Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Archive for the ‘New York Times’ Category

Is The Rider On The White Horse Of Revelation 6:2 Christ Or Anti-Christ?

Posted by Job on March 9, 2011

Revelation 6:1-2 reads “And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.”

The predominant view in modern western fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity is that the rider of the white horse is the anti-Christ. This was my view until very recently, when I read the John Bunyan allegory “Holy War“, which altered, or should I say enhanced, my view of Jesus Christ (more on that later), just as did reading “Pilgrim’s Progress Part 1” changed my view of Christian living and Part II changed my view of the pastorate and of the church.

Allow me to say that this article provides a good reason why the rider on the white horse cannot be the anti-Christ, which is that the four horsemen are released this eschatological figure is not released until the fifth trumpet. The trumpets do not occur until the seventh seal, and the white horse is released by the first seal. So, the white horse comes at or near the beginning of the events of Revelation (presuming a linear timeline with a literal interpretation) while the anti-Christ comes well into those events. Some interpretations deal with this by claiming that the reference in Revelation 6:2 is the anti-Christ’s laying the groundwork, placing everything in order, for his full unveiling to the earth that is described later.

Well, further arguments against the rider being the anti-Christ are given in this article. It deals with how those who propose that the rider is the anti-Christ deal with the fact that white is always used to represent Godly virtue by making the statement that the anti-Christ comes in this manner to deceive people into thinking that he is Jesus Christ. However, this interpretation requires starting with the idea that the rider on the white horse is the anti-Christ, and then making everything else fit, something often called thesis-driven analysis and also called eisegesis. If your starting point was neutral concerning the identity of this character, then his being on a white horse would immediately disqualify your  associating him with the anti-Christ. But if your starting point was his being the anti-Christ, that is when you have to contrive an explanation for the horse being white, one that seems to violate all rules and standards for hermeneutics used for other passages. The question is: “Why is this done?”

It goes back to one’s view of Jesus Christ. The rider of the white horse is given a bow and he went forth to conquer, and conquer he did! Modern, humanistic, enlightenment thinking does not permit viewing Jesus Christ as the Conqueror. That is, at least not until the last day when Jesus Christ comes to judge the nations for their wickedness. That is the one time that the modern church with its man-centered mindset allows Jesus Christ, who as God is the Creator, Owner and Sustainer of the Universe, to be viewed as a conquering ruler. (And for those who believe in the rapture, this happens when the church is already off the scene, and is spared having to deal with Jesus Christ in this role.) In the modern mindset, Jesus Christ can be viewed as the sacrificial lamb, advisor, “co-pilot”, best friend, psychiatrist/psychologist, enabler, helper, moneychanger (prosperity doctrine), mystic/shaman, errand boy, and even romantic lover, but NOT as a conquerer. This stark, authoritarian, militaristic view runs counter to the modernistic Jeffersonian view that exalts such ideas as civil rights, human rights, democracy etc. above all, and needs a Jesus Christ that will bow and be conformed to it. Thus, Jesus Christ as conquerer cannot exist in the mind of the modernist/postmodernist Christian except for a single day when He is forced to execute that role with respect to the wicked. With the exception of that day, Jesus Christ remains in a construct that the modern mind finds acceptable. And according to that construct, where conquest to set up authoritarian rule is undemocratic is evil, this HAS to be the anti-Christ!

It cannot be Jesus Christ according to this mindset, because this mindset makes Jesus Christ a democrat. This Jesus Christ does not conquer. No, this Jesus Christ is standing outside the human heart like a lovesick teenage loverboy knocking on the door waiting, longing, begging for His sweetheart to come in. And it is only when the person that Jesus Christ’s target makes the free will decision to open the door to his or her heart and invite Jesus Christ in that salvation occurs.

For this to happen any other way, uninvited, unasked, and without consent, is tyranny. For Jesus Christ is not a sovereign king who rules by way of His undisputed dominion over the creation that is the work of His own hands for Him to do as He pleases. No, that is tyranny. Such rule is illegitimate, based on the threat of force rather than the consent of the governed! A true, enlightened philosopher king governs not by power or divine right, but by mutual consent! So, the one who stands at the door and knocks and will not come in without the consent of the “pilot” (for Jesus Christ is merely the co-pilot, not the actual pilot who is running the show and is the true master of eternal destiny, which is man’s free will) is Jesus Christ, the genuine article. The conquerer who does not ask permission, who does not gladly (though under submission) come when asked and does not meekly leave when rejected? Now that has to be the anti-Christ! So says the modern Christian mindset.

Thankfully, John Bunyan did not live in modern Enlightenment times! Therefore, Bunyan presents a different Jesus Christ, one that is actually present on the pages of the Bible before all the modern humanist filters and constructs are placed on it. Bunyan’s rather rough allegory presents a kingdom ruled by Shaddai (God the Father), whose most prominent and prized possession is the city Mansoul, which was built by the King Himself. While the modern mindset reared on democracy would revile the idea that a city is the possession of any king, A) this was in fact the custom of monarchs in times past – the kingdom and all in it were their possessions, and in the east the subjects of the “lord-kings” were considered slaves to the lord-king, and remember the Bible is an oriental book, not a western book and B) the Bible was fully written in the mindset of this custom. Mansoul rebelled against King Shaddai due to the provocation and trickery of Diabolus (Satan) and made Satan its king instead, under the false pretense that they could exchange status as slaves under King Shaddai’s rule to free men under his rule. Of course, Diabolus immediately made the residents of Mansoul his slaves, but so thoroughly corrupted and tricked them that they mistook the slavery of Diabolus and sin for liberation. Their delusion was so strong that when King Shaddai sent His captains (difficult to tell in the allegory, my guess is that they are angels) to liberate Mansoul from Diabolus, they resisted with all their might. The story was explicit: when Mansoul was given a multitude of opportunities to make a free will choice for King Shaddai, they rejected King Shaddai each time due to the depths of their depravity.

So, King Shaddai sent His Son, Prince Emmanuel, to recapture Mansoul. In this allegory, Emmanuel did not conquer Mansoul by standing at the door knocking and being invited in. Quite the contrary, He came with an army of soldiers and overcame the recalcitrant Mansoul, who resisted Him with all the force that it could muster – as it was still dedicated and devoted to Diabolus and its own sinful passions – with mighty force. Make no mistake, in this allegory, “and he went forth conquering, and to conquer” Mansoul! After the conquering of Mansoul was done, Prince Emmanuel had the entire town confess that He took the town for Himself as His prize by force; that when the town had the chance – indeed several chances – to yield itself up to the government of the Prince and His Father by choice, they refused each time. So, Mansoul chose the rule of Diabolus, and Prince Emmanuel gained the rule of Mansoul only by overtaking Diabolus, binding him, driving him out, and “spoiling the goods of the strongman” by declaring and setting up His own rule and domain – and through it re-establishing the same of King Shaddai – by force. Mansoul had no say in the matter, because Mansoul, by decree, election and will of God the Father its Owner and Creator – had declared it to be so. Mansoul did not choose Prince Emmanuel, but Emmanuel chose Mansoul (John 15:16).

Now, Jesus Christ as He is commonly depicted in most modern gospel music is not the rider on the white horse. But Jesus Christ as depicted in Holy War and in the Bible may well be. If nothing else, it is something to consider. Another thing to consider: why would the anti-Christ have to go about conquering the world to begin with? According to the words of Jesus Christ, Satan is already the prince of this world (John 14:30)! 2 Corinthians 4:4 declares Satan to be the god of this world, Ephesians 2:2 declares him to be the prince of the powers of the air. So, the anti-Christ does not need to conquer the world. All he needs is to have Satan’s authority transferred to him. Revelation 13:2 says exactly that: “And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Further, Revelation 17 says that the rulers of the earth GIVE their power to the beast, NOT that he conquers them and takes it from them by force.

This may seem like idle speculation, or an excessive emphasis on “last things” when other issues concerning orthodoxy and orthopraxy are more pressing: “minoring in the majors.” However, one’s view of last things often casts a shadow on one’s belief. Many theological liberals and “moderates” de-emphasize predictive prophecy because of an anti-supernatural bias. Others use apocalyptic texts to promote the political and social causes that are near and dear to them. And many Christians are attracted to the rapture doctrines because of their desire not to suffer persecution and rejection by the world as Christ suffered the same.

In a similar fashion, the idea that the anti-Christ is the conquerer on the white horse reveals the mindset of a great many Christian theologians, preachers, and laymen concerning the doctrine of original sin. So many Christians SAY that they believe in original sin, or even total depravity, but by adhering to such interpretations as this, it really does imply otherwise. If original sin is true, if total depravity is true, then why is it that Jesus Christ comes only by willing invitation, and the anti-Christ only by force? Is that not backwards? If the anti-Christ, the beast is “the man of sin”, then the fallen, wicked world, if it is not his already, will freely, gladly accept him as one of their own, a kindred spirit! Again, why would a sinful world oppose and resist a man of sin? Why would they not accept him and instead need to be conquered by him? Only if there is some inherent virtue, inherent goodness in him that would cause him to resist the evil rather than accept it.

The idea that the anti-Christ would have to conquer is based on the notion that man is basically good; that the nations are basically good. And is that not what so many seem to adhere to because of their political, cultural and social beliefs? That the nations – especially the pro-western capitalist democracies – are good, and only the exceptions – the anti-democratic, anti-western, authoritarian regimes – are bad.

Isn’t it curious how most of the theories about where the anti-Christ will come is from the “bad” nations? First it was from the “bad” communist regimes. Then it was from the “bad” secular humanist socialist United Nations or European Union. Now speculation centers on the “bad” Islamic regimes. The idea that the anti-Christ could come from – gasp! – America, the shining city on a hill, the nation founded on Christianity and is a beacon of freedom and goodness? Well, MAYBE, but only if he is not really one of us like Obama!

Again, it is based on the idea that there is some inherent virtue in man, and some inherent virtue in what man builds. It is based on a rejection of original sin, a rejection of total depravity. Even the very idea that Satan takes over the earth and installs the anti-Christ only when the church departs after the rapture is based on the notion that Satan is not the god of this world at present! Ironically, people who adhere to this belief are de facto amillennalists believing that rather than being the god of this world in this present age, Satan is currently bound by the church’s presence.

So many Christians who profess to be evangelical or fundamentalist and profess a belief in original sin based on the actions of Adam only apply that doctrine to soteriology. They only apply mankind’s fallen nature to the individual human soul! But when it comes time to apply it to a larger scale, they shrink back! Why? Because of their love of this present world and the things in it! To those people, James 4:4’s “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” applies to liking MTV and the New York Times editorial page and not the entire fallen worldly system! The parts of the world they like, they consider it good, moral, even Christian. It is only the part that they are alienated from, usually because of political or cultural considerations, that they consider to be “worldly.”

But go back to the text and view it in context. Yes, Revelation concerns the last days. But the letter to the Hebrews – and elsewhere in the New Testament – declares that the last days began after the work of Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of God’s plan and the high point of the history of creation. So, the last days – the time period that Revelation concerns itself with – is not merely the last seven years, the “great tribulation.” Instead, it concerns itself with the entire endtimes, which is now, and has been since Pentecost. That is why the letters to the churches are the first part of the Revelation. They are not introductory material to set the stage for the eschatology. Instead, they are part and parcel of the eschatology!

In that context, note that the white horse and its rider come first. It is the first seal! So, after the heavenly visions in Revelation 4-5, the white horse and its rider are the first thing that we encounter when the events shift back earthward in Revelation 6. So, why not strongly associate the white horse and rider with Jesus Christ speaking to and walking amongst the churches in Revelation 2-3? Were the material in Revelation to be arranged topically (i.e. with the things happening in heaven all together and the things happening on earth all together), that is exactly how it would appear … Revelation 6:1-2 would immediately follow the challenge to the Laodicean church!

So then, why not consider the possibility that the rider on the white horse given the bow and the crown and goes about conquering (and as this article states he does not obtain or use these things illegitimately in a manner that is against God’s will … such ideas are missing from the text) is going about to foreign lands conquering souls of sinners for God the Father? Did not Jesus Christ say in the Olivet discourse (i.e. Matthew 24:14) that the end will not come until His gospel is preached in all the world for a witness to all nations? Well, in Revelation 6, though it is certainly the last days, the end is not yet come! So, me must consider that the rider on the white horse is none other than Prince Emmanuel enlarging the domain of King Shaddai through the conquest of souls in every tribe and nation that are hardened with the total depravity of original sin.

Granted, this article does state that the rider is the Holy Spirit, not Jesus Christ. I disagree, but for my purposes the distinction is not a great one, as Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit in His Name to complete His Work through the church which is Jesus Christ’s Body, and the Holy Spirit is the One who performs regeneration. Instead, the main point is to consider the strong possibility that man-centered, humanistic thinking is the reason why the rider on the white horse was ever called the anti-Christ to begin with, especially when one has to be very inconsistent in one’s interpretation of Revelation and the Bible in general to arrive at that viewpoint.

Of course, the main point is that Jesus Christ is returning to judge the world and all its people for their wickedness. The only way to escape this judgment that is certainly to come at a time in the future that has been predetermined by God the Father is to be saved through Jesus Christ. If you have not been, I urge and entreat you that you would be so; that you too would be a conquest of Jesus Christ as was I.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan Today!


Posted in abomination, anti - Christ, anti - Semitism, antichrist, apostasy, beast, Bible, christian right, Christian salvation, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church scandal, church state, church worldliness, conservatism, conservative, endtimes, eschatology, globalism, government, great tribulation, harpagesometha, Holy Spirit, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jesus Christ, Left Behind, liberal, liberal christian, liberalism, liberation theology, man of sin, mark of the beast, mid - tribulation rapture, Middle East peace process, Muslim, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim media conspiracy, New York Times, orthodoxy, orthopraxy, political correctness, politics, post - tribulation rapture, postmillennialism, pretribulation, rapio, rapture, religious left, religious right, the anti-christ, the beast, the false prophet, warning given to churches in Revelation 2 and 3 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

The New York Times Praises Barack HUSSEIN Obama While Attacking Martin Luther!

Posted by Job on March 10, 2008

Posted in Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Christianity, New York Times | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Monkey Thinks Robot Goes

Posted by Job on January 17, 2008

See New York Times article below by clicking on link.

Monkey’s Thoughts Propel Robot, a Step That May Help Humans

Posted in anti - Christ, beast, Christianity, endtimes, eschatology, false prophet, New York Times, prophecy, the beast | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bill Kristol Being Added To New York Times Oped Page

Posted by Job on December 29, 2007

In my old religious right GOP days, I would have hailed this as a victory for conservatism. But now, I am forced to reckon with the fact that Bill Kristol is not a Christian, but a very aggressive big business neoconservative Zionist who is extremely hard – hearted towards the poor and the dispossessed. As a matter of fact, Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol, who is called the father of neoconservatism. Now is not the time to be worried about being labeled “anti – Semite” or be distracted with ideological or partisan political games. As much as I oppose Mike Huckabee, it is interesting to note, for instance, that the neocons are trashing the fellow because he represents people that actually takes their Christianity seriously rather than worshiping a false god of state, tradition, heritage, values, etc. These same people actually went ballistic over Mike Huckabee’s saying “the purpose of Christmas is to honor Christ”, hounded him until he stopped calling himself “a Christian leader” in his ads (despite the fact that it was a literally true statement from a former megachurch pastor and head of the Arkansas Southern Baptist Convention), and actually dedicated several days to analyzing whether Huckabee used special lighting effects to make the light reflecting off a bookshelf behind him take the form of a crucifix! They have spent the last month emulating the New York Times, NPR, and what have you in calling Huckabee’s supporters ignorant bigots out to start a holy war. The best part is how they trash Huckabee for having the same record and positions on issues that Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have.

If that is what people think of those that follow the false Christianity that tolerates people like John Hagee and Kenneth Copeland (whose support Huckabee has aggressively courted) and if they went apoplectic over hateful Anne Coulter’s dual covenant theology, then what do they think of real Christianity and actual Christians? The New York Times’ hiring this fellow really does show that when it comes down to it, the mainstream left and the right are on the same side when it comes to the globalist agenda. Kristol is going to use the influence of the New York Times to win over as many liberals to that agenda as possible just as a generation ago William F. Buckley used the National Review to transform the conservative movement into its current neoconservative manifestation.

Proof positive: Bill Kristol agrees with George W. Bush, the Wall Street Journal, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc. on amnesty for illegal immigrants and not enforcing our borders in general. Kristol, when it comes down to it, is just another Council on Foreign Relations/Rockefeller guy, and he is going to use his position at the New York Times to lead a lot of liberals, conservatives, independents, etc. down that path.

Posted in anti - Semitism, Christianity, conservatism, Council on Foreign Relations, illegal immigration, immigration, Israel, New York Times, Zionism | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Hypocrisy Of Using Abortion As A Feminism Issue

Posted by Job on November 6, 2007

The evil of the New York Times is on full view here. In order to discuss the abortion issue, they pick one of the MINORITY of doctors in America AND Britain to profile. And of course, the woman lies, claiming that she would respect the pro – life movement but for the fact that “many pro – lifers also oppose birth control.” How many? 75%? 7.5%? 0.75%? They do not say. The truth is that the only opposition to birth control in this country comes from very conservative Catholics. These liars were better off back when they claimed that the opposition of pro – lifers to social welfare programs justified their support for cold – blooded genocide of the innocent. And the article plays the game of trying to pretend that these pro – murder people are “morally conflicted” about the issue.

See, people who see things in terms of black and white are now considered to be immoral and even dangerous, even by many Christians. So depicting her as an unabashed abortion supporter would have not served their rhetorical interests. So, they give some stories about how she was traumatized by seeing a baby’s arm in medical school, and how she aborted what she thought was the child of a rapist but was instead the child of a woman and her husband conceived prior to the rape. But guess what? It is all a lie, because this woman still supports abortion with no legal restrictions whatsoever. This proves for these people abortion is not a moral issue but a political one.

But this is where the feminism issue comes in. This woman became a murderer for hire after she chose to murder her own child. They told her story and that of several other women, depicting them as “somehow becoming pregnant.” It is as if they had no choice in the matter. In other words, they are victims, unable to control their own sexual behavior! Abortion is depicted as being a fact of life because it is taken for granted that women will not use birth control and cannot decline sexual activity (which is why they make the obligatory attack on “abstinence education” … of which I am not a fan by the way, preferring instead the gospel of Jesus Christ) because they are not intelligent enough to make decisions that are in the best interests of themselves and an innocent life that they might create.

And you know what? That is what the government wants: a population that is pervasively irresponsible. Why? Because such a population will need the government to take care of it hand and foot. Such people will either be incapable of taking care of themselves or exercising freedom. As a matter of fact, they will be hostile to the very notion of freedom or responsibility, and resent and oppose those that desire and exercise it! So this woman is right that the abortion issue is about power. She is willing to spout the party line that it is about a man depriving a woman of control over her own body and life, but no the true power here is that of the state over the populace. Abortion is just one of the many areas where the notion that people cannot and should not exercise restraint and make responsible moral choices rules, and the forces that oppose Jesus Christ are hard at work convincing the world of. And the world is following after it, because unless you are in Christ that is the message that you want to hear anyway. You either desire that there should be no responsibility whatsoever, or you want someone to serve as your scapegoat.

Posted in abortion, abortion rights, New York Times, pro choice, pro life | 4 Comments »

More Yahweh Yoga Deception, This Time On CNN

Posted by Job on September 17, 2007

From Brother Laz: Doug Pagitt and John MacArthur discuss Yoga on CNN

From Independent Conservative:I Never Liked Yoga, Because It’s Silly, Stupid and Dumb!

Never forget that TD Jakes, Rick Warren, and a great many other popular preachers support this syncretism abomination.

Posted in Christianity, corrupt televangelism, New York Times, Rick Warren, syncretism, TD Jakes | 56 Comments »

Hindus Trying To Get British Goverment To Force Yoga On Christians

Posted by Job on September 4, 2007 They are claiming that a church barring yoga is a violation of the Religious Equality Act. While some of you religious right sorts would prefer to see this as multiculturalism/political correctness, I see this as a clear church – state issue. The state has authority over the church in Britain and most other nations of the world, so they have the right to do this. Of course, at some point down the line the state in Britain is going to act in favor of the Hindus with the logic that sycnretism in general will lead to less religious discrimination and social unrest. They are going to claim that fundamentalist exclusive claims of any one religion are the cause of all the problems, and demand that all religions become universalist. Of course, you Christians that are for one reason or another demanding that the wall of separation between church and state in America are just asking for the state to come and stamp out true Christianity. Then again, since the correlation between religious belief and adherence to true Christianity is not as strong as some people would like to believe, maybe that is your agenda to begin with. The text of the article is below:

The Hindu Council UK (HCUK), the largest national network of Hindu organisations within the UK, is considering whether a ban on yoga classes at St James’ Church and the Silver Street Baptist Church in Taunton, Somerset, may breach the Equality Act 2006.

Lawyers for HCUK are exploring whether comments made by both The Reverend Tim Jones, Vicar of St James’ and The Reverend Simon Farrar of the Silver Street Baptist Church that yoga is a “sham”, a “false philosophy” and “unchristian” may indicate they have acted contrary to the ‘Religion and Belief’ section of the Act, specifically those parts relating to discrimination in providing goods, facilities and services.

HCUK is also considering whether to ask the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to investigate whether the priests’ comments amount to “instructing or causing discrimination”.

Along with other faith bodies, HCUK debated and contributed to the Equality Act before it became law. In these debates it was agreed unanimously from an interfaith perspective that the hire of religious premises should not restrict multi-cultural events without good reason, and that faiths themselves should participate in such activities.

HCUK General Secretary Anil Bhanot said: “These priests might appear to be advising Christians not to practice yoga because they believe it is based on a ‘sham’ and a ‘false philosophy’ but what in effect they mean is that Hinduism is a false religion.

HCUK’s spokesperson on Yoga, Amarjeet-singh Bhamra added: “Yoga is one of the oldest known medical systems enshrined in the Atharva Veda, the most ancient Hindu book on wisdom, and it is now at the forefront of holistic and integrated medicine in the West.

“It is very disappointing that such medieval-like irrational prejudice is still allowed to flourish in the Christian Church in 21st Century multicultural Britain.”

“Hinduism is an ancient religion that is the source of many different theologies, philosophies and sciences,” adds Anil Bhanot. “Many Hindus believe the source of all music can be found within one of our most ancient scriptures, the Saam Veda. It will be interesting to see, now they have been apprised of this, whether those church leaders who reject yoga will now announce a ban on all music on their premises too.” (Christianity teaches that Jubal was the father of music in Genesis 4:21; it is amazing that this fellow automatically presumes that we would take his scriptures and traditions as being somehow more valid than our own. This is clearly an attempt to coerce Christians into accepting and practicing Hinduism, spiritual imperialism.)

Rev Farrar of Silver Street Baptist Church has previously said: “We are a Christian organisation and when we let rooms to people we want them to understand that they must be fully in line with our Christian ethos.

“Clearly, yoga impinges on the spiritual life of people in a way which we as Christians don’t believe is the same as our ethos.

“If it was just a group of children singing nursery rhymes, there wouldn’t be a problem but she’s called it yoga and therefore there is a dividing line we’re not prepared to cross.”

The Rev Tim Jones, vicar of St James’s, supported the decision, saying: “Any alternative philosophies or beliefs are offering a sham – and at St James’s Church we want people to have the real thing. Yoga has its roots in Hinduism, and attempts to use exercises and relaxation techniques to put a person into a calm frame of mind – in touch with some kind of impersonal spiritual reality.

“The philosophy of yoga cannot be separated from the practice of it, and any teacher of yoga, even to toddlers, must subscribe to the philosophy.

“Yoga may appear harmless or even beneficial, but it is encouraging people to think that there is a way to wholeness of body and mind through human techniques – whereas the only true way to wholeness is by faith in God through Jesus Christ.”

Well, we know what side people like TD Jakes and Rick Warren are on: the anti – Christ Council on Foreign Relations agenda of religious syncretism: see HERETIC TD JAKES ENDORSES YOGA AND CONTEMPLATIVE PRAYER! and Rick Warren And Other Emergent “Christians” Support Harry Potter. (I may have to study Hinduism more, but I am beginning to form the opinion that the more liberal strains of that belief system holds that one can be a Christian and a Hindu simultaneously. We already know that many liberal Christians believe that it is possible to practice two religions simultaneously, see “Christian Muslim” Suspended. ) The question, Christian, is what side are YOU on?

Posted in anti - Semitism, beast, Bill Clinton, China, Christian Persecution, Christianity, church state, corrupt televangelism, Council on Foreign Relations, cult, eastern religion, EU, gay marriage, generational curses, Hinduism, illegal immigration, Left Behind, liberal, Middle East peace process, multiculturalism, New York Times, political correctness, politics, rapture, Rick Warren, sex demon, sexual violence, syncretism, TD Jakes | 6 Comments »

Why Christianity Is Not A Pagan Mystery Religion

Posted by Job on September 2, 2007

Some postulate that Christianity is merely a syncretism of Judaism and other common mystery religions of the day that had similar – sounding deity resurrection myths and even similar rituals. (One of those mystery religions: mithraism – also called mithrisim – the Persian belief system that what is now the Roman Catholic Church borrowed a great many of its abiblical practices and traditions from. Sorry, people, but linking the Roman Catholic Church to Babylon by way of this Persian religion is too problematic to be sustainable; your case for calling the Catholic Church “Babylon” will have to be made in other ways.) Some ways in which these mystery cults superficially appear to be similar to Christianity:

1. Elimination of class and culture distinctions by placing rich, poor, master, slave, etc. on the same level within the belief system (the goal of doing so anyway).

2. Ritual washings (i.e. the washing of feet) and ritual meals (i.e. communion/the Last Supper).

3. Providing an outlet for emotional and charismatic worship and a personal relationship with a deity that did not exist in the Roman state pagan religion (and I should point out with the exception of some charismatic fringe movement within them does not exist within most “institutional” churches, including but not limited to Roman Catholicism and the various “state churches”).

4. Considering 2. again, these rituals were often “initiation rites” into the cult that promised eternal life or immortality to the participant. Let me point out that this is a component of false Christianity that teaches salvation by baptism, taking an oath or participating in communion, joining a church, by virtue of birth to a family in a church or in a “Christian nation” with a state church, or by reciting a prayer rather than of biblical Christianity.

It is rather easy to see how an “outsider looking in”, a scholar or a person from another religion, studying Christianity could come to mistake the religion as an invention of Jews and pagans that were dissatisfied with their poverty and dominant religions and sought another way. As Christians, we must be knowledgeable of these arguments and be empowered to oppose them in any arena, whether academic, religious, or polite discussion. So, here are the reasons why Christianity is not in any way associated with or derived from any paganism of any sort.

1. Christianity came from and fulfilled doctrines and observances that had been part of Judaism for many hundreds of years.

2. The death of Jesus Christ is a redemptive event. The deaths of the pagan mystery deities had no redemptive value.

3. The birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was that of a human historical figure; those of the mystery deities were actually surrounding agricultural cycles. Please note that where the mystery deities die and resurrect annually according to the planting, death, and replanting of crops, Jesus Christ was born once, died once, and resurrected once. Please note that the agricultural festivals of Judaism have far more in common with the mystery cults than does biblical Christianity (where lest we forget the only observance commanded of Gentile Christians is communion, which can be done at any time).

4. Jesus Christ experienced a complete bodily resurrection in the same place and time in history. The mystery gods only came back only in part, in another realm or world, or in another place and time in history.

5. These religions had secret rites and mystical formulas.

This is a reason why the false doctrines of so many false Christian movements are injurious. The Word of Faith doctrine preached by Fred Price, Kenneth Copeland, and similar that Jesus Christ was born again causes confusion on point 3, and the many Christians (including Word of Faith adherents) that preach that Jesus Christ was resurrected spiritually or in a “spirit – composed body” (a doctrine that I myself used to believe until a few short months ago when a Christian apologetics site, perhaps CARM, set me straight, how I came upon this doctrine I remember not) causes confusion on point 4. When you realize that Mormons, Masons, Catholics, and even some Protestant elements have their “secrets” and “rites” that violate point 5, you see why I am so quick to outright challenge and deny the legitimacy of any group or person that willfully deviates from the Bible: it is all about sound doctrine and sound practice.

The Bible is what makes Christianity different from all of the other religions and cults in the world, both those that currently exist and will ever exist. So long as we remain faithful to the Bible (and taking time to learn about the circumstances surrounding the people who gave us the Bible is helpful), any time that anyone comes along claiming that the Christian notions of heaven and hell came to us from Persian Zoroastrianism (a lie peddled by the New York Times as the Psalms show us that the afterlife was being revealed to the Hebrew prophets as early as the Davidic reign, though Calvinists would be very amused to learn that free will is a huge component of Zoroastrianism, who reject anything resembling predestination) we can simply show them from our scriptures, our scholarship, our theology, and our practice how this cannot possibly be so. Other mystery religions may involve the resurrection of a deity, a sacred meal, the washing of feet, and eternal life, but only Christianity links those components in the form of a Savior that was simultaneously fully man and the deity of a monotheistic religion. Indeed, it is impossible to show any sort of doctrinal or theological progression to any of these false religions to true Christianity (although granted doing so with corrupted or false Christianity makes it a lot easier on them), and only intellectual dishonesty and contrived scholarship makes it appear to be so.

(The New Testament: Its Background And Message by Thomas Lea and David Black provided information for this entry.)

Posted in adultery, Apologetics, catholic, christian broadcasting, Christianity, contemplative prayer, global warming, Iraq, Jesus Only, Judaism, Kenneth Copeland, masonry, Mormon, nepal, New York Times, oneness pentecostal, oneness pentecostalism, paganism, politics, salvation prayer as doctrinal statement, sex crime, spiritual warfare, syncretism, thou shalt not murder, Word of Faith | 11 Comments »

Demon Of The Day: Asceticism

Posted by Job on July 17, 2007

Asceticism: the voluntary practice of austere self-denial of physical and psychological desires in order to achieve a spiritual goal. It is a common practice of pagan religions, including but not limited to Hinduism. (The earliest known practitioners of this were the jain Buddhists, whose beliefs Martin Luther King, Jr. appropriated to create his philosophy of nonviolent political resistance, and Essene Jews (who mixed Judaism with Buddhism), which tries to claim Jesus Christ on the grounds that He never married … so the Da Vinci Code gnostics claim that the Bible is untrue because He did marry, and the Essene eastern religionists claim that the Bible is untrue because He did not.) Some more contemporary practitioners of asceticism are the Hare Krishnas and the the followers of Sun Myung Moon (whose cult has given many leaders of the religious right a lot of money, and many of whom are still affiliated with him through political money laundering operations such as the Center For National Policy).

Asceticism is a temptation for Christians, who mistake it for pietism (which I do not advocate, but I acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with it). But there are two distinctions. First: with asceticism, the emphasis is on the ritual denial, the works of the flesh, with the belief that one becomes more holy, spiritually powerful, virtuous, or closer or more acceptable to God by doing them. Second, where pietism is an extreme devotion to keeping the things that God gave to us (again, without losing sight of the God that gave them to us) to keep, asceticists renounce things that God has not commanded them to. Or they may renounce things out of proportion to what commanded them. Or they may view the abstention as playing a different role in their spiritual lives than it was originally intended.

I shall start with the most obvious example in erstwhile Christianity: the Catholic tradition of ritual celibacy. God simply did not institute systemic celibacy for His ministers – or for anyone else for that matter. However, Protestants are not immune. To tell the truth, it may be a bigger problem in Protestantism. Where asceticism is required of Catholic clergy, with the lay members it appears to be not much of a problem in large part because even the most devout Catholics largely do as their told and the church does not require this.

But it is some forms of Protestantism that tempts the Christian with asceticism, causing people in these movements to think that God will bless them with healing, monetary gain, spiritual gifts, or whatever their wounded souls need or desire in reward for ritual abstention. In this manner Christianity is like little else: people will do whatever they can to get something that they want. Of course, their “reward” will be an evil spirit that appears for a time to give them what they are seeking, and the asceticism spirit operating within them will compel them to continue in their extreme ritualism desire even when they want to stop.

Another way this becomes an issue with Christianity was hinted at with the Martin Luther King, Jr. reference: syncretism. Consider that the Greeks associated the term broadly with exercise, and it was practiced by soldiers and athletes. Later, the Greek philosophers began practicing asceticism in the belief that it would benefit (strengthen and purify) them spiritually as well as physically. So the mixing of Christianity with New Age, eastern religions, etc. with things such as “Yahweh yoga”, “Christian meditation”, “contemplative prayer”, etc. can draw a Christian into some of the other practices of those religions, and cause such Christians to try to fill a real spiritual void or deficiency that they have (which probably motivated them to depart from sound practice to begin with only to get worse after they did) to decide that the way to improve themselves spiritually and to improve their relationship with God is by ritual abstention.

So what of piety? Again, there is nothing wrong with it, and indeed there can be a real merit to it. Recall that God rewarded the piety of a great many people in the Bible, including the Gentile Cornelius in Acts. (And what did Cornelius’ piety consist of? Praying and giving alms to the poor.) But one should make sure that God is the origin and motivation of the piety. In general terms, there were specific things that God gave for piety (i. e. fasting), and save God called set apart someone for a certain lifestyle, the abstention was only temporary (i.e. the Nazarite vow, which was for those not called to a lifetime of it like Samson was 60 days). Keeping what the Bible tells you to do is not piety so much as it is obedience. (And that is where the Essenes err in focusing on Christ’s celibacy: being a man who never married Christ simply obeyed God’s commandments not to commit fornication. While that is unthinkable in our modern world, it is not so hard to imagine in a society that stoned those found to be sexually immoral. But far from Christ living an Essene lifestyle of pointless voluntary deprivation (Essenes also renounced individual ownership for communalism), Christ “came eating and drinking” and kept company with sinners and publicans. But by comparison: even nations in contemporary that punish theft by cutting off the criminal’s hands tend to have low crime rates despite being desperately poor.) One who strives to be completely obedient -indeed pious in his obedience – will find that to be such a challenge that giving things up for anything except the purpose of removing unnecessary temptation to sin will be superfluous. Why Christian, should you burden yourself with additional things if you are not keeping what God has given you to keep already? There certainly is no gain in such a thing. As such, since Jesus Christ was never at any time guilty of breaking any of God’s Commandments, He was able to go eat and drink with publicans and sinners. A lot of Christians are adding new commandments either by their own volition or the requirements of religion without keeping God’s law!

But the primary thing to remember is that the goal of asceticism, to attain a spiritual ideal through your own power, is proven folly in Christianity. Christians advance in the God’s kingdom according to A) God’s desire for them to do so and B) their own submission to God’s plan. Spiritual growth cannot come from works of the flesh. It comes only from rejecting the flesh so that you will do the Will of the Father. God may require you to do a great many things. He may require to give up things, as He told Jeremiah not to marry. But God has to originate it. And unless you are such as one who has direct revelation from God like Jeremiah, what are you doing it for? Is there any justification given in the Bible for giving up anything that the Bible does not call sin except for a time? And even if you give up things for a time on a routine basis – such as regular fasters – where in the Bible does it say to attach any sort of spiritual significance to it?

Piety should be seen as another form of worship. We all know that for God to accept worship, it has to be in spirit and truth, meaning doing something with a true sincere heart according to the manner that God told you to do it. So, if it is something given in the Bible and you keep it in the Biblical proportion and context and you do it only out of a desire to praise God for being righteous, holy, and deserving of your praise, then it is fine. If you do it because you want something from God … well there is precedent for that in the Bible but you are treading on dangerous ground: you had better be in a right relationship with God first and seeking the thing so that you can use it to serve and glorify Him. Outside of that, your self – denial will not only be in vain, but may spiritually harm you, especially if you are borrowing practices from other religions, or even from wayward doctrinally suspect Christian movements.

It is interesting to note that Oriental myths hold that gods gained the ability to create after practicing asceticism for ten thousand years. In a sense, they “progressed to godhood through works.” Not only does that remind me of Mormonism, but it shows that Satan himself is the origin of the notion that man can save or spiritually improve himself with the works of the flesh.

Posted in adultery, buddhism, christian television, contemplative prayer, demon of the day, Hinduism, idolatry, Martin Luther King, New York Times, rapio, spiritual warfare, syncretism | Leave a Comment »

Tonex Demonstrates That Those That Have Concerns About Him Are Justified

Posted by Job on July 12, 2007

Background: Now the first post on this weblog to generate any real controversy (or traffic for that matter) was Tonex Is Back: Is That A Good Thing? The hubbub caused me to reconsider, and I made a subsequent post that was more conciliatory. That post is now gone, and this one is in its place.

Original source link for this post: Gospel Music Bytes’ Editorial: This is the video response from Tonex, to the accusations about Tonex being gay. We have been asking everyone to pray for Tonex. In this clip Tonex as for us not to pray for him, as he is totally ok. Tonex needs our prayers more then ever, as you will see in this video clip, Tonex is moving further and further away from the body of Christ. We must warn you that there is a little colourful language in this clip, so please beware. Please listen to it and let us at Gospel Music Bites know what you think. Please note video at bottom: when Tonex claimed that he was trying to “take that homophobic slur away from people, to take the power away from it”, well that is the mantra of the homosexual rights group “Queer Nation.” So, Tonex either knows that he is using the language of a homosexual rights group, or worse – he doesn’t know it.

And this is the video that caused people to falsely accuse him of being homosexual.

Posted in abomination, Apologetics, apostasy, big business, blasphemy, charismatic, christian broadcasting, Christian hypocrisy, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church scandal, church worldliness, conservatism, corrupt televangelism, eschatology, evangelism, evolution, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, full gospel baptist, gay rights, generational curses, gnosticism, heresy, homophobia, homosexuality, innocent blood, jainism, James Dobson, Jehovah's witnesses, Jerry Falwell, Jesus Only, legalism, mammon, marriage, media conspiracy, meditation, modalism, Moshiach, New Age, New York Times, oneness pentecostal, Pakistan, racism, rapture, reprobate, Republican, sex demon, sexual exploitation, social breakdown, spiritism, subversion, syncretism, TD Jakes, the beast, trinity broadcasting network, warning given to churches in Revelation 2 and 3, Yeshua Hamashiach | Tagged: | 12 Comments »

Mormonism: The Idea Of God Having Sex With Wives In Heaven Is Not New

Posted by Job on July 9, 2007

Turns out that this doctrine was first introduced in Israel, the northern part of the divided kingdom, in Old Testament times. Please recall that Ahab and Jezebel introduced Canaanite fertility worship: Baal and Ashtaroth, into the northern kingdom. The true danger of this was not having the Jews turn totally from Yahwehism to idolatry – though many did so – but of syncretism, the mixing of other religious (and doctrines, rites, rituals, and practices from them) into Judaism. And that is precisely what happened. A link to a book about this is here: “Witness the Fall of Asherah, Consort of Samaritan Yahweh. Also, the kabbalah people claim the same: (Now interestingly enough, Pastor Bill Keller links masonry – of which Joseph Smith was a member; his last words as he fell to his death after jumping out of a window to escape a lynch mob was the masonic cry for help- kabbalah, and Mormonism in some of his recent devotionals.) But the result of the mixing of the fertility cults and Judaism had the Jews in short order claiming that God was married to Ashtaroth in heaven, and that the temple “fertility rites” that they performed as part of “fertility worship” on earth were what God was doing with Ashtaroth in heaven. Which, of course, reduced YHVH to being no more than the other false Canaanite gods (which actually had the characteristics and powers of elevated men or supermen rather than actual gods) rather than the one and only supreme sovereign omniscient omnipotent omnipresent self – existing spirit. When you consider that Baal (often associated with Ashtaroth) was merely the son of the corn god Dagon, it is not too hard to see Israel start confusing Baal for YHVH (or at least calling Baal YHVH) and therefore saying that Dagon was YHVH’s father (just as the Mormon god has a father).

What was the result of the northern kingdom’s practicing proto – Mormonism? God using the Assyrians to judge them by wiping them out forever. And that should be a message to all Christians that claim that Mormons should be accepted as Christians because they claim that Jesus Christ is their savior and they have SUCH GREAT VALUES. But before we cast stones at Mormons, we need to look at our own glass houses. Syncretism is the hot new fad in Christianity today, with our mixing our doctrines with things New Age, eastern religion, humanist, Freudian, etc. If God judged the Israelites for doing the same, what do you think that He will do to us, especially in this dispensation when we have the Holy Spirit to tell us truth from lie, convict us of sin, and help us keep His Commandments (which the Old Testament Jews never had)? It is a reminder Christians that we must constantly watch, pray, and try ourselves and the people that we follow against the Bible.

Posted in abomination, eschatology, false religion, Jesus camp, legalism, masonry, Mormon, New York Times, occult, paganism, politics, salvation prayer as doctrinal statement, spiritual deliverance techniques, syncretism | Leave a Comment »

Hillary Clinton Professes To Believe Upon The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ

Posted by Job on July 8, 2007 She also likes to talk about, you know, “values” and stuff. But the selective set of values and Bible themes that Hillary Clinton chooses to emphasize on … how does that make her any different from – or better than – the religious right, who also traffics in “values” based on selected (and often out of context) Bible themes? That is why I keep claiming that this “religious right values” (see Why Fox News Is Bad For Christianity, Christian Values Do Not Exist, and Christian Values Do Not Exist Part II: The Motivation For Believing A Lie) thing is nothing but a scam that the left will exploit to advance their own agenda one day soon, if not in the form of Hillary Clinton (too much baggage) and Barack Obama (who indeed is looking more and more like he just isn’t cut out to be anything more than a senator no matter how much experience he gets) definitely someone down the line.

As far as Hillary Clinton claiming to believe upon the resurrection, this goes back to the same doctrinal issue that I was speaking of in Final Answer: The Sinner’s Prayer Is Not Only Unnecessary For Salvation, It May Not Be Expedient! Look, lots of people were raised from the dead, Elijah and Enoch were bodily assumed into heaven, and Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. So, it is vital that one believes in the deity and person of Jesus Christ – whether He was fully man and fully God and is part of the Holy Trinity, which this article specifically did not deal with. Believing that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, was the Lamb of God that died to take away our sins, was raised from the dead, and even that He was the Moshiach (Messiah) is not enough … you have to believe that He was GOD. And still more: one of the most important – and most overlooked – verses in the Bible that has implications for salvation is James 2:19 – “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” So yes, evil spirits know all of these things.

So, the question that has to be asked of both the religious left and the religious right: what makes us different? What separates us from the world? What separates us from the demons that know that there is a God because they have seen Him? The demons that know that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation? I propose that it is John 14:15 – “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” And I am not talking about the partial list of commandments that the religious left likes to keep. I am not talking about the partial list of commandments that the religious right likes to speak of. I am talking about all of them! THAT is what separates us from the world. THAT is what separates us from demons. And whether you are a Republican in the religious right or a Democrat in the religious left, if you think that you are somehow standing for God’s righteousness and advancing the kingdom of heaven by promoting a bunch of cultural, social, economic, religious, and political beliefs that are based on not so much a faulty incomplete understanding of God’s Word (though that often is a problem) but a desire to only promote and personally keep the part of God’s Word that you like and agree with and make you feel good, then you are only deceiving yourselves.

And that is why the religious left is now able to copy off the religious right’s playbook. Do not claim that it is not going to work unless they start calling abortion and homosexuality sin. News flash: the majority of the nation supports abortion and homosexuality, including a huge percentage of Republicans. There are plenty of moderates and independents that profess Christianity that either support or simply do not care about abortion and gay rights that the Democrats will be able to reach on election day with their religion talk. This false dichotomy that we like to pretend where the churches are either very conservative fundamentalist on the right and are ordaining gay ministers and abortion doctors on the left: that is not reality. The truth is that most churches are pretty much “in the center”, promote a mix of traditional and revisionist doctrine, and pretty much stay out of the controversial social, political, and religious issues of the day. The Democrats will well be able to come up with rhetoric that will allow them to chase that sizable contingent of voters – ELCA Lutherans, PCUSA Presbyterians, mainstream Baptists and Methodists, Episcopals that support neither Schori or Akinola, most Catholics, etc. while not alienating their base.

Before the religious right starts screaming “its unfair!” please remember that the religious right was only emulating the organizing strategies and tactics of the left, especially the civil rights movement. Just as Martin Luther King, Jr. and similar used religious organizations and selective Bible themes to pursue what was really a secular agenda, the religious right did the same. Neither side sought to truly increase the righteousness of this nation the only true way: which is to increase the number of Christian converts, and to call the existing Christians to righteousness in accordance to scripture. Instead, both movements pushed the very successful message that your righteousness is determined not by your belief in and commitment to the Bible, but rather your political, social, and cultural beliefs. There was no evangelism imperative, because it was all about being better, more moral, than the people on the other side of the ideological divide. And there was no call to repentance, because each side told their own that they were fine: they were already righteous, and it was THE OTHER SIDE that was responsible for the evil in the nation and in the world. Why? Because whether you are in the religious right or the religious left the same message is taught: that you can be a better person and make the world a better place apart from the Bible. So, it leads to the sort of madness that exists today where both the Christian right and the Christian left defend their own leaders and attack the leaders on the other side when they both promote many of the same policies and behave themselves in much the same way. Neither the Christian right or the Christian left is committed to advancing the cause of Jesus Christ in this nation, because both have attached themselves to a political agenda that allows them to ignore the cause of advancing Jesus Christ in their own lives while simultaneously telling themselves that it is their political views that makes them more righteous than the next guy; that if there is a God in heaven then it will be on the basis of their political beliefs that they will be saved and the next guy will perish.

Well, now it looks like the Democrats are finding a way to give the religious middle what the religious left and the religious right have had for decades: a sense of false spiritual maturity, righteousness, and pride that you get from putting your hope in worldly beliefs rather than God who is a spirit. I just want you Republicans to know that before you start howling and crying when this new “religious moderate” thing gets off the ground and becomes the new media buzzword, and you social conservatives get angry when Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, etc. leave you behind to fight the Democrats over them, that you need to know that you made it possible. You were the ones that convinced yourselves that you were standing for God and advancing his kingdom by dealing with people like Ralph Reed, Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, etc. It is as bad as the religious left thinking that supporting race hustling poverty pimps and people who supported the Soviets during the Cold War would somehow result in this nation’s race, class, and gender divisions evaporating.

Is the point of this entry that Hillary Clinton is not truly a Christian or is not truly saved? No. The point is that from where I sit and from what I see, there is no basis to presume that virtually any member of the religious right is any more saved than Hillary Clinton is. Put it like this: if you were to poll most conservative Christian Republicans as to which one of Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush is more likely to be born again, the overwhelming majority would pick Bush, and the same would apply down the line for virtually any matchup between similar Democrats and Republicans. What would be their basis for making such a decision? Political party and political views. And this is the really sad part: given the choice between a Democrat that they perceived to be saved and a GOPer that they perceive to be not, who would they pick? I bet that a great many of them would pick the GOPer and trust the party rather than the saved Democrat and trust God. (Incidentally, it is not as if the Christian Democrats are any better.) And that is the really scary part, and why this nation needs a real revival instead of a religious political movement.

Posted in abomination, abortion, abortion rights, anti - Semitism, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Christian hypocrisy, christian left, Christian Persecution, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church state, church worldliness, conservatism, Egypt, evolution, false religion, gay marriage, gay rights, Hillary Clinton, homophobia, homosexuality, James Dobson, Jehovah's witnesses, Jerry Falwell, liberal, liberal christian, liberalism, Middle East peace process, Moshiach, Muslim Brotherhood, New York Times, Palestinian Christian persecution, Pat Robertson, pro choice, pro life, religious left, Russia, secular humanism, spiritual warfare, trinity broadcasting network, Zola Leavitt | 15 Comments »

Did The Communist Atheist Stanley Levison Write Part Of Martin Luther King’s I Have A Dream Speech?

Posted by Job on July 3, 2007

Note: this is not just something out of the blue. It is in response to a devotional that I received from a ministry that I really respect:, based on Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech that discussed the Christian aspects of it. Now Born To Win is not a superficial televangelism outfit, but a teaching ministry that deals with a lot of heavy Christian topics. So I felt that if a ministry like THIS is going around promoting the notion that King was positive for Christianity, then it such a notion is taking hold in fundamentalist religious Christianity as opposed to merely popular, cultural, or political Christianity, and therefore this issue needs to be examined.

It is known that King employed Stanley Levison as a speechwriter.  If Levison did write part of the speech (which the link acknowledges as possible), then what should Christians make of the speech? And what does the fact that a Christian minister like King sought the ideas of atheist communists like Levison and jainists (an Indian religious tradition) like Mohandas “Mahatma” Ghandi (whose personal religious beliefs were reputed to be agnostic; Ghandi was said to have borrowed from various religious traditions, including Christianity, to create his political philosophy) make fundamentalist think about King? At the very least, we have to consider that this MAY be why the religious left (as well as the secular left and the “we hate Christianity” left) loves King so much.

Oh yes, and this Stanford’s King Encyclopedia Entry On Stanley link speaks of how much Levison was involved in the SCLC despite the SCLC’s proclamations that their laws prevented communists from “officially” joining.  This link says that he was involved in ALL their activities:

I propose that Martin Luther King’s main legacies are 1) mixing Christianity with jainism (syncretism … and we can go ahead and include mixing Christianity with atheist communism as well while we are at it) and 2) the notion that Christianity supports political subversion through nonviolent civil disobedience. Now claiming that 1) is ok is a nonstarter: what part of “thou shalt have no other gods besides me” do you not understand? But I am open to any counterarguments that claim that nonviolent civil disobedience was given to us by God under either covenant. (Please do not accuse me of opposing or being motivated by an opposition to the aims of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Yes, I know that many of the aims of King and the civil rights movement were biblical. Some were not by the way … for instance King and abortionist Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood were great friends … when you consider that she also got along great with Hitler, amazing company Sanger kept, isn’t it? This is all about King’s METHODS, which included syncretism and political subversive tactics.) In light of that (and in light of the fact that it is reasonable to conclude that the very reason why I as a black man have the right to have a weblog to express these views in the first place is because of the success of the civil rights movement), what should Bible – believing Christians think of King and his legacy? I solicit and welcome all comments.

Posted in abortion, Bill Clinton, christian left, christian liberalism, Christian persecution Palestinian Israel, church state, civil rights, false preacher, generational curses, Hal Lindsey, idolatry, illegal immigration, jainism, Martin Luther King, Muslim, NAACP, New York Times, political correctness, politics, rapture, religious left, Russia, stem cells, subversion, syncretism | 7 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: