This is a two-parter. Find part 2 here
Job 34:18 Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly?
Romans 2:11 for there is no respect of persons with God.
The Queen who is a 'constitutional monarch', yet not upholding the British constitution at all sure is an odd 'Christian'.
Her annual Christmas speeches that are aired over British TV include:
2016: "At Christmas, our attention is drawn to the birth of a baby some two thousand years ago. It was the humblest of beginnings, and his parents, Joseph and Mary, did not think they were important...
And yet, billions of people now follow his teaching and find in him the guiding light for their lives.
I am one of them because Christ’s example helps me see the value of doing small things with great love, whoever does them and whatever they themselves believe..."
Mary didn't see anything important about her baby!?!? Joseph was his parent was he? (Thanks Steven for catching that one!)
What? Luke 1.28-35? What?? Luke 2.19&51? huh? Luke 3.23
Whatever they themselves believe? What??? John 3.36 & 5.24
The woman doesn't seem to know my savior at all. "I am one of them that follow his teachings?" oh very good, so do a lot of buddists and new-agers.
Amos 8.11 warns of a time without his 'words' not his 'teachings'.
Is Paul worried at all about Jesus Christs teachings in Col 1.25, 1 Thess 2.13, or in 2 Tim 2.9? I think not!
2019 stated that "Jesus was in the business of reconciliation.. and not division."
Strange, that's the exact opposite of what my bible says in Luke 12.51, Ex 8.23, 2 Cor 6.17, & Heb 13.13
2020 she said that "Christs teachings are her "inner light." “The Bible tells how a star appeared in the sky, its light guiding the shepherds and wise men to the scene of Jesus’s birth. Let the light of Christmas – the spirit of selflessness, love and above all hope."
Well Christs 'teachings' sure aren't my 'inner light'! They aren't in John 8.12, nor Psalm 27.1, 119.105 & 130, Prov 6.23. And in Matt 2.11 you can see the wise men were nowhere NEAR his birth.
2021 “They teach us all a lesson – just as the Christmas story does – that in the birth of a child, there is a new dawn with endless potential.”
Queen Elizabeth II said that the birth of Christ is “universally appealing,” noting the “simple happenings that formed the starting point of the life of Jesus — a man whose teachings have been handed down from generation to generation, and have been the bedrock of my faith. His birth marked a new beginning. As the carol says, ‘The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.’”
I've stated my piece on 'teachings' but this “universally appealing" business? Um... How is Luke 6:22 & 14:26, John 7.7 & 15.18, Acts 22.4, 1 Cor 1.28 & 4.12 appealing in any way, shape, form or fashion?
Isn't all that odd talk from The Supreme Governor of the Church of England?
but then maybe, just maybe its to with this Nimrod-pleasing doctrine found on her website:
"The Queen acknowledges and celebrates religious diversity and tolerance in the UK and the Commonwealth. This is reflected in Her Majesty's Christmas and Commonwealth Day messages, which often address the theme of inter-faith harmony and tolerance"
"The duty to "preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion as established by the laws made in Scotland" was affirmed in the 1707 Act of Union between England and Scotland.
The Queen made this pledge at the first Privy Council meeting of her reign in February 1952."
Better be careful with that 'true religion' talk m'lady. That'll damn more folk to hell than Atheisim.
Whats this? the 'clanker'? Ok go on, I'm listening.
On this occasion (1986) Her Majesty was presented with the Sternberg Interfaith Gold Medallion. Established in 1986, it is awarded to individuals who have helped promote peace and tolerance between people of different faiths. Previous recipients include Pope John Paul II.
Those stupid Anglicans and Presbyterians have a lot to answer for regarding their 'head of church & state' who they revere as much as any Catholic does the Pope. (I didn't say all Anglicans and Presbyterians are stupid, just those that think this woman is infallible. Calm down, dear.) Pictures of her in their houses, write ups of royals in their magazines, where they can do no wrong and so on.
Another idol for the 'Protestant' churches to fall and worship at, not having A CLUE whats really going on, as par the course.
Shes as far away from Victoria as Manessah was from Josiah.
All a conspiracy is it? (The wee trigger-word for willful ignorance by Laodiceans)
Is seeing not believing Thomas? John 20.27
Once again its comes down to this:
Hosea 4.6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
and may be rejected because of this:
and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
Oh as this is an idol-kicking session (the sort I specialize in) for a select group of Christian idolators, I better include the disclaimer:
Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
The head of state - the monarch, is a critical office. They are the highest public servant in the land and, far from being merely ceremonial in nature, as many claim, have an important job.
What is that job? Put simply, it is to protect the people from government-created law encroaching on their liberties. It's quite simple really!
Did Queen Elizabeth achieve that during her reign? Surely that is the question.
If she did, then she is to be well-respected and loved. If she failed in that regard, then unfortunately (sad though this might be for many), we must stop lying to ourselves and admit that her reign was not positive, as, failing to perform that role has serious consequences.
So what is that role and how should it work?
The monarch of England (now Britain) has the power to decide on the appropriateness of proposed legislation coming from parliament. All legislation must receive Royal Assent if it is to get onto the Statute books.
If those 'laws' (bills coming from parliament) that are put before our monarch are dangerous to the freedoms and liberties of the people or they would in any way be an infringement of our constitution, then the monarch is obligated and required under the authority of the constitution to refuse Royal Assent. It is a protection mechanism against the usurpation of the people's sovereignty.
Sadly, Elizabeth failed to do this on a number of occasions. Not least the Treaty of Nice - which led unlawfully, to the giving away of our sovereign right to our own governance.
This was high treason.