The Snake's Beachhead

Quick question:
---------------

I understand that the early Puritans made no effort to govern separetly from, that is without, God. The Puritans made no attempt to raise up an authority of ANY KIND that was not ROOTED DEEPLY in GOD. Indeed, the Puritans fought the Catholic Royalists in the English Civil War (1642-48) over this very issue!

And is not Almighty God truly the FOCUS of all our lives, and even all the Heavens too?

SO...
simply put...

is not, BY DEFINITION, the modern concept of "separation of church from state" automatically Satanic?

Is not the very notion of "an authority separate from God-ness", to wit, an authority, a power, that is NOT ROOTED DEEPLY IN GOD...

is that not OBVIOUSLY SATANIC?

For what power is GOOD that is not ROOTED IN GOD, who is the well-spring of all good (James 1:17)?

And James 3:15 certainly LINKS unGodly types of authority with worldliness and calls them 'demonic'...

So, in short, how can you logically have a GOOD, RIGHTWISE, and FAIR government...

that keeps itself APART FROM, AWAY FROM, SEPARATE FROM...

ALMIGHTY GOD, the ONE TRUE SOURCE OF ALL GOODNESS, RIGHTWISENESS, and FAIRNESS?

And is not the very statement, nay, the very THOUGHT that man can so rule WITHOUT the guidance of God...

is that not the VERY SIN of NIMROD and the TOWER OF BABEL? The Satanic swindle-lie that puffs up man's ego through pillow-talk and sweet sweet honeyed words that lure men into falsely believing that they can "stand on their own two feet" without ALMIGHTY GOD'S GUIDANCE?

Where am I wrong?

There is nothing in our constitution that demands separation of church and state. It just says that states shall not establish any official religion. It has been re(mis)interpreted to mean separation of church and state.

A bit of trivia: The same people who crafted that amendment also established a law that schools could not get federal funding unless they taught the Bible. Obviously, these people didn't have in mind what the supreme court in our generation say they had in mind.

Right on npetreley. Separation of church & state is a misnomer. The founding fathers wanted to keep the state out of the church. They never intended us to be "one nation over God".

is not, BY DEFINITION, the modern concept of "separation of church from state" automatically Satanic?

Apostolic Christianity was born and thrived under the pagan rule of the Caesars. Indeed, Paul says in Rom. 13 that the Roman government was put in place by God to govern and maintain social order. Therefore, obeying the secular authority was to obey God, insofar as the laws of men did not conflict with the laws of God.

At no point does Jesus or any apostolic writer advocate replacing the civil government with a theocratic one, apart from converting the rulers to Christ; nor does any biblical teaching suggest that the civil government ought to rule over the church as well. Paul commands believers to pray for kings and rulers, that they would allow the church to practice in peace (1 Tim. 2:1-2).

It's implicit in the New Testament that the relationship between church and state is something like this: the members of the church obey the state's lawful laws and pursue the conversion of their rulers; conversely, the state is to foster an environment in which the Church may peacefully be the Church.

Sounds an awful lot like the separation of church and state to me.

Article 1 US Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religon, or prohibiting the exercise thereof."

Ransom, I have no idea what the laws or Constitution of Canada says, so I wouldnt know how Canadians view church vs state.

Secularlists have taken Article 1 and had the courts interpret it to advance their godless and worldly ideals.

Taking prayer out of the schools has very little to do with Article 1, as does the Ten Commandments in courthouses or Christmas scenes in front of government buildings.

If there is one mistake the Christian community made at the time, and I can remember it, maybe it was forcing everyone in the classroom bow their head as someone read a generic prayer over the loud speaker. It caused no harm to anyone, but I believe that was the opening that got the athiests foot in the door.

If we are ever able to get prayer back into the schools (which IMO would turn lots around in this country from abortion to church attendence), then maybe it should be voluntary. And to tell you the truth, as incomptent as the government is, can you imagine them running a church? Anyway, that should not prevent us as Americans from having the right to pray in school or exercise our faith anywhere else we see fit or anyone for that matter.

Originally posted by GLC:
Right on npetreley. Separation of church & state is a misnomer. The founding fathers wanted to keep the state out of the church. They never intended us to be "one nation over God".

Click to expand...

Apt quote

Originally posted by saturneptune:
Article 1 US Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religon, or prohibiting the exercise thereof."

Ransom, I have no idea what the laws or Constitution of Canada says, so I wouldnt know how Canadians view church vs state.

Secularlists have taken Article 1 and had the courts interpret it to advance their godless and worldly ideals.

Taking prayer out of the schools has very little to do with Article 1, as does the Ten Commandments in courthouses or Christmas scenes in front of government buildings.

If there is one mistake the Christian community made at the time, and I can remember it, maybe it was forcing everyone in the classroom bow their head as someone read a generic prayer over the loud speaker. It caused no harm to anyone, but I believe that was the opening that got the athiests foot in the door.

If we are ever able to get prayer back into the schools (which IMO would turn lots around in this country from abortion to church attendence), then maybe it should be voluntary. And to tell you the truth, as incomptent as the government is, can you imagine them running a church? Anyway, that should not prevent us as Americans from having the right to pray in school or exercise our faith anywhere else we see fit or anyone for that matter.

Click to expand...

The STATE has you <snip> and it KNOWS IT which is why it will NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH YOU. You are DEPENDENT upon STATE SCHOOLS, you have not the time nor ENERGY to build up a SUBSTITUTE. The STATE has a MONOPOLY on your education, it knows it, you know it, everybody knows nobody will do jack about it. SO, the STATE will continue to laugh at you... from IT'S schools. You only have influence over YOUR OWN TURF. Don't ever expect to have influence over turf YOU DON'T CONTROL.

If you want it done right, DO IT YOURSELF. But that takes too much energy, doesn't it?? We're all too tired, aren't we?? Just admit it! Everybody already knows, it's a fait accompli, so just relax and acknowledge that you will by your food, mental and physical, from GLOBAL CORP and you don't have the WILL or VIGOR to contest the issue.

That's how the game is played, now, then, forevermore. TESTOSTERONE is the solution to ALL PROBLEMS. Cope and deal.

If you want it done right, do it YOURSELF. Too hard?

Eat what they give you.

That's the rules, and you certainly won't change them with your INACTION.

Sorry, man, seriously, but you know I'm right, so cope & deal.

[Edited to remove offensive language]

[ March 21, 2006, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

fella, where to educate one's kids is a personal decision between the parents and God.

I'm privately educated, and our kids will likely be...but wow...a bit over the top here.

And I have a word for our saints that go and teach in public schools: Missionaries.

Originally posted by Ransom:

Apostolic Christianity was born and thrived under the pagan rule of the Caesars. Indeed, Paul says in Rom. 13 that the Roman government was put in place by God to govern and maintain social order. Therefore, obeying the secular authority was to obey God, insofar as the laws of men did not conflict with the laws of God.

At no point does Jesus or any apostolic writer advocate replacing the civil government with a theocratic one, apart from converting the rulers to Christ; nor does any biblical teaching suggest that the civil government ought to rule over the church as well. Paul commands believers to pray for kings and rulers, that they would allow the church to practice in peace (1 Tim. 2:1-2).

It's implicit in the New Testament that the relationship between church and state is something like this: the members of the church obey the state's lawful laws and pursue the conversion of their rulers; conversely, the state is to foster an environment in which the Church may peacefully be the Church.

Sounds an awful lot like the separation of church and state to me. [/QB]

Click to expand...

1) The Christian Kirk (church) did NOT thrive under Rome

and Saul was making havoc of the assembly, into every house entering, and haling men and women, was giving them up to prison;

Click to expand...

Please read the book, "Early Eastern Christianity" by Burkitt. Christianity only survived because it was PROTECTED in the EAST under the PERSIANS. (The same Persians who gave us the MESSIAH KHORUVASH, the only other man in the OT/NT to be called 'Messiah' beside THE Messiah, Yeshua. KHORUVASH, "Cyrus the Great", freed the Judeans from captivity and thereby breathed NEW LIFE into the WHOLE SHOW, THANKS MAN, PROPS TO KHORUVASH! Khoruvash also gave the world the earliest attested document on HUMAN RIGHTS, FYI.)

But in the WEST, the ROMAN IMPERIAL KGB hunted the Christians like Terminator Gunships and HK infiltrator drones in the movies. The HKs correspond to the "wolves in sheeps' hides", a metaphor for Roman Secret Police and paid informants, because the WOLF was the symbol of Rome -- Romulus and Remus had been suckled by a SHE-WOLF beneath a FIG TREE. Rome was called the "Wolf of the Tiber", and was indeed a "Ravening Wolf" that was Imperializing the WHOLE MEDITERRANEAN and angering everyone, from the Britains in the North, the Germans across the Rhine, the Dacians along the Danube, the Hebrews in Palestine. SHEEP, or "Team WHITE" if you will, means the "Sons of Light" = Good Guys... 'Wolves in Sheeps' hides are Roman informants who masquerade, Hannibal Lecter style, inside of a 'good believer's' mask like Henry Phillips who betrayed William Tyndale in 1535.

And, yes, secret police really did exist back then, along with every other major component of military organization. Our word "Crypt", meaning hidden or secret, as in "Cryptography", comes from the Spartan Krypteia who kept the Spartan military elite in power over their numerous Helot serfs. Darius and Xerxes presaged their attacks on Greece with intelligence operations designed to destabilize their enemy on the eve of the attack. And spies are reported as early as the Battle of Kadesh in 800 BCE or earlier. The common sense notion of getting a "heads up" on your enemy is not actually new, or that hard to think up either.

I just trying to say that, while Christianity thrived under the TOLERATION of the PERSIANS in the EAST...

It was LITERALLY driven underground in the West. There's a REASON major scenes from Quo Vadis take place in the Catacombs UNDERGROUND.

Picture a scene like Schindler's List, with Terminator HKs marching in formation down the streets of Rome above, their heavy metal armor clanking against their sword scabbards and spears... and Christians cowering down below, trying desperately to read a few scraps of Matthew's Gospel by the light filtering down from the sewer drain.

NONE of the Gospel Writers actually affixed their name to their Gospels. THIS is what gives the bad guys a 'foot in the door' to doubt the "Church Tradition" which assigns "Matthew" to Matthew, and "Mark" to John Mark, etc. But why did NONE of them sign their name?

Because nobody would be stupid enough to tell the Roman agents they knew were lurking everywhere, "Hey, yeah, I am one of the chief leaders of this movement, it's ME, really, come and kick the door in over here!"

For the SAME REASON, it is not even until the Gospel of John, the last to be written, after the Jewish War, that it was actually PETER who was the dude who hacked off the High Priest's ear! Matthew and Mark, who wrote while Peter was still ALIVE in Rome, were not about to finger their own man! So, they just said, "One of the Apostles.. ::ahem::... hacked off Malchus' right ear..."

It was not until John, writing well AFTER Peter's martyrdom, that a Gospel writer actually tells us, 'the dude with the sabre was SIMON KEPHAS, FYI, keep on the downlow though'.

That shows the OMNIPRESENT FEAR of early Christians under Rome's BRUTALITY. The movies "Apocalypse" with Richard Harris and "St. John in Exile" I think show how hard-pressed early Christianity was, it was pushed to the BRINK, GOD BE PRAISED FOR JOHN's LONG LIFE AND HIS KEEPING THE TORCH AFLAME FOR US TODAY!


2) I have my own understanding of just why Saul Paulus (Paul means "Little", recall Saul called himself the "Least of the Apostles" (1 Corinthians 15:9) acknowledged the Roman government.

That even aside, schools today teach ANTI-GODLY doctrines. It's oppression of the Kirk. "Not different, just smarter" -- a line from the movie "Sakharov" which I would recommend, you can probably get it used, like all good movies it's out of print I think, as it would happen. You might as well send your sons and daughters to "Ba'al Molech and Ishtar orgy cult" lessons, in some respects, especially in ::quote-fingers:: sex-education, which is more like a KGB sex-school.

Bismarck, I had some respect for your posts. In this thread you put a huge dent in it.

Originally posted by Bismarck:
I understand that the early Puritans made no effort to govern separetly from, that is without, God. The Puritans made no attempt to raise up an authority of ANY KIND that was not ROOTED DEEPLY in GOD. Indeed, the Puritans fought the Catholic Royalists in the English Civil War (1642-48) over this very issue!

...

Where am I wrong?

Click to expand...

How about at the beginning? The Puritans, bless their hearts, thought they knew the will of God perfectly and believed the Almighty needed their defense. That's why they repeatedly persecuted Baptists, whose ideas didn't agree with theirs and therefore must be against the will of God.

It truly saddens me to see so many Baptists turn against separation, which is meant both to protect the church from the state and the state from religious establishments. How compelling someone to repeat a prayer contributes to authentic righteousness is beyond me; it serves only to make hypocrites on both sides.

Voluntary prayer is not illegal is schools (though some officious bureaucrats will pop up from time to time to dispute that) and requiring prayer benefits no one. The school should not have the job of instructing children in religion; that is the task of the home and the church.

And, your assertion aside, Christianity did in fact flourish in the Roman Empire. There were periodic persecutions, but the church surivived and grew, no thanks to state support. State sanction and support, in fact, filled the churches with people who joined only for secular benefits. What else can you expect?

I don't want the state to support Christianity; I want it to keep its hands off of Christianity, lest its secular clutches pollute pure religion.

God doesn't need the support of the state, and Christians err in accepting it.