The Balances of Justice - RR128C5

From Pocket College
Jump to: navigation, search

The media player is loading...


Professor: Rushdoony, Dr. R. J.
Title: The Balances of Justice
Course: Course - Daniel
Subject: Subject:Millennial Studies
Lesson#: 5
Length: 1:03:47
TapeCode: RR128C5
Audio: Chalcedon Archive
Transcript: .docx Format
Daniel (In book form Thy Kingdom Come, Craig Press).jpg

This transcript is unedited. It was:
Archived by the Mt. Olive Tape Library
Digitized, transcribed, and published by Christ Rules
Posted by with permission.

Let us begin with prayer. Almighty God our Heavenly Father we give thanks unto Thee for all the blessings in the past week. We thank Thee our Father that we stand not in our righteousness but, in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. And in Thy grace. In this confidence we come to Thee and let all our hopes to be in Jesus Christ. Knowing that all Thy promises unto us in him are yeah and amen. My we be faithful therefore our father unto Thy word and Unto thy Son. In Jesus Name Amen

Our subject today is the balances of justices. Daniel 5. The fifth chapter of Daniel. The balances of Justice. Daniel 5.

“5 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.

3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.

4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.

5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.

6 Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.

7 The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.

8 Then came in all the king's wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof.

9 Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied.

10 Now the queen by reason of the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed:

11 There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;

12 Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew the interpretation.

13 Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?

14 I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee.

15 And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not shew the interpretation of the thing:

16 And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom.

17 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation.

18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:

19 And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.

20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him:

21 And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.

22 And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this;

23 But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:

24 Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written.

25 And this is the writing that was written, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.

26 This is the interpretation of the thing: Mene; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.

27 Tekel; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

28 Peres; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.

30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.” [00:07:32]

This chapter has been a topic of contempt on the part...[edit]

This chapter has been a topic of contempt on the part of atheistic and modernistic scholars for many generations. It was said that this chapter portrayed so clearly the absurdity of the Bible. Because they said everyone knows that there was never any such King as Belshazzar in Babylon. And the last king of Babylon was named Nabinidus. Therefore this chapter was pure myth and like the whole book and like the Bible nonsense. But, in the years immediately after WW1 excavations in Babylon turned out a very interesting thing. Nabinidus the last king of Babylon had a son. And his son's name was Belshazzar. And when Nabinidus established a second castle in southern Arabia in order to control the trade routes to Europe and to East India he left the castle in Babylon to his son Belshazzar as co-regent with him. Nabinidus was the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar was the grandson but, the usage of the day spoke of both son and grandson with the word son.

Now of course the critics did not change their mind. They had ridiculed Daniel because it referred to Belshazzar and they said no such person existed. Now they had evidence in their hands that Belshazzar was the son of Nabinidus and had been named coregent with Nabinidus and so they said: “It’s obviously nonsense in spite of the historicity of Belshazzar because he is called king in the book of Daniel and the records that had been discovered did not refer to him as king.” Unfortunately very shortly thereafter further tablets and inscriptions were discovered both of Belshazzar as king. So the Father and son were coregents, co-king. With Nabinidus taking preeminence and his son a kind of second king. Clearly this was not unknown in history and modern history where William and Mary were coregents a couple centuries ago. But did this further confounding of the critics change their mind? Not at all they still insist that the book is forgery. That it was never written by Daniel. As Jesus Christ said: “Though one should return from the dead they will not believe.” [00:11:26]

The story of Daniel ...[edit]

The story of Daniel 5 is of the last night of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar had been gone. He had been succeeded by several very week members of the family until a strong son-in-law finally came to the throne. The Kingdome was powerful and flourishing. It did not seem possible that any enemy could be a threat. Now because they considered anything that came out of the unconscious of the monarchs to be significant the dreams of monarchs were recorded. And therefore the dream of Nebuchadnezzar which Daniel had interpreted concerning the fall of Babylon and its successor another great empire; this dream and the interpretation were documents of state. Officially and duly recorded.

The army of the Medes and Persians were now outside the gate. Nabinidus was at the other castle. He made no attempt to return. The Babylonians were confident. After all walls that were seventy feet high as wide as this sanctuary so that two way traffics of chariots with four horses could be had on top of the wall is hardly readily over-come. ON top of that within the walls they had stored up a 70 year supply of food. And so They believed themselves to be impregnable. [00:13:54]

Let the army come...[edit]

Let the army come. Let them camp outside the wall. Before very long without food and with their supply lines so far away, the army would fall apart and could be picked to pieces, and their bones would ripen in the dessert sun. And Darius the general of the Medes and Persian army was 62 years old. How long was he going to last in such a (heat?). 70 years? In seven years he would be old and his ability limited.

And so that night in contempt of the prophecies of Daniel. He had long since been demoted, retired. In contempt of the God of Babylon and the confidence that they were unbeatable Belshazzar and a thousand of his lords and his wives and his concubines had a banquet. And in deliberate and open contempt of the God of Daniel he sent for the vessels from the temple and had them brought in so they could drink out of these sacred vessels to indicate their contempt of that God. The religion of Babylon was celebrated.

And the religion was that of the old tower of Babel. Of assent by works. Man rising up by degree by degree until he became one of the higher degrees, one of the masters, one of the gods. Man was his own savior his own destiny, and the future was his to make. [00:16:14]

And as verse 22 makes clear, they were celebrating...[edit]

And as verse 22 makes clear, they were celebrating their victory over the God of Daniel in defiance of Daniel's prophecy saying as in as such; I am the captain and the master of my fate and destiny. And suddenly in the midst of this celebration a hand appeared and began to write on the plaster of the wall. And terror filled all those present. And we are told that the King's countenance was changed and his thoughts troubled him so that the joints in his loins released and his knees knocked against the other. And he cried allowed summoning his wise men to come and interpret the dream, promising the one who interpreted it would be made third in the kingdom, after himself, he being second. No one was able to read the writing on the wall. And so we are told the Queen. Probably the Queen mother, Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, came in and reminded him of Daniel.

And so Daniel was sent for. It galled Belshazzar to send for the very man who he was despising and his God he was despising. And so even as he asked Daniel to interpret the writing he said, "Art thou that Daniel of the children of the captivity of Judah whom the King my Father brought out of Jewry?" He was compelled to appeal to the God and the prophet he despised but he did that by reminding Daniel of his slave origin to shame and to humble him, and to say: “Your God didn't do much for you; what can he do to us?”

Daniel's response was to say “Your honor that you want to bestow on me, keep to yourself. What honor is it to be third in a kingdom that is going to perish? But, you oh King know that the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom and majesty, and glory, and honor. And for the majesty that he gave them all people nations and languages trembled and feared before him; whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, and whom he would he set up and whom he would he put down. But when his heart was lifted up and his mind hardened in him he was deposed form his kingly throne and they took his glory form him and he was driven from the sons of men. And thou Belshazzar has not humbled Thy heart though thou newest all this. Instead thou has proceeded in defiance and contempt of God. Therefore God sent the hand and this writing was written. Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin; Numbered, Numbered, Weighed Wanting. This is the interpretation of the saying. Mene God has numbered thy kingdom and finished it. Tekel thou art weighed in the balances and are found wanting. Upharsin thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians. This is the judgment of the God you despise.


The inscription probably in Hebrew since it was understandab...[edit]

The inscription probably in Hebrew since it was understandable only to Daniel numbered, weighed, weighed, wanting. Weighing refers to scale. And this is a most significant fact because a very important symbol in all the religions of antiquity whether of Egypt or of Babylon was the figure of the scales. The scales of justice. In Egypt when a man died and went to the underworld he then began to recount all his good works and they entered into the scales of justice. And if his good works outweighed his bad then he became a God and he began to recite a litany saying, "We are told his toes and fingernails and his hair began to turn into the toes and fingernails and the hair of a god. And his hands, feet, and head, were beginning to turn into the hands, feet, and head of a god and so on." Naming all his parts they declared that step by step he was becoming a God. This is what the scales meant. Man by his merit rose on the ladder of speculation the ladder of works up degree by degree until he became not only a master but a god. And out of this to comes your masonic degrees.

This to was the fate of Babylon. The scales of justice. Whereby a man made a god of himself. Whereby Babylon could feel confident. We have done all things necessary. How can we be defeated? How can you say it? We are of the order of the gods.

And so God said unto them: “You and your works, you and your self-righteousness, you and your pretended divinity, you are weighed on the scales of my justice, and I condemn you and everyone who holds to a similar fate.”


Then commanded Belshazzar and they clothed Daniel in...[edit]

Then commanded Belshazzar and they clothed Daniel in scarlet and put a chain of gold about his neck and made a proclamation concerning him that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. He was badly frightened but only for a while. His heart was unregenerate. And so Daniel having interpreted the vision, the dream, the hand writing on the wall for him, Belshazzar expressed his contempt for him by saying, "I make you third in the kingdom, you are going to be around to see the Kingdom prosper and flourish. And every day you have to be around to sit in office in your old position again you will be reminded that you are a false prophet." And that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. The city was taken without resistance. They sat there confident. Their walls were so great. Their food supply so tremendous. How could any enemy touch them? They were so confident. The enemy took them without resistance.

Darius the Mede did not disturb the life of Babylon. Belshazzar and the others around him were put to the sword that very night but, the rest of the city scarcely knew that there had been a change. Darius prevented the army from looting. He was going to rule this empire without any disturbance and use its wealth and taxation to enrich the Medo-Persian empire. And Belshazzar who made his proud boast was gone by morning. And because they were not disturbed the people of Babylon didn't bother to record how he died, how the city was taken.

So passed Babylon. A captive to the Medo-Persian Empire and later on in fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel turning back to the desert. A city set on many waters once and later only a mound of earth that armies marched over and never knew it was there.

The balances of God's justice had weighed Belshazzar and found him wanting. This God is our God. The same yesterday today and forever. He changes not and this is our confidence. The Belshazzar's of our day shall be weighed in the balance and they shall be found wanting and they shall perish. [00:28:56]

Let us pray:

Almighty God our Heavenly Father we thank Thee that Thou art the same yesterday today and forever. We thank Thee that Thou art He who didst destroy Belshazzar in his pride and blasphemy and so may all Thine enemies perish oh Lord. WE look unto Thee in this generation when the Belshazzar's who are all around us and they flaunt themselves against Thee. And we await they judgment and deliverance. How great Thou art oh Lord. And we praise Thee. In Jesus Name Amen

[Audience] Indiscernible


There is judgment before death but, it is not always total judgment. But there is both judgment in time and then the fullness of judgment in eternity. But, especially for his blasphemy Belshazzar was judged in time as well as in eternity.

[Audience] Indiscernible


The same. The Babylonian people had the same faith that Belshazzar did. Yes, their judgment came a little more slowly. And there was so little loyalty that it didn't seem to bother them in the least. It was business as usual the next day and the day after.

[Audience] Indiscernible


Yes, there is a form of mental behavior called anthropy []??] and this is what by the providence of God struck him at that moment. And the people ah it was kept form the people probably. But, he was turned loose apparently into the palaces own pastures and there foraged like the cattle, the horses. But, this was by the hand of God but, it is also a condition that is known to man.


[Audience] Indiscernible...[edit]

[Audience] Indiscernible


With regard to Darius this of course was another point they fixed on in this chapter because the rest is embarrassing. Evidence is turning up progressively to indicate that Darius had two or three names. Now this was not uncommon in the ancient world and not uncommon in the modern world because you see Darius was moving in ah circles that were Median and circles that were Persian and therefore his name would have more than one form. Now in the modern world in the middle East this is often true. A person will have several names because there are several languages in a community and he will translate the name or he will adopt a similar name. Not too many years ago it was still common place for Indians to have two names; an Indian name and an English name. So that some scholars are beginning to close in on the proof that Darius was one of the names of the conquering general. Witcomb (??) has written a book on Darius the Mede in which he goes into all the evidence and it turns out that the critiques here are straining at knots and swallowing candles because the burden of proof is that this account is correct. What you said earlier about money [??} Is I think a very interesting point. This is by in large kept from people. And we are not told of the very sorry last days of a good number of very prominent people. Because they protect these men. There own. And Emerson had a very sorry old age. And so did John D. Rockefeller Sr. and a good many others. So that their last days were some rather tearful ones. But, we are not told about this. And about the only one we know a little about is Niche and even there much has been withheld from us. We happen to know it with respect to Niche because he had to be confined.



Yes, the Masonic degrees are of course derived from the same faith basically whereby you ascend step by step until you become a master and then finally a god. And some of the older Masonic documents that are on file in an English university and have been published to claim that the Masons claim that the source of their religion is the tower of Babel. And when they were stricken by God with the confusing of languages they established these symbols so wherever they were they would recognize one another and identify one another as members of a common lodge. And there is evidence for example and this comes from a book published by a prominent liberal that during the days of the Babery tarts (??) Some Unitarian sea captains would fly Masonic symbol being members of the lodge and the illuminist circle within and they were never attacked. Similarly white prisoners were spared by Indians in warfare because the Indians had their secret lodges too and they recognized the symbols. There is a great deal here that has never been thoroughly pursued that is very very interesting.


[Audience] Indiscernible...[edit]

[Audience] Indiscernible


Yes, the shriners are technically not a Masonic order but, they are made up of Masons of a certain degree. So for all practical intent they are a higher Masonic order. And they especially stress their non-Christian aspect. The very costuming and all stresses the Muslim aspect and the Muslim orders that they claim to be a part of go back into the early centuries and represent a very ugly bit of history. So you would think they would be ashamed to claim that heritage but they do and they are very proud of it.

[Audience] Indiscernible


No, because the Bible does require the death penalty for a number of things. And it does not permit torture. This was never permitted in scripture. It was specifically spoken against. Burning did flourish in certain areas in earlier centuries. We cannot agree with the form of execution. But, I can say very often the execution was justified. It was not as severe a death as most people seem to think for this reason. The person was not burned to death. He usually died before the flames touched him from the smoke. He was asphyxiated very quickly. And this was done by putting a great deal of green wood on the fire at the very beginning and so the smoke killed him and his body was reduced to ashes later. So that there is a great deal of misreading of such deaths. Non-the-less we cannot agree that they were the proper mode of execution.

[Audience] Indiscernible


Yes, because there was an extensive amount of belief that they should rid the very country of everything that was contaminated and this was the Thesis behind the burnings.


[Audience] Indiscernible...[edit]

[Audience] Indiscernible


No direct relationship but, they are both basically humanistic faiths.

[Audience] Indiscernible


The Salem witch trials like the European witch trials had a common cause. The witches covens represented an underground movement. This underground movement was the old paganism of Europe. It was a fertility cult. It's practices, it's form of worship was sexual and involved all kinds of sexual relations with the kind of worship. It involved incest. It involved perversions. This church had as its purpose; it was an anti-church- the destruction of Christian Europe. Now for quite a while the church leaned over backwards to avoid any persecution of these groups. But torwards the latter part of the middle ages especially as the Universities began on their level to contribute to the breakdown of Christendom and on the lower level these groups began to rise and gain more and more power they began a strong movement to destroy these cults. They were extremely powerful. They included at times many monarchs. There is an important writer Dr. M A Murray University of London an anthropologist who has written several books on this; The Witch Craft Cult in Western Europe, The God of the Witches, and The Devine King in England. In the last book Dr. Murray states that many of the monarchs were members of this cult and every so often one of them had to be slain in order to be a sacrifice in terms of the faith. And Dr. Murray has provided some very, very interesting documentation of this. Now some have claimed and this has no substation for it that this came over to this country so there has had to be a ritual killing in periodic years of the American president. There seems to be a pattern of the time of the various executions or liquidations of the various presidents. That of course is pure surmise. But that this cult existed and was exceedingly powerful is definitely true. It has also been claimed and I think there is evidence for this that Joan of Arc was a member of this group. And this is why the Church tried and executed her. The state of course was formally doing the trial but the church provided extensive testimony at the trial. And Joan of Arc as it were took the fifth amendment in denying key questions that pointed to this. So that while there are some who defend her today I think it must be admitted that on certain points she evaded critical questions. Now and this was not just for military purposes. And certainly her right hand man Charles E lay(sp??). Was subsequently executed for a variety of crimes which included the ritual slaying of innumerable children. Now this group crept into Salem. While they tried to restrict the people who came over to those who were Christians others came over as servants. One man named Boaz came over who very obviously prospered and practiced such a cult openly. He was shipped back I believe if my recollection serves me correctly. It has been some years since I have researched the trial. Finally it reached appoint where they had to have some trials. Now it may be true that some of the girls who gave testimony were historical and that one or two perhaps may have been falsely accused. But, I think it's even more proof that there was a great deal of evidence turned up. And important evidence. When they stopped it, it was because they began to fear that some historical persons were no testifying. They started it and they stopped it. When you read about it in the history books they take certain things out of context to make it seem like nothing but hysteria. But I think it is interesting that more than one person who was not Christian who was not quote "Puritan" has said of the Salem trials that there definitely was a subversive cult. We do know that such cults staged all kinds of revolutionary activities during the late middle ages. We are finding the same ideas today among the hippies and other groups. The same names for example. The leaders among the hippies are the diggers. Now it is significant that the diggers was the name of a radical communistic group in 17th century England. Why did they choose that name? Was it because they are harking back to the same ideas and represent basically the same faith? I think so. There is a mark similarity of belief there at many, many points. So I think we have to recognize there is a great deal here. All the movement of today is to make these groups acceptable. Now the Anabaptists are one such group. Everything you read about the Anabaptist movement at the time of the reformation is designed to make the Anabaptist seem like a very spiritual group who were very brutally treated. Well they were a revolutionary group whose purpose it was to institute communism. And they staged a bloody revolution again and again in a number of places and they seized a couple of areas. It is interesting that Karl Marx's associate Frederick Engels (sp??) on the Anabaptists in which he said very plainly that this is one of the major early movements of communism and that the major defect of it was that it came too soon; the world wasn't ready for it. And he spoke of the Christian aspect of it as a kind of [???]. Well today of course we are told that Engels book is not to be trusted. It is a very bad book. The Anabaptist were the purist kind of Christians. Now the ones who are telling us that the Anabaptist were such wonderful Christians are the modernist, the social gosplest, the revolutionist within the Church. And I do believe that the author take what they say worth a grain of salt. They have manufactured so much evidence that I am a little suspicious even there. Although it is obvious that there was such bitter resentment against the Anabaptists that no doubt they did take stern measures and severe ones. Unduly severe when they re-conquered these places. One of the things by the way that the Anabaptists instituted was sexual communism or excuse me Polygamy among other things. And there was all kinds of ideas that they propagated . That had little connection with the Bible. That were revolutionary to the extreme. But, all these movements today are treated as if they represented real Christianity and we are the anti Christian element.


[Audience] Indiscernible...[edit]

[Audience] Indiscernible


Yes, we are in a period where of course history is being used to upset our knowledge to destroy it. The Land of the Free is a good example a most obvious one. All the text books that came before The Land of the Free have been and have been perverting it for a long, long time. So that we would not have a real knowledge of the past. Now you recall that George Orwell in his book 1984 speaks about new speak and how history is continually being revised. And certain people are completely dropped out of sight as if they never existed. The Soviet Union its encyclopedias are loose leaf; they send you pages and you are supposed to take out pages when somebody drops out of history as it were and destroy them and substitute other pages in your encyclopedia because that person is now a non-person. Now when George Orwell wrote 1984 and this we often forget he was describing the world around him in 1948. He was saying this is the world we have no and the end conclusion of it in a few years will be in 84. But, this is what we are doing now. And he knew. He was a socialist. He lived and he died a socialist. He never believed in anything but socialism. He was not a Christian so he had no hope and he died a young man because having seen what was done in the name of socialism his great hope the religion of humanistic man. He wrote Animal Man and 1984 and he could see no way out but to die. And he died.

[Audience] Indiscernible


Yes, Right. Now to give you an example all the time I went through school I was told about how horribly the Quakers were treated and how brutally they were executed by the terrible, terrible people of New England. Now when I went back and read some of the original documents and some of the older works I found it was very, very different. These Quakers were absolute nuts. They were fantastic people. They would come to these colonies from England with no purpose other than to make trouble. And so what would these poor people do? They would come into the church services and they would break them up. So they would escort them to the boundaries and say in affect please stay out we are banishing you. It is an open country go out there and build your own Quaker colony if you want one. But, no they didn't want that. They wanted to destroy the existing colonies. So they would come back in and the next time they would come back in they wouldn't be content with coming back and breaking up the church services the Quaker men and women-the women were the worse at this-would parade naked down the church isle and stand up and rant at the congregation without a stitch on. Now you cannot blame those people for being upset and after they kicked them out of the churches and out of the colonies over and over and over again they finally executed one or two and then they stayed away. Now I don't think there was anything brutal or cruel in executing them. I think they should have done it the first time. [00:56:23]

[Audience] Indiscernible...[edit]

[Audience] Indiscernible


No, your Quaker history is a very bad one. From the very beginning it was very closely connected to the revolutionary movement that Anabaptism was and still is. Quakerism was an Anabaptist movement. Now for a while it pulled in its horns because James Nailer (sp?) who I would say in some respects the most prominent Quaker was arrested for blasphemy. He rode into Bristol in an imitation of Jesus entry into Jerusalem with the Quakers shouting blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord. Openly claiming to be a Messiah. Now the reaction to this in England was so negative that the Quakers pulled in their horns. A few of the Quakers did represent a higher caliber. William Pen was one. And for a time some of the saner Quakers who had pulled in their horns from this revolutionary kind of activity did flourish in Pennsylvania. However, they lost out very heavily during the war of Independence. First because of their passivism and second because they tended to be pro British and anti American and that didn't set very well. However, Quakerism by enlarge has through most of its history has been connected to radicalism. It's basic doctrine throughout history has been the One World Religion. This was the first doctrine propagated by Quakerism. That every man has the inner light; that every man has the spark of divinity in him so that whatever religion any man belongs to he can be saved because he is a part of god and all he has to do is develop that spark and he becomes a god. Now the involvement of Quakers today in radicalism goes without saying. The American friends service comity has quite a record. Technically it is no longer connected to the Friends church but the Friends church isn't too different in its involvement in social affairs. This basically has been the nature of Quakerism. This was its nature at the beginning it pulled in its horns for a while but it is simply manifesting again its basic nature. It is not Christian. It is a one world religion. It believes that all people and all religions are equally the children of God and equally can save themselves It does not believe in the sacraments of baptism and communion.


Well our time is just about over now...[edit]

Well our time is just about over now. Oh there was something more I did want to share with you and then we will be dismissed. There is an interesting book that has just been published by an occultist leftist group. Reincarnation in a World of Thought and the library journal has just described it as a noble admirable book. The distinguished psychiatrist Karl Menenger {sp??}." A highly impressive collection of the reflections of many wise men in many places." Unquote And it goes on to say that the heretics of the middle ages were the re-incarnationsists. The better known [Not sure how to spell the following????] of France of Germany of Italy of Bulgaria. They were relentlessly exterminated by the inquisition. Well they were not only re-incarnationists but they were highly dangerous subversive illuminist groups. Then it sights among those who have been believers of reincarnation in this country is: Thoreau, Emerson, Thomas Edison, Walt Wittmen, Malabue and Mark Twain. And among those from Germany[CHECK SPELLING???} Gappe, Hinnne, Heckle, and Niche. Now it is interesting that the same publisher a far leftist and an occultist is also promoting another book. Mystics and Zen Masters by Thomas Merton. Now Thomas Merton is a monk who supposedly before he returned to Catholicism. Well he was prior to that a communist and was converted. But, this is interesting. The famous author and monk has been a devoted student of Eastern Religions for many years and here in he opens a genuine dialogue. He believes that our spiritual and even our physical survival may depend on real communication between East and West. And it goes on to cite how he is trying to make this bridge. In other words the one world religion is what he has in mind. And the review concludes that it becomes clear that only the new freedom in the Catholic church has made it possible for publication of this valuable book.