In my formative years, I can’t remember if it was my mother or father who told me that there are three things not discussed in polite company – politics, sex and religion.
To that, I would add money, as in how much we have.
Now, in the 2011 to 2019 period, we’re seeing a curious phenomenon – if you even try to introduce the topic of Muslims, let alone calling them invaders, you are somehow a member of the BUF, the BNP or the EDL, interchangeable terms in the eyes of the left – one recently tried to lump UKIP in with that.
At the same time, the left flatly deny there is such a thing as “leftwing” or else the old, “noble” left has been abandoned.
So many deny that there is a thing called satanic, despite the best efforts of Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Minaj and others to make damned sure youth does worship that entity.
Talk about Semiramis reborn 🙂
There is, not to put too fine a point on it, a sort of “disconnect”, a gap between what is insisted on, compared to what can readily be observed.
Feminazis, socialists and so on fling labels and then, in the next breath, insist that labels are wrong – there should be no labels.
Coming back to religion, that has been coming into the news lately too for all the wrong reasons. If it’s to go after paedo priests, it’s completely in order for anyone but to defend the Christian faith, ah no – not on.
Trouble is, the immigration issue and do-gooding leftwing “Christianity” are very much going on and many on our side of politics are not happy with how Official Churches are responding:
Hundreds of illegal immigrants have been released to churches throughout Scottsdale and Phoenix. The church has contacted my family and other parishioners asking for clothing and assistance before they’re given transportation to other states. Can’t believe this is happening.
And as you’ve seen at this and other sites already, there is smug sophistry being employed to quietly push it, from the Pope to Welby to Church “leaders” themselves who are trying to legitimise this illegality and sheer “wrongness” by misquoting convenient Bible passages to support the UN political agenda.
If the aim is for those who misuse the generic word “Religion” [as did Marx] to conflate what the Muslims are doing with what the Christian is exhorted not to do – then the plan is succeeding famously and naturally, the young are turning away in droves, abetted by leftist teachers and heads, backed by the new World Culture.
Let me say again that I was not raised in a particularly religious home, I did what most of the other kids did, we did not attend church and it wasn’t till later that I started to look at this thing for myself and came to the conclusions I have. But as I explained to a correspondent earlier, my background is scholastic in a general way, my approach comes from that and from the brainstorming method of meetings, trying on ideas rather than rubberstamping, all too rare in the corporate environment today, [so some of my colleagues explain].
And what I’m now being told is that the other side has most certainly got into Churches now, both nationally and locally – I was given some specific examples, of which Scottsdale and Phoenix are but two.
So I went ferreting and came up with these three:
1. Very pro-KJV:
3. This not supporting the KJV:
This last one I found the most interesting, not for the text so much as for the comments, for example those by William Hutchins and Samuel R.
And certain things came out of it:
1. There is most certainly an attempt to alter the core meaning of certain passages, to negate concepts. I read apologists for revisionism and how they say that all translations are flawed. While KJV certainly had typos and other errors, the process by which it was written, including involving laity, was quite involved and exhaustive.
Note that I’m not even arguing religion here, I’m arguing a scholastic point – about historical texts. Some idiots try to say that the Bible is not a set of historical documents but if your definition of historical documents is documents found in history … well, I’ll not bother taking on this idiocy any further. To say that something is not historical because you disagree with what it says … well let’s just say that no genuine scholar would take that point of view – there’s an enormous barrow being pushed there, an enormous chip on the shoulder.
The example they were using in that comments thread was “virgin” and “young woman”. The example I use is the word “principalities” in the KJV in Eph 6:12, the very key to what we’re all up against. Modern “bibles” have changed it to mean those people in high places in the ruling class – Them in other words – but that’s not what principalities means in that verse.
First, the online meaning:
But it’s more than that – it was always seen very much in this way in Christian circles:
And if you start down that path, then you see just whom Them are working for and how impossible it is for Man on his own to oppose it.
But that conclusion is not allowed to get out – hence the changing of the core meaning in later versions of the “bible”.
And secular equivalents in politics abound, e.g. “fairness, tolerance and diversity”.
2. One must be very, very careful with the idea of someone who is a “Churchman”. In the C of E, that can mean a Synod pointy-hatter mouthing religious sounding things, having meetings where they corrupt something else and then pass it “down” to the paeons via Church missives.
Once they are sure the laity will agree, they open it up and “democratise” it.
3. This last point introduces the whole notion of gnosis and a priesthood – the notion of a group of adepts above, keepers of the hidden knowledge [the concept is in Masonry as well] and only their words are scriptural, not yours.
It’s a man made folly and my N1 criticism of the Orthodox Church and its druidic-style priesthood. I’m not even going to start on the Roman Church and its sun symbolism.
Suffice it to say that keeping the Bible from the common people, e.g. chained to pulpits and written only in Latin – that is simply against the Founder’s concept of evangelism.
But the one who does translate into English or one’s local language – that person him or herself needs examining for what he or she is pushing – look at Vatican II.
4. The concept of “safety” then arises – yes, the KJV has errors, yes it can be attacked, but it was the result, despite the political motives, for the best balance of interpretations of the original words to be generally available, hence its lasting popularity, despite its stilted language.
Of the four points just made, I see N2 as the most immediate issue in 2019/20 and it’s clear why. If you accept that 2019 is going to be the start of a two year or more horribilis, then there are going to be many turning and seeking for the traditional remedy – save me, oh Lord.
However, if what they get in return is the mumbo jumbo of the satanic synod and corrupted vicar and wife, plus the paedo priesthood, whilst being anti-gay fascists in the eyes of the young, then the despairing will no longer turn to the Church, will they? This is the whole idea and is in accord with Weishaupt’s maxims of 1776.
They will turn to Nanny State.
Not only that but there will be utter silence when Christians are cut down, as they are being right now in other nations, and vilified in this one. No one will lift a finger or a voice in protest.
And that’s where we are right now.
Further reading via Chuckles:
09:39 Thursday the 10th
I just had a Twitter conversation with a friend from the US southern bible belt you might call it [this is the other friend] – they know their bibles pretty well in those parts – and I’ll just post it below here.
He had just quoted another verse and I’d replied: “Not too many of your style left, Ed.”
OK, read from the bottom up – Twitter do things upside down: