B
brakelite
Guest
We are presently living in a time of intense war and strife. The past 100 years has seen this planet turned into one vast graveyard as a direct result of war, and compounding disasters in every land and continent. Matthew 24:6 and 7 are being played out before our very eyes. And not only nations are at war, but we also witness sectarian violence, terrorism, gang warfare in our local suburbs, and family violence in our homes. So poignant are the words of Jesus when He described the last days as being as the days of Noah,a time when “the earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” Genesis 6:11.
But Matthew also reveals to us a subtle change. After describing a period of war and natural disasters, Jesus tells us that these are just the beginning of sorrows, with the real heavy stuff beginning in verse 9 where He tells us that Christians will be hated of all nations for His name’s sake. The nations, after being at each others throats for millennia, finally find something that unites them. A hatred for God’s people. The reason for this, I believe is clear. Encouraged by their Luciferian rulers, they blame the church for all the troubles that have come upon them. In Luke, Jesus said that the nations would be perplexed at the troubles. They have no solutions, no answers. But why blame the church? Because they have turned to religion as a last resort to solve their problems. Remember the days and weeks following 9/11? Every man, woman, and their pet poodle was in church... out of a sense of surrender, repentance, or love toward their Creator? Maybe but I would suggest more simply out of a sense of self preservation. Why would I say such a terrible thing? Because within a month or two when the hubbub died down the churches began to empty. People realized it wasn't world war 3 the government promised to look after them and chase away all their enemies....they felt safe again. So in the coming crisis people are going to be going back to church. Once again they will find solace and security in 'religion'. But the troubles won't stop...in fact they will increase.
Revelation informs us in chapter 13 that the whole world will worship the beast and its image. Believing it is the will of God and to appease who it believes is an angry God pouring out His last day judgments upon mankind, it is the people themselves who demand that an image be established...an image to the first beast...a union of church and state similar to the medieval papacy, and that the only way to avert annihilation is to destroy the only remaining people who refuse to bow their knee to his authority. This ‘remnant’ the scriptures inform us are they “who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus”. (Revelation 12:17; 14:12)
So how could such a scenario come about, especially in a nation like the United States which has religious freedom enshrined within its constitution? As a member of a minority Christian group, this concerns me a great deal, even though I write from New Zealand, for prophecy is clear that what begins with the second beast, grows to a global threat against any who would dissent from the majority opinion. Power, in the hands of the church, historically has never been a good thing. So if Trump has his way,and gives the church 'power' as he promised, and the church at some time in the future has such influence to enact religious decrees and laws through the state legislative arm, then religious freedom ceases.
Religious freedom in America will then be reduced to something one may practice only by permission. Toleration certainly is far better than intoleration, for I would far rather be tolerated in my religious practice than be bundled off to the nearest gallows or bonfire for choosing to worship God in a manner different than what the government deems ‘appropriate’. But is that what religious freedom in America is? Toleration? If I should come to America and take up residence there, if I should practice my religion, being a member of a minority faith, would I be merely tolerated? Or would I truly be free as your founding fathers intended I should be? You see, to be tolerated is not the same as being free.
Thomas Jefferson said, “God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion.” If religion is between man and God, and not between man and the state, then the state (nor the people who live in the state) has no more right to ‘tolerate’ my religion than I have the right to ‘tolerate’ jogging in Central Park.
The Act of Toleration in Britain permitted religious freedom for everyone, except Jews, Catholics, and Unitarians. The founding fathers of your great nation wanted something better. Having their forefathers live through what amounted to ‘toleration’ during the dark ages in both Europe and Britain, they desired true freedom. Your Bill of Rights states, “That religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not of violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it according to the dictates of conscience.”
Intolerance, as practiced in the former Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and in Europe under the medieval papacy, assumed the right of the state or the church, or a combination of both,to withhold the right of conscience. Toleration, as seems a distinct possibility if the evangelical arm of Christendom gains the reign of government, assumes the right of the state to grant the right of conscience. The rights of religious minorities in this world, regardless of recent history and hurt feelings, are just that, rights. For “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and surely, among those “unalienable rights” is the the right to “full and free exercise of it (religion) according to the dictates of conscience”. And not only the right to practice said religion, but the right not to practice religion, of any sort.
This is religious freedom. And it goes way beyond what is constitutional and what isn’t, it is who we are as created beings. And if we should demand that freedom for ourselves, so ought we demand it for everyone else. The states role is not in defining that freedom, nor is it in tolerating it, but solely in protecting it. And the moment the state, or the people, starts down the road of intolerance or tolerance, then religious freedom in its purest form, will get inundated in a tsunami of majority opinion.
But Matthew also reveals to us a subtle change. After describing a period of war and natural disasters, Jesus tells us that these are just the beginning of sorrows, with the real heavy stuff beginning in verse 9 where He tells us that Christians will be hated of all nations for His name’s sake. The nations, after being at each others throats for millennia, finally find something that unites them. A hatred for God’s people. The reason for this, I believe is clear. Encouraged by their Luciferian rulers, they blame the church for all the troubles that have come upon them. In Luke, Jesus said that the nations would be perplexed at the troubles. They have no solutions, no answers. But why blame the church? Because they have turned to religion as a last resort to solve their problems. Remember the days and weeks following 9/11? Every man, woman, and their pet poodle was in church... out of a sense of surrender, repentance, or love toward their Creator? Maybe but I would suggest more simply out of a sense of self preservation. Why would I say such a terrible thing? Because within a month or two when the hubbub died down the churches began to empty. People realized it wasn't world war 3 the government promised to look after them and chase away all their enemies....they felt safe again. So in the coming crisis people are going to be going back to church. Once again they will find solace and security in 'religion'. But the troubles won't stop...in fact they will increase.
Revelation informs us in chapter 13 that the whole world will worship the beast and its image. Believing it is the will of God and to appease who it believes is an angry God pouring out His last day judgments upon mankind, it is the people themselves who demand that an image be established...an image to the first beast...a union of church and state similar to the medieval papacy, and that the only way to avert annihilation is to destroy the only remaining people who refuse to bow their knee to his authority. This ‘remnant’ the scriptures inform us are they “who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus”. (Revelation 12:17; 14:12)
So how could such a scenario come about, especially in a nation like the United States which has religious freedom enshrined within its constitution? As a member of a minority Christian group, this concerns me a great deal, even though I write from New Zealand, for prophecy is clear that what begins with the second beast, grows to a global threat against any who would dissent from the majority opinion. Power, in the hands of the church, historically has never been a good thing. So if Trump has his way,and gives the church 'power' as he promised, and the church at some time in the future has such influence to enact religious decrees and laws through the state legislative arm, then religious freedom ceases.
Religious freedom in America will then be reduced to something one may practice only by permission. Toleration certainly is far better than intoleration, for I would far rather be tolerated in my religious practice than be bundled off to the nearest gallows or bonfire for choosing to worship God in a manner different than what the government deems ‘appropriate’. But is that what religious freedom in America is? Toleration? If I should come to America and take up residence there, if I should practice my religion, being a member of a minority faith, would I be merely tolerated? Or would I truly be free as your founding fathers intended I should be? You see, to be tolerated is not the same as being free.
Thomas Jefferson said, “God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion.” If religion is between man and God, and not between man and the state, then the state (nor the people who live in the state) has no more right to ‘tolerate’ my religion than I have the right to ‘tolerate’ jogging in Central Park.
The Act of Toleration in Britain permitted religious freedom for everyone, except Jews, Catholics, and Unitarians. The founding fathers of your great nation wanted something better. Having their forefathers live through what amounted to ‘toleration’ during the dark ages in both Europe and Britain, they desired true freedom. Your Bill of Rights states, “That religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not of violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it according to the dictates of conscience.”
Intolerance, as practiced in the former Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and in Europe under the medieval papacy, assumed the right of the state or the church, or a combination of both,to withhold the right of conscience. Toleration, as seems a distinct possibility if the evangelical arm of Christendom gains the reign of government, assumes the right of the state to grant the right of conscience. The rights of religious minorities in this world, regardless of recent history and hurt feelings, are just that, rights. For “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and surely, among those “unalienable rights” is the the right to “full and free exercise of it (religion) according to the dictates of conscience”. And not only the right to practice said religion, but the right not to practice religion, of any sort.
This is religious freedom. And it goes way beyond what is constitutional and what isn’t, it is who we are as created beings. And if we should demand that freedom for ourselves, so ought we demand it for everyone else. The states role is not in defining that freedom, nor is it in tolerating it, but solely in protecting it. And the moment the state, or the people, starts down the road of intolerance or tolerance, then religious freedom in its purest form, will get inundated in a tsunami of majority opinion.