CONTINUED FROM
PART III
Updated
10/18/2001: Made easier to print out
Many concerned citizens and organizations lament the fact that even respected and established government and political groups are found contradicting each other, causing grid-lock, and outright don't seem to know what they're doing. These concerned people have seen a Miami police officer pronounced guilty of murder by an esteemed court for shooting a black man riding a motorcycle, to then be pronounced innocent by another esteemed court in a later trial. They see men of esteem and renown continually contradicting each other while the business of preserving our system continues to deteriorate, while all the while the people involved with the responsibility of preserving our system, are constantly hailing the virtue of that philosophy which is crippling the whole system: DIVERSITY. They tell us this diversity is wonderful! Our people see even the supreme court making decisions and then thinking to reverse them later. Everything points to the need for a singular voice and the elimination of individual rights. ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME!
That's what many in these offices of public trust are there to prove! They are there to mess up the system by putting it into endless debate, rehashing and re-evaluating old controversies and contentions which were formerly solved, enacting rules and principles which are designed to destroy the system, etc. The system running into chaos, confusion and collapse does not humiliate nor weaken Rome: it strengthens Rome and guarantees her future domination of the world. That's why Rome thrives on debate, confusion and controversy, and the great debating our nation is currently doing should make any sound-minded person understand that it is under a tremendous barrage of attack from the inside. THE NATION THAT DEBATES WILL BE OVERCOME BY THE ONE THAT DOES NOT. THE CHURCH THAT DEBATES WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE CHURCH THAT DOES NOT! Whenever there are debates on the internet and someone comes with points that are strong enough to finalize any issue, Jesuits posting on those systems will begin to get concerned and will begin to move in and act to use all kinds of well-trained techniques in order to oppose that person with the strong points and to allow the debate to continue endlessly. That's also why those involved in the conspiracy seem to agree that a one-world government is a good thing. If they put even an eighth of the effort into our system they are pushing for this global government, all our problems would be solved!
What therefore is the difference between encouraging diverse ideas and interpretations from the Bible and burning bibles which Rome has done for centuries? The answer is that there really would be no difference.
It was for this very reason of confusion why the Protestant Reformation even started. It started because certain Catholics typically among the elite (for the bible was not readily accessible to the common people in those days) discovered that they were not getting accurate spiritual information from the Roman Church by what they had read and experienced in the Scriptures. They then lamented the division and confusion that was evident in various branches and eras of the Roman Church. They then later became Protestants.
The Protestants said the following. I am now going to quote from a notable Protestant writer, a William Chillingworth, who in these words testify to the complete mission of Protestantism. This is from his book called The Religion of Protestants which was published in 1866. He said:
In a word, there is no sufficient CERTAINTY but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon. -- William Chillingworth, M.A., The Religion of Protestants, (London 1866), 463.
Notice what they wanted? They wanted CERTAINTY! They wanted clear and definitive information which can be demonstrated by the Scriptures. Do Protestants want certainty today? This is in contrast with Jesuit posters on the internet telling us about inferior Christians who want clear answers from the bible on issues not dealing directly with Christ.
That's the way Jesus used the Scriptures in His day. He did not tell the conflicting factions of the Jewish Church that they were blessed in their different and confusing theories. Though He lived and taught in a great center of commerce, He did not impress any kind of importance to racial or cultural diversity. He did not impress any kind of recognition nor necessity for all kinds of differing opinions or views. He did not tell them to forget about what is right or true in order to unite in "Love" and "ecumenism". Instead He continually showed both the Pharisees and the Saduccees how much in error they were. He did this with power, with definitiveness and with surety. THAT IS THE POWER OF THE BIBLE, and IT WAS THAT POWER WHICH PRESERVED OUR LIBERTIES TO THIS DAY.
Therefore the typical scenario would be a minority brought in for trial on the charge of heresy by the Roman Catholic Church. They would be asked why they were spreading heresy. They would reply that what they were spreading was not heresy but the TRUTH. They would then state that the Roman Church had apostatized from the truth. Rome would then typically retort, "From your interpretation?"
The idea was, how can a few humble, penniless, uneducated peasants declare that the decisions and interpretations of the educated, affluent and opulent elite of Rome were wrong? The typical questions would be, "Are you saying that you're right and everyone else is wrong? How come everybody else doesn't see what you see? ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE GOING TO LEAD! Are you saying that your views will dominate?"
How did the Protestants escape the charge of being "dogmatic" and "selfishly intent on pushing their own self-made half-made views" on everyone else? How did they escape the charge of being "bigoted," dogmatic and egotistical? They escaped by always offering the challenge, "Show me my error from the Scriptures, and I will retract!" IT WAS THEREFORE SHOWN THAT THROUGH EXAMINATION THE PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THE BIBLE IS DEFINITIVE. It doesn't condone a plethora of opinions in anything neither of a doctrinal, political nor moral nature!
The Protestants were saying that the Scriptures were definitive. They were giving authority to the scriptures and taking it off of themselves, thus proving that they were not on any ego trip. Most don't seem to understand that even the accusation against the Protestants here were the cornerstone accusations against those who opposed the Nazis and Communists. Hitler's famous work Mein Kampf which embodied the moral philosophy of Nazism was based on the concept that everyone must release his individual and "selfish" opinions in order to serve his fellow man. Serving his fellow man was just another way of saying that he will believe and follow his government no matter what--even into totalitarian realms. He will follow with the agenda of the dictator or who else is there regardless of the moral or political implications. Whosoever doesn't do that is "selfish" and is on an ego-trip. This is directly opposite to the Protestant concept.
The Protestants were declaring that in debate, the Scriptures were the referee, and that their knowledge of it can be challenged and tested. Here was a strong indicator of the supernatural quality of Protestantism: OF THE BIBLE. Just as seemingly impossible it was for a book falling into the hands of diverse people to produce unity and definitive guidance, so it must have been for humble peasants to defend themselves against the elite and great minds of Rome.
The interesting fact was that those humble peasants were all too often able to confound and defeat the great men of Rome, proving that the Bible was definitive and does give such guidance to anyone. That was why Rome consistently made it a high priority to, as much as possible, make sure that the Protestants never had a chance to speak nor to defend themselves OPENLY--especially when honest observers are around, for there was really no such thing as trials in Vatican dogma. Once you were condemned by the Vatican, that was it. There was no more to be said in your behalf by anyone else, and especially no more to be said by you because of the doctrine of papal infallibility. If you understand what is going on, you would notice the principles of the Patriot Act head us that way. Why hold secret trials merely on the accusation of someone being a terrorist? Because if allowed to defend himself, that accused person may be able to show the world who the real terrorists are! That's why during the days of the inquisitions the Roman Catholic hierarchy pressed upon the people that they were not to listen to what "egotistical" individuals proclaimed from what they conceived to be truth coming from the Bible. The people of those dark ages were taught to adhere to the decisions of the COMMUNITY: to what society on a whole decreed and decided; and, of course, it was a fact that the ideas the majority of society had held, came from the elite who were controlling them. This political philosophy is called "Collectivism", and it was not only a vital part of Vatican policy, but also an intergral part of its offshoots: Socialism, Communism, and Nazism.
In the recent events with the changes taking place in church and state, it is evident that there is a high priority to make sure that opposing or "dissident" groups or people do not get a chance to speak or to defend themselves when they are condemned for opposing authority--the very authority which is enforcing the changes.
In the former anti-terrorism bill, the Clinton Administration had added a provision where they can actually condemn any group which they declare is a terrorist group whether whimsically or otherwise, through secret evidence without allowing the accused to be confronted with the charges or to defend themselves against the charges. Such actions are clearly unconstitutional--CLEARLY DARK AGES GOVERNMENT, and are the very acts which have caused militia and patriot groups to spring up, yet those in authority are absolutely determined that these acts MUST continue--THAT WE MUST GET USED TO ACTS LIKE THESE, while they portray to the public that they just can't understand why anyone would not trust them but would choose to believe in, according to them, "conspiracy theories." Now the Patriot Act comes with the same demands after, in a startling manner, the people set up to protect us from terror, failed to do that, but then claimed benefits they had been wanting all along as a reward for their failure.
Yet people believing in conspiracies are supposed to be considered the natural results of a diverse society--of that DIVERSITY which they have brought upon us and indoctrinated us to believe is the secret of OUR strength. Diversity would justify people believing in ANYTHING, including that our government and churches are betraying them and trying to rule and control them for the benefit of the New World Order, under their Pope. Instead of this, those who understand the established order of our society and realize that it is being unscrupulously attacked, are labeled "dissidents" by those who tell us they love diversity, and yet this charge is not accompanied by any allowance for people to disagree--is not accompanied by any allowance for DIVERSITY. In the process, most every meeting those in authority have is not to consider what might be taking place which is causing the protest, distrust and unrest so that a solution can be found, but they meet to figure out how to discredit and to destroy those who are trying to sound the alarm while yet making sure that the activities which caused the distrust continue to the point where the American people get used to them. They don't meet in order to figure out the distrust, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW WHAT IS CAUSING IT! Still their mission is clear: this free America must fall and give place to the New World Order, which we will find out will be a much more powerful replica of that form of government which our nation won its liberties from: the "Holy" Roman empire. Therefore it is clear that those who push diversity upon us really do not believe in it, but are indeed conspiring against us.