SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : CBS NEWS Homeland Security Enlists Clergy to Quell Public Unrest if Martial Law Ever Declared

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )
PosterThread
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4502


 Re:

Brother HE_Reigns...

Quote:
Sorry once again brother Chris, but you and I will either have to choose to agree to disagree or just leave it to where I can't by any means reply to your posts.
I do not have the physical stamina to dig out all the Bible and Gov Files to show you where you are wrong and my "ego" is not there to prove I am correct.

I think you are wrong - you think I am wrong - so this will never go anywhere, except an endless battle of very lengthy posts.

It doesn't affect my feelings that you disagree with me and have different "sources" of information.

I think that you misunderstand the intent of my posts. I am by no means trying to point you out as being inherently flawed in terms of doctrine or belief. In many areas, you may be 100% correct -- even if I felt that some of the allegations in the past were somewhat "wildly speculative" in nature. But it is of little matter. Like you, I also have no ego to bruise in this matter. I simply feel that there is a need to counter opinions or assumptions that are presented as fact. This is extremely important if such allegations are damaging to another person (in this case, President Bush, who isn't here to defend himself) or could hinder another person's understanding of the matter (such as the American definition of "marshall law" and the limits thereof). No doubt, there may come a time in which "martial law" is declared on a national basis in the United States. But it cannot take place according to the limits placed in the Constitution as it exists in its current form. As a result, President Bush can only serve as President until January 2009 (even if a national "martial law" was declared). At that time, another President will take over the office of the Presidency.
Quote:
I'm a Christian first and choose to fellowship with those who allow the free exchange of opinions or convictions.
You can post all that you desire to me, but this will be all that you get - and the Love of the Saints in return.

Free exchange of opinion or conviction if certainly acceptable! But as believers, we are confined to act in a manner that is above reproach. Since when does it become acceptable for a believer to make slanderous claims about a person (such as the President) that are based upon PERSONAL CONCLUSION, and then to present such conclusions as INARGUABLE FACT? Yet your response seems to indicate that you believe that you have all of the facts that you have gathered and believe that they make your statements above question.
Quote:
I read a very edifying sermon yesterday Against "debate". There were ample Scriptures provided.

Isn't "debate" the same thing as a "free exchange of opinions or convictions?" Or are we so bold as to believe that our ideas or beliefs are above such consideration? It is an easy thing to present a one-sided argument on the merit that there is no point in discussing it. It is no more correct than presenting an accusation as fact that President Bush wants to stay in office -- yet never having met or spoken to the man or heard ANY words on which to base such an accusation.

I agree that we can disagree. But please do not offer any warnings of "double trouble" simply because I do not accept unconditionally an argument (whether the Bush conspiracy or the "1st horse of Revelation is riding" claim).

Our words, especially as believers, need to be pure. We will all be held accountable for every word, and we should be careful to remember that "life and death are in the power of the tongue" (Proverbs 18:21). We should be extremely careful about distinguishing fact from fiction, truth from rumor, and "arguable conclusion" from "indisputable prophecy."

:-(


_________________
Christopher

 2007/10/8 18:19Profile









 Re:

Quote:
ow! So President Bush told you this? You heard this? Did you read this somewhere? It is amazing -- especially since the President is bound to the Constitution. He MUST leave office by January 2009 -- even during times of crisis. At that time, he will return to being a private citizen.

Hi Chris, tis pure assumption on my part Brother. Don't mean to get anyone in a tizzy, I was not aware of the clause. :-o

I think I said that because there is so many changes in the laws that you never know what is being tampered with behind closed doors. Not that I am advocating such changes are taking place. The reason why I said this is because in Mike Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 911", a black Senator was saying that they don't even look at some of the bills that are being passed because it would take too long to go through each of them, so they just approve them. I was dumbstruck!

 2007/10/8 18:53









 Re:

Quote:
CHRIS WROTE:
Free exchange of opinion or conviction if certainly acceptable! But as believers, we are confined to act in a manner that is above reproach. Since when does it become acceptable for a believer to make slanderous claims about a person (such as the President) that are based upon PERSONAL CONCLUSION, and then to present such conclusions as INARGUABLE FACT? Yet your response seems to indicate that you believe that you have all of the facts that you have gathered and believe that they make your statements above question.



Where did I do this Chris?

THIS is why I won't answer you.

I saw a similar false charge in your earlier post - so I chose to take the non-resistant stance with you, but this is enough now Chris.
It's enough.
I'm forced now to completely ignore your posts and that is what I will do. You've broken the record for redundancy and agendas.

Even though you did a good one on Ravenhill.

It's too sad Chris. I am certainly grateful to God for the Professors I sat under decades ago - that taught me how to properly "read" what's being said.

 2007/10/8 22:20









 Re:


[b]Martial Law - Newsmax[/b]
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men's lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine's December edition, the former commander of the military's Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that the worst thing that could happen is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, ... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.

Franks then offered in a practical sense what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world it may be in the United States of America that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.

Franks didn't speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.

But Franks' scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.

The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades in the Army.

Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars for valor. Known as a soldier's general, Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.'s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when the United States was in attacked on Sept. 11.


[b]Martial Law Plan Is So Shocking, Even Congress Can't See it[/b]
Monday, July 23, 2007

President Bush's post-terror attack martial law plan is so shocking that even sitting members of Congress and Homeland Security officials are barred from viewing it, another example of executive über alles and a chilling portent of what is to come as constant reminders of the inevitability of terror attacks reverberate.
Congressman Peter DeFazio (D - OR) was asked by his constituents to see what was contained within the classified portion of the White House's plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

Since DeFazio also sits on the Homeland Security Committee and has clearance to view classified material, the request would have appeared to be routine, but the Congressman was unceremoniously denied all access to view the documents, and the White House wouldn't even give an excuse as to why he was barred.


"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack," DeFazio told the Oregonian on Friday.

"We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America," DeFazio says. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee."

"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right," DeFazio concluded.

The article also quotes Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who told the paper he "cannot think of one good reason" to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee.

"I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual, knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House," Ornstein said.

The only plausible reason DeFazio was barred access to the documents is that the plans for a post-terror attack continuity of government scenario are so abhorrent that to reveal their true nature would cause a public outcry and lead to a major repeal of what is contained in the documents.

What we already about Bush's recent spate of executive orders, and in particular PDD 51, is bad enough - the provisions outline preparations for the implementation of open martial law in the event of a declared national emergency.

New legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

It is important to understand that, although these powers have been on the books for previous presidents, Bush is the first to openly brag of the fact that he will utilize them and officially become the supreme emperor of the United States in the aftermath of a catastrophe that the government itself has said will happen on innumerable occasions.

According to columnist and author Jerome Corsi, the power grab assures that "The president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over."

Also in May, it was reported that a high-level group of government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program named "The Day After," which would effectively end civil liberties and implement a system of martial law in the event of a catastrophic attack on a U.S. city.

Last year we also exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation.

The documents that Congressman DeFazio was blocked from seeing likely interlock with both these programs and detail the overarching agenda to effectively nullify what's left of the U.S. Constitution and firmly ensconce George W. Bush as a supreme dictator.

Only by putting enough pressure on the media and in turn the White House to be transparent about what the secret martial law provisions are can we lead an effort to repeal them before the next terror attack, whether real or manufactured, takes place.

The last line in President Bush's recent PDD 51 states: (24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, [u]consistent with applicable Executive Orders.[/u]

 2007/10/8 22:27
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Shared

HE_Reigns,

Quote:
Where did I do this Chris?

THIS is why I won't answer you.

I saw a similar false charge in your earlier post - so I chose to take the non-resistant stance with you, but this is enough now Chris.
It's enough.
I'm forced now to completely ignore your posts and that is what I will do. You've broken the record for redundancy and agendas.

Even though you did a good one on Ravenhill.

It's too sad Chris. I am certainly grateful to God for the Professors I sat under decades ago - that taught me how to properly "read" what's being said.



This is totally unnecessary, especially that last part ... I too am just as frustrated with the same things our brother has brought up here and recently elsewhere as was mentioned. This has often been the blight upon this fellowship and something I have struggled with immensely to convey time after time after time. This whole business of climbing into others heads, putting either thoughts or words into their mouths, turning their words around, the suspicions and digs, the haughtiness and spite, pride ... smarminess and smugness, flippancy ... this "I know your type" mentality. Christian! The noble Name you are called to and by, [i]these things ought not to be![/i].

Something must be understood about this form of communication that it does not always mean what we might think when it comes to who is being addressed in any given context, it can both be general and\or specific .. if it is unclear, ask a question, ask for a clarification but for the Lords sake don't do this ... enough, it is enough. I am speaking out of your specifics here sister as I am in general, because the general is warranted. Compliments your dig was ill advised ... it just doesn't work here in this setting, any wonder people why we frown upon politics? It just cannot be handled without it coming apart, which is too bad, it ought not to be ...

Chris is right about the main point of this and that is the realm of 'facts' and opinion, it goes far beyond this particular topic, far beyond it. I am often reticent to bother to bring it up anymore, the amount of things taken on gratis, without examination, without even the nobility of a fair hearing ... whatever it is. Worse, the flip-side to this is the sinister assumption to point out that [i]fact[/i] is taken as a promoting of an opposite point of view. I have wanted to state it so often as the issue is not the issue! Which sounds almost contradictory but we can be talking about transmissions and it wouldn't make a difference.

Some of you and I do not know if I want to apologize if it sounds to accusatory, but some have not been here long enough to be making these kinds of judgments about the Brethren, a brother like Chris .. let me just say that this is [i]rare[/i] indeed, he has been the model of charity and fairness through these years and even this is hardly elevated. I do not know what some will bring to this forum of experience elsewhere or just what they might think this setting is ... but if anything it is decidedly not ... this. Read the disclaimers again, they are not hard and fast rules, we give as much patience and grace, place to correct and repair and unravel as is .... humanly possible, spiritually ...

Please, I am not angry nor overly emotional, difficult to ascertain how this all 'sounds' and this instance is not isolated to just these quotes above ... I don't know, I do not know if I will ever get this expression straight ...

Grieve not the Holy Spirit? Honestly, saints ...


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/10/8 23:20Profile









 Re:

Hi Brother Crsschk. I believe there's been a lot of misunderstanding here.

So much intermingled within responses that I could barely take the time to copy the posts, to take them both off-line to respond line by line.

If I believe we are in Daniel 8 and many many do, and feel that, from out of the horn of the "he goat" will rise the antichrist - and have read scores of documents and reputable news sources, saying that this next war with Iran will bring in the antichrist one world system - and that from Daniel 7 the four beasts - that represent the four horsemen makes all the sense in the world. The "he goat" goes out conquering and to conquer the ram with the two horns - Iraq and Iran.

We discuss this openly and fairly on another forum and no one's hair raises over it - so I was not aware that here it would.

Other people's posts were being quoted inside of posts directed at me, as if I had said those things also. That is what I meant by learning how to read. To be made to look like the one who spoke something within a retort to oneself, when that was not the case.

My only concern was this issue at hand and that has been in the News quite a bit and how it would affect the Body of Christ, should this Something Horrible happen, and they are not prepared for, nor knowlegable about what takes place during Martial Law. I picture in my mind all of the time, the mothers holding babies and being scared out of their wits.
That is my only burden on this subject and why I've posted what I have.
I don't like Christians being taken by surprize or frightened by things that someone could have forewarned them of.

My difference with Chris, is that he states his politic views as "fact" and yet has not ceased to deride the fact that I said I believe the red horse is next [Russia's involvement in we attack Iran] - this next world war that everyone is talking about. I have thousands of reasons to believe this is the war that will bring in all that we've all read about and as I've said, even James Dobson gave a whole week of programming just on this one topic alone - of Exek 38.

I've tried to post those reasons here and there, but "politics" will always enter in and then there is this feeling that unless we agree with Chris' political views, we'll hear about it - either from a long post from him or from you.

I too am posting in the love of Christ - but my main concern is for those who have never heard of Martial Law and have no idea that entire families could be split up in such an event and relocated from and lose their homes.
I've read about this now for 10 years and it is not true that the Constitution will stay intact nor that whoever is President at the time will not remain in power, because elections would be put off. Yet Chris has his sources and will not even give any of us the benefit of the doubt that he may be reading things written from secular sources only and again, all his political views are always stated as fact. And I tried to keep things as much as possible with Bible Prophecy - yet politics is intermingled with Bible Prophecy and then off it goes to flag waving, instead of looking at the Bible accounts of what will happen in these last days.
How can I approach this brother crsschk?

I avoid arguing like the plague and lost words after Chris' two posts to me on this thread.
His opinions are stated as facts and the rest of us are "conspiracy theorists" or worse.
I didn't say he should listen to "me" as a "Prophet" but that there are those who are given by God to warn of the dangers to come, that should be listened to and that is what some of you had been praying for, since I read a post back from 2003 where even you had said regarding Ravenhill's desire for them, that you also wondered what we do with any prophets here.

I feel God is trying to speak to us mainly and foremost to get our dependency on this world's systems out of our system and that is mainly all I've tried to express - because if we don't - we won't be in any postition for any future persecution of the church. That's all I care about brother - that the Saints are prepared to trust in Him and Him only and not stand by the corrupt systems of this world and yes, even in this country I'm afraid is not a righteous nation anymore.

I see the Body as a Whole and posted what I did as just a way to get the people ready for what many have felt is on it's way on every Forum I've viewed and every decent website, except the Rich Warren types.

God Bless you and I pray that motives could be seen here beyond my inability to reply in a line by line debate fashion.

His Love and mercy to all. Amen

 2007/10/9 2:57









 Re:

HE_Reigns said

Quote:
The "he goat" goes out conquering and to conquer the ram with the two horns - Iraq and Iran.



Sister, be very careful how you interpret scripture. I don't know whether you arrived at this interpretation on your own, or by reading someone else's ideas...

...but the only fool-proof method of interpreting scripture is [i]with[/i] scripture.

Now, a [i]ram[/i] is an uncastrated male sheep - whether the sheep is domesticated or wild, it is still called "ram".

"Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had [i]two horns[/i]: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last." (DAN 8:3)

"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had [i]two horns[/i] like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." (REV 13:11)

I believe it's more likely that the "ram" is the "dragon in sheep's clothing" from Revelation... which means, the apostate church (or, by extension, apostate Christendom, the West, America, etc)...

Just a thought.

 2007/10/10 1:06









 Re:

Dan 8:20 The ram which you saw with two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

I've only studied eschatology for 30 years and I mean that in humility because I know apologetics Professors that are 30 years older than me, so I feel like a baby.

You are absolutely right though - that only Scripture interprets Scripture and eschatology cannot be studied unless absolutely every verse from Gen to Rev are before you and compared and exegeted, using every historical and lingistic tool available.

Thanks for the thread's topic.
Take care and stay well.

 2007/10/10 11:54









 Re:

Quote:
Dan 8:20 The ram which you saw with two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.



lol... all I had to do was read sixteen more lines for the answer! Oops!

 2007/10/10 14:07









 Re:

HE_Reigns,

UFC, In Revelation, Babylon (called Assyria in Dan 8) is a juggernaut that rides upon the nations of the world...

How then can Iraq fulfill this point of scripture? Other than being located on the exact soil where ancient Assyria once stood?

I mean, Iraq hasn't "ridden" all the nations of the world... I can think of two nations that have, but they're not in the Middle East.

Thoughts...?

 2007/10/10 15:03





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy