Posted by: mystic444 | October 19, 2014

Practicing the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights says this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Putting this into practice, though, can be problematic it seems – particularly because many “Christians” seem to believe, despite this statement, that Christianity has a privileged position in U.S. law. At the very least, some maintain, a generic belief in God can be “established” even if no particular religion is “established”. “Founding Fathers” such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made it very clear, though, that this non-establishment clause meant that a person may believe in one God, twenty gods, or no god without governmental hindrance; and those who believe in God may belong to any religion, not just Christianity. Hindus, Muslims, and Jews (as well as all others) enjoy equal protection under this amendment.

Christians in general in the U.S.A. don’t want to let go of their perceived privilege over all others, though. I want to look at 3 recent cases which challenge the First Amendment.

(1) In 2007 in California Barry Hazle Jr. spent a year in prison as a result of a drug conviction. He was then paroled, but his parole contained a requirement that he attend a drug rehabilitation program. This was acceptable to Barry; but the problem was that the drug programs were religion (or ‘faith’) based, and Barry is an atheist. He was not interested in going to ‘religious’ drug rehabilitation sessions, and requested an alternative. While waiting for a hoped-for alternative, he attended the ‘faith-based’ sessions for about a month.

At the end of a month, though, the program he was in reported to his parole officer that he was being ‘disruptive’, though in a ‘congenial manner’. What does being disruptive in a congenial manner mean, I wonder? I suppose he wasn’t being ‘properly’ respectful toward the ‘Higher Power’ whose help he was supposed to seek – yet perhaps without being rude, and maybe being a bit humorous about the whole matter.

As a result of this report of ‘disruptiveness’, Barry’s parole was revoked and he was sent back to prison. Barry sued, and in 2008 a court ruled in his favor. However the jury refused to award him any compensation. Later the Appeals Court overturned the lower court ruling, saying that Barry was certainly due compensation for the injustice done to him. Recently, Barry has been awarded almost $2 million: $1 million from the State of California, and $925,000 from the Westcare facility which ran the rehabilitation program.

This case was clear: the State may not require anyone to attend any religious functions against their will. To do so would be to “establish” religion, and violate the individual’s right to freely express his/her religious (or non/anti-religious) beliefs. To be imprisoned because one does not wish to participate in a religious program – and perhaps one shows a bit of (humorous?) disrespect for the religion – is a clear and flagrant violation of the Constitution of the U.S.A. Those who violate this basic right should certainly have to compensate their victim.

(2) In Danielsville, Georgia, a monument with two Bible quotations on it was placed at the Madison County High School. The two quotations were: (A) “If God be for us, who can be against us?” [Romans 8:31]; and (B) “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” [Philippians 4:13]. But a couple of ‘atheist’ organizations took exception to this monument, with the result that the school board voted to change the wording on the monument (or perhaps remove it). Naturally, the local “Christians” are all upset over this “anti-Christian” decision, since they wrongly think Christianity is the established religion of the U.S.A. and has certain rights to promote itself that no other religion has.

The school board is absolutely correct, of course, in deciding to change the wording or remove the monument. The school is a “public” school, meaning it is financed by the Government. If it were a private school, receiving no government funding, there would be no problem. But the government is not allowed to “establish” or promote any religion; and obviously allowing a religious monument at a government funded school would violate that Constitutional prohibition.

The school board had 3 options to correct the situation. They could (A) remove the monument; (B) remove the Bible quotes from the monument; or (C) arrange to have monuments containing ‘scripture’ quotations from other religions (Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) as well as perhaps some atheistic quotes – such as “there is no god to be for us” and “there is no Christ to strengthen me”. :lol: Apparently the school board has chosen option ‘B’.

Since the article says that the monument was intended to encourage the football team, I have to ask: exactly what sort of ‘encouragement’ were the football players supposed to receive from those Bible quotes? Were they supposed to imagine that for some unfathomable reason ‘God’ was going to favor them rather than their opponents? Is ‘Christ’ going to “strengthen” them rather than their opponents? This just shows the depths of darkness and stupidity into which “Christianity” has fallen, and would just about be enough to drive someone to atheism!

(3) In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, a Satanic organization (based in New York) wants to place a statue of Baphomet (human body with a goat’s head) at the State Capitol. This quite naturally has “Christians” all over the country in an uproar.

This indignation of the “Christians”, though, just shows their hypocritical double standards, since the Satanists’ desire to place that statue is simply a response to the placing of a monument containing the 10 Commandments at the Oklahoma State Capitol. If the “Christians” can place a Biblical monument on State property, then by all means other religions ought to be able to place their own monuments and statues there – even such ‘offensive’ religions as Satanism!

In fact, according to this article linked to above, the State of Oklahoma put a moratorium on any further monuments at the Capitol “after it got requests from a Hindu group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.:lol: There has been no decision to remove the 10 Commandments monument though.

Here again is another flagrant violation of the U.S. Bill of Rights. In point of fact, the State of Oklahoma should not have any religious monuments, plaques, or statues on its properties. If they’re going to allow one religion to put up such material, though, then the Constitution requires that other religions be allowed to place their materials also in order to avoid favoritism and establishment. But again, “Christians” stupidly think they enjoy an ‘exceptional’ and ‘privileged’ position so that they can be ‘established’ whereas no other religion may be.

In contrast to this sense of “Christian exceptionalism”, let me introduce one other case. In Glendale, Wisconsin (a suburb of Milwaukee) a group of Jewish students at a public High School wanted to put up a “Sukkah” (booth/‘tabernacle’) in celebration of Sukkot (feast of booths/‘tabernacles’) this year. They were allowed to do so last year, and intended to do so again this year. But they got a surprise when their request was refused this time.

Why was it refused? The Jewish parents came to realize that it really wasn’t appropriate or Constitutional to be setting up a religious symbol at a public/government school; so they asked the school not to allow it. They realized that they would object to Christian symbols – such as a ‘manger scene’ – at ‘Christmas’ time (as well as Muslim or Hindu symbols), so it was inappropriate for them to put up their own symbols. What a pleasant contrast to the privileged treatment “Christians” tend to expect!

The Jewish students were permitted to set up the Sukkah across the street from the school, though, so the situation was handled to everyone’s satisfaction. Jewish students – and non-Jewish students who were interested – could cross the street to visit the Sukkah; but it could not be seen as a school/government supported display.

Anyone who has been reading my blog articles will know that I have no sympathy for the “Jewish State of Israel”, Zionism, and the Judaism which underlies them. This certainly doesn’t mean that no Jew can do anything right, however. In this case, I’m quite happy with the Jewish parents’ wise decision and their sense of ‘fair play’. This is one instance where “Christians” could well take a lesson from the Jews (or at least those particular Jews) – even though I would not expect Christians to embrace Judaism and would hope that they would denounce Zionism and the “Jewish State”.

Posted by: mystic444 | September 6, 2014

Jewish/Zionist Myths

If the Christian apostle Paul ever made a truthful statement, it surely was the following one from his letter to Titus (chapter 1:10-14 from the New Revised Standard version of the Bible): (10) There are also many rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision; (11) they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what is not right to teach. (12) It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said, “Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.” (13) That testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply, so that they may become sound in faith, (14) not paying attention to Jewish myths or to commandments of those who reject the truth.

Now let me first deal with a common source of ridicule for this passage. If this is read with absolutely strict literalness, it presents an absurd contradiction. Paul quoted a Cretan ‘prophet’ who said “Cretans are always liars”, and Paul said the statement was true. If the (literally interpreted) statement is true, then that means that the Cretan ‘prophet’ was himself a liar and always spoke lies; therefore the statement must be a lie! One can ‘have fun’ with that kind of absurdity; but in reality it just points out that we shouldn’t be overly ‘literal’ in understanding what we read. While the ‘prophet’ (and Paul) obviously intended the statement as a generalized characterization of people from Crete, it did not mean literally that every Cretan is a liar, or that no Cretan ever says anything truthful – any more than Paul and others meant literally every Jew when they in general terms castigated “the Jews”.

Having pointed that out, notice that when Paul was warning against people who are rebellious, ‘idle talkers’, and deceivers, he singled out ‘the circumcision’ (Jews) as being especially guilty in that regard; and when he spoke of becoming “sound in faith”, he said that in order to attain to that soundness it was essential not to pay attention to “Jewish myths”.

I recently came across an article concerning an “Israeli” Jewish man named Miko Peled who has become an outspoken critic of modern Jewish myths. (Actually, he calls them “Zionist” myths or lies rather than “Jewish” myths/lies – insisting that “Zionism” and “Judaism” are completely different things. On that point I disagree with him, although at one time I also fell for that falsehood.)

MIko Peled was born in Jerusalem, the son of famous “Israeli” General Matti Peled, and grandson (if I remember correctly what he said) of a signer of the “Israeli” Declaration of Independence. The article I linked to gives excerpts from a talk he presented in Austin, Texas; and also provides the link to the video of the complete talk (60 minutes).

In this talk, MIko presents the sharp and complete contrast between the “Zionist” and Palestinian narratives of the Zionist endeavor which culminated in “the Jewish State of Israel”. He was raised on the “Zionist” narrative, and fully accepted it – with the exception that he always found troubling a story his mother told of being offered a house in Jerusalem (in 1948) just after the Palestinians had been driven out. His mother was just 22 years old at the time, and living with her mother in Jerusalem. Miko’s mother refused the house because she found it morally wrong to take the house of another family who had been driven out by the “Israeli” military. Miko couldn’t understand his mother’s moral dilemma, since the Zionist narrative left no apparent ground for such a dilemma.

While he found his mother’s story troubling because it ‘poked holes’ in the Zionist narrative on which he was raised, he nevertheless didn’t seriously question that narrative for a long time. In 1997, though – while he was living in the USA – he received word that his sister’s 13 or 14 year old daughter (in “Israel”) had been killed in a suicide attack. He immediately flew to “Israel”, only to find that his sister was outspokenly blaming the “Israeli” government for her daughter’s death, and said she completely understood what led the Palestinians to carry out such attacks. (That of course created quite a furor, since her father was the famous General Matti Peled). This is what finally caused Miko to reexamine the Zionist narrative. The result of his personal examination and study was that he completely rejected the Zionist mythology and sided with the Palestinian cause.

He now believes that the “two-State solution” is simply not viable. There are only two possible “solutions” to the “Israel”/Palestine controversy: either (1) one “Jewish State” of “Israel” embracing the whole land currently divided between “Israel” and “Palestine”; or (2) one democratic and ‘secular’ State of Palestine – embracing the whole currently divided land – in which all citizens, of whatever race or religion, are fully equal. Miko Peled wholeheartedly embraces solution 2, as do I. And he exposes the Jewish (or Zionist) myths and lies which underlie the “Jewish State of Israel”. I highly recommend the article and video.

[I have reposted this article from the blog site Ascertain the Truth. -- SGP]]


“Lady al Qaeda: The World’s Most Wanted Woman” – A Response
Published on Thursday, 28 August 2014 09:28 | Written by Mauri Salaakhan | Print | Email
FacebookTwitterGoogle bookmark

11006 Veirs Mill Rd, STE L-15, PMB 298
Silver Spring, MD. 20902

(August 27, 2014)

Assalaamu Alaikum (Greetings of Peace):

This comes in response to an article at that a number of concerned folk have brought to my attention.

My Response to: “Lady al Qaeda: The World’s Most Wanted Woman,” by Shane Harris

Dr. Aafia Siddui Before and After

As someone who attended the trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and witnessed the so-called “evidence” first hand, let me point out a certain number of FACTS, which anyone can easily access by merely examining the court record which is now in the public domain.

1. The government’s star witnesses contradicted themselves so much under oath that they should have been charged with perjury; but they weren’t because they were the government’s witnesses.

2. The judge in the case, Richard Berman, was openly biased against Dr. Siddiqui from start to finish, and gave the prosecution virtually everything of consequence that it asked for.

3. Judge Berman ordered that the FIVE MISSING YEARS in this tragedy (2003 to 2008) were off limits during the trial. Those were the years when Aafia and her children were missing as a result of the rendition operation that was conducted against them in March 2003. The only way that any of the information about the kidnapping and five years of secret imprisonment came out was when Dr. Siddiqui took the stand and forced (under repeated objections from the prosecution) the court to hear it. She testified, among other things, of how when she was secretly imprisoned her captors would force her to copy documents in her own handwriting, under the threat that not to do so would endanger the lives of her children. These were the documents placed in the bag that she was given upon her brief release in Afghanistan (the classic setup).

4. I find it intriguing how the weapon that Aafia was supposed to have attempted to murder U.S. personnel with (described in court testimony as an M-4 Rifle) has moved from the FLOOR to a TABLE in the years since the trial. The truth of the matter is (as the Afghan Police Commander stated in a sworn affidavit that was entered into the record during the trial), “The prisoner never touched a weapon.”

5. ALL OF THE HARD EVIDENCE WAS IN DR. SIDDIQUI’S FAVOR DURING THE TRIAL. The only bullet casings that were recovered from the floor of the crime scene after the fact were the bullet casing of the weapon used to shoot Dr. Siddiqui – fired from the weapon of an American soldier who panicked after abruptly, and unexpectedly, seeing the prisoner appear unrestrained from behind a curtain in the room. In this crowded room full of Afghan and American soldiers, FBI, and probably CIA, and the Afghan police commander she was the only one shot – because as the Afghan commander said, “The prisoner never fired a weapon” – only the American soldier did!

6. It is also important to note that while the jury allowed itself to be emotionally and psychologically bum-rushed into a finding of “guilt” despite the lack of evidence to support a guilty verdict, THE JURY NEVER FOUND THAT DR. SIDDIQUI FIRED A WEAPON! This was a determination that a biased jurist (Richard Berman) openly decided for himself – in a feeble attempt to justify a sentence of 86 YEARS for “attempted murder,” when many murderers throughout America don’t even receive a sentence like that!

7. Perhaps the most stark indication of the completely bogus nature of the government’s case against Dr. Siddiqui, is the FACT that while she was accused of being a high-ranking female facilitator for al-Qaeda (an accusation ridiculous on its face) SHE WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH COMMITTING AN ACT OF TERRORISM; she wasn’t even charged with “conspiracy to commit terrorism” – one of the easiest charges that an out of control government can bring against someone where hard evidence is absent. (We see it all the time with the preemptive prosecution cases involving young Muslim males in America, with the agency of government paid agent-provocateurs.)

And despite never being charged with even one terrorism-related count, we still find writers and “journalists” retailing the same old garbage. In this regard, I am reminded of the words of the French philosopher Voltaire: “Those who can make us believe absurdities, can also cause us to commit atrocities.”

I could go on and on, but I’ll stop here with a few final points. When Dr. Siddiqui was kidnapped with her children in March 2003, I believe it was based solely on devilish Dick Cheney’s “One Percent Doctrine.” Part of the same faulty reasoning (or deliberate con) that carried us into a full blown war with Iraq based on “weapons of mass destruction” that didn’t exist. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was targeted because she was a brilliant and actively committed Muslim woman, or she was “collateral damage” resulting from faulty intelligence.

If the latter, there has been a determined regime of cover-up ever since! She is like the innocent men and boys of Guantanamo, who were bought and sold like livestock – shamefully at the hands of some of their very own so-called Muslim brethren. As in the case of Gitmo, to admit mistakes were made, and that innocent lives were severely damaged or destroyed would undermine the whole raison d’ter for an unending, profit driven war!

At a time when the U.S. and Pakistan were still animatedly denying that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui (and her CHILDREN) had been targets of rendition at the hands of American and Pakistani agents (during the corrupt Musharraf government), the former foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, admitted they were, and expressed his profound regret for sharing some responsibility. That’s an EXPLOSIVE ADMISSION that no sane person would make willy-nilly. His conscience was apparently weighing heavy on him. Let us pray that the conscience of those with the power to set this innocent woman free (after 11 years of living hell) will awaken and also compel them to do what is right.

Of the three children who were kidnapped along with a loving mother – their ages at the time of the 2003 rendition operation were 6, 4, and six months – the two oldest (American citizens by birth) were returned to the family home in 2008 and 2010 respectively. The youngest child, who was just six months old at the time, is still missing to this day and presumed dead! Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, now 85 and still active, has described Dr. Siddiqui’s plight as “the worst case of individual injustice” that he has ever seen. In this writer’s quarter century of human rights work in America it’s the worst I’ve ever seen.


Finally, the FACTS noted above are the reason why millions of people around the world (including “militants,” “jihadists,” and/or “terrorists” in Muslim populated countries) are calling for this prisoner’s release. As long as she remains imprisoned in America her unjust captivity will serve as a vivid reminder of America’s contradictions; it will also serve as a source of anger and antagonism toward an unjust and fundamentally un-American foreign policy ….the better of the “two Americas

Posted by: mystic444 | August 24, 2014

Who is Responsible for the Death of Gazans?

Imagine a hostage situation in the USA. Criminals have entered some public building and taken people hostage at gunpoint. All manner of law enforcement personnel, including a SWAT team, are surrounding the building. The police issue a statement that the hostages have between 1 and 10 minutes to flee the building; after that time a missile will be fired into the building in order to kill the criminals. After the allotted time (in which none of the hostages have managed to escape) the police (SWAT team perhaps) do indeed fire the missile into the building, destroying it and killing the criminals as well as about 3 times more hostages than criminals – severely injuring those who were not killed.

Afterward, the police crow about how ‘restrained’ they were in their actions; they did everything they possibly could to kill only the criminals and protect the hostages. Why, they ought to be given a Nobel Peace Prize for their almost unimaginable restraint! The death of hostages was not their fault, they exclaim; no, it was entirely the fault of the criminal hostage holders! What would you think of the supposed ‘restraint’ of the police? If you have any common sense and decency, you would be loudly protesting and advocating the arrest of those law enforcement officers!

But that is precisely the situation in Gaza – according to the “Israelis’” own account of the situation! According to the “Israelis’” account, the Hamas resistance is a criminal organization which is holding hostage its Gaza citizens and using them as “human shields” while they make awful demands of the very moral and peaceful “Israeli” government. It’s not the fault of the “most moral military in the world” if those hostage Gazan citizens die when they fire their missiles into the Gazan houses, mosques, schools and hospitals (which this “moral army” assures us are all Hamas “command centers” or shelters for those evil Hamas terrorists). It’s entirely the fault of the Hamas agents who are using those “human shields.”

In fact, according to “Israel’s” own version of the story, it’s not even the fault of the Gazan victims that they didn’t flee. They couldn’t flee because Hamas wouldn’t let them. Even if they theoretically could have escaped, they were too afraid of the consequences (from Hamas) to make the attempt. Those citizens of Gaza are supposedly more afraid of Hamas than they are of “Israeli” missiles! Nevertheless, with great “restraint” the “Israeli” soldiers go ahead and deliberately kill the hostages (or “human shields”) along with any Hamas soldiers that might actually be present. And we’re supposed to highly praise them for their “restraint” and “morality”, especially if they gave the citizens 1 to 10 minutes to flee.

I say that out of their own mouths the “Israelis” are condemned!! It’s not “restraint” or “morality” to deliberately kill “hostages” and “human shields” in order to kill the criminals holding the hostages. No decent law enforcement agency would do such a thing – presumably because they consider it too much effort to try to find some other way to get at the criminals without hurting the hostages. And it would be purely laughable – if it weren’t in fact so horrifying – for them to then have the audacity to claim that they acted with unimaginable “restraint” when they killed the hostages and destroyed the building itself because the criminals were in it.

In reality, though, the “Israeli” version of the story about Gaza is pure nonsense and fable. It is not Hamas which is the “terrorist” group holding hostage the citizens of Gaza. That dishonor belongs to the truly terrorist “Jewish State of Israel” and its accomplice Egypt, inasmuch as they control the borders of Gaza – meaning they control who and what enters and leaves Gaza. And the Gazan citizens do not live in fear of Hamas; Hamas is not preventing them from fleeing their homes if they wish to (though the 1 to 10 minute warning that “most moral army” gives them is hardly sufficient time to flee). They either courageously choose to remain and give the “Israeli” army the opportunity to prove the level of their “restraint”, or they have some physical disability preventing them from escaping (old age, ill health, injury, etc.) Many in fact willingly choose deliberate defiance of the unjust and terrorist “Israelis”, in solidarity with the Hamas government which they chose and whose resistance they admire. Many more, however, do in fact flee to other places (such as schools which are supposed to enjoy protection) – only to have the “moral and restrained” “Israeli” army shoot missiles at that place of refuge!

Human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as reporters like Chris Hedges, have told us that they have found no evidence of Hamas using “human shields”. There is no evidence of the existence of Hamas “command centers” and “weapons storage” in those homes, schools, and hospitals which the “moral” army of “Israel” attacked – at least in most of them; it’s all mere “Israeli” lies and fables. It’s apparently true that weapons were found stored in a couple of ‘schools’ – which the mainstream media played up very heavily. But what seems to be overlooked by most advocates of the “human shields” story is that those 2 ‘schools’ were vacant. They were not in use, so there were no citizens (adults or children) present to be “human shields”!

No, it is not Hamas which is to blame for the deaths of Gaza citizens; the blame belongs entirely to the terrorist “Jewish State”. That kind of viciousness is deeply embedded in their consciousness by means of their vile “scriptures”, which over and over teach them not to leave any of their “enemies” alive; God Himself demands that men, women, children, and livestock be ‘holocausted’ – totally destroyed. Their Rabbis and many of their political leaders insist on the legitimacy of this genocidal mentality. May the “Jewish State” be completely abolished, and a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” (Jew and Gentile; Christian, Muslim, and Jew as well as any other people who are citizens there) be established in Palestine. And by “Palestine” I mean not only Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem; but the whole land which now is divided between “Israel” and “Palestine”.

That’s all of my ‘ranting’ for this time; but as an added bonus, let me leave you with this link to a wonderful defense of Palestine and Hamas by Dr. Rania Masri – delivered recently in Raleigh, North Carolina (United States of America). A number of people have recently made the news by making statements condemning “Israel” and supporting the Palestinians – only to backtrack and “clarify” their statements when Zionists started attacking them. I am quite sure that this passionate lady (Rania) is not going to take back anything she says just because defenders of “Israel” don’t like what she said! :smile: This article contains excerpts from her talk; but there are a couple of links – at the beginning and end of the article – to the video of the entire talk (30 minutes). Enjoy it! (Or hate it if you are a Zionist defender of “the Jewish State”!)

Posted by: mystic444 | August 14, 2014

Extraterrestrials and the Bible

I don’t keep up with the debates between creationists and evolutionists, and I don’t really hold a definite conviction on the controversy. I do know that evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson and Biblical creationist Ken Ham have been known to debate each other on the subject.

A couple of weeks ago I read a news report about some comments Mr. Ham made about a tangentially related subject – extraterrestrials – and the three word comment Mr. Tyson made concerning Ken Ham’s statements. It seems that Ken has stated that search for extraterrestrial life is useless for two reasons: (1) the Bible supposedly teaches that earth is a “special creation” of God – I suppose all those other planets and star systems are just there for show; and (2) if extraterrestrials do exist, they’re hopelessly lost and destined to hell, inasmuch as the whole of creation was ruined by the sin of Adam – but only earthly descendents of Adam and Eve can be “saved” by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ!

Neil’s short comment on this was “that’s messed up”! I consider that to be an extremely polite and diplomatic response. :lol: Ken Ham’s statement is so nonsensical that it doesn’t even match up with what the Bible itself teaches – if one were inclined to accept the accuracy and truthfulness of that book (and Ken Ham claims to be a firm believer in the Bible).

I would like to consider both of Ken Ham’s points, beginning with point #2. This point stated that although extraterrestrials would have suffered the effects of Adam’s sin, Jesus Christ only redeemed and reconciled to God the descendants of Adam; and extraterrestrials would obviously not fit into that category. Now although the apostle Paul does seem to have taught the (absurd) notion that somehow all of creation was adversely affected by the sin of one earthly human, Adam, the very verses that teach this (absurd) notion are the ones that explicitly say that the whole of creation shares in Jesus Christ’s redeeming sacrifice! The effects of Adam’s sin and Jesus’ righteousness are co-extensive according to the teaching of Paul. (Ken Ham claims to believe in the infallibility of the apostle Paul as an “inspired” messenger of Jesus Christ. I don’t make any such claim.)

Consider for instance this passage from Romans 8 (English Standard Version): Rom 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. Rom 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, IN HOPE Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. Rom 8:23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (By saying “not only the creation”, Paul clearly meant that “the creation” is included among those eagerly awaiting adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.)

Surely any extraterrestrials are part of “creation”, and therefore are among those who will be set free from … bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. And what about the angels, seraphim, and cherubim? They are surely part of “creation” – and therefore must be (according to Paul) suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin. But they are not descendents of Adam. So would Ken Ham have us believe that the angels (including such “archangels” as Michael and Gabriel) are hopelessly lost and destined for hell because they can’t participate in Jesus Christ’s redemption? I’m sure that Ken does not believe any such thing; certainly Paul didn’t as is obvious from the quotation from Romans 8.

Consider one other verse from the letters of Paul, before moving on to Ken Ham’s first point. Colossians 1:20 says: and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven [literally “the heavens” – SGP], making peace by the blood of his cross. Clearly the implication of this statement is that Paul considered that all things – both on earth and in the heavens – were corrupted and stood in need of being reconciled to God. The actual direct statement is that in fact all things – both on earth and in the heavens – have been reconciled to, and brought to peace with, God! And “extraterrestrials” are by definition beings who are not “on (or from) earth” and are therefore “in (or from) the heavens”. According to Paul, then, extraterrestrials would be participants in the effects of Jesus Christ’s “atonement”. Ken Ham doesn’t know what he’s talking about, even when it comes to the Bible! :roll:

Now let’s consider the first point raised by Mr. Ham. He believes that searching for extraterrestrial life is a waste of time because Earth is a “special creation”. God apparently has a “special purpose” which is fulfilled only in Earth humanity. Although God created the seemingly endless Universe (or Universes), He would seem to have “tunnel vision” which is focused totally on this one otherwise insignificant planet.

Of course, the Bible itself acknowledges the existence of extraterrestrial life: the “heavenly hosts” of angels and archangels, seraphim and cherubim, etc. But in Ken Ham’s “Christianity” these extraterrestrial hosts are no doubt focused (just as God is in this absurd “theology”) totally on Earth and the humans who inhabit it. That is the point of the creation of “angels”: to serve humans! One would think that just the stating of such an idea would be enough to refute it, since it is so ridiculous.

Certainly, in traditional “Christian” theology (and I guess also Jewish and Muslim theologies), these angelic hosts are pure spirit beings, not material beings coming in spaceships from other planets. However, there are hints even in the “Scriptures” as we have them that such a view is not entirely accurate. Some of these hints would seem to be much more in line with modern day understanding of “UFOs” coming from other planets, and very material “angels” with bodies pretty much indistinguishable from Earth humans. These hints come in both “Testaments” of the Bible. For instance in the “Old Testament” (“Hebrew Scriptures”) Genesis 6:1-4 speaks of certain mysterious “sons of God” who took as wives the “daughters of men”. The progeny of this relationship were “giants” or “Nephilim” – “mighty men” and “men of renown”. Also, many people have noted that Ezekiel’s visions of wheels in the air, wheels within wheels, correspond very well with modern day UFO sightings – taking into account the differences in scientific and technological understanding between then and now, which would affect the terminology used to describe the visions.

I would like to focus on some instances in the Christian “gospels”, though, since Ken Ham is so convinced that his “Christian” theology is completely opposed to extraterrestrial life (at least the kind from other planets). It is so ironic that there are events within the Biblical accounts of the life of Jesus Christ which are best explained – in fact can only be reasonably explained – by extraterrestrials and spaceships as we understand such things today. Extraterrestrials were intimately involved in the birth, baptism, ‘resurrection’, and ‘ascension’ of Jesus! :shock:

First consider the story of “the star of Bethlehem” in Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus (Matthew 2:1-12). In this story certain “wise men” (magi) from “the East” saw a peculiar “star” in the sky – which they were able to conclude signaled the birth of a “king of the Jews”. The “wise men” then went to Jerusalem – presumably led by the “star”, though Matthew does not specifically say so – and started asking where this newborn Jewish king was. After talking with “Herod the king”, they then were led by the “star” to Bethlehem (Matthew here specifically says the “star” led them), and the “star” came to a stop over the place where the child was.

This story has long been considered an example of the historical and scientific inaccuracy of the Bible. No star, comet, or meteor known to man could move slowly in front of men on foot or riding camels or horses to guide them somewhere, and then come to a stop directly over the point to which it was leading them. There is simply no reasonable explanation for such an account – unless it is compared to modern day UFO sightings. Were a similar account to be written today, it would immediately be labeled a UFO sighting. The writer of Matthew didn’t know what to make of such a strange light in the sky, so he called it a “star”. But the ‘gospel story’ matches modern UFO sightings very nicely.

Then at the other end of the earthly life of Jesus (at least as recorded in the Bible) we have the story of Jesus’ ‘ascension into heaven’ (Acts 1:6-11). Here is another account which is considered a scientific absurdity, and is frequently ridiculed. Jesus is said to have been “lifted up” into the sky until a cloud hid him from the viewers. Aside from the levitation itself, where did Jesus go to after the cloud hid him? Did he just keep going until he reached a “throne” out in space somewhere, upon which God is seated? Obviously that’s ridiculous, and so the ascension story is frequently mocked.

However, again such a story is very consistent with modern day UFO accounts. There are frequent accounts of a blue beam of light shining down from a hovering spaceship, in which beam spaceship occupants as well as humans are observed either descending from the ship or ascending to it. So perhaps there was a spaceship hovering behind the clouds outside of Jerusalem, and Jesus was levitated up to the ship. Certainly such an account would fit in very well with the modern UFO phenomena. Alternatively, though, perhaps the spaceship had landed, Jesus got into the ship, and then it was the ship that rose up until clouds hid it. Either way, it seems to me that UFO involvement is the only way to make any real sense of the ‘ascension story’ in the Bible.

Then there are the stories of a voice being heard from heaven (or from a bright cloud) proclaiming Jesus to be “my beloved son”. In the gospel accounts this occurred at Jesus’ baptism by John (Matthew 3:13-17), and at the “transfiguration” (Matthew 17:1-8). When one reads such accounts in the light of the present day UFO stories, it is not hard to understand. Otherwise one must just imagine the gospel writers were giving us some very imaginative myths.

Interestingly, there is a “gospel” discovered relatively recently (1963) which makes explicit the extraterrestrial involvement hinted at in our ‘official’ “gospel” accounts. This “gospel” is called “Talmud Jmmanuel” (the “J” in Jmmanuel is the equivalent of the English “I”), though this “Talmud” has no relationship at all with the Jewish Talmud (“Babylonian” or “Jerusalem Talmud”). The word “Talmud” comes from the three letter Hebrew root word meaning “to learn or to teach”; therefore a “Talmud” is the teaching or instruction which is learned or taught. So “Talmud Jmmanuel” means “Immanuel’s Instructions or Teachings”. This “Talmud” is said to have been discovered in 1963 by two men, in a tomb outside of Jerusalem which they believed to have been the tomb in which the body of Jesus/Immanuel was placed after the crucifixion. It was written in Aramaic; but unfortunately the original documents were later destroyed in an Israeli attack on a refugee camp in Lebanon where one of the discoverers was living. He had managed to translate about ¼ of the material into German before the documents were destroyed. That of course makes it impossible to run verifying tests on the documents to see if they really were as old as they claim to be.

For anyone interested, an online English translation of the “Talmud Jmmanuel” can be found here. In addition, a comparison with the Gospel of Matthew (to which the Talmud Jmmanuel bears a striking resemblance, although there are also many very important differences) can be found here. The comparison was made by James W. Deardorff, and the site contains links to several other articles he wrote concerning subjects relating to the contents of the “TJ”. More complete information about the “TJ” – its content and teachings, its author, and its discoverers – can be found at these two sites.

As I said, this “Talmud Jmmanuel” makes explicit what is hinted at in the ‘official’ Gospels concerning UFO and extraterrestrial involvement in the life of Immanuel (Jesus). For instance, concerning the ‘ascension into heaven’ recorded in Acts 1 (verse 9), it has this to say: TJ 32:49-53 49And it came to pass, that while he was speaking to them in this manner, a thundering came from the sky, and a great light descended. 50The light settled on the ground not far from them, and it glittered like metal in the sunlight. 51Jmmanuel spoke no more, but went to the metallic light and entered into it. 52Then, however, a haze arose all around it. Once again a thundering began and the light ascended back into the sky. 53And the disciples returned to Jerusalem in secret and made known the events among their own kind. (This was copied from Mr. Deardorff’s comparison). Chapter 33:1 tells us that the “great light” took Immanuel to Damascus in Syria, where he lived for two years before beginning a long journey which would eventually find him in India – where he lived to approximately AD 115 and then died a natural death. (According to the “TJ”, Immanuel did not actually die by crucifixion, but was “near death”.)

The “TJ”, then, teaches what I presented as an alternative explanation of the “ascension”: instead of Immanuel/Jesus being levitated by a light from the hovering spacecraft, the spacecraft landed on the earth and Immanuel entered into it. Then the spacecraft itself rose up into the air and was obscured by the cloud/haze which arose around the craft. All of this is very explicit – no confusing talk of a “star”.

At the birth of Jesus, the “wise men” explained their mission, to Herod, in this way (chapter 2:2-5): 2″Where is the newborn king of wisdom of the Jews? 3We have seen a bright light in the sky and heard a voice saying, 4’Follow the tail of the light, because the king of wisdom of the Jews is born, who will bring great knowledge.’ 5Therefore we have come to adore the newborn king of wisdom.” The “tail of the light” probably refers to the blue light which is sometimes observed to shine down from the hovering spacecraft. And note that the “TJ” explains how the “wise men” were able to connect the “light” to the birth of a “king” in Judea. They heard a voice from the spacecraft telling them about this “king of wisdom”, rather than being left to deduce it from astrological calculations and perhaps knowledge of “scriptures”.

Then when they left Herod, the “bright light” with the “tail” led them on to Bethlehem: TJ 2:14 14After they [the magi] had listened to Herod Antipas, they departed. And behold, the light with the long tail, which they had observed in the Orient, moved ahead of them with a high singing sound until it reached Bethlehem and stood directly over the stable where the infant was born. This is all very consistent with modern day UFO sightings.

At the baptism of Immanuel by John the Baptist, instead of the “Holy Spirit” descending in the form of a dove, we read this: TJ 3:30 30When Jmmanuel had been baptized, he soon came out of the water of the Jordan, and behold, a metallic light fell from the sky and rushed over the Jordan. TJ 3:31-32 31Consequently they all fell on their faces and pressed them into the sand while a voice from the metallic light spoke, 32″This is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased. He will be the king of truth, through which the terrestrial human species shall rise as wise ones.” After this, instead of the “Holy Spirit” leading Jesus into “the wilderness” where he was “tempted by the devil” for 40 days, the TJ says that Immanuel entered into the “metallic light” which then rose in fire and smoke and carried him away to another land for 40 days. During that time he was instructed by the occupants of the spacecraft. Chapter 4 of the TJ tells us some of the instructions given to Immanuel.

The voice heard proclaiming that Immanuel was his beloved son would undoubtedly belong to Gabriel, the “celestial son” (traveler from a far distant point in the Universe) whom the TJ and Jmmanuel himself consistently insist is the “father” of Jmmanuel. It is emphatically denied that “god” is Immanuel’s “father”; and “god” in the TJ is not the Creator and Sustainer of all things, but is simply the leader of the “celestial sons” who came to earth from far away in the Universe. “God” is the greatest of those travelers in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom – but not “the Creator”. In fact, the TJ does not acknowledge a “Creator”; the Ultimate Existence is “Creation” Itself, and is self-existing without beginning or ending. It seems to me to be a poor choice of words to describe the All-in-All, since “Creation” implies a Creator – but in the TJ “Creation” is uncreated. It refers to the eternal “Source”, the “material” from which everything is formed. It is genderless Intelligence, and is “the Whole” of which we are all “parts”.

You may accept or reject this “Talmud of Jmmanuel”; but the things concerning UFOs and extraterrestrials which are explicit in it, are definitely hinted at in the ‘official’ Bible and very reasonably derived from that Bible. Sorry, Ken Ham; extraterrestrials are not only “out there”, but have been involved in earth events for a very long time – including being intimately involved in the events surrounding that wonderful man called Immanuel/Jesus!

Posted by: mystic444 | July 13, 2014

Israeli “Self Defense” and Pursuit of Peace

Imagine the situation where organized crime (let’s call it the Mafia) has taken control of a neighborhood or town. Mafia agents have by illicit means gained control of houses and businesses and have evicted or murdered legitimate residents or business people. Those whom they have allowed to stay are subject to a ‘protection racket’: the Mafia promises ‘protection’ in exchange for a fee. The only problem is that the violence from which the people are being ‘protected’ is the violence the Mafia will perform if the people don’t pay the ‘protection’ fee.

Now imagine further that some of the oppressed people (whether those who were evicted and the families of those who were murdered, or those who have been permitted to remain) decide to resist the powerful Mafia; they refuse to pay the ‘protection’ money and meet the Mafia collectors with weapons – or those who were evicted form armed militias to take back their former possessions. Question: does the criminal Mafia have a legal right of ‘self defense’ against the resistance of the oppressed residents/former residents and business people? Are the residents/former residents ‘terrorists’ for violently resisting the oppression of the criminal Mafia?

I would think that anyone possessing any ‘common sense’ would join me in answering with an emphatic “NO” to those questions. The resistance of the oppressed against the Mafia is the legitimate act of self defense; and the agents of resistance are brave and ‘heroes’ even if their resistance is weak and mostly futile. The so-called ‘self defense’ of the Mafia is instead just a continuation of their criminal aggression. The only ‘right’ the Mafia has is to cease and desist from its oppression and terrorism.

This is precisely the situation with the “Jewish State of Israel” and Palestine. The “Jewish State of Israel” is organized crime. From the very beginnings of “Zionism”, the Jewish Zionists sought to evict or kill the legitimate occupants of Palestine and form their own nation of “Israel”. In this effort they have been partially successful, forming the nation of “Israel” in 1948. Thus far, though, they have not managed to steal the whole “Promised Land” (from the Nile to the Euphrates); so far they have been forced to allow a portion of the land to remain in the possession of Palestinians – though even that portion is actually under “Israeli” control. Palestine is still not formally recognized as a “State” – though “Israel” demands their own right to exist as a “Jewish State”. Palestine is not allowed to form their own military and “legally” obtain weapons; those resistance groups who sneak in weapons and make weak and mostly ineffectual efforts at active resistance are labeled “terrorists”.

The organized crime family of “Israel” has duped “Western” nations into accepting the idea that they had a right to murder or evict the residents of Palestine; and that their present continuation of aggression against the Palestinians is simply ‘self defense’ in pursuit of their supposed “right” to exist as a nation in stolen territory. Just as the Mafia had/has ‘bought and paid for’ representatives in police and government who cover for and protect Mafia activities; so “Israel” has “bought and paid for” representatives in “Western” government, military, media, and entertainment who loudly maintain the ‘justice’ of the “Israeli” cause, and make sure “Western” governments continue to support “Israel’s” ‘right of self defense’ against those Palestinian ‘terrorists’.

That, of course, is as much a load of excrement as the Mafia claiming they have the right to “defend themselves” against the people whom they oppress. I for one simply will not acknowledge such a “right” for the “Israelis”; but I will most certainly grant that right to the oppressed Palestinians who have the courage to resist “Israeli” crime and corruption – whether that resistance is labeled “Hamas”, “Hezbollah”, or just simply “Palestinian resistance”. Long live that resistance, and may the “Jewish State” be dissolved and government of the whole land (currently divided between “Israel” and “Palestine”) be returned to the Palestinians.

Another deception of the “Israelis” is the idea that all they want is “peace”. Jewish propagandists repeat over and over that “Israel” has continually pursued “peace”, but those awful Palestinians just won’t accept it! This is another load of excrement. Those Jews who genuinely do desire to pursue peace are those who are siding with the Palestinians – with varying degrees of consistency, however. The most consistent are those such as “Neturei Karta” who openly proclaim that “Zionism” was an evil thing from its beginnings toward the end of the 19th century, and the consequent “Jewish State of Israel” has absolutely no legitimacy. They agree that the “Jewish State” should be dissolved, and the land and its government be returned to the Palestinian people from whom the land was stolen. The less consistent somehow adhere to the essential “right” of the “Israeli State” to exist, but denounce present day atrocities committed by that State (such as illegal settlements in the occupied territories, and the vicious military attacks against Gaza).

In reality, though, the pursuit of peace with “Gentiles” by the Jews is quite opposite to the teaching of the “Torah” (“Law of Moses”) which forms the foundation of Jewish religion and culture. In fact, the “Torah” specifically forbids such a pursuit! Listen to what the supposed “Word of God” says about the Jews’ relationship to the Ammonites and Moabites. Because those peoples didn’t welcome the invading Israelites with open arms, Deuteronomy 23:3-6 says that no member of those peoples may ever enter the assembly of the LORD. In fact, this emphatic command is given (verse 6): You shall not seek their peace or prosperity all your days forever.

Then there was this commandment concerning 7 “nations” whom the Israelites would encounter when entering the “Promised Land” of Palestine (in other words, the legitimate occupiers of that land): … when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them (Deuteronomy 7:2). There is certainly no basis for pursuing peace with Palestinians there!!

Once again, consider the supposed commandment of God concerning the Midianites in Numbers 31. The LORD, we are told, commanded Moses to get revenge on those evil Midianites because they had been complicit in the hiring of Balaam to “curse” Israel. Balaam came up with the idea of having the Palestinian women seduce the Israelite men – thus causing the Israelite men to ‘sin against God’. So, in keeping with “the LORD’s” commandment to get revenge, the Israelites attacked Midian, killed all the men, and took the women and children captive. But Moses became extremely angry that the women and children had been permitted to live; so in verses 17 and 18 (of Numbers 31) Moses commanded that all the male children should be killed, and also all females who were not virgins! All the virgin female children, though, they could keep alive for yourselves! My, what a peace loving, moral “LORD”! :roll:

No, Judaism has no place for seeking the peace of Gentiles. And “the Jewish State of Israel” has not been in pursuit of such an ideal since its founding, despite their lying, deceptive propaganda to the contrary. Even those “Jews” who are atheists have still had this Biblical antagonism toward the Gentiles firmly planted in their consciousness (or subconscious); so it’s there even if they don’t have “God” as an excuse for it.

Still, the Bible is very contradictory; so a Jew who truly has a good heart can find indications here and there in the Hebrew Scriptures that there at least once existed a more open and less vicious Israelite teaching. That would have been before the scribes falsified the “Law of the LORD” so that the true “Law” ceased to exist among the Jews (Jeremiah 8:8) – and thus ‘Judaism’ came into being. Jews who are truly uncomfortable with, or offended by, the atrocious teachings in their “Scriptures” can indeed find hints of this early form of religion and grab hold of them. How they deal with the more usual evil teachings I don’t know; I’ll leave that to them to figure out.

So, for instance, one can point out that the wife of Moses was a Midianite woman; and her father was the priest of Midian (Exodus chapters 2 and 3). In Exodus 18 we are told that Moses honored his Midianite priest father-in-law Jethro and was quite willing to accept and put into practice some sound advice he gave to Moses. This is quite a contrast to the vicious treatment of Midianites attributed to God and Moses in Numbers 31.

It can also be pointed out that King David’s grandmother was a Moabite (despite the strong injunctions against Moabites and Ammonites in Deuteronomy 23). Her name was Ruth, and she has a book in the Hebrew Scriptures named after her (and dedicated to telling her story). It seems that Ruth’s Jewish father-in-law Elimelech and Jewish mother-in-law Naomi moved to the land of Moab when there was a famine in Israel. In Moab, their 2 sons married Moabite women (Ruth and Orpah). Apparently they weren’t familiar with the supposed commandments in “the Law of Moses” against seeking the peace and prosperity of Moabites, and against permitting a Moabite to “enter into the assembly of the LORD”! (I’m sure they weren’t, because it was much later that the scribes falsified the “Law” and inserted their lies.)

Elimelech and his two sons died in the land of Moab, and eventually Naomi decided to return to Israel when she heard that the famine was over. Orpah was persuaded to remain in Moab with her people and gods; but Ruth was determined to stay with Naomi and adopt the Israelite people and their God as her own. In Israel, Ruth met and married Boaz, who was a kinsman of Elimelech (Naomi’s deceased husband). Boaz and Ruth had a son named Jesse; and Jesse was the father of David.

As pointed out in a previous article (Is God the Author of “the Law of Moses”?) a number of the Prophets repudiated the Torah, saying it did not represent the true Law of the LORD. I’m sure that it is quite possible that there are Jews today who are more in line with those Prophets in repudiating “the Law” and the Talmud, than they are with Judaism. They would perhaps agree with the Prophet Micah (6:8): He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? Such Jews will side with the Palestinians against the viciousness of the “Israeli” State – even if they believe that the existence of the “Israeli” State is legitimate.

Posted by: mystic444 | June 15, 2014

The New Testament’s View of ‘Israel’

One has to wonder whether ‘Christians’ have lost all ability to read with comprehension the New Testament ‘Scriptures’ which they claim to believe. These days, we have ‘Christians’ ranging from ‘far right’ Conservatives and Evangelicals like Baptist pastor John Hagee to the Roman Catholic Pope, openly and unblushingly proclaiming that the Jews/”Israel” are ‘still’ “God’s chosen people” with special covenants – particularly a covenant granting possession of a piece of real estate in the Middle East – which belong to them alone (as opposed to all non-Jews/Gentiles). We know that this is so – we are told – because the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 11:29 that “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable”. Yet no one seems to comprehend that such a notion of racial Jews and national “Israel” having irrevocable claim to such materialistic covenant blessings peculiar to them alone is completely contrary to the argument of Paul and the teachings of Jesus Christ! :roll:

It’s true that in that very interesting portion of Romans – chapters 9-11 – Paul began by expressing his concern and sorrow for his brothers ‘according to the flesh’, the Israelites who have been given wonderful covenants and promises (9:1-5). In chapter 10 verse one Paul said my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved; and by the end of chapter 11 he has reasoned to the conclusion that and so all Israel will be saved (11:26) because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (11:29). But this conclusion concerning “all Israel” at the end of chapter 11 has been reached by qualifying and restricting the concept of “all Israel”.

The apostle Paul consistently denied that being a Jew was a matter of racial descent/genealogy; or that being “the Israel of God” was a matter of national affiliation. Near the beginning of the letter to the Roman Christians (2:28 and 29) he wrote: For he is NOT a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. In Romans 9-11, after expressing his concern and sorrow at the beginning of chapter 9, he essentially followed that up by admitting that his sorrow was misplaced because despite all appearances God’s promises to “Israel” were not failing to be accomplished. That is because …they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham… (9:6 and 7). He then began to develop that very controversial concept of “election”, and the “remnant” to whom the promises belong.

I’m not going to get involved in the controversy between ‘Calvinists’ and ‘Arminians’ concerning election and predestination. For my purpose, it is sufficient to point out that in Paul’s theology, the ‘elect remnant’ are those who at some point in their lifetimes come to embrace the faith of Abraham, and in particular faith in Jesus as the Christ and in the things he taught. Whether these people are ‘elect’ because they believe, or believe because they’re elect, they are nevertheless the same people; and one can pretty much refer to them as “believers” and “elect” interchangeably – in Paul’s theology at least.

The point is that in Romans 9 and 11 Paul insisted that “all Israel” to whom the covenants and promises were made were the elect/believers, not everyone who is born Jewish. In fact, God’s gifts and calling extend to people of all nations so that Gentile believers/elect obtain the same promised covenant blessings as Jewish believers/elect. Gentile believers in Jesus Christ are as much the “children of Abraham” as are Jewish believers in Jesus Christ; and those who reject the ‘Messiahship’ and the teachings of Jesus are not “children of Abraham” and heirs of the covenant promises no matter how pure is their physical genealogical descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So when Paul said in 11:26 all Israel will be saved he was not talking about all those who are physically descended from Jacob/Israel and are physically Jews (he specifically said in 9:6 that such physical descendants of Israel are NOT “all Israel”); rather he was speaking of the elect remnant who receive the promises as opposed to “the rest” who were hardened (11:7).

But despite everything Paul has said by way of contrasting the ‘elect’/believers with Israel “according to the flesh”, those who lack the ability to read with comprehension will claim that Romans 11:28 nevertheless teaches that all physical Jews are beloved for the sake of the fathers! Here’s what the verse says: As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. See, we are told, those who are enemies of the gospel are nevertheless beloved for the fathers’ sakes because of election. Never mind that this flagrantly contradicts everything which Paul has said previously!

The question should be asked, “what does ‘the election’ mean in this verse”; or rather “who are ‘the election’”? Many people read it as if ‘the election’ means simply “God’s choice”; in fact a number of translations (such as the Revised Standard Version and the New International Version) even delete the article (“the”) preceding “election” so it reads “as concerning election…” and will sound like it means “concerning God’s choice they [the Jews] are [all] beloved”. The problem is that Paul had already defined what he meant by “the election” in 11:7 – although this is obscured in all English translations I have consulted except the King James Version and one literal translation. For this reason I used the KJV for verse 28 quoted above, and will use it for verse 7 which reads: What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

The same phrase – “the election” – was used in both verses; both cases included the article “the”. The Greek word for “election” (ekloge), as in English, is not the same word as is usually rendered “elect” (eklektos) though it is a cognate. “Ekloge” can be rendered “election”, “selection”, or “choice”. Since, in verse 7, “the election/choice” is contrasted with “the rest” who are hardened, it fairly obviously is synonymous with “the elect” or “the chosen” in Paul’s usage. For this reason, all English translations I have consulted (with the 2 noted exceptions) translate “the election” in verse 7 as “the elect” or similar phrases such as “the chosen” (Young’s Literal Translation); “God’s chosen servants” (Weymouth); and “the selected group” (International Standard Version).

Instead of being consistent in translation, however – except for the KJV – the English translations render the phrase in verse 28 variously as “the election”, “election” (without the article), “the selection”, “the choice”, and “God’s choice”. This prevents the reader from realizing that “the election” in verse 28 is the same as those who were contrasted with “the rest” in verse 7. In reality verse 28 has the same meaning as verse 7 and all of the rest of Paul’s teaching in Romans: “As concerning the Gospel, they [Israel ‘according to the flesh’ – ‘the rest’ of verse 7] are enemies for your sakes; but as concerning the election [the elect/chosen ones], they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes [they have obtained the promised blessing which ‘Israel’ seeks as in verse 7].”

According to Paul, Gentile believers/elect are also beloved “for the sake of the fathers” (the promise to Abraham was that all the nations of the earth would be blessed in him); and they inherit the very same covenant promises and blessings as do the Jewish elect/believers. They are grafted into the same “good olive tree”. This remains true even in that future ‘golden age’ when “fullness” of blessing for the Gentiles arrives and the whole world is blessed (if that ‘postmillennial’ interpretation is correct). Paul does not foresee a time when things will return to the way they used to be (according to Paul’s theology), with the Jews being “God’s chosen people” and the Gentiles cut off from God, the covenants, and Christ. Nor does Paul foresee a day when the Jews will have their own covenant blessings separate from those of the ‘saved’ Gentiles. In Paul’s theology, all believers (Jew and Gentile) are one “in Christ Jesus” and participate in the same blessings.

This by itself should indicate what kind of blessings Paul considered to be inherent in “the covenants” and “the promises”. Just as the “Israel of God” is not the physical “Israel”, so the “promised land” is not a physical piece of real estate. The blessings belonging to God’s elect/believers are “spiritual blessing[s] in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 1:3), and the “promised land” is a “heavenly” country (Hebrews 11:16). Our struggle in obtaining and keeping our “promised land” is not against “flesh and blood” (Ephesians 6:12) – in contrast to the struggle of “Israel according to the flesh” against the Palestinians in order to steal their “promised land” from those Palestinians; and “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Corinthians 10:4) in contrast to the guns and bombs used by racial Jews against the Palestinians.

This is consistent with Paul’s insistence that Jewish and Gentile believers all partake of the same covenant promises and blessings. Certainly I am not aware of any Zionist who will accept the notion that “the land of Israel” (the physical land) belongs to all believers – both Jew and Gentile – and that Jewish non-Christians (or simply non-believers) have no claim to that physical land! :lol: Nevertheless, “New Testament” theology does insist that no unbeliever (even though Jewish) has any inheritance in God’s covenants; while ALL believers (both Jewish and Gentile) have full inheritance in all of God’s covenant blessings.

All of this has been about Paul’s theology; but many people believe that Paul was more “anti-Christ” than “Christian”. So what did Jesus have to say about racial Jews and Israelites? Let me just give a couple of examples of Jesus’ thought on the matter.

When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:10-12). This was said after a Roman centurion had expressed faith in Jesus’ ability to heal his servant without even coming to his house and being physically in the presence of the sick person.

Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matthew 21:42 and 43). This statement was made after telling a parable about the leasers of a vineyard who continually refused to render to the owner his share of the produce (lease payment); they beat up and killed the servants the owner sent to collect his payment, and finally killed the owner’s son. This was a parable about the Israelites’ continual rejection and sometimes murder of the prophets who came to warn the people and to get them to ‘render to God His due’ by turning from their evil ways and properly serving God. In both passages, the teaching of Jesus seems very similar to the teaching of the apostle Paul! :shock: He taught the “replacement theology” which modern so-called Christians so despise in deference to Jewish fables!

Those who call themselves ‘Christians’ and claim to believe in the “New Testament” as “Scripture” need to wake up and read their “Scripture” more carefully. Then they need to decide whether they will believe it, or Jewish lies and myths!

As for myself, I don’t believe in a “personal” God, especially one who has ever chosen one people over everyone else; and who gives them a piece of land as their own, calling on them to murder or drive out those people who already occupy that land. “The Force” does not make ‘covenants’ with people, and especially with one people to the exclusion of all others. I believe it was wrong of early Christianity to give any credence at all to such an idea – even though they maintained that God “used to” have a favorite but doesn’t any longer.


Posted by: mystic444 | May 23, 2014

The Bhagavad Gita and Hinduism

Several years ago I attended, on a fairly regular basis, an Evangelical and somewhat Pentecostal Christian church of which some of my family are members. I attended those meetings despite the fact that more than 20 years previously I had repudiated evangelical Christianity. At one of those services a missionary was the visiting speaker. I will refer to this missionary as “Don” – though that’s not his real name – since that will be easier than continually saying “the missionary”. :grin: “Don” is an energetic man who is considered to be adept at using humor in presenting his message; and the members of the church love him.

On this occasion “Don” asked if anyone in the congregation had read the Bhagavad Gita, and I raised my hand to indicate that I had. I don’t remember whether there were any other hands raised, but I’m pretty sure that there weren’t more than a couple of others if any. “Don” then launched into an attempt to ridicule the Gita. The problem was, he ridiculed how “Bhagavad Gita” sounded to his ‘English ears’, rather than the content of the book. My memory doesn’t work all that well, so I don’t recall precisely what he said “Bhagavad Gita” sounded like to him; it was probably something like an Italian pasta or sandwich. :lol: Whatever it was, it was not vulgar, but it certainly wasn’t meant as a compliment! He then went on to contrast this with how beautiful the sound of “Bible” is. (“Don” likes to go into public places like restaurants and shout out the word “Bible” several times: Biiiible; Biblllle; etc.).

I could only roll my eyes at the absurdity of this attack. As I said to my son afterward, that was not an attack on the Gita, but on the language spoken by people in India. Sure “Bhagavad Gita” may sound ‘funny’ to ‘English ears’; but ‘Bible’ probably sounds ‘funny’ to some ‘Hindu ears’. The real question, though, is: what do those words mean?

“Bible” is derived from the Greek word “biblos” and the Latin “biblia” – both of which mean “book”. The Bible, then, is considered to be the “Book of God”. According to this Wikipedia article “Bhagavad” comes from “bhagavan”, which literally means “possessing fortune, prosperous”. Some further derived meanings are “illustrious, divine, venerable, holy”. This term is frequently used as a descriptive designation of the Lord Krishna or God. “Gita” means a poem or song. So “Bhagavad Gita” is usually translated “Song of God” or “Song of the Lord”.

As I told my son (and as he knew without me telling him), I really love to read books; but I love music even more than I love to read. So to my ears, “Song of God” has a more pleasant sound than “Book” of God! :grin:

But there’s a whole lot more that I like about the Gita than just the sound of the name. The Gita records a conversation between Krishna (who is viewed as an ‘avatar’ or ‘incarnation’ of the Divine – Brahman – or the Universal Soul/Lifeforce/’Atman’) and his disciple Arjuna. Arjuna is also the military leader of his people (perhaps a ‘General’?). Arjuna has been preparing his army to fight a battle in a civil war, and Krishna agreed to be his charioteer. However, as he surveyed the forces on both sides assembling for battle, he became dismayed at the thought of fighting and killing – because the opposing forces were friends and kinsmen of each other. There were fathers, sons, brothers, cousins, and nephews arrayed for battle against each other. Arjuna was so dismayed that he threw down his bow and arrows and declared he would rather be killed himself than be responsible for slaying kinsmen and friends. Krishna then undertook to revive Arjuna’s courage to fulfill his duty as military commander of his people. This provides the setting and backdrop for some of the most profound religious or spiritual philosophy ever written (in my estimation, at any rate).

It should be noted here that the historicity of the characters and the battle is not the really important thing for Hinduism. Some Hindus may believe the whole of the Gita to be literally and historically true; others may believe it to be historical fiction – partially true and partially fiction. That is, perhaps Krishna and Arjuna were true historical characters, but the battle scene being depicted was a fictional story built around those characters to serve as a backdrop to present the teaching of Krishna. Still others may consider the Gita to be entirely allegory, and believe that Arjuna and Krishna were fictional constructs. Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi said that from his very first reading he realized that the Gita was allegory. Whichever view one takes, even the most literalistic, it is still the teaching of Krishna which is the important thing.

Now I’ll attempt a brief summarization of a few of the major points of the Gita. For someone who has studied deeply and internalized the teachings of Hindu Vedic writings, this will certainly be very superficial. But perhaps it can furnish at least a simple introduction for those who are entirely unfamiliar with the subject.

Krishna told Arjuna that his concerns about fighting and killing were wise, but nevertheless useless. There never was a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor any of these kings. Nor is there any future in which we shall cease to be. Just as the dweller in this body passes through childhood, youth and old age, so at death he merely passes into another kind of body. The wise are not deceived by that… That Reality which pervades the universe is indestructible. No one has power to change the Changeless. Bodies are said to die, but That which possesses the body is eternal. It cannot be limited, or destroyed. Therefore you must fight.

“That which possesses the body” is the Universal Soul/Atman. There is only the One Atman which inhabits all bodies; each individual atman/soul is but a ‘part’ of the Whole. The ‘part’ is of the same nature as the Whole. Some say this Atman is slain, and others call It the slayer: they know nothing. How can It slay or who shall slay It? Know this Atman unborn, undying, never ceasing, never beginning, deathless, birthless, unchanging forever. How can it die the death of the body? … Worn-out garments are shed by the body: worn-out bodies are shed by the dweller within the body. New bodies are donned by the dweller, like garments. Not wounded by weapons, not burned by fire, not dried by wind, not wetted by water: such is the Atman.

Each of us is a part of the One Soul; but we have entered into the illusion of separateness and mortality. We must keep coming back in human bodies until this illusion of mortality and separateness is overcome, and we truly know and realize the Oneness and eternity of Reality. When we have reached this realized knowledge, we are in ‘Nirvana’ and have reached the point of “no return” – we will no longer be subject to the “wheel of rebirth”.

The teaching of the Bhagavad Gita is also as broadminded as it is possible to be religiously. It does not denounce any religious beliefs, even though they may be deluded and fall far short of Reality. Whether a person is polytheistic, monotheistic, or pantheistic, he is accepted by the One Soul if he is sincere in his beliefs.
Men whose discrimination has been blunted by worldly desires, establish this or that ritual or cult and resort to various deities, according to the impulse of their inborn natures. But it does not matter what deity a devotee chooses to worship. If he has faith, I make his faith unwavering. Endowed with the faith I give him, he worships that deity, and gets from it whatever he prays for. In reality, I alone am the giver.

And again: But if a man will worship me, and meditate upon me with an undistracted mind, devoting every moment to me, I shall supply all his needs, and protect his possessions from loss. Even those who worship other deities, and sacrifice to them with faith in their hearts, are really worshipping me, though with a mistaken approach. For I am the only enjoyer and the only God of all sacrifices. Nevertheless, such men must return to life on earth, because they do not recognize me in my true nature. The only ‘punishment’ for mistaken beliefs and worship is the necessity to keep returning to earthly life until our illusions and delusions are cleared away and we become ‘enlightened’.

It should be understood that in passages like these where Krishna is reported as saying that he is the giver of all gifts, the true object of worship even of those who worship other deities, etc., he is referring to himself not as the individual person known as “Krishna”, but as the Universal Soul/Atman incarnated in the body and person of Krishna. It can be confusing sometimes trying to distinguish between the individual called “Krishna” and the One inhabiting that body; but it is an important distinction to make.

According to this Vedic philosophy of the Gita, Krishna is not unique as THE one and only incarnation of the Universal Lifeforce. When goodness grows weak, when evil increases, I make myself a body. In every age I come back to deliver the holy, to destroy the sin of the sinner, to establish righteousness. This means that such wise men and prophets as Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) and the man we know as Jesus (the Christ) are recognized by Hinduism as equally ‘avatars’ or ‘incarnations’ of the Great Mystery, the One Soul – Brahman. This does not mean that they are the same individual soul (or the same ‘part’ of the Whole) as was incarnated as Krishna. They may be other ‘parts’ which have evolved to the point of enlightenment – the realization of their identity with the Whole – and therefore manifested the Whole, free from illusion and delusion, just as the ‘part’ known as Krishna did.

This is the teaching of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita; and it is a spiritual philosophy that I embrace with all of my heart. As I have said several times in various blog posts and comments, this “Eastern” spirituality comes closest to expressing what I believe, even though I say that I am Christian and Muslim as well as Hindu and Buddhist. Therefore, you won’t find me mocking the Gita either for its ‘sound’ or its content. :grin:

Republican political candidates seek to see which one can outdo the rest in showing allegiance to “Israel”  – and Jewish causes in general – in order to gain the financial backing of Jewish Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Now it appears that Mr. Adelson is being investigated for money laundering. I am reposting the following article from Truth Jihad. It was originally posted at “Chip” Tatum’s


Money-laundering probe targets Republican “godfather” Sheldon Adelson

This just in from my recent radio guest Gene “Chip” Tatum! (Literally seconds ago…)  Sheldon Adelson, the ultra-Zionist “Las Vegas godfather” who owns the Republican Party and wants to nuke Iran, is the target of a federal money laundering probe. A key witness, Curtis Pope, is afraid for his life. You read it here first!  -KB

Plight of a Strawman – The Adelson Secret Grand Jury

by Gene “Chip” Tatum,

Last year, while I was still in Miami Federal Prison serving 9 months for leaving the country without the courts permission, I was housed next to a very interesting fellow. His name was Curtis. Looking at him, you would have never known who he was, or what he had been involved in. Curtis was attending GED classes during the day in prison. You see, he had never finished high school.

Being neighbors, we would sit and talk in our free time. In prison there is a code. You share your papers. Meaning your document, which shows what you were charged with. A person who claims they have no papers usually indicates they are hiding something,whether it be snitching, pedophile, or other undesirable charges. Well, Curtis and I shared our documents. Mine were not so impressive. It was a simple violation of federal probation by leaving the area. But his papers …now they surprised me.  Looking at him, you would have never guessed who he was or what he had been charged with!  It seems that Curtis was a star!  Well, so to speak. He was charged with laundering 326 million dollars.  That’s right, 326 MILLION!  He was associated with Full Tilt Poker, Poker Stars, Intabill, Check Cashing and several other enterprises that were run through Vegas, fronting for what I would later find out was Adelson’s off the top shelf businesses. I was shocked when I saw the indictment!

Pope's Family an Friends boarding a jet supplied by Sr. Partner Sheldon Adelson

We remained neighbors, and usually sat and talked when he wasn’t in GED classes. After spending time with him and hearing of the good life provided by his partners, flying him around the country in private jets, housing him in the best suites in the country and overseas, I realized that someone was using Curtis’s naive nature against him. They enlisted him as their Straw Man or Front Man.

Curtis laid out for me the ventures and each of the partners parts in the enterprises. He was comfortable now, as he was soon to be released from federal prison to go to a half-way house in Tampa, and then home to serve a term of federal supervised release (that’s the feds fancy name for probation).  About two weeks before he was to be released, he came to me with tears running down his face. He had no words, just a paper which he handed to me. His attorney had written and advised him that the FBI out of Las Vegas had an Information filed against him for Money Laundering. Now an Information is a document used as the first step in gaining a Grand Jury indictment. The FBI files the Information and the US Attorney takes it to the Grand Jury for the Indictment, which in 98% of the cases is granted. After all, the Grand Jury assumes that if the FBI and U.S. Attorneys office says someone is a bad guy, well then they probably are.

Curtis was told that he is facing a minimum of 25 more years in prison. The attorney further stated that there is the opportunity to avoid prosecution, if you turn federal witness against your former partner.  Curtis wanted my advice. A Secret Grand Jury was to be put in place to investigate his former partner. Well, Curtis Pope is not a healthy man. He lost a portion of his foot to Diabetes, has heart problems and other health issues. Twenty five additional years in a Federal Prison with the lack of healthcare provided was a death warrant. I normally would not advocate testifying for the Feds, but in this case, I did so without explanation.

“NO!”, he said. “I can’t. You don’t understand. The man I told you about and explained his place with us is too important”. “Curtis”, I started… “No!”, he stopped me. “You don’t understand. He will kill me”.

Now, he didn’t know my background, and I questioned his ability to think this out. “Curtis, no one is going to hurt you.”, I began. “You will have protection from the government (as much as it is), and they will not let anything happen to you.”. “No Gene”, he retorted. “He will kill me, my wife, my family, everyone.”. “Damn Curtis”, I said. “Who do you think it is? Bush!”. He looked at me quizzically. “No Gene. It is Sheldon Adelson!  They want me to testify in a secret Grand Jury against Sheldon Adelson”!

DAMN, I thought! (I don’t think I said it out loud).

Days passed and we discussed many options. Finally we had both come to the conclusion that if he had to spend much more time in prison, he would die.

So we decided that when the time came and he was headed to Nevada to testify, I would start publishing information on the internet to heighten awareness of his decision, and to alert the masses that if anything happened to him or his family, Sheldon Adelson was behind it.

Little did I know that I would end up in such a wonderful position to help my unsuspecting friend.

Thanks, Alt Media! Please help get the word out!

Posted by: mystic444 | March 25, 2014

Should Christians support “Israel”?

Recently a Christian minister, whose blog I read sometimes, made a trip to “Israel”/Palestine as part of a Christian tour. I was afraid that he would succumb to Zionist propaganda while there, and come back spouting nonsense about the Jewish “right” to the “holy land” and the evil of Palestinian resistance. I am quite pleased to report that I was wrong. On the contrary, the tour enabled him to have his eyes opened to the Palestinian plight and the justice of their cause; and he wrote about it in a couple of blog articles (here and here).

He still says that he seeks not to “take sides” on the issue, because there are certainly wrongs which have been committed by the Palestinians as well as the “Israelis”. But some Christians think he most certainly did “take sides” in favor of the Palestinian cause, and would reprimand him because he doesn’t seem to realize that the Bible declares that the Jews are “God’s chosen people” and the land belongs to them by “Divine right”.

My contention is that for Christians the “New Testament” portion of the Bible is supposed to be their primary authority; whatever authority may be attributed to the “Old Testament” is secondary and it must be interpreted “in the light of” the “New Testament”. The foremost question for the Christian, then, should be: what do the “New Testament” writers have to say about “Israel” and “the land”? As a matter of fact, the “New Testament” either flatly repudiates the “Old Testament” assertions, says they are “no longer” valid, or reinterprets them in a ‘spiritual’ and symbolical manner. So let’s look at some of the “New Testament” teaching about “Israel” and “the promised land”.

No doubt most readers will be familiar with the story in Acts 10 about the apostle Peter and the household of the Roman centurion Cornelius. Peter had a vision (shown to him three times) in which he was presented with all kinds of animals considered ‘unclean’ by the law of Moses (and therefore supposedly by the law of God). He was told to kill and eat those animals; but being a good Jew, he refused saying he had never in his life eaten anything ‘unclean’. In response, he heard a voice telling him: “What God has made clean, do not call common.” When Peter told Cornelius about this vision, he said: “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.” (Verse 28). Again in verses 34 and 35 Peter said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Notice that Peter did not say that God “no longer” shows partiality; it was just a flat statement that God doesn’t show partiality. When the voice told him that he should not call “common” (or “unclean”) what God has “made clean”, this was in fact an explicit repudiation of the “law of Moses”. It was not that God had purified what was previously impure, so that Peter should not now pollute it; it was that Peter should not say things were unclean when God says they’re clean. When did God say those animals were clean? Well, Biblically speaking, it was “in the beginning” when God created everything. After each act of creation, God is said to have proclaimed that His creation was “good”. When he had finished all of creation, He proclaimed that it was all “very good” (Genesis 1:31). So the “law of Moses” contradicted the express declaration of God.

This was precisely the same as when Jesus (PBUH) said that divorce was contrary to God’s law (except in the case of sexual immorality). When it was pointed out that Moses’ law allowed for divorce, Jesus acknowledged that fact but then said that “it was not so in the beginning”; Moses’ permission was in violation of God’s law! (Mark 10:1-9). In the story in Acts about Peter’s vision of the sheet filled with ‘unclean’ animals, the statement about God calling those animals ‘clean’ was another repudiation of the “law of Moses”; it was the “false pen of the scribes” (Jeremiah 8:8) which had changed God’s original law into an untruth. Just as Jesus said about marriage, “what God has joined together, let no man put asunder”; so the vision said. “what God calls clean [good], you must not call defiled [common/unclean]“.

Peter realized that the meaning of the vision was not just about animals, but actually meant that the arrogant Jewish claim of being “God’s chosen” while the “Gentiles” were “unclean” was also a falsehood. God never said any such thing; the scribes had falsely inserted that notion into “the law”. God does not show partiality, but treats all humans the same way.

How I wish that the “New Testament” writers had consistently followed through on statements like this, that the “law of Moses” was deeply flawed due to scribal lies – or as Jesus is reported to have said concerning marriage and divorce, because Moses gave in to the ‘hardness of heart’ of the Jews and permitted what God had forbidden. Unfortunately the apostle Paul, who was in fact the chief ‘architect’ of the Christian church, was not able to completely abandon his Pharisaic attachment to the “Old Testament”. Instead, he worked out a ‘compromise’ whereby he taught that the Jews formerly were God’s chosen people, with special covenants from which ‘Gentiles’ were  excluded; but now that is no longer the case.

For instance, in Ephesians 2 Paul wrote: Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ... Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.

That is, God used to show partiality; but He has changed His mind and decided not to any longer! :roll: Wow! How gracious of God! We lowly Gentiles should be overcome with gratitude! (Sarcasm intended). However, at least – now that the “middle wall of division” (Ephesians 2:14) which separated Jew and Gentile has been demolished – Paul never envisioned a future time when God would rebuild that demolished wall. There is (now) no difference between Jew and Gentile; and there will never again be one so far as Paul’s theology is concerned.

Paul does seem to indicate, in Romans 11, that there will be a ‘golden age’ when there will be a ‘fullness of blessing’ for both Gentiles and Jews. Postmillennialist Christians in particular like to refer to this passage. However it should be pointed out that there is no indication at all that when that ‘fullness’ arrives the Jews will have a more elevated position than the Gentiles. Jew and Gentile together will still be “branches” on the same “good olive tree” – the “good olive tree” representing the covenant blessings promised to “the fathers”. In the meantime, according to Paul, only the “elect” (believers) from both Jews and Gentiles inherit God’s blessings. Being a Jew “according to the flesh” never made anyone an ‘heir’ of God’s promises. There was an “election” from among the Jews who were the promised heirs; “the rest” are rejected and “hardened”. The failure of “the rest” to obtain the blessings did not invalidate God’s promises, because they were never intended as the heirs of those promises.

What, then, are the covenant  promises made to “the fathers”? Jews, and “Christian Zionists”, will no doubt claim that the covenants to Israel involved an earthly parcel of land to call their own, from which the Jews will rule the world. Paul nullified that idea by proclaiming that the Gentiles are now fellow heirs of the covenants and promises which formerly belonged only to the Jews. So if there is an earthly land involved in those covenants and promises, then according to Paul the Gentiles have equal claim on that land. Do you suppose our “Christian Zionists” who are so infatuated with “Israel” according-to-the-flesh will be willing to acknowledge that the Gentile Christian believers have equal claim to “the land of Israel”? I don’t think so!!! That land, according to them, belongs by Divine grant to the Jews alone. The Christian apostle Paul disagrees with them – all the covenants are equally shared by Gentile and Jewish believers, because all belong to the same Godly household; but they blindly and blithely keep spouting their nonsense about the Jews as God’s chosen ‘earthly’ people with their own special covenants and blessings as if it were “Christian” teaching. I wish that the eyes of Christians would be opened to the teachings of the very ‘Scriptures’ they claim to honor. Then they would repudiate all ideas of Jewish privilege.

I, of course, simply reject the notion that ‘God’ has ever showed partiality in his dealings with humanity; there has never been a ‘chosen nation’ having the right to murder those who weren’t so ‘blessed’ as to belong to that ‘chosen nation’, and steal their  land; and there never will be in the future. The “Old Testament” statements to the contrary are arrogant lies of the Jews, and their “Torah” (Law) is “the commandments of men” coming from “the false pen of the scribes”. I hope that Zionist “Christians” will one day see this truth, and acknowledge that Paul was mistaken when he compromised by unwillingness to go all the way with the truth (maintaining that God used to show partiality but now he doesn’t).

I also believe that all souls are equally ‘part of’ – and equally loved by – the Universal Consciousness/Source of All; and all souls will at some point consciously realize their oneness with the Source through the evolutionary process of reincarnation. May that time arrive soon!





Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers