Oh Lord Revive Us

Yearning for revival, looking for inspiration at Sermon Audio. Looking specifically for those I know to be Spirit-filled men, I'm tired of hearing good Biblical sermons preached without the anointing of the Spirit. It's terribly depressing. I know Tozer is Spirit-filled, sometimes I feel the Spirit in his preaching, which I suppose depends on how close I've been to the Lord myself.

I'm disgusted with myself really, I'm such a soggy half-dead Christian. The church should be something supernatural and powerful in this world, individual Christians should have supernatural power, rivers of living water pouring from us to bring life to the dead world around us. Nothing could be more obvious than that we don't.

I found this sermon by Tozer on being born again, Begotten Again Unto a Living Hope - I Peter, Part 3 and it was inspiring. I wish there were dozens more on that theme to listen to from him.

He made a very interesting statement in this sermon. He said that the reason we talk so much about revival is that Christians aren't initially born of the Spirit as we should be, and if we were the church WOULD be that powerful agent in the world we hope revival will make it.

Please pray for me, I want to spend WAY more time seeking the Lord than I do, WAY more.

Here's an example of the attitude I was writing about in my last post. This writer is chiding us for not remembering 9/11 and doing what's necessary to prevent it from happening again.

We've forgotten the shock and the patriotic fury Americans felt on that bright September morning eight years ago. We've forgotten our identification with fellow citizens leaping from doomed skyscrapers. We've forgotten the courage of airline passengers who would not surrender to terror.

We've forgotten the men and women who burned to death or suffocated in the Pentagon. We've forgotten our promises, our vows, our commitments.

We've forgotten what we owe our dead and what we owe our children. We've even forgotten who attacked us.

We have betrayed the memory of our dead. In doing so, we betrayed ourselves and our country. Our troops continue to fight -- when they're allowed to do so -- but our politicians have surrendered.

Are we willing to let the terrorists win?

Well, really, all this is true. It's really quite amazing to consider just how far we have gone toward capitulating to this enemy that attacked us, just how lacking in will and determination we've been in the face of such a threat, and how strange it is that Islam is growing in popularity since 9/11.

This very trend ought to be a clue to us that we're under God's judgment. This very weakness in the face of an enemy is His judgment. This erosion of our freedoms and our powers since 9/11 is God's judgment.

Is it up to us in the flesh to let the terrorists win or not? What can mere flesh do if God is against us?

No, we need the power of God if we are to win the war against terrorism and first we need to recognize we don't have the power of God. God has been abandoning America, allowing enemies internal and external to take over against us.

This couldn't be happening if the churches were in God's will. We have to recognize that we aren't in God's will, that God has a complaint against us, seek understanding and repentance and His guidance and power if we want to help America. America needs revival, repentance not patriotism, meek followers of God not warriors in the flesh. We don't need macho chestbeating, we need humbling and brokenness and submission to God.

Repentance is what we need to keep it from happening again

In remembrance of 9/11 I put a little American flag in my window today. But more than sadness about the day I feel a forboding, because it is still denied that it was God's judgment against the nation. I knew it would be denied of course, but that is the saddest thing about it, that the nation will not repent, which is the only thing that could prevent further acts of judgment.

I've run across versions of this sentiment quite a bit today:

I still remember the day with a heavy heart, and I pray that as a nation we will do whatever it takes to prevent something like this from happening again.

Well, "whatever it takes" is repentance, and for the nation itself to repent not every single citizen has to engage in it, but it should be an observance called by the leader of the nation. Past Presidents have done this on behalf of the nation in times of danger, before sending our troops to war for instance. A day of fasting for our sins as a nation, acknowledging them to Him, with prayer for forgiveness and protection.

Perhaps if enough of the churches had such an observance this would go a long way toward protecting the nation in lieu of a Presidential call, but I haven't heard of this going on in any of the churches.

But people remember it mostly with sadness for the suffering endured that day, and with a sense of righteous indignation, with no acknowledgment that it came from God and was deserved. The enemy is thought of as merely human, as if God could not have restrained them. The solutions thought of are merely human: vigilance, preparedness. Also even calls to pray for the dead, which of course is of no use. But people who don't know God don't know what to do; unfortunately many who do know God also don't, that's the biggest tragedy.

In many of the stories that came out of 9/11 God is shown to have clearly intervened: individuals apparently miraculously helped to safety, kept from going to work that day and so on. God intervened in the downing of the plane in Pennsylvania that was aimed for the White House. God has mercy in the midst of judgment.

But overall His hand of judgment has been more and more upon the nation since 9/11. The increase in the presence and status of Islam in this nation is truly astonishing considering that it was Islamic militants who attacked us on 9/11. That's God's judgment right there. We now have a Marxist in the White House who courts Islam. That's God's judgment. The White House didn't need to be physically destroyed; it's being spiritually destroyed.

We've abandoned our Christian roots. I don't care how much people say this isn't a Christian nation or never was, there is a way that is true but a much much bigger way it is not true. The Christian influence in the institutions of the government at the beginning was enormous. Many of the few dozen founders were genuinely Christian. Others who were Deists were serious Deists, serious Unitarians, and they included church services even as part of a day of government business. It shouldn't be so glibly said we're not a Christian nation with that in our background, but it also shouldn't be so glibly said that we are, because Deism/Unitarianism is not Christianity, and apostasy in our leaders would necessarily have contributed to the seeds of our ultimate judgment.

We are no longer Christian even in the sense they used to be, so we probably can't have a day of repentance on that assumption any more. Obama wouldn't recognize the idea anyway, or he'd put a Marxist twist on it and any fast he'd call I'm afraid I would not be able to support.

But a genuine fast and repentance before God is the only thing that would save the nation. Except Christians separately or whole churches uniting in repentance and prayer on behalf of the nation.

Conspiratorial cabal or not, America is in trouble

Here's a discussion of what the blogger calls a conspiracy theory, but it's not what I mean when I use the term. He calls it The Great Conspiracy but he's simply spelling out some anti-constitutional provisions that are now in place that could threaten American freedoms, and in fact threaten us all bodily, in the near future.

What I mean by conspiracy thinking is wild imaginations that suppose there is an all-powerful human cabal behind all such goings-on, without being able to muster facts in any convincing way to prove it.*

To my mind a governing body that thinks Marxism is a good idea is already as much of a danger to the world as any plotted conspiracy by high-level hidden movers and shakers, and our current administration is Marxist and Fascist both. Who needs the Illuminati?

============================================
*This is the point -- I'm hardly incapable of believing in conspiracies but the fact is that the evidence offered is really NOT convincing. They assume too much, they sling around unsupported accusations. The worst write complete word salad in which it's obvious they think they've been giving evidence but it just isn't there. Springmeier doesn't prove anything, he simply asserts it. Schnoebelen writes novelistically which makes it sound like fiction to begin with and detracts from any truth there may be in his reports. I don't know what to make of all this. We've got conspiracies galore these days, explaining the economic disaster, anticipating a murderous outbreak of flu, well, really the vaccinations against the flu, about well-known American public figures plotting against the well-being and even the lives of Americans, about UFOs and whatnot. There's actually better evidence that there is a government conspiracy to hide knowledge of UFOs from the public (they think they're ETs of course; I know they're demons) than there is for the rest of it. It's not in principle beyond the pale, but there is simply no convincing evidence.

How Obama = Hitler

Here's a discussion of what makes Obama's administration like Hitler's. (I can't seem to select out the particular post. It's the one for August 29th).

Mark Dice's approach to the Illuminati

I took a look at Mark Dice's book about the Illuminati at Amazon where you can read a few pages of it. He does a good job of introducing the material, showing he understands where the reader is at, as Springmeier does not, but then he begins his introduction to his argument by saying that people wonder how 9/11 could have happened, or how an economic collapse could happen and so on and so forth.

Well, I don't wonder. I figure it's just the usual, human sin, and I also know these things are God's judgment on the nation, and Dice claims to be a Christian so he should know that too. But he thinks there's something strange enough about such events that we need to look behind the scenes to HUMAN manipulators. I think this is faulty reasoning. I see no need to postulate intentional manipulation of events at all. People being people is enough to explain events. Fallen humanity being greedy or negligent or self-absorbed or vindictive on a small scale can accumulate to large disasters. Satan's work in contributing to such human failings to bring about his own plans is a reasonable assumption too, but Satan doesn't need conscious accomplices in his plots. And the overarching explanation that God is in charge of it all and permits such things as judgment pulls it all together.

Satan can pull off amazing things people alone can't, if God wills it, and if God wills it amazing exactness can be seen in some events (the symbolism involved in the 9/11 targets is fascinating to think about), but human beings just don't have the power or precision of planning that is attributed to them in these conspiracy ideas. The Pentagon was only slightly damaged, the White House was missed altogether as the passengers of the plane defeated the hijackers. Human beings are an imperfect lot. The plans of fallen men as often go astray as hit their target. The TRUE conspirators of 9/11 have been identified as far as I'm concerned.

So I feel no need for a conspiracy theory to explain terrible events. Apparently some people do feel such a need. I'm very impatient with all the conspiracy theories about 9/11 myself. I don't expect our intelligence to be as perfect as apparently some people do. I can easily accept that a Muslim plot to attack our institutions got past our radar, because God has lifted His protection of the nation to that extent and no other explanation is necessary. None of the scenarios I've seen cooked up "prove" that human agents on our side of the WTC plotted this attack. I think it's all ridiculous.

Do I need to know anything more than that God is judging the nation? I really don't think so.

Which isn't to insist that conspiracies couldn't possibly exist. The Muslim conspiracy existed after all. Why isn't that one sufficient? Why must there be a HIDDEN conspiracy? I really don't get it. Any that do exist should be exposed and prosecuted. But the usual conspiracy theories are simply not believable.

So to my mind Mark Dice is off to a bad start in even making this claim that events make no sense without a human plot to explain them, or another human plot than the one we know about. That's already conspiracy-thinking. According to the introduction to his book, he's going to focus a lot on 9/11 and I've got to say I've heard enough silly speculation about that to last me six lifetimes so I have no interest whatever in reading his book.

But I would really really like to see someone write a book that would examine all the claims truly objectively some time and really show the part that human beings played.

Springmeier's book about the 13 "Illuminati" families is pure delusion

After my last post where I simply vent my reaction to this book about the Illuminati I figure I should come back and spell out just what the problem is. The book is Bloodlines of the Illuminati by Fritz Springmeier and I could barely get through the first few paragraphs. The book is advertised as based on years of research and highly documented, although the online version seems to have left off all the documentation.

I'm sure the guy has read a lot but he has no clue how to present his material, how to muster his evidence to prove his point. I suspect that has to be because he can't, he's jumped to conclusions and not followed the evidence he's found. That's what I have to suspect based on the shoddy way he's put together the material.

It starts right out listing the names and discussing them. Jacob Astor is the first on the alphabetical list (why is it alphabetical? If you want to show the interconnectedness of family ties wouldn't you trace them historically rather than alphabetically?):

The original founder of the Astor fortune was John Jacob Astor (1763-1884). John Jacob Astor was born in Walldorf, Duchy of Baden (Germany) from a Jewish bloodline. The Jewish origins have been hidden, and quite a number of various ideas of the Astor’s heritage have been put into circulation by the Astors.

Here's a place where some referencing is needed, perhaps some discussion of his sources. I have no reason to doubt the facts, but when you get into claiming such things as hidden origins the honest reader needs more than your assertion.

John Jacob Astor was a butcher in Walldorf. In 1784, he came to America after a stop over in London, England. Although the story is that he came to America penniless--and that may be true--he soon joined the Masonic Lodge, and within 2-3 years had become the Master of the Holland Lodge No. 8 in N.Y. City.

I don't get the connection. Is being penniless an obstruction to being a Mason? "Although" he came to America penniless, he joined the Masonic lodge. This is a non sequitur ("it does not follow").

(This Holland Lodge is a prominent lodge in that many of its members have good connections to the Illuminati elite. An example of just one Lodge #8 member is Archibald Russell, 1811 - 1871, whose father was President of a real hotbed of Illuminati action for many years: The Royal Society of Edinburgh).

Isn't this the sort of thing this book was written to prove? Illuminati activity here and there? But all he is doing here is baldly asserting some supposed "good connections" to the "Illuminati elite" without a hint as to who they are or why I am to believe they have anything to do with the Illuminati. Then he gives an example which would supposedly back up his assertion, but all it is is another bald assertion: a member's father was "President of a real hotbed of Illuminati action for many years" again not a word about how he knows this, what his sources are, why I should believe him, or even what the Illuminati is and why I should care. This is a very strange way to start out a book that is supposedly intended to PROVE Illuminati connections. Apparently all he's going to do is assert the connections and not prove anything. Does he think his blathering about all these names somehow amounts to evidence?

By 1788, Astor was a master of Masonic lodge#8. This is rather interesting considering Astor could not speak English when he arrived in America, and supposedly was very poor.

Again, is poverty an impediment to Masonic membership or advancement? Shouldn't he be explaining what this means? Also, some people are good at languages and four years is pretty good time for having learned quite a bit. It would be interesting to know how Astor went about learning English. But Springmeier assumes everything, doesn't bother with presenting the relevant facts.

John Jacob Astor was always very famous for being coldhearted, anti-social, “a man who didn’t have charm, wit or grace.” (This quote comes even from a relative of the DuPont family who wrote a sympathetic Biography entitled The Astor Family.) If this man lacked social graces and was so cold, and was so poor during his first years in the U.S., why did he rise to such prominence in Freemasonry? Certainly not because of his social graces. For instance, one time later in life at a meal given for elites, when his hands got dirty at the table he reached over and used the shirt of the man beside him to wipe his hands.

Where's the reference to the mentioned biography? He asks how a man with such a personality could rise so high in Masonry, but how would the reader know? Why is he asking us? Surely somewhere in all the material he read somebody discussed this if it's important. Are social graces necessary to rising in Masonry? How would I know? Why doesn't he discuss this? How are we to understand the incident with the shirt? Was that really a sign of a cold personality? Such a strange story requires better explanation, best a quote from the source of that information. Was it a display of arrogance, truly astonishing arrogance, or a strange idea of a joke perhaps?

Then at the end of the same paragraph we come on this amazing non sequitur:

The original financial break came by carrying out a series of shady and crooked real estate deals in the N.Y. city area.

He goes from discussing the man's "anti-social" personality, which we are supposed to take on his word since he supplies no references, to some unexplained "financial break" based on shady deals, again without a reference to ANYTHING to support it. And it doesn't belong in this paragraph. Anyone who writes like this simply can't be taken seriously.

The next break came when two men who are now known to have been in the Illuminati gave John Jacob Astor a special government privilege. The two men were Pres. Jefferson and Secretary Gallatin--both Illuminati members. The United States government had placed an embargo on all U.S. ships from sailing with goods in 1807. But Astor got special permission from these two men for his ship to sail with its cargo. His ship sailed and made close to a $200,000 profit in that day’s money.

First financial break shady deal, second financial break special government privilege. Not a clue as to the facts in either case, no references, no quotes, just the assertion that it happened as told. Now he's suddently connected with these two "Illuminati members" although there isn't a hint given what that means or how he knows or why anyone should believe him. Likewise he flatly asserts that Astor got this special deal and the insinuation is because they were Illuminati, without the slightest attempt to justify that explanation, no quotes, no discussion, nothing.

Astor strangely profited greatly from the War of 1812, which crippled almost all the other American shippers.

What made it so strange? Does the man get no credit for financial ability? So far all this is nothing but dark insinuations that nefarious actions are afoot without anything to prove it. I suppose he's not even aware he's not supplying evidence, because it's all a complicated fantasy in his own mind and that's all HE needs to be convinced, but the honest reader needs quite a bit more than the conclusions of Springmeier's fantasies.

Astor also worked together with George Clinton, another member of the Illuminati, on land deals. Even at that period in history, British intelligence worked for the Committee of 300 and for the Thirteen Top Families, it is interesting then, that John Coleman who had access as an intelligence agent to secret documents, discovered that the original John Jacob Astor was also a British secret agent. The Thirteen Families have very intimate roles with the American and British intelligence cults.

Another "member of the Illuminati" I'm supposed to take his word for although to this point I haven't a clue what being a member of the Illuminati even means, how he knows this about anybody and so on. I guess there's no such thing as being good at making money, you need the help of the Illuminati, whatever that is, and we'll never find out from THIS book. Oh and Astor was also a secret agent. At least he gives a reference for this, it would be nice though to have the title of the book and a quote or two for support, and then he jumps to the broad statement that the thirteen "Illuminati" families are involved in intelligence "cults" whatever those are. If even half of this is true, it should make fascinating and informative reading, but we'll never find out from this guy. It's all gobbledygook.

Prior to 1817, John Jacob Astor entered into the fur trade and remained the biggest player in the fur trade until he got out of it in 1834. Over the years, he had managed to build up a monopoly. How he managed to push everyone else out is a good question.

See, just another bald assertion, insinuation, accusation. To Springmeier it's a "good question" how Astor got to the top of the fur trading business. Isn't it even POSSIBLE the man had sharp financial abilities? Why MUST there be nefarious plots lurking in the background. This seems to be all Springmeier has, suspicions, that seem to make sense to him but do not amount to evidence for anyone else.

Bear in mind, white people had been trapping furs in the New World for several centuries, and the Indians for who knows how long. Then this guy Astor comes along and in a few years totally owns the whole industry! Again this could only have happened, because the occult power of this Astor family gave them the right.

Prove it, Springmeier, prove it. If it's true it should be a fascinating revelation of known contacts and wheeler-dealer carryings on and whatnot, but all you are giving us is these flat assertions. You believe them, but you are not proving any of them.

The most rational conclusion is that this is your own paranoid fantasy. At the very least you haven't a clue how to write a book and someobody else should write it. At worst you are deluded by your own suspicious nature and imposing your delusions on the reader.

The man became powerfully influential. We know that much anyway without this book. But the book is SUPPOSED to be proving that this was because of shady deals and occult influence and so on and so forth but there isn't ONE clue in any of it that that was so. Sorry. Not one. ALL NOTHING BUT ASSUMPTIONS AND ASSERTIONS, not a shred of proof. I skimmed ahead in the Astor story, I glanced through some of the other stories. It's all the same hodgepodge of insinuation without facts.

Is Mark Dice better? He also writes on the Illuminati. Unfortunately I'm not going to spend the money to buy his books to find out.

If you want me to believe in the reality of Illuminati influence, as opposed to merely the influence of wealthy people whose politics I may happen to dislike, you are going to have to do better than this.