Do you support Black Lives Matter?

[Yehren]

That's the disturbing thing about reality. It's remarkably resistant to disbelief.

Jesus said the greatest danger in these last days was deception.

And you're the easiest one for you to fool. Be a little more critical of what you want to be true.

Protestant did indeed persecute others. No argument. But we don't need to add the emotional epithet inquisition.

That's what it was. Of course, they gave it a different name. But it worked the same way. And the genocidal impulse among Protestants goes right back to Luther, whose article The Jews and Their Lies contains about 90 percent of Hitler's final solution, a fact that the Nazis freely admitted. This isn't to completely indict Luther, whose courage and faith are obvious. But he hated Jews with a genocidal fury.

 

[Yehren]

No, but one thing I do know is that God says that such are worthy of death and will not inherit the Kingdom of God!

Then let God sort it out; he doesn't need our help. Or maybe move to a nation where there is no religious freedom.

Anything that opposes God and what He says cannot be good for society. Mixing manure with pure honey and eating it may hide the taste, but the result is the same.

First, you must be able to distinguish the two. That's your next task.

 

[Candidus]

Then let God sort it out; he doesn't need our help. Or maybe move to a nation where there is no religious freedom.

First, you must be able to distinguish the two. That's your next task.

Siding with God-hating Sexual Perverts has nothing to do with religious freedom. If it does anything, it is a Marxist means of squashing religious freedom.

You would like people to stand down to your Cancel Culture Marxism, wouldn't you!

 

[Brakelite]

But he hated Jews with a genocidal fury.

This was only a very short time after being a Jew hating Catholic priest.

 

[Yehren]

This was only a very short time after being a Jew hating Catholic priest.

Actually he didn't start hating Jews until he left the Catholic Church. His initial thought was that Jews, being pious and God-fearing, would immediately join the Lutheran Church. It wasn't until they continued to worship as Jews, that he began to hate them.

Early in his life, Luther had argued that the Jews had been prevented from converting to Christianity by the proclamation of what he believed to be an impure gospel by the Catholic Church, and he believed they would respond favorably to the evangelical message if it were presented to them gently. He expressed concern for the poor conditions in which they were forced to live, and insisted that anyone denying that Jesus was born a Jew was committing heresy.[18]

Luther's first known comment about the Jews is in a letter written to Reverend Spalatin in 1514:


Conversion of the Jews will be the work of God alone operating from within, and not of man working – or rather playing – from without. If these offences be taken away, worse will follow. For they are thus given over by the wrath of God to reprobation, that they may become incorrigible, as Ecclesiastes says, for every one who is incorrigible is rendered worse rather than better by correction.[19]
On the Jews and Their Lies - Wikipedia

 

[Yehren]

Siding with God-hating Sexual Perverts has nothing to do with religious freedom.

Of course it doesn't. Most Trump supporters don't believe in religious freedom. But we do have religious freedom in America, and you don't get to force your religious ideas on other people. Sinning, unless it harms others in a demonstrable way, is between God and the sinner.

Attacking homosexuals is a Marxist means of squashing religious freedom. You would like people to stand down to your Cancel Culture Marxism, wouldn't you?

In 1933, the Soviet government under the leadership of Joseph Stalin recriminalised homosexual activity with punishments of up to five years' hard labour. A 1934 article in the new Criminal Code outlawed 'homosexuality'
LGBT history in Russia - Wikipedia

 

[69chapels]

(.......................)

(Africans are generally the "patsy", they have the most numbers with the darkest skin color........its a popular choice, otherwise, those other genetic lines are just as dangerous. "Truth is in Simplicity", well "Sin is also in Simplicity") (Possible "Dogon Tribe in Africa" beliefs about their genocide as a race and as a people, at the "return)

(Jewish People in Jerusalem have a prophecy about the "Golden Gate being destroyed and the Graves being thrown out, their sudden death, as a race and as a people specifically" ............. that is one way to read the bible and any works pertaining to them, as a "patsy" ............... not uncommon for those genetic lines but this is legal and real, not opinion or conjecture)

(Back to Topic) (most of those genetic lines predict their genocide, this is commonly called the "return of the gods")

Nancy Lieder, 1995 Nibiru Cataclysm Prediction
Million Man March 1995, 1 million africans to Washington D.C.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm

Ruth Norman, 2001 Interplanetary Prediction (about Moses)
9/11/2001 Twin Towers in Center of World's Largest Jewish Population NYC
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unarius_Academy_of_Science

(I think there are many modern prophecies corresponding to ethnic euthanasia, nonetheless)

666 Mark of Beast or 66 Years from Halley's Comet in 2061 A.D. (1995)
600,000 of Moses Exodus or 60 Years from Halley's Comet in 2061 A.D. (2001)
..................
..................
The Point Being, and more information isn't really necessary.

The Gospel talks about, those missing genetic lines, tribes, acting out their death before they die (the invisible beast of daniel), in revelation, that doesn't have the power to do anything but blasphemy.

Many die when God reveals the "Rainbow Jesus in Revelation, like Noah's Rainbow in Genesis" .............. this is the end of Daniel's Seven Years to Confirm the Covenant, that is for mankind not for its "suicide pleasure" not for animals or the sub-humans. God doesn't appear to finish the work completely, What God appears to do only is, remove the allowances for sin that exceeds the gospel's tables of discernment, according to god's will. The job is not finished, there will be many dead, but no "noah's rainbow/no unified field or anything", there may be sins immediately following the deaths of billions but nothing more.

God may also do nothing more with the "Coronavirus" or with death, the language of the gospel pertaining to Daniel's Seven Weeks Confirmation, maybe finished. Because God has a son of man in view with that, and, the earth is not the focal point anymore. God talks about jupiter in the new testament, God talks about off world in the book of hebrews 1. Facts and Not Fiction.

Of God doing less and less with earth, to emphasis, man's responsibility not false witnessing on the issue. All of this will be resolved soon.

Until that time, and they will die naturally from a correct implementation of god's mercies, you really don't need to kill them yourselves, as many people benefit from their gradual death, but that will be decided by man, not by me principally. Your accusation with god is "suicide pleasure, with dead flesh".

(I did an internship at the university of pennsylvania, for just a few years, and I was told secretly at one time, not to expressly or implicitly mention minorities unless you are told to do that, as I was putting together a simple pamphlet................."not just", "inri or imri, incest/rape/murder", but straight "suicide pleasure", (although god used the word RACA (race))", that is apart of the pleasure problem in accurate information) (they were changing buildings, across the street from the main campus, and i figured i'd interject some good they did for the community, under one of their associated community endeavors............minorities are a real and enduring mental illness right into the present for many people)

Minorities are dying more, but they die that way always, its not of much value, therefore as we said whites are dying the most, period. The information they are reporting is completely wrong.

(Black Lives Matters has the benefit of signaling out those genetic lines as a threat to society so I support it for that reasons, many will die soon...................)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Black Live Matter should change their name to "Black Live Matter - ONLY if They Can Be Politically-Exploited" (BLMOITCBPE).

If they REALLY cared about black lives - they would be protesting the holocaust going on in cities like Chicago, Baltimore and New York where Black on Black violence constitutes FIFTY PER CENT (50%) of all murders in the U.S. Imagine that - 13% of the population is killing ITSELF off in greater numbers than ANY pother group - and exploitative Marxist fronts like BLM are burning down cities and blaming it on the police.

The WORST part is the millions of morons who buy into this nonsense. When I turn on the news, I see more little white girls with the fists in the air protesting Lord-knows-what because they actually believe in the manure they are being fed by the mainstream media and the Marxist extremists.

George Floyd's murder was better than a Christmas present to the Left - because it happened during an election year.

This isn't about "Black Radicalism" - it's about a Marxist takeover. Blacks are simply being used as the pawns - just as the workers were used during the Bolshevik Revolution. The communists didn't care ONE BIT about the workers - they were just "useful idiots" for their power gran.

The SAME is true for BLM, Inc. and the rest of the Left. The African American population to them are just "useful idiots" in THEIR power grab.
People from former communist and socialist countries all over the world are BEGGING Americans NOT to make the same mistakes that they did and to open their eyes to this evil.

Anybody who marches with these Satanic groups doesn't know Christ and doesn't know history.

 

[69chapels]

(it depends on the frequency of "school shootings", if segregation is reinstated. May take a few months may take longer. If perhaps say, minorities were more adversely impacted in the school environment, their children. Then, the only way to make ends meat on that, especially if you view the police and authorities as corrupt and "wanting this", is to, shoot children in the school yard, perhaps run them over as they leave in mass after school) (this is very easy to do, and easy to get away with, especially with face masks, stolen vehicles, etc.)

(Not only would segregation be required, but a "safe radius" around the schools)

(very easy to get to, and justify, the death of all your children from coronavirus in the school environment, with the slaughter of children, from school, very easy to get to them, very easy to do. and if more people keep doing this, then, pain is the new normal, black lives matter)

(if you google the city of philadelphia, the had a christopher colombus statue conflict, that was less then a few blocks from some schools there. Accidents happen) (for that reason only this got media attention, philadelphia had a race problem years ago, along those lines, and had no choice literally, but to segregate, or watch people die in horrendous ways) (pain is the new normal, black lives matter)

(the minorities blacks, police officers, that solicited the school shooting in Darby PA, that is where I am now, and solicited me to do the school shooting is very real, and happens often if i'm not mistaken) (after the school shooting happened, a plain cloths police officer, an african american, i think was in the philadelphia police department, ensured me it would be done again, because I talked, those kinds of people can use the internet, that is good in a sense)

(the school shooting the officer talked about doing, either won't happen, or hasn't happened...............like I said, i have to take the time to identify the police officers involved, i'm not really that good with faces, but we'll see soon perhaps)

 

[Prayer Warrior]

What you didn't quote is any of them supporting the idea of a nation based on any religion whatever.

@Yehren your comment is vague. "A nation not based on any religion whatever??" What does this mean? Do you believe that our Christian Founders thought that religion was unimportant? My quotes prove otherwise. What are you trying to prove?

All you need is one that shows the founders opposed to the wall of separation between church and state in the First Amendment.

The term "wall of separation between Church and State" was used by Jefferson in a letter to Danbury Baptist Church. Here is the section of that letter using this term.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.​

Jefferson quotes the portion of the First Amendment, which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

As you can see, the Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from passing a law that establishes religion.... Jefferson stated that religion is a matter "between Man and his God" and that "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions [beliefs]." He is speaking against government control of religious beliefs through legislation. He falls short of saying that religion should not have any influence in the public arena (i.e. government) whatsoever, which is the idea that you seem to be espousing.

As I said before, historically, many U.S. laws have reflected biblical moral standards. At the very least, the Ten Commandments have been utilized as a basis for laws pertaining to prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery, forms of lying,.... Historically, the Bible has been used for swearing in government officials.... Many of our Founders professed a belief in Jesus Christ or Christianity.... (I quoted a few of many in a post above.) Are you denying the profound historical impact of Christianity on the founding and governing of this nation?
.

 

[Yehren]

What you didn't quote is any of them supporting the idea of a nation based on any religion whatever.

@Yehren your comment is vague. "A nation not based on any religion whatever??" What does this mean?

It means that while many of the founders thought Christianity or at least religious faith,was essential to a civilized society, none of them were in favor of involving the government in religion. In fact, the two men most responsible for the First Amendment specifically stated that the intent was to have a wall of separation between church and state. Should I show you that, again?

Do you believe that our Christian Founders thought that religion was unimportant?

I'm showing you that they believed Government needed to stay out of religion. Your quotes show that to be true. Not one of them advocates a role for government in religion. You proved my point for me.

The term "wall of separation between Church and State" was used by Jefferson in a letter to Danbury Baptist Church.

And seconded by Madison, who asserted in his writing that the intent of the First Amendment was to assure separation of Church and state.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Jefferson quotes the portion of the First Amendment, which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

As you can see, the Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from passing a law that establishes religion....

It was legal for states to violate religious freedom until the Fourteenth Amendment,which required states to also observe such liberties. As you now realize, the man who wrote the Amendment specifically said the intent was to keep government and religion separated. Should I show you that,again?

He falls short of saying that religion should not have any influence in the public arena (i.e. government) whatsoever,

He says that there should be a wall of separation between government and religion. But outside of the government, he had no objections, so long as government stayed out of it.

As I said before, historically, many U.S. laws have reflected biblical moral standards. At the very least, the Ten Commandments have been utilized as a basis for laws pertaining to prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery, forms of lying,....

As did many nations where there were few if any Christians. These, theologians refer to as "natural law" things all humans realize even without God's revelation.

But the historical fact remains; the man who wrote the First Amendment, openly acknowledged that it was intended to keep religion and government separated.

 

[Yehren]

You misunderstood me.

No. You misunderstand the intent of the founders. Because you never read what they wrote directly, you were misled by edited quotes that don't say what you were led to believe they said. Of course the founders both thought religion was essential to a civilized society, while they also wanted a clear separation between church and state. You've confused the two.

I said that YOU have been reading revisionist history

I read the original articles written by Jefferson,Madison and others. You merely believed what others told you they said. Guess which of those is "revisionist."

where the truth about our Christian heritage is excluded from the later history books, meaning those which have been revised.

That's what got you mixed up. Instead of reading what people said Jefferson and Madison believed, go to the articles that these men wrote and learn. And then you'll be harder to fool.

Before you say that I don't know what I'm talking about concerning American history, I taught Early American history as a public school teacher

But you didn't know anything about Madison's and Jefferson's assertion that the First Amendment provided for a wall of separation between church and state? Do you not realize that these two men are the primary authors of the religious freedoms listed in the Constitution?

I also took graduate courses in history as part of a Masters program. (I was 4 classes short of getting that degree before moving out-of-state.)

I came closer than that. For years I was stationed where there wasn't much to do but drink or take college classes. So I have more than enough hours for a master's in history. Just didn't finish some required courses.

 

[Brakelite]

@Yehren I agree with you regarding that separation. I haven't read all their works, but I loved the writing of such as Jefferson, Madison, and also John Locke. I would ask you however seeing you are Catholic, why did Catholicism have such animosity against the constitution and against the concept of separation and religious freedom , at least until Vatican 2? And I know it was principally the American bishops who carried the day at Vatican 2, not without a lot of opposition from the more die hard Vatican Curia. I have to admit still when I read prophecy a certain amount of apprehension when I witness the preponderance of Catholic supreme court judges, and other Jesuit trained high officials in both the Republican and Democrat sides of the house. If a mandatory vaccine can be acceptable to the common good and the supreme court in the early 1900s, how much more could another disaster bring about religious mandatory practices in order to avert God's judgements? After all, there's numerous examples of religious leaders now convinced that we're in the tribulation and God is judging America. And Trump now has a coterie of religious advisors around him, some of them Catholic, it doesn't take too much imagination to think that we're just one major disaster away from that separation collapsing. Where would the Catholic Church stand then?

 

[69chapels]

Akhenaten....the Alien Pharoah...."Black Lives Matter"

Galactic Center 12/21/2012 ... Jubilee 49/50 ... years from Halley's Comet 2061 A.D. ... God's Propensity to React for Revelation was Invalid (according to daniel's prophecy).

Now we reach the Final 7 Year Marker, and the middle of 1290 and 1335 days, was a Jupiter Alignment, god did nothing in the midst/middle of daniel's final week.

The Duration of the "midst/middle" of Daniel's Weeks is 7 Years, and that period will expire on 12/21/2020

The Last Entry in the Sumerian King's List Read:
(Damiq-ilishu)* ("the son of Suen-magir")* (23 years)*
(the son of the three wise men)

1997 Turin Shroud of Jesus Burning, 23 Years for 2300 of Daniel to 12/21/2020..............God's Propensity to React will be Resolved, perhaps with nothing happening at all.

(the issue of "suicide pleasure" with my dead body, or humanity having the pleasure of my dead body, is for mass suicide pleasure, its a natural theory with god, like this::::::::::::you as in humanity, do not have a "will to live", you also do not have a "will to be faithful" (as opposed to worship "dead flesh" those genetic lines):::::::::::::::then God has a natural form of suffering until you die, you can wrestle with that until you die globally, having my dead body is natural theory with god)

(you have enjoyed, to the present, and this is very good for you, state funded incest/rape/murder, in suicide pleasure, would like to see capital punishment in your suicide pleasure, but we'll have to see.................then like a coward, you are not going for my dead body, but want to hide from that, God will give you the benefit of my dead body anyway) (this will be resolved with your suicide pleasure, and god's propensity to react, this year 12/21/2020)

(its okay to let jews and minorities parade, I told you that I can dispose of it easy, but that is also not my real goal) (we are going to achieve or reach to those ends of both nguyen van lem's "suicide pleasure maximum with dead body" conclusion and edward leedskalnin's "migration or death for minorities conclusion")

(part of the usa will be an example of pure willful suffering and pain, and apart of that hope, like what was said, humanity can't function unless i dispose of millions/billions of them, I rather not, but to be clean and clear, that may end up having to react for godliness, in euthanasia, soon)

(humanity was not worth it, in god's eyes 12/21/2012, no controversy about it, and that continues today) (better off dead)

(you had your pleasure with me, you had your way with me, in sin ........... and god afforded you the ability to do that, that is your covenant, nothing at all has to happen, god has done thing thus far) (this is also your law)

 

[Prayer Warrior]

No. You misunderstand the intent of the founders. Because you never read what they wrote directly, you were misled by edited quotes that don't say what you were led to believe they said. Of course the founders both thought religion was essential to a civilized society, while they also wanted a clear separation between church and state. You've confused the two.



I read the original articles written by Jefferson,Madison and others. You merely believed what others told you they said. Guess which of those is "revisionist."



That's what got you mixed up. Instead of reading what people said Jefferson and Madison believed, go to the articles that these men wrote and learn. And then you'll be harder to fool.



But you didn't know anything about Madison's and Jefferson's assertion that the First Amendment provided for a wall of separation between church and state? Do you not realize that these two men are the primary authors of the religious freedoms listed in the Constitution?



I came closer than that. For years I was stationed where there wasn't much to do but drink or take college classes. So I have more than enough hours for a master's in history. Just didn't finish some required courses.

Interesting conversation with yourself, Yehren. You misinterpret what I'm saying and then respond to your erroneous ideas, not what I'm actually saying..... That's why I don't like talking to you, to be quite honest.

Try reading again what I said about the "wall of separation." Your interpretation of that expression is different than mine, but of course, you think you're right! So, have at it, but you know what they say about people who talk to themselves.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

@Yehren I agree with you regarding that separation. I haven't read all their works, but I loved the writing of such as Jefferson, Madison, and also John Locke. I would ask you however seeing you are Catholic, why did Catholicism have such animosity against the constitution and against the concept of separation and religious freedom , at least until Vatican 2? And I know it was principally the American bishops who carried the day at Vatican 2, not without a lot of opposition from the more die hard Vatican Curia. I have to admit still when I read prophecy a certain amount of apprehension when I witness the preponderance of Catholic supreme court judges, and other Jesuit trained high officials in both the Republican and Democrat sides of the house. If a mandatory vaccine can be acceptable to the common good and the supreme court in the early 1900s, how much more could another disaster bring about religious mandatory practices in order to avert God's judgements? After all, there's numerous examples of religious leaders now convinced that we're in the tribulation and God is judging America. And Trump now has a coterie of religious advisors around him, some of them Catholic, it doesn't take too much imagination to think that we're just one major disaster away from that separation collapsing. Where would the Catholic Church stand then?

Yehren's interpretation of that phrase is that government and religion have to be totally separate, but that is not what the Founders had in mind. There are many examples in our government where there is not and never has been a total separation. For instance, our Senate has a chaplain who opens each session with prayer. Likewise with the House of Representatives. Prior to the 60s and 70s, school-led prayer and Bible reading were common in public (i.e. government) schools....

The First Amendment to our Constitution contains a prohibition of Congress passing laws that establish a State or mandatory religion for America. Nothing in this amendment says that government and religion must be totally separate. Unfortunately, atheists set out to bring about a separation that didn't exist, and they have succeeded through liberal Supreme Court rulings--the same Court that struck down State laws prohibiting abortion!!!

There are many quotes by the Founders in which they recognized the importance of religion (specifically Christianity) in the public arena, but I don't have time to post them. I have other irons in the fire right now.

 

[Grailhunter]

Not everybody is what you would call historians. He may not have noticed that "In God we trust" is on our money. And then there is the concept of Divine Providence and early America and the writing of the Declaration of Independence.

During the American Revolution, when the American Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence to form the new nation of the United States, they included principles in the document that characterized America’s founding philosophy. One of these principles was the idea of God as “Divine Providence.” The Founders concluded the Declaration by stating, “For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor

 

[Brakelite]

Yehren's interpretation of that phrase is that government and religion have to be totally separate, but that is not what the Founders had in mind. There are many examples in our government where there is not and never has been a total separation. For instance, our Senate has a chaplain who opens each session with prayer. Likewise with the House of Representatives. Prior to the 60s and 70s, school-led prayer and Bible reading were common in public (i.e. government) schools....

The First Amendment to our Constitution contains a prohibition of Congress passing laws that establish a State or mandatory religion for America. Nothing in this amendment says that government and religion must be totally separate. Unfortunately, atheists set out to bring about a separation that didn't exist, and they have succeeded through liberal Supreme Court rulings--the same Court that struck down State laws prohibiting abortion!!!

There are many quotes by the Founders in which they recognized the importance of religion (specifically Christianity) in the public arena, but I don't have time to post them. I have other irons in the fire right now.

I totally agree with you. Separation didn't mean a complete expunging of faith in politics... In fact the separation clause was established upon the premise of faith. Oh, and the biggest champions of church state separation and freedom of religion is the SDA Church, and the chaplain you spoke of is SDA.

 

[Yehren]

No. You misunderstand the intent of the founders. Because you never read what they wrote directly, you were misled by edited quotes that don't say what you were led to believe they said. Of course the founders both thought religion was essential to a civilized society, while they also wanted a clear separation between church and state. You've confused the two.

I read the original articles written by Jefferson,Madison and others. You merely believed what others told you they said. Guess which of those is "revisionist."

You misinterpret what I'm saying

You posted a lot of statements by the founders about the value of religion in society, but not one that denied the wall of separation in the first amendment. And notice, that separation was confirmed to be the intent, by the two men responsible for that amendment. Your quotes didn't support your claim, as I pointed out.

 

[Yehren]

During the American Revolution, when the American Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence to form the new nation of the United States, they included principles in the document that characterized America’s founding philosophy. One of these principles was the idea of God as “Divine Providence.” The Founders concluded the Declaration by stating, “For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor

The declaration isn't law. When the founders wrote the laws that govern us, they inserted both freedom from religion and freedom of religion, depending on the wall of separation noted by Madison and Jefferson, who wrote that Amendment.