America’s Abomination - Part 2 -

(Updated 9/21/13)
Post 300

I cautioned you against making your conclusions before we completed this thought, and now I warn you again. It is far too easy to find someone to blame and then make them “the enemy,” which automatically justifies “my right side” of the created conflict. This mentality is the foolish self-creation of “right-and-wrong”; “Yin-and-Yang,” all from within the same circle of wickedness propounding the glories of the obviously white/right side against the obviously despicable black/wrong side, and so going into conflict confidently in the name of God these believing themselves righteous take holy pleasure in the bloodshed thinking that they do God service (Mark 13:12, John 12:9-11, 16:2). This is not my goal or intent for presenting the information and you should be alarmed if this “blame” mentality has sprung up in your Christian heart. Please remain objective as we search through the layers of destruction with the effort to make a clear discovery of what was-- and still is-- true and honest, just and pure, lovely and of good report; We are looking for the “old ways” (Jeremiah 18:11, Zechariah 1:4), the “old paths” (Jeremiah 6:16, Psalms 17:4-5, Isaiah 58:12, Job 8:8-13) that contain evidence of virtue and are worthy of praise (Philippians 4:8). Discriminating and choosing one path from the other is not wicked, but making “them” the enemy is (Matthew 5:43-45). We are all woeful humanity easily susceptible to wickedness. Wickedness is the enemy. Now, let’s continue:
* * *

What exactly is an abomination?
Although we tend to think from our conservative perspective that the word and concept were exclusively for “our godly use” when considering “them,” it is curious that the first-mention in scripture speaks of what is an abomination to the Egyptians 400+ years before the Hebrews were even a nation:

“…because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an (8441) abomination unto the Egyptians” Genesis 43:32.

“… for every shepherd is an (8441) abomination unto the Egyptians” Genesis 46:34.

(See also Exodus 8:25-27 in this chain of thought for a bit of related common-courtesy wisdom that would avoid creating an unnecessary social uprising in a Godless society-- in otherwords, don’t be unnecessarily provocatively obnoxious if you or your customs are the abomination in the land where you find yourself).

So now if the Hebrews can be an abomination to Pagans we are left to ask the question; “What actually makes something abominable?”

abomination: 8441 tow’ebah or to’ebah; feminine active participle of 8581; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:-- abominable (custom, thing), abomination.
8581 ta’ab; a primitive root; to loathe, i.e. (morally) detest:-- (make to be) abhor (-red), (be, commit more, do) abominable (-y), X utterly.

But wait. If the custom of a people is to worship idols, and so idol worship is not something morally disgusting to them, is idol worship then somehow not abominable? If something is not morally disgusting or abhorrent to a culture (such as cannibalism or rape) then by definition it is apparently not abominable?

This of course works very well for us when we choose to Change the values in our culture; what once was an abomination becomes not abominable anymore: Prostitution, fornication, adultery, sodomy, transgenderization, child molestation, abortion, theft, legalized: drugs, gambling, slave wives, honor killing, bestiality, etc., etc., etc., these are simply democratic choices of progressive change that alter the nature of the nation but can hardly be called abominations… right? Clearly the meaning of abomination is describing the outside fringe in the natural Evolution of changing values. Those “old die-hards” who can’t keep up with the latest cosmopolitan society are simply standing in the way of natural social Evolution as evidenced by the recent reaction to the Russian pole-vaulter’s comments regarding, not Homosexuality but, the organized non-Russian homosexual protest against Russia’s laws banning Homosexual propaganda to Russia’s minors (*1). Apparently these visitors to Russia feel that Russia should have no right to their own social determination of what is and is not abominable, yet should be required to adopt theirs because…it’s theirs? Clearly these guests must be basing their demanded values on some “unquestionable” universal standard of right and wrong to which Russia must be forced to comply, but what is it? Where does that standard come from for Russia to make an honest evaluation of it? Do these guests really suppose their own personal values must be accepted globally without question? Are the Sodomites really such a global democratic majority that they can make their universal demands based on opinion alone? Hardly. So where is their reason, their logic, their Supreme moral Law of nature that supports their angle? “Because I want you to”? is that it?

How does all this relate to our American archeological dig through history?
We have discovered the 1870 change in our form of government thinking, that fundamentally altered our application of the word abomination. And after 1962-63 America has taken up the 8441 Egyptian perception of the definition because other than emotional social opinion we now have no other opinion available to us for evaluation purposes.
But by exploration of the “old ways” we discover that the Hebrews had a different application definition for the word. In the Hebrew’s use of the word, first-mention is regarding God’s Laws for consuming the commanded sacrifice:

“And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice…be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted…it shall be an (6292) abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity” Leviticus 7:18.

Abomination: 6292 pigguwl or piggul; from an unused root meaning to stink; properly, fetid, i.e. (figuratively) unclean (ceremonially):-- abominable (-tion, thing).
Fetid: having an offensive smell; stinking.

Now while this has a general similarity to the previous meaning we note that society has no hand in making the determination of what stinks or not in this case. Not only is stench a law of nature but by being a part of the ordained ceremony of nature’s God it is God who gets to confirm that determination by revelation. This is not a Democratic opinion but an untouchable Republican Law: In the Middle East climate meat left after three days becomes putrid and unhealthy. Anybody feel like legislating that away? No? Let’s continue.

In the next Hebrew use God identifies acceptable and unacceptable seafood for the Hebrews:

“And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an (8263) abomination unto you: They shall be even an (8263) abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in (8262) abomination” Leviticus 11:10-11.

Abomination: 8263 sheqets; from 8262; filth, i.e. (figuratively and specifically) an idolatrous object:-- abominable (-tion).
8262 shaqats; a primitive root; to be filthy, i.e. (intensively) to loathe, pollute:-- abhor, make abominable, have in abomination, detest, X utterly.

Now filth vs. stink; that’s pretty close, and this root sounds even more like the Egyptian-use definition, but there is a very specific element missing: Social opinion.
In fact it makes very clear that to violate this untouchable law is to act in idolatry by making an idol of this perhaps desired but filthy food over God’s clear command to abstain (I Samuel 15:23), including even having their carcass in possession. This sounds quite reminiscent of Eve’s desire to eat the forbidden fruit because it appealed to her (Genesis 3:6). You know when you think about it; almost to the animal, every aquatic species that does not have fins and scales indiscriminately eats dead things and garbage from the bottom like bacteria in a septic system. That is kinda’ filthy wouldn’t you agree?… Crab anyone?
This 8263 use of filthy abomination continues through the various food groups of the Hebrew diet, and it is here that we begin to see a social reaction to such “ridiculous” laws, but for no other reason than it forbids foods that we don’t want to give up. Yet the fact is that our Eve-like desire does not change the fact that it is an untouchable Law of God by revelation if not by nature itself… whether we agree with it or not. Do we now figure that our modern advanced superior scientific knowledge is better than The Maker’s because we haven’t discovered any consequence… yet?
Here is what I know; God does not toss random rules around just to be irritable. And true to our temporal-reality-Type example, many people dying of high blood pressure refuse to give up the food that is killing them for no other reason than… they don’t want to! Insane, right?! and that’s with the easy stuff:

Now we come to God’s laws regarding sodomy, and other likewise social laws:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is (8441) abomination” Leviticus 18:22.

This word is in fact the very same word as that used for the Egyptians perspective:

abomination: 8441 tow’ebah or to’ebah; feminine active participle of 8581; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:-- abominable (custom, thing), abomination.
8581 ta’ab; a primitive root; to loathe, i.e. (morally) detest:-- (make to be) abhor (-red), (be, commit more, do) abominable (-y), X utterly.

But unlike the Egyptians, by now, as God’s people, we have a clear progressing trend of understanding of just who it is that determines what is abominable. It isn’t society… or our guests. So now we see that this conduct is socially disgusting and abhorrent, not because the people deem it so but because Nature’s God does. It’s His society and his rules;

“Thus when the supreme being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When he put that matter into motion, he established certain laws of motion, to which all moveable bodies must conform. And, to descend from the greatest operations to the smallest, when a workman forms a clock, or other piece of mechanism, he establishes at his own pleasure certain arbitrary laws for it’s direction; as that the hand shall describe a given space in a given time; to which law as long as the work conforms, so long as it continues in perfection, and answers the end of it’s formation” - Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England First Edition Vol.1 1765 “Of The Nature of Laws in General” p. 38.

And as a Christian society we are likewise to agree with God, and with this foundation of social agreement with God the definition that the Egyptians used can also be used for our society because we choose for ourselves to agree with God and declare this thing abominable as if it was our own idea. American law once declared Sodomy an abomination.
It really doesn’t matter if the people later disagree or change their minds regarding this topic, the untouchable Laws don’t change and it’s ours to figure out if we want to fruitlessly kick against it or accept it: “There’s the Law, will you obey it or pay the natural price for rebellion?” Modern Americans-- even Christians-- have a hard time with Laws of God that they don’t like. So like a husband with a rebellious wife (that he still loves) he sadly says in grace under the blood of Christ; “Go ahead, do what you want if it makes you happy, you’re still my wife,” but that doesn’t eliminate the natural consequences of the Law put into effect at the Creation of the world…for believers and Pagans alike. The Laws are unchanging. And in Type, God the husband still loves his wife even when she dies of cancer or heart disease brought on by eating what is forbidden. Likewise God does not technically send people to hell; they get there by their own hand through natural cause and effect much as a smoker dies of cancer.

So getting back to our topic of God declared Abominations regarding such things as Sodomy; what happens when the whole of a Christian society no longer feels that this conduct is abominable? If their democratically minded lawmakers change their social laws and nobody sees it as abominable anymore, is it now not an 8441 abomination? The answer must be that it is still an abomination because changing that Law in this form of Government is not within their right and power to do. Whatever they democratically enact into law is irrelevant and powerless if it violates the Law of God (*2). Just because they pass a law for society does not change the nature or state of the abomination before God to whom they must answer. This is because, unlike the Egyptian’s Godless determination of what is and is not abominable, the Hebrews had a voluntary Republic unto God and not a Democracy. God was their King and this they agreed to:

“And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses” Joshua 24:22 (see also Deuteronomy 29:10-15).

The God-ordained covenant of circumcision was their un-retractable vow of belonging to God as a marriage, and was God’s likewise un-retractable testimony that he would be their faithful God as a husband. That fact of “being married” frankly didn’t change if they later changed their minds from an adulterous heart-- as God knew they would (Deuteronomy 20:18, 29:16-21)-- and as a faithful husband God was committed to this relationship come “hell or high water,” pre-knowing by experience that there would be some Genesis 7 style “high water”~. Isn’t this what a marriage vow is? “For better or worse, in sickness and health, till death do us part” (Ezekiel 16:59-60). Isn’t this why Moses (and therefore God) stayed with them in the wilderness after they refused to enter the Promised Land?
Do you understand? God did not hold them prisoner as if they were a slave wife, and although it was destructive to the relationship, as a free wife they were liberated to do whatever their wicked heart wanted to do-- and they did. God simply and sorrowfully withdrew his abundant gifts of aid and protection when they began to abuse him and the relationship-- as any husband would. To continue financing her waywardness after it became wickedness is to aid-and-abed her illicit conduct and become a libel party. But in her self-focused heart of lust she hated him for holding back, as if He was the bad-guy… which obviously made things worse not better. Eventually things can only go so far till the whole thing comes crashing down.
* * *

America, in Type of the Hebrews, agreed to make the Son of God their king and follow His laws right from the 1620 start by the Mayflower Compact (*3), and they held this commitment consistently through the official establishment of this nation in 1789 and well beyond until 1870. This is what made America a Christian nation and that joyful beginning was “by happen chance” the time when she was the great and glorious envy of the planet, who long before the 1886 erection of the Statue of Liberty (*4), not only blessed the world by subduing the 1790s Islamic scourge of the trade-rout seas, but welcomed with open arms the poor of the earth to come and start fresh, and gave the world a real hope that real Life and Peace and Liberty and Happiness were actually possible in an otherwise dark world of oppression. Sure, sometime after that marriage she began to struggle earnestly with a growing wayward heart through the influence of bad company, but in love of her freedom God extended benevolence to her dubious desires of luxuries and parties, and she grew to expect it as His marital duty (Psalm 106:15). This longsuffering tolerance for what pleased her but broke his heart, allowed her heart to run to even more wild ways of fun and pleasure as the relationship grew colder. In 1870-- only five years after a very bloody family conflict regarding who should wear the pants in the family (*5)-- she cited irreconcilable differences and determined to live separate lives of Church and State each with their own values, and in 1963-64 she sought further legal injunction to keep Him from seeing the children, except on Weekends when she wasn’t around. In 2009 by the mouth of the highest quasi- representative she demanded an amicable divorce because she wanted to “see other men” on an equal basis, or none at all at her pleasure:

“…We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation, we consider ourselves a nation of [generic] citizens, who are bound by [generic] ideals and a set of [secular] values.” - Obama in Ankara Turkey (2009).

But what the United States of America is now actually asking God for is not a divorce per se but an “open relationship.” She promises to continue accepting alimony and any gifts he wants to provide at her asking, and even sing God bless America with great emotion when things get bad and she needs His extra help like as on 9/11, but he is so pig-headed and she just can’t be expected to remain faithful to only one man, and frankly it is selfish of him to demand it. America doesn’t hate God she just doesn’t want to be “tied down” by anyone as rigid as Him; she wants to be free to play like she is young and “wild-and-single” again. The problem is that she isn’t…single. This makes them both unhappy but for different reasons.
She knows by the long history of her unfaithfulness that he wont divorce her, so now her confident ultimatum to her sickeningly devoted God is; “Accept my promiscuous lifestyle and all my lovers, or give me a divorce. You don’t own me.”
This is not a good thing… as ancient Israel already tried that tactic with unfavorable results (Jeremiah 3:6-14 + 4:14-22, etc.):

“As I live, saith the Lord GOD, (infamous) Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters (subordinate cities), as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters… Neither hath (notoriously wicked) Samaria committed half of thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they” Ezekiel 16:48-51.

If you will remember Sodom and Samaria both got suddenly hit pretty hard. They are indeed to this day bywords of warning regarding wickedness.
But I am proposing that if you went and read what is written at the (…) you would say; “That’s it?! That is what their iniquity was?” This total lack of recognition of what God calls abomination to the degree it deserves utter and complete destruction should in fact alarm you greatly that you and God do not agree on what is abominable. In fact it kind of confirms that you are already participating in this wickedness and see nothing wrong with it. The problem is that you don’t get to determine what is abominable after God already established it.

So, if America lost her way clear back in 1870 and we have come to this present pathetic state as a result, what is it that Obama is committed to fundamentally transform? “Ain’t he a bit late?”
No, Not really… He is in fact right on time.
* * * * * * *

(*1) Olympic pole-vault champion Yelena Isinbayeva has come under fire from LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] activists after defending Russia’s controversial “gay propaganda” law. After some athletes branded her “homophobic,” she has rejected the accusation she is anti-gay.
LGBT rights and sporting events have become closely linked in Russia after numerous calls from activists and politicians to boycott the Sochi Winter Olympics in a protest against the legislation.
On Thursday [Aug. 22, 2013] Isinbayeva, one of Russia’s most famous athletes and the face of the Moscow World Athletics Championships, commented on a protest by Swedish athletes Emma Green Tregaro and Moa Hjelmer, who painted their fingernails in rainbow colors in support of LGBT rights.
The protest was disrespectful toward Russia and its laws, Isinbayeva told reporters.
"Maybe we are different than European people and people from different lands. We have our law which everyone has to respect,” Isinbayeva, 31, said at an English-language press conference. “When we go to different countries, we try to follow their rules. We are not trying to set our rules over there. We are just trying to be respectful."
Isinbayeva said that heterosexual relations are historically considered “normal and standard” in Russia and that “if we really allow [gays] to promote and do all this stuff in the streets,” it would cause problems.
She added that she saw no harm in gay people per se, and particularly in gay athletes competing in Russia.
"It's their life, it's their choice, it's their feelings, but we're just against the publicity in our country and I support that," Isinbayeva said.
Isinbayeva’s comments were quick to draw fire from critics of the controversial Russian law. American middle-distance runner Nick Simmonds, who earlier dedicated his gold medal at the Moscow World Athletics Championships to his LGBT friends, accused Isinbayeva of homophobia.
“It blows my mind that a young, well-educated woman can be so behind with the times. Guess what, Yelena: a large portion of your citizenship are normal, standard homosexuals,” Symmonds said in an interview with BBC Radio 5 Live. - BBC News August 23, 2013 (http://rt.com/news/isinbayeva-gay-propaganda-scandal-569/).

The reported backlash-comments went on and on, and in each one they completely ignored her point of social encouragement that suggests everyone should simply respect the laws of the nation they are guests in. Instead they attacked her as being homophobic for thinking LGBT groups should simply enjoy the Olympics and leave their political agendas at home. Apparently LGBT groups respect no one but their own values, and refusing to be content with being politely tolerated as from a different culture for a mutual advantage and respect when getting together in Russia, they constantly drive the issue to force their values upon anyone and any nation who holds values other than their own. I hate to make the connection for you but this is the same spirit of the worldwide Catholic Church, just LGBT groups are fortunately not as manipulatively savvy yet and their conduct is still openly offensive. In time, like the other, they will either grow in the power of force or will become smoother at political manipulation.

(*2) Likewise, in a reflection Type, the “untouchable” Republican Laws of the U.S. Constitution are protected from all Democratic laws written in violation:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States [granted by this Constitution], shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” - U.S. Constitution, Article VI (capitalization as original, emphasis added).

This means that any Congressional or State law, or State Constitution, or any Treaty, or even amendment to the Constitution itself, that does not conform to; (as in Pursuant to), the U.S. Constitution, is null-and-void. America does have Democratic laws and Republican Laws, Typed by those of the traditional marriage system designed by God; When there is a conflict the Republican Laws have the last word. I am not speaking of the “Yin-and-Yang” political parties that now bastardize the truth.

(*3) The Mayflower Compact - 1620:
“In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten,… Having undertaken for the glory of God, and [the] advancement of the christian faith…a voyage to plant the first Colony in the Northern parts of Virginia…” - from the Governor Bradford copy.

(*4) The Statue of Liberty:
“The statue, designed by Frederic Auguste Bartholdi and dedicated on October 28, 1886, was a gift to the United States from the people of France. The statue is of a robed female figure representing Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, who bears a torch and a tabula ansata (a tablet evoking the law) upon which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. A broken chain lies at her feet. The statue is an icon of freedom and of the United States: a welcoming signal to immigrants arriving from abroad.
Bartholdi was inspired by French law professor and politician Edouard Rene de Laboulaye, who commented in 1865 that any monument raised to American independence would properly be a joint project of the French and American peoples. Due to the troubled political situation in France, work on the statue did not commence until the early 1870s.” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty).

Continuing the thought of the last Post, it is noteworthy to contemplate that this statue was gifted by Godless friends who proposed this Pagan monument as if the timing was intended for the 100th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. It should have easily been completed by 1876.
It is also just as noteworthy to contemplate that “complexities” did not allow the work to commence until after the year that Langdell introduced the Darwinian worldview into the consciousness of American law and thereafter changed our form of government that now allows such democratic Evolutionary “adjustments” to the Republican Laws.
It is curious that such a global-scale colossus (colossal statue) of a Roman goddess would be raised on Christian American soil, and that this idol would quickly become the loved symbol that represents not only America’s cherished value of Christian Liberty, (which through blood sweat and tears, was granted to us by the God who abhors idols as abominations) but she also represents America herself… the goddess of liberty. Yet how could we possibly refuse such a Pagan gift in love, even if we wanted to? Being “liberated” now from more than the British crown we no longer have “a husband’s” untouchable Laws to point to as our excuse for rejection, and so being the lady that we are we accepted it in graciousness.
The end result is a Christianized idol of a Pagan goddess, accepted erected and loved by Christian Americans as representing something originally Godly but now shamelessly self-glorifying in contradiction to His will. Is this not the beginning of tangible confusion and abomination?

“Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image…: for I am the LORD your God” Leviticus 26:1.

“Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an (8441) abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen” Deuteronomy 27:15.

So do you suppose not actually bowing down to it, or putting it in a public place rather than a secret place, makes it OK? Are we not missing the obvious point? “For I am your God,” that brought you out of bondage. (see also; Deuteronomy 7:25-26, 29:16-17, 32:16, I Kings 15:13, etc.).

Of course we don’t bow down to this public copper thing so in the age of grace we expect God to grant us a buy (waiver), and He did (Isaiah 48:9, Hosea 4:14)… but change happens slowly over time and a buy does not stop what is set in motion (Romans 2:5, Hosea 4:17-19). First we have to set up the idol, then later in non-consequential familiarity we begin in confusion to transfer our gratitude from Him to it, as did the Hebrews at the Mountain of God, perhaps at first mostly out of boredom and entertainment as “innocent amusements” that are simply not innocent.
Is there honestly anyone who believes in Superman? Hardly, but how many Christian youth have far more bonding connection with Superman than with God… yet they claim that they believe in God? How many Catholics actually believe in the idol of Mary that they physically bow down before and pray to? But as a “proxy” of that dead woman the idol becomes OK to God who declares that He hates both idol worship and the worship of any god/goddess but Him?

“And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.”
“And he (Aaron, “the presumed Vicar of Moses”) received them (gold jewelry) at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt” Exodus 32:1,4.

Clearly they did not forget that Moses was the one who brought them out of Egypt, but without Moses being present they quickly lost confidence in Moses’ God; maybe it was the Egyptian idols that empowered Moses to bring them out. As you can see in the rest of the passage, they sacrificed to both God and the idol, “These be thy gods,” that’s fair and balanced… right? Is America the goddess provider of liberty, or is it God? Why not both? I will tell you why not; Because when Moses got back, the golden calf got burnt in the fire and ground to powder by Moses-- the returning Jesus Type (Exodus 32:15-20)-- and a large representation of the whole were punished by death. It’s always important to read to the end of the desirable wild party (Exodus 32:25) before deciding if this is really what you want to do (Exodus 32:26-35). I am betting that God does not love the Statute of Liberty like we do, and I am also confident that the average conservative American reader will find it hard not to see me as Anti-American for saying so.

(*5) The Civil War:
“The American Civil War, (also known as the War Between the States or simply the Civil War), was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 in the United States after several Southern slave states declared their secession and formed the Confederate States of America (the "Confederacy" or the "South"). The states that remained were known as the "Union" or the "North". The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery (*5a), especially the extension of slavery into the western territories. Foreign powers did not intervene. After four years of bloody combat that left over 600,000 soldiers dead and destroyed much of the South's infrastructure, the Confederacy collapsed, slavery was abolished, and the difficult reconstruction process of restoring national unity and guaranteeing rights to the freed slaves began.
In the 1860 presidential election, Republicans, led by Abraham Lincoln, opposed the expansion of slavery into United States’ territories. Lincoln won, but before his inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven slave states with cotton-based economies formed the Confederacy. Outgoing Democratic President James Buchanan and the incoming Republicans rejected secession as illegal. Lincoln’s inaugural address declared his administration would not initiate civil war. Eight remaining slave states continued to reject calls for secession. Confederate forces seized numerous federal forts within territory claimed by the Confederacy. A peace conference failed to find a compromise, and both sides prepared for war. The Confederates assumed that European countries were so dependent on "King Cotton" that they would intervene; none did and none recognized the new Confederate States of America. Hostilities began on April 12, 1861” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War).

What could have possibly created such a radically violent schism in the governance of Christian America where, in only four years of Civil War, more Americans were killed than in all of the American wars of the 20th century… combined!?
Is it any kind of stretch to consider, that the fundamentally opposing militant spirit of Darwin’s Evolutionary worldview-- made public in his 1859 book On The Origin of Species, and later expanded in his 1871 book The Decent of man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, which within the framework of world war ultimately resulting in advancing Hitler’s personal Darwinian genetic cleansing agenda (*6)-- was the same opposing militant spirit that “coincidentally” only one year after publication of that spirit’s agenda, it lead a significant number of the formerly “united” States to succeed from the union and violently contend for their democratic rights of slave ownership over the established Constitutional Republican values that declared all men are already created equal and it’s our job to legislate that into practice? Was this great American holocaust simply a coincidence of timing with the introduction of a new worldview that contended with God’s? (Numbers 25:3) It might be seen that way, if you have bought into the Evolutionary mentality that there is such a thing as undirected coincidence, but I find the interesting timing as another addition to a very complex picture emerging that leads us somewhere specific, (more on this later).
The battles and bodycounts of our Civil War (http://history1800s.about.com/od/civilwar/tp/civil-war-year-by-year.htm) read like passages out of the Old Testament (Judges 20:17-46) when God was displeased with the Jews for their “sin in the camp.”

Leviticus 4:13-21 was a sacrifice as a substitutionary “sin of ignorance” offering for the congregation as a whole, and a somewhat different approach to sin is used after they entered the Promised Land:

“But the Children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan…took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel” Joshua 7:1.

If you will remember we covered this event in Post 286 Completing The Preparation. Not only did they utterly fail in the battle of Ai, where about 36 men died, but Achan and all his family were put to death for Achan’s sin (see Joshua 5:9+7:1-15). Where was the substitutionary sacrifice now; for Israel or for our own nation’s soldiers after they “possessed the land”? (Exodus 28:42-43 vs. Leviticus 10:1-2, Leviticus 19:8 = Leviticus 10:3, Hebrews 10:26-27). The “we pay our own debts” change is found in the knowledge of culpability when the act was committed after the sacrifice had done its work:

“And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity” Leviticus 7:18.

Are you getting this? This is the sacrifice offering of peace with God that in eating as commanded (Leviticus 7:15=John 6:54-56) is supposed to show solidarity with God for forgiving what they did in ignorance, but after the third day everything changes… After the THIRD day; Three days dead before being risen again is the period of the sacrifice where by joining in consumption of it we express our fellowship with the substitutionarily sacrificed (John 6:54-56, Mark 14:24). Having been finished (John 19:30) by having died once for all (Hebrews 9:28), everything is changed after His resurrection to new life. Fully contrary to the Catholic Religion of transubstantiation, if you eat of the commanded body and blood of Christ after he has risen from the payment of your sins, then you put Christ to an open shame by crucifying him anew (Hebrews 6:6); you shall bear your own iniquity because there is no more sacrifice for sin! (Hebrews 10:26). Why? Because it should have worked for you (Ezekiel 16:62-63).
So why didn’t it? Because you are still wearing your iniquity even as you remember the sacrifice that covered it (I Corinthians 11:27, Post 280 The Noise! “Huffing is not doing drugs!”); You have not given up your sin that was forgiven! And so you have not been risen anew with him in victory and in essence preach by your failed Christian life of perpetual illusionary repenting that Christ has not been risen from the dead (I Corinthians 15:17). This is an abomination of desolating proportions. Rather we beg you with all urgency according to the Apostle Paul:

“If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your (risen) affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead (to those things), and your (risen) life is hid with Christ in God” Colossians 3:1-3.

If you have been reading my work for any length of time and agree with it, but have not chosen to apply the above passage “in real life,” then I have one last recommendation: Stop reading my work. I mean it. It is quite evident that you have no interest in actually applying what you are learning and by constantly absorbing “more Christian information” you imagine yourself slowly “getting closer” to God over time like an Evolutionary faith. Stop it! Close this right now, give your bible to someone who might actually get something out of it, and go live your life to the flesh enjoying it without the weight of Christian guilt. Whatever it is that you find in this life that is so desirable it’s worth an eternity in hell (Mark 8:36-37) will too soon be gone in a backward glance, so go get all you can while you have time left before your eternal balloon payment comes due. It’s that or stop playing games-- Right Now. (Review Post 279 Intellectual Faith).

The Civil war was in fact an issue regarding whose laws we would follow in this land. The North won the war and the North’s values sided with God’s Laws, so why only 20 years later did we erect a giant goddess on our shores to represent both America and the freedom of choice? I propose it is because even the North, while happening to side with God’s preference, was still confused as to why. It wasn’t God’s Laws that the North was following but the North’s emotional laws of “good will” (*5b) in contest with the South’s emotional laws of self-serving. In essence it was two women in a catfight, just one happened to want generically what God also desired purposefully; the liberation of mankind.
The resulting success of that very bloody battle was that in making an accidental good choice America believed the success was sourced out of the goodness of her heart. In her own eyes she became a goddess and was indeed the goddess of liberty that the green idol accurately represents. The importance of this will become clear at a later point.

Not to draw this Post-note out longer than necessary, but we have to seriously wonder why General Lee; a devout and earnest Christian (*5c), would take up arms to lead the slave holding South (*5d). He must have had many sleepless nights wondering if he was in the right and knowing that many thousands of men died BECAUSE he was the able General of the South (*5e). If not for him the South would most surely have lost quite early and the human losses would have been quite small, but being his loyalties were to State and family over Federal and politics, apparently he was reasonably confident of being in the right-- and I don’t believe his reasoning had anything to do with slavery (*5f).
Therefore it should be hard for us to reconcile that a devoted Christian earnestly following God would be used to substantially increase the bloodshed, until we remember King David in II Samuel 24.

What would have made God’s faithful man stubbornly offend God by numbering his troops (v.2)… even in the face of challenge that it was unadvisable (v.3), but then right after the 9 month 20 day deed was done he suddenly felt very guilty and repented (v.9-10)? We don’t have to wonder, God tells us why right at the start of the narration:

“And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah” II Samuel 24:1.

WHY numbering the people would be a sin that God would severely punish is not a question for this discussion, the fact that David knew this was severely wrong is clear. The question is; Why would David be so determined to do this?
The long answer is that complexities of life and circumstances must have made him feel it was necessary in spite of his misgivings. The short answer is because God already had a thing against Israel that needed this kind of punishment to cleans (*5g). The scriptures do not tell us what this cause was but we have several Type examples even from the time of Moses (Numbers 16:41-50).
Trying to keep this note short and to the point; General Lee was the capable commander of the South because God had determined that the bodycount must be high for the sin in the camp of America and he was needed to even the field to this end. What then was that sin?
Can it be seen as other than a cyclic scripturally exampled divided loyalty between democratic self-will and God’s Republican Sovereignty? But again, this is a side note and cannot be here expanded in explanation, take it or reject it, but think about it. I wish I could express how this great bloodshed is a proto-Type of that which continues across world history and will one day culminate in the greatest bloodshed of all the world’s wars… Combined! But such a discussion will have to wait.

(*5a) Was It Really About Slavery? In recent times this fact has become disputed as if Slavery was not a key or main factor that led to the Civil War. Wallbuilders.com provides the much-needed detail of the historical truth that it really was about slavery - (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=92).

(*5b) “I hope the Lord is on our side.”
This was apparently the common sentiment of the North, and even of the clergy, as evidenced by the famous quote of Abraham Lincoln in conversation with the

“…clergyman who venerated to say in his presence, that he hoped ‘the Lord was on our side.’
‘I am not at all concerned about that’ replied Mr. Lincoln, ‘for I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.’” - Francis Bicknell Carpenter Six Months at the White House, Published by Hurd and Houghton 1886, Republished by Applewood Books 2008 p. 282. (http://books.google.com/books?id=FTsl3N7hDpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=six+months+at+the+white+house+carpenter&source=bl&ots=bUkvamYWdL&sig=rWzfEd_nifcgEQhd6T3EvRsKPqk&hl=en&ei=gXt_S4fMKIOeswPcq9n8Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false).

The North believed their stand was morally just-- as it apparently was-- but the questionable wonder if God would side with their effort is firm evidence that they had their thinking all wrong! This is the independent wife who wants her husband to support and finance her willful good idea. Mr. Lincoln knew the difference and it concerned him greatly:

“Both [North and South] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes” - Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address in March 1865.

“According to Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics, Abraham Lincoln once said, "Our task should not be to invoke religion and the name of God by claiming God's blessing and endorsement for all our national policies and practices—saying, in effect, that God is on our side. Rather, we should pray and worry earnestly whether we are on God's side."

(*5c) “Knowing that intercessory prayer is our mightiest weapon and the supreme call for all Christians today, I pleadingly urge our people everywhere to pray. Believing that prayer is our greatest contribution that our people can make in this critical hour, I humbly urge that we take time to pray. Let there be prayer at sunup, at noonday, at sundown, at midnight, all through the day. Let us all pray for our children, our youth, our aged, our pastors, our homes and our churches. Let us pray for those who have never known Jesus Christ. Let prayer be our passion, let prayer be our practice” - Robert E. Lee, unverified source.

“What a cruel thing is war, to separate and destroy family and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness you [God] have granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbor, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world. What a beautiful world, God, in your loving kindness to your creatures, you have given us! What a shame that men endowed with reason and knowledge of right should mar your gifts. How good you are to us! Oh that I could praise you and thank you as I ought. You alone can save us from our folly, selfishness & short sightedness. Our hope and refuge is in you merciful Father. Upon you is my whole faith & reliance.” - Robert E. Lee prayer, unverified source.

(*5d) “When Virginia declared its secession from the Union in April 1861, Lee chose to follow his home state, despite his personal desire for the country to remain intact and despite the fact that President Abraham Lincoln had offered Lee command of a Union Army” - Elizabeth Brown Pryor "Robert E. Lee's ‘Severest Struggle’," American Heritage, Winter 2008.

“With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword...” - Robert E. Lee, unverified source (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Notable%20Lee%20Quotes.htm).

(*5e) “They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins” - Robert E. Lee, unverified source (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Notable%20Lee%20Quotes.htm).

(*5f) “... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages…” - Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856.

“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained” - Robert E. Lee, unverified source (http://www.historynet.com/robert-e-lee-quotes).

“We failed, but in the good providence of God apparent failure often proves a blessing” - Robert E. Lee, unverified source (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Notable%20Lee%20Quotes.htm).

(*5g) “The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party -- and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -- that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds” - Abraham Lincoln Washington, D.C. September, 1862.

“This fragment was found and preserved by John Hay, one of President Lincoln's White House secretaries, who said it was ‘not written to be seen of men.’ Some of the thoughts expressed here, written after discouraging days of personal sorrow and military defeats, also appear in Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address of 1865.” - “Abraham Lincoln’s Meditation on the Divine will” (http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/meditat.htm).

(*6) Darwin and Hitler: In Their Own Words, By: Benjamin Wiker HumanEvents.com May 5, 2008
…“ ‘At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [i.e., most human-looking] apes -- will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. …’ [-Darwin].
Like it or not, Darwin's eugenic and racial ideas spread from him, and infected both Europe and America. Now for Adolf. I suspect that, just as a lot of folks haven't read Darwin's execrable Descent of Man, so also they feel free to enter the debate without having read Hitler's Mein Kampf.
It is inaccurate to blame the entire of Hitler's evil on anti-Semitism precisely because his anti-Semitism was part of a larger biological vision. "National Socialism is nothing but applied biology," said the deputy Party leader of the Nazis, Rudolf Hess.
As Hitler made clear in Mein Kampf, the fundamental political category is biological. Consequently, "the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of a State or Government but rather the conservation of the race."… Hitler's words all too clearly portend the atrocities to come when the Nazis gained power:
"[T]he völkisch concept of the world recognizes that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind. Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound, in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker.... For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized future for our humanity would be lost for ever." … - (http://www.discovery.org/a/5159)=(http://www.humanevents.com/2008/05/05/darwin-and-hitler-in-their-own-words/).
*