Peace as a concept is good. Jesus even says, "Blessed are the peacemakers". But just because the consequence of something else is peace, doesn't mean that thing is automatically good as well. For example, if the only reason you're in a state of peace is because (for example) you're being sedated against your will, is that still "good" just because it yields "peace"? No, and likewise, the NWO's "peace" isn't good, either.
The NWO's frequent talk of "peace" comes from words and vague concepts that sound good on paper, but are then mixed in with other ideas that are ultimately more dangerous than they appear. "A little leaven..." The idea of various races and cultures working together, for example, is a fraction of the NWO's agenda. And despite what some far-right and alt-right ""Christian"" nationalists/racists would claim, there is nothing wrong with this. This idea, in and of itself, is entirely harmless. Race (from what I understand) comes from where one lives in relation to the equator. Darker-skinned people tend to live closer to the equator, and lighter-skinned people tend to live further away from it. That's it. There is nothing that should inherently cause conflicts between other races -- ESPECIALLY according to the teachings of God. Likewise, just because different cultures do things slightly differently doesn't mean one is more wrong or right than another. The Bible, inspired by God (a culturally impartial deity), should be our measuring stick for righteousness, not our own personal upbringings. The Greeks were not Israelites, and yet managed to join the church along with the Hebrew apostles. I'm no expert in the cultural aspects of ancient Greek or Israeli culture, but I feel pretty confident assuming both were quite radically different things. I do know, of course, that Greek culture emphasized philosophy far more than the Israelites did.
The problem is when these harmless ideologies are tied into harmful ones. The idea of a "one world religion" probably sounds good to those who aren't very dedicated to any one side, especially those who are just soooooo tired of "all the wars they heard were caused by religions". The problem is, there is a spiritual side to the concept of "religion". Religion is not the same as philosophy, though the two can certainly work hand-in-hand. Philosophy is a worldview. Worldviews are not objective, impersonal phenomena. Worldviews can change with time. Religion is one's spiritual interactions and studies in the physical world. Religion cannot simply be deconstructed and pieced back together in the same way that philosophy can, because religion is based on objectively existing phenomena, that still exist even when you stop thinking about them. Either there is a Hell where unbelievers go, or there is not. Either our souls are reincarnated, or they are not. Either we can project ourselves into other dimensions, or we cannot. Our beliefs on these things can differ, but at the end of the day, religion is more of a science than a philosophy. A science of the spiritual. Our hypotheses can differ, but ultimately, one is right, and the others are wrong. To imply that these hypotheses should be melted together (rather than studied and either proven or disproven to the very best of our ability) not only demeans the concept of "religion" on a moral level, but objectively misrepresents its core concepts.
Mohammed, who denied Jesus' equality with God, cannot sit side-by-side with Jesus Himself, who taught that He was divine (but simply did not regard it as something to be exploited for His own benefit). Buddha, who was either agnostic or atheist, cannot sit side-by-side with Mohammed or Jesus, who both insisted on the existence of a deity. This isn't because Buddha and Jesus were hateful bigots who sought to bring down others through force, using their "beliefs" as a shield for their boiling hatred of others, but rather, because there is an ultimate truth to all this -- an ultimate truth that exists regardless of who talks about it or makes hypotheses about it (this needs to be stressed). And "religion" is not merely opinions. Religion is the study of an ultimate truth. The NWO attempts to paint religion as a matter of opinions, but it's not. People may have opinions about religions, but this is no different from secular science, where hypotheses are always being proposed and tested, and theories are being challenged. Science still seeks an ultimate truth in the physical world regardless of the opinions of scientists, and likewise, religion still seeks an ultimate truth in the spiritual regardless of the opinions of religious people. Can "religious people" technically work together to discover that ultimate truth? I suppose, to be completely objective, there is a theoretical possibility that this could occur, but it'd be a waste of time. The truth has [already] [been] [revealed] [in] [full].
Note my previous statement is not meant to be taken as one of intolerance or dismissal. If it weren't for the existence of demons, Hell, and so on (which exist regardless of whether I choose to "believe in them" or not), I really would not care if somebody were a Buddhist or Hindu or Zoroastrian or what have you. But for reasons that I fully admit are beyond my current understanding, God has chosen to create Hell, and people will be sent there. This is not my "worldview", this is the truth. If you want my personal worldview, we could go into the semantics that Romans 14 tells us are not very important, like my belief that it's okay to eat meat. My belief that Christians should NEVER speak in "tongues". My belief that literally any theological work outside of the Protestant Bible (including Catholic apocrypha etc) should be taken with a grain of salt. My belief that the "sacred traditions" of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are vain, pointless nonsense. These are all a mix of philosophy and study of "religion".
But the NWO would have us believe that the very core basis of these things is, in and of itself, a fluid concept, and ultimate truth should be compromised for the sake of "peace". But in promoting this "peace", two main criticisms immediately come to mind:
1) It's as I said at the beginning of this post -- just because something yields peace, doesn't automatically mean it's good. In forsaking truth and the objective consequences of our spiritual interactions, in favor of avoiding conflicts with others, we cancel out one danger only to replace it with another. Not doing one's homework on the spiritual can yield very dangerous consequences in both this life, and in the next life. The spiritual cannot be ignored because discussion of it causes disagreements -- I can attest to this myself. (Note that post is NOT a complete account of everything I went through.) We NEED to have these discussions and we NEED to learn about the truth, otherwise a much more dangerous force than mere conflict will be able to take hold of our lives and our souls.
(Note also, it is not my intent, nor is it most other people's intent to cause disagreements through our insistence on the pursuit of objective truth, but there are those who cannot accept disagreement and will turn it into a matter of serious contention -- even to the point of war -- rather than one of civil discussion. These are the ones who ultimately cause the problems, not those of us who merely bring the points up. (If we're speaking in a human sense. If we can speak in supernatural terms, it's the demons who tempt humans to wrath. Nevertheless we should still not give into their temptations, and are guilty of our trespasses unless we seek forgiveness through Jesus' sacrifice.))
2) It's quite hypocritical of the NWO to be talking about "peace" in the first place, given their influence over governments. Think about all the wars waged in the name of human greed, of human power, of natural resources, and so on. "Peace" can then be thought of as more of "complacency" than actual "peace" when it comes to the NWO's agenda. ............. And this (already very significant point) is only what I feel comfortable accusing them of publicly, to say nothing of the other, even more serious allegations that have been raised against the NWO by conspiracy theorists. I won't say what those allegations are, though I'm sure most people reading a post like this are already aware of the sort of things I'm referring to, but even if those are somehow not true, the NWO has no place to be talking about peace, regardless.
May God bless you all and guide you, according to His perfect will. In Jesus' name. Amen.
PS. Why would they promote "peace" at St John the Divine, when they have a statue of Christopher Columbus? Somebody who MANY (myself included) do NOT want honored because of how horrible of a person he truly was.
PPS. Unlike many conspiracy types, I hold as little ill-will toward the NWO as possible. I pray for those involved in the Illuminati and so on, that they would see the error of their ways and learn of the true joy and peace and knowledge found in the righteousness of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment