Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)
In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,
"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."
John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.
Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.
Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:
“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.
Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:
"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)
In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.
As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.
Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:
“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)
The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,
“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)
The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.
With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)
This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,
“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.
Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.
Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.
Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:
“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)
None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:
“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)
Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,
“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)
After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,
“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)
The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.
From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,
“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
That doesn’t fit any definition of “conservative” I’ve ever seen. Are you wanting to create a new definition?
That doesn’t fit any definition of “conservative” I’ve ever seen. Are you wanting to create a new definition?
Words mean things.. “conservative” ALWAYS means not radical..
which is the point..
NOT sometimes or most of time or by and large.. BUT ALWAYS..
LIKE; liberalism is always radical.. and never progressive..
A major tactical victory converting a radical ideology(liberalism) to be seen as “progressive”..
A major “DELUSION”... as I mentioned in an earlier post..
To be a republican “IS TO BE” deluded..
Thats why liberals are so successful.. republicans are bewitched by words..
Liberals lie and could care less about words thats why conservative logic is wasted on them..
They are indeed “the BORG”... mechanical in the collective..
Anarchists in degrees.. its simple for them, protect the HIVE...
not a lot of thinking going on...with the drones...
It always means opposed to change, preserving traditional systems and values.
In order to take down and overthrow an oppressive established political system, our nations founders forged a political coalition that it was agreed to by all should not and could not be allowed to be divided by religious differences. That is our tradition.
Nice except.... except its not about religion its about tribes.. religious or not..
You know tribes, mobs, minorities and majorities, smart and dumb, rich and poor....
Which is WHY they wrote the Constitution down so it could be followed..
The words democratic and democracy not mentioned one time in it.. ON PURPOSE.. anywhere...
They knew something almost all republicans DO NOT know.. and ALL democrats...
Democracy sucks.. it's nasty... not a scintilla of value anywhere in it..
Not only that it's a lie... no democracy has even been democratic.. it's bait and switch.. a scam..
Decent people spit when they hear the word democracy.. indecent people DON'T..
What dictionary are you using that makes heresy about tribes and not religion?
What dictionary are you using that makes heresy about tribes and not religion?
Heresy does not exist.. except in the minds of a self appointed elite..
Its a bully word.. used by bullies..
Has no effect on the courageous and those with a pure heart..
Tribes are usually controlled by bullies..
Nice thing that “God” can be you’re invisible friend..
and you can have a religion with one member..
God is a groovey,,, ugh... guy!..
Like Linda Kimball?
Like Linda Kimball?
No... Linda has her own 2nd reality others have theirs..
No need to agree on everything.. nobody is perfect..
What 2nd reality do you live?...
Gonna try out some Standpoint Theory on us? Good luck with that.
Gonna try out some Standpoint Theory on us? Good luck with that.
I have no need to penetrate your 2nd reality...
mine is quite good enough..
Weapons grade drivel.
Weapons grade drivel.
Glad you liked it..
“ONCE property was allowed to be taxed.. the government owned everything..”
Spirited: Preceding government take-over of temporal property is negation of spiritual property via natural science (empiricism, reductionism-—all that exists is nature) and philosophically materialist Darwinism (all that exists is matter, thus man is nothing more than an aggregate of matter in human form):
“The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from
biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity – omnipotent chance....” (T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal, pp. 101-102, 1975)
If God does not exist, then man is less than nothing, and this is the main thrust of Isaiah’s warning to both ancient and modern rebels against God Almighty Creator of Heaven and earth and all who adhere to their destructive teachings:
“Behold, you are of nothing, and your work of that which hath no being: he that hath chosen you is an abomination.” Isaiah 41:24
I have not refused to answer any question that BroJoeK has put to me. I LOVE it when people ask me questions! I wish more people would do it!!!
If I might have missed a question, or inadvertently overlooked one, I heartily invite BroJoeK to ask me the question again.
FWIW, I am not anti-science. I am not anti-evolution. (I do believe in evolution. I just think that evolution of the Darwinian type is pretty lame. In fact, I have some doubt that it is science at all.)
Like you, dear YHAOS, "my main objection is to Scientists of an Atheist persuasion, primarily if not entirely, who misrepresent themselves as speaking authoritatively, not personally, that Science proves God does not exist...."
Thank you so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!
BroJoeK: Despite your gaggle of sycophants here, it's pretty obvious to me that yours is the polluted and depraved conscience of a committed sophist, intent on destroying all philosophical connections between your personal theology and any other discipline — i.e., science.
Dear BroJoeK, I gather you hold in contempt spirited irish's concerns, that she is a religious wing-nut who has worked to gather about herself a crowd of like-minded "sycophants." I find it funny how incensed some of our correspondents on this thread are that Linda Kimball's "Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution" article has not been removed to the Religion Forum. (It continues to sit here on News/Activism, as far as I can tell.)
But if I understand it correctly, this article is not "about religion." It's about the degradation of human culture and civilization ever since the Enlightenment, and its impact on the American order of liberty and equal justice.
Thomas Sowell opened his NY Post op-ed this past Saturday (November 30, p. 21) with these lines:
Many people take pride in defying the conventions of society. Those conventions of society are also known as civilization. Defying them wholesale means going back to barbarism. Barbarians with electronic devices are still barbarians.That's sort of how I see things. I suspect that spirited irish sees it that way, too.
Having read your profile page and noted your expressed sympathy for the values and principles of the Framers, and your statement that you are "here to defend an original constitutionalist interpretation of history," it is a real puzzle to me that you seem at the same time to want to undermine the very cultural foundation of American order: Which is that we are a people under God, from whom we have received fundamental, unalienable rights that no State of whatever form may infringe or deny. The people do not exist for the State; the State exists for the people; and its mandate is very narrow.
Power really is a zero-sum game. The State can aggrandize itself only by taking away the liberties of the people. If people don't defend their liberty against State encroachment, then very soon they will lose it altogether.
All in hopes of installing an "ideal State," a/k/a a humanly-ordained progressive utopia entirely run by "experts" (usually for their own benefit and the benefit of their friends), that will signal the "End of History" — as Hegel put it.
Possibly you will deny having done this. You would argue, "I'm only here to defend science against the "anti-science crowd" out there. (Who you classify mainly as religious fanatics.)
You allege you have never seen anyone around FR beat up on a Christian. Jeepers, guy — you've been here about 9 years now, and you can say that with a straight face?
In any case, I do hope you and yours had a wonderful Thanksgiving! Sorry my reply to your last is so tardy, but I've been away the past several days.
Thank you for writing, dear BroJoeK!
Kind of breath taking, isn't it?
I continue to be amazed what people will say with a straight face.
Oh, it's amazing alright. And yet, if our BroJoeK needed proof of what I claim, he could start by reading his own posts.
Thanks so much for writing, dear sister in Christ!
It really is about religion, and apparently it's become necessary to try to obfuscate that fact.
betty: But if I understand it correctly, this article is not “about religion.” It’s about the degradation of human culture and civilization ever since the Enlightenment, and its impact on the American order of liberty and equal justice.
Spirited: Thank-you betty.
With respect to our Constitutional Republic, belief in the Biblical Creator, Jesus Christ, His crucifixion and resurrection, Original Sin, the creator-creature distinction, man as the Triune God’s spiritual image-bearer endowed with spiritual property, Moral Law, and other Biblical institutions and principles are the “glue” that has held America together — religiously, morally, authoritatively, nationally, culturally, and economically — since this nation’s founding.
From the dawn of history, when a people have lost faith in or otherwise willfully rejected their deity, the fate of that society has been dissolution and death, generally at the hands of invading barbarians. In America’s case, the invading barbarians are the product of our own corrupt education establishment.
Speaking through his character the Madman, the dark prophet Nietzsche announced the “death of God.” Dubbing himself the Antichrist, Nietzsche proclaimed:
“The greatest recent event — that ‘God is dead,’ that the belief in the Christian God has ceased to be believable — is even now beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe; however, few really understood “ what has really happened here, “and what must collapse now that this belief has been undermined — all that was built upon it, leaned on it, grew into it; for example, our whole European morality.” (False Dawn, Lee Penn, p. 433)
Like a vast ebon wing, the “death of God” overshadows America with an impenetrable shroud of practical atheism, moral imbecility and sophistry, increasing lawlessness and barbarism.
The death of the Christian God demands erasure of the Creator-creature distinction; rejection of the miraculous, literal and historical elements of Scripture with a priori rejection of the Genesis account ex nihilo together with hostility toward and outright hatred of orthodox (non-liberal) Christians, Christian symbols, traditions, and holidays, as well as the America of the Founders, for in the words of Nietzsche, all of this “must collapse now that this belief has been undermined.”
The rejection of the Christian God means that increasing numbers of Americans have themselves become in essence little gods. In practical terms, this means America is no longer a monotheistic society but a polytheistic one in much the same way that India is with its’ millions of gods and goddesses. Each little god and his cult followers (special rights groups) demand their “rights” according to what they most covet. Will-to-power, or might-makes-right has become the way of life here.
America will eventually collapse, and out of its ashes will arise a Caesar more terrible than any of his predecessors and a global occult pantheist Moloch state; Hunger Games writ large:
“While relatively little is known of Moloch, much more is known of the concept of divine kingship, the king as god, and the god as king, as the divine-human link between heaven and earth. The god-king represented man on a higher (evolved) scale, man ascended, and the worship of such a god, i.e., of such a Baal, was the assertion of the continuity of heaven and earth. It was the belief that all being was one being (pantheist monism), and the god therefore was an ascended man on that scale of being. The power manifested in the political order was thus a manifestation or apprehension and seizure of divine power. It represented the triumph of a man (i.e., Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Obama) and of his people (i.e., Marxist Communists, National Socialists, progressive liberals). Moloch worship was thus a political religion (i.e., Marxism, Progressivism, Fascism, occult New Age)....Moloch worship was thus state worship. The state was the true and ultimate order, and religion was a department of the state. The state claimed total jurisdiction over man (necessitating mind-control, propaganda, re-education, sex education, concentration camps); it was therefore entitled to total sacrifice.” (Rousas Rushdoony cited in “The Antichrist,” by Vincent P. Miceli, S.J., pp. 246, 247; emphasis added)
The pagan theocratic state freely took the lives of its children — and adults for that matter — as necessary sacrifices to the god of the state. The Soviet Union was a secularized-pantheist Moloch state. Its so-called “scientific socialism” was a Gnostic pagan religion of state worship grounded in evolutionary dialectical materialism—revamped and revised animism updated for modern Western tastes. The Soviet Moloch State brutally murdered over 60,000,000 men, women, and children in pursuit of an ideal society.
When the true God is banished from man’s society, into the resulting vacuum rush new gods, madness, the dehumanization of mankind, staggering cruelty and occultism.
Even now, contemporary Americans are rushing headlong into the occult: Wicca, Satanism, goddess worship, shamanism, pyramid building, UFO obsession and interaction, necromancy, channeling, spirit guides, Transcended Masters and ghost-hunting for example.
These spiritist activities bring about a revival of the politics of ancient paganism resulting in the development of a divine state based on a Hermetic-theology of “as above, so below,” that is, on the denial of the Creator-creature distinction:
“The Moloch state simply represents the supreme effort of man to command the future, to predestine the world, and to be as God (by way of) divination, spirit-questing, magic and witchcraft (all of these spiritist efforts) represent efforts to have the future on other than God’s terms, to have a future apart from and in defiance of God. They are assertions that the world is not of God but of brute factuality, and that man can somehow master the world and the future by going directly to the raw materials thereof.” (ibid, The Antichrist)
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.