Good explanation of the difference between rejecting God in order to be free of His requirements versus accepting God and His requirements. Those who accept God have to live according to the standards He sets but have the promise of eternal joy. Rejecting God allows unconstrained behaviors, optional morality, and the sense of superiority over believers during this lifetime. What could possibly go wrong?

Einfach Mensch: You start by assuming there's a god to reject. Atheists have yet to see evidence of this deity beyond a book of dubious origin.

Papacy was actually subverted by the NWO revolutionaries in 1958 when John XXIII, became Pope. This was the culmination of a 200-year campaign to infiltrate and destroy the Catholic Church.

The goal was "the complete annihilation of the Catholicism and even ultimately of Christianity."

This has taken place before our eyes.

On New Years Day 2004 former Pope John Paul II called for a "new world order... based on the goals of the United Nations."

When a world leader uses this terminology, it can only mean one thing. He is a part of the Luciferian conspiracy to create a totalitarian world government.

In an Encyclical Dec. 8, 1892 Pope Leo XIII identified two Kingdoms. "The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it...The other is the kingdom of Satan...those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God."

Throughout history they have been in conflict.

"At this period, however, the partisans of evil seems to be combining together, and to be struggling with united vehemence, led on or assisted by that strongly organized and widespread association called the Freemasons. No longer making any secret of their purposes, they are now boldly rising up against God Himself."

Ironically, when Leo XIII died in 1903, a Freemason, Cardinal Mariano Rampolla, was almost elected Pope. Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria vetoed his appointment in the last moment. .

The Illuminists had to wait another 55 years to gain control of the Papacy. When Pope Pius XII died in 1958, a Freemason Cardinal Angello Roncalli, became Pope John XXIII.

The Church's traditional positions will continue to be watered down.

Around the same time, Malachi Martin said, "The Christian church is decaying, has nothing to say and is on the way out." He added that the other great religions are suffering the same fate and predicted, "A worldwide religion with one structure and institutions," managed by "one great bureaucracy. And out of that will emerge the ultimate disaster."

I present this material because it is consistent with the emerging picture of an organized Satanic Conspiracy to subvert mankind.

Only in this light can we identify the lures of the modern world -- materialism, the mystification of sexual love, and the social engineering associated with feminism, zionism, gay rights, tolerance, diversity -- as part of a diabolical process of spiritual, mental and physical enslavement.

"Modern" western society appears to be based on this conspiracy against God. Our cultural and political leaders are mostly witting or unwitting accomplices.

Eventually we will learn that real freedom lies in obeying God. The alternative is to become Lucifer's slave. The barbarism of the past century was not an aberration, but a harbinger of the future.

“"A worldwide religion with one structure and institutions," managed care that by "one great bureaucracy.”

Or a great many small independent churches under, not a bureauocracy of men, but under Christ’s headship as it was in Acts.

The globalist masons wear the same red fez caps as the muslims, they worship the same 'god'.

"Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria vetoed his appointment in the last moment."

As the implied Holy Roman Emperor? Does anyone else have such veto power now?

Nothing... everything!

Actually, it does not.

I believe it possible for human beings to conduct their affairs having never caused an honorable person to fear for life, liberty or property. I.e. what the Founding Fathers would have called a 'civilized human being'.

Irrespective of that individual's religious beliefs, their moral foundation is as christ-like as ANY other human being. Civil individuals are welcomed into all honorable communities for they offer opportunity for valuable social and economic exchange.

If such individuals are confronted by St. Peter at the gates to Heaven, what would we suppose is the price of admission to paradise? Would we be judged by our great churches, hours expended singing praises, dollars spent on 'good works'? Or might it be sufficient to honestly assert that:

You've endeavored to be a threat to no honorable citizen.

You've done your best to correct your errors.

You have shared of your surplus.

You've added wealth to your community with an honorable, free market exchange of value.

I think that BELIEF would be immaterial to a truly loving God given that many who PROFESS to believe are not nearly so virtuous. It's not about THOUGHTS so much as DEEDS free of malevolence.

"Correct your errors" based on what standards? I do not mean this in a confrontational sense, I seriously am wondering.

The Prime Directive of civil behavior: "First do no harm". If I have violated somebody's liberty by error or neglect, I am obligated to correct the effects of that act . . . it's called 'justice'.

Our national bastardization of the term is profound. Yeah, the 'justice system' is ready, willing and able to seek out perps, lock 'em up, defend and prosecute and perhaps incarcerate for decades . . . all on the taxpayer's dime.

Real justice calls for making amends to the victim. Civil citizens are never guilty of malevolent affronts to liberty so injustices tend to be small and more easily remedied. In any event, it's a matter to be taken up between the perp and the victim . . . not the bureaucratic machine that claims to have the nation's best interests in mind.

You set good terms and I would generally agree. Some would certainly argue the definition and extent of the word "harm" but that is a bit esoteric. What, if any, cause is there for others to abide by these standards? Certainly there could be the individual use of force but that would constitute harm by definition. Except that the standard set would then require a clause that harm would be moral to prevent harm from being done.

My point being, in order for a society to function, there must be at least a minimal level of agreement on the terms of what constitutes morality. If everyone can make up their own, chaos is inevitable. This is why I believe that, even though they find religion abhorrent, the moral stability it generally tends towards is a benefit to all.

Anything you do with, against or on behalf of another person carried out with malevolence is harmful. The malevolent, despotic progressive, administrative state is a find example of 'harm' on a continental scale.

Tossing your trash into the neighbor's yard is harm on a much smaller scale. Making snide tweets about your girfriend's other suitors is smaller still . . . but malevolent nonetheless.

How hard is it to NOT bring such forces to bear against another individual? NOT doing something is perhaps the easiest task of all.

In an absence of malevolent behaviors, is there value to be secured with friendly interaction? Don't know until you communicate . . .talk, write, share thoughts, perhaps take on tasks that neither of you could accomplish independently.

This is what Adam Smith referred to as the 'invisible hand'. Others have called is 'spontaneous order'. The idea has been around for thousands of years. It simply suggests that any group of individuals faced with the challenges of living are naturally endowed with the ability to do the best that can be done given resources presently at hand.

This is called the civil society. A condition that is easily disrupted by malevolent behaviors that don't participate but plunder instead. The idea of the civil society is the gift articulated in our nation's founding documents. It 's also the the most christ-like of behaviors as articulated in Christian teachings and echoed in other honorable beliefs.

Some would call it enlightened self interest. I am all in favor, I just lack the faith that the majority of our current society could live by these guidelines. When my money is stolen from me in the form of taxation to provide for a large number of people who choose not to provide for themselves, I define that as doing harm.

Precisely. People often confuse 'self interest' with 'selfishness'. You obviously understand that until you achieve and independently, self-sufficient membership in the civil society, your value to others cannot reach its full potential. The most successful among us can have a great deal to share . . . because their successes are demonstrations, inspiration and sources of any surplus they might care to share.

I have NO faith in the willingness of malevolent despots to exploit the gifts of the Founding Fathers. The malevolent, despotic progressive machine got toe holds in our governments and schools with the advent of Woodrow Wilson in the presidency and the Frankfurt School in the universities . . . generations ago.

Now we are plagued with teachers who do not have a clue about civil behavior, independent self sufficiency, free market exchange of value and capitalism. After three generations, we have intellectual children birthing more children who are gladly given over to more intellectual children who masquerade as 'teachers'.

One cannot teach that which is unknown. We have met the enemy and he is us.

If there is salvation on the horizon it will not come from the bought-and-paid-for citizen and foreign voters. It will have to come from what Aynn Rand called the 'motor of the world' . . . the civil society of individuals who generate ALL that is good. But it may well get very ugly and unpleasant first. I grieve for my grandchildren.

Very well put!

While the premise of this article is true, that being the lack of foundation for morality among secular humanists, the author writes from an obviously Roman Catholic perspective. He includes the statement, "If I am the measure of all things, I have no right to claim another as immoral or acting immorally because I have conceded that person is also the measure of all things and has an equally valid claim as to what is right and wrong." So far, so good. However, he continues with, "This is essentially the definition of moral relativism that began with the Reformation that splintered the Christian world..." Oops!

The author ( and most Catholics I have dealt with ) makes the argument that "moral relativism" is the result of Christians breaking from the corrupt Roman Catholic system centuries ago. In the Catholic mind, the question is, "How can I know what to believe if the Pope and his minions don't TELL me what to believe?" Having the moral responsibility to think and reason from their own knowledge of the Scriptures instead of what emanates from the lips of a fallen man is unthinkable for them.

We reformed Protestants look to the Word of God for instruction on morality, not to the opinions of fallen men in robes who claim to intercede for us. Do we disagree amongst ourselves on some minor details? Certainly! But, we do not shirk the responsibility to read, learn and interpret God's Word as individuals, responsible to God, not man.

For centuries, until after World War Two, the Catholic Church was the bastion of Western civilization and main obstacle to Illuminati world control.

Recently, the Vatican opened their secret archives and revealed their centuries-long struggle to arrest the Illuminati (i.e. Masonic) Jewish stranglehold on European politics and culture. Jewish historian David Kertzer documents this struggle in his book "Popes Against the Jews" (2001) which of course he spins as the church's role in creating anti-Semitism.

Nevertheless, the book is a treasure trove of valuable information including a graphic account of the 1840 "Damascus Affair," the most famous instance of satanic Jewish human ritual sacrifice.

Cardinal Giovanni Montini, who succeeded John XXIII as Pope Paul VI in 1963, was also a Freemason and socialist. (In 1944, Pope Pius XII had dismissed him as Vatican Secretary of State for conducting secret negotiations with the Communists.

Paul VI revealed his true colors in a speech to the United Nations in 1965: "It is your task here to proclaim the basic rights and duties of Man. You are the interpreters of all that is permanent in human wisdom; we could almost say of its sacred character."

This repudiation of the church's spiritual authority was symbolized by Paul's gift of the Papal Ring and his Pectoral Cross to Secretary General U Thant who sold them at an auction

Paul VI also embraced a sinister symbol used by Satanists in the Sixth Century, which had been revived by Vatican Two.

This was a bent or broken cross (above) on which was displayed a repulsive and distorted figure of Christ. Black magicians and sorcerers in the Middle Ages had used it for occult purposes. It represented the "Mark of the Beast."

I agree. The effort to reform the Roman church didn't take away the moral underpinnings, it simply tried to change some of the behavior.

Well said. The assertion that moral relativism 'began with the Reformation that splintered the Christian world' leaps up to discredit anything that would follow. I have argued long that the RC Church is responsible for misleading her flock for centuries. Moral relativism is the elimination of a standard of morality, the synthesis of truth and evil, the 'measure of all things' in the mind of man, not in God. Catholics are taught that the pope has the finally authority in matters of doctrine, not the scriptures as Christians believe. Good comment hosquatch.

You're judgemental and wrong, BUT you are entitled to your opinion ...

So I'm sensing the trend that if someone disagrees with you and States it your go to response is that they are being judgmental. Are you being judgmental by pointing out their judgmentalism?

But it was the Church who told you reformed Protestants what the canon of Scripture was. (Luther and Calvin tossed a few books from the canon of Scripture because they didn't comport with their views.) And the Church existed and taught the faith long before the books of the Bible were ever written. "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

https://www.gotquestions.or...

Not according to actual history. The Roman Catholic Church did not formally establish the OT canon (to include the books commonly designated as the Apocrypha) until the Council of Trent in the middle of the 16th century; before that those books were treated as more or less deuterocanonical, with some merely affirming that they are useful or instructive but not authoritative in the same way that Scripture is authoritative. It was a matter of individual conscience amongst those who had the ability to read the Scriptures. Most of the magisterial Reformers adopted that view. The canon of the NT has never been in formal dispute between Rome and the various Protestant traditions.

"If man is the measure of all things and therefore each individual's morals
are equal to those of each and every other individual, then you have to
automatically put an immoral person on the same level as oneself. It is baked right into the premise of the non believing secular humanist."

Spot on.

There is an intrinsic problem with secular humanism, a clever euphemism for materialism and atheism, that submits that there is no transcendent deity responsible for the creation of the universe, humanity, and morality.

Apparently the author considers facing reality an "intrinsic problem".

The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 to defend slavery. Now, they consider slavery to be bad. No gods showed up between then and now to change morals, so that pretty much leaves "people" as the ones who decided that morals changed.

Adding gods only makes things worse.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" -- paraphrase of Voltaire

And history remembers that it was the church that was the main force behind the abolition movement. People's ability to recognize and adhere to absolute morality does not negate its existence nor its source.

And history remembers that it was the church that was the main force behind the abolition movement.

It was on both sides, hardly virtuous.

People's ability to recognize and adhere to absolute morality does not negate its existence nor its source.

Nor does it show it actually exists.

Moral codes are no more equal than what the road codes or building codes are. However humans have ways to evaluate practicality and usefulness of road codes, and building codes, and so likewise also with the moral codes as well too

Minds are the force behind change. The OP attempts to create a mountain out of a mole hill

But, the Old Testament teaching IS thousands of years older than the SBC. Could it be that men hardened their hearts to slavery even knowing the teaching?

But, the Old Testament teaching IS thousands of years older than the SBC. Could it be that men hardened their hearts to slavery even knowing the teaching?

Like Leviticus 25:44-46? Oh wait, that says you CAN own slaves.

Okay, cite the verse for us retards.

What does the Bible say about the Jubilee year (a little further in Lev 25).

"Christians" who defended slavery under the guise of religion were violating, not just Exodus 21:16, but also Leviticus 19:18, Exodus 23:9, Exodus 22:21, Deutoronomy 23:15-16 and Matthew 7:12.

What does the Bible say about the Jubilee year (a little further in Lev 25).

Freeing slaves every 50 years is hardly laudable.

"Christians" who defended slavery under the guise of religion were violating, not just Exodus 21:16, but also Leviticus 19:18, Exodus 23:9, Exodus 22:21, Deutoronomy 23:15-16 and Matthew 7:12.

So why did you ask for a cite (which I had already given)?

First, though called slaves, they were really indentured servants.
Second, the service was not for life as was black slavery in the South. Every 7 years they could redeem their freedom. It was mandatory in the Jubilee year to cancel the indenture. The owner owned the indenture, not the man.

Do you now see a difference between Bible teaching and Southern Slavery?

First, though called slaves, they were really indentured servants.

Not the slaves I noted in Leviticus:
"45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Second, the service was not for life

Non-Israelite slaves were slaves for life, not indentured servants.

Do you now see a difference between Bible teaching and Southern Slavery?

No. You've directly contradicted what is in the part of Leviticus I cited.

“48after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; 49or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him; or if he is able he may redeem himself. 50Thus he shall reckon with him who bought him: The price of his release shall be according to the number of years, from the year that he was sold to him until the Year of Jubilee; it shall be Job 7:1; Is. 16:14according to the time of a hired servant for him. 51If there are still many years remaining, according to them he shall repay the price of his redemption from the money with which he was bought. 52And if there remain but a few years until the Year of Jubilee, then he shall reckon with him, and according to his years he shall repay him the price of his redemption. 53He shall be with him as a yearly hired servant, and he shall not rule with rigor over him in your sight. 54And if he is not redeemed in these years, then he shall be released in the Year of Jubilee—he and his children with him. 55For the children of Israel are servants to Me; they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

OK, now you're just being dishonest. You deliberately left out Leviticus 25:47:
And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by you, and your brother that dwells by him wax poor, and sell himself to the stranger or sojourner by you, or to the stock of the stranger's family:

This is when an ISRAELI sells himself to a foreigner. THEY are not "slaves for life" BECAUSE THIS IS NOW REFERRING TO ISRAELITES, which in just the previous line (which I quoted) says "You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Here it is showing the DIFFERENCE between the non-Israeli people, who COULD be made slaves for life, as compared to Israelis who sold themselves into slavery and could NOT be slaves for life. Look at the last line you quoted -- "For the children of Israel are servants to Me." The part you quoted was ONLY about "the children of Israel."

If you choose to be a slave, is that the same as aa American slave until the Lincoln War? Did they choose?

If you choose to be a slave, is that the same as aa American slave until the Lincoln War?

No, but THAT WAS ONLY FOR ISRAELITES.
As I keep telling you, non-Israelites could be slaves for life.

You are being obstinate. I asked you to cite the rest of the Lev chapter. You refused. So be it. Some form of “redeem” is mentioned 9 times in the last part of Lev 25. Redemption must be important. Even for non-Jews... like yourself. You want to make God out to be inhumane; God cannot be inhumane since He is NOT human... He created humans.

God created all men, not just the Jews. Come to God and be redeemed. Become part of God’s Family. You stand outside and whine. You think you know what slavery is. You are a slave to your unbelief. You intentionally exude hopelessness; and that will be your burden to bear for the rest of your life. I no longer care

Jesus came for all men. In the mold of Lev 25, Jesus came first for the Jew; and then for all men. All men are slaves to their own human nature... for life!. That means you Brian; you have NO hope and so you preach a message of hopelessness as the only outcome, you pick 3 verses and judge God without reading any further.

You have no God. Therefore, you have no Creator. So who gave you your inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

You need not respond. You reject God. I cannot make you accept Him. No one can. But there is more than cherry picked verses to the Bible.

You are being obstinate. I asked you to cite the rest of the Lev chapter. You refused.

Because non-Israelites could be slaves for life. It doesn't matter if there were different rules for Israelites.

Some form of “redeem” is mentioned 9 times in the last part of Lev 25. Redemption must be important.

That has nothing to do with your god being OK with making people slaves for life.

Absolutely it is OK. Just like it is OK to pitch unbelievers into the Lake of Fire.

2 ways to become an Israelite and escape slavery

Absolutely it is OK.

So I guess you finally agree that your god is OK with slavery and that I've "cite[d] the verse for us retards" as you put it.

Well. God did allow Hebrews to go into slavery in Egypt for 400 years. And God did allow the Northern half was be taken to Persia. This is history. But then God did lead them out of slavery and that is history, too. Is God pro-slavery or anti-slavery? Or is slavery a human problem? Are the rules for slavery? Apparrently only for the people of God.

I have have tried to put understanding to your 3 verses you cite. You call me a liar. What more is there to say?

Is God pro-slavery or anti-slavery?

I see you continue to dodge the question.

You call me a liar.

Because of your dishonest quoting. Your god approved of making non-Israelis slaves for life.

I did. Leviticus 25:44-46. Right there.