politics. If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance. Washington’s not like that nowadays, though. It is a vast megalopolis, every nook and cranny stuffed with lobbyists, lawyers, and a hundred thousand species of tax-eater. The sleepy old boulevards of the 1920s are now shadowed between great glittering ziggurats of glass and marble, where millions of administrative assistants to the Department of Administrative Assistance toil away at sending memos to each other.
Few of these laborers in the vineyards of government do anything useful. (In my experience — I used to have to deal with them — few do anything much at all.) Some of what they do is actually harmful to the nation. On the whole, though, we have settled in with this system. We are used to it. It’s not going away, absent a revolution; and conservatives are — duh! — not, by temperament, revolutionaries.
Imagine, for example, President Ron II trying to push his bill to abolish the IRS through Congress. Congress! — whose members eat, drink, breathe and live for the wrinkles they can add to the tax code on behalf of their favored interest groups! Or imagine him trying to kick the U.N. parasites out of our country. Think of the howls of outrage on behalf of suffering humanity from all the lefty academics, MSM bleeding hearts, love-the-world flower children, Eleanor Roosevelt worshippers, and bureaucratic globalizers!
Ain’t gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!
Posted by Job on July 13, 2007
Now IndependentConservative tried to warn me against supporting Mike Huckabee, but I didn’t listen! As it was, I replaced Huckabee with Ron Paul as the guy that I was supporting for now, because I saw no evidence that Huckabee would really take on our leviathan government (and plenty of evidence that Huckabee would continue the corporate welfare – social program – state financing of the church agenda that is supported not only by the religious right, but also the religious left … remember Bill Clinton started funding “midnight basketball”, “gun buybacks” – and if I am correct condom and drug needle giveaways – at churches as part of his “moderate agenda”, and Clinton also was a supporter of and signed the first faith – based programs bill as well). So once I saw that the state would grow and assert more power over the church under Huckabee, I pretty much stopped backing him, and was basically using him to show the hypocrisy of the Christian right for wanting to back people like Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, etc. instead of a former minister. Well, that criticism is still correct, but according to an excellent comment by James Sundquist, who appears to represent a most excellent http://www.abrahamic-faith.com site, Huckabee is one of the growing numbers of Southern Baptists that have fallen for the Rick Warren scam (that denominaton is now facing an even bigger threat … the emergent church). I was wondering why the media was so complimentary of Huckabee. Please recall that they spent the 1990s claiming that the Southern Baptist Convention was one of the biggest internal threats that this country was facing. I was shocked that they were going around claiming that the evolution – denying “Jesus Christ is the only way” Baptist preacher from Arkansas was “winning the debates hands down” and giving him so much praise when in every other context fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity is portrayed as a great evil threat to the future of our nation and world peace itself. Well this explains it! Rick Warren is a Council On Foreign Relations member, whose goal is to create a global society free of distinctions and divisions created by race, class, politics, nationality, and RELIGION. It was clear that George Bush was one of these guys (like like his father and Bill Clinton) when he professed that Islam was “a religion of peace” and claimed that the Muslim moon cult god is the same as the Christian God. Warren is clearly part of this same agenda by promoting the trend where churches stop dealing with things that might offend sinners (such as the Bible or the message of the cross or repentance of sin and living holy) and replace it with psychology. That way, Jesus Christ goes from being God to a moral teacher, and it becomes far easier for the masses to accept it (and it does not even require them abandoning their prior religions). Since Warren is a Council on Foreign Relations guy, if Huckabee is a Warren guy then Huckabee is a CFR guy too. Which of course means that I have now gone from “kinda sorta” supporting Huckabee to adding him to my list of people like McCain, Giuliani, and Romney (and of course all Democrats in the race) that I am actively opposing. I should have known something was up when a very liberal MSNBC/Newsweek writer recommended Huckabee for the very vital Health and Human Services cabinent post (which would be the leading dispenser of “faith – based” state funds to churches)! Here are James Sundquist’s statement on the EXTENSIVE Warren – Huckabee ties, and please note that the CFR media (i.e. Time Magazine) is aware of them:
“Our church in Little Rock is very similar to Rick Warren’s. We’ve gone from 25 members to about 5,000 in eight years. Our focus has been to minister to people who were otherwise neglected. We built a ministry center before we even had a sanctuary. We held our services in warehouses until a year or two ago.” The center contains a range of faith-based initiatives: welfare to work, job training, programs for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, a food bank. “We are a multicultural, multiracial congregation, with rich and poor,” Huckabee says. “I play the bass in the Praise band.” SOURCE: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599708,00.html
It is a lot like Rick Warren’s church all right. Here is his church’s website:
which promotes Warren’s Celebrate Recovery, won Warren’s Church Health Award:
“Since 1999, Purpose-Driven ministries have honored four to six churches each year that have shown excellence in adapting the Purpose-Driven paradigm to their congregation. With thousands of churches having participated in the “40 Days of Purpose” discipleship program in recent months, Purpose-Driven decided to honor 79 churches this year. Each church received a check for $1,000.
The Southern Baptist congregations receiving a 2004 Church Health Award were:
Bay Area Fellowship, Corpus Christi, Texas
Brookwood Community Church, Greenville, S.C.
Centro Familiar Cristiano Betesda, Orange, Calif.
The Church at Rock Creek, Little Rock, Ark.”
(Pastor Bob DeWaay wrote a brilliant expose on this Purpose-Driven Church Health Awards in his book on Rick Warren)
And here is a quote from Huckabee’s teaching pastor Greg Kirskey’s sermon entitled Fire Extinguisher…available on the church website:
“No human emotion poses a greater threat to our health and happiness than fear.”
And this is posted by Huckabee’s Senior Pastor Mark Evans:
” Mark Evans is the founder and Senior Pastor of The Church at Rock Creek. Understanding that many people don’t go to church because it is boring and irrelevant, Mark began Rock Creek in 1995. Believing that people really do matter to God, Rock Creek has grown from 25 people to over 5,000 attending the weekend services. Rock Creek was featured in Church Growth magazine’s list of “The 100 Fastest Growing Churches in America.”
The community-focused ministries at Rock Creek – a hands on computer lab, an employment training agency, a food bank, and a car repair ministry – led President Bush to select The Church at Rock Creek as the backdrop for a discussion about the role faith-based organizations play in changing the landscape of America.
And of course, RIck Warren’s PEACE Plan and Discovery Classes:
DISCOVER YOUR MISSION
The Hall of Fame Class is the fourth class in Rock Creek’s Life Development Process. In this class you will learn how to connect other people to God by using your story of how He has worked in your life. You will also be introduced to the P.E.A.C.E. Plan, a radical missions approach that is a key part of how Rock Creek does missions. In addition, we will help you develop and execute your own personal mission statement.
THE P.E.A.C.E. PLAN
Rock Creek does missions through a radical new strategy called the P.E.A.C.E. Plan. Through P.E.A.C.E. your small group will become equipped to address the world’s five global giants: spiritual lostness, corrupt leadership, poverty, disease and lack of education.
The P.E.A.C.E. plan is designed to mobilize ordinary church members to do normal tasks that can change the world. Everyone can participate through personal, local, and global P.E.A.C.E. projects. God can and will use you and our missions team is here to help you get started.
If you are not ready to go overseas, there are personal and local dimensions to this strategy that do not require any travel at all. Rock Creek’s Hall of Fame Class prepares you to live out the P.E.A.C.E. Plan.
And of course Warren’s baseball diamond: http://www.churchatrockcreek.org/lifedevelopment.htm
And like Warren, Huckabee is a graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Therefore, you have to ask your self, do you want a sold-out Warrenite to be your next President?
I am afraid to even ask him what his position is on Israel!
Rock Salt Publishing
Posted in anti - Semitism, Bill Clinton, Center for National Policy, christian broadcasting, christian conservative, Christian hypocrisy, christian left, christian liberalism, christian right, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church scandal, church state, church worldliness, Council on Foreign Relations, emergent church, evolution, generational curses, George Bush, GOP, Hebrew, interfaith dialogue, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Jesus Christ, late great planet earth, liberal, marriage, Middle East peace process, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Orthodox Church, Pakistan, persecution Palestinian, rapture, religious right, Republican, Rick Warren, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Scientology, sexual violence, televangelism, trinity broadcasting network, women preachers, Y'shua Hamashiach, Zionism | 5 Comments »