The Two Spies Report

The "Minority Report" from J. Michael Bennett, Ph.D, Emeritus Producer of the Future Quake Radio Show, and Author of the soon-to-be-released book series The Holy War Chronicles – A Spiritual View of the War on Terror

Building Walls or Building Bridges – Trump and the Pope

482295313.0.0_2.0.0Sorry, friends, that I am been absent for a while here, but I have been busy trying to wrap up the next-to-last volume of my book series, and other personal matters.  However, there has been buzz recently concerning a unique scrap between two major public figures concerning a religious matter, for which I just had to add my two-cents as food for thought.

As most of you know, a few days ago the Pope was asked to comment about popular Presidential candidate Donald Trump and his comments about the Mexicans that the Pope was visiting at the time at the border.  The interchange has been famously misquoted on television and on line almost everywhere, but you can read the actual comments, in context, here.  The key points of question to the Pope and his response are taken from this cited reference and the Catholic News Agency transcript, and include the following:

Phil Pullella, Reuters: Today, you spoke very eloquently about the problems of immigration. On the other side of the border, there is a very tough electoral battle. One of the candidates for the White House, Republican Donald Trump, in an interview recently said that you are a political man and he even said that you are a pawn, an instrument of the Mexican government for migration politics. Trump said that if he’s elected, he wants to build 2,500 kilometers of wall along the border. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, separating families, etcetera. I would like to ask you, what do you think of these accusations against you and if a North American Catholic can vote for a person like this?

Pope Francis: Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as ‘animal politicus.’ At least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”

Trump subsequently took the media bait in twisting the Pope’s words, and said that someone challenging whether another person was a Christian was “disgraceful”; nevermind that less than 24 hours before Trump himself was publicly challenging Ted Cruz’ true Christianity because of his alleged deceit.  Trump also would love to give the Catholic leader a “black eye” on the eve of the South Carolina primary, which is overwhelmingly evangelical and distrustful of the Pope anyway.  His gambit paid off; numerous polls showed that his comments about the Pope raised his standing with voters, and in his vote returns, as the most popular candidate today amongst evangelicals, according to polls, and with major endorsements such as Liberty University head Jerry Falwell Jr. and Franklin Graham.  Trump added that any reservations the Pope had a about the wall in Mexico were due to his ignorance, and that one day when ISIS attacks the Vatican he will wish there had been a President Trump.

It is important to look carefully at the words the Pope chose to use in his forced off-the-cuff response to a reporter, for he is a real thinking person.  He did not say that someone who wanted a wall for a specific instance and justification was in question (for example, for a prison); rather, he responded to the reporter’s description of a man who spoke poorly of him and others that seek diplomacy, and sought to deport large numbers and split up families, in the reporters view.  In response, the Pope carefully said that one who only thinks about building walls and not building bridges, is not a Christian, adding that “This is not the Gospel”.  In other words, it is a matter of the nature of the person and their first “gut level”, reactionary responses to any conflict and disagreements, that defines their connection to Christ, or “abiding in the Vine”.  The choice between “building bridges” or “building walls” is at the heart of the Gospel; it’s the same as the choice between Jesus od Nazareth or Jesus Barabbas.

I believe the Pope is on sound Biblical foundation in his assertion here.  There are only a handful of uses of the word “wall” itself in the New Testament.  Their is a reference to a wall in Damascus in which Saul of Tarsus was let over in a basket to prevent his capture, and the “whited wall” that Paul used to describe the chief priest, similar to a comparison Christ made, but with neither in a favorable intention.  There is also the wall in the New Jerusalem.  However, it has numerous wide gates that never close, that the free people are free to pass through, as they take refreshment from the Tree of Life, the River from the Throne and God’s presence, all taken freely and without restriction – the “end game” God wants for His people.  The only other reference in the entire New Testament is a doctrinal one, from the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 2, when he told the Gentile Ephesians that

“That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.  For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” (Ephesians 2:12-16)

At the time (at least for a decade or two more), the Temple stood, as it had for centuries, with a separate outer courtyard for Gentiles, and an inner court for the Jews; if a Gentile strolled in the inner area, signage was posted that said he was to be killed.  When Jesus died on the Cross, He first tore down the first “wall” between God and man when the Holy of Holies curtain was torn; a generation later, the entire Temple complex, with its “wall of separation” between Jew and Gentile, would be visibly broken down.  Meanwhile, the Holy Spirit broke down other barriers between Jew and Gentile, with the visions for Peter and the salvation of Cornelius and other Gentiles.  When the Pope mentions people who think only of building walls or building bridges, he is referencing this Biblical teaching: “And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18).

I have witnessed a number of pro-Trump pastors come to his defense (Trump’s, not the Pope’s, the latter having been lambasted by many Christians for his comments), saying that building walls was Biblical, and cited Nehemiah as their sole example.  I find it curious to note that Nehemiah himself (aside from his own singlular book) was mentioned only in one verse in the book of Ezra (a similar book), and no where else in the Old Testament, and certainly not in the New.  Neither Christ nor the Apostles found any cause or reason to ever cite Nehemiah, and his fellow armed wall builders, as a spiritual model for their teaching of the New Covenant and Kingdom of Heaven – I wonder why?

I’ll conclude by noting the irony that the other Republican candidate popular with evangelicals – Ted Cruz – is using David Barton as head of Cruz’s “Keep the Promise” Super-PAC.  Barton is a former Texas Republican Party vice chairman, and a political consultant to the Republican National Convention on wooing evangelicals.  However this man, armed with his sole Bachelor’s Degree in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, is a household name (at least in Christian households) for being “an expert in historical and constitutional issues”, at least according to his own claims in his own organization biography. You may already know that many fellow Christian historians of legitimate historian academic credentials have debunked many of his assertions concerning the spiritual faith fo the Founding Fathers and their documents, including those he excises and omits, and his exoriation of the separation of church and state, and original intentions. What is the name of his organization? Wallbuilders.  On the same web page he says the organization name comes from “the Old Testament writings of Nehemiah, who led a grassroots movement to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and restore its strength and honor.”  By the way, what happened to Nehemiah’s walls they so painstakingly built?  Well, due to their own internal corruption within the walls, first the Greeks and then Romans took them over at God’s pleasure for their disobedience, and the walls did them no good.  Later, when they insisted on internal civil war and rebellion from Rome (following Zealots like the Jesus Barabbas they chose, and as American evangelicals choose today), even these walls were thrown down, along with those of the Temple itself.  Only the Western Wall fragment remains as a testament to their futility.  If a people aren’t pure at heart, walls will do them no good.  One day the Jews may build these walls again, along with the Temple (likely with evangelical help), just like their dubious wall to keep out Palestinians, to help facilitate the coronation of their “messiah” the Anti-Christ as God in their Temple.  Walls do more to keep evil in, than keep evil out.

Cultural “wall-building” is big business today in conservative and Christian circles, and has been for a long time.  It requires a Chicken Little propaganda arm to keep saying “the sky is falling”, and “barbarians are at the gate”, be they Muslims, Mexicans, Communists or secularists.  Gold and survival food is always ready for sale at Christian ministries concurrent with these messages; they follow the adage of the old Fuller Brush door-to-door salesmen: “First create a need, and then fill it”.  It requires the demonization of those who are the least bit different culturally from us, and use of the old Klan warning that “they’re coming to rape our white women”.  Intelligence agencies, defense contractors and other big businesses (even individual billionaries from casinos, gas fracking and the like) can provide all the money they need for paid airtime, first-class accommodations and facilities, and a prominent position at the National Religious Broadcasters conventions.  It violates many premises of New Testament teachings, including to love your neighbor, love your enemy, and the Golden Rule.  It also is a fundamental expression of unbelief in God and His goodness and power, to properly protect His own, and the mission of the Church in their world until it is completed.  And it is embraced by “Bible believing Christians” that are weekly church attenders now more than ever.  In contrast, “bridge builders”, be they with Muslims, the poor, minority groups and the like, are always starved for funds, and people to help.  They seek to better understand people who see things from a different perspective or experience, and even those who may claim to have gotten a raw deal by us or our ancestors, and are bitter about it.  “Bridge builders” humbly listen to others, and don’t try to butt in and defend their own culture or faith, and rather listen and be respectful to them.  They make the first move to make contact and to bless the “stranger”, who may rightfully be skeptical of them, and are patient to let trust build, even to the point of extending more grace to them than to their fellow Christians.  They take the effort to do this face-to-face, but also listen to others worldwide and in the media, and endorse their concerns (when justified) to their elected officials and their Christian leaders and friends.  While they toil away, slowly building trust with other groups, they are called “naive”, “misguided” and even unpatriotic “traitors” (the most serious of spiritual offenses) by their own Christian kindred.  These Christian scoffers are the “Sanballats” and “Tobiahs” that sew discouragement and grief in those building Christian bridges of reconciliation.  

Of course, practical yet merciful measures to secure borders, to vet entrants as to their being criminals or terrorists, is a legitimate concern of Caesar (i.e., government). However, this is not the issue here.  The real question is what do you want to be the focus of your thoughts and deeds, and instinctive “nature” over your very brief life – as a “wall builder” or a “bridge builder”?  What do you want to be?

I look forward to your enlightening comments!

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Observations on Western Christians’ Recent Revised Views of Syrian Refugees

Friends,

In recent days since the Paris bombings, I have felt a major increase in the chill in the air in the Christian media and in my own local Christian circles in regard to the fate of the Syrian refugees fleeing certain death in their civil war-torn homeland (a war itself aided and sustained with Western assistance).  Recent reports state that governors in states across the Bible Belt are refusing to accept refugees now.  Evangelical favorite Donald Trump is now open to restricting or closing mosques in America (other Christian favorite Ben Carson has already gone on the record as saying that Muslims should be forbidden from holding the office of President – a blatant religious litmus test and discrimination that always comes back to bite Christians themselves in history).

As one example in the media, Erik Rush, a regular commentor for the online popular news site World Net Daily, which caters most specifically to the conservative Christian community, described the refugees in his recent article as “human garbage”, while acknowledging his “good standing as a narrow-minded, far-right racist”. He describes people like me as those “who, due to reasons of naïveté, stupidity, or collusion, are advancing the notion that some sort of long-term coexistence with Muslims is possible. In truth, they are abetting Islamists in their mission to spread their putrefactive creed across America.”  He adds that “Thirty years ago in America, it was understood – even by avowed liberals – that Muslims were the backward, belligerent aggressors in the Middle East”, as Americans unabashedly solely sided with Israel, whereas others who see the issues are more multi-faceted and deserving of or considering the rights of all as being “Islamophilic”.  With his professional background as a musician and martial artist, his analysis of history tells him that “For the past 1,400 years however, Muslims – all Muslims – have repeatedly proved that they represent a societal malignancy; they will always perform as a body of enemy operatives, insidiously and incrementally worming their way into non-Muslim nations with the express intention of undermining and conquering them.”

Franklin Graham, son of “America’s Pastor” Billy Graham and one who until recent years focused on ministering to the needs of people in the Middle East and Third World (while pocketing close to a cool million a year in salary from his ministry to the destitute called Samaritan’s Purse, on top of a similar amount for running the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association), said in a recent published address that “If we continue to allow Muslim immigration, we’ll see much more of what happened in Paris — it’s on our doorstep.”  This is because he says “Islam is not a peaceful religion”, and “This is not the time to be politically correct. Our nation’s security is at stake.”

Back in the days of my youth, his dad was known for going to the ends of the earth to try to contact people of other cultures, even behind the Iron Curtain, to win them for Christ.  Western Christians send woefully few missionaries – even tenmaker varieties – to Muslim lands, either because of their lack of spiritual concern for them due to their Zionist first priorities, or because they fear for their own physical lives in those lands as their overriding priority.  As a result, even through the efforts of Western governments to remove their stable leaders and create civil war atrocities, God has presented an opportunity for Western Christians to still ignore their call from Jesus to “go out into the world” and share the Gospel in their lands, and rather send them here as a desperate people willing to accept help from anyone, including Christians, and thus be open to their message in a land where such dialogue is safe.  Hence, an opportunity has presented itself for an unprecedented set of circumstances to minister and share the Gospel to those who are ready to hear, on a massive scale heretofore unforeseen as possible.  In response, Western Christian leaders and their flock appear to be concerned about their own “skins” and personal security first, which evidently they are in unbelief that God Himself can preserve, and thus put their own interests above God’s agenda, and certainly the destitute Syrian people whom they are sending back to certain death, just like the ships of Jews they turned away that came from Germany before.

I know my comments section may get filled with retorts that while trying the “bless” these people would be ‘nice to do”, people like me are very naive, and the risk of a few terrorists mixing in with these hundreds of thousands of desperate people is just too much of a risk to tolerate.  Certainly, the terror attack in Paris is a major tragedy, and civil governments should use every lawful and reasonable effort to bring the handful of true culprits to justice, while not molesting the innocent.  However, it must be noted that we lose many, many magnitudes more of our loved ones in automobile accidents each day, and we do not see the same level of panic or outrage, and compromise of our supposed Christian beliefs, and we get in our vehicles every day without thought, or at least an acceptance of the much higher risk it entails.  It is amazing how fast I have seen Christians around me quickly adopt this xenophobic view of these suffering people.  I ask them where they got some of these sudden ideas, including the desire of all Muslims to lie and kill Westerners, or that “Barack Husein Obama” is leading all the Muslims in to declare sharia law.  They don’t seem to know the origins of these ideas, but my experience tells me that I know – Christian media, the Drudge Report, World Net Daily, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, etcetera.  They turned Saddam Hussein from a US ally to an enemy overnight, our new ally Qaddafi into an enemy in the Arab Spring, and even Ho Chi Minh, who had been an ally of the U.S. rescuing US pilots from the Japanese in WWII not long before our Establishment (government/media) decided he needed to be our enemy.  I know it certainly wasn’t from Jesus that they obtained this attitude.

Certainly our societies’ governments have a societal duty to protect its citizens by lawful means, but do its Christians also have a role in not letting it citizens forget those innocents who suffer in the crossfire?  Are they expected by Christ to risk their safety, or rather to place it in the Lord’s lands, so that they can minister to the “stranger” and those in need, particularly those whom God has brought their way?  Do Christians have any role in being the conscience of a society, or when they figuratively see a woman raped in the city street, desperately calling for help, they only lock their doors and draw their curtains?

Jesus said that when you offered a cup of cold water to the “least of these”, you are offering it directly to Him; likewise, when you refuse it, you refuse Him, and there will be consequences.  American Christians are evidently more afraid of ISIS than they are of Jesus’ throne of judgment.  They will find that with “the same measure with which they measure, they shall be measured”.  These refugees are desperate fathers and mothers, just like you readers, who find themselves and their children (through no fault of their own) in immediate peril, and they are helpless and at our mercy.  They have walked countless miles, leaving everything behind, to merely find safety for their families, as any of us would do.  I have seen concervative media (and Christian commentators) insinuate that they are all deceptive and spoiled, taking advantage of those who help them, as an effort to purge any public empathy for them or concern to engage in assistance.  To the Devil with these workers of iniquity!

Our supposed “Spirit-filled” American Christian flock has turned into an assembly of trained seals, or lemmings, rather than discerning people “as shrewd as wolves”.  They do not even know how to ask the right questions, rather only consdering the narrative handed to them.  They embrace total animosity toward the people of the Middle East when told to, and to be afraid of them when cued, even though they do not know them at all – their culture, religion, past experiences and sufferings, etc. – which could be legitimately gained by personal reading or better yet face to face contact, because they purposely avoid them, even though they are abundant on our universities and many neighborhoods.  They suddenly stop their main focus on sports, leusire activities or entertainment when a terror attack is broadcast and analyzed ad naseum on their television screens (because it rings the cash register in advertising revenue from great ratings), to support draconian actions suddenly when told to.  They also want an instant fix by “bombing the Middle East into a parking lot”, even though the experience in their own lifetimes has shown that this approach has not solved a single problem, and only made them worse.  They support presidential candidates who pledge to continue the long-standing American policy in the Middle East for the “beatings to continue until morale improves”.  They do not ask why people in another culture could be so wounded as to be desperate and take such actions, the role poverty and lack of economic opportunity as a region victimized by imperialism plays in their malaise, the reasons why they feel so exploited and betrayed by the West, and particulary their own refusal to do what Jesus insists that they routinely do, but is blasphemous to proud Americans – to admit that they made a mistake in years past, to apologize and make amends, as a “Christian” society themselves.  They do not ask why their own government pushed so hard to eliminate the only stable Arab governments in the Arab Spring uprisings – in Libya, Egypt and now Syria – that could have handled ISIS and thus saved so many lives.  They do not ask why the American, Turkish and Israeli governments armed and trained ISIS in camps in Jordan and Turkey over two years ago.  They do not ask how the disastrus Iraq War led to the domino effect that we see today, and why continuing that same brutish path won’t produce the same results, and why the politicans who led American into such reckless acts are not being held legally accountable for the lives of many.  As a result, they respond as their government desires, with a knee-jer reaction against a people group, rather than asking for answers from their own elected officials, whose salaries they pay.

People will do whatever they are going to do.  However, when God gives America and its Christians what it deserves for its cold hearted indifference to others and selfishness, and – let’s face it – its ultimate unbelief in Christ and His instructions and values, these Christians will blame everyone else for their plight – Obama, the Muslims, atheists, gays, etc. – for their woes as a part of “Christian persecution”, and they will never recognize that their plight is a result of actions by their own hand, while their neighbors who see them as judgmental and bitter in their contempt for others will see it as their just desserts.  Meanwhile, God will find others, probably not as outwardly pious, wealthy, politically-correct or even European-looking, to do His business and further His certain deliverance of mankind.

As I said, they can do whatever hateful and uncaring thing they want to do; however, if they continue on this self-serving path, I just wish the would not sully Jesus’ name and call themselves Christians, without following its primary imperatives.

(NOTE: An amazingly insightful analysis of how people of Godly wisdom should respond to terror today was provided by my good Christian friend FDLP, and can be read at this website.   I warn you – this website is not “Christian” in its outer piety or self-perception, and in fact uses some naughty words now and then, but for a rough-hewn site its insights are indeed heavenly in its revelation, and I assume the readers here are grown-up boys and girls.  It is indeed a shame when an outwardly non-Christian site shows more Godly wisdom and values than all the Christian sites combined, and states it far more eloquently than I ever could.)

“Coming Out of the Closet” With Thoughts on the Ongoing “Christian-Gay” War

Friends, this is another one of those blog posts I may live to regret, but I think we now live in the days when we as followers of Christ need to speak openly and plainly on difficult topics.  We need more honest “thinking out loud” (even speculating, with the expectation of changing or modifying views upon further contemplation) and humbly challenging ourselves as well as others to compare our reflection (and its culture) to that of Christ.  We need to attempt to rightly judge how well we resemble His mindset and mission, and the spirit of His priorities and values, while understanding the Gospels and words of the Apostles in that light.  The ironic “coming out of the closet” title refers to the feeling a Christian believer in our culture often feels when they ask “questions that should not be asked”, and express sympathies for “unthinkable thoughts” and “depraved individuals”, knowing that they will be misunderstood, castigated, marginalized and ostracized as a result – leading them to sympathize with others who announce their personal views and convictions with the knowledge they will experience the same as well.

A very good Christian friend of mine included me in an email chain with an attached article from the Lousiville newspaper, as yet another article about the need for Christian resistance to the gay “agenda”, written by Albert Mohler Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, you can read the article here.
The following are a few “off the cuff” comments I have concerning the article, and the general (but very difficult) topic of how America’s Christian community might deal with the “gay” issue, and some other food for thought:

  1.  First of all, I need to acknowledge who Dr. Mohler is, what is his foundational doctrinal belief and how it influences him on this issue.  Dr. Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (the denomination in which I was raised and active for four decades) and other popular theologians such as John Piper and R.C. Sproul (and thirty percent or more of Southern Baptist churches, evidently) are prominent Calvinists. Any churches or Christians who claim to be “reformed” almost always embrace the tenets of Calvinism.  In case you are not aware, Calvinists worship a demiurge-type god of mal intent (such as was acknowledged but resisted by the Gnostics) that intentionally created the majority of mankind to be sent without recourse eternally to the Lake of Fire, for His expressed pleasure – in essence, having the same desires and agenda as Satan himself.  God intentionally withholds the lifeline of saving irresistable grace of salvation because He wants to withhold it.  This is described as a “predestination” in which God irresistably foreordains the destiny of most people to eternal agony.  The rest of Calvinism’s “TULIP” beliefs – including the irresistibility of man’s salvation of the “elect” (i.e., those eternally lucky enough to win the “pre-natal lottery” but having no merit OR even desire of their own), or their assertion that Jesus did not die with the intention or will to save “all men”, inevitably follows from this view of the “sovereignty” of God being a bullying bulldozer that programs all of us and the universe as automotons.  This means that God made Satan fall and rebel, and Adam and Eve to fall, and all who obey such programming from God will be rewarded with a one-way trip to the Lake of Fire.  This means that any challenge by God in scripture to “choose ye this day whom ye will serve” or any other decision posed ot man is a cruel joke from God that cannot be asserted, because man is unable to make such choices, his total fate having been already preordained; it also makes evangelism a farce amongst the masses of unchangeably pre-saved or pre-lost.  This view of the “total depravity” of men rather than just being fallen (even though they are created in God’s image, and proclaimed “good” at the time) and the lack of any hope for the many “non-elect” helps such believers view suspected non-elect as animals and cannon fodder, because God has the same agenda and lack of value of them.  For just one example, popular national Christian media host and Reformed pastor Kevin Swanson stated on air recently that God is “kind” to gays by giving them AIDS.   They also insist that this view is the only way to interpret Scripture; in general, they tend to be argumentative and view themselves as more savvy with Scripture as its lawyers where doctrine supercedes mercy, and are very harsh in tone toward those who disagree or live differently, desiring to impose their values on others much as Calvin did upon pain of torture or death in his totalitarian rule in Geneva.  In effect they make God “depraved” as the author of mankind’s wretched state and fate, to which I assert that the only “depraved one” is Calvin himself, and those who follow him.  I believe that this doctrine is a fundamental blasphemy of the foundational character of God, “who is not willing that any should perish”.  Having said this, I ask myself that if I believe that Calvinists, including Dr. Mohler, so misunderstand the fundamental character of God, His perspective on humanity and their state, as well as what the Bible reflects on these matters, why should I regard anything he has to say on this matter?
  2. I continue with the following comments with the understanding that I do not believe Scripture indicates that God desires homosexual relations for mankind; He did mention spiritual covenants He acknowledges as marriage that describe those between a man and a woman (although same-sex marriage as opposed to their sexual activity was not addressed directly, to my knowledge), while New Testament writings allude to it being an analogy of the relationship fo Christ and the Church.  Having said that, Dr. Mohler goes so far as to suggest that opposition to the gay lifestyle is the “the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.  Is that a wee bit of a stretch?  Is that the reason Jesus came to earth to die on the cross – to stop gay marriage?  Is that what “sets men free”?  In fact, beyond His opinion on the matter, do we have evidence that this topic is a “front burner” issue for God at all, as His primary concern?  Is that the main message we want to send to a dying world about the Church – that our main focus is stopping people outside the Church from having civil rights such as gay marriage?  Is this approach and reputation with its public emphasis really being effective in winning more people to Christ as “fishers of men”?  If Christian leaders want to tell the world that this is the main focus the Church has, then they are being very successful with it, because that appears to be about all they talk about in the public, to the point that those outside the church see them as paranoid and obsessive.  I understand why many Christian ministries would beat this drum, because scaring people about those who are different has always been an effective way to raise money and become quite a “war profiteer” in the process, whether it be a “culture war” variety or some other; however, in terms of the Church in America at large, their desire to “win” on this issue is a battle that has caused them to lose a “war” of their higher calling in their “ministry of reconciliation”, not by disagreeing on homosexual activity but rather their excessive hostility and desire to control what others do with their own lives, often by the the use of Caesar’s civil statutes.
  3. Regarding scriptural exhortations, I concede that there are severe measures in the Mosaic Law for such homosexual behavior (particularly since Jewish men at the time seem to have a proclivity for debased sexual behavior with the Canaanites and their other neighbors), on par with penalties for disobeying parents, but being under a New Covenant, law and priesthood I look only to the teachings of Christ and His Apostles for my authority, and I am bound to them alone (as since I violate much of the Ten Commandments (i.e. the Sabbath) and sacrificial and dietary laws, I myself would be subject to death as well as gays if I used such criteria to judge me (as well as rejecting Christ my priest)).  Jesus interacted with many people involved in sexual immorality, developing relationships and interacting.  He acknowledged that the Woman at the Well had a very serious and unacceptable track record with marriage as well, (as well as living in a sexual sin relationship at the time) but did not dwell on it or browbeat her; He rather dropped the subject and focused on offering her “living water”.  Jesus did not condemn the immoral graft of Zaccheus, rather affiliating Himself and fellowshipping with him; in response, Zaccheus took the act of making things right as a result of exposure to Jesus’ holiness and acceptance.  Regarding homosexuality, I don’t think Jesus ever mentioned it; is that consistent with it being the “essence of the Gospel”?  Jesus did defend another woman charged by the religious leaders with sexual sin, and suggested that they were the problem and not her, while still afterwards privately speaking to her directly (and not through the mouthpieces of the religious establishment), directing to “go and sin no more” once the religious leaders no longer meddled or got between them.  He spent most of His indignance and concern about the hypocricy of the Religious Establishment.  I think Jesus would still do these same things today.
  4. I further concede that Romans 1 is probably the strongest New Testament passage used to condemn homosexual behavior, where men “left the natural use of the woman”.  However, what is usually not pointed our in the context of this passage is that this occurs because God sent this persuasion amongst the people in question because they had previously rejected God’s ‘truth” in nature by adopting pagan idol worship of stones, etc.  Is that the exact circumstances where we find ourselves today?  Furthermore, Paul adds that the other equal sinful behaviors God sends as a result are “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful” (Rom. 1:29-31).  Thank goodness we have purged all of these companion behaviors equally deserving judgment from the halls of our churches!  Thank goodness our Christian leaders have rallied the nation and churches to stop the behaviors God equally hates such as “covetousness, envy, deceit, whisperers, boasters, without understanding, disobedient to parents, backbiters, etc.”, and worked Congress and lobbyists to eradicate it by statute to preserve the integrity of the Church and God’s blessings!  We wouldn’t be playing “favorites” with opposing the sins we are least susceptible to, would we?  
  5. Furthermore, Christian leader alarmists do not continue Paul’s continuation of thought from the end of Chapter 1 to the beginning of Chapter 2, where he confronts the Roman church Christians with this list and says, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.  And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?  Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?  But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Rom. 2:1, 3-5).  I understand this passage to be about Paul exposing the hypocrisy of church members who condemn others for these things, and then practice similar unacceptable behavior of their own kind itself; Paul says that a “hardness and impenitent heart” is the motivation for this, which is what I view in Christian media and on the Internet today, and God says that in addition to their punishment for thier sins there will be added for their hypocritical, judgmental behavior and attitude.
  6. God is not implying that the behaviors that are listed are acceptable, including homosexuality, and neither are they to me nor should they be to you, but the key verse is verse 4, that people mired in such behavior are graciously subject to the “riches of his goodness and forebearance and longsuffering”, with such “goodness of God” leading to eventual repentance, which the Church members having had received from God before, but are unwilling to grant to others.  Words such as “forbearance and longsuffering” are not in the vocabulary of most American evangelicals today; some good translations even use the world “tolerance”, which is anathema to conservative Christians but is described as an attribute of a supremely holy God, and one for which all Christians have had their “fat saved out of the fire” previously.  Christians today seem to think that God either “accepts” or “rejects” a person in their state today, with no “shadow of turning”, but scripture shows that God does a lot of tolerating of us and our behaviors that He hopes to see changed in time, and for which He gently and patiently helps us with.  For example, God permitted writs of divorcement even in the the Mosaic code, because of the “hardness of men’s hearts”, and commended kings even when they took multiple wives or did not tear down all strongholds, and even “winked” at man’s idolatrous worship (Acts 17:30); Jesus had a disfunctional apostle group (including a leader who denied Him), and disfunctional churches then and now, but He accomplishes His mission even with their shortcomings that are not resolved.  As such, there are rare behaviors and strongholds for which I do not believe we as a Church have to take immediate actions toward others, and thus give active “blessings” or “curses” against,  but rather take a “third way”, exhibiting patient forebearance, encouraging them to draw close to Jesus and His word,  while God works behind the scenes to guide and deliver.  If any of the churches I have attended had said that liars would not be tolerated and allowed to participate, I would have been out of luck, because I have told an occasional whopper, justifying it all the way, even as an adult.  Have you?  Hopefully God has helped me with the strongholds in my life, while I was in fellowship at church, and they never did protest me once.  Sometimes it was for things that I did not recognize as wrong for a long time, but in time God showed me the light, all while I was in church fellowship, and I was welcomed and nurtured during that time.  Has that happened to you?
  7. I think it is important (but even more controversial) to make a note concerning the argument from Christian leaders and pastors that the purportedly pervasive “gay agenda” will one day force churches to compromise scriptural passages on the topic of “Biblical marriage” in sermons, and modify the operation and state of the “family” from its “scriptural norms”.  Well, I hate to tell them, but “those cows have already left the barn”.  I’m sorry, but I can’t help but see such arguments of Christian groups as hypocritical, since they have already allowed feminism to accomplish all these “worst fears” to change the home and church far more than homosexuals ever will.  The feminist movement of the mid to late twentieth century has caused pastors to talk around Bible passages, from the same Bible books and authors that they quote on homosexuality, that guide women to be silent in church, asking their husbands for spiritual insight, and following his guidance as “unto the Lord”, seeing such subjection and obediance as obediance to God, and expecting God’s direction through their husband, possibly even more than through prayer itself.  I have witnessed countless sermons that in effect derived nervous laughter from pastors and statements to the effect of, “what God really meant to say was…” on female subjection, rather than sticking with the plain text, such as they do with veiled references to homosexuality.  I have witnessed Christian women, including pastor’s wives, demean their husbands at church and elsewhere, mocking them and intentionally disregarding their views or superceding them on matters large and small – a state that would shock Christ and the Apostles if they were to hear it, as being of far more concern than a stray homosexual couple that has wandered in the flock.  The family and sanctity of marriages has taken a big beating as a result, and in fact the divorce rate for Christians is about the same as outside the Church – are they to be talling the world that they are the “experts” om marriage, Biblical or otherwise? The irony is that in ignoring this clear guidance in scripture regarding Biblical male-female marital relations, these Christian leaders have evidently decided that the “sky will not fall in”, and they comfortably proceed along with their mission while disregarding or explaining away specific scripture guidelines; so then, why are they panicked about doing the same on the homosexual equation?  I certainly do not recommending going to some state of tyrannical domination over females or cruel subjugation, and I believe that God can bless marriages to a degree that are more egalitarian, even if a departure from His Biblical ideal (because of His “forebearance”), but I suspect that the greatest blessings are for those couples who conform to the Biblical model, which would make them a rarety in most churches, and subject to a lot of criticism from its prominent members. So why are they so rabidly aggressive and paranoid regarding gay relationships?  I now suspect that the masculine insecurity in Christian men today probably makes them overcompensate in being repelled by homosexual behavior, after seeing themselves as less masculine while inside today’s “feminized” Church.  They see shadows of themselves, and a subconscious mandate to compensate by being “macho” in the face of it, to the point of being “homophobic”.  That is a popular charge by those outside the church, and our general cultures also contribute (I know, coming from the South) but it is hard to explain otherwise the irrational paranoia expressed publicly from church officials and their followers, which makes the issue “front burner” rather then more legitimate menaces.  They do act such that if a homosexual person or couple would be permitted in their midst, their sexual preferencet would thus spread like smallpox amongst the flock, and engulf their youth; that’s why many choose to homeschool rather than being exposed to others who are different.  It reflects an insecurity about one’s own gender identity and the strength of traditional values in the face of others, and a senseless suspicion that the masses might discover they prefer the “alternative”.  I for one do not plan to change my heterosexuality regardless of others.  If parents are so concerned about the choices of their children, then they need to start to demonstrate healthy husband-wife relationships in their own homes to model – is that too much to ask?  
  8. The talk I hear amongst Christian leaders and officials is that a “militant gay lobby’ (which I have yet to see, but maybe exists in California and some strongholds) wants to take over every church, and probably will soon.  I am not surprised to find out that almost all of these Christian decision-makers have no gay friends; probably because they are terrified of them that it would rub off, and that they would be rotten, preachy friends tp them anyway.  While my circle of gay friends is also sadly limited as well as my knowledge, I find the knowledge of these Christian church leaders to be based solely on profiteering Christian scaremonger demogogues in the Christian media and Internet.  You will find almost universally that Christians who have some number of gay friends look at addressing this issue completely differently, even if they don’t condone the behavior, because they know these are real prople of substance and worth, and do not have horns.  These paranoid leaders never seem to ask themselves – what if some gay group gets a church – what would they do with it?  Honestly, even today any Christian, leader or otherwise, can retain their own views on the matter, if they are willing to pay the price for it (which now is basically nothing, and may never be on this issue).  However, the real issue is in trying to protect the “stuff” of the church – real estate, bank accounts and paychecks – which they think are worth fighting for from lawsuits.  “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”.  If churches met ad hoc in rented spaces of homes, without fat assets to protect from rivals, sending their collections right out the door in total to serve the field, this would not be an issue.  Could it be that God sends threats like this to liberate church people from the assets that weigh them down, and take up all their time to manage rather than minsiter?  Has this prospect (which has occurred in Israel and in the Church historically many times) ever crossed their minds?  Meanwhile, while the church is obsessed with fighting the gay boogeyman and in protecting their stockpile, destitute refugees from the world’s war zones have left all and have no where to lay their heads, black kids are gunned down in the streets, the gulf in the superwealthy and those barely surviving continues to grow, and the church has no such alarm or even time for these issues.
  9. A last point to make is that this topic is yet another one where the church and its (I hate to say it) incompetent leadership shot itself in the foot yet again, by not encouraging secular “civil unions” long ago, to give others similar civil legal rights of inheritance and property transference, tax treatment, visitation rights for the ill, etc.  Their “holier than thou” attitude could not exhibit the Golden Rule, which is way down on their list of spiritual imperatives, and did not care about these civil injustices.  In effect, they insisted on making what had been a sacred concept of “marriage” into a “government issue”, and then reaped the inevitable whirlwind for their lack of wisdom and foresight.  To be real honest, to a large extent even the Church should not be in the “marriage business” – marriage existed long before the Church, and is a covenant between two and God for which the Church has no Biblical say as to its legitimacy.  In fact, there is no Biblical citation for church weddings, or church “blessings” of them, and in particular pastor’s functioning as State officers in signing marriage licenses within the church itself.  These same enlightened Christian “leaders” not long ago said it was unbiblical for those of difference races to marry, or different social standings.  If pastors did not officiate church weddings, contrary to scripture but only in obedience to cultural tradition, they would otherwise not have to wring their hands over whot to marry, and who to restrict, gay or otherwise.  I have seen churches “bless” many a marriage which looked like a bad idea from the start, and many more for whom the wheels come off soon thereafter.  So are they the real experts on the matter?  For that matter, these are the same Christian leaders on a local or national scale (many of them) who have led us to nominate some of the most dumb, incompetent or crooked politicans – like many of them.  So why do we trust their spiritual insight on all of these harder things?  I recently read a paper from 1834 from the head of the South Carolina Baptist Convention to its governor, showing from scripture alone that slavery was acceptable to God, along with practical reasons why enslaved blacks were better off.  You better beware when religious leaders string up arguments with a daisy-chain of scripture, using “sola scriptura” to bully us into positions that run counter to and violate our own consciences – which God says He placed in all of us in nature as just a reliable a witness (if not better) as these Bible-slingers.  If you cannot look at the victims of these purported “Bible policies” in the eye and defend them and practice them in their midst, then it is probably a wrong thing to do, and these spiritual “experts” may not be hearing from the Holy Spirit.                                          

So that’s my rant for now.  It’s all stream-of-consicousness and I am sure the activists out there can pick apart any of the ideas expressed herein, but I sure feel better getting it off my chest.  There is much more to say on this matter, and I may add to this or post further on it as circumstances permit.

To God be the glory.

ADDENDUM:

After having uploaded this original post, I have noticed from some of the comments and commenters, even though it is a mixed bag of supporters, detractors and mixture, that some have taken great offense to my initial comments concerning my deep concerns about the influence of Calvinism on how some Christians look at others, and how it might influence Albert Mohler who wrote the article on homosexuality that I have commented on.  I am sorry if I offended any of you fellow Christian readers – I did not intend that. I know I expressed strong words, but I am sure I have been influenced by my studies for the current book volume on church history as it relates to holy wars I am writing, and in particular the section I recently finished in commenting on the era of Calvin and the aftermath. I could not help but observe that when Christians accept the idea that the majority of mankind has been hated by God before they breathed their first breath and will forever be hated with no recourse they have, it seems natural that such people will pursue a theocracy like Calvin’s Geneva to impose their will using a similar irrestible force they claim God uses on people per Calvinism doctrine. Per the writings I have read from Calvin and his apologists, it accordingly seems shy of mercy, empathy, and the subjection to the Golden Rule, which still applies even toward the “damned unelect”. Not only did this create an era of tyranny even against other Christians, the killing of Baptists like me and others, but also fueled the demeaning and genocidal treatment of Indians by the Puritans, by giving spiritual sanction for their eradication. I did not invent these observations; they have been pointed out by large numbers of prominent conservative Christian thinkers and historians. It is also clear that it fuels the current Calvinist-based Restoration Movement which seeks to establish a modern theocracy in America, and according to Gary North intends to eliminate the “heresy” of religious liberty.

I see how people with some degree of connection or empathy to Calvinism have become offended and taken my comments personally, and I did not mean to make it personal. However, while I have been called many bad names, having bad motives and distorting the issues, I still have not heard any direct refutations of the major tenets of Calvinism concerning God’s intention to create the majority of mankind merely to send them to Hell for His pleasure, with the other tenets of TULIP inevitably extending from it. I understand why Calvinists would not want to dwell on this, as well as the obvious conclusion that this motive matches Satan’s, and would like to re-frame it. I do not need to be held accountable for this statement; the people who believe this should be held accountable. If they deny this central aspect of predestination in Calvinism, I don’t see why they would even bother calling themselves Calvinist, because not much is left.

I also want to clarify that I do not have contempt for the little old lady who brings her covered-dish entree to the local Presbyterian church, serves her fellow members and community, and loves God the best she knows; I rather hold accountable the church leaders and other men who I believe should know better, and for whom I would like some answers on how they justify this conviction while saying that God is love and that they love their fellow man. I may have bitten off too much in explaining Mohler’s harsh position against the homosexual community as being at least partially explainable given his Calvinist connection within one post, but I still believe that a danger of considering a “damned without hope” class of people leads one to take a Pharisee-like hard line to those outside their ranks, with little empathy or mercy in many cases.

My only intention is to give food for thought and contemplation – and dialogue.

New Bombshell Investigative Report Ties Gen. Boykin to Military Intelligence Use of Christian Aid Organization in North Korea as a Funded Cover

Friends,

I just heard on CNN today a report on a new investigation by a journalistic organization called “The Intercept” that just released their findings that Gen. Jerry Boykin and his military intelligence group took over a Christian aid organization to fund and use to place intelligence gear and collect data in North Korea and elsewhere as a cover.  I found the actual amazing report, which you can read here:

Intercept Report Linking Boykin to Christian Group/Intelligence Cover

The front organization, the Humanitarian International Service Group (HISG), was founded the day before the 9/11 attack (you can see it explained here); the first website shows a video of the founder Kar Hiramine’s “Christian” calling to found it.  In 2003 Gen. Jerry Boykin, original member and eventual chief of Delta Force and Special Forces Command and now well-known evangelical speaker, joint chief with Rick Joyner of the Oak Initiative, and Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council, took over the DoD Defense Intelligence Group in 2003, and decided to develop intelligence capabiltiies to rival the CIA, by using faith based front organizations, which the CIA and rest of the government had been forbidden to do after they had been caught doing it in the 1975 Church Committee hearings.  They set up other front organizations to fund it to provide cover that it was a DoD intelligence front.  One funding organization, the New Millennium Group, was operated by Army Colo. Robert Lujan, who was the legal counsel for Delta Force when Boykin operated it; he also wrote a paper called “Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army” (which you can read here from a military training site) that talks about the use of the military in the U.S., and mentions the Waco siege (where Boykin advised Janet Reno on the assault that immolated scores of civilian victims) by using Delta Force to help the BATF clear a meth lab from the Branch Davidian house and to conduct  “‘room clearing discriminate fire operations,’ termed ‘close-quarter combat’ by the military”, and Presidential use of the military to take over Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict.  He concludes by saying that “Civilian and military leaders need to expect an increase in domestic deployments of US military forces…America’s leaders should recognize that the relationship between America’s Army and the American people is strong but may be compromised.”

The article also notes that the money was also funded through a small outfit called the “Working Partners Foundation”, run by Robert Simses and Yale King.  Simses is a lawyer whose bio says he worked for the Navy in the White House during the Nixon years.  Yale King was the primary man, and was said by Boykin in his book Never Surrender as being a long-time “dear friend”; he was often featured on the Oak Initiative videos with Boykin and Joyner, talking about how the govt. had stolen his car dealership, when at the same time it appears evident that the government was sending him large sums to be a laundering organization.  The article notes that the ‘Christian” organization HISG received $15 million from the Pentagon, operating in 30 countries, until a new intelligence director shut them down at the end of 2012.  The new commander, Adm. McRaven, was said to have said to “shut it down because he was nervous about the flap if it ever got out that the Pentagon had used a bunch of evangelicals and missionaries as spies”.  My review of their tax records show that the groups shut down subsequently at the beginning of 2013, and according to the tax files I have (and the article attests), the remaining assets were given back to the U.S. Treasury (!).

I had already planned to have Gen. Boykin “star” in the last book volume for me to draft of my book series The Holy War Chronicles.  I document his involvement in the torture activities at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, his Delta Force activities and his “Christian” activities to turn the War on Terror into a “holy war”, where he (alongside Kanasas City Prophet Rock Joyner) advised the church to train our youth “with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other”, as he also pontificated on Jesus’ return sporting an AK-47.  I thought that this, plus his recent book allegorizing a secret organization of retired pastors and special forces soldiers that assassinated Muslim leaders and other illegal acitivities were evidence of a corrupt work of wolves masquerading as Christian sheep.  I have seen all this evidence as “red flags” that Christian leaders have not seemed to acknolwedge to date.  I have been willing to speculate that the anti-sharia movement and Religious Right para-church community at large is rife with CIA and other intelligence operatives using the Church to accomplish its agenda (the documents I have obtained from the 1975 Church Committee hearings confirm this likelihood as well), since their agendas coincide, and this piece of data strongly bolsters this possibility.  If it is true, God help us all.

I hope this concerns you as much as it does me.

Important Updates to the Kim Davis Soap Opera

Friends,

I highly recommend you read ALL the links in the following article regarding the Pope’s “meeting” with Kim Davis:

Links to Stories That Explain Papal Visit

If you notice that the site is critical of “right wing” politics, please do not swoon and dismiss it entirely.  The links it highlights are all to high-quality news sources, that help clarify what happened there concerning the Pope’s “brush with greatness” (i.e., Kim Davis), and separates facts from fiction.

It appears that the Papal Ambassador to Washington DC has a old score to settle with the Papal Office, and “pulled a fast one” on the Pope (he is also an ardent Davis supporter).

The most important facets to me are the two times documented in these links that Davis’s “Christian” council Matt Staver of the Liberty Council (tied to Liberty University) lied to the public about the extent of Davis’ support overseas, and the death threats from The View.  Not only did he not even validate the data IF it was not intentional as an attorney, but none of the other Christian sources had as well.  Where is the due diligence from the Christian media?

Liberty University has a track record with this.  For a long time they covered for the fraud Ergun Caner, who was the head of their seminary, slandering and belittling his whistleblowers until they no longer could, then quietly shelved the issue.

The Religious Right cannot figure out why their evangelical message does not “work” anymore, and assume that any who point out their hypocrisy and disingenuity are merely “Christian persecutors”, and try to spread their illicit reputation to innocent Christians at large as fellow subjects of attack.  They have not grasped yet how irrelevant they are, caused by their own hand, and evidently do not have use of a mirror when seeking causes for their plight.

For this reason I agree with most of the public in seeing no credibility with the Religious Right or most Christian media.  These days when they speak I assume they are lying and/or I am being conned (to their monetary benefit), and it is sad to feel that way; I liked it better when I was in blissful ignorance.

Don’t let these jokers fool you into thinking that critics of them like me have “forsaken Christ” and have just become an “enemy of the Gospel”; today I love, worship and follow Jesus stronger than I ever have, have good and trustworthy pastoral leadership in a local church (and hope you find such as well), and find the Bible the only valid voice of God’s will, worthy for instruction, reproof, etc. when used in a responsible and wise way, and subject to the Holy Spirit’s unique direction with every person and situation I encounter. I no longer seek or regard “their” guidance, just like my “old school” Baptist forbearers centuries ago, who would be just as befuddled and dismayed at their hijinx as I am.  Spiritual “buyers” beware – listen to all their rantings with a high degree of skepticism, and keep your hand on your wallet (and electoral ballot).

“Blood Moon Apocalypse” Survival Stories Sought

The demise of humanity with the last Jewish Feast/”Blood Moon” coincidence has been trumpeted (excuse the pun) loudly and across the vast swath of Christian media and para-church organizations – not only the World Net Dailys, Skywatch TVs and similar outlets, but even Anne Graham Lotz’s (Billy Graham’s daughter) warning of an “Emergency for Jerusalem” that not only was concerned for our dear friend of Christians, the atheist Benjamin Netanyahu (while no mention of his Jewish sorcerer friend Rabbi Kaduri), but also of “The fourth blood moon on September 28 considered by rabbis to be an omen for Israel that will also be a super moon seen over Jerusalem” and “The end of the Jewish Shemitah Year on September 13 and the beginning of the Jubilee Year on September 28—both very significant in Biblical prophecy” (the Bible verses that confirm this “significance” in BIble prophecy were not listed).  Folks even in my own local church were hailing this as “the beginning of the end”, and appealing to people to come here a rabbi talk about the Jewish magical wisdom that could better inform Holy Spirit-filled Christians on what is “really going on”.

Having Christ-denying Jewish rabbis inform Christians on the “deeper things” of God is particularly chic these days, and it is fueled by the current Bible prophecy racket that misuses legitimate Bible prophecy to serve the interests of Cold War, tribalistic, Zionist political demogogues, under a veneer of prophetic “wisdom”, which is lapped up by the uninformed or usually xenophobic (mostly older) Christian masses.  These “rabbis” dish out mystical stuff that is as much Talmud and Jewish magical legends as much as it is scripture, which is perfectly normal in an Orthodox religious heritage; however, not long ago, Christians knew better than to seek deeper, murky spiritual prophetic insight from those who could not even acknowledge who was the Messiah their prophets spoke of, or those Messianic rabbinic variants who feel that there is a religious superiority and elitism to going back and resubmitting to the yoke of Mosiac Law, prompting even our Jewish Apostle Peter to say ” Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:10).

I have found the World Net Daily’s and other outlets pushing this latest “Chiken Little”, sky-is-falling “medicine show” to huckster books and DVDs to be not-surprisingly quiet on the subject today (I guess like other prophetic deadlines they hailed that came and went), although Skywatch is still pushing John Hagee’s warning from yesterday that it is the end of the world.

So, for the lack of reporting this morning from our para-church organizations and Christian media outlets on the subject, I would like to encourage you, loyal blog readers, to contribute your own “blood moon survival stories” here in the comments sections to this post.  And please feel free to grossly embellish – just like our highly-paid para-church ministry national leaders, who use their imagination to entertain us.  Extra points if you can scapegoat some minority, foreign people group or religion as the cause of your suffering in these days – American Christians love paranoia and demogoguery these days.

I will remember these “blood moons” the next time these Christian groups try to sign me up for one of these propaganda, Potemkin Village “Israel Tours” – designed to make money for the ministries, and promote secular Israel’s political agenda within wealthy America through their returning gulible Christian citizens.  The next time they ask me to go, I want to ask them if they will be doing something useful there like preaching the Gospel of Jesus at the Wailing Wall, like our dear Apostles did in Acts; if they don’t (and they won’t), then they can count me out.

If the world comes totally unglued in the next month or two, I guess I’ll have to eat my hat – but it still may not be because of some regularly-scheduled astronomical event.  The stock market usually has a big correction every few years in October.  I would not be surprised to see Israel unilaterally attack Iran and try to hide behind the US to start some alliance-fueled World War III, just like how the first World War was started.  When people of various cultures around the world start talking to each other and making peaceful amends, it makes Israel very nervous.

Any of you can follow your favorite bearded, yamulke and prayer shawl-sporting rabbi out there for “deeper knowledge”, but I think I’ll stick with my Rabbi Jesus, who had a word for the other rabbis as to their ability to discern prophetic signs in the sky:

“The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, [It will be] fair weather: for the sky is red.  And in the morning, [It will be] foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O [ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not [discern] the signs of the times?” (Matt. 16:1-3)

REVELATION: Ted Cruz is Green Acre’s “Mr. Haney”‘s Long-Lost Son!

I have not seen this as breaking news on World Net Daily, but check out the following two videos from Sen. Ted Cruz and study his voice and face carefully:

Now see how his voice and face resembles another prominent salesman and businessman, Mr. Haney from Green Acres…

The more speeches you hear from Sen. Cruz, the more it becomes apparent!  Apparently he learned to sell “ice cream to the Eskimos” like his old man…

Jesus and His Followers “Go Macho”

Under the “I Am Not Making This Up” Department:

Evidently a Florida gun manufacturer is making an assault rifle called the “Crusader”.  It boasts a “Templar” shield (as in the Crusade’s “holy mercenaries”), and has the safety settings “Peace”, “War” and “God Wills It”.  It is also emblazoned with Bible verse Psalm 144:1, which says, “Blessed be the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle” (NKJV).  The article cites the manufacturer as saying they intended for the weapon to be repellent to Muslims.

On the website for the gun product, it says that “Due to overwhelming media response – Crusader rifles are taking up to 2 weeks to ship.”

The original article also cites an earlier $660 million Pentagon contract for 800,000 rifle gun sights that have Bible verses inscribed on them as well.

If anyone wonders why I am taking all this effort in writing this lengthy book series The Holy War Chronicles – A Spiritual View of the War on Terror, let this be a case in point.

It also brings to mind when the Apostle Paul described in Ephesians 2 the doctrines of the “household of God” (v. 19), “a holy temple in the Lord” (v. 21), and “an habitation of God through the Spirit” (v. 22), which”are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (v. 20).  While books of the Bible like the Psalms contain great inspirational thoughts of devotion to God, such as the heart-rending passages such as Psalm 1 and Psalm 23, many of them reveal an Old Covenant view obsessed with the destruction of one’s enemies such as the verse cited here, and have been used to justify the commission of violent acts against people deemed “different” and thus “enemies of God” for countless centuries by Christians.  Frankly, this line of thinking is foreign to a New Covenant, Kingdom of Heaven-type of mindset, which should be obvious when pointed out in contexts such as these, and thus is not listed as being in the “foundation” of Christ’s Kingdom, in not being what He taught nor what it stands for.  One of the most dangerous things is when one mishandles Scripture – and it happens all the time by our most prominent and conspicuous Christian “leaders” to justify all sorts of rotten agendas.

Thanks, good friend Adam of the Conspirinormal podcast, for finding this story.    

I’ll Be Out of Action For A While – Solicit Your Prayers

Friends,

In a few hours I’ll be having major sinus and nose surgery to remove some major bony blockages in my upper sinuses, and to rebuild my septum, which has been grossly contorted to accomodate it.  It has caused me major pain and a distraction for a number of years.

As a result I have been told I may have a difficult period of internal head swelling and pain for a number of weeks as it heals.  I have no idea how it will impact my resumption of activities such as this blog, but I’ll get back to it and book writing as soon as possible (it will be part of my recuperation, or I’ll get cabin fever as I get coherent again!).

I sure appreciate everyone’s prayers in the meantime, for the surgeons, my weeks of recuperation (and that I am not too whiny), and for my dear wife Ginger (and Pyro), for whom I will be able to do no lifting at all, or even leaning over for some time.

Thanks for your concerns!

Mike

 

 

BREAKING NEWS: God Responds to US “Abandoning” Israel by REDUCING Hurricanes

Christian friends,

In true World Net Daily fashion, I alert you to a sudden news flash on the status of hurricane activity worldwide and the US since our obvious “Sunni Muslim” President and his henchmen have “sold out” Israel with a proposed multi-nationally negotiated peace deal with Iran.

As a result of this blatant violation of the “Abrahamic promise” claimed by the atheistic nation-state of Israel – to “bless” Israel no-matter-what with arms, money and political cover or experience the wrath of God, the inevitable has happened, and it is starting to conspicuously affect our weather.

According to the Climate Depot data cited by the Drudge Report, global hurricane activity is at a 45 year all-time low – since the time of the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars in Israel.

But what about the United States, who stands in greatest judgment for attempting peace, in defiance of Israel’s regional dominance objectives?  According to Forbes Magazine, the U.S. has gone through “one of the longest periods of hurricane inactivity in U.S. history“.  It also notes that the frequency of major hurricanes has dropped significantly since the 1970s – after the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars – and adds that “during the first two years of this current decade exactly zero major hurricanes struck the United States”, which has been the time leading up to the brokering the Iran Treaty.

There is a Biblical record to explain this.

The Jew named Jonah fled God and His mission for him to be a “light to the Gentiles”, in particular the Ninevites he hated.  When he fled to a ship at Joppa to flee God to faraway Tarshish, he was “harbored” in their boat by well-meaning Gentiles who sought to protect him – evidently in a position to experience the “blessings” of the Abrahamic promise by “blessing” and protecting one of Abraham’s kin.  However, their act of harboring him resulted in assisting him in his flight from God, and thus God sent His own type of hurricane to destroy the Gentiles who were harboring His rebellious Jew.  They called out to God and tried their best to protect their Jewish guest, but eventually they relented and cast him into the sea, which caused God to take away the storm and bring about praises to God from these Gentiles, while the Jew was placed alone to be taken up by God’s instrument – just as He intended.  In a similar manner God sent a worm to eat a gourd that had protected the Jew from suffering in the terrible heat as he joyously awaited the destruction of his enemy, to eliminate what was keeping God from “applying the heat” to the Jew himself so the God could get his attention and teach him a lesson.

In 1 Kings 22, King Jehoshaphat decided to “bless” Israel and thus claim the “Abrahamic promise” by helping her militarily against Syria, with whom it had otherwise been at peace with for three years, but had decided to pre-emptively attack to forcibly take more land from Syria.  While Israel decided to claim its “land promises” in faith, Micaiah, God’s prophet, told King Ahab of Israel that God had permitted a “lying spirit” to fill the mouths of Israel’s patriotic prophets to motivate the leaders of Israel to attempt take this land.  King Ahab of Israel decided to do another Jewish “false flag” operation by dressing up as his ally Jehoshaphat, while getting him to do the same so as to have his ally killed rather than himself (as Israel often does to the US with its proxy wars).  However, God was not fooled, and the king of Israel was routed, as well as his army and that of his allies.  The passage in 2 Chronicles 19 parallels this story, and adds that when Jehoshaphat returned to his own land after defeat while “blessing” Israel, his own prophet from God, Jehu, said to him, “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD” (v. 2).  Jehoshaphat did not learn his lesson; he next tried to help Ahab’s son Ahaziah, the next King of Israel, by “blessing” them in a shipping economic venture, which the LORD Himself destroyed with adverse weather, causing the prophet Eliezer to again tell Jehoshaphat, “Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the LORD hath broken thy works. And the ships were broken, that they were not able to go to Tarshish (2 Chronicles 20:37).

Is this new weather data a sign of the “Shemitah Year”?  The “Blood Moons”?  The “Harbinger”?

Or maybe, God’s real way of “blessing” Israel was expressed by the Apostle Peter, who told the Jews at the Temple,

“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26)