Not Real Religions

Religious Warfare has reared its ugly head in the Republican Party. The ZANY antics of the candidates is due to what is going on under the table, behind the curtain, due to covertly combining with politics. I predicted this ZANINESS was coming twenty three years ago, and thus I began to study the Bible. It was in my blood to do so. The hand of fate is at work here.

In 1994 convicted Watergate burglar, Chuck Colson, instigated the signing of the. What this did was create a coalition between the Catholics and the sects that rose from the Protestant Reformation, and bid members of this coalition to register as Republicans, and wage a Holy Crusade against the Democrats. Where do the Mormons stand in this CONSPIRCY to weaken pthe two-arty system, and from the Abolitionist Party of Fremont and Lincoln, give religious doctrine power over all things secular, especially the Federal Government that has been declared the enemy of Jesus. Because the Democrats allegedly promote immorality along with secular government, it is the duty of all Christians to take away the power of the government so that the Democrats can be weakened, and the Men of Jesus can step in and save America from the ruin they caused. These power hungry religious addicts are doing this for our own good! I have come to put an end to their devious ambition that eludes the light of day – and the Light of God.

The Evangelical cosmology, based upon the preaching of John Darby, is a cult, and a fraud. Mormonism is based upon fantasy, and is a cult. Catholcism is not a real religion because itis based upon the preaching of Saul/Paul of Tarsus.

What is real? The founding of the Republican Party by my kinfolk and the Radical Republicans -is real! The Fremonts backed Kossuth when he came to America. Hungarian officers who fought the Habsburgs, made up John and Jessie Benton’s bodyguard. The Habsburgs were the foremost upholders of the Catholic Faith for six hundred years. Screw Chuck Colson and the Catholic leaders who backed him in order to bring down the Democratic Party, while corrupting the Republican Party. These Catholics understood the Civil War had caused many citizens in the South to vote for Democrats. When Democrats became the party of the Liberals and the Civil Rights Movement, the Chrisitina Coalition launched a Crusade to get bigoted Southerners to register as Republicans. This evil game is being played in the dark, and thus Satan has taken charge of the Coaltion Puppets who dance like mad people on our Potlical Stage.

Several years ago I wrote a member of the Habsburg family and asked for a form so I could enter the Jeanne Ferrette contest. I was ignored. There is a good chance I descend from the Habsburgs through the Rougemont/Rosemont line. My niece, Drew Benton, is kin to the Royal Stuarts, who still believe in the Divine Right of Kings because the Stuarts are Catholics. Members of the Rosamond family were Orangeman. The Stuttmeisters were German Evangelicals that were caught up in the New Enlightenment and Rationalism. In me, in my blood, the GREAT SCHISMS – are alive! From now, to Christmas, I will make many rulings as a Nazarite Judge. I was born to Judge. I have come to Judge. Repent!

Jon the Nazarite

Evangelicals and Catholics Together is a 1994 ecumenical document signed by leading Evangelical and Roman Catholic scholars in the United States. The co-signers of the document were Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, representing each side of the discussions. [1] It was part of a larger ecumenical rapprochement in the United States that had begun in the 1980s with Catholic-Evangelical collaboration in para-church organizations such as Moral Majority during the Ronald Reagan administration.[citation needed]

The statement is written as a testimony that spells out the need for Protestants and Catholics to deliver a common witness to the modern world at the eve of the third millennium. [2]It draws heavily from the theology of the New Testament and the Trinitarian doctrine of the Nicean creed. It does not mention any specific points of theology, and instead seeks to encourage what is known as spiritual ecumenism and day-to-day ecumenism. The document was signed at a time when Protestants and Catholics were still fighting each other in Northern Ireland, long after the ecumenical movement had begun. [3]

The evangelical signatories include Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ, Os Guinness of the Trinity Forum, Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary, Mark Noll of Wheaton College, J. I. Packer of Regent College, Pat Robertson of Regent University, Larry Lewis of the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Richard Land of the Christian Life Commission, Jesse Miranda of the Assemblies of God, and John White[disambiguation needed ] of Geneva College. [4]
The Roman Catholic signatories include bishops Francis Cardinal George, William Murphy, Carlos Arthur Sevilla, philosophers George Weigel, Mary Ann Glendon, Michael Novak, Peter Kreeft, and theologians Joseph Augustine Di Noia, Avery Cardinal Dulles, Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, Keith Fournier.[citation needed]

Many evangelicals, while appreciating the goal of social agreement in the ECT document, are still opposed to the theological wording of the document. Theologians such as doctors John Ankerberg, D. James Kennedy, John F. MacArthur, and R. C. Sproul, have published concern about it “going too far” in claiming theological agreement. They emphasize that sola fide is a fundamental distinctive of evangelical theology, which fundamentally divides evangelicals and Catholics theologically, as Rome condemned sola fide at the Council of Trent and has never lifted that condemnation (“anathema”).[6]

Christian right is a term used in the United States to describe “right-wing” Christian political groups that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies. Religious conservatives principally seek to apply the teachings of particular religions to politics, sometimes by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times by having those teachings influence laws.[1]
In the U.S., the Christian right is an informal coalition of numerous groups, chiefly evangelicals and Catholics.[2][3][4] It is strongest in the South, where it comprises the core of the Republican Party.[5] Besides conservative positions on domestic issues such as opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage,[6] most of the Christian right is a strong supporter of Israel in foreign affairs.[7] There are similar, smaller movements in other countries, including Canada,[8] Australia,[9] and the Philippines.[10]

The Alienation of Southern Democrats
The alienation of Southern Democrats also contributed to the rise of the Right as a result of the counterculture of the 1960s provoked fear of social disintegration. In addition, as the Democratic Party became identified with being pro-choice with respect to abortion and with nontraditional societal values, social conservatives joined the Republican Party in increasing numbers.
[edit] Ability to organize
The contemporary Christian right became increasingly vocal and organized in reaction to a series of United States Supreme Court decisions (notably Bob Jones University v. Simon and Bob Jones University v. United States) and also engaged in battles over pornography, obscenity, abortion, state sanctioned prayer in public schools, textbook contents (concerning evolution vs. creationism), homosexuality, and sexual education.

The divine right of kings or divine-right theory of kingship is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. A weaker or more moderate form of this political theory does hold, however, that the king is subject to the Church and the Pope although completely irreproachable in other ways. But according to this doctrine in its strong form, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act.

The remoter origins of the theory are rooted in the medieval idea that God had bestowed earthly power on the king, just as God had given spiritual power and authority to the Church, centering on the Pope. The immediate author of the theory was Jean Bodin, who based it on the interpretation of Roman law. With the rise of nation-states and the Protestant Reformation, the theory of divine right justified the king’s absolute authority in both political and spiritual matters. The theory came to the fore in England under the reign of James I of England (1603–1625, also James VI of Scotland 1567–1625). Louis XIV of France (1643–1715), though Catholic, strongly promoted the theory as well.
The theory of divine right was abandoned in England during the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89. The American and French revolutions of the late eighteenth century further weakened the theory’s appeal, and by the early twentieth century, it had been virtually abandoned.
Such doctrines are, in the English-speaking world, largely associated with the House of Tudor and the early House of Stuart in Britain and the theology of the Caroline divines who held their tenure at the pleasure of James I of England (VI of Scotland), Charles I and Charles II.

The sixteenth-century Reformers accused the Catholic Church of having adulterated the primitive purity of the Gospel by the admixture of un-Scriptural doctrines and practices; consequently they designated themselves as “Evangelicals”, or followers of the pure Evangel, in contradistinction to the un-evangelical followers of Roman traditions and institutions.
Almost from the beginning the new Evangelical Church was split, first into two communions, the Lutheran and the Reformed, then into a multitude of sects which baffles the skill of statisticians. The cleavage arose through differences in the doctrine of Christ’s presence in the Holy Eucharist. Luther taught the actual bodily presence of Christ in and with the elements, though denying Transubstantiation. Zwingli and the Swiss Reformers admitted only His spiritual presence. The Lutheran and the Reformed Churches form the two great branches of Evangelical Protestantism to which all the other divisions of Protestants are subordinate. The evangelical section of the Anglican Church stands midway between the High Church and the Latitudinarian Low Church. As a proper name with strictly limited meaning the designation “Evangelical Church” applies to a branch of the Protestant Church in Germany, formed in 1817 at the instance of King Frederick William III of Prussia, by a union of the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century religious life in Germany was at a low ebb. The Rationalism and Illuminism of the eighteenth century, openly encouraged by King Frederick II (the Great), had told severely on the supernatural life of the country, especially among the Protestants. The “rights of man”, proclaimed and ruthlessly carried out by the French Revolutionists, had found a welcome beyond the Rhine and well nigh superseded the rights of God. Luther and Calvin, whilst casting off the authority of the Church, had still bowed to that of the Bible, and their followers adhered to several “Confessions of Faith” as binding on their conscience. These formulæ were now overthrown as inimical to the rights of free inquiry, as the work of men little versed in exegesis and history, as unscientific and un-Protestant. Religious life, thus deprived of its sap, was rapidly withering away. Indifference and infidelity obliterated the differences among Protestant communities and threatened for a time to sweep away Christianity itself.
The Prussian State, owing its origin, growth, and importance to Protestantism, was not sympathetic to its Catholic subjects. The Rhine Province, Westphalia, and the Polish provinces were ever ready to manifest their affection for the Catholic rulers of Austria and even of France. The House of Hohenzollern was Calvinist, the majority of the nation was Lutheran. Frederick William III, King of Prussia (1797-1840), undertook to strengthen his rule and his country by building up a united religion together with a powerful army, efficient schools, and a flourishing trade. As early as 1798 he had expressed the hope of uniting the Reformed and the Lutheran Churches by means of a common “Agenda”, or ritual. He matured the idea on his visit to England in 1814, and made the first arrangement for a union and a new liturgy in St. James’s Palace in London. It was proposed to celebrate in Germany the third centennial jubilee of the Reformation, and in anticipation of this festival he issued on 27 Sept., 1817, the memorable declaration that it was the royal wish to unite the separate Lutheran and Reformed Confessions in his dominions into one Evangelical Christian Church, and that he would set an example in his own congregation at Potsdam by joining in a united celebration of the Lord’s Supper at the approaching festival of the Reformation. It was not intended to fuse the Reformed Church into the Lutheran, or vice-versa, but to establish one Evangelical Church, quickened with the spirit of the Reformation. The epithet “Protestant” was avoided as too partisan; prominence was given to the vague term evangelical; Lutherans and Calvinists, whilst maintaining their own specific doctrines, were to form a single church under a single government and to present a united front to the Catholic Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05642a.htm

Natural religion, he asserted, is demonstrable; revealed religion is to be found in the Bible alone. But in his method of proof of the authority of Scripture recourse was had to reason, and thus the human mind became, logically, the ultimate arbiter in the case of both. Supranaturalism in theology, which it was Wolff’s intention to uphold, proved incompatible with such a philosophical position, and Rationalism took its place. This, however, is to be distinguished from pure Naturalism, to which it led, but with which it never became theoretically identified. Revelation was not denied by the Rationalists; though, as a matter of fact, if not of theory, it was quietly suppressed by the claim, with its ever-increasing application, that reason is the competent judge of all truth. Naturalists, on the other hand, denied the fact of revelation. As with Deism and Materialism, the German Rationalism invaded the department of Biblical exegesis. Here a destructive criticism, very similar to that of the Deists, was levelled against the miracles recorded in, and the authenticity of the Holy Scripture. Nevertheless, the distinction between Rationalism and Naturalism still obtained.

Lajos Kossuth de Udvard et Kossuthfalva (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈlɒjoʃ ˈkoʃuːt], archaically English: Louis Kossuth; Ľudovít Košút in Slovak; September 19, 1802 – March 20, 1894) was a Hungarian lawyer, journalist, politician and Regent-President of Hungary in 1849. He was widely honored during his lifetime, including in the United Kingdom and the United States, as a freedom fighter and bellwether of democracy in Europe.

In April 1849, when the Hungarians had won many successes, after sounding the army, he issued the celebrated Hungarian Declaration of Independence, in which he declared that “the house of Habsburg-Lorraine, perjured in the sight of God and man, had forfeited the Hungarian throne.” It was a step characteristic of his love for extreme and dramatic action, but it added to the dissensions between him and those who wished only for autonomy under the old dynasty, and his enemies did not scruple to accuse him of aiming for Kingship. The dethronement also made any compromise with the Habsburgs practically impossible.

He was the second foreign citizen to make a speech to a joint session of Congress held in the old House chamber (National Statuary Hall), Lafayette being the first. Prior to arrival he received the support of abolitionists, freemasons and Protestants, while Catholics (especially Irish) and pro-slavery groups opposed him. Secretary of State Daniel Webster wanted Kossuth’s help in the upcoming presidential election, and spoke of seeing the American Republican model develop in Hungary, although President Millard Fillmore apologised to the Austrian chargé d’affaires for what he explained was an individual unofficial opinion. His ship was greeted with a hundred-gun salute when it passed Jersey City and hundreds of thousands of people came to see him set foot in New York. Heralded as the Hungarian Washington, he was given a congressional Banquet and received at the White House and the House of Representatives. However, following his refusal to condemn slavery, William Lloyd Garrison wrote a book-length open letter to him denouncing him as a criminal.