In short, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because I am in favor of freedom—freedom guaranteed in the Constitution.
Sorry, don't mean to burden you guys with more to read, but couldn't help remembering our class where we saw how the 1st Amendment was self contradictory.
I believe the only light in which it will not look contradictory, is if you embrace the religious fraud of Freemasonry, which hides (at times) it's self-evident religious nature and advocates equal but limited religious tolerance to all other non-masonic religions. They reserve for themselves the higher authority to dictate the punishments for crimes.
They contradict in saying they are a religion and that they are not a religion by distancing themselves from all religions.
They contradict in saying what civil laws should be is self-evident, and common among all religions, but that you will not actually know the details of how to apply that law in specifics until you swear total life-allegience to their order, with severe self-malediction if you betray the secrets of the order, or turn against it -- only then will you discover that comprehensive law that will make you (and all mankind, supposedly) free and prosperous.
These were the perpetrators of the myth of neutrality, that no religion should be consulted for human law, but only that all men should have equal voice in crafting what the laws should be.
Yet, they reserve this exclusive privilege of making law to themselves.
"Don't try this at home, we are trained professionals."
Lest you wonder at the vehemence of my salvos against the tenets of Freemasonry, you could check out this link...
http://www.keepandshare.com/discuss/22558/natural-law-the-wolf-in-sheep-s-clothing
...and it will make more sense. Note these credentials given for the author of the above article:
He has also written or co-written 23 books, including (with Dr. Kennedy) What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? and (with Peter Lillback), George Washington’s Sacred Fire.
I think you will find that Dr. James Kennedy -- for all his conservative zeal for Christian influence today, and praise of the Biblical orientation of early American culture -- was no friend of recognizing the current ethical sovereignty of Biblical case-law. Neither is his successor in the pulpit, Billy Graham's grandson, any friend of Biblical authority in the specifics of human law. You can judge for yourself
here or
here. The book on GW is controversial. Some of the best arguments from the reviewers I have condensed
here. The more I understand the Constitution and subsequent history of the US, the more I lean towards doubting the bulk of the material on George Washington which ignores the core elements of his Masonic philosophy. So far I have concluded the Constitution is more compatible with Masonry than Biblical Christianity, and is more of a displacement of Biblical views of crime and punishment and all men's responsibility towards Jesus Christ as "ruler of the nations" than it is a "Christian" victory.
No one can begin to "establish" any laws without coming from a religious base, because all morality, and judgements of right and wrong, legal, and illegal, can only come from the religious presuppositions. Thus Congress can't help establishing law based on the religious presuppositions on the congressmen. No President or supreme court justice, or atheist can say "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad", legal or illegal -- except through religious language.
Thus whichever religion has authority in the civil realm to define crime and punishment, must coerce and limit the freedom of other religious opinions which contest against it. Thus there is no way the law-making body of the US Federal or State governments can allow the "free exercise" of any other religion.
I wonder if even Patrick Henry could see this, though he knew the Constitution without the Bill of Rights was dangerous. His predictions came true, with or without the irrational bill of rights.
The other contradiction is that law cannot be changed without undermining and discrediting the law-principle which was responsible for the previous law.
If the rule for law derives from the idea that good or evil in law is established by vote of a majority of men -- that leaves no authority to command how men should vote. Democracy-as-ethical-authority, thus, cannot be bootstrapped. You cannot know what the ethical authority defines as good or evil until after we count the majority vote after the election, but you must have an ethical standard going in to the voting booth in order to know what is good to vote for.
One thing men -- be they majority, minority, or even single individual -- will never approve -- cannot ever approve -- is that every man ought to have unlimited freedom of life, liberty, and property, regardless of his behavior, race, knowledge, age, or abilities.
Neither will they allow other men the freedom to vote for whatever they desire to have as law. There will always be limitations. If law was actually determined by a majority of opinion, by the very definition of law, that law - once set - could never be changed. Why should it be changed by Tomorrow's Majority opinion?
If it was possible to be changed, it would bear witness that the previous authority which made that law was unlawful and evil, and thus discredit the principle (majority) by which that law was made. Do you see how, this in turn, destroys the authority (today's majority) behind the new change in the law?
If this line of reasoning be true, it makes every kind of appeal to the Constitution, to the majority of your neighbors to get them to vote in a "better" way, to protest, to march in the streets, to write/call your congressmen -- to be spending time, sweat, and wealth on construction of a wonderful building on the beach sand far down against the low-tide surf. The rising salt-tide of reason and the waves of logic will undermine the foundation, rot your timbers, and turn your brick/stones into sand - every time.
Don't waste your time and money.
Do homage (quickly recognize and confess to the ethical authority to make law) to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
Remember, the NT quotes from this chapter of the OT more than any other. Yahweh always tells the truth and does not need to swear. When He Swears....look out!
4 The Lord has sworn and will not [change His mind,
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”
5 The Lord is at Your right hand;
He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.
6 He will judge among the nations,
Remember how Melchizedek (king of righteousness) blessed Abraham, after which he went out and slaughtered kings and rescued his brother, along with a lot of undeserving pagans, who later tried to sodomize that brother who dared to class something they wanted to do as "wicked", as if he were some kind of judge.
History continually shows us that you will serve along with Jesus, the Melchizedekian emperor and high priest, in shattering criminals -- whether they be kings or no -- or you will live in opposition to Him who is sovereign Judge, Lawgiver, and King and end up being shattered by human kings and majorities of men who desire to "tear their fetters apart. And cast away their cords from us". Just ask the baker and the florist.
How long halt ye between two opinions?
If Lucifer, the god of the Freemasons be stronger and more loving, wise, and righteous than Jesus the Christ, then follow him -- keep their Constitution with its religious neutrality (and sovereign legal claims) and risk treatment at the hands of their bankers, their governments, and their mobs. (Remember that the Constitution does not even speak to most of the issues of crime and punishments communities need to deal with, and even where it speaks in concert with God's law, it is ignored, twisted, or reversed by the reigning foolishness of our generation)
But if Jesus of Nazareth be the Messiah of God, the sovereign priest, king, and prophet, then follow Him, and rejoice in His laws that emanate the right kind of freedom, that protect - not punish - the innocent, and appropriately remove "rights" from the guilty criminal. His laws will not punish the innocent productive steward of the Trinity's gifts of life, freedom, and dominion over property.
Accept the laws He designated to be unchanging, which logic can't help confirm, and study them in those places in the Bible where they are revealed. You will not find, in the New Testament, any detailed authorization to change the punishment for crimes now supposedly allowed by the apostate, American Christianity around you in the 21st century. Instead, accept the greatly-heightened responsibility and power the resurrected, ascended, and Seated humanity of Jesus has bestowed on His earthly ambassadors to rule the nations of the earth, in this and every future generation.
When your state ends up with an un-elected governor, proud to be bisexual...
When your state tolerates a governor who repudiates capital punishment for anything....
When your state confiscates all the property of a florist who refuses to join in the celebration of capital sex-crimes...
When your state confiscates substantial property from a baker who refuses to join in the celebration of capital sex-crimes...(which were illegal at the time of the supposed 'discrimination').
When your state tries to lower the age of children who are to be trained in the educational system which encourages young children to experiment with the same (bi-sexual, multi-partner) "preferences" as your honorable governor....
When the majority of the voters of your state have insisted 3 separate times to continue using income-tax receipts to pay parents to murder their children....
When your state equates the strongest picture (holy heterosexual matrimony) of the lovin and law-bounded covenantal relationship between men and their creator and Redeemer with perverse, twisted, destructive capital crime....
When the head of your nation is commonly known as a perpetual liar, traitor, and mass murderer and continually attempts to use human law to attack all that the law is ordained to protect...
....then you know Yahweh was not kidding when He said, "Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man,from every man’s brother I will require the life of man."
If we will not "take the life" of men who unlawfully "take the life" of other men who are innocent of any God-defined crime (be they ever so sinful), God will turn loose wicked men to "take our life" as a punishment on society who rejects His easy and good laws. Of course this applies beyond capital punishment, since the coercive taking away of man's life includes his expression of life -- represented in his freedom of the use of his time, labor, and the property in land, money, and everything else that comes from his efforts.
No king, president, legislator, policeman, or voter stops being a murderer, enslaver, or thief -- just because the majority wants them to steal, enslave, or murder for their benefit. They are what God calls them, and if you partner with them, you become partner with their just sentence from God in time, and perhaps eternity.
