Episode 345: Demise of US: Christians Vs. Foundational Biblical Christianity, Whose Morality is it?

The demise of US are the mess of Christians Vs Foundational Biblical Christianity thereby asking, Whose Morality is it anyway?

Video Blog seen at Rumble or Brighteon

This week I have you look into the mirrors of history with a focus on 1782. At this time we can see the parallels of economic turmoil, increased luxuries for the wealthy, control by large corporations by using foreign imports over local manufacturing. We also see the envy of the general population looking at the elite. Worse, we see the demise of morality, Foundational Christian principles, common courtesy as well as the harm of Constitutionalism by the suffrage (the votes) of the people.

Compounding this is the generational shift after the war to the influence unitarian/universalist theology or, the lack of Reformation theology and the slow rot beginning of the progressive equity gospel.

Our present began in 1782.

Now as an obscure historian, I will reveal a new nugget. The deep rooted reason the Anti-federalists argued against the Constitution of 1787.

Program outline:

– First segment: From the beginning of the US.

1782 – Excerpt of Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams Volume III – SA LifenService_vol_3
Shift from Edwards and First Awakening to Unitarianism of the 18^th Century
See Reference #9 regarding the Immutable Moral Law

– Second Segment: Social Gospel roots in Marxism

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto in 1848.
Social Gospel and Progressivism – see links below in references
Pew Report – 9. Views on religion and social issues
The Tenth Commandment

See all References below:

– Third segment: Continue Segment 2

Yes Magazine – The Christian Right and Left Share the Same Faith But Couldn’t Be More Different

See other References below

Sum it up….

The condition that the United States is in Christians Vs Foundational Biblical Christianity where the issue is liberal, progressive, social gospel christians false theology. Yup, It is that simple.

Sam Adams Wisdom

TO ARTHUR LEE. [R. H. Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, vol. ii., pp. 215-220.] BOSTON, April 4th, 1774.

‘…Mr. Cushing obliged me with a sight of your letter to him of the 22d Dec. last. I think I am not so clearly of opinion as you seem to be, that “the declaratory act is a mere nullity,” and that therefore “if we can obtain a repeal of the revenue acts from 1764, without their pernicious appendages, it will be enough.” Should they retract the exercise of their assumed power, you ask when will they be able to renew it? I know not when, but I fear they will soon do it, unless, as your worthy brother in Virginia in a letter I yesterday received from him expresses himself, “we make one uniform, steady effort to secure an explicit bill of rights for British America.” Let the executive power and right on each side be therein stipulated, that Britain may no longer have a power or right to make laws to bind us, in all cases whatsoever. While the claim is kept up, she may exercise the power as often as she pleases; and the colonies have experienced her disposition to do it too plainly since she in anger made the claim. Even imaginary power beyond right begets insolence. The people here I am apt to think will be satisfied on no other terms but those of redress; and they will hardly think they are upon equitable terms with the mother country, while by a solemn act she continues to claim a right to enslave them, whenever she shall think fit to exercise it. I wish for a permanent union with the mother country, but only on the principles of liberty and truth. No advantage that can accrue to America from such an union can compensate for the loss of liberty. The time may come sooner than they are aware of it, when the being of the British nation, I mean the being of its importance, however strange it may now appear to some, will depend on her union with America. It requires but a small portion of the gift of discernment for any one to foresee, that providence will erect a mighty empire in America; and our posterity will have it recorded in history, that their fathers migrated from an ISLAND in a distant part of the world, the inhabitants of which had long been revered for wisdom and valour. They grew rich and powerful; these emigrants increased in numbers and strength. But they were at last absorbed in luxury and dissipation; and to support themselves in their vanity and extravagance they coveted and seized the honest earnings of those industrious emigrants. This laid a foundation of distrust, animosity and hatred, till the emigrants, feeling their own vigour and independence, dissolved every former band of connexion between them, and the ISLANDERS sunk into obscurity and contempt.’