|
| |
|
Freedom? - not so much
Exo 23:1 "You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.
Exo 23:2 You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice,
Exo 23:3 nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.
Recent discussions about Fritz Springmeier's work (Bloodlines of the Illuminati), Thrive! The Movie, Web audio from Drake, Wilcock, (and their occult fellow-travelers) -- are really underlining for me that talk that focusses on...
Constitution
Human Freedom
WeThePeople
Democracy
..actually results in just the opposite of the stated goal. The pursuit of human freedom only results in the super-freedom of a tiny handful of humans bringing about oppressive tyranny over a majority of other humans. It might take you a bit of reading for you to be persuaded of this, but consider this line of reasoning: Of the three major entities I will list:
Global bankers
3 branches of the American Federal Government
most of the people
.....the 545 major players in the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, and Congress -- are not the most influential. High Federal Government officials cannot just do what they want. None of them can get into office without being committed to furthering the agenda of the international money-controllers. Should they forget, they can always have an "accident" or have one of the sex/ethical-misconduct manila folders in their file get forwarded to the dutiful Media Outlet to abrupt their term of service. This is child's play. (My apologies to any of these officials who might come forward, for the first time since WW I, and lay out any credible stories to the contrary). Everything the government does involves money, and neither his salary nor his Project is going to get any traction unless the people that control the money approve of the outlay. There also might be a little bit of control over elections, for all we know. Like Josef Stalin said, it is not the people who vote in the elections that determine the outcome, but the people who count the votes. Also note, that if the majority of people (I don't mean voters) don't want a law, it is not going to get enforced. Do you remember Prohibition? When crime spiked way up, along with alcoholic consumption? Just think what would happen, if by some miracle we woke up in January (2009) and Dr. Paul was in the White House. The MassOfPeople would never tolerate his policies being implemented. If they, somehow didn't ignore him, and fail to implement the policies he would recommend, how long do you think it would take for the Powers-That-(shouldn't)-Be to contrive something more deadly so that they could maintain their deceitful, tyrannical plundering of the US and other nations through our military and imaginary reserve-currency? How would it be possible for that tiny group of men who hold the reins on most Media (since before 1900), banking, communication, transportation, education, unions, major corporations, and public employees -- how could they not swing things their way if they so desired. Most people have no appreciation for the deadly resolve and reservoir of temporal, physical power - that will be turned against them if they dare try to seriously impede the Plans-In-Place. If this is believable, then it should be easy to see they would be completely safe in allowing talk about freedom and democracy and how society ought to enjoy the laws that the WillOfThePeople approve of. They may even finance much of the discussion. It might be one of their most cost-effective investments, and let me try to explain why.
Very few people have formulated convictions based on the lessons of human history outside of our generation. Most of our generation has been thoroughly trained by the prevailing winds of the Educational Institutions, and/or their critical thinking turned to confused mush by a steady diet of television/MainStreamMedia/internet entertainment content.My studies in history have persuaded me that those relatively glorious -- albeit short -- periods where families enjoyed a prosperous, rich standard of living and were not coerced by other humans -- did not come about because of a focus on a majority votes of sinful, mortal, living men.
Instead, it resulted from small minorities of men who acknowledged the absolute freedom and rights of the most important of all humans who ranks above all others. This Jesus of Nazareth was demonstrated to be the Christ of God in the first century of the Roman Empire. The background of the Greek term "christ" (Hebrew: Messiah, or anointed/appointed one) pertained to the offices of prophet, priest, and king. Both in Old and New Testaments, the Royal, civil, office of the Christ seems to be emphasized above the others. The function of the king was to...
"... judge us and go out before us and fight our battles." (1Sa 8:20)
"... in righteousness he judges and makes war. " (Rev 19:11)
The Church is not knowingly and self-consciously defending the murder/kidnap/steal agenda of the Illuminati's constellation of secret oath-keepers. They are mostly ignorant of that. And even pagans who learn of the details of the banking system and the plans of those intent on exterminating chunks of the human race - are repulsed and offended by the divine rights claimed by sinful human rulers. Many pagans, Muslims, atheists, humanists, as well as deeply religious non-Christian peoples can understand and hate the the elite manipulators at the top of the heap of Humanity -- better than some Christians.
The problem is, that The Church vigorously defends vox populi vox Dei. Their bedrock ethic is to "fall in with the many", "siding with the many", and being "partial to a poor man in his lawsuit". Their best antidote against the tyranny of the few, is to poison the globe with the tyranny of the many.
Interesting quote from this website:
Inquire first of all, gentlemen, what, in our day, an Englishman, a Frenchman, an inhabitant of the United States of America understands by the word, liberty. It means for everyone to be under the dominion of nothing but the laws, not to be arrested, detained, or put to death, or maltreated in any way as a consequence of the arbitrary will of one or more individuals.
[European classical liberal Benjamin Constant (1767–1830; see Ralph Raico’s essay, “Benjamin Constant,” New Individualist Review, vol. 3, no. 2, 1964)]
What we call theonomists - aspire to consistently hold to the only philosophy of law that anyone can consistently agree with. In the above quote, what is not explicit, is that "the laws" can only mean the laws of the creator God revealed in the whole Bible. Otherwise it make no sense. If "The laws" just refers to whatever laws people are enforcing or tolerating at a particular time -- this says nothing about the good or evil of those laws. Everything about being put to death, detained, maltreated, fined -- it all comes about through whatever the law is driving the soldiers and police to do. This quote points out that the only thing that the opinions of one or many mere men - can be - is arbitrary.
Now God is Pro-Choice writ Large. If you reject Him and His law and imagine that some other non-existent being has some of His infinite attributes -- your idolatry gives the limited freedom of two choices.
You can crouch among the captives, or fall among the slain.
You can either die in the city (where the dogs will eat your body), or you can die in the rural (where the birds will eat your body).
You can try to suffer under the injustice of individual autonomy (self-law, self-rule, self-governing, divine right of the individual or king); or you will suffer under the injustice of group autonomy (law set by the Multiple, or the Many of Ex. 23).
Any man can never be self-evidently superior in authority, because there is always another man different than him. Any group can never be self-evidently superior in authority, because there is always another group different than them and equal with them.
Except One. There is the Son of Man. And there is an harmonious unified Group that is totally consistent with this one-man sovereignty. There is the Trinity! It is beautiful.
Freedom, as is popularly understood, is ugly, and cannot exist. What they want is function contrary to the way the universe is made. The temptation is to pretend that, if you don't like the way things are made, you can do something different -- whatever you want. Just create out of nothing your own universe.
Go for it.
But I'll bet if we want to live in your universe with you, you are going to have outrageous notions about how we are supposed to conduct ourselves and you may have strong opinions about us trying to alter your universe to be something other than what you want. You may even laugh at our attempts to keep getting a different effect (given a set cause) from the way you created your universe to operate.
So, there is no possibility of absolute freedom -- religious or any other kind. Even the God of the Bible is not free to be different than He is. He will always conform to His own character. He will always be different and separate from what is contrary to His character. I think that is what Holy means.
A=A
A<>A'
That is the way things are going to be, because that is the way the universe is. And it is that way, because that is the way God is. It is so cool and exciting and exhilarating, profound that the 4 greatest voices in the Universe have no greater joy or vocation - than constantly singing:
Rev 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!"
(you know, the thought never occurred to me until the instant I wrote this, that this may be why we sing SATB soprano, alto, tenor, and bass? Or maybe I read that it comes from the 4 cherubim and forgot?)
This is why the First Amendment of the US Constitution has to be contradictory.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
This can only makes sense if it is understood as the Drafters intended. It meant Congress cannot define a crime or punishment if you don't pay money to and obey a particular Denomination of Biblical Christianity. And of course they meant Federal congress couldn't do this, because some of the State legislatures did have punishments in their laws if you didn't pay tax to the civil magistrate, who passed it on to a particular denomination of Trinitarian Christianity.
But in the modern understanding of "religion", where the world insists on also using the word to refer to thought systems contrary to Biblical Christianity. Nowadays, religion refers to a universe-view (or a kosmos-view, to use the Greek root). Any system of thought that answers the basic questions we consider a religion.
Why is there something instead of nothing.
Why is there many instead of one.
Why is there complexity instead of uniformity.
Why is there life, instead of non-life.
Is there a difference between Man and Non-Man.
Why is there right and wrong, good and evil.
What are the crimes and what are their punishments.
So, since all law and definitions of crime and punishment that legislatures have to apply -- all these come from a religious worldview -- Congress cannot help defining all the laws according to whatever that religion is that has already been established in their minds. They can only enact laws that will conform to the religion in their heads, that has already been 'established'. Nothing else would seem 'right' and they would be duty-bound to reject.
The second phrasing, "prohibit the free exercise thereof", becomes impossible. If any contrary religion is allowed to supersede the base upon which Congress has been defining law -- and draft its own definitions of crime and punishment -- the State has just committed suicide and nullified its authority. This is why the only possible meaning of "religion" can be that of the particular "flavor", "style", or denomination of Biblical Christianity. During the Founding Era, the Bible had been considered the source book for law such that there was confidence among the drafters that there would always be agreement on those parts deemed essentials for the union of the States.
Another reason it was not possible for the First Amendment to mean contrary, non-Christian worldview-religion, is that many of the State constitutions at the time had specific Christian oaths required of State officers. It would have been unthinkable for them not to maintain that constitutionally mandated position, or to tolerate laws contrary to that 'established' Christianity (such as Muslims executing other Muslims who converted to Christianity, or Satanists sacrificing goats or human babies in their religious rituals.) But they did have to allow for the respective States to 'exercise' their variant of Christianity, whether it be Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, or Roman Catholic.
In the first amendment, perhaps the most important word is not religion, but "make". Does Congress "make" a law? Very few of those men alive at the time would have thought so. They understood that law was our understanding of the nature of the Creation of the God of the Bible. Rule of law was His law revealed in the Bible. Men don't "make" laws, they just discover, interpret, and apply them.
Love God.
Love Neighbor.
-----
Ten commandments (sort of split between those two).
-----
The 600+ case-law applications of those first 5 books of the Bible.
-----
The rest of the Bible illustrates these laws through history, poetry, and stories, culminating in God the Son coming as a man fully revealing the character and law of God, and fulfilling its demands on the Human.
The Bible concludes with highlighting that Jesus is the right judge of all men for all time. And of course, the "rule of law" that He will judge by - must be His own.
Did you think He was going to judge us in light of the most recent national election?
The eternal fact of His Judgment Seat, as He occupies the highest heavenly throne, cannot help but be retroactive. Mentally, we should draw a line from that Final Judgment -- left -- right up to the thought, word, and action we just expressed in our knife-edge of time. And the consequences He sentences are not just applied at the close of history. His judgments have always been in the earth, starting from the original blessing, and the promise "thou shalt surely die".
Hell - He is not even mean about it. Hell is, and will be, God giving men what they want as much as possible. Men want to be the Center, strongest, wisest, good-est, the one with the most control -- without any competition or comeuppance. Hell is granting this desire, as much as is universally possible. Your very own personal dark space where no one can see you, cross you, or contradict you.
But, in rejection of the rule of God's law, they want man's law. The gophers are not going to suggest a law for us, it is going to come from man or spirit-being of some kind. And they dare not say, "I want My own self-divine Law to be imposed on all others." Because then, others would say, "OK, we worship you and believe you and will obey your teaching, which means our individual self-divine law should be equally imposed on you, right?
When you get man's law, it might be dictator, anarchist individual, or you are going to get the Few, some subset of society -- either triumvirate, oligarchy, parliament, supreme court, council, or even a "majority". Actually, even with a king/dictator, there will always be a minority council advising him or supporting him financially or militarily. His biceps alone, are not much more powerful than any other man.
And I don't know anybody who is willing to attribute sovereign ethical/moral authority to any man or body of men. They will always retain an opinion that there is an external ethical standard that they acknowledge as qualified to pass judgment on the moral decisions of others. They probably won't claim it as their own unique authoritative moral sense, they will refer to another source, or maybe just think everybody "just knows" such-and-such is 'right'.
Admit, then, they there is no such thing as absolute religious freedom, anywhere, in any non-contradictory society of man. The best you can hope for is relative freedom from unjust coercion by other men. Hopefully there will be no coercion at all from bad men. In no case, can you be free from the original creator, lawgiver, judge, and king of the Universe.
The practical application of this in the present day, is that any appeal to general, majority, common-sense, democratic self-interest or "freedom" will be futile. Lots (more) people will get hurt that way.
|
Creation date: Jun 26, 2012 6:46am Last modified date: Apr 19, 2014 5:17am Last visit date: Apr 17, 2024 8:09am
|
