Examining a good case for Jerusalem being the end times Babylon, and Daniel chapter7 and Antipasministeries.com excellent evaluation of USA run by shadow govt. of elites as Babylon, I conclude the following.
1. USA doesn't have to be THE Babylon of Revelation to be acting a whole lot like it, enough to draw down divine wrath. Antipas Ministeries evaluation therefore may be substantially correct in pragmatic terms for now.
2. Daniel speaks of 3 beasts, then a fourth. one is a lion with wings, who loses his wings and stands upright like a man "and a man's heart was given to it." Since Daniel's visions were often for the latter days, we should look at symbolic relevance to now incl. location of animals described. (Daniel is told later by an angel, that is the latter days knowledge would greatly increase and men would run to and fro, sounds like the past 300 or 400 years especially the past 200. So these are latter days, but not the end yet.)
Britain is often associated with a lion, and USA is its child and long an ally and the starting point for modern known flight. commercial, military, space. even working on TAVs, transatmospheric vehicles, which can go up into orbit, lower to attack and return to orbit. google Richard Dolan for the possibility of a breakaway civilization.
So USA and Britain and the whole NATO scene will get taken down, lose the air superiority, etc. The change of a lion into a man is a lessening in power, but an increase in spiritual (biblical not New Age sense) quality, because now it is like made in the image of God. The heart is not emotions, but the deep part of the mind.
So there is a loss of worldly power, but repentance, and they no longer host the
evil even satanic elites and Nazi parasite or admire and seek to be like it.
The next beast is a bear, raised up on one side, 3 ribs in its mouth. Bear would relate to Russia. It will become the world power in Asia in general outside of China's sphere of influence and most of Europe likely.
Probably be involved in wars in the Middle East.
The next one is a leopard with FOUR wings and FOUR heads. the habitat of the leopard
is Asia, Far East, China and Africa, mostly subsaharan, the north african populations being scanty. The most likely player to attain to such power is China, positioning itself to do exactly that. Four wings - commercial, military, local space, and far exploration space perhaps? colonizing Mars? and beyond?
There are no leopards in South America, but the jaguar strongly resembles a leopard, and its range used
to include the American southwest.
the four heads might relate to four general centers of its power, China, Iran, part of Africa and part of South America and/or Mexico. This scenario fits its actual positioning now, though Iran is dubious but it is ready with Pakistan and Russia to support Iran in the even of it being attacked.
The fourth beast has ten horns, and is something unlike anything Daniel has seen
before, he cannot describe it in terms of a known predator. At this point, go read
Revelation for more information. It apparently tramples and destroys all the foregoing
and gives rise to the antichrist.
This scenario makes the most sense in terms of both Scripture and what has been going on lately.
see also my blog, http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/ and egroups
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preparedness_conspiracy
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Libertarians are Cultists
Just picked this up on AlterNet, which as a site is the usual mix of good and evil. Ron and Rand Paul have done some good, and the opposition to govt. excess and excessive information grabbing is good, since one may rightly ask to what end is all this being done? But their long range agenda is bad. There was a time I bought these ideas, but I learned better. Justina
Why Libertarians Are Basically Cult Members
by Michael Lindhttp://www.alternet.org/economy/libertarians-are-cult-members?akid=10559.253027.uEIYcl&rd=1&src=newsletter853683&t=9&paging=off
June 11, 2013 |
An unscientific survey of the blogosphere turns up a number of libertarians claiming in response to my essay that, because libertarianism is anti-statist, to ask for an example of a real-world libertarian state shows a failure to understand libertarianism. But if the libertarian ideal is a stateless society, then libertarianism is merely a different name for utopian anarchism and deserves to be similarly ignored.
Another response to my essay has been to claim that a libertarian country really did exist once in the real world, in the form of the United States between Reconstruction and the New Deal. Robert Tracinski writes that I am “astonishingly ignorant of history” for failing to note that the “libertarian utopia, or the closest we’ve come to it, is America itself, up to about 100 years ago. It was a country with no income tax and no central bank. (It was on the gold standard, for crying out loud. You can’t get more libertarian than that.) It had few economic regulations and was still in the Lochner era, when such regulations were routinely struck down by the Supreme Court. There was no federal welfare state, no Social Security, no Medicare.”
It is Tracinski who is astonishingly ignorant of history. To begin with, the majority of the countries that adopted the “libertarian” gold standard were authoritarian monarchies or military dictatorships. With the exception of Imperial Britain, an authoritarian government outside of the home islands, where most Britons were denied the vote for most of this period, most of the independent countries of the pre-World War I gold standard epoch, including the U.S., Germany, France, Russia and many Latin American republics, rejected free trade in favor of varying degrees of economic protectionism.
For its part, the U.S. between Lincoln and FDR was hardly laissez-faire. Ever since colonial times, states had engaged in public poor relief and sometimes created public hospitals and asylums. Tracinski to the contrary, there were also two massive federal welfare programs before the New Deal: the Homestead Act, a colossal redistribution of government land to farmers, and generous pension benefits for Union veterans of the Civil War and their families. Much earlier, the 1798 act that taxed sailors to fund a small system of government-run sailors’ hospitals was supported by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton alike.
State and local licensing rules and trade laws governed economic life in detail, down to the size of spigots in wine casks, in some cases.
It was precisely these state and local regulations that the Supreme Court struck down, in Lochner v. New York (1905) and other cases, to promote the goal of creating a single national market. At the same time, sharing their racism with most white Americans, federal judges in Tracinski’s “libertarian” America permitted the most massive system of labor market distortion of all: racial segregation, which artificially boosted the incomes and property values of whites.The single national market that Lochner-era courts sought to protect from being Balkanized by state and local regulations (other than racial segregation) was walled off by the highest protective tariffs of any major industrial nation. The U.S. government between Lincoln and FDR engaged in a version of modern East Asian-style mercantilism, protecting American industrial corporations from import competition, while showering subsidies including land grants on railroad companies and using federal troops to crush protesting workers. This government-business mercantilism was anti-worker but it was hardly libertarian.
High tariffs to protect American companies in Tracinski’s alleged Golden Age of American libertarianism were joined by racist immigration restrictions that further boosted the incomes of white workers already boosted by de jure or de facto racial segregation. The 1790 Naturalization Act barred immigrants from becoming citizens unless they were “free white persons” and had to be amended by the 1870 Naturalization Act to bestow citizenship on former slaves of “African nativity” and “African descent.” Although the Supreme Court in 1898 ruled that the children of Asians born in the U.S. were citizens by birth, Tracinski’s libertarian utopia was characterized by increasingly restrictive immigration laws which curtailed first Asian immigration and then, after World War I, most European immigration.
Calvin Coolidge, the subject of a hero-worshiping new biography by the libertarian conservative Amity Shlaes, defended both high tariffs and restrictive immigration. Here is an excerpt from President Coolidge’s second annual address in 1924:
Two very important policies have been adopted by this country which, while extending their benefits also in other directions, have been of the utmost importance to the wage earners. One of these is the protective tariff, which enables our people to live according to a better standard and receive a better rate of compensation than any people, any time, anywhere on earth, ever enjoyed. This saves the American market for the products of the American workmen. The other is a policy of more recent origin and seeks to shield our wage earners from the disastrous competition of a great influx of foreign peoples. This has been done by the restrictive immigration law. This saves the American job for the American workmen.In 1921 then vice-president Coolidge wrote an article entitled “Whose Country is This?” inGood Housekeeping, in which he declared:
“Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides.” (Amity Shlaes’s hero evidently believed racist pseudoscience about dangerous and inferior “half-breeds”).
Protectionist, nativist paleoconservatives of the Patrick Buchanan school might have reason to idealize the U.S. as it existed between 1865 and 1932. But libertarians who want to prove that a country based on libertarian ideology can exist in the real world cannot point to the United States at any period in its history from the Founding to the present.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Interesting History of a Semi Fictitious Movie
Friday, May 31, 2013
Council of Laodicea proves women were ordained before then, by forbidding it be done in future.
First and foremost, I want to reiterate that I am opposed to
ordination of women, but not for any of the usual reasons.
1. arguments based on women's role in the divine order of
creation all center on Genesis 3:16, which is part of the
curses after The Fall, and no part of the original plan.
2. complaining that people take "neither male nor female"
out of context, as an early condemner of this practice complains,
ignores that Paul's other remarks have to be taken out of
context to be across the board applicable, and when done so
create certain conflicts that are only resolvable by economia
allowing what is usually forbidden, the forbidding being for
specific reasons. Timothy was apparently a very young man,
yet Paul said not to have bishops who are not older. Apparently
the issues about women were deceivability, how it looks to
the pagans, potential for impropriety, etc. the famous silent
in church mentions that women who want to learn something
should ask their husbands at home. so apparently some
disruptive heckling pretended to be questions, or unintended
disruption by asking and then the whole meeting turning to a
discussion, had been occurring. Yet Paul says that a woman's
head should be covered if she prays or prophesies in the
Church so clearly not all speech was prohibited. I Cor 11:4,5
speaks first of men praying and prophesying in church, then
of women, and assumes this will be done, the issue is clothing
while doing so.
3. theological arguments, that the priest represents Christ and
therefore must be male, are strikingly lacking in ALL the early
condemnations of women's ordination I have found so far.
I can't find any mention of the concept in the canons either.
Complex arguments about the priest represents Christ so must
be male because the Church is symbolically female, and is His
bride, then arguing that female ordination would validate
lesbianism, ignores that such extreme analogies would have
male ordination validate bisexuality, because the Church
consists of both sexes.
I repeat, THIS IS NEVER BROUGHT UP BY THE EARLY
CONDEMNERS OF WOMEN'S ORDINATION. Rather, it is
the issue of such a woman being presumptuous, against the
laws of God (see argument 1, this fails, and any argument
based on male priesthood in Mosaic Law ignores that we do
not have the Aaronic priesthood any more, see Hebrews on
the Melchizedec priesthood of Jesus Christ, our new and
permanent High Priest, and "where there is a change of
priesthood there is a change of law"), and of man (irrelevant).
As for presumption, this is always about sex role, women
shouldn't teach or rule over men, and ignores that God Himself
put Deborah in charge as judge over Israel Judges 4:4.
All the arguments against women priests focus on NON theological
issues. Period.
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT SACRAMENTS ANY SUCH
PERFORMED WERE INVALID. The only resemblance to this
refers to women who were heretics, false prophets, etc., and
this would be the same invalidity issue regardless of sex. where
no heresy or demonic deceptions were at issue, no argument of
invalidity existed.
Neither did any canon forbidding women to be presbitydes or
female presidents, or to go to the altar, require that anything
done by such female presidents in the past be redone. This would
have been an issue because they obviously sill existed in some
places.
My own reasons for opposing female ordination are strictly
pragmatic, and because the people arguing for this are usually
stating political arguments, representation of women in the priesthood
and often have a neo pagan or other New Agey agenda as well.
The issue is so packaged now with undesirable stuff, that it would
appear to weak minds or to the unlearned to validate the rest of it.
Women who are evil are harder to get rid of than are men who
are evil. And as St. Paul observes, women can often be more
easily deceived.
There is also the issue of menstruation, which may be a temporary
defilement, but would be irrelevant regarding post menopausal
women priests.
the Early Church, from Apostolic to 200 years later and few
places later, is the presence of condemnations of them.
The Council of Laodicea c. AD 341 to 383, canons 11 and 44.
Presbytides, as they are called, or female presidents, are not to be appointed in the Church.
Various writers stumble all over themselves to explain this, in ways
that avoid admitting these were ordained priests, leaving out any
reference to Justin Martyr's description of church services, which
tells us exactly what the "president" or presider over the service did.
"Bread, wine and water are then brought to the president, who offers the eucharistic prayer. "
Justin Martyr http://www.laudemont.org/a-witec.htm
Justin Martyr http://www.laudemont.org/a-witec.htm
So the president was the one who performed the Eucharistic sacrifice!
That means that if a woman was the president in that church service, she was
the one performing the Eucharistic sacrifice!
Someone argued that Justin Martyr didn't say they were women, but he didn't
have to, the OFFICE and its function was all that was discussed. THAT OFFICE
WAS ONE OF EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
THEREFORE, IF A WOMAN WAS A PRESIDENT IN THE CHURCH SERVICE,
SHE WOULD OFFER THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Laodicea did not say, that presbitydes shall not offer the Eucharist. IT SAID
WOMEN SHALL NOT BE PRESIDENTS ANY MORE, THAT THERE SHALL BE
NO MORE PRESBITYDES.
Canon 44
Women may not go to the altar.
The notes that follow, from modern writers, relate this to going to the altar
to receive Holy Communion, but clearly the Trullo Council rule prohibiting
laymen from entering the altar shows this means actually entering the altar
location itself, the altar space itself, which only priests and deacons could
do, the sole exception of a layman being the emperor.
the notes relate this forbidding for women to approach the altar, to the
practice of allowing them to receive Holy Communion during menstruation,
which occurred off and on East and West, the premise for allowing this
being that Christ's Blood cleanses from all defilement incl. menstrual.
In the days before kotex and tampons, when only a strapped on rag would
be of use, smell and perhaps occasional leakage would make the condition
evident.
But since the notes relate women being forbidden to enter the altar (or
altar space) since laymen are also prohibited, it follows that we are not
talking about mere walking up front to meet the priest outside but near
the altar space, to receive Holy Communion.
Given the total lack of theological arguments only a flat out prohibition,
and no requirement that sacraments and ordinations such a presbitydes
had done be redone, it is clear that the actions of then current women
priests were not considered invalid. They were just prohibited from
then on.
So far my research hasn't found where the theological iconing argument
started, I suspect it is real recent.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Russ Dizdar interviews an ex remote viewer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)