Trump, who packs rallies despite somehow losing the last election, took the stage again in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Nearby another man crawls on a roof top, a rifle in his hands, takes aim and he pulls the trigger. He missed his mark, but continues to fire, one bullet fired striking a person in the crowd, killing them instantly, another hit the former President who drops.
Thomas Matthew Crook was only 20-years-old. His entire life he has been propagandized by a partisan media blinded by rage. After the dismal debate performance of Joe Biden, a heroic old man fighting till his last breath for the good of the country he loved, great fear gripped this young man. The evil Drumfler would ascend to power again!
And this time, as the headlines screamed in warning and even Biden himself claimed in the debate, Trump would be out for revenge—which would lead to a literal bloodbath.
Worse yet, the justice system that a month back would never make an error in regards to charges against Trump, suddenly gave way to a Supreme Court that wants Trump to be a dictator! This gullible young mind absorbed the hysteria.
Voting would not be enough!
No, Crook wasn’t going to leave the future of the nation in the hands of fate. Women depended on him. Black people too. Gays and lesbians as well. The time for talk was over, Trump and his MAGAt minions needed to be stopped and he was prepared to lay down his life for the good of his country to put an end to this threat. If the courts could not stop Trump, if Biden couldn’t, then the only option left was a rifle.
If only someone could have talked some sense into him. If only he had gone outside the ‘mainstream’ corporate news bubble or considered other possibilities.
Had he done this he would’ve have learned Trump is liberal, a New York businessman with an immigrant mother and married to a foreign born wife, who (despite gesturing to Evangelicals) has the morals of Bill Clinton and is therefore not remotely interested in implementing the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 25” conservative fever dream.
Trump is actually a disappointment to the right-wing, he banned bump stops and has a centrist platform when you stop taking the Democrat claims as fact or the full truth. It isn’t like he’s going to bring back slavery or force women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. He’s a fiscal conservative who supports bringing manufacturing jobs back and likes trolling on social media. That’s it. He’s not a fascist. He won’t ban abortion (which he says should be up to states) nor is he any more evil than those who falsely accuse him for their own gain.
Crook came within millimeters of his target, which is quite impressive for 150 meters, but will be remembered as a brainwashed fool who mistook rhetoric for reality.
He may have actually secured a second term for Trump when most people take a step back and realize that the extremists might be on the side of the leftist media—that initially had responded to the assassination attempt by playing it off as popping noises and Trump falling down.
Reprehensible misreporting!
It is time to start seeing through this nonsense.
If Trump were literally Hitler, the President Biden would not have come out against the shooter. No, he would’ve lamented the bad aim and reiterated the bullseye statement he made just days ago. Instead he is now pulling ads and admitting that the show has gone too far after his opponent was nearly killed. Ironically, for a brief moment, Biden has looked very presidential.
Too bad Crook didn’t realize that he was a pawn in a manipulation game before he executed on the plan.
My wife asked me if it is normal in America to call someone “Hey!” Her coworker had used this exclamation rather than her first name. “My name is not Hey,” she thought, not verbalizing the protest. In her Filipino culture this casualness is considered to be impolite bordering on an insult.
It has been a big adjustment, coming here, to see how little respect there is for others, especially the elderly and the pregnant. For her, from her perspective, I should not use my elder neighbor’s first name. He should be “uncle Steve” instead, to denote his age rank in comparison to us. Likewise, she was shocked how expecting mothers are not given lighter duty, as they would be in Asian countries. However, tough as she is, she vowed that if an American woman can do it then she can.
But it really does say something about us that we can’t be bothered to recognize the status of others. Most people in the world, including our own past generations, realize that we come into the world and leave the same way. The deference shown to elderly is paying it forward, a recognition that we too will become old and increasingly frail, that we will need help. The use of honoring language is part of that care or setting them apart from those youthful and able.
We have sought absurd equality in the US, where people are all interchangeable, the incel ‘conservative’ says it is unfair for him to have to pay women for maternity leave and ‘progressives’ think biological men can be women with some nipping tucking and a change of wardrobe. Feminists, ironically, strip motherhood and natural feminity of its glory to prioritize the tasks that any human can do. Egalitarian aims are good so far as equal protection under the law, but when it becomes erasure of all human difference it isn’t so much anymore.
Concepts of social rank, codified in religious law like, “Honor your father and mother,” are a part of natural order. Social animals have hierarchies, a pecking order or status that is earned through age or abilities. This can be abused and yet the alternative of disorder is not an improvement. Why be honorable, for example, in a world where accomplishment or reputation is no longer recognized? This may be why we’re so afraid to age—we only lose abilities and gain nothing in return for the experiences we’ve had.
My wife also observed how her American boss doesn’t want to be referred to using a title of respect. It is as if men are afraid of rank, would rather just be one of the boys, and therefore are uncomfortable when the language of their status is used. This, of course, doesn’t change the authority that is wielded by a manager. No, all it does is hide this under a layer of obscurity and makes me wonder why we have become so afraid or ashamed of status.
This all adds to the comedy when Taylor Swift screams “F*ck the patriarchy” to her stadium full of adoring fans. A billionaire who got her start with the help of her rich Daddy pretending to be some poor little powerless girl, a victim of oppression, in a society where nobody wants to be called “sir” or “ma’am” (maybe due to ageism?) and attractive women have all the power—both feminine wiles and all of the opportunity for worldly wealth possible. Total buffoonery on the part of the pop icon.
Still, part of the deal with titles of respect and social rank is living up to your honored name. I’ve blogged against patriarchalism, that is the spirit of entitlement some men have and believe that those who want to be addressed in a dignifying proper way must be dignified. There is also a little bit of self-respect required. My wife is also aghast at how her female coworkers will playfully call each other “whores” and I start to wonder why we must be so degrading?
The nurse pronounced baby as “BEE-bee” in our prenatal class and it got me thinking of how language develops. Words will shift to reflect their usage. The meaning eventually match with the reality when we attempt to disguise unpleasantness in flowery speech or try moral inversion. Cultural values will shine through and snap understanding back where it was prior to the manipulation.
How did “bAy-bee” become “BEE-bee”?
The latter evolution in pronunciation is cuter and therefore a better representation of the subject matter. The word never will change the thing it describes. Yes, words influence our perception, they also change to reflect a new understanding of the things that we are describing. For example, the word “baby” only changed in pronunciation for me when considering the little human now within my wife’s belly. It was no longer an abstraction or vague category, but a tiny vulnerable ball of loveable life.
When we experience something firsthand it is harder to deny what it is. We can use the terms detached and technical to distance ourselves from the emotional content. Say that a baby is just a clump of cells or some kind of parasite—up until the moment when we finally hold it in our hands. To keep up the charade after this would be delusional or psychopathic. It is not human to see an infant as anything other than precious. The political lexicon becomes irrelevant.
A Tangled Ball Of Words
Words trigger emotions. I was thinking of this as a tear formed while the instructor in a prenatal class described the ideal of “skin to skin” and a soothing environment. Some of this reaction may be feeling the weight of my wife’s pregnancy. But it also has a lot to do with my own identity as the “premie” and “fighter” who struggled for life. Discussion of baby care today compared to what it was for me. The thing is, while my experience certainly impacted my development, I don’t have memories of the trauma. It probably only looms large as a part of my personal identity because my mom told me what I went through and reinforced it. The I gave further shape and form to it by attributing many of my struggles to the events of my birth—everything from my delayed growth to difficulties with focus in school.
However, it is impossible to know, outside of creating a genetic clone, if I would have been much better off with a normal birth or with more human touch rather than being in a plastic box with ‘stimulating’ music. This had some impact, no doubt, and yet there is the bigger psychological complex I’ve built on top of this named thing. Like an irritant in an oyster, it provided a nucleus to attach all of my insecurities to and blame for my failures and shortcomings. With a normal birth would I have been more like my more accomplished siblings and less a mess?
However, it is very easy to reverse cause and effect to give ourselves an excuse for our being lazy and taking of exceptions. We become the label that we apply to ourselves as much as it truly describes us. We act the part. Things of identity, like race, sexuality, religion, are as much a construct or fantasy as they are facts. We live up to our name to an extent. My mom would often tell me that my name meant “strong-willed” and it might be one of those self- fulfilling prophecies. If we tilt confirmation bias in a direction it isn’t a big surprise if our character develops that direction. It is like strapping a young tree to influence where it grows.
In a sense, nobody is truly “born this way,” it is a statement discredits conditioning and culture too much. But the environment itself doesn’t make us where we are as much as those descriptive words that reverberate in our heads. A child that is called “stupid” by a parent or teacher may spend many years trying to sort through their doubts. My dad letting me look over his blue prints and then giving some affirmation when spotted an error made by the engineers is likely what led to my being confident in my abilities and a career in design. Our reality is influenced by use of language.
These are just personal observations, but it is also backed up by other sources that put it more succinctly:
Language is not just a medium of communication; it’s a lens through which we view the world and a mold that shapes our identity. From shaping cultural perceptions to influencing personal identities, language’s role is pivotal in constructing our social and personal realities.
Language is more than a mere tool for communication.
It’s a portal through which we perceive and interpret the world.
Imagine how our understanding of colors evolves when we learn names for shades we previously couldn’t distinguish.
With each new word we acquire, a facet of reality emerges from obscurity, offering us a richer tapestry of experiences.
The Dynamic Relationship Between Language and Reality
Neither of those sources are academic or truly authoritative, but do say what I’m saying in a different way and thus useful so far as my goal here which is to provoke thought. New use of language reframes the world. It can amplify our efforts and transform society as more people begin to see the world through the lens we provided. Memes do this, as do pounding of propaganda headlines, it is why “fact-checkers” exist—all to reinforce a particular narrative.
With so much power in our words there is plenty of reason for cunning and conniving people to exercise this for their own selfish ends.
They take advantage of insecurities and level accusations to shame or confuse the innocent.
Wordsmiths, they could turn a baby into a villain and murderer into a saint—beware.
His talk is smooth as butter, yet war is in his heart; his words are more soothing than oil, yet they are drawn swords.
(Psalms 55:21 NIV)
There are some use the guise of compassion to gain control. Their promises are about attaining power. They seek only to bind us and yet many people are blinded to these motives because their identity has been hijacked by these nefarious actors.
Categories Are Social Constructs
The structures and constructs of language are entirely fabricated. There is no person who is “black” or “white” by birth, no, rather these are categories we create, clans that we join, and always artificial divisions. We are often grouped by others using various label words and internalize the divisions as being inseparable from our own experience, in that we identify with other “rednecks” or “blue-collar” types as those ‘like us’ and yet also *become* like that. Nothing requires a rural person to use country slang or go buy a massive diesel pick-up truck, some of the markers of this lifestyle (chewing tobacco or dress) can impact opportunities. This is about politics, not genetics. It is about the strength of an identity group that helps us gain power for ourselves. Being a victim of an “ism” is a lever, a social tool or means to build a coalition against others.
The individual without these groups, that is denied the right to put their fist in the air in solidarity with others ‘like them’ is weakest and most disadvantaged in this game. That is the irony of the “systems of oppression” language. Those who describe this kind of problem are actually creating it more than they are simply observing. In the same way that observation in quantum mechanics is an influence of reality (collapses the wave function), the ‘study’ of human interaction is an interaction and is a product of our bias as much as it has basis in reality. Those who are concerned with the existing ideas (of racism, sexism, or heterosexism) steal attention (and thus disenfranchise) victims of systemic heightism and those who lack privileges in ways not discussed, defined or even recognized. The individual is the most vulnerable, a minority of one, and frequently abused by recognized groups. Bullies travel in big groups—victims are often alone.
1) “Language both mirrors reality and helps to structure it” (2). Explain and give an example.
2)Racism, sexism, heterosexism, and class privilege are all interlocking systems of oppression that ensure advantages for some and diminish opportunities for others, with their own history and logic and self-perpetuating relations of domination and subordination (3). Explain what this means. Do you agree/disagree? Why?
3)What are the economic impacts of constructing race, class, and gender?
Sandwiched between the lines of this effort to build awareness (indoctrinate) are a pile of assumptions that, in the end, only serve to darken these artificial dividing lines.
It is rewarmed class warfare rhetoric, Marxism, and is basically designed to feed envy or feelings of being an other and disenfranchised. No, this is not to say that prejudice or abuse is entirely a social construct. What it is to say, rather, is that their worldview, segregated by these simple binaries, is too compartmentalized and minimizing of other factors.
There isn’t one group of oppressor and one group of oppressed.
There is no hierarchy of victimhood.
Everything depends on the context or situation. A Jewish student that is harassed on a college campus because of the IDF dropping bombs on Gaza is not privileged in this moment even if they are ‘white’ and rich. Nor is it anti-Semitic to characterize the decades long campaign against the Palestinian people as an ethnic cleansing. Labeling terms like “terrorist” or “occupier,” while useful to an extent, rarely explain accurately and are dehumanizing ends of conversation.
The whole point of claiming the existence of “interlocking systems of oppression” is to make anyone who dares to question their narrow perspective a part of a monolithic enemy rather than an individual with life experience to be respected. It is truly the educated left’s own version of a conspiracy theory where anything they don’t like is part of some invisible system that can teased out of the statistical categories they created to emphasize identities based on color and physical features. If some in one of these groups lag behind then some other group must be at fault.
Building humanity requires the de-emphasis of meaningless boundaries and formation of bonds based on behavior. Skin color is not synonymous with culture or the choices one makes that shape their outcomes. Yes, we must identify mistreatment of people on the basis of appearance, but this isn’t black and white, nor is it oppression to apply the same standard to all. Indeed, some people are treated unfairly, but many end up being marginalized for antisocial behavior and yet claim to be victims of oppression when the chickens come home to roost.
Call A Turd a Baby…
Bringing this full circle, the word “baby” is cute (and the pronunciation of the word is becoming cuter) because babies are cute. The language of description is merging more and more with the reality adorableness that we perceive in a human child by our instincts. Using the word “baby” to describe an adult does not make them cute. Albeit pet names, used to convey fondness, do imdue the quality a bit or at least will hijack some of the sentiment that associated with babies. However, this is something that can only be stretched so far before the absurdity is too obvious.
In this regard language that is used in an attempt to counter popular perspective, or overrule accurate description, will eventually take on the meaning that it was supposed to erase. The language police can only temporarily remove a stigma (albeit never long enough to make the effort worthwhile) and it is because the unpleasant reality will always bubble to the surface again. In fact, “special needs” today probably carries more negative baggage than the use of the words slow or retarded in the past.
Likewise when a person is accepted at the university or get your job simply as a result of the particular identity group they belong to rather than only on the basis of equal qualifications this leads to an asterisk with the accomplishment—even when equally earned. New terms like “diversity hire” will spontaneously and organically come into existence as a result of need to delineate between identity and merit based. These, sadly, are far more damaging stereotypes applied to minorities who are outstanding by their own right.
Just as one cannot relabel a turd as a baby and expect people to cradle it once the truth is revealed, one can’t just apply credentials or distinguished titles to someone thinking this will change a lack of qualifications. It will only degrade the meaning of words and in the long-term will do nothing to solve the socio-economic divide.
Calling someone a fisherman and giving them a pile of fish is not the same thing as teaching them how to fish. You can’t simply declare reality as the left believes they can. Turds are only cute when the term is used ironically to describe something truly cute.
Over the holidays my wife was out bargain hunting with me and we stopped at a strip mall where there was a pop-up store in one of the unleased spaces. We had parked at the wrong end of this clearly past its prime shopping plaza and near what appeared to be a Christmas party of some sort which I glanced at before heading to the discount shop a few doors down.
On the way back, after purchasing a box of used baseball gear, there was an older gentleman who beckoned me and my son to come inside. My wife wasn’t interested and returned to the car, but I wanted to be friendly and thought my eleven-year-old may enjoy meeting Santa.
Upon entering, there was nothing wrong with anything I saw as my eyes swept the room. They had various stations set up, there was a Mr. and Mrs. Claus, as one may expect, but the place wasn’t brimming with children and the average age most likely exceeded me by a decade or two. So we sauntered in past the ladies positioned to receive the guests towards the promising display of cookies and treats.
“Hmm…maybe we’ll come back to this?”
I didn’t bother to politely pluck a pastry as we turned towards the other folding tables, stopping first at the one with the coffee urn, warming CJ to the idea, by suggesting, “Hey, maybe they have hot chocolate mix!” Nope, I guess not. I quickly observed that cocoa was not available, segued to coffee, and—no cups. I didn’t feel like bothering anyone and my son had found a craft station where they had little ornament tree cookies for him to paint. He used an embarrassing amount of orange and blue paint to make a little brown for the trunk, but we achieved success and I worked on my exit strategy.
We humored the sweet old ladies on the way out (including one actually the size of an elf and appropriately dressed to play the part) then passed their brochures on the way out were they such and such county patriots or something? Not sure. But definitely fits a stereotype I have in my mind of the “save the children” picketers and people who rant online about chemtrails. They could be the January 6th grandma, showing up to throw their support behind Trump and ending up a felon for their undocumented tour.
Whatever the case, these probably were not the popular kids in school, not the members of the homecoming court, valedictorian or star athlete of the football team, but those of very average abilities. Some likely served in the military, most probably worked those mundane blue-collar jobs our politicians tell us Americans don’t want to do. They’re the forgotten people. Those who never had a way out of flyover country struggled to make the payment on the picking truck in from of their trailer park home, and even this party was awkward as there were.
This was real grassroots politics. Not those well-funded astroturf campaigns that get only glowing sympathetic reports from the corporate media. Nah, unlikely darling BLM or Antifa, these people are the true outcasts of our society, and when I look at them with a judgmental tone. I mean, there’s nothing wrong with their little outreach effort, I know they put work and planning into it, but still, I cringe as if the coastal elites will somehow think of me as different if I mock and throw these rubes under the bus.
I know how the internet treats these people, in one breath denouncing these lower class folks as being “privileged” and then, in the next, making fun of them for their crooked teeth or poor spelling. How many of those who smirk and sneer have a “Be Kind” sign in their front yard? I thought of this today as some older folks, some of them likely to wear a MAGA hat, tried to arrange a singles meet on the local community board only for an attractive 30-something female to call this effort “creepy” as if lonely people should be seen and not heard.
The thing is, there is no social benefit to our showing compassion to truly downtrodden people. While I would certainly get praise from the ‘cool’ people for showing up at a Black Lives Matter event, I get nothing for speaking up for the kind of people eliciting a cringe-response. This is another thing that feeds my skepticism about Christianity, the most ‘mission-minded’ uncles, those who appear to show love for the people of the world, will uncritically parrot the most negative characterizations of these people as if they’re lessor than.
And I get it. How can we respect someone who is unsophisticated and doesn’t know the difference between they’re, there or their, like we do? These people are likely high school dropouts, and certainly not professionals or professors, and (as awfully dumb as they are) are obviously brainwashed by the most dangerous and anti-democratic man in the history of America! No, we can’t take their grievance seriously. Instead, we’ll label them as “racist” “xenophobic” and “white nationalist” so we feel free to dismiss all they say as rubbish.
Meanwhile, the current party favorites can do no wrong, even if their violence is good. Torch a city and they’ll tell us straight-faced, while the fires burn, that this was “mostly peaceful protest,” but question their election result and enter the Capital building (like many on the left have done in the past when things don’t go their own way) and suddenly it is an “insurrection.” While they hunt down and gleefully prosecute those grandmas for their unauthorized tour—nobody on Jeffery Epstein’s client list gets investigated. Tell me again how you care about justice?
Far-left protestors take over capital in Madison to subvert the democratic process
Maybe I should just join the disdainful and look down my nose at my neighbors? They have nothing really to offer me. They had jobs that could be outsourced and can be replaced with migrants from South of the border who work for less pay, right? Besides that, most of these folks will be dead in a decade or two, why not look to the future? And yet if we do then we should admit what we are and quit acting as if we’re these wonderful Christ-following people for being completely in sync with the Hollywood activist in-crowd. Maybe Jesus wouldn’t pile on the world’s favorite whipping boy?
There is a nation in the world that identifies as Israel. And, as we all know, if a person or group of people identify as something then this is what they are. If I say that I’m a ham sandwich you better believe it! Israel is what calls itself Israel.
That out the way, is that Israel the same as the Biblical Israel established by God?
If you were raised under Zionist teachings this isn’t even a question. Of course, it is! What else could it be? Biblical criteria or qualifications, what are those? I mean, how exciting would those end times novels be without our favorite backdrop??? And next, you’ll be telling us reality television is fake and that Caitlyn Jenner is a man and not a stunning and brave woman!?!
Isn’t everyone who identifies as something that thing?
However, for those slightly more literate, and not born yesterday, the question of what the Biblical Israel is and if the state by the same name is the same thing is important. For a Christian, up until the time of the reformation and a little after, this answer was quite clear and that is that Israel today is the remnant of the Jews who remained faithful—as well as those Gentiles converted.
From the perspective of New Testament writers Israel is the Church or the body of those who believe—a religious affiliation and not a particular race.
About Religion, Not Race…
While still a member of a Mennonite church, I was not happy to have my religious identity be classified as an ethnic group. In my own opinion I wasn’t born a Mennonite, it was my religion and something that I had to choose to participate in. And yet there was truth to the claim. There is was an ethnic component to being part of the group. We shared a culture, and have our own common surnames, and many converts don’t fit in well.
However, the most damning evidence, other than having unique genetic disorders, is the broad range of beliefs and practices under the Mennonite banner. Those calling their church Mennonite span from those who are progressive and ordaining lesbian pastors to those very traditional still using horses and buggies for transportation. So, when the only true common bond between all of these Mennonite groups is a sprinkling of Yoders, Gingrichs, Millers, or Barkmans, can it really be a religious belief system?
Rev Michelle Yoder, a charismatic lesbian pastor of the Mennonite faith, sitting comfortably with partner in her electric Mennonite buggy as she makes her way through Africa
Okay, like a Facebook relationship status, it’s complicated. People can and do convert to become Mennonite. And, surprisingly enough, since a few decades ago, an African version of the Mennonite denomination has been growing rapidly to the point there are now more Mennonites in Congo than in Canada. I mean, who knows if their doctrines or religious practices are anything that a North American conservative would recognize, nevertheless they do carry the name of Menno Simons in a direction he probably never imagined.
That’s one thing that the Orthodox generally put up front. If you are Orthodox in Greece or a Greek community, then you’re a Greek Orthodox. The liturgy and general practice are the same, established by canons, but there is also room for ethnic expression and use of the language common to the people. In the Arabic world, for example, they use “Allah” where we use the Roman pagan word ‘God’ and have been using it before Islam even existed as a religion. Anyhow, in Orthodoxy, unlike Mennonites, the identity is built from the substance of something established and a faith that is ancient.
Absurdly, when it comes to Judaism, we no longer care if they’re practicing or apostate, we slap that big ethnic label on them all and claim all of them have a claim to the land by their DNA. To us, they’re all the same. But that’s certainly not the case when it comes to Biblical Israel, not every part of the assembly was blessed, some were literally swallowed up by the earth, while others were put to death for disobedience, and the whole would end up in exile:
But if you or your descendants turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. This temple will become a heap of rubble. All who pass by will be appalled and will scoff and say, ‘Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this temple?’ People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the Lord their God, who brought their ancestors out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why the Lord brought all this disaster on them.’
The children of Israel were not picked for their superior genetics. That’s not to say there aren’t very intelligent and extremely talented people of Jewish religious heritage. Abraham was picked for being a righteous man:
And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
Genesis 18:17-19 KJV
It was Abraham’s righteousness and how he would guide his children to “keep the way of the Lord,” that God picked him. God went on to set Israel aside through religion, not race, and those who did not keep the law would soon find themselves entirely cut off from the assembly of Israel. There was never a blessing for simply being a blood relative of Abraham. It was always conditioned on a faith that produced the work of obedience and this remains the case.
Those born to keep the law of Moses must recognize their Lord and Savior or they’re no more blessed than the Benjamites put to the sword for their evil:
The tribes of Israel sent messengers throughout the tribe of Benjamin, saying, “What about this awful crime that was committed among you? Now turn those wicked men of Gibeah over to us so that we may put them to death and purge the evil from Israel.” But the Benjamites would not listen to their fellow Israelites. […] The Lord defeated Benjamin before Israel, and on that day the Israelites struck down 25,100 Benjamites, all armed with swords. […] The men of Israel went back to Benjamin and put all the towns to the sword, including the animals and everything else they found. All the towns they came across they set on fire.
Judges 20:12-13, 35, 48 NIV
If this were a Covenant merely about blood or genetics, then the Benjaminites really got shafted. I mean, I’m not sure how anyone could construe being slaughtered wholesale as being a blessing or some special thing to be chosen for, “Congratulations, you’ve been selected to be purged!” So this idea that anyone will ever be saved simply for their chosen race is wrong and there is only one true religion which is founded in Abraham’s seed, through the law of Moses, and is fulfilled in Christ.
My favorite Jewish writer explains:
Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.
Galatians 6:12-16 NIV
After Christ, even the law of circumcision becomes secondary to what St Paul describes as being “the new creation.”
So it was the righteousness of Abraham, which was followed up with their being set aside by careful obedience to the law—which was the test of the Old Covenant—and finally, reconciliation through Christ that is salvation for all.
It was NEVER only about ethnicity or race. Modern descendants of the Jews must do the same as anyone else, repent and accept their King or perish. Repentance is the first step to salvation and that is what distinguishes true Israel from the counterfeit. The first followers of Jesus were Jewish. Christianity is the part of the assembly that remained faithful to their Lord while the others who rejected their rightful king are called anti-Christ:
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. […] Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”
1 John 2:18-19 NIV
There are a great many who call themselves Christian today who have Scripture and yet no discernment whatsoever. You don’t even need to believe in Jesus to understand what is being said in the passage. Who is identified as the liar and anti-Christ? 1 John 2 very plainly tells us who: “It is whomever denies that Jesus is the Christ.” That is to say those unfaithful to the covenant made with Abraham through their rejection of the Son—God in the flesh.
To say that some can deny the Son and still have a Covenant with the Father? It is to basically throw out the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is completely moronic and a sign that someone was never truly part of the assembly of God. If they truly belonged they would see their Lord as the fulfillment and not be so easily led astray. When Jesus says “Salvation is from the Jews” he is not talking about an ethnic group, he is talking about himself and how he is the Messiah that was promised through the faithful seed of Abraham.
Chosen by Christ
It is really a form of idolatry to hold a race or ethnicity up as chosen by God for no reason other than their genetics. That is not what the “Israel of God” ever was. The assembly (or ‘ekklesia’) was always about those who were faithful, a remnant of Abraham’s seed that included Gentile converts, and turning it into an ethno-nationalist state is a perversion of what the original covenant between God and Abraham actually entailed. A covenant is a two-edged sword, while it comes with blessings for those who obey there is also a list of curses for those who do not hold up their own end.
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. […] “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ […] “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
Matthew 22:1-3,5-9,14 NIV
Any guess which of those on the guest list killed the servants sent by the King?
The Biblical Israel, for those who believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is that remnant of Jews who obey and follow after the Word of God incarnate. This is always how Israel worked. Some were pruned off the tree and others grafted in. There were never special exceptions made for anyone merely on the basis of ethnicity or race. The Church is the nation of those faith to the work of God that started with a Covenant with Abraham and needs no worldly state or rebuilt temple of stones. Christians are the chosen people.
This essay doesn’t mean that there should be no modern state of Israel or that the mistreatment of any group of people in the world who have rejected Jesus is ever acceptable. We just need to know there’s a big difference between “identifies as’ and what is actually being referred to in the Bible.
I’m dismayed by the number of people who profess Christ as their Lord and Savior yet fall for the most brazen of heresies. The one which is the topic of this post turns the Bible on its head. It diverts attention from what is important and undermines the Gospel Jesus preached first to the Jews, for their salvation, before it was spread throughout the world by way of his disciples. Biblical reversionist heresy elevates the Old Covenant to be equal with the fulfillment of these promises in Christ. It is, in the end, a rejection and mockery of Christ.
The Resurrection of Old Defies the New…
The reversionist believes that, despite Jesus coming to save both Jews and Gentiles, according to Romans 1:16, the Old Covenant continues in parallel for those who have rejected Christ. It is ignorant of the fact that the New Testament talks about both those who are cut off from the vine (which is Christ) and those who are grafted in:
If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
(Romans 11:17-21 NIV)
The Old Covenant law does not save:
For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
(Romans 8:3-4 NIV)
It was only ever a shadow:
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
(Hebrews 10:1-4 NIV)
Which is made obsolete, in Christ:
But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:
“The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
(Hebrews 8:6-13 NIV)
The outdated covenant *did* disappear with the destruction of the Temple.
From John the Baptist:
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
(John 8:7-10 NIV)
At no point does Jesus say that there will be multiple paths to salvation or that there will be a tree of salvation that stems only from being biologically linked to Abraham. There is one true vine, that is Jesus, some are cut off and destroyed, others are grafted in and saved. There is nowhere where it is said that the Old Covenant will be resurrected to provide another way for those who have rejected and continue to reject Christ. To preach that is heresy, it is reversionism, and replaces the true Israel (that is to say those who believed or the church) with a secular nation borrowing the name.
The New Covenant is not about an ethnostate or the Haaretz of Israel. No, it is about the heavenly kingdom, a kingdom where there is no Jew or Gentile, that is defined by faith rather than biological pedigrees. Our blessing, eternal life, comes through Christ Jesus alone.
Blessings of the Anti-Christ?
The reversionists base their entire interpretation on a misuse of this blessing given to Abram:
“I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
But even the passage itself is spoken specifically about Abram (later Abraham) and those who bless or curse him. It doesn’t say anything about those who bless or curse this “great nation” promised nor does it seem to be talking about nations period. It is a promise to Abraham specifically and then ends by saying that “all people on earth will be blessed through you” which is to say him or his seed, which again is Christ—who didn’t require blind allegiance to a worldly nation.
This being our own Christ and denying the true Christ is exactly what is being referred to when New Testament writers use the phrase anti-Christ:
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
(1 John 22-23 NIV)
If there is a temple rebuilt, it will be the seat of the anti-Christ:
Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. […] The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3,4,9-12 NIV)
And what a powerful delusion some believe, that puts the Church established by Christ behind the nation that rejected Him, this we’re told:
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
(1 John 2:18-19 NIV)
Ultimately, choose whatever Israel you want. But you can’t have both. You can’t have your worldy Israel, that is rejected even by observant Jews who call it fraudlent, and then claim to be a part of the kingdom of Christ Jesus. Reversionism is in no way a Covenant with the God of Abraham. It is only a counterfiet of the original promise and one that draws many away from their only means of salvation. Don’t be one who is decieved by this new version of the same old heresy, don’t be like Judas looking for his worldly fulfilment. There is only one Israel where Christ is king and that’s His Church.
The saddest part about reversionism (or ‘Christian’ Zionism) is that it muddies the waters and sends mixed messages to those who need salvation. So many professing Christ and then supporting the brutal reality of what it takes to create a Jewish state on land that was inhabited is a slanderous and degrading witness of Christ who would have had no problem establishing a worldly kingdom through use of violence over two millenia ago. So many are like Gehazi, servant of Elisha, dishonoring the example of their master and inheriting the disease that was healed: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
I feel the need to preface this once again with a trigger warning for those who won’t read through and will miss my point. No, I’m not saying what Hamas did was justified. Nor am I saying that Israel should not respond. But I am trying to confront a bias, motivated by a misuse of Scripture, that is leading our side to look the other way at what amounts to dumping white phosphorous on innocent children and then pretending this is a just response to the death of Israelis. I am addressing what clouds the moral judgment here and not saying that one side or the other should just take the abuse.
I’m addressing the false dichotomy exposed in this letter from Albert Einstein (Jewish) in his opposition to the terrorism that was taking place. He wrote this right after a massacre carried out by Zionist extremists and warning of what would eventually become the horrendous reality of the Nakba and why Palestinians today are reluctant to leave their homes today. They know the history even if you’re ignorant. Read what Einstein wrote and then study what happened next…
To be clear, Einstein was not against a Jewish homeland. He was simply against the violent means being employed that have led to the current hatred. Had more followed his advice then we wouldn’t be facing yet another bloody war today. When will we learn?
Framing Issues
Had the British managed to put down the bloodthirsty terrorists who fought to “water the tree of liberty” by violently taking over their American colonies, does that mean they never existed? No, they (along with their weird pagan offshoot religion that required regular human sacrifice to keep their tree nourished) did exist and they existed as a distinct entity the moment that they declared themselves to be independent. And to say otherwise would be dumb.
One of the stupidest arguments ever made is “tHeRe Is nO PaLeStINe” as if the millions of people pushed into Gaza and West Bank simply do not exist. By that sort of semantic and legal argument, there was never a state of Israel prior to May 14, 1948. Sure, there were a people called the children of Israel and a kingdom of David, but never a STATE by that name, and certainly not one that was a Western-style democracy, prior to a bunch of Europeans moving to British-controlled Mandatory Palestine (which is what it was called) and most certainly a nation with the world’s strongest standing army is not the same one as found in the Scriptures. No, that doesn’t mean they should be run into the sea or not recognized as a legitimate nation (although many do not) and yet we must deal with the reality that the land was occupied before European settlers arrived to claim it. Historical claims may make a nice romantic script, for those with no skin in the game, but telling people that their grievance of being displaced doesn’t exist because you don’t like the name is asinine. It is reasoning that may get you likes in your echo chamber but suggests you are silly and should not be taken seriously by those with a modicum of intelligence. It’s not like the Palestinians are going to stop their fight against those who took their deeded land because you claim they don’t exist.
Furthermore, legal recognition does not change what something is. By now we all should know this. The governments of the world can call black white or white black and it doesn’t change the nature of color. Calling a man a woman or your affinity for your pet a marriage doesn’t make it true. We have the absolute right to question legal precedent or to hold to whatever existed in our minds prior to their changes. Maybe your modern definitions are simply ignorant of the original meaning and the other side is right. You might eventually be blotted off from the face of the Earth and forgotten. But it doesn’t mean you or the perspectives you held don’t exist. A person’s perspective still exists even if opposed by the powerful who have better propaganda and denying it exists is plain dumb.
Palestinians exist even if they are erased from the land or never officially recognized by many in the United States. That’s not a statement that will suit many from my fundamentalist religious background. But they’re simply not dealing with reality, it is denial, and ridiculous. Einstein called it Palestine. It was Palestine. The modern-day Israeli state came after.
Who were the Samaritans?
They were people deemed illegitimate by the pure-blooded religious elites. They made a counterclaim to what the other descendants of Abraham Jesus mingled with saw as their own exclusive property. The Samaritans had their own priests (apparently descendants of Aaron directly) and, contrary to the belief of their Jewish rivals, also continuously occupied the land like their Semitic cousins.
This is what makes how Jesus recognized these people so significant. We learn, in his conversation with a Samaritan woman, that true worship wasn’t about location, including Jerusalem, but about Spirit and truth. If this wasn’t clear enough, the parable of the good Samaritan was a slap in the face of those whom Jesus addressed. A Samaritan more righteous than their own best? Jesus was intentionally antagonizing. He intended to offend and insult them.
The point, however, remains that salvation is not a birthright. It is not about your claim to be or ethnic inheritance. The Christian truth is about what we do, and how we love, and never a matter of our worship ritual or genetics. The measure of Christian pedigree is faith, pure and simple, like that of Abraham—which is what makes a person a son or daughter of Abraham.
Jesus didn’t mince words when addressing those who believed they would be saved by their ethnicity or Abrahamic bloodline:
Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
(John 8:39-44 NIV)
There are not multiple paths, according to Jesus, but only one way, truth, and life for all to come to the Father. Galatians makes it clear that Abraham’s seed is fulfilled fully in Christ and all who believe in Him:
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. […] So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:16, 26-28 NIV)
Romans affirms what St Paul said above in Galatians:
So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. […] What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened…
(Romans 11:5, 7 NIV)
The “remnant” is those who believed in Jesus. While the “hardened” are those who rejected Him and, in their unbelief and ignorance, crucified the one who was called their King. And, for those who contort and turn the Gospels inside out trying to revert to a Covenant that passed away, Hebrews 8:13, I despise your bastardization of truth. Those who would replace His Kingdom “not of this world” with a modern secular state are not legitimate scholars or Christians.
I reject your ignorant religion.
I reject your indifferent religion.
I reject your false religion.
The true Christ isn’t an ethno-nationalist or waiting on yet another stone temple to be built. And I don’t really care what your Scofield reference or some random guy on YouTube says. Christian Zionism is a contradiction of terms. I’m perfectly fine with European Jews finding a homeland and defending it. But it should never be confused with the fulfillment of anything more than that. We should instead be looking for the new Jerusalem. So stone me like Stephen for repeating what he said: “The Most High does not live in houses made by human hands.”
Count me with the Samaritans.
A blessing or a curse?
Since the 1950s, no other nation has shown more perfect loyalty or full allegiance to the state of Israel than the United States. The Biden administration is no exception and doubling down on what Trump started. For this have accumulated a mountain of debt, a decay of our institutions, and sharp moral decline as more and more Americans fall away from faith. Sure, we are materially wealthy, for now, but churches are empty and those that remain are temples to consumerism rather than self-sacrificial love. If support for this country is a blessing then I guess we’ll need to redefine that word like we have been with everything else lately. Or maybe consider we’ve gotten things wrong?
The direction of the US doesn’t look good right now and maybe that is because we’re like the Jeruselum condemned by Ezekiel:
“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.
(Ezekiel 16:49-52 NIV)
Maybe it is time to stop focusing on the sins of Samaria and consider our own. Sure, maybe IsRaEl hAs ThE rIgHt To DeFeND iTsElF, but then so do the other Semitic people in that region. Consider that we are Haman, from the book of Esther, unwittingly building our own gallows as we justify our unjust vengeance against undeserving people. We’re not a righteous judge. The children of Gaza did not attack Israel. It is not anti-Semitic to stand with Einstein or recognize the unjust suffering of the Semitic people in Gaza. It is not our allegiance to the state of Israel that will bring us blessings, only allegiance to the king of the true Israel can do that and we must all repent of our delusions otherwise.
“The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.”
Aldous Huxley
Most on one side of this issue likely will not even get this far into reading this. For daring to question the narrative they’ve swallowed I’ll probably be quickly dismissed by some as a “terror apologist” or worse. Nevertheless, for those who know that I don’t take positions lightly or without due diligence, this post will help explain my position on the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But more important than that this blog is aimed at addressing the brazen dishonesty of the fundamentalist cheerleaders.
First of all, for anyone conservative who has come through the past few years and is still lacking skepticism about what the political establishment is saying really deserves to be exploited. Now that Hamas has attacked we can now trust the same media that saw riots as “mostly peaceful protests” and then calls MAGA supporters “insurrectionists” for their questioning the election results??? Are you really that dumb?!? Why don’t you at least consider that the same people who distort the truth here, who seize upon the parts of the evidence that support their own agenda on domestic issues, might also do the same thing there?
Second, okay, so you never heard ‘our side’ chanting “death to Gazans” and yet let’s not be cute about this. Both sides are dedicated to the destruction of the other. Israel slowly but surely takes all of Palestine. Hamas is fully committed to ending Israel. How genocidal that would end up being is anyone’s guess—but these stories from a couple Israeli Defense Force veterans can give us some idea, they burned people alive and shot school children—watch them talk about it and then moralize to me about how only one side is barbaric or evil.
No, this horrendous history of atrocities on both sides certainly does not justify anything that Hamas did in the past week. But what should we expect to happen when that boy crying when an air strike killed his entire family grows up? Is it a surprise when he’s angry and blames the nation that dropped the bomb? Are we just going to gloss over the fact that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, is in a leaked video saying to make it painful for the Palestinians and that basically anything is a military target? What does that mean? Are we going to play ignorant?
This is why I can’t take seriously people who only condemn one side and never the other, this selective moral outrage is not about true care for children. Those who quickly share unverified accounts of beheaded babies and then never even acknowledge those thousands of innocent Palestinians who have died in the indiscriminate and brutal bombing campaigns are being dishonest. No, not saying that there must be complete equivalency or proportionality in a war. but let’s not pretend that only one side is a victim of terrorism. It just looks really disingenuous to only care about the children of one side.
Getting this out of the way…
My point is not to convert you from one side to the other. My point is that the common presentation of this conflict is a false dichotomy and we have the option of choosing none of the above. We can stand with the true victims, those innocent people caught in the crossfire, and oppose all of the militant parties. That is where I stand. Furthermore, I will mostly address the propaganda and war crimes of one side. Why? It is because my typical audience is completely biased toward the West’s narrative and certainly not because I am unaware of what the other side has done. We don’t need to be partisans.
The big lie is that this conflict is not about ethnic cleansing on both sides. Israel has systematically, since May 14, 1948, pushed the native inhabitants out of their land and then played the role of victim when their militarily weaker opponents employed asymmetrical warfare tactics against the occupation. Israel has turned Gaza into an open-air prison, but we only care when Hamas strikes back. American Evangeli-cons believe every claim without skepticism when it is made by Israel (burned babies) as if a party in the conflict has reason to be truthful—why are we such fools?
It Is Okay To Bomb Nazi Children!
Maybe you do not know what Jewish neo-con Ben Shapiro (as well as Isreal’s Prime Minister) meant when he pronounced the people of Gaza to be Amalek?
But I do:
This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’
So let’s just be honest about it! Let’s not say that this is about human rights or preventing ethnic cleansing when it is all about clearing the place for a Jewish ethnic state. Stop being a coward, and say that you’re okay with babies being killed (as long as it is their babies) and with millions of people who are being displaced from their land—all because you have stupidly embraced an errant eschatology that replaces the Church, which was established by Christ, with reemergent nation of those who have fully rejected Him.
Or you could just join me in agreement with St Paul:
Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. […] The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.
(Galatians 3:7-9, 16 NIV)
Understand yet?
Support for a modern ethno-nationalist state has no connection to the promises given to Abraham. Sure, many have been made into useful idiots for this cause, by the twisting of Scripture, but Jesus didn’t promise a patch of land along the Mediterranean coast and the Jews do not share Christian values any more than Muslims do. Both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have chanted for the death of the other. One sees us as being Infidels and the other calls us Goyim. When has Israel, a country declared ‘our greatest ally’ according to many of our greasy-haired politicians, ever defended our borders? The blessing is they get a ton of US aid and send propaganda pictures of their most attractive women in uniform in return.
There’s no denying the tragedy of what has been unfolding over the past few days. We have seen the pictures and videos, very real, of terrified young people. One moment they were enjoying a music festival, the next they were being mercilessly gunned down. And yet I did not see the same level of concern from fundamentalists for the victims of the Pulse nightclub attack. These same people overwhelmed with concern about Israel do not think twice about collective punishment and forcing Gazans into the desert before there is provision for them—this isn’t about protecting innocents or looking out for the most vulnerable, it is about wiping Gazans off the map by wherever means available at this time.
Christian compassion is that none should perish and all will be saved. It isn’t about a political entity called Israel or any kingdom of this world. Our battle, if we were indeed servants of Christ as we claim, should not be against flesh and blood. Jesus commanded us to love our enemies and do good to those who mistreat us. That’s coming from a man who was tortured, unjustly nailed to a cross, and killed by an occupying power. So why again do we support the death of Palestinian children simply for living in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Did you hear? A ‘whistleblower’ testified before Congress about aliens and finding non-human remains at crash sites. I can’t really know if this was reliable or someone simply getting their fifteen minutes of fame, but it does seem unlikely to me that beings capable of flying the enormous distances of space would be such poor navigators. I’ll be a skeptic until I can see for myself and make my own determination.
However, in pondering the topic, a friend of mine posted an interesting meme and it is an angle worth exploring. If aliens do exist, according to the insinuation of this image posted, then they are demonic entities and not to be treated as friends. To some this may seem like a missed opportunity, why would we avoid a chance to expand our own horizons? Typical human behavior, right, to meet with violence the things that we don’t understand or defy expectations.
Maybe. Maybe not.
And yet, this seems another case of being directionally correct even if wrong on the details. I mean, there’s a chance that aliens are some kind of creature from another planet and come in peace. However, what if they don’t? What if they, like many traveling to new lands, have colonial ambitions and will destroy or subjugate us if allowed?
It is correct, instinctively, to have zero trust for these new arrivals. Maybe, technically, they are not demons, but they are others and may as well be demons, right?
Tinfoil Hat Time
This is why I’m generally on the fence so far as the MAGA and Q-Anon types. Sure, they vastly oversimplify and often get the details wrong enough to be easily ‘debunked’ by fact-checkers. However, half the problem is usually about the use of semantics and not the substance. Maybe the world isn’t run by a ring of reptilian pedophiles, nevertheless there are many who lack morality, have their secret plots, hidden motivations, and cover-ups. It might not be organized, but this is pervasive enough that it is adequately put in terms of a grand conspiracy.
Women, don your head coverings!
So far as aliens, and as a devoted speciesist who prefers native life to that which is most certainly extra-terrestrial, does the exact approach we take to ‘othering’ them really matter? They are an other, a true existential threat, and therefore to be regarded as demonic beings. Curiosity could be our undoing and especially when it comes to those things powerful and beyond our own understanding.
So what does the Scripture tell us about this topic?
First, be respectful:
In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.
(Jude 1:8-10 NIV)
Quibbling over what exactly they are is okay, but there is no room for casualness when it comes to aliens or demons. Those coming from other worlds obviously have technology or means better than our own. They can run circles around us. So we would be wise to be cautious and exercise due respect—that is to say rely on God’s power rather than our own strength in these encounters.
Second, we should learn from record history and not make the same mistakes:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
(Genesis 6:4 NIV)
The non-canonical book of Enoch goes into greater detail about this event when beings from another realm came to Earth, shared their advanced knowledge (including that of weapons) and interbred with women. These enhanced hybrid offspring were extremely powerful, they also had insatiable appetites and their enormous consumption eventually led to a destructive rampage. We are told this is why God finally wiped the slate clean with the great flood, where Noah and his family were spared. This is why St Paul writes, in a letter to the Corinthians:
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. […] It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
(1 Corinthians 11:7, 10 NIV)
Women, wear your tinfoil hats. Err, I mean, veils, because there are Watchers, sons of God not named Jesus, and thus it is for this reason you should definitely declare what is the ordained order. Mennonites and Amish are just unwittingly ahead of the game!
Aliens or Angels?
My wife speaks English. However, given that she comes from the Philippines, sometimes her word usage can be different from that of an American. Hanging out with friends and family, for example “bonding” and a “polo” can basically be any shirt with buttons. So truly, if use of language can be this confusing even for us contemporaries, what happens when we expand this “telephone game” over centuries?
It is quite possible that we are reading about what we call aliens in these ancient texts. I mean, the descriptions do seem to match so they not? Those who came to Earth with advanced knowledge and abilities, messed with human genetics through impregnation of women (see: Aliens) and wreaked havoc on the planet before God intervened. There is no way to know if the difference is only semantics or of substance.
Space horror, fantasy or reality?
It seems very unlikely, given the distances involved, that aliens beings can travel from galaxies far away. It is much more likely that these beings would emerge from a parallel (spiritual) dimension, and perhaps through a portal, and are able to take physical form to interact with us. And, either way, similar to artificial intelligence not sharing our human priorities, I’m doubtful these aliens or angels would really have our best interests in mind if they did come.
Ultimately, for all intents and purposes, they are demons. In other words, those of Orthodox Christian tradition do already know what they really are. And, therefore, we must both exercise great caution and strengthen our faith. If they have returned then widespread destruction may be soon to follow. It is not a reason to be afraid, there is no need to panic, these gods are not greater than the good God who has defended those righteous from the beginning and will never let evil win in the end.
The Supreme Court has finally ruled against the practice of blatant racial discrimination in university admissions. This, after Harvard and other schools, in pursuit of filling quotas, would find means to select against qualified Asians to meet an ideal for diversity based on skin color.
The Affirmation Fairy…
African Americans, at least as a collective whole, have suffered disproportionately and this is a historical injustice that is not easily solved. Much of our success later in life has to do with the homes and communities that we were born into. The values we receive via our culture make a huge difference so far as outcomes.
I remember a viral video, a few years back, that lines up a bunch of young people on a grassy field. The announcer asked various questions, such as “Take two steps forward if both of your parents are still married,” and those who could answer yes advanced. The results of this survey were framed as ‘white privilege’ and yet none of the statements had anything to do with race.
Social inequality is certainly not a black-and-white issue, many children of European and Asian ancestry lacked a father in the home, worried about fitting in, did not feel safe at night in their neighborhood, worried about having enough to eat, and lacked access to private education or tutors. I once begged my mother to take me out of public school after a rough patch. I changed my hairstyle as a response to classmates who made note of my ‘Mennonite’ side part. I decided to quit college rather than go deep into debt.
Am I underprivileged?
Exactly how much am I disadvantaged as a learning-disabled child of two high school dropouts, with a father who had to be away all week to support our family?
There problem with all “affirmative action” is that it is a vast oversimplification of a very complex and multi-layered problem that may be more about culture than color. We simply cannot account for every factor or rate every single subcategory of ethnicity and culture for statistical disadvantage. For example, do we know the college graduation rates of Americans of German ancestry or Irish and Italian? Are a proportional amount of these ethnic groups represented?
Furthermore, our own disadvantages can be advantages, in that they can provide u much-needed motivation. Sure, having money may mean a trip to Harvard and a certain level of success. However, the same is true of those who are tall and athletic. Jeff Bezos, at 5′-7″ tall, may have benefitted from having some ‘short man syndrome’ or that extreme desire some have to compensate for the discrimination they faced for physical characteristics that were beyond their control.
Affirmative action is wrong in that there is no way to rank hardships. It is wrong because it isn’t addressing the root causes of social inequalities, even as defined by the privilege police, in that we’re not talking about things like fatherless homes or inner-city violence and cultural forces that discourage the behaviors that aid in academic achievement. You can’t wait until a person is eighteen, then wave a wand of university education and credentials as a solution to these underlying issues.
Asterisk Graduates…
The true underlying message of affirmative action was that minorities, specifically those of African descent, couldn’t be successful without the help of the government. As liberal arts universities continue to seek to fulfill a narrow color-obsessed definition of diversity, using quotas rather than qualifications, they unintentionally degrade all of their minority graduates—even those equal in merit to the non-minority graduates.
The idea of a “diversity hire” or a person not equally qualified to others who applied and yet are given preference only because of their special category of race or gender, is a direct consequence of discriminatory affirmative action programs. People know how to read between the lines (albeit often unfairly) and will diminish accomplishments that weren’t actually earned or can be perceived as being unearned. It is why we do not see the work of those ‘born into wealth’ as being equal to that of those who are self-made.
A classic example of the patronizing white saviorism that is lurking behind divisive equity campaigns.
Just as a university degree would lose value if everyone were simply given a diploma for breathing, admitting some primarily on the basis of skin color devalues the effort even in the eyes of those who benefit. It only serves to feed an idea of black inferiority, that they need a ‘white savior‘ to swoop in and rescue them from their plight, and is grossly unfair to all who were truly qualified on the basis of merit—but will still deal with the asterisk due to systemic compensatory color preferences or racially discriminatory quotas.
The hate crimes against Asians, like the murder of Yao Pan Ma, rarely receive coverage as other racially involved crimes.
Two-tiered or lower standards for some will never achieve the goal of equal outcomes.
Favouritism Forbidden…
We’re living in a time of moral inversion, a time when those who lived a life of crime and abuse are treated as victims simply on the basis of their outward appearance. It is as wrong as the favoritism of preferring the wealthy over the poor for the potential benefits:
Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Leviticus 19:15 NIV
The problem was favoritism, preferring one party based on who they are (what they can provide for us) rather than the actual merit of the case. Fairness of judgment, not equality of outcome, is the goal.
Christians were told not to judge by a person’s outward appearance:
My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
James 2:2-4 NIV
Many, trying to make a show of their own righteousness, take a Scripture like that above and turn it into a call for social justice or a special preference for the poor or otherwise disenfranchised. However, this kind of reverse favoritism totally misses the point. Trading one kind of perverse judgment for another is not a virtue. No, it is a virtue signal and something people do for the social benefit of merely appearing to be an advocate for those recognized as being disadvantaged. Even if sincere, this is a misguided approach that goes against the instruction not to show favoritism.
Affirmative action, in the end, is just a new form of white supremacy that is expressed as patronization. It frames differences in outcomes solely in terms of identity groups while neglecting to correct the factors causing the inequal results or truly helping people to cross over these unhelpful, artificial, and arbitrary divisions. Jesus taught more of a gracious meritocracy, where our behavior did matter and we would ultimately be judged on how we treat other people irrespective of their deserving or appearance. In this regard, our equality comes only in repentance and our obedience to the law of Christ—not by force of courts or legislation.
We do not save the world by trying to force others into compliance or control outcomes. Rather we change ourselves and become an example of impartiality and love to all people. Honest and fair equal opportunity is having the same requirements for all and not preferences tailored to some at the expense of others. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. We shouldn’t love bomb some, even to make them feel better about themselves, by removing opportunities for those who truly have earned their place.
Irregular Ideation 