Skip to content

Truth or Consequences


Originally posted on Pastor Joe Quatrone, Jr.:

false-teacher-pic “It makes no difference what you believe, just as long as you are sincere!” That statement expresses the personal philosophy of many people today, but it is doubtful whether most of those who make it have really thought it through. Is “sincerity” really the magic ingredient that makes something true?

A nurse in a hospital gives some medicine to a patient and the patient becomes violently ill. The nurse is “sincere,” but the medicine is wrong, and the patient almost dies.

A man hears noises in the house one night and decides a burglar is at work. He gets his gun and shoots the “burglar,” who turns out to be his daughter! Unable to sleep, she has gotten up for a bite to eat. She ends up the victim of her father’s “sincerity.”

It takes more than “sincerity” to make something true. Faith in a lie will always cause serious…

View original 2,313 more words

Government Power and Evil

Government Power and Evil


Author: Daniel Greenfield
Source: the Sultan Knish blog – 04.06.2014

We are not a violent society. We are a society sheltered from violence. No one in Rwanda spends time wondering what kind of man would murder people. They probably live next door to him. If your neighborhood is diverse enough, you might be unfortunate enough to live next door to war criminals all the way from Eastern Europe to Africa.

Guns are how we misspell evil. Guns are how we avoid talking about the ugly realities of human nature while building sandcastles on the shores of utopia.




It’s not about the fear of what one motivated maniac can do in a crowded place, but about the precariousness of social control that the killing sprees expose. Every murder tears apart the myth that government is the answer.

The gun control issue is about solving individual evil through central planning in a shelter big enough for everyone. A Gun Free Zone where everyone is a target and lives under the illusion that they aren’t. A society where everyone is drawing peace signs on colored notepaper while waiting under their desks for the bomb to fall.

That brand of control isn’t authority, it’s authority in panic mode believing that if it imposes total zero tolerance control then there will be no more shootings. And every time the dumb paradigm is blown to bits with another shotgun, then the rush is on to reinforce it with more total zero control tolerance.

Zero tolerance for the Second Amendment makes sense. If you ban all guns, except for those in the hands of the 708,000 police officers, some of the 1.5 million members of the armed forces, the security guards at armored cars and banks, the bodyguards of celebrities who call for gun control, and any of the other people who need a gun to do their job, then you’re sure to stop all shootings.

So long as none of those millions of people, or their tens of millions of kids, spouses, parents, grandchildren, girlfriends, boyfriends, roommates and anyone else who has access to them and their living spaces, carries out one of those shootings.

But this isn’t really about stopping shootings; it’s about the belief that the problem is individual, not evil, and that if we make sure that everyone who has guns is following government orders, then control will be asserted and the problem will stop.

It’s the central planning solution to evil.

We’ll never know the full number of people who were killed by Fast and Furious. We’ll never know how many were killed by Obama’s regime change operation in Libya, with repercussions in Mali and Syria. But everyone involved in that was following orders. There was no individual agency, just agencies. There were orders to run guns to Mexico and the cartel gunmen who killed people had orders to shoot. There was nothing random or unpredictable about it.

Gun control is the assertion that the problem is not the guns; it’s the lack of central planning for shooting people. It’s the individual.

A few million people with little sleep, taut nerves and PTSD are not a problem so long as there is someone to give them orders. A hundred million people with guns and no orders are a major problem. Historically though it’s millions of people with guns who follow orders who have been more of a problem than millions of people with guns who do not.




Moral agency is individual. You can’t outsource it to a government and you wouldn’t want to.

The impulses, the codes of character, the concepts of right and wrong, take place at the level of the individual.
- Crime and Prejudice

Organizations do not sanctify this process. They do not lift it above its fallacies or do a very good job of keeping sociopaths and murderers from rising high enough to give orders.

Gun control does not control guns, it gives the illusion of controlling people, and when it fails those in authority are able to say that they did everything that they could short of giving people the ability to defend themselves.

We live under the rule of organizers, community and otherwise, committed to bringing their perfect state into being through the absolute control over people, and the violent acts of lone madmen are a reminder that such control is fleeting and that attempting to control a problem often makes it worse by removing the natural human crowd-sourced responses that would otherwise come into play.

People do kill people and the only way to stop that is by killing them first. To a utopian this is a moral paradox that invalidates everything that came before it, but to everyone else, it’s just life in a world where evil is a reality, not just a word.

Anyone who really hankers after a world without guns would do well to try the 12th Century which was not a nicer place for lack of guns. The same firepower that makes it possible for one homicidal maniac to kill a dozen unarmed people also makes it that much harder to recreate a world where a single family can rule over millions and one man in armor can terrify hundreds of peasants.

Putting miniature cannons in the hands of every peasant made the American Revolution possible. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would have meant very little without an army of ordinary men armed with weapons that made them a match for the superior organization and numbers of a world power.

Would Thomas Jefferson, the abiding figurehead of the Democratic Party, who famously wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”, really have shuddered at the idea of peasants with assault rifles, or would he have grinned at the playing field being leveled?

But the Democratic Party is no longer the party of Thomas Jefferson. It’s the party of King George III. And it doesn’t like the idea of armed peasants, not because an occasional peasants goes on a shooting spree, but because like a certain dead mad king who liked to talk to trees, it believes that government power comes before individual liberty. Like that dead king, it believes that it means this for the benefit of the peasants who will be better off being told what to do.

The question is the old elemental one about government control and individual agency. And tragedies like the one that just happened take us back to the equally old question of whether individual liberty is a better defense against human evil than the entrenched organizations of government.

Do we want a society run by kings and princes who commit atrocities according to a plan for a better society, or by peasants with machine guns? The kings can promise us a world without evil, but the peasant with a machine gun promises us that we can protect ourselves from evil when it comes calling.




It isn’t really guns that the gun controllers are afraid of; it’s a country where individual agency is still superior to organized control, where the trains don’t run on time and orders don’t mean anything. It’s afraid of individual power.
- Catastrophic Failure of Human Government

Evil finds heavy firepower appealing, but the firepower works both ways.

A world where the peasants have assault rifles is a world where peasant no longer means a man without any rights. And while it may also mean the occasional brutal shooting spree, those sprees tend to happen in the outposts of utopia, the gun-free zones with zero tolerance for firearms. An occasional peasant may go on a killing spree, but a society where the peasants are all armed is also far more able to stop such a thing without waiting for the men-at-arms to be dispatched from the castle.

An armed society spends more time stopping evil than contemplating it. It is the disarmed society that is always contemplating it as a thing beyond its control.

Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their kings and princes to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the freedom that left the killer free to kill, instead of the lack of freedom that prevented them from being able to stop him.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Christ and Antichrist

Christ & Antichrist


Author: Dave Hunt
Source: The Berean Call – 7.01.1990

Anti is a Greek prefix which not only means “opposed to” but “in the place of.” Antichrist will indeed oppose Christ, but in the most diabolically clever way possible: by pretending to be Christ. For the world to follow and worship him, a false antichrist “Christianity” must become the world religion—a “Christianity” that all religions can accept and which embraces all religions into “one faith.” Hence the necessity for today’s growing apostasy: to create an apostate church to be the Antichrist’s earthly bride, just as the true church is Christ’s heavenly bride. Such is the important role of the New Age movement and the many accelerating delusions and seductions in these “last days.”
- Challenging the Current Doctrines




Through a false gospel, false prophets, occultic religious practices and lying “signs and wonders,” today’s churches are being filled with millions who call themselves Christians, but who are not. Left behind at the Rapture, and happy that the “negative” influence of the vanished troublemakers has been removed, they will worship and follow the Antichrist, thinking he is the true Christ and that they have “never had it so good.” An ecumenized “Christianity,” in partnership with all religions, will carry on and prosper even more after the Rapture than before. The unifying factor will be concern for Mother Earth. Working for peace and ecological wholeness will have replaced truth as the basis of Christianity, as the World Council of Churches has already decreed.
- The Battle of the Ages (Truth, Inclusion, and Tolerance)

Far from being a cop-out invented by those who desire to escape persecution (which may become very severe in America before the Rapture), a pre-tribulation Rapture is essential for a number of reasons: first of all, to remove the true Christians from earth. If they were present when Antichrist was revealed, they would oppose and expose him. Such opposition must be removed in order to give Satan and man, under Antichrist’s leadership, full freedom to prove that this earth can be turned back into a garden paradise without God. The Holy Spirit, who is omnipresent, will still convict and draw many to Christ during the Great Tribulation. The restraining influence, however, which He has wielded in this world through the millions of true Christians, will have suddenly been removed, leaving a moral and spiritual vacuum in homes, neighborhoods, businesses, and schools such as we cannot even imagine.
- The Sedgefield Community in Ashland, VA




A pre-tribulation Rapture is also necessary because the Antichrist will be given authority by God “to make war with the saints, and to overcome them” (Revelation 13:7). Such a fate could not befall the church, for Christ said that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). Moreover, true Christians have authority and power to “resist the devil” and “he will flee” (James 4:7), for “greater is He that is in [us], than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4). So the fact that Antichrist is given power by God “to make war with the saints and to overcome [i.e., kill] them” is proof that the true church is no longer present.

The “saints” mentioned are those who have not heard and rejected the gospel prior to the Rapture and who believe in Christ during the Great Tribulation. They will pay for their faith with their lives. Those who take the mark of the beast suffer the wrath of the Lamb, while those who don’t are slain by Antichrist. Thus a post-tribulation rapture would be a classic non-event, for there would be very few if any surviving believers to be raptured at that time. And surely those Christians who were left alive, seeing the judgment of God poured out upon mankind and earth’s armies gathered for the battle of Armageddon in an attempt to destroy Israel, would know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Second Coming was about to occur – and would be watching for their Lord to appear. Yet Christ declared that He would return at a time of such ease that even the “five wise virgins” would “slumber and sleep.” He warned, “[F]or in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh” (Matthew 24:44). Hardly likely in the midst of the greatest tribulation and destruction the world has ever seen or ever will see!
- According to the Scriptures

To understand how the stage is being set for the final conflict between Christ and Antichrist, it is helpful to consider some comparisons and contrasts between these two antagonists. First of all, the procession of events is in God’s hands. While we cannot know the day or hour of our Lord’s return, the Bible does give us many clues as to the general timing of this great occurrence.

There is a precise time for Christ’s second coming just as there was for the first: “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son…” (Galatians 4:4). The same is true of the Antichrist. Though already present in the world and waiting in the wings, this “man of sin” known as “that Wicked [one]” (2 Thessalonians 2:3,8) can only take power when it is God’s time: “And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time” (2:6).




Interestingly, the Roman Empire plays an integral part in the timing for the revelation both of God’s Messiah and Satan’s. Ancient Rome set the stage for Christ’s birth: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed” (Luke 2:1). It was this decree that caused Joseph and Mary to be in Bethlehem so that Christ would be born there in fulfillment of Micah 5:2. And of course He also had to be executed during the time of the Roman Empire, which introduced crucifixion, in order to fulfill Psalm 22.

For Christ to return, the Roman Empire must be revived. This is clear from Daniel’s interpretation that the distinct parts of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar “…head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron” (Daniel 2:32-33) represented four world kingdoms: the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian and Roman. That the “feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron” (Daniel 2:41) represent the fourth world kingdom revived in the last days is clear from the statement, “And in the days of these kings [i.e., represented by the ten toes] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed …[and] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever” (Daniel 2:44).

Christ did not establish His kingdom the first time He came, so He must come again to do so. When? “In the days of those kings” – i.e., when the Roman Empire has been revived, out of which the Antichrist will arise. No longer “as a lamb to the slaughter” (Isaiah 53:7), but now returning in power and glory to execute judgment upon those who crucified Him, Christ will destroy this evil empire in its revived form at His second coming. So although the date is not given, the timing of Christ’s return is clearly indicated.

It is also essential for the Roman Empire to be revived in order for the Antichrist to appear. Daniel prophesied that “the people of the prince that shall come [i.e., Antichrist] shall destroy the city and the sanctuary…” (Daniel 9:26). The Roman armies under the command of Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in A.D.70. It is therefore from these people that the Antichrist must arise. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he has to be Roman, since her legions came from many parts of the Empire. It does mean, however, that he must come from that world kingdom—and for that to happen the Roman Empire must be revived. We are seeing the fulfillment of this most remarkable prophecy in our day.

Calling Antichrist “the prince that shall come” indicates that he, like the ancient Caesars, will rule the Empire when it is revived. Moreover, the ancient Roman Empire was not only a political, economic and military entity, but also a religious one with the god-emperor sitting as the head of the pagan priesthood. So in conjunction with a world government, a world religion headed by the new Caesar, the Antichrist, must be established in the last days exactly as Revelation 13 indicates.

During the periodic waves of Roman persecution which the early Christians endured, all citizens of the Empire were required to bow down to an image of the current Caesar and worship him as god. Those who did not were killed. Such will also be the case under Antichrist in the revived Roman Empire: “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life…[and] as many as would not worship the image of the beast [Antichrist] should be killed” (Revelation 13:8,15).

The contrasts between Christ and Antichrist are also instructive. Our Lord was despised and rejected by Israel and by the world: the Antichrist will be hailed and embraced. Christ was mocked and jeered: the Antichrist will be praised. The cry of those who rejected Christ was, “We’ll not have this man to reign over us!” It is awesome to realize that in contrast the Antichrist will be accepted not only by the world but by Israel as well. Jesus told the Jewish leaders in His day, “I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive” (John 5:43).

Christ’s kingdom of light and truth is heavenly (“My kingdom is not of this world”- John 18:36); Antichrist’s kingdom of darkness is built upon a lie and is totally of this world. It is sad to see so many evangelical Christians becoming increasingly entangled in this world, joining with Catholics, Mormons and other cultists and occultists to pursue its political and social agendas—and in the process losing their hope of heaven. It was characteristic of the early church that they knew they were the ekklesia, the called-out ones who were no longer of this world (John 17:6,14,16) but were eagerly waiting (1 Thessalonians 1:10) and watching for Christ to return to take them to heaven (Hebrews 9:28; John 14:2-3). That hope must be awakened!
- The War of Unimaginable Consequences

Mystery surrounds both Christ and Antichrist. Of Christ, Paul wrote, “great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…” (1 Timothy 3:16). And of Antichrist he wrote, “[T]he mystery of iniquity doth already work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7). Each has a mysterious bride, one a virgin, the other a harlot. The mystery of godliness, which will be revealed in Christ’s bride, the church, has been “kept secret since the world began” (Romans 16:25) and is “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). It can only be fully revealed at the last time (1 Peter 1:5).

The mystery of iniquity, which could conversely be called “Satan in you, the hope of damnation,” will also be revealed through a bride, the Antichrist’s. She is called “mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (Revelation 17:5). As Christ loves and preserves His bride, so Satan will “hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire” (Revelation 17:16).

That the second coming of Christ in power and glory to rescue Israel, destroy the armies that are about to destroy her, and to set up His kingdom upon the throne of His father David is a separate event from the rapture of His bride, the church, is very clear. Some try to make them one event by suggesting that we will be “caught up to meet the Lord in the air” on His way to earth and will immediately turn around and accompany Him to the Mount of Olives and His intervention at Armageddon. However, Revelation 19:7-14 tells of Christ’s marriage to His bride in heaven before He comes to earth to execute judgment and set up His kingdom.




A major purpose of the Second Coming is to destroy Antichrist: “whom the Lord shall…destroy with the brightness of his coming (2 Thessalonians 2:8). Thus it is clear that the Second Coming cannot take place until the Antichrist has been revealed and has established his kingdom upon earth. If the Rapture were not a separate event from the Second Coming before the Antichrist is revealed, then Christians would not be watching, waiting and looking for Christ, but for the Antichrist, which is unthinkable!

One of the growing delusions today is the belief that the church is not to be raptured at all, but that when we have taken over the world (and not until then) Christ will return to reign over the kingdom we have established for Him. Yet Christ promised, “And if I go and prepare a place for you [in heaven], I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:3). Paul wrote that “the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air [obviously to be taken home to His Father's house of many mansions]: and so shall we ever be with the Lord [in heaven, where He has gone to prepare a place for us](1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

Instead, many who claim to be Christians are looking forward to meeting a “Christ” with their feet planted firmly on planet earth – a “Christ” who has not arrived to take them to heaven but to reign over the kingdom they have established for him. What a delusion! Such have not been working for the true Christ, but for the counterfeit, the Antichrist. They have not been “lay[ing] up…treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:20), but have been building an earthly kingdom. May our Bridegroom reawaken our love for Him, and may our hearts, as it should be with a bride, long to see and be with Him! TBC


Enhanced by Zemanta

Why I Left Freemasonry


Freemasonry vs. Christianity (Part Three)




Why I Left Freemasonry

Author: Charles G. Finney, D.D.

hen I was converted to Christ I had belonged to the Masonic Lodge in Adams, New York, about four years. During the struggle of conviction of sin through which I passed, I do not recollect that the question of Freemasonry ever occurred to my mind.

New Views of Lodgism

But soon after my conversion, the evening came for attendance upon the Lodge, and I went. They, of course, were aware that I had become a Christian and the Master called upon me to open the Lodge with prayer. I did so, and poured out my heart to the Lord for blessings upon the Lodge. I observed that it created considerable excitement. The evening passed away, and at the close of the Lodge I was asked to pray again. I did so, and retired much depressed in spirit. I soon found that I was completely converted from Freemasonry to Christ, and that I could have no fellowship with any of the proceedings of the Lodge. Its oaths appeared to me to be monstrously profane and barbarous.

At that time I did not know how much I had been imposed upon by many of the pretensions of Masonry. But, upon reflection and examination, a severe struggle and earnest prayer, I found I could not consistently remain with them. My new life instinctively and irresistibly recoiled from any fellowship with what I now regarded as “the unfruitful works of darkness.”

Quietly Withdrawing Membership

Without consulting anyone, I finally went to the Lodge and requested my discharge. My mind was made up. Withdraw from them I must — with their consent if I might; without this consent if I must. Of this I said nothing; but somehow it came to be known that I had withdrawn.

They therefore planned a Masonic festival and sent a committee to me, requesting me to deliver an oration on that occasion. I quietly declined to do so, informing the committee that I could not conscientiously, in any wise, do what would show my approval of the institution, or sympathy with it. However, for the time, and for years afterward I remained silent, and said nothing against Masonry; though I had then so well considered the matter as to regard my Masonic oaths as utterly null and void. But from that time I never allowed myself to be recognized as a Freemason anywhere.

Beginning a Public Testimony

This was a few years before the revelations of Freemasonry by Captain William Morgan were published. When that book was published, I was asked if it was a true revelation of Freemasonry. I replied that it was so far as I knew anything about it, and that as nearly as I could recollect, it was a verbatim revelation of the first three degrees as I had myself taken them. I frankly acknowledged that that which had been published was a true account of the institution, and a true exposé of their oaths, principles and proceedings. After I had considered it more thoroughly, I was more perfectly convinced that I had no right to adhere to the institution, or appear to do so; and that I was bound, whenever the occasion came, to speak my mind freely in regard to it, and to renounce the horrid oaths that I had taken.

Masonic Oaths Procured by Fraud

I found that in taking these oaths I had been grossly deceived and imposed upon. I had been led to suppose that there were some very important secrets to be communicated to me; but in this I found myself entirely disappointed. Indeed I came to the deliberate conclusion that my oaths had been procured by fraud and misrepresentations; that the institution was in no respect what I had been informed it was; and as I have had the means of examining it more thoroughly, it has become more and more irresistibly plain to me that Masonry is highly dangerous to the State, and in every way injurious to the Church of Christ.

Features of an Anti-Christ

Judging from unquestionable evidences, how can we fail to pronounce Freemasonry an unchristian institution? We can see that its morality is unchristian. Its oath-bound secrecy is unchristian. The administration and taking of its oaths are unchristian and a violation of the positive command of Christ. And Masonic oaths pledge its members to some of the most unlawful and unchristian things:

1. To conceal each other’s crimes.
2. To deliver each other from difficulty, whether right or wrong.
3. To unduly favor Masonry in political action and in business matters.
4. Its members are sworn to retaliate and persecute unto death the violators of Masonic obligations.
5. Freemasonry knows no mercy, and swears its candidates to avenge violations of Masonic obligations unto death.
6. Its oaths are profane, taking the Name of God in vain.
7. The penalties of these oaths are barbarous, even savage.
8. Its teachings are false and profane.
9. Its designs are partial and selfish.
10. Its ceremonies are a mixture of puerility and profanity.
11. Its religion is false.
12. It professes to save men on other conditions than those revealed in the Gospel of Christ.
13. It is wholly an enormous falsehood.
14. It is a swindle, obtaining money from its members under false pretenses.
15. It refuses all examinations, and veils itself under a mantle of oath-bound secrecy.
16. It is virtual conspiracy against both Church and State.

Some Fair Conclusions

No one, therefore, has ever undertaken to defend Freemasonry as judged by the above. Freemasons themselves do not pretend that their institution as revealed in reliable books, and by some of their own testimony, is compatible with Christianity. So it must follow that,

First, the Christian Church should have no fellowship with Freemasonry; and those who adhere intelligently and determinately to such an institution have no right to be in the Christian Church. We pronounce this judgment sorrowfully, but solemnly.

Second, should the question be asked, “What shall be done with the great number of professed Christians who are Freemasons?” I answer, let them have nothing more to do with it. Let it be distinctly pressed upon their consciences that all Masons, above the first two Degrees, have solemnly sworn to conceal each other’s crimes, murder and treason alone excepted; and that all above the sixth Degree have sworn to espouse each other’s cause, and to deliver them from any difficulty, whether right or wrong.

Third, if they have taken those Degrees where they have sworn to persecute unto death those who violate their Masonic obligations, let them be asked whether they really intend to do any such thing. Let them be distinctly asked whether they intend to aid and abet the administration and taking of these oaths. Or if they still intend to countenance the false and hypocritical teachings of Masonry. Or if they mean to countenance the profanity of their ceremonies, and the partiality of their sworn practice. If so, surely they should not be allowed their place in the Christian Church.

Fourth, can a man who has taken, and still adheres to the Master’s oath to conceal any secret crime of a brother of that Degree, murder and treason excepted, be a safe man with whom to entrust any public office? Can he be trusted as a witness, as a juror, or with any office connected with the administration of justice?

Fifth, can a man who has taken, and still adheres to, the oath of the Royal Arch Mason be trusted to public office? He swears to espouse the cause of a companion of this Degree when involved in any difficulty, so far as to extricate him, whether he be right or wrong. He swears to conceal his crimes, MURDER AND TREASON NOT EXCEPTED. Is such a man bound by such an oath to be trusted with office? Ought he to be accepted as a witness or juror when another Freemason is a party in the case? Ought he to be trusted with the office of Judge, or Justice of the Peace, or as a Sheriff, Constable, Marshal or any other office?

What Is Your Answer?

I appeal to your conscience in the sight of God, for an honest answer to these three questions

1. Is any man who is under a most solemn oath to kill all who violate any part of Masonic oaths, a fit person to be at large among men?

2. Ought Freemasons of this stamp to be fellowshipped in the Christian Church?

3. Do you believe that the sins of Masonic oaths are forgiven only to those who repent? And that we do not repent of those sins to which we still adhere? And that adherence makes us also partaker of other men’s sins?

“The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from ALL sin.” “And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as He is pure.”
(I John 1:17; 3:3)

(Reprinted from “Memoirs” of President Finney, formerly of Oberlin College.)
Copied from a tract published by National Christian Association — publishers since 1868 of literature exposing secret societies.


Exposing Freemasonry

Among those noble men who have denounced Freemasonry and openly taken a stand against it are:

John Wesley, Alexander Campbell, Daniel Webster, Wendell Phillips, Chief Justice Charles Marshall, Charles Sumner, John Hancock, Horace Greeley, Pastor Dwight L. Moody, Pastor R. A. Torrey, Timothy Dwight, Evangelist Charles G. Finney, Charles Blanchard, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Madison, Amos Wells, Simon Peter Long, James M. Gray, Evangelist Billy Sunday, Dr. John R. Rice and Ulysses S. Grant.

Pastor Dwight L. Moody on Freemasonry


The man of God, D.L. Moody wrote:

“I do not see how any Christian, most of all a Christian minister, can go into these secret lodges with unbelievers. They say they can have more influence for good, but I say that they can have more influence for good by staying out of them and reproving their evil deeds. You can never reform anything by unequally yoking yourself to ungodly men.

True reformers separate themselves from the world. But, some say to me, if you talk that way you will drive all the members of secret societies out of your meetings and out of your churches. But what if I did? Better men will take their places.

Give them the truth anyway, and if they would rather leave their churches than their lodges, the sooner they get out of their churches the better. I would rather have ten members who are separated from the world than a thousand such members! Come out from the lodge. Better one with God than a thousand without Him! We must walk with God, and if only one or two go with us, it is all right. Do not let down the standard to suit men who love their secret lodges or have some darling sin they will not give up!”

Charles G. Finney on Freemasonry


In The Character, Claims and Practical Workings of Freemasonry, Finney wrote:

“We are now prepared to consider the question of the relation of Freemasonry to the Church of Christ. On this question I remark:

God holds the church and every branch of it, responsible for its opinion and action in accordance with the best light, which, in his providence, is afforded them. . . If any particular branch of the church has better means of information and therefore more light on moral questions, than another branch, its responsibility is greater, in proportion to its greater means of information. Such a branch of the church is bound to take a higher and more advanced position in Christian life and duty, to bear a fuller and lighter testimony against every form of iniquity, than that required by less favored and less informed branches of the church. They are not to wait till other branches of the church have received their light, before they bear a testimony and pursue a course in accordance with their own degree of information.

While Masonry was a secret, the church had no light, and no responsibility respecting it. Although individual members of the church were Freemasons, as a body, she knew nothing of Masonry; therefore she could say nothing. . .

But the state of the case is now greatly changed. Freemasonry is now revealed. It is no longer a secret to any who wish to be informed….. Now, since these revelations are made, and both the church and the world are aware of what Masonry really is, God demands, and the world has a right to expect, that the church will take due action and bear a truthful testimony in respect to this institution. She can not now innocently hold her peace. The light has come. Fidelity to God, and to the souls of men, require that the church, which is the light of the world, should speak out, and should take such action as will plainly reveal her views of the compatibility or incompatibility of Freemasonry with the Christian religion. As God’s witnesses, as the pillar and ground of the truth, the church is bound to give the trumpet no uncertain sound, upon this question, that all men may know, whether, in her judgment, an intelligent embracing and determinate adhering to Freemasonry are compatible with a truthful profession of religion.

Every local branch of the Church of Christ is bound to examine this subject, and pronounce upon this institution, according to the best light they can get. God does not allow individuals, or churches, to withhold action, and the expression of their opinion, until other churches are as enlightened as themselves. We are bound to act up to our own light, and to go as far in advance of others as we have better means of information than they. We have no right to say to God that we will act according to our own convictions, when others become so enlightened that our action will be popular and meet their approval.

Again: Those individuals and churches, who have had the best means of information, owe it to other branches of the church, and to the whole world, to take action and to pronounce upon the unchristian character of Freemasonry, as the most influential means within their reach of arousing the whole church and the world to an examination of the character and claims of Freemasonry. If churches who are known to have examined the subject withhold their testimony; if they continue to receive persistent and intelligent Freemasons; if they leave the public to infer that they see nothing in Freemasonry inconsistent with a creditable profession of the Christian religion, it will justly be inferred by other branches of the church, and by the world, that there is nothing in it so bad, so dangerous and unchristian as to call for their examination, action, or testimony. Before the publishing of Morgan’s book, the Baptist denomination, especially, in that part of the country, had been greatly carried away by Freemasonry. A large proportion of its eldership and membership were Freemasons. A considerable number of ministers and members of other branches of the Christian Church had also fallen into the snare.

The murder of Wm. Morgan, and the publication of Masonry consequent thereupon in the books I have named, broke upon the church – fast asleep on this subject – like a clap of thunder from a clear sky. The facts were such, the revelations were so clear, that the Baptist denomination backed down, and took the lead in renouncing and denouncing the institution. Their elders and associated churches, almost universally, passed resolutions disfellowshipping adhering Masons. The denomination, to a considerable extent, took the same course.

Throughout the Northern States, at that time, I believe it was almost universally conceded that persistent Freemasons, who continued to adhere and co-operate with them, ought not to be admitted to Christian churches. Now it is worthy of all consideration and remembrance, that God set the seal of His approbation upon the action taken by those churches at that time, by pouring out His Spirit upon them. Great revivals immediately followed over that whole region. . .

And should the question be asked, ‘What shall be done with the great number of professed Christians who are Freemasons?’ I answer, let them have no more to do with it. Again, let Christian men labor with them, plead with them, and endeavor to make them see it to be their duty to abandon it… Let them be distinctly asked whether they intend still to aid and abet the administration and taking of these oaths, if they still intend to countenance the false and hypocritical teachings of Masonry, if they mean to countenance the profanity of their ceremonies, and practice the partiality they have sworn to practice. If so, surely they should not be allowed their places in the church.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sons of Light or Sons of Darkness?

Freemasonry vs. Christianity (Part One)

Source: Saints Alive





Masons: Sons of Light? Or Sons of Darkness?


BOX 291

The Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Indiana publishes a small book titled, INDIANA MONITOR AND FREEMASON’S GUIDE.
A “Monitor” is given to every Mason when he is raised to the degree of Master Mason. Under “Declarations of Principles” they state that the Lodge “is a social organization only so far as it furnishes additional inducement that men may forgather in numbers, thereby providing more material for its primary work of education, of worship, and of charity.”

What is the attitude of the Lodge toward a Christian who seeks to become a Mason?

The monitor of the Grand Lodge of South Carolina is entitled THE AHIMAN REZON. It reveals the answer:

“There he stands without our portals, on the threshold of this new Masonic life, in darkness, helplessness, and in ignorance. Having been wandering amid the errors and covered over with the pollutions of the outer and profane world, he comes inquiringly to our doors, seeking the new birth, and asking a withdrawal of the veil which conceals divine truth from his uninitiated sight.” (page 61)

When a man is initiated into Masonry, the Senior Deacon of the Lodge describes him as one “who has long been in darkness, and now seeks the light.”

Would a true Christian allow himself to be described that way? What did Jesus say?

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, “I am the light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life..”
(John 8:12)

What does Masonry teach about Jesus Christ?

In MYSTIC MASONRY, by J. D. Buck, the following Masonic teaching is found:
“It is far more important that men should strive to become Christs than that they should believe that Jesus was Christ.” (page 62)

“The perfect man is Christ: and Christ is God. This is the birth-right and destiny of every human soul.”
(page 86)

What does Masonry teach about salvation?

Lynn Perkins writes in THE MEANING OF MASONRY:

“Therefore Masonry teaches that redemption and salvation are both the power and the responsibility of the individual Mason. Saviors like Hiram Abiff can and do show the way, but men must always follow and demonstrate, each for himself, his power to save himself, to build his own spiritual fabric in his own time and way. Every man in essence is his own savior and redeemer; for if he does not save himself, he will not be saved.” (page 95)

Whom do Masons worship?

Manly Palmer Hall reveals the answer in THE LOST KEYS OF FREEMASONRY:
“The true Mason is not creed-bound. He realizes with the divine illumination of his lodge that as a Mason his religion must be universal: Christ, Buddha or Mohammed, the name means little, for he recognizes only the light and not the bearer. He worships at every shrine, bows before every altar, whether in temple. mosque or cathedral, realizing with his truer understanding the oneness of all spiritual truth.” (page 65)

What is the source of Masonic Light?

MORALS AND DOGMA, by Albert Pike, was published by the authority of the Supreme Council of the Thirty Third Degree. Masonry holds an alternate view of Jesus Christ and salvation.
Pike reveals in MORALS AND DOGMA that they hold an alternate view of Lucifer as well. Lucifer is presented as not necessarily evil but, rather an agent of liberty and free will. Pike states that Lucifer is the source of Masonic Light:

“The devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry. For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or Free Will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythological and horned form of the God Pan; thence came the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.” (page 102)

“Lucifer, the Light-Bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!” (page 321)




Lucifer is the god of the Masonic Lodge. The “light ” of the Lodge comes from the Spirit of Darkness.

“And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”
(2 Corinthians 11:14)

“But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! “

(Matthew 6:23)

Will “Christian” Masons have salvation? What did Jesus say?

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.”
(Matthew 7:21-23)

What does the Lodge say about Judgment Day?

From the Grand Lodge of Nebraska Monitor & Ceremonies – AF&AM:

“My brother, I now present you with the lambskin or white leather apron…[your covering]…. when you stand before the Great White throne….” (page 18)
[The same text is also found many other monitors, such as the Florida Monitor on page 118, in the Indiana Monitor & Freemason's Guide on page 56 and in the Kentucky Monitor on page 14.]

The Lodge teaches that its members will stand before God’s final judgment at the Great White Throne judgment! But the Bible clearly teaches, in Revelations, Chapter 20, that the Great White Throne judgment is the judgment of the damned. No Christian will face that judgment but Lucifer wants each Mason to take the stand before God with the lambskin apron as his covering rather than the blood of Jesus Christ.

Are You a “Christian” Mason?

If you consider yourself a Christian and a Mason, will you continue to stand with those who disown Jesus? Will you go willingly to stand before God at the Great White Throne judgment before being cast into the fires of hell with the unbelievers or will you repent of your involvement in Masonry and make Jesus the Light in your life today?

The Bible says:

“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
(2 Corinthians 6:17 ; 2 Corinthians 7:1)

What other opinion really matters? If you have friends or loved ones who are Masons, won’t you plead with them to leave Masonry and accept Jesus as their personal savior? Their salvation is assured only when Jesus is truly the real light of their life.

How can a man call himself a Christian and at the same time be a member of another religion which disowns Jesus Christ and sets up altars to other gods?

“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
(1 John 4:2 -7)

“…ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim. And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.”
(1 Kings. 18:18, 21)


(c) copyright, 2009, all rights reserved

Saints Alive In Jesus
PO Box 1347 Issaquah WA 98027

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Nature of Man

The Nature Of Man


Authors: John Cheeseman, Philip Gardner, Michael Sadgrove, Tom Wright




The truth about the nature of man is an outstanding example of the necessity to adhere faithfully to the overall teaching of Scripture, as it is here that a wrong understanding leads necessarily and logically to false or inadequate views about regeneration, the atonement, sanctification, and the whole plan of salvation. How easily this occurs, and how it is occurring around us, will be shown in subsequent pages. For the moment, we shall concern ourselves with what the Bible teaches about this all-important subject. Man needs to see his situation in correct perspective. He is incapable of reaching a correct understanding of that situation intuitively. He needs to view it, so to speak, from the outside. As a fallen creature, he can only obtain a complete and correct view of himself by revelation, in other words, by reference to what God has spoken of him.
- The Sedgefield Community

The teaching of Scripture is clear and unequivocal. Man is totally depraved, that is to say, the fall of Adam, in which all men participate,[46] extends to all man’s faculties:[47] his heart (which in Scripture denotes the very center of man’s being––the seat of his affections and personality),[48] his mind,[49] his will,[50] his conscience,[51] and every other part of him. Sin is described as being a state of enmity against God, and of transgression of his commandments,[52] and for as much as fallen men have no power of themselves to think, speak or will anything that may please God, until they be regenerate and renewed by the Spirit of the Lord, all works done before justification have the nature of sin, as the Anglican Prayer-Book Article XIII says. ‘They that are in the flesh cannot please God.’[53] There is therefore not a single thing that a man can do that will please God, if he has not been born again. Every man, woman and child born into this world, with the exception of our Lord, is a slave to sin,[54] is dead in sin,[55] sins in all things,[56] and cannot cease from sin until God in his mercy delivers him or her from it.

The sinfulness of man does not consist solely of the voluntary sins which he commits; for these are the fruits of his corrupt nature.[57] Empirically, we observe daily that sin abounds; but the Scriptures reveal to us that the situation is infinitely more desperate than we could ever have realized. Man’s sin is not only what he does––which we can see––but what he is, which we cannot see as God sees it.
- Richmond, VA and the Greater Richmond Area

At this point, an objection may be made by some: If man is totally depraved, and cannot but sin, while, as we asserted above, God’s providence rules the actions of men, does it not follow that man’s sin is something that man cannot be held responsible for? Is not God, then, the author of sin?

These are important questions, and we will not attempt to avoid them, but to tackle them later. But a few remarks here will be appropriate.

It is noteworthy that Adam’s reply to God, when asked if he had disobeyed God’s commandment not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was, in effect, to put the blame upon God. ‘The woman, whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.’[58] The unregenerate man, like Adam, attempts to cover his transgressions by objecting: ‘Why doth he still find fault?…Why didst thou make me thus?’ The answer of Scripture to such talk is: ‘O man, who art thou that repliest against God?’ ‘Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!’[59] We are not bound to explain these things, but to hold both to the impossibility of not sinning, apart from the grace of God, and to the fact that God holds man utterly responsible for his sin, and will condemn him, unless he flees to him for mercy.

The problems center around what for centuries has been a theological and philosophical minefield––’freewill’. A common argument runs as follows:

a. God holds man responsible for his sin.

b. Man cannot be held responsible for something he cannot refrain from doing.

c. Therefore: Man’s will must be free to choose between sinning, and not sinning; and hence, to choose between ‘accepting’ Christ, or rejecting him.

We would assert that this conclusion is false, and highly dangerous, because of the falsity of the second premise, namely, that man can only be held responsible for what he has the ability to perform. We hold that this is false for two reasons:

First — Because Scripture denies it. We have already seen that man’s will, like every other part of him, is depraved, and in bondage to sin. Anything that is in bondage evidently cannot be free. Man’s will, therefore, being part of a dead nature, is not free towards God in any sense, but is ‘free’ only to sin. Paul says absolutely: ‘They that are in the flesh cannot please God’; Job says: ‘Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.’[60] Neither is man free to turn to Christ for mercy-he cannot, of his own volition. The one thing that, above all others, surely pleases God, that thing over which the angels of heaven rejoice, is the sight of a sinner turning to God, and repenting. Yet, men in the flesh cannot do this; it is impossible: God’s Word says so. Notwithstanding, God commands and requires all men everywhere to repent of their sins,[61] and will judge them if they do not do so. God, who is righteous, will only judge a man for something for which he is responsible.

Second — Because ‘free-will’ and responsibility are different things. If, by ‘freedom of the will’, what is meant is ‘freedom of action’ ,i.e. that when I do something, I do it freely, without compulsion or constraint, then, it is agreed, man is a free agent, and is responsible, precisely because he is not forced to act against his volitions. ‘Freedom’,in this sense, therefore means nothing more than the harmony that exists, normally, between a man s volitions and his actions. If I am forced at gunpoint to rob a bank, then I am not responsible for my action, since I acted under compulsion, against my (law-abiding) volitions not to do so. Clearly, when a man sins, his will and his actions are united in sinning, and so man is to be held responsible for his sin. His volition and his action are both results of the corrupt nature which is his. But then, ‘freewill’ is a misnomer, and a misleading term to express the liberty of spontaneity which man does possess.

The notion that man is responsible only for what he has the ability to perform is utterly false. The fact that sinful actions spring inevitably from a sinful nature is no excuse; it rather aggravates the guilt. For man’s sinful nature is no part of God’s original creation, and man’s duty (by which responsibility is to be judged) is determined by God’s moral law, which unfallen man could keep. The fall and its consequences do not lessen our responsibility, they increase it. Our sin in Adam[62]. has rendered us unable to do good, yet the sinner, each one of us, is accountable to God in every respect, thought, word and deed. God commands us to render complete obedience and satisfaction to the moral law of the ten commandments. That we cannot do so is patently obvious. Nevertheless, it is required.

Man, then, in all his faculties, is as chained and imprisoned in the darkness of his sins, in captivity to Satan, as Peter was bound by Herod on the eve of his intended execution;[63] as dead as Lazarus in the tomb;[64] as blind as the man Jesus healed.[65] We must be on our guard against the theory that man’s will is free, and not bound, or dead, or corrupted––and hence, that man can please God, if he wills to do so––for Scripture is against such a theory.

Man, then, is responsible for his sin, and he is under the condemnation of God. Even if man offended in only one part of the Law, he would be under sentence of death, for ‘Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.’[66] That condemnation which, but for the mercy of God, would be the just deserts of each one of us is declared in Scripture to entail a place of torment, of weeping and gnashing of teeth, of everlasting fire, of eternal separation from God.[67] These are truths about which we hear little, yet the Word of God plainly declares them. Scripture knows nothing of universal salvation, or of the annihilation of the wicked, or of purgatory, of a second chance, and so on. The truth set before us is one of condemnation to eternal punishment. The plight of man, therefore, is truly dreadful. Unless he repents of his sin, and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, he is heading straight for hell. God commands, exhorts, beseeches him to repent and believe, in order that his soul might be saved; yet man cannot and will not do so. He is ‘fast bound in sin and nature’s night’, unable to lift a finger towards the attainment of his salvation. Yet only as he sees himself shut in between the condemning finger of the Law, which shows him to be a miserable sinner, and the command of God to flee from his sin and lay hold of Christ, which he cannot obey,[68] does he see his true condition, and consequently, the direction from which deliverance must come.





The doctrine of total depravity is not that every man is as bad as he could possibly be; but that man’s nature is corrupted and disabled in every part and aspect––his mind and will as well as his body, affections, etc. So we do not deny that the natural man is capable of doing and willing things which are in themselves good. This is an effect of God’s ‘common grace’––that is, the work of the Holy Spirit in restraining men from sin and in leading them to do good, which extends to all men. Such grace is necessary to prevent the world from sinking into a condition as evil as hell itself; yet it is not the same as saving grace, and the good which results is despite the sinners’ corrupt nature.

These good deeds are not acceptable to God, because they are without the only motive with which God is pleased––love to God and humble faith in Christ.[69] When the Pharisaical Jews kept every outward commandment of the Law, they were doing that with which God is indeed pleased, in itself––but he was not pleased with them, because every act was marred by the sinful and unsuspected enmity of their hearts.[70] Their best deeds were as filthy rags in the sight of our Holy God.[71] Prayer is pleasing and honoring to God; yet he will not hear the prayer of the wicked.[72] The unsaved man may do good works in order to obtain reputation; or to justify himself before God or man; or to quieten his conscience and silence the pangs of conviction of sin; or from the working of the common grace of God in him: he will never do good works to glorify God, from a grateful, penitent heart, for it is against his corrupt nature. Can an evil tree bring forth good fruit?[73]
- Baptism Cannot Save You!

“The commands of Scripture imply ability”

This inference hardly deserves refutation, but simply denial. The sphere of moral ability is quite different from that of natural ability. The commands of Scripture imply moral responsibility or duty; and in no way does ‘I ought’ imply ‘I can’.

If man’s inability to obey the commands of the Law were natural or physical, he would indeed lack responsibility, and there would be no point in commanding him to do that of which he is absolutely incapable. But “as the inability of the sinner to repent and believe, to love God and to lead a holy life, does not arise from the limitation of his nature as a creature (as is the case with idiots or brutes); nor from the want of the requisite faculties or capacity, but simply from the corruption of our nature, it follows that it does not exonerate him from the obligation to be and to do all that God requires” (C. Hodge). A sinful nature imposes a moral inability as inflexible as prison bars, yet the sinner is responsible to do that which his own fallen nature renders impossible. If it were not so, a man would become less and less responsible as he became more and more sinful––an absurd conclusion which would make the punishment of Satan quite unjust.

It is worth adding that there is a point in commanding sinners to obey, even though they cannot do so. For through the Law comes discovery of sin in all its sinfulness.[74] The sinner who realizes his condition, his guilt under the Law, may be driven by the Holy Spirit to Christ for refuge. It is just as when Christ called ‘Lazarus, come forth!’: Lazarus was dead; he could not obey; yet in that instant he was quickened by the power of God, and came forth.[75]

A closely related argument is that responsibility for sin implies that one could have avoided sinning. The answer is again very simple: responsibility for sin implies that one ought not to have sinned. When the unregenerate man sins, he does so freely, as a free agent, and in accordance with his own wishes; and it is this which makes him responsible. It is true that his action is doubly necessary––necessary as all events are, because foreordained of God; and necessary because of the corruption of his enslaved nature––but moral necessity in no way limits responsibility.


46. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; Romans 5.12-21

47. Isaiah 1:5-6

48. Matthew 15:19; Jeremiah 17:9

49. Ephesians 4:17-18; Romans 1:28

50. John 5:40

51. Titus 1:15

52. Daniel 9:9-11 Romans 1:29-32

53. Romans 8:8

54. Psalms 51:5; Romans 3:9-20; John 8:34

55. Genesis 2:17; Ephesians 2:1

56. Ezekiel 21:24

57. James. 1:14; Eph. 2:2-3; Mt. 15:19

58. Genesis 5:12

59. Romans 9:19-20; Isaiah 45:9

60. Job 14:4

61. Acts 17:50

62. Romans 5:12-21

63. Acts 12

64. John 11

65. John 9

66. Galatians 5:10

67. Revelation 14: 10-11; Matthew 24:51; 25:41; 3:12; Revelation 21:8

68. Romans 2:812; Jn. 6:44

69. Hebrews 11:6

70. Jeremiah 17:9

71. Isaiah 64:6

72. Proverbs 28:9

73. Luke 6:43-45

74. Romans 7:13

75. John 11:43-44

The above article is excepted from The Grace Of God In The Gospel. John Cheeseman, Philip Gardner, Michael Sadgrove, Tom Wright.
The Banner Of Truth Trust,
3 Murrayfield Road, Edinburgh EH12 6El
P.O. Box 621, Carlisle, PA 17013. 1972. Pages 33-41.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hatred Fuels the Left

Hate Is The Force That Gives The Left Meaning

Author: Daniel Greenfield
Source: the Sultan Knish blog – 02.16.2014

The American left has never had it this good. It has never had two terms of an unabashed and uncompromising leftist in the White House dedicated to its agenda functioning as a dictator without the military uniform, making and unmaking laws at a whim, siccing the IRS and Federal prosecutors on political enemies and transforming the country at a breathtaking pace.


Obama is what generations of the left have dreamed of and worked toward. This is the flicker of hopethey kept alive after JFK’s assassination, the Nixon years, Carter’s collapse and the long stretch of Reaganomics. This is what Bill Clinton robbed them of prematurely by gauging his actions against the polls instead of blasting full steam ahead regardless of what the public wanted.
- To Thank A Thief

The left finally has its Un-American tyranny. So why is it so angry?

Watch MSNBC or browse any left-wing site and you see a level of anger that would make you think that Al Gore had just conceded or Nixon had just won reelection. There’s more anger in the privileged circles of the left than in the political rearguard of the Tea Party.

That anger trickles from the top down. Obama’s interview with Bill O’Reilly was yet another opportunity for the most powerful man in the country to blame a vast right wing conspiracy. A day doesn’t pass without another email from Obama, his wife, Sandra Fluke or Joe Biden warning that without another five or ten dollar contribution, the “right” will take over America.
- The Media and Agenda-Setting Theory

The left has unchallenged control over the government, academia and the entertainment industry and yet it talks as if the country is 5 seconds away from Sarah Palin marching into Washington D.C. at the head of an army of Duck Dynasty fans to outlaw abortion.

The apocalyptic political paranoia and the uncontrolled outbursts of rage haven’t changed much since 2003. Ten years later, the ideologues in power still act as if George W. Bush is serving out his fourth term. Every day on MSNBC, a stew of conspiracy theories about oil companies, Israel, the Koch Brothers, Wal-Mart and Karl Rove leaves a slimy trail across the television screen.

On the internet, manufactured outrage has become the only progressive stock in trade. Did Jerry Seinfeld say that he values humor over racial quotas? He’s a racist. Did an ESPN magazine columnist out a compulsive liar who also happened to be pretending to be a woman? Lock him up. Did Mike Huckabee say something that could be misinterpreted with enough ellipses and out of context “Twitterized” quotes? Before you know it, he’s a sexist pig.

Page-views are the obvious profit motive behind all this and yet it says something deeply disturbing about a progressive readership that eats up hate and doesn’t react to anything positive. The rash of fake hate crimes feeds into that same perverse need for an enemy to hate and fight. The left used to pretend that it wanted to do something positive. But now that it has the power, it can’t stop searching for someone to hate instead.

The left is more comfortable being angry than being anything else; it finds it easier to rally the troops against something than for something so that even its triumphs only lead to more anger. The MSNBC tweet about an interracial Cheerios commercial was revealing of a deeper problem within the left. It was assumed that the MSNBC audience wouldn’t care about an interracial ad unless it could somehow pretend to “spite” the right by watching it.
- The Secular Religion of the Left

Obama’s awkward stumble from cause to cause, letting the old Bush policies run on Autoplay unless a crusade kicks in, as it eventually did on gay marriage and illegal immigration, is indicative of the problem with the left’s governing style. As with an interracial Cheerios commercial, it cares less about gay marriage or legalizing illegal aliens than it does about stirring up conflict.

Occupy Wall Street

Like an overgrown teenager for whom music or clothes aren’t about enjoying life or expressing an identity, but about upsetting and offending his or her parents, the left needs the negative validation of the right to be secure in its bad choices. Without that negative feedback to affirm its rebellion, its pet causes no longer seem all that compelling or meaningful.
- The Church of Victimology

That is another reason why the left began neglecting some of its bread and butter issues after Obama won. Aside from the need to protect its own man, it wasn’t really all that interested in closing Gitmo, gay marriage or opposing the War in Iraq. The things it wants to do are never as important to it as its obsessive need to feel that it is fighting against the right.

For all the Obama Worship, the left is more united by hatred for Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz or any other conservative villain of the month than by its support for its own leaders. It derives its identity more from the things that it is against, the middle class, the country, the businessman, the white male, than from the things that it is for.

The left’s sense of self is strongest when it is attacking, not when it is inspiring, when it is destroying, not when it is building.

Deprived of an external enemy, its ideologues carve out narrow orthodoxies and denounce each other for violating them. When the right and the center have been purged, the purges of the left begin and don’t end until there is nothing left except one tyrant-guru and his terrified minions. Or until some outside force throws a pot of cold water on the quarreling and shrieking acolytes brawling over minor points of doctrine.

The small scale bloodsport documented in the outward reaches of feminism by The Nation in its article “Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars” as transgender rights activists denounce Eve Ensler for excluding them by using the word “Vagina” and black feminists denounce white feminists for ignoring their concerns. This is what the left begins doing when it has free time on its hands. It doesn’t stop fighting. Instead its wars become pettier power struggles over points of doctrine.

When all enemies to the right have been eliminated, the left doesn’t find peace. Its ideology is a weapon, its gurus are egomaniacs and its followers joined to fight. When it wins in an arena, whether it’s academia or entertainment, the winners begins warring against each other proving that even in an ideological vacuum, its ideology remains a destructive force whose followers would rather denounce and destroy, than educate and enlighten.

As a victorious parasite writes its own obituary, a successful left is a threat to its own existence and the only thing saving the left from the violent disintegration into its own insanity is the right.

Hating the right is the only thing that keeps the left together. When it doesn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, it dissolves into a wet puddle of goo. If it didn’t have Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and every other figure who took his turn starring in their grim theater of the Two Minutes Hate, it would revert back to the petty infighting of a thousand minor eccentric causes.


The left needs to believe in a vast right-wing conspiracy. It needs the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Evangelical Christians, AIPAC, oil companies, defense contractors and every other element of its conspiracy theories to keep its gurus and followers focused on the “real” threat instead of purging each other for tone policing, insufficient privilege checking and any other outrage of the week.

Like the Salafists shooting and shelling each other in Syria, the ranks of the left are filled with dogmatic and intolerant fanatics whose only goal in life is the absolute victory of their point of view. Their mutual fanaticism and aggrieved sense of victimhood gives them more in common with each other and that very commonality is the source of their mutual hatred. Only they can understand each other well enough to truly want to kill each other as no outsider possibly can.

Hate is the force that gives the left meaning. It isn’t hope that animates its leaders and thinkers, but the darker side of human nature that calls on them to destroy and to kill. That dark side is why the left’s victories end in tragedies, why the red flags are painted with blood and when its followers have run out of enemies to kill, they turn on each other and destroy their own movements with firing squads, gulags and guillotines.

The left finds its identity not in its utopian visions, but in the things and people it wishes to destroy. Only by knowing what they hate, do its followers know who they are.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Global Geopolitics

A Geopolitical Looking Glass into the Real World Around You


Taking the World one soul at a time

The Fourth Crown

Make your news count.

The Right of the People

Raise the Standard of Liberty

Voting American

God Bless The United States of America


early church revival

A site dedicated to the revival of early Christianity

With All I Am

Think. Reason. Follow

Life: Not A Rehearsal

Faith is now; Salvation is now; Life is... NOW - No Opportunity Wasted.


~ Lessons, Love, Laughter, & Life ~

The Truth Exists

Strengthening, Educating, and Supporting Christians in the Race Set Before Them

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”~Thoreau


justice, law, human rights

Christian Spook

THE KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY !! Exposing the false teachings of those purporting to be Christian's, exposing new false doctrines and practices,and sharing as much information on cults as possible.Including, Jehovahs Witnesses,roman catholicism,Islam,mormonism,christadelphians, Jesuits, Illuminati,i.e....The Whore of Babylon. Please send me posts to relevant articles, and useful websites. Thank You.


~ Lessons, Love, Laughter, & Life ~

Sally's Special Services

Webmaster and Social Media Manager

U.S. Constitutional Free Press

Give me Liberty, Or Give me Death!


Helping You Survive Your Next Outdoor Adventure!

In Love With The Lord Poetry and Prose

By Martha L Shaw - Charleston SC - Poet, Writer, Artist


Endeavoring to lead the lambs away from the slaughter...

The Oil in Your Lamp

A fine site


One small voice cries out for the Persecuted Church!

Bold. Courageous. Unashamed. Victorious.

America's Watchtower

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations- James Madison


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 303 other followers

%d bloggers like this: