Worse than an Infidel

  1 Timothy 5:8   But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

The Incredible Scofield and His Book by Joseph M. Canfield

 

Joseph M. Canfield’s thorough, critical review of the legends and historical inaccuracies about Cyrus Scofield and the Scofield Reference Bible (and later editions revised by others) included extensive documentation relating to Scofield’s divorce of his first wife and of his failure to provide for his daughters.  Canfield observed that you will not find any Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition) for 1 Timothy 5:8 and for many other verses relating to Scofield’s personal failings.  Even worse, Scofield’s notes have promoted dispensationalism and other false teachings used to promote endless wars and the destruction of Christianity.

As a boy, I bought a Scofield Reference Bible because of its cross-referencing system.  This system meant that I did not need to carry with me a Bible and a concordance.  Luckily, I ignored Scofield’s notes and Ussher dates as being only opinons.  Unfortunately, many Christians assumed that anything appearing in a Bible was sacred.

Scofield’s Qualifications

 

Scofield claimed to have a Doctor of Divinity degree and used the title Dr. Scofield.  However, researchers have been unable to verify any studies or any degree.  Scofield did not study the languages of the Bible.  Born in Michigan, Scofield moved to Tennessee, where he served in the Confederate Army during part of the Civil War (War Between the States).  In Kansas, he was a lawyer, a member of the Kansas House of Representatives, and a United States Attorney for Kansas.  He spent time in jail for fraud.

Divorce

 

Scofield’s first wife came from a prosperous fur-trading family.  He spent long periods of time away from his wife and daughters.  Later, when he decided to enter the ministry, he divorced his Catholic wife and married a woman who attended his church.

Free from the Law by Grace

 

Instead of advocating a straight and narrow path of moral behavior, Scofield promoted antinomianism.  Since people can never be perfect, the saved are free from the law by grace.

Failing Churches

 

Scofield claimed that Christian churches were failing in a decaying world.  However, if there will be a rapture soon, why bother to improve?

Avoid Politics

 

Even though Scofield had held political positions, he advocated that Christians stay out of politics because the world cannot be converted.  While he supported having missionaries, his advocacy was based upon evangelizing, not on ultimate conversions.  Powerful political elites will appreciate not having to worry about Christians who stay out of politics.

Rapture

 

Scofield must have been surprised on his death bed because he claimed to believe in the rapture.  He wrote extensive notes about Matthew 13 and the Parable of the Wheat and Tares (weeds, used to refer to wicked people).  In this parable, Jesus spoke of burning the tares first and placing the wheat in the barn.  Scofield twisted this to meaning set aside the tares for later destruction and take the wheat first.  Hal Lindsey and others have sold millions of books based upon Scofield’s notes and other proponents of dispensationalism, such as:  The Late Great Planet Earth, The Rapture, and The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad.

Millennial Kingdom on Earth

 

While Scofield promoted the Postponed Kingdom theory, he provided few notes to the Bible to support the theory.  Jesus disappointed those who wanted a Messiah to rule the world.  Canfield critiqued the theory that Jesus will return to impose political or theocratic rule for 1,000 years and yet many will choose not to believe during that period.

Scofield’s Expensive Lifestyle

 

Canfield documented Scofield’s earnings as a minister and his royalties.  Scofield could not have made trips to Europe and have lived in several homes on his income.  Scofield was a member of The Lotos Club in New York City.  Neither his wealth nor his literary achievements were similar to those of other members of this expensive club.  Hopefully, future researchers will be able to discover the sources and the agenda of those who promoted the works of Scofield.

Peace or Endless Wars?

 

Scofield’s views ranged from having a world government and world police to Armageddon prospects for endless wars.

Words Have Consequences

 

Canfield provided detailed explanations of the errors and omissions in an earlier book about Scofield (The Life Story of C. I. Scofield by Charles Gallaudet Trumbull), a thesis, and in articles.  Charles Carlson has posted more recent critiques of Scofield and of the Scofield Reference Bible.  After comparing these sources, readers will be able to decide whether Scofield rightly divided the word of truth:

  2 Timothy 2:15   Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Charles Carlson, We Hold These Truths

http://whtt.org/newwhtt/

The Incredible Scofield and His Book

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54737546/The-Incredible-Scofield-and-His-Book

A Prize from Fairyland beyond our Wildest Dreams

As an American, I am very experienced with living in a country with dishonest major media (called the lamestream media by many Americans) owned by a small number of corporations or financed partially by the American government. The combination of the dishonest media and of the dumbing down of American education has consequences. See, for example, the film Idiocracy for a forecast of the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk

In George Orwell’s book 1984, Orwell predicted a future with competing totalitarian empires controlling the media and revising history. As George Galloway, a former Member of Parliament and the host of some excellent programs on Press TV, commented recently, you can still find Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park, London and in some other locations in the United Kingdom because the political establishment knows that very few people will be able to hear the speakers.

In “Press TV Discredits Itself” (Huffington Post UK, January 24, 2012), Jody Sabral has abandoned support for an outstanding media organization, for which she worked in Turkey.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jody-sabral/press-tv-fails-its-employees-again_b_1226593.html?just_reloaded=1
Sabral’s claims of free speech in Britain are laughable. Many people in the world remember the BBC’s coverage (or lack of coverage) of the Gaza War. In “BBC refuses airtime to Gaza aid appeal” (The Guardian, January 22, 2009), Jenny Percival noted that the BBC has been criticized in the past over alleged biases in covering the Middle East. The BBC refused to air humanitarian appeals to aid the victims in Gaza. Previously, the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) had been able to raise millions of pounds for relief in Congo and in Burma. Sky offered this excuse for failing to broadcast the Gaza appeal: ‘By convention, if all broadcasters do not carry the appeal, then none do. The decision was effectively made for us.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/23/bbc-refuses-gaza-appeal
Are these British values that Sabral wants others to applaud? While Sabral and I share having American ancestors who served in the American Revolution and ancestors from England, the similarities end there. My Foote ancestors left England nearly 400 years ago. Many people left England and other European countries centuries ago to escape from monarchy, theocracy, and from endless wars. Centuries later, the British still have a monarchy, a theocracy, and support for endless wars to steal resources from weaker countries.
In “Why Iran hates Britain so much” (The Telegraph, June 29, 2009), Con Coughlin noted:
“Relations further soured when Britain arbitrarily set Iran’s borders with India in the 1860s, but matters came to a head in 1872 when the then shah awarded Baron Paul Julius von Reuter, the founder of Reuters news agency, a monopoly over virtually all of Iran’s economic and financial resources. Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Secretary at the time, described the ‘Reuter Concession’, as it became known, as ‘the most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign hands that has probably ever been dreamt of, much less accomplished, in history’.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/5689752/Why-Iran-hates-Britain-so-much.html

Coughlin failed to note that Lord Curzon went on to become the architect of the D’Arcy Concession, a comparable concession in Persia. Stephen Kinzer, in All The Shah’s Men, wrote: “Winston Churchill called it ‘a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams’.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wv4B6C-wTG8C&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=D%27Arcy+Concession+Lord+Curzon&source=bl&ots=zYDye5MiGT&sig=u6Dq5Xjvz_xiGdhu1Qq92lQly38&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V78eT_TqE4Ly2QX3mvWLDw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=D%27Arcy%20Concession%20Lord%20Curzon&f=false

For honest accounts of the role of Britain in Persia, read W. Morgan Shuster’s book, The Strangling of Persia.

Shuster’s book contains the details of a small group of Americans who went to Persia to help with the Persian desires for a constitutional revolution. Unfortunately, the Russian and British monarchies were able to crush the efforts of the honest American individuals. The result was the continuation of monarchy in Iran with the Pahlavi Dynasty. The people of the world should be applauding the Islamic Republic of Iran for ending monarchy in Iran and for preventing the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists from taking over Iran. Like the United Kingdom, the Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocracy. When will the United Kingdom set an example for other theocracies in the world by ending theocracy and monarchy in the United Kingdom?

Unfortunately, the thieves of Britain are joined today by the thieves of America: Zionists, Christian Zionists, and Neo-Conservatives (Neo-Trotskyites).

George Galloway, a former Member of Parliament and the host of programs on Press TV, has expressed views contrary to Sabral’s views. Other members of Parliament or former members of Parliament have hosted programs on Press TV in London. Sabral failed to address the views of these British lawmakers and failed to explain why her understanding of British laws is superior to theirs.

I have appeared in the London studio of Press TV on a panel (including with a Zionist) for one hour. Our only instructions were to discuss, in our own views, what we thought were the most significant events in the world for that year. To suggest that anyone in Tehran approves the content of programs is very dishonest. No one at Press TV knew which points I and the other panelists wanted to make. Viewers witnessed an honest difference in viewpoints between persons they would not see on the BBC propaganda network.

I have appeared many times on Press TV and several times on China Radio International and on RT (Russia Today Television). I do not expect any invitations for me or anyone with Middle East experiences similar to mine on BBC or on America’s lamestream media. Other than the taped television program in London, my appearances on Press TV have been live. My appearances have ranged from a few minutes to several continuous hours on live television. No one at Press TV knew what I would say.

By contrast, you will find in America’s book stores and on the American media the views on Iran of people who have never been to Iran and who have not studied Persian. For example, see Kenneth M. Pollack’s book, The Persian Puzzle.

The BBC Persian Service even promotes the views of the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists.

http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/News4/May06/BBCPersian060506.htm

These are British values others should hold in contempt.

Even the New York Times, with its long history to promoting dishonestly communists, described the MEK honestly as the Cult of Rajavi.

In 2008, as a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton threatened to obliterate Iran.

Sabral failed to condemn Hillary Clinton for wanting to murder every man, woman, and child in Iran. She failed to condemn the long British history of using military force to impose dictators in other countries and to steal resources. Instead, according to Sabral, those of us who appear on Press TV to oppose the bombing of Iran or sanctions against Iran are anti-interventionalist propagandists.

Sabral has even worked for Press TV. Press TV is one of the best sources of news and programs in the world today. However, even Press TV has made at least one mistake in its hiring of journalists.

I am grateful that my Foote ancestors left England nearly 400 years ago. Today, the United Kingdom is still a monarchy, a theocracy, and a promoter of endless wars to steal resources from weaker countries. While my family name is English, I welcome being classified as unBritish. If the British truly valued democracy, they would have granted seats in Parliament to representatives from the American colonies. There would have been no American Revolution.
If the British people had any good values, they would have supported the values of Charles James Fox, a Member of Parliament at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Fox

Instead, the British people supported the laws which gave them King George III, the Mad King, or the King Who Lost America.

George Orwell, in his book 1984, had a better appreciation of the failings of real British values.

From 1906 to 1911, the people of Iran struggled to have a constitutional revolution. They valued democracy. The Russian and British monarchies crushed the dreams of the Iranian people.

Today, the British are still mired in monarchy and in theocracy. Sabral claims that the British value democracy. For educated persons who have studied history, we know that it was the Iranian people who valued democracy.

American Demons

American Demons

Paul Sheldon Foote

http://www.facebook.com/paulsheldonfoote
November 13, 2011

In 2003, at the start of the Iraq War, Anne Singleton published Saddam’s Private Army, a book warning the world about the Iranian MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. In 2011, as the deadline for the departure of American military forces approaches, Anne Singleton and her husband, Massoud Khodabandeh, have published The Life of Camp Ashraf, a book warning that there could be a tragic ending, similar to the Jonestown, Guyana mass suicides in 1978 or the Waco, Texas massacre in 1993, for thousands of cult members who want to leave the cult.

As former MEK members, the authors have spent years attempting to rescue the thousands of members trying to escape from Camp Ashraf, Iraq. They have visited Iraq and have helped the Nejat Society, the Sahar Family Foundation, and individuals who have escaped from Camp Ashraf.

Founded in 1965, the original purpose of the MEK was to use Marxist liberation theology to overthrow the Shah of Iran. After the Shah killed the founders, Massoud Rajavi took control of the terrorist organization. Shortly before the Shah fled from Iran, Massoud Khodabandeh met Ayatollah Khomeini in France to pledge the MEK’s support for the Iranian Revolution. During the American hostage crisis, the MEK participated and called for the executions of the Americans. Rajavi is anti-American, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist. His aim is to become the Pol Pot of Iran, even if the MEK must become a tool of the American government to achieve his aim. After Rajavi failed in a counter-revolution attempt against Ayatollah Khomeini, Rajavi fled to France. Massoud Khodabandeh attended a meeting between the CIA and Rajavi in France. The French government provided land, buildings, equipment, and approximately 200 free telephone lines for the terrorists. The MEK continues to operate a headquarters in France.

In 1983, Donald Rumsfeld, President Ronald Reagan’s envoy to Saddam Hussein arranged to move the MEK to Iraq. In the isolation of Camp Ashraf, Iraq, Rajavi turned the group into a cult. Some American feminists have promoted the MEK because Rajavi placed women in the leadership positions. The feminists fail to mention that candidates for the Leadership Council danced naked in front of Rajavi at “Freedom Dance” events and slept with Rajavi in the audition process. Feminists fail to mention also Rajavi’s cult practices of mandatory divorces, sending away children, prohibited contact with relatives, and arranged marriages.

After the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK hid more than 1,000 Iranian prisoners of war from the International Committee of the Red Cross to prevent the exchange of the Iranian prisoners.

In return for providing military camps and arms in Iraq, Saddam Hussein required the MEK to kill Iraqis. While Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard forces trained by killing and eating innocent Iraqis, the MEK trained by killing and eating wild dogs. The MEK killed large numbers of unarmed Iraqi Kurd and Shiite civilians after the 1991 Gulf War. America did not attack MEK bases in Iraq. The West offered to move the MEK to Azerbaijan or to Pakistan.

In 2001, Massoud Rajavi rejoiced at the destruction of the World Trade Center.

At the start of the Iraq War, American and coalition forces killed some of the MEK. However, neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) protected the MEK claiming falsely that the Fourth Geneva Convention applied to a terrorist group. The American military has been hiding and protecting Massoud Rajavi. The American government has prevented the inspection of a mass grave at Camp Ashraf (containing perhaps large numbers of Kuwaitis).

Contrary to lies of American military officers and to the American government’s claim of a war on terrorism, the American government has been using the MEK in terrorist activities in Iraq, Iran, and in Pakistan. The Iraqi government has proof in the form of MEK identifications issued by the American government found on the bodies of killed terrorists. The MEK has worked with other terrorist organizations in the region, including PJAK (or PEJAK) and Jundallah (or Jondollah).

In June 2003, after the French government arrested Maryam Rajavi, some MEK members burned themselves to death.

The mainstream American media has promoted the MEK even though the MEK has been on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations since the administration of former President Bill Clinton. A surprising exception was Elizabeth Rubin’s “The Cult of Rajavi” in the New York Times Magazine, June 2003.

After the American government closed the office of the terrorist organization in Washington, DC, the Fox News Channel retained the head of the office as a foreign affairs analyst.

In 2005, Human Rights Watch published “No Exit”, a report warning that MEK members could not leave the cult. MEK leaders have tortured and have killed MEK members who attempted to leave Camp Ashraf, Iraq.

As of August 2009, at least 14 American soldiers have died and 60 have been wounded providing security for MEK shopping convoys to Baghdad.

The American government has funded the MEK via Saudi Arabia. The MEK has raised funds also by creating fake charities (Iran Aid and Muslim Iranian Students’ Society) by collecting donations at airports, and by telling their families that they need tens of thousands of dollars for life-saving surgeries. For example, the American Red Cross withdrew from a fake MEK charity fund raising event after the December 26, 2003 earthquake in Bam, Iran after learning the truth about the MEK. The Iran Policy Committee employs former CIA and military officers to promote the MEK. Hundreds of members of Congress (Democrats and Republicans) have signed statements supporting the MEK terrorists.

The MEK terrorists could not exist without the support of the American government and the ignorance of American voters.

The Neoconservative Cult and the Fragility of American Democracy

On January 27, 2005, CounterPunch.org posted the remarks of Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker contributor) at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York that a neoconservative cult had taken over the American government.  Hersh hoped that future historians would document the fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press.  Stephen Sniegoski, in The Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved the takeover.

Other books have stressed how the neoconservative ideology is contrary to traditional American values:  Reclaiming the American Right (Justin Raimondo), America the Virtuous (Claes Ryn), Where the Right Went Wrong (Patrick Buchanan).

“Memoirs of a Trotskyist” in Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (Irving Kristol) provided a neoconservative account of the origins of neo-conservatism.  Sniegoski noted correctly that the term neoconservative originated with leftists critical of their former comrades for attempting to infiltrate the Democratic and Republican parties.  Thanks to leftists who call neoconservatives the ultra-right and to conservative dupes who think that anyone using a conservative label is a conservative, the neoconservative cancer has spread through the fragile American political body.

The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group attempting to take over America.  The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a detailed account of General Smedley Butler’s testimony to Congress about a secret plot to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt.  Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket.

Unlike earlier secret plots to take over the American government, Sniegoski explained how it was possible for the neoconservatives to operate as a relatively transparent cabal.  However, he observed that the neoconservatives used a Trojan horse technique to take over the American conservative movement.  The goal of the neoconservatives is to promote endless wars regardless of whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power.

The neoconservatives do not represent a popular mass movement in America.  Instead, the neoconservatives rely upon the co-operation of other groups.  Sniegoski provided extensive documentation of which groups enabled the neoconservatives.  For example, the Christian Zionists duped their followers into sacrificing money and soldiers.  Zionism originated with the writings of Moses Hess (who helped Karl Marx write The Communist Manifesto, was nicknamed the Communist Rabbi, and who is buried in Israel).  In 1862, Moses Hess published Rome and Jerusalem.  Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism (Shlomo Avineri) provided a detailed explanation of the relationship between Communism and Zionism.

The reason for the fragility of American democracy is the failure of many Americans to understand the most basic aspects of the American political system and of their religions.

The Transparent Cabal is an important starting point for understanding how a neoconservative cult opposed to traditional American political and religious values is able to destroy America with endless wars.