Posted on 01/05/2017 9:30:26 AM PST by HLPhat
Are you going to blame the Jesuits for the French Revolution, then? Last I checked, the Jesuits weren’t even IN France at that time due to being forced out by Voltaire and his ilk. And bear in mind, Marx credited the Reign of Terror and Rousseau far more to his adoption of Communism than he ever did Jesuits. Name me ONE instance where Marx DIRECTLY credited Jesuits to his forming Communism?
And besides, Voltaire and his ilk also proposed EXACTLY what you are claiming the Jesuits wanted (only difference being, they wanted to get RID of God), and look how THAT turned out. Stop blaming Jesuits for Marx. You can blame Marx for the Jesuits of today, but not the other way around. Maybe you should read Timothy Dwight’s July 4, 1799 sermon.
Even Conservapedia makes clear that the Jesuits were being liberalized by the late 20th Century, including leftist Radicals taking over the College Campuses of Jesuit schools. So no, stop claiming “Ba’al shyte” as a retort against the facts (and what the heck is a “Ba’al shyte”?!).
And that book literally means nothing other than it exists, so stop using that as a retort.
You know -- Bull Shyte.
The stuff that comes out of Jesuit Edumacated M.B.A's, who worship their Marxist, centrally-banked, state-established,"beautiful creation".
Ba'al being a Hebrew word meaning Master, Lord, Possessor - AKA the theocratic state-establishment.
More Bullshyte Above
There is nothing new under the Aten!
Got Romans Chapter 1?
If this were late 20th century M.B.A’s, I’d agree (though you should bear in mind that a LOT of college campuses, even secular private ones, have this problem as well. I’d know, I graduated from Oglethorpe University, which definitely isn’t Jesuit AFAIK, and that was borderline Marxist, even naming one of their walking paths the Ho Chi Minh trail). But Marx’s... Marxism did NOT originate from the Jesuits. If anything, it originated from the literature of Voltaire and Rousseau, and the Jesuits certainly weren’t responsible for the French Revolution and Reign of Terror. Again, they had been exiled by 1762, due to writings by the French Enlightenment no less, so they literally couldn’t have been responsible for the French Revolution since they were already gone by that point.
Maybe I’ll post the specific part from that link I supplied you with earlier:
“Thus the Government secretly favoured an enterprise which it officially censured, and, under this protection the Encyclopédie was begun and completed. Partly for the same reason, partly also for deeper reasons concerning the religious and civil conditions in France, the efforts to combat the Encyclopédie were not rewarded with much success. Moreau in the “Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire des Cacouacs” (1757), Palissot, in his “Petites lettres sur de grands philosophes” (1757) and in his comedy “Les philosophes” (1760), tried to use the weapons of ridicule and satire which some of the “philosophers”, especially Voltaire, wielded with greater skill. Fréron, in the “Année littéraire”, was at times sarcastic, and always ready to give and take blows. Constantly at war with the Encyclopedists, he was at a great disadvantage, for they enjoyed Malesherbe’s protection, whereas for him the censure was always very severe. Thus he was hardly allowed to write on Voltaire’s “Ecossaise” (1760), in which he had been publicly insulted on the stage. The Jansenists, in the “Nouvelles ecclésiastiques”, did little more than insult the Encyclopedists. In the “Journal de Trévoux”, the Jesuits, and among them especially Berthier (1704-82), who was director of the Journal from 1745 till the suppression of the Society of Jesus, wrote frequent criticisms. But notwithstanding all this opposition the spirit of irreligion was steadily gaining. Too often the criticism was weak, the attack unskillful. In some cases even, the anti-Encyclopedists, instead of harming their opponents, rather contributed to their success by giving them notoriety and affording them an opportunity for using their influence. The Jesuits were expelled from France in 1762; this gave a new victory and a new prestige to the “philosophers”. D’Alembert, who wrote “La destruction des Jésuites en France” (1765), looks upon this expulsion as the just punishment of their hostility towards the Encyclopédie. Gradually the people were becoming accustomed to the new spirit, and thus it was that, whereas the first volumes had created a great stir in France, the appearance of the last volumes was scarcely noticed.
“Unknown or little known in 1750, the “philosophers” had now won their battle, and were the recognized victors. Their success made them bolder in declaring openly what fear had frequently obliged them to veil in their former works and in the Encyclopédie. These doctrines had also been made more familiar by the publication of several works before the completion of the Encyclopédie, the most important being Diderot’s “Pensées sur l’interprétation de la nature” (1754); Helvétius’s “De l’esprit” (1758); Rousseau’s “Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes” (1753), “Contrat social” (1762), and “Emile” (1762); Voltaire’s “Dictionnaire philosophique” (1765); d’Holbach’s “Système de la nature” (1770). Hence, on 8 July, 1765, Voltaire could write to d’Alembert: “They clamour against the philosophers, and are right; for, if opinion is the ruler of the world, this ruler is governed by the philosophers. You can hardly imagine how their empire is spreading.””
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05418a.htm
And for the record, Jesus WANTED a theocratic state. Why ELSE would he demand us to go out and spread the gospel throughout the world instead of, say, leaving us to die at the hands of the pagans?
Aucontrair Professor Teufelsdröckh, PKD was quite insightful on numerous subjects.
His depiction of the Military Industrial Complex in the context of Ike's warning is quite interesting.
How's the Family Swamp Shruberry growing these days?
Well, I suggest you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s by Jonathan Leaf, then, because that book made explicit that Eisenhower, whe talking about the MIC, as also referring to the Space Race, aka putting a man on the moon by the end of the sixties.
>>And for the record, Jesus WANTED a theocratic state.
Yeah right - Him and the synagogue of Satan, who murdered him because he wasn’t the dominionist military savior they wanted.
NO SALE.
>>as also referring to the Space Race
Well, no shyte sherlock.
No profound epiphany required for that (un)insightful revelation.
“It’s, uhhh, about Jobs”
—James Baker
There is nothing new under the Aten - certainly not manufacturing dialectic conflict for profit and inspirational amusement.
How’bout you pull your NyLons up and tell the class who funded Germany’s MIC circa 1933, Professor Teufelsdröckh?
He did. Or have you forgotten that Jesus specifically told his followers to go out and spread the good news to the four corners of the world in the Gospel, which, BTW, necessarily entailed making everyone Christian and rendering all non-Christian religons barring Judaism extinct. Use common sense. If God wants to rule the world, he wants to rule EVERYTHING, meaning Satan would get 0% of anything.
By your logic, since Jesus told people to spread the gospel and convert everyone to his religion, he actually told them to do Satan’s work, when in reality he should have told his followers to drop dead without converting anyone due to not wanting to interfere, like Jimmy Carter.
Typical dominion-assuming sales pitch.
NO SALE.
Only if you acknowledge that the Jesuits did not convert Marx himself to Communism. Stop acting like God didn’t want a theocracy. He’s all powerful, all knowing, and even the gospels specifically stated God won’t stop until literally EVERYTHING was under his dominion, so it’s pretty clear a theocracy under His exclusive control is EXACTLY what God wanted to begin with. He wouldn’t have given humanity the Ten Commandments if he had no interest in controlling humanity. Quite the opposite, actually, he’d tell humanity the same thing King Piccolo did when he became king of Earth in Dragon Ball: “I DON’T intend to lord over you: in fact, you are free to do as you please from now on: Kill, pillage, steal and rob to your heart’s content: I hereby declare the end of peace and justice!!”
I’ve read the sunday readings that showed that, yes, God DID want dominance over humanity. One of the readings even specifically stated that the last enemy God will destroy is death.
And don’t get me started on the “Spread the Good News” bit.
If God didn’t care about dominating, he would have behaved EXACTLY like Jimmy Carter did with the Shah of Iran. You have a problem, take it with the Bible, because it makes it MORE than a little explicit that God wants dominance.
I’ve read the sunday readings, and they showed that, yes, God DID want dominance over humanity. One of the readings even specifically stated that the last enemy God will destroy is death.
And don’t get me started on the “Spread the Good News” bit.
If God didn’t care about dominating, he would have behaved EXACTLY like Jimmy Carter did with the Shah of Iran. You have a problem, take it with the Bible, because it makes it MORE than a little explicit that God wants dominance.
Meanwhile...
1 John 2:15-17
NIV Sure doesn't sound like the sort of Temporal kingdom advocated by the caste at Jesuit/Dominionist vestigial Roman Empires-R-Us.
>>he’d tell humanity
What did He tell Korah and the other caste members of the Pharaoh’s eunuch fallen angel guild again?
Do not pass GO. Do not collect your “gods” from the Pharaoh’s treasury...
No wait that’s not it.
Prey tell Professor Teufelsdröckh?
If you read the bible, you’d also realize that God specifically intended to end death in itself, and he also made clear that only God himself is King, meaning, it IS a theocracy. When God is the sole unquestioned ruler, it is, by definition, a Theocracy. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have any qualms giving the Jewish people a human king (ie, he wouldn’t even hesitate to give them that), and he most certainly wouldn’t have had Jesus outright tell his disciples in I believe the Gospel of Luke to go and spread the good news throughout the world, ie, CONVERT them.
And BTW, God is in fact the type to coerce his opinions and modes of thinking onto others. When people whined about the journey, he had them bitten by a snake and ordered people to get a copper stick to heal them. When the Egyptians refused to let the Jewish people go, he proceeded to issue several plagues until they caved to his demands. Read the Old Testament. Heck, Even read the New Testament, where he had Jesus raised from the dead, or how he made clear anyone who doesn’t obey HIS will goes to Hell, even more than in the Old Testament. Did God ever act like Jimmy Carter, which is what you seem to be implying?! Absolutely not!
What happened to Korah and the other caste members of the Pharaoh’s eunuch fallen angel Sun-worshippers-R-Us guild again?
Let’s see, God probably wiped all but the Pharaoh out with his various plagues to essentially force them to release the Israelites from Slavery, then flooded the rest when they broke their end of the bargain. That was in Exodus.
>>CONVERT them.
Typical narcissistic dominionist state-establishing theology.
John 14:6-7
6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7NIV
Pretty sure the Holy Spirit can handle rendering the self-evident truth of that, or not, within the hearts of those who hear it - conversion is HIS job, not yours or the Inquizotoreh's, Professor Teufelsdröckh.
No coercive, dominionist, temporal state-establishment required.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.