The Laws of Men

27And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; 28Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. 29And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. 30And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you. 31And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours. 32And I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it. 33And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.

How does one walk contrary to God? It’s simply by totally rejecting His ways, notably His laws and statutes. Modern ‘Christians’ would have us believe that the Law of Moses has been cast aside, and that we are (more or less) free to do as we please, and everything will be forgiven. They’re wrong of course, but what about at the national level?

Well, Leviticus 26 (part of which is quoted above) makes it clear that if the whole nation turns away from God and His ways, that He’ll chastise and punish us with great fury. Has England and Wales turned away from God’s laws, or are we still holding on to the last vestages of obedience to God?

We’re already suffering God’s curse, and I will give you some examples of why we’re lost now, and until we turn back, we’ll remain accursed.

Let’s start with a view from the other side, a servant of the father of lies commented on this issue in 2010, when a married couple were prevented from fostering children due to their opposition to homosexuality, based on God’s views on the subject. The judge that heard the case decided in favour of the state (what a huge surprise) and against the couple and against God. In his summary, he gave his view on the legal and justice system that now exists in our nation:

1. 1. In the circumstances we cannot avoid the need to re-state what ought to be, but seemingly are not, well understood principles regulating the relationship of religion and law in our society. We preface what follows with the obvious point that we live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy.

Religion and the law: the common law

1. 1. We start with the common law.

1. 1. Although historically this country is part of the Christian west, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century. Our society is now pluralistic and largely secular. But one aspect of its pluralism is that we also now live in a multi-cultural community of many faiths. One of the paradoxes of our lives is that we live in a society which has at one and the same time become both increasingly secular but also increasingly diverse in religious affiliation.

 

1. We sit as secular judges serving a multi-cultural community of many faiths. We are sworn (we quote the judicial oath) to “do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” But the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form. The aphorism that ‘Christianity is part of the common law of England’ is mere rhetoric; at least since the decision of the House of Lords in Bowman v Secular Society Limited [1917] AC 406 it has been impossible to contend that it is law.

I’m sure the honourable judge doesn’t realise the incoherence of his position on the law these days. He might believe that he seeks to ‘do right to all manner of people’, but that’s simply not possible. Laws are by their nature discriminatory, and as evidenced by this particular judgement, he has happily discriminated against a Christian couple seeking to foster children, and he’s discriminated in favour of the state’s desire to promote homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, he’s discriminated against God and His laws and he’s discriminated in favour of satan and his lies.  But it’s noteworthy that the judiciary were quite open about this fact as far back as 2010, and I am sure they were clear amongst themselves a long time before that, although perhaps that fact was hidden from the people? And yes, the ‘common law’ is very common, whereas God’s Law is perfectly just and right.

Also from this judge’s long anti-Christian diatribe, we find the following comments, which contains an erroneous view, I wonder if you can spot it?

The starting point of the common law is thus respect for an individual’s religious principles coupled with an essentially neutral view of religious beliefs and benevolent tolerance of cultural and religious diversity. A secular judge must be wary of straying across the well-recognised divide between church and state. It is not for a judge to weigh one religion against another. The court recognises no religious distinctions and generally speaking passes no judgment on religious beliefs or on the tenets, doctrines or rules of any particular section of society. All are entitled to equal respect.

Britain is still a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen our head of state. This same Queen holds another title that proves that the honourable judge lies through his teeth:

 The Sovereign holds the title ‘Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England’. These titles date back to the reign of King Henry VIII, who was initially granted the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ in 1521 by Pope Leo X. When Henry VIII renounced the spiritual authority of the Papacy in 1534 he was proclaimed ‘supreme head on earth’ of the Church of England. This was repealed by Queen Mary I but reinstated during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, who was proclaimed ‘Supreme Governor’ of the Church of England.

So, the Queen is head of state, and is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and is Defender of the Faith. How, in a monarchy, can we find a way for the Queen to NOT represent the merger of state and Christian faith? You tell me, as I don’t believe it’s possible, it’s just another lie from the mouth of the servant of his father, the prince of darkness. I will write in the future about our Queen, who has proven to be the most useless Defender of the Faith this nation has ever had as a monarch, but in this post, we should recognise that the judiciary no longer consider us a Christian nation, with laws that owe anything to God. He’s right of course. You may ‘feel’ we’re still a Christian nation, you may go to church, you may ‘believe’, but the vast majority of our people have no interest in God, and even those that do ignore His commands and laws, and just play the part of Christians. For example, if you tolerate a female pastor, you’re running a very high risk of not being recognised as a true follower of Christ. Woe unto you.

The judgement also makes some interesting points on the nature of law and its relationship to God:

The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified; it is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion, any belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.

So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious beliefs. Equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief’s content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime.”

So, my fellow Dumnonians, you can see that this judge thinks you have a choice between a theocracy (yes please) and something else. He lies again however, by stating that a theocracy is autocratic. No, if the law is from God’s word, and is administered by Judges who stick to that word, there is no one man in control, no need for a King, or President, or Prime Minister, just God, His law and God-fearing judges and people.

The ‘something else’ this judge believes we enjoy in our modern enlightened democracy is also a big fat lie. Let’s drill down on this sentence:

The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.

So I, as an individual Christian with a conscience, I am free to accept God’s law.

But ‘The State’, an entity that didn’t even exist until recent times, has the duty of thinking for itself.
(NB, we never really ever hear an explanation for who or what this ‘State’ is precisely).
But be reassured, the reason why the State must think for itself, and ignore God’s laws, is only because it wants you, its beloved people ‘to be free’. 

I am pretty sure this Christian couple didn’t feel free. I am pretty sure Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans and their parents didn’t feel ‘free’ when other liberal judges decided to deny them treatment overseas. So we need to recognise that liberalism, the seductive offer of freedom is just another big lie, and we all know who provides these lies, it’s always the same, always the father of lies, who delights in trying to beat God and send men and women to their deaths, separated from their God. Do you feel free in Britain these days? Are you able to speak your mind freely about issues that concern you? Are you able to rely on The State to protect your interests and respect your privacy and allow you to be the master of your home? No, none of that applies, you have to do exactly as The State tells you these days, they will not hesitate to do as THEY please, even if it means murdering the innocent child in the womb:

“A ‘very damaged’ 13-year-old girl was ordered to have an abortion by Britain’s most senior family judge, it has been revealed.
The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was impregnated by a 14-year-old boy and initially wanted to keep her baby.”
That’s right. This girl, because she was considered mentally incompetent, was forced—forced—to have her child dismembered, decapitated, and disemboweled by the medical establishment because one Sir James Munby decided that capital punishment was most appropriate for being the child of a someone he described as “very…impaired.”
Is this China, or the United Kingdom? The UK’s government intrusion has gotten draconian, mind you, but really? They also have the right to forcibly enter a female’s uterus and kill and extract her pre-born offspring?
Apparently, yes. In spite of the fact that the court was informed that she “had set her mind against a termination,” the witless fascist Munby responded that, “Leaving to one side her own wishes and feelings, the preponderance of all the evidence is clear that it would be in her best interests to have a termination.”

Oh, hello. We already shrug when children are aborted for any number of frivolous reasons, but now the State can step in and “leave to the side” the wishes of those who possess sufficient maternal instinct to desire life rather than “termination” for their offspring, and decide what is in her best interests.

Munby, by the way, demanded the abortion for this girl against the wishes of experts testifying at the trial, who warned that, “If the pregnancy were terminated I believe that this would cause considerable harm to this young girl, who would see it as an assault….Continuing the pregnancy…may have a less detrimental effect on her given her current circumstances.”
Right. Because a male judge ordering a thirteen-year-old girl, against her will, to have her cervix forced open by a stranger and have her innocent pre-born child suctioned into bloody scraps is basically medical rape by any definition. And demanded, not just sanctioned, by the State, represented here by Comissar Munby.

In addition to the medical expert, the psychiatrist charged with evaluating her warned that the girl would fully understand what the abortion entailed (for some, apparently, there is still a visceral opposition to the killing of our own young), and told the judge that based on her “unambiguous” opposition to having an abortion, she should not be forced to have one. Sir Munby’s response to the girl’s refusal and the testimony of medical experts and her psychiatrist?

“It was clearly appropriate for me to supply the necessary consent to enable the termination to proceed.”

Guess what? The judge referred to in the first example is the same judge who gave the order to murder the unborn child in the second article above. Now, if only he was a Christian, he’d remember a simple law ‘Thou shalt not murder’ and he would throw the case out of court. But he’s a liberal, he believes in your freedom, and The State wants you all to be free. What a guy.

And more recently the same judge has been advocating for the abolition of the family itself, because (obviously) he and The State want you all to be FREE to live in any way that you feel is right. Surely we all know that the family is just a throwback these days? Surely we can rely on The State to look after all of the abandoned children anyway? Yes indeed, we truly are accursed.

Andrea Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “The elite seems to have lost confidence in marriage and appears intent on diluting and dismantling it. Last month we had the first same-sex ‘marriages’.
“Now we have the country’s most senior family judge suggesting that the protection of commitment be significantly downgraded.
“If divorce becomes still less serious, it will be children and the most vulnerable who suffer most.
“What we need is renewed confidence in marriage and a new institution that reflects the high values to which we once aspired and which, in the main, worked.”

Andrea Williams mentions ‘the elite’. If you ever wonder who is behind the constant move leftwards, the destruction of our Christian nation, the wrecking of God’s ordained family with the man as its head, wonder no more. They aren’t ‘elite’ at all, they’re just evil liars, who want to create misery in our lands purely for the sake of profit. They enjoy turning a God-fearing nation into a lost nation, but they seek to profit from the chaos that ensues. We have no excuses at all, the truth of God’s ways has always been with us in our nation, for over 1400 years, and we have ourselves to blame for being duped by these profiteering liars.

Here’s the honourable judge referred to in this post:

Look into his eyes, his cold black dead eyes, as he judges you. He is the guardian of your ‘freedom’, and others like him.

Just pray that you don’t want the freedom to prolong your child’s life, when The State decides otherwise, that’s the justice of men, rather than the Justice of God’s great Law.

Let’s pray that we repent as a nation, with urgency, and turn back to God and His ways, as that is our only hope to avoid Hid terrible wrath. Think of Egypt, once a mighty nation, but their Pharaoh decided to do battle with God, and God smote the Egyptians, and they’ve never been the same since, forever a cursed nation. Let us pray that enough of us repent and turn back to God, so that He may feel able to bless us once again. I have faith this will happen, but it will be after the collapse of our nation as we know it, The State will die through its own lies, and good riddance to it. Let’s allow that to happen, and be ready for the aftermath, when God will bless those who return to His ways:

40If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; 41And [that] I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: 42Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. 43The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes. 44And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I [am] the LORD their God. 45But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I [am] the LORD.