Does The Bible Teach Free Will?

 

One of the most perennial questions is whether or not free will is true or an illusion? Do we really have freedom, or are our decisions predetermined by God, or some greater force? This debate sits inside the church in the differences between the Arminian and Calvinist philosophies, with the former emphasizing that humans do have free will, and the latter leaning towards Christian determinism. Some Calvinists would assert that people have free will in lesser decisions, just not when it comes to choosing God, though Calvin and classical Reformed theology denied free will to a much larger extent.

This debate actually predates Christianity by at least several centuries. The Greeks had schools of philosophy that denied freewill and others that asserted it. The famous tale about Oedipus, who despite his decisions ended up fulfilling his fate to murder his father and marry his mother, is an example of the Greek idea of fatalism, which is just a form of determinism. And this debate exists still outside the church in the context of philosophical debates in science about whether our decisions are products of our brain chemicals, or whether or not we have an actual will which acts apart from our physical brain and matter. So, considering the size of this debate, the multiple layers of cross disciplinary influences on the debate, and the strong feelings which both sides bring to this debate, especially in the Christian context, I don’t think I can settle it completely for you in this one blog. But I think I can show quite comfortably that the Bible does support the idea of freewill, and does not teach that it is just an illusion.

We see in Genesis 1 how the Bible teaches that human beings were created to have dominion over the earth,

“26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:26-28).

To have dominion means to have authority and responsibility to rule the earth. God has delegated rulership to men and women, to have authority over the animals. This speaks of agency. To have regency over our sphere of authority is part of the human condition. One might respond that this is prefall, but Psalm 8 also says that we have dominion,

“5 Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. 6 You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, 7 all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, 8 the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas” (Ps. 8:5-7).

This was written by David long after the fall of man and it shows that we still have dominion. Man and woman were created to have authority to rule this earth. We are lesser nobility, with the Lord God himself being the true king, so our rulership cannot overrule or threaten his reign, but our rulership is no less real.

To have dominion obviously also means to be able to make decisions about how to rule. To prove that humanity's will was free and real at creation, Adam and Eve even had the ability to disobey God and choose to follow the devil. A foolish decision, of course, but a true and genuine exercise of the will nonetheless. The question is though, did free will survive the fall?

I think there are many ways to show that it did, in fact, I think you could argue that the fact that God gives commands and expects people to follow them is all the proof you need to show that God has not taken away our ability to choose. However, though he has not taken it away, this does not mean he cannot override it, as he did with Pharoah when he hardened his heart, or predetermined that Esau would reject him, but that Jacob would not. The existence of free will is not questioned, but nor is God’s ability to override it when he sees fit. Paul did not choose to be selected by Jesus, Jesus chose him and transformed him on the road to Damascus. So, we can say that freewill exists, but it is not absolute, God can and does override it to fulfil his special purposes.

But this does not take away that fact that by giving us commands God is implying we have the ability to choose him or choose to reject him, “And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:15). The Bible is a record of just these kinds of choices being made on every page. And as if that was not enough, the Bible itself even says we have freewill, directly.

In the ESV translation there are at least 23 references to “freewill offerings”, for instance,

Exodus 35:29, “All the men and women, the people of Israel, whose heart moved them to bring anything for the work that the Lord had commanded by Moses to be done brought it as a freewill offering to the Lord.”

Leviticus 7:16, “But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow offering or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice, and on the next day what remains of it shall be eaten.”

Deuteronomy 12:6, “and there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, your vow offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock.”

And there are even direct passages which tie these freewill offerings to acts of the will,

Psalm 54:6, “With a freewill offering I will sacrifice to you; I will give thanks to your name, O Lord, for it is good.”

Psalm 119:108, “Accept my freewill offerings of praise, O Lord, and teach me your rules.”

I will sacrifice to you an offering I have chosen of my own free will, is a good summary of those two verses in the Psalms. I think these verses by themselves are enough to show that the Bible affirms the reality of freewill. The fact that God has built freewill into the law shows that he has not taken it away, he has created an opportunity for it still within his law. There is much which he commands that we should do, but he gives us freedom to use our will to make offerings. The translators of the NJKV obviously recognized this, because of how they rendered Leviticus 19:5, “‘And if you offer a sacrifice of a peace offering to the Lord, you shall offer it of your own free will.”

Those of the Christian determinist camp will note examples where God hid his will from people, or suppressed the truth, and gave people over to blindness, as proof that there is no such thing as freewill about the things of God. But these verses above show that people can exercise freewill to choose the things of God, it is just also true that in his righteous decree and judgement God can override this if he so chooses, as he is the ultimate sovereign, the ultimate power.

We see often in the Bible how God chooses not to override the will of man, and instead allows man to reject him, even if we would prefer that they did not,

“37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38 See, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (Matt: 23:37-39).

The clear desire of our Lord God here is that he wanted to gather his people, but the problem is they were “not willing.” If they did not have freewill to reject God and choose God, then this sentence would make no sense.

I do not expect this one blog piece to settle the debate, I will come back to this topic in a future piece and if you have objections to my readings of these verse let me know in the comments. But as you can see, there is plenty in the scriptures to show that the Bible supports the concept of freewill, however, as we should expect, it is not an absolute. God can, and does, override it to suit his purposes. Afterall, we may have dominion over the earth, but he is the ultimate authority, the sovereign Lord, and when he decrees something it will happen. In his mercy and grace though he gives us freewill so that he can have a people who choose to follow him.

 

Only Proof Needed

 

One of the best arguments to prove that WW2 was not a just or good war, is that you can trace the rapid moral decline of the West to that war, and probably even the previous one. But especially World War 2. From the moment those veterans came home they produced the most decadent generation in history, and the West was given over to the fruit of its evil actions. God didn't bless the West's actions in WW2, he judged them.

Even many of the men who dropped those bombs on civilians cities as a terror tactic knew they were murderers, not heroes. Many drunk themselves into an early grave. The mass social issues in the West after the war were all the proof we need to show that many of the men who came back were broken by their evil actions. Many men were heroes on the battlefield, every war has and produces genuine heroes, but many others knew that they were ordered to do evil and that they did do it. Many western governments even passed laws after the war to outlaw such things, because the evil was recognized, though not repented of.

The WW2 generation returned from the battlefields and promptly created the "me" generation, the boomers, who perfected consumerism. The boomers then created the nihilistic Generation x who saw no hope in consumerism and the anxiety driven Millennial generation, who saw no comfort in possessions (and can’t really afford much anyway). After this Gen x and Millennials created the "we are confused about our identity" generation, that Gen Z which is avoiding dating and marriage at record rates.

History will mark the two world wars, and especially the second, as the beginning of the reign of darkness in the West, where evil began to rise in force. And they'll note how much we lied to ourselves about our righteousness in those wars, because the reality was too hard for consumeristic materialists to confront honestly. It is easy to see the enemy's evil, it is much harder to see your own.

I believe that evil will be overcome, eventually, but the West that exists now must go through a time of trial and testing first to be restored to a good place and become again what the West should be, Christendom, or at least a refined and probably smaller version of it. A culture that has bombed its way to dominance but lies to itself about being the culture of freedom, lives on a bed of lies that is incredibly unstable. They must be exposed by harsh realities first.

You will often here people say that the generation who fought the war would be horrified by the world that their victory created, if they could see society today. This might be true in some ways. But I think many today who look back on the war fondly would be equally horrified if they looked at it through a critical rather than a propaganda lens. We still live in the wake of the successful WW2 propaganda campaign, but I think more and more people are starting to notice the reality of what happened. What really happened is the West turned down a road of severe darkness. It is our job to shine the light on that, so it can turn back the right way.

Poisoned By Society

I saw an article on my Bing news feed today about how Queensland's chief health officer thinks social media is the major driver of poor mental health amongst young people. Maybe he is partly right, but CHO's aren't that credible anymore, right?

“More than half of young Queenslanders are feeling stressed and anxious with health experts warning the sharp mental health decline is a result of social media.

Research by Health and Wellbeing Queensland revealed that nine in 10 people aged between 14 and 25 have experienced a negative change in their wellbeing in the past year.”[1]

But what about what kids are learning in schools? Maybe anxiety is a growing problem amongst kids because many of them are being taught that the end of the world is nigh because of climate inaction. Climate anxiety is a real thing in many young people. It never existed when we were kids, but now it does. Young people are being taught to be stressed out about the fact that we drive ICE cars, use air conditioners, and live in houses where we have an excess of room.

Of course, high divorce rates, increasing poverty, increasing homelessness, and all of that should be considered a significant part of the issue as well. But teaching an eschatology of climate destruction, that does not have a solution is a cruel and unusual way to teach children. It is pure conditioning and it is having a negative effect on our children who are not growing up with the same hope for the future that many past generations did.

Someone might respond here that doesn't Christianity teach about the end of the world and judgement? Of course it does. But it also offers hope that the end is actually a beginning and it gives a general offer of salvation to all so that they can escape that destruction through faith in Jesus Christ. The Lord God would never be so cruel as a public teacher or climate bureaucrat to preach judgement without salvation or hope.  

Of course the nihilism of modern education is going to make more and more kids depressed. How can it not? It is hard not to see it as designed to achieve that very purpose, because a hopeless people is much easier to push around.

Why would parents tolerate their kids being taught this stuff? I wonder about people sometimes.

List of References

---

[1] Savannah Meacham, 2024,  https://www.msn.com/en-au/health/other/young-aussies-anxious-exhausted-stressed-research/ar-AA1pSweg?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=09f14e6bbc3545409c3a4010abf6693f&ei=14

Christianity Is About Controlling The Masses?

 

I was watching an episode of a show on the weekend and one of the characters, an autistic computer hacker savant, was sitting in a bible study meeting and when someone asked him if he wanted to share, he took the opportunity to attack religion. Not just Christianity, mind you, but all religion, all “organized-religion”. It was such a predictable moment that it took me out of the show. For one, it appeared as if the writers of the show had contrived the entire episode to create the opportunity just for this grandstanding moment. The whole episode seemed rather superfluous. Secondly, you could see it coming a mile away so clearly that there was literally nothing surprising or interesting about it. Thirdly, it was such a cliché attack on religion in general, and Christianity in particular, it was as if the writers of the show had gotten all their ideas from a first year philosophy course where the lecturer was a fan of 2008’s version of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. It was old hat, in many ways.

But something that the character said prompted me to meditate on how historically ignorant you would have to be to make the argument he was presenting. He brought up that old line that all religions, including Christianity, were created to control the population and make them docile. The old religion is the opiate of the mass’s argument. This line of attack is so used up and tired now that it probably does not have much effect on any serious thinking person. However, there is a kind of lazy thinker who still finds it to be an attractive line of thought, hence its usage in this show. So, let’s take a step back and consider this argument for a moment. Come reason with me, and let’s test the soundness of this position. You’ll see how far short it falls.

If you have not read the Bible you might not know the answer to this, but what is the most significant religious moment in the whole Old Testament? The answer is simple, outside of probably creation itself, the most significant moment is the Exodus. All of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is leading towards the Exodus, and all the rest of the Old Testament in large measure harkens back to it. It is the central salvation event in the Old Testament which frames how God’s people should see their Lord, each other, and this world.

What happened during the Exodus? Moses, at the instigation of He Who Is Who He Is, the Lord Almighty, led a rebellion and an insurrection against the largest empire in the known world at that time. It was such a cataclysmic event that Egypt never fully recovered from it, and it began to diminish as a result of the economic and social devastation caused by that Exodus. But take this into account, the central narrative of the Old Testament is an account of people choosing God over comfort, stability, and loyalty to the state, and being willing to suffer in the wilderness instead. There were times when many amongst the Hebrews regretted their decision and longed for the garlic and leeks of Egypt (Num. 11:5), but still, they chose to break free of their oppressors at the instigation of their Lord.

The central account of the first part of the most influential book in history was a kind of revolution that set people free from oppression. This event was to frame how this people saw themselves. This creates a unique kind of people. This creates a people who have a complicated and dynamic relationship with their leaders. There is much in the Old Testament which encourages and even commands submission to authority figures. But this submission to earthly leaders is always one link in a chain that leads to the highest authority, God himself, and those who know they can defy Pharoah at the command of God, also know that they can reserve the right to defy any other tyrant or leader who comes between them and God. How on earth can such a religion be accused of being created by tyrants to pacify populations?

Those who are familiar with Sunday school classes, even if not the whole Bible, will probably remember the account of Daniel and the Lions Den, or Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and the blazing furnace. These two stories recount the godly defiance of unjust orders by four men who are considered heroes of the Christian faith. These men were part of the Jewish population in exile in Babylon at the instigation of the Lord himself, and they were under commands to work and pray for the welfare of the pagan cities amongst which they were sojourners (Jer. 29). Yet they also understood that being good citizens of heaven was a higher priority than being good citizens of any earthly kingdom, and so when these two things came into conflict they chose the higher priority. This is what makes them heroes. They chose to risk terrible deaths, Daniel at the jaws of hungry lions, and the other three the prospect of being burned alive, rather than risk defying their God.

They understood that the chain of authority is not a linear line. Yes, Kings stand at a higher point than the general populous in the hierarchy of authority ordained by God, but the authority of God overrules all other authorities at any point at which it comes into conflict with the authority of men. Therefore, everyone has a responsibility to follow God’s authority first. The kind of religion created by the Exodus creates the very kinds of heroes that we see in examples like Daniel and his three contemporaries. Men who obey God over other men. And they are not the only ones.

The most significant characters outside of the kings in the Old Testament are the prophets, who starting with Moses and ending with John the Baptist,[1] often found themselves in conflict with the state. Tradition tells us that Isaiah, who was a high-ranking priest in Judah, was sawn in half. Jeremiah’s conflict with the authorities he is prophesying against is famous and recounted in some detail in the book named after himself. Many other prophets also found themselves in a similar situation, because they challenged the state structures that were defying the authority of God. Jesus himself describes what a prophet can expect, “11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:11-12). The whole concept of being one of these men was being willing to defy unjust orders, or general injustice when necessary. This creates a particular kind of faith, a faith where its adherents are expected to be willing to suffer for doing what is right, even when it is unpopular, especially when it is. 

This brings us squarely into the New Testament. Christians serve a Lord and Saviour who was murdered by the state, both Jewish and Roman, because he refused to play along with the traditions of the Jewish leaders. Take stock of that for a minute. Atheists, in all their grand intelligence, have the gall to argue that a religion where people serve a risen saviour who was killed for defying the state, was actually created to control the masses. Could you get a dumber premise? This premise is so illogical, to even assert it you would have to work really hard to either not think deeply about it, or to have worked equally hard to make sure you have never engaged with Christianity on a serious intellectual level.

Christians serve a Lord and Saviour who said stuff like this, “28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). And who also said stuff like this, “37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 10:36-38).

I once considered writing a piece entitled Righteous Rebels, but I decided not to do so as the Bible is clear that the sin of rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft (1 Sam. 15:23). The motivation for Christians to defy tyranny is not based on a heart of rebellion, at least it is not meant to be. It is deeply grounded in a love for God and a love for our fellow man. We know we are called to prioritize our love for God and his commands above all else, and we are to oppose that which does wrong to our fellow human beings. This can bring us into conflict with the state even when we would prefer that it did not, because often the state is directed by men who defy the commands of our Lord.  

I can tell you that most Christians, along with most unbelievers, would prefer to live a quiet life, minding their own business. This is our default setting. Indeed, we are told to prefer this in Scripture, “…and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you,…” (1 Thess. 4:11). You will even find Christians who define their faith around this sentiment, they want to withdraw from the world, work the land quietly, stay away from people, and stay as far away from any trouble as humanly possible. But remember, this passage was written by a man who was often coming into conflict with people both inside his churches and outside of them, from both Jews and Gentiles. Sometimes entire cities were thrown into a tumult, to such a point that once he was confused by a Roman soldier of being a violent Egyptian revolutionary (cf. Acts 21:38) even though he raised a hand to no one. We should prefer peace and quiet, and even work towards that, but there is what we would prefer and then there is what we sometimes have to oppose because God would not have us go along with evil. When evil rises this can bring quiet and peaceful Christians into conflict with the world.

The tyrants of this world have often been hammers that the devil has sought to wield to destroy the Church, but he often comes into conflict with the anvil of the perseverance of the saints of the Lord who refuse to budge. Think of Peter, who exclaimed when he was told to defy Jesus by the Jewish religious leaders, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Much of world history recounts time after time where tyrants sought to force the church to obey their will and failed to do so. Not because Christians have a spirit of rebellion, but because we are called to meekness, and meekness means we are prepared to stand like oaks in a headwind when confronted with the choice between doing evil and obeying God. Christians know that our virtue of self-control is directly connected to our submission to God, and therefore, there are times when the meek will boldly proclaim No! to those who want them to override their conscience.

Now, I should note before I finish, that yes, there have been times when the state has overcome the authority in the Church and used the structure of the Church as a hammer against godly men and women. But whenever this situation arises, God lifts up ordinary men and women who will even stand up to that. Every believer knows they have a direct line from their conscience to God that no priest can override, and therefore, many believers have been forced even to confront ecclesiastical authorities across history as well. So, even those times which sceptics might use as proof of their position, times when Christianity was co-opted by corrupt forces, disprove their overall thesis. Christianity is designed from the inside out to be a self-critiquing religion where every human authority is shown its limits.

If you wanted to create a religion to pacify the masses then Christianity is the opposite of what you would come up with. Christianity is the anti-tyranny faith. It is the bane of oppressors throughout history. It is the thorn in the side of many humans who seek to claim absolute power. Jesus Christ is the greatest slayer of tyrants, precisely because he overcame evil with his death and resurrection, and inspires in his believers a hope in a better world. When believed and correctly applied Christianity makes great citizens, who always reserve the right, when needed, to remind their authorities who the greatest authority is; the Lord Jesus Christ. Tyrants hate that. 

List of References

---

[1] Though he is written about in the New Testament, John marks the transition between how God worked in the Old Testament to how he is changing things for the New Testament.

Don’t Fear The End Times

 

Don’t fear the end times, and don’t fear the rise of evil. Because the rise of evil is a sure sign that God is at work and judging evil, and eventually this will happen for the final time, and the dragon will be slain. This is an excerpt from something I am writing, hopefully this will encourage you, and also give you a biblical reason not to the fear the end of days,

“Many nations and empires have fallen into decadence and rotted from within and then fallen to enemies from without. Evil is a spiritual cancer, and like cancer it consumes incessantly until it kills its host. This exact dynamic is seen when the world turns on Babylon.

As evil as Babylon was, we also read that it was the source of great wealth and a high standard of living for the kings of the world. The effects of its fall are devastating for all who relied on its trade and resources, and this marks the beginning of the end for the world system. Look at this cry from Revelation 18:

“1 After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was made bright with his glory. 2 And he called out with a mighty voice,

“Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!
    She has become a dwelling place for demons,
a haunt for every unclean spirit,
    a haunt for every unclean bird,
    a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.
3 For all nations have drunk
    the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality,
and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her,
    and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living” (Rev. 18:1-3).

What we will see in this chapter is how the kings of the earth hasten their own decline and destruction by their attack on the source of their power and wealth. It is obvious that they recognized the great power that Babylon affords to them but also that they resent it and want it gone. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too, as they say. It is God who puts in their hearts to destroy the harlot,

“15 And the angel said to me, “The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages. 16 And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, 17 for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18 And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth” (Rev. 17:15-28).

One of the most consistent things we see evil do throughout history is attempt to unite humanity under one banner, with one or a few evil powers in the control. This is the impetus behind empire, this is the impetus behind business monopolies, this is the impetus behind even religious monopolies and often behind denominational battles; the desire for one power to rule them all, as in the Lord of the Rings where Sauron’s plan is to have one ring to rule all rings and secure for himself complete dominion across Middle Earth.

And in a great final irony evil will be granted this power in its final days on this earth, “17 for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.” We also know that this power will be short, one hour (Rev. 17:12) according to John. God will give evil everything it wants, complete and total control over the world and its system, and this grant of power will hasten the destruction of evil, because to give over evil to what it wants is to give it over to its own self-destructive tendencies. Cancer has to eventually consume its host.”

For the life of me I cannot fathom how people can read the book of Revelation and find it depressing. It should fill us with incredible hope, because it shows us how the final battle goes. We are not left to wonder, we are not left to worry, we are told in no uncertain terms that the Lord beats everything evil has to throw at him. The best evil has, Jesus has it covered. And it shows us the self-destructive nature of evil, which should really encourage us when we lose out on things in this world for the sake of doing the right thing, because we are not losing when we do this, we are separating ourselves from things which could destroy us if we focused on them instead of the things of the Lord.

Don’t fear the end times, evil should fear the end. For in the end the light overcomes the darkness, and praise be to God, we will see this happen again and again in this world, and then once and for all on the final day.

Evil might be a terrifying dragon, but Jesus is a dragon slayer.

 

It Is Not Your Imagination

 

It is not your imagination, as a nation we are getting poorer and our money is quickly losing value,

“Australia is already experiencing a prolonged per capita recession.

As illustrated in the following chart, Australia’s per capita GDP has fallen for five consecutive quarters and six times in the last seven quarters:

Image: From Macrobusiness.

Next week, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) will release the Q2 national accounts, which will show that per capita GDP fell for a sixth consecutive quarter…

…Given that Australia’s population increased by 0.65% in Q2, as implied by figures from the retail trade release, this suggests that per capita GDP declined another 0.45% over the quarter.”[1]

According to Macrobusiness household disposable income in Australia is falling at a fast rate while other OECD nations have seen increases. The retail sector has taken massive declines because of this, and the job market is deteriorating,

“Deloitte Access Economics cautioned that retail conditions won’t ease anytime soon amid reduced spending by households due to mortgage rates and cost-of-living pressures.

Deloitte Access Economics partner David Rumbens described the retail sector as an “economic horror show” given the high cost of living, increasing insolvencies, elevated interest rates, and the deteriorating job market.”[2]

So, it is not your imagination. A family member showed me the other day what it cost them nearly $600 to get from the grocery store, and it was not fancy stuff, or what you would think $600 worth of groceries would be. We are being slowly strangled in this nation, and our government has the gall to act like wealth is increasing. There are even politicians who are suggesting that people should pay more wealth taxes, because houses, and some other assets, are worth so much more. But what use is your house being worth more to you, if you are not intending to, or cannot sell it and rebuy somewhere else?

With one of Australia’s leading exports, iron ore, having significantly dropped in value this year, it appears that the Australian economy is about to get the rude wake up call that many have been predicting for some time.

The thing about being a lucky country is that eventually your luck runs out. In this case the luck is running dry because of an increasingly arrogant nation that flaunts sexual depravity and other degradations continually, a lack of moral or courageous leadership from our governments across the board, and a terrible greed that has turned Australia’s housing market into a system for boomers to fleece all other generations so they can support lavish lifestyles right up to the time they leave this world. All of this is building towards a whirlwind of trouble for the Australian economy. Hold on to your hats.

List of References

---

[1] Leith Van Olsen 2024, https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/08/deep-australian-recession-locked-in/

[2] Ibid.

Get Woke…You Know the Saying

 

 

Many Australians will remember how Woolworths started the year by saying it was reducing its sales of Australia Day Merchandise. Look what that has led to,

“In the 12 months up to July 1, Woolworths Group, which includes BigW, Milkrun and its New Zealand grocery arm, saw nearly $68 billion in sales, up three per cent from the previous financial year, and $108m in profits after tax, which was a 93 per cent reduction on its 2023 financial year result.

The drop came from the supermarket giant’s poor performance across the Tasman where earnings in the New Zealand arm fell 57 per cent, a $1.5b loss, while its investment in Endeavour Group, which operates Dan Murphy’s and BWS, resulted in an overall loss of about $100m.

Without these impairments on the grocery chain, the group’s profit dropped just 0.6 per cent compared to FY23 with a $1.7b profit…

…Woolies’ profit posting comes a day after Coles announced a $1.1b during FY24, up 2.1 per cent from the previous financial year.”[1]

It appears the Corporate Cancer of the SJW’s has over taken one of Australians largest supermarket chains. This will be something to watch. Because if the SJW cancer is not excised it will strangle the company. And once it becomes too advanced it cannot be excised easily. Watch this space.

List of References

---

[1] James Harrison, 2024, https://www.skynews.com.au/business/finance/woolworths-group-profit-plunges-staggering-93-per-cent-after-supermarket-giant-rocked-by-controversy-over-past-year/news-story/0ea682a0cd9c7975e339652a303dd4df

Is The Western Colony in Israel Coming to an End?

 

I have been contemplating the fate of the nation of Israel recently, because the war against Hamas in Gaza is not going well. Foreign policy experts like John Mearsheimer, Douglas McGregor and others have done some excellent presentations showing how the war in Gaza is not working out for Israel. They have not been able to defeat Hamas in nearly a year, and their bombing campaign has caused outrage across the world and isolated them both in their region and beyond. I have written about these things before. But what is interesting to contemplate now is that the very future of the nation of Israel appears to be in doubt.

I just want to state here that I support wholeheartedly the existence of the nation of Israel. I believe that all nations should have the chance for self-rule and self-determination, and for a variety of reasons having a Jewish state where the Jewish people can build their own farms, grow their own crops, make their own products, and build homes for generations of their descendants is necessary thing. But it becomes complicated when you need to do this at the expense of another people, and herein lies the source of the conflict between Gazans, wider Palestinians and Israel. Palestinians and Israelites both claim sovereignty and ownership of the same land. Palestinians have as much right to a sovereign state as do the Jewish people.

But something I have been contemplating lately is how Israel got into this situation. Over the course of the last year I have written many different theological, political, and philosophical posts on the war in Gaza, looking at it from different angles, but I have consistently pointed to it as being an unjust and foolish war. At one point I even shared an article from William S. Lind, the notable military strategist, which showed that state militaries cannot win wars against fourth generation, or non-state forces, using second generation, or conventional military tactics. This is not my opinion, it is the informed opinion of military experts like Lind and others, and these guys know what they are talking about.

But a consistent interesting response I got from some people either via email, or in comments, or in person, over the last year is how upset some people were that I was not acknowledging that Israel is in a battle for its very statehood here, and therefore, it is justified in using extreme methods. I always thought this comment was strange, because when you compare the IDF to the forces in Gaza, it is the Palestinians who appeared to be facing the imminent destruction of their state. I thought people had the situation completely backwards. But some of these people were extremely emotionally triggered about their concern that Israel was in the fight of its life. Ironically, one thing that has become more and more clear over the last few months is that the way Israel has conducted this war, by treating the attack on October 7^th as a justification for this bombardment of Gaza, has to some degree weakened its position in the region.

I had been considering writing something about this self-fulfilling prophecy, but others with far more knowledge of the situation have already outlined the situation that Israel is in better than I could. For instance, Simplicius has recently addressed the issue,  

“Netanyahu, who faces growing international pressure to agree to a ceasefire and hostage release deal in Gaza, has repeatedly said that Israeli forces are nearing their stated goal of eliminating Hamas and destroying its military capabilities. Addressing a joint meeting of Congress on July 24, he said: “Victory is in sight.”

But forensic analyses of Hamas’ military operations since it led attacks against Israel on October 7, which draw on Israeli and Hamas military statements, footage from the ground and interviews with experts and eyewitnesses, cast doubt on his claims.

Despite having its leader assassinated and taking all the other ‘blows’ Israel has claimed to have dealt, Hamas, CNN writes, continues to make a comeback:

And yet, the research, which covers Hamas’ activities up until July, shows that the group appears to have made effective use of dwindling resources on the ground. Several units have made a comeback in key areas cleared by the Israeli military after pitched battles and intensive bombardment, according to the new analyses, salvaging the remnants of their battalions in a desperate bid to replenish their ranks.”[1]

Despite facing superior numbers with superior firepower, the Palestinian forces in Gaza are increasingly replenishing themselves, and succeeding in refilling and re-equipping battalions for further action. Israel is not diminishing the enemy in any significant numbers. This is the exact opposite of what Russia has been achieving in the European front of this growing clown world war.

“One year of “the world’s most advanced military force”, and they can only degrade 3 enemy battalions? Meanwhile, Russia destroys that many Ukrainian battalions on some days.

They do go on to clarify that 8 of the 24 battalions are considered fully “combat effective”, while the remaining 13 have been somewhat degraded but continue to function in a more sporadic, guerilla style. But they admit that Hamas is actively working on reconstituting all of the degraded battalions.

While Israel naturally dismissed these findings, US military figures continue to poke back:

“If the Hamas battalions were largely destroyed, Israeli forces wouldn’t still be fighting,” said retired US Army Col. Peter Mansoor, who helped oversee the deployment of an additional 30,000 US troops to Iraq in 2007 – a counterinsurgency strategy known as “the surge.”

“The fact that they’re still in Gaza, still trying to rout out elements of the Hamas battalions shows me that Prime Minister Netanyahu is wrong,” he added. “The ability of Hamas to reconstitute its fighting forces is undiminished.”[2]

This ongoing situation vindicates the position of Lind, whom I quoted above. Lind argued that in fourth generation conflicts the power for non-state forces to continue fighting comes down to their being perceived as the plucky David facing off an unjust Goliath, which motivates new soldiers to join their ranks. This creates a situation where the more a state force uses conventional methods to fight a non-state force the more the non-state force recruits new fighters, creating a quagmire for the state forces involved. This appears to be exactly what is happening in Gaza.

“Expert Robert Pape tells CNN that Israel’s actions are only making Hamas stronger:

“Israel is generating exactly the kind of additional political anger, the additional grief, the additional emotion that will lead additional people to become fighters,” said Pape.

“The actual strategic power of Hamas is growing,” he said. “The power of Hamas is in its power to recruit.”[3]

I know my blog does not have much effect on world affairs, I get that. But for those of you who simply brushed aside Lind’s analysis and prediction, you should now be able to recognize that the man knew what he was talking about. And he was not the only one. By going after a terrorist attack with planes, tanks and assault rifles instead of advanced policing and cultural and social tactics, you end up losing the moral high-ground in the eyes of many. This is happening with Israel right now. The United States did this in War on Terror.[4] It sowed more terror around the world than any other actor, I have addressed this previously as well. And this caused much of the world to lose faith in the moral uprightness of the United States as the leader of the world. It had lost the Mandate of Heaven, as the Chinese would say. The difference between the U.S. and Israel is that America is far more powerful and resilient, at least at the moment. 

Of course, people in Israel can see how badly this war is going, and are leaving, as Simplicius also notes,

“Hundreds of thousands of essential Israeli farmers and citizens from the north have fled, many of them stating openly they will never return. Israel’s economy is in freefall, with its only port on the Red Sea, Eilat, having been in complete shut down for months with the port operator announcing the lay off of most of the workers.”[5]

Israel is a nation that relies heavily on international support, particularly from the United States, tourism, religious pilgrimages, immigration into its new colonies, and military supplies from nations with larger productive capabilities. It is losing much of this because of the way the war is going.  

There are those within Israel who are recognizing the bad position this war has put Israel in, as this opinion piece from the Israeli Newspaper Haaretz notes,

“I assume that Defense Minister Gallant already understands that the war has lost its purpose. Israel is sinking deeper into the Gazan mud, losing more and more soldiers as they get killed or wounded, without any chance of achieving the war's main goal: bringing down Hamas.

The country really is galloping towards the edge of an abyss. If the war of attrition against Hamas and Hezbollah continues, Israel will collapse within no more than a year.”[6]

I have no idea if this man’s prediction will be correct, as I am not an expert on the situation of Israel. However, it is clear that things are not going well. These are not the only sources that are tolling this bell as well, John Mearsheimer has been consistently outlining how bad the war in Gaza is going, and so have many others.

I know some of my readers are those who are of the persuasion that Israel is the land of the people of God, and they likely also believe that he will step in and miraculously crush Israel’s enemies. But even if you were to do the biblically impossible and mount a successful case that the modern state of Israel was in the lineage of the Israel of David, the Israel of David was not guaranteed success across its history anyway. Success was contingent on faithfulness. This was true for Abraham, and true for his descendants. Notice the conditional way in which the people of God experience blessing according to the Bible, “4 I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (Gen. 26:4-5). Isaac was blessed because of his father’s obedience, and it was obedience which would carry this blessing down the family line. It is not automatic.

My contention for some time has been that Israel is simply a colony of the West in the Middle East. Now that this western globalism is failing, it should not surprise us that we see aspects of this unravelling. Israel’s existence in the Middle East depends upon either friendship with its surrounding nations, or complete military dominance. With both of those things fading, this now makes the situation a lot more difficult. The United States might pledge full support and aid to Israel, but it is not the force it once was, either in the Middle East or elsewhere. So, that support does not guarantee success.

Theologically I do believe that God has some future plan for salvation for ethnic Israelites, but I do not believe that the true Israel is anything other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. I have made the biblical case for this in other pieces on my blog. But putting my theological beliefs on that issue aside, we should draw our attention to another biblical issue of note, Just War.

The Bible shows again and again that God judges nations who engage in wickedness. The West collectively has done much evil in the Middle East, rather than increasing this or supporting more of it, we should be calling for repentance from our nations and our leaders for the evil already done. Foolishness is seen in its fruit, after all. Look at the fruit of these wars. Western nations across the world are in decline, and so are their satellites. It is time to withdraw from supporting these wars.

---

[1] https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/israels-path-of-peril

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] One of the most mocked terms in the history of the world.

[5] Ibid, Simplicius.

[6] https://archive.md/r8nP9#selection-1133.0-1149.173

Beware A Former Opponent.

 

There has been a lot of talk going around about RFK Junior joining Donald Trump in his campaign. Though many of us have zero confidence in the reality of this election campaign, and know that it will not be a fully above board and honest election, still there is something exciting about two anti-establishment figures joining forces to create change.

Both of these candidates are seriously flawed, both support abortion in some measure, though Trump did manage to get Roe vs Wade overturned with his supreme court picks. Both are well below reasonable on the Israel issue, because they are both committed to tying the United States and its destiny to its pseudo-Colony in the Middle East. Both of them have other flaws as well. But still Trump did bring some change in his previous term, they are both committed to avoiding World War 3 getting any worse, and the announcement that Trump gave Kennedy power to address some of the serious health issues caused by food and health standards corruption in the United States is a very good thing. There is certainly more good to look forward to in a joint Trump-Kennedy team than there is anywhere else.

However, if I were close to anyone who knew Trump, I’d counsel him, “Beware of trusting in a former opponent.” One of the things that plagued Trump’s first presidency was his consistent habit of trusting the wrong people to hold powerful roles in his administration. I can’t help but be a little sceptical of a long term Democrat, someone who was basically born to the blue, being willing to support not only a Republican, but one of the most controversial Republicans ever. It is exciting to think about how they could work together, and this excitement has me thinking, “Is this too good to be true?” Kennedy would have been a good pick for Trump’s vice-president spot, much better than the man he has chosen, but that such an opponent would join the opposing side in amyway sounds a little too good to be true. Does it not? 

Whenever this happens we should be wary. As this advice from The Tale of Melibeus warns us,  

“Solomon says that the words of a flatterer are a snare wherewith to catch innocents. He says also, that he who speaks sweet words to his friend, sets before his feet a net to catch him. And therefore says Tullius Cicero:

'Incline not thine ears to flatterers, nor take counsel of flattering words.' And Cato says: 'Be well advised, and avoid sweet and pleasant words.' And you must also eschew the counsels of such of your former enemies as have become reconciled to you. The Book says that no one can safely trust to the goodwill of a former enemy. And Aesop says: 'Trust not to those with whom you have been sometime at war or in enmity, neither tell them of your intentions.' And Seneca tells us the reason for this. 'It may not be,' says he, 'that, where fire has long existed there shall remain no vapour of heat.' And thereto says Solomon: 'The kisses of an enemy are deceitful.' For, certainly, though your enemy may be reconciled, and appear before you in all humility, and bow his head to you, you should never trust him. Surely he feigns this humility more for his advantage than for any love of you; for he thinks to gain some victory over you by such feigning, the which he could not gain by strife of open war. And Petrus Alfonsus says: 'Have no fellowship with ancient foes; for if you do good to them, they will pervert it into evil.' And, too, you must eschew the advice of those who are your own servants and bear themselves toward you with all reverence; for perchance they speak more out of fear than for love.”[1]

Be wary of they who have recently changed sides. This is good advice. 

Maybe I am being too sceptical? 

Someone might say that this is how American presidential races work, candidates sound each other out as they move along and then fall into alliances to work together for power. But if you have read my blog for any period of time you will know about my longstanding scepticism of alliances as well.

In his last term as President it is safe to say that having the wrong people in many positions in the administration probably caused as many or more issues for Trump that the lying harlot media constantly telling stories about him did. But I am willing to be shown wrong on this.

It is possible for an opponent to become a true friend. This can and does happen. But I would still say that the advice given in this Canterbury Tale is good advice. Beware those who suddenly sound too good to be true, wherever they turn up in your life, and especially if they had once long opposed you.

 

List of References

---

[1] Chaucer, Geoffrey .. The Canterbury Tales: FREE Hamlet By William Shakespeare (JKL Classics - Active TOC, Active Footnotes ,Illustrated) (p. 177). JKL Classics. Kindle Edition.

Fifty Shades of Grey and Ephesians 5

 

Ephesians 5 is one of the most maligned passages in the whole Bible today because it tells wives that they should submit to their husbands. A lot of people would like to ignore what it says, and many others try to mitigate what it says or change it. But it is actually a vital passage for understanding the relationship between a husband and wife and how it is supposed to work.

If you want to have a healthy marriage you cannot get away from the need to look at this passage for several reasons: 

- This is the most significant passage explaining what marriage is in the whole Bible. 

- The rejection of this passage has actually led to many of the problems that both society and individuals experience in their marriages today. 

- The abuse of this passage in the Church is manifest all over the place, usually by bad men, and this should be addressed. 

- But also, I don’t think this passage is as radical to accept as people think. In fact, I am going to argue that it actually understands men and women very well, and those who adhere to it will be ahead of the curve. 

Wives - Let’s start by looking at what Paul says to wives,

“22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

Wow, you could almost say considering what our culture is like today that this passage is anti-Australian “Wives, submit to your husbands”? Woh!! But is this actually as un-Australian as it sounds? Let’s look at what it does not say:

-        It does not say, husbands make your wives submit.

-        It does not say, husbands force your wives to submit.

-        It does not say put your wives in a Burqa until she submits.

It says, “Wives, submit to your own husbands.” Paul is saying that wives should choose to bring themselves into the frame, the leadership of their husbands. Now, I know our culture struggles with this idea, but does it really?

I don’t think it always does, if you frame the issue of submission right. Let me ask this question: what is the largest selling Romance novel of all time? Fifty Shades of Grey, the first book itself sold over 100 Million copies. Together the series has sold over 150 million books. In the age of screens, no less. To put that in perspective, the beloved and very famous romance novel Pride and Prejudice has sold about 20 million copies.

This means Fifty Shades of Grey is a phenomenon. A story cannot resonate with so many people, and not reflect reality in some way. Putting aside the sex - which plenty of other books have anyway and so it can't stand out because of that - why did this story resonate with so many people? Especially women?

Well, what is this story about? It is about a woman finding a man whom she wants to submit to. And it is the biggest selling romance book ever. Breaking all kinds of records. It is about a woman finding a powerful man she wants to submit to, and over time he becomes the kind of man that will love her. That’s the story.

Now, I have not read the book or seen the movie, it is not my thing. But I have spoken with plenty of those who have and they have confirmed that my summation is right. And you know what, this is what the book had to be about, because for a book to sell so well, and be loved by so many, it has to be based on real human dynamics. It had to in some way reflect the kind of men women want, and it had to show such a man coming around to be the loving man that women want their man to be.

This shows us that Paul wasn’t wrong, he was not out of date, he was ahead of his time and ahead of the curve. Fifty Shades of Grey was a phenomenon because it understood women. It understood that a woman wants her man to be powerful, and for him to use that for her good.

And it is not just this book that does this. The stereotypical Romance novel is a picture of a woman being carried onto a boat by a pirate, or held by a fireman, or by some other strong man whom she has submitted to. On these covers the man exudes strength and the woman falls into his arms. This is a picture of strength and willing submission. This stuff sells, because it speaks to a biblical truth built into humanity, even if the stories are often immoral themselves. Women want to find a man whom they can respect and fall into the arms of. It is also why so many classic movies are classic movies, because they understand this dynamic. So, I don’t think Ephesians 5 is that radical at all, and it shows that Paul knew what he is talking about. Which of course he should because he was inspired by the Spirit of the Lord God who created us to write this passage.  

One of the sources of marriage conflict is this dynamic, a woman will constantly, especially in the early stages of a marriage, test her husband’s ability to lead her by challenging him (shit testing). This is her way of testing if he is that man she wants to come under the leadership of, or if he is still that man. This can go one of a few ways:

-        The man passes these tests and they die down over time, and the couple live in relative harmony.

-        The man seeks to be domineering to his wife to stop her, this can lead to being abusive.  

-        The man fails these tests because he just finds it easier to defer to his wife, she comes to dominate him and they both are less happy, even miserable. This is the most common response.

-        She finds another man who she wants to submit to.

One of the biggest mistakes men make is thinking that they are loving their wife by giving in to her, they are not, they are showing weakness, which diminishes her respect over time.

I think, therefore, that part of what Paul is saying to wives is this: reign in this natural tendency to want to challenge your husband. Love him by respecting him, just like the Church does with Jesus. How does the Church submit to Jesus? Willingly, by choice, it is not forced to do so.

This is vital to understand: forced submission is not Christianity, there is another religion that calls for that, but it is not Christianity. Christianity is a religion where Jesus’ bride chooses to be with him, chooses to obey, chooses to submit to him, and which he fills us with his spirit to help us in this process. Force completely undermines this and completely undermines our faith. Just like Christ wants people who want to follow him, wives need to reign in their desire to challenge, contradict, or override their husbands to test his authority. How the wife does this shows how much she respects her husband and shows an image of how the church follows Jesus.

Husbands – Let’s look at what Paul says to husbands now. I think that if you can make a case that women struggle the most with respecting their husband's leadership, men struggle the most with the temptation to take advantage of their wives by not loving them properly. What is incredible is that this behaviour is easily observed all over the place, but also that Paul decided to address it nearly two thousand years ago in a book many people consider irrelevant,

“25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”

One thing that we men are prone to do is to forget the importance of loving our wives. Not just in words, not just having told them we love them, not just by demonstrating it when we married them, but on a day-to-day basis reaffirming and reassuring that love. Just like men long for respect, women want to see visible signs that we love and cherish them.

This is why Paul tells the men here to love their loves. You might expect him to say we should love each other, and we should. But he is being very deliberate here to strike at the heart of the difference between men and women.

Women show their love for their husbands by deferring to them when necessary. Men show their love to their wives by cherishing them, “28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,…”

We saw before how women are largely drawn to stories about a woman finding a man she can submit to or fall into the arms of. What kinds of stories do men love? Actions movies, often ones where the good guy beats the bad guys and gets the girl. Think Die Hard, think The Patriot, think every good Bond movie (not you Daniel Craig…), think classic old school action movies.

Men like moves where the guy either beats the bad guy to win the girl, to rescue the girl, or they were motivated to destroy the bad guy because he hurt the girl, or killed the girl, or because he wants to make the world safer for his girl. These are the simple stories that most men love, and we will watch a thousand different versions of that, and when Hollywood forgets that formula, we generally stop watching. Because it is hardwired into the man to risk himself for the girl.

This is exactly what Paul says Jesus did for his bride, the church,

“25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”

What has Jesus done for his bride? He has given himself on her behalf. He sacrificed himself to save her. In Jesus’ case he has rescued his bride from her sin, cleaned her so she can stand right before God, so that he can present her blameless on that final day before the Lord. This is why the story of the man rescuing the woman is so popular amongst us all, because it is baked into creation, it is baked into God’s design for the role the man plays for the woman.

The average man is not likely to need to rescue his wife from thieves pretending to be terrorists in Nakotomi tower when he goes to visit her at her Christmas party. But there are many other ways that a man is to act like a shield for his wife in this world. To protect her from her own sins, from his own bad decisions, and from many of the pressures of this world. 

Peter the Apostle reminds us that women are the weaker vessel, which means we men can hurt our wives if we ask too much of them. Which sadly many modern men do. How many men want their wives to work all day, and then all night after they have come home from work?

Some men have seen this dynamic in this passage in Ephesians and twisted it to use as an excuse to abuse their wives, but for the life of me I cannot see anywhere in this passage where that is encouraged, allowed or supported. As Paul says, “For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church.”

We can see that Paul was not only not out of date, he absolutely knew what he was talking about, and because of this his advice in this passage is genuinely timeless. If you can get this dynamic right in your marriage it will make a massive difference.