Historical Justice Is Really Quite Evil

 

Historical Justice is truly a great evil. But what is historical justice and why is it evil?

Well, to help us define it, let’s look at the Encyclopedia Brittanica’s definition of historical injustice:

“historical injustice, past moral wrong committed by previously living people that has a lasting impact on the well-being of currently living people. Claims to material reparations for historical injustices are typically based on the nature of the lasting impact, and claims to symbolic restitution are often grounded on the moral quality of the wrongs committed. This article considers the theoretical underpinnings of arguments about reparations, responsibility for past injustices, and the rights of those wronged.”[1]

So, ‘historical injustice’ is a reference to wrongs committed in the past by people who are no longer alive or as Brittanica notes they were “previously living people.” This does not refer to the most recent history that we are now experiencing, but to relatively recent, or modern history, at least a generation ago, and futher back. But the definition is so broad you could choose to go back to any possible date in the past, choose a line of causality from some historical event, and built a case and a charge for historical injustice. Hence “historical justice” is the restoration of past historical wrongs, or perceived historical wrongs.

I say perceived, because it is entirely possible, in fact entirely likely, that those actions were not considered crimes or even necessarily wrong in the past. Cultural mores change over time, so one generation is almost guaranteed to be condemned by the next generation and their new standards. Even though this is the case, there are things which were done in the past that were known to be wrong then that are still considered wrong now, and which people believe should be addressed, or acknowledged in some way in the pursuit of restoring historical justice. But while it can be granted that some peoples have severely wronged other peoples, going back in time to find wrongs that need to be addressed today is an incredibly dangerous and destructive business. Let’s examine why.

Consider what it would take to grant "historical justice" to Indigenous Australians for colonization. In this article we are not going argue over whether or not there was historical crimes committed against the indigenous in the process of colonization, we are simply for going to grant there was such wrongs for the sake of argument. If you do grant that their land was stolen and you also grant that it must be returned or compensated, then you place yourself in the situation of seeking to address this historical injustice. All those people who go out of their way to acknowledge that they are on other people’s land admit they are thieves, after all, though they refuse to repent of their theft. If you want to be consistent in putting into practice what you confess, then you need to do something. 

If you want to return it you first have to determine who was connected to what bit of land. This is almost impossible to prove because of the time that has passed, the lack of records, and the lack of archaeological evidence. This is especially the case for a nomadic people. Hence the assumption becomes just that this is all their land by virtue of Indigenous descent. But this is difficult to determine in many cases as well. For instance, there are people in Australia who are descended on one side from Indigenous Australians, and on the other side from people who are known, and recorded, to have committed crimes against Indigenous people. If justice is to be determined, how do you determine in this case who was wronged and who did the wrong? There are many other reasons this is difficult as well.

Once you have determined who is owed the historical justice, or restoration, and you have determined the land needs to be returned to its original owners, then you have to seek to expel all other people, which requires ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. A truly criminal task. This would be the case even if you only determined to give them back some of the land. Ethnic cleansing is usually resisted which means it often quickly becomes genocide. Many people think that genocide means you have sought to wipe out an entire people, this is the popular understanding at least. But the actual crime of genocide only requires that you have set in place the conditions for it to happen, or even that you have only targeted one part of the group.[2] If you even just put a people in possible danger of genocide because of your intention to harm part of the group, that is a crime. But in this case you have determined that this is necessary for so-called historical justice. However, this is distasteful, so you might go another way.

If you don't go the ethnic cleansing route you may go the repatriations route. This might sound more reasonable and more just at first glance. However, this requires you to take from people today who did not take the land off the Indigenous, as they were not there, to give to people today who did not have it taken from them, as they were also not there. You are punishing a party who did not commit the wrong for the benefit of a party that was not alive at the time to have the wrong done to them. This is basically using theft to try and fix a historical theft, or alleged theft, and it is clearly immoral. Those who were not there, as in not existing yet, cannot claim any crime was committed against them. They didn't even exist yet. And we have determined that historical injustice is by definition “about past moral wrong committed by previously living people.” Hence it is unjust and evil from this perspective as well. So you may go another way.

You might go the direction where you institute “justice quotas." By that I mean you use injustice to punish people alive today to try and advance another people. In this case you take modern people who had nothing to do with the alleged historical wrong and you sanction them. They are shunted out of jobs or shut off from applying for jobs they are qualified for, in order to give them to others based on their race, whose ancestors were wronged. So, you use evil oppressive tactics to sideline one group to advance another. This has the inevitable result of destroying the credibility of many organizations and professions which hire using such practices, but it also creates deep resentment all around. You steal from one group today, to give to others who you say their ancestors were stolen from. You might think that in doing this you have chosen the least evil way of achieving your so-called historical justice. But in reality you become the evil you are preaching against. You are now the one who is taking from people what it is not yours to give to others who were not wronged.

Achieving so-called historical justice requires, necessarily, doing great evil to people living today who have nothing to do with the original alleged wrong. This is very likely why God said the son should not be punished for the sins of the father. We read in Ezekiel 18,

“19 Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ez. 18:19-20).

God understands the hearts of man, better than even we do. And he knows that the desire for revenge can be passed down through the generations. In order to limit man’s desire for revenge, or vengeance, he commanded that sons should not suffer for the sins of their fathers. Those who seek any of the ways above to address historical justice simply commit injustice in the name of justice. They multiply injustice and the result is they unleash great evil on people.

Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in modern Israel. The British,  who had no sovereign right to Palestine, decided that they could take a chunk of it, and give it to Eastern European Jews to seek to redress historical grievances enacted upon them by others. The Balfour Declaration (of 1917) was a famous part of this process. But during World War 1 Britain defeated the Ottoman Empire, and from that time on increasing waves of Jewish settlers were brought into Palestine to resettle it under the British Mandate government. At first the British were determined to hold onto this region of Palestine, to maintain a presence in the Middle East, but they withdraw in the late 1940’s and the modern state of Israel was created. It is because Israel was created in 1947-8 that many people incorrectly believe Israel was established because of what happened in World War 2. It is true that the Jewish settlements in Palestine increased markedly because of that war, but the process of Jewish resettlement began long before World War 2. It was established to resolve historical grievances, namely the restoration of “their land”, Zion. The British, and other international bodies, were seeking to achieve historical justice.

But it was recognized at the time that such a settlement could only happen if the European Powers maintained a heavy and forceful military presence in Palestine,

“Much earlier, the King-Crane Commission, sent out in 1919 by President Woodrow Wilson to ascertain the wishes of the peoples of the region, had come to similar conclusions as those of Jabotinsky. Told by representatives of the Zionist movement that it “looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine” in the course of turning Palestine into a Jewish state, the commissioners reported that none of the military experts they consulted “believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms,” and all considered that a force of “not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required” to execute this program. In the end, it took the British more than double that number of troops to prevail over the Palestinians in 1936 through 1939. In a cover letter to Wilson, the commissioners presciently warned that “if the American government decided to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, they are committing the American people to the use of force in that area, since only by force can a Jewish state in Palestine be established or maintained.” The commission thereby accurately predicted the course of the subsequent century.”[3]

A commission especially convened to determine what it would take to make a Jewish state in Palestine, or re-establish Israel, determined that oppressive force would be necessary, and it would need to be ongoing. To claim that land has meant that many Israeli soldiers, politicians, settlers and their Western supporters and equippers, have had to commit the very crimes on Palestinians, that they said were committed on them at many points in history. To achieve historical justice for them has required them to enact injustice today.

Many Christians recognize this, find it shocking, and do not support this in the slightest. But there is a large and very influential segment of the church who recognize this and just see this as necessary. They believe they are living in the days of Joshua 2.0 and this is a mandated biblical conquest, a fulfilment of prophecy. Many of these Christians won’t deny that horrible things have happened in this quest to reconquer the land. But they are ok with it, because this process is simply correcting a “historical injustice” committed against the Judeans when Rome took their land off them and renamed it Syria-Palestina. They are supporting evil because they have run it through a grid of historical injustice.

Historical justice causes great evil. It is a clear Satanic perversion of justice, which is made clear by the passage we looked at from Ezekiel 18 above. Punishing the Palestinians of the 20’s and after for the crime of the Romans in the 1^st century is as far removed from true or natural justice as you can get. All it really achieves is guaranteeing that more people are victims of injustice who feel they have a right to get their own back. It perpetuates a cycle of injustice.

No Christian can justify this as justice on biblical grounds. It is by definition injustice using historical grievances to justify itself. These Christians must put forward novel readings of prophecy on very debateable passages to lay the ground work to assert it is God's will for all of this happen. So that they can override their consciences which would otherwise see the clear evil that is happening. They stand on the authority of passages that most Christians in history have seen fulfilled in the work of Jesus and his Church, or in the Millennium or New Heavens and New Earth periods. There is a grand tradition in the Church that has read many of these passages in ways that could never justify the reconquering of Canaan. There is also a grand tradition in the church that says interpreting many of these proohetic passages is incredibly hard, and they should not be asserted too forcefully, but held with an open hand. Hence when they are used to justify literal force of arms, they show that those who do this make the most aggressive possible argument from the weakest possible ground.

And many of these Christians are not consistent in their beliefs anyway. You know this is true because almost to a man and woman the conservative Australian or American Christian would deny the native Australian or American what they assert is the right of the Israelis.

It is for this reason that I feel confident saying this is the product of a woke mind. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, “The meaning of WOKE, is aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).”[4] We now use woke as a way of mocking the left, but the origin of this word comes from social groups who believed they had a clearer view of social injustice and social justice. They were, in other words, awake to such historical grievances, or woke. Historical justice is literally a product of woke ideology, hence Christian Zionism is woke, as it too asserts historical justice. And we all know that woke cannot help but cause great evil, even if it is done with good intentions. 

And low and behold, that is what we see happening. 

List of References

---

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/historical-injustice

[2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide

[3] Khalidi, Rashid . The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: The New York Times Bestseller (pp. 51-52). Profile. Kindle Edition.

[4] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

One Non-Believer Vs 20 Atheists

 

Christians have to get over their Jordan Peterson obsession. What I found interesting about his debate with these atheist soyjacks is how some of them showed more wisdom than many Christians in identifying that Peterson is nowhere near Christianity. They saw it almost straight away. 

Why doesn't Jordan Peterson claim to be a Christian? People act like this is some profound “will he or won't he” mystery. It is not. He has said why in his book, "But I was truly plagued with doubt. I had outgrown the shallow Christianity of my youth by the time I could understand the fundamentals of Darwinian theory. After that, I could not distinguish the basic elements of Christian belief from wishful thinking.”[1]

The reason he does not claim to be a Chrisitan is because he sees Christianity as wishful thinking. He has "outgrown" Christianity.

He does not mean by this that he has grown in the faith. He means by this that he sees Christianity as childish. The domain of silly wishful thinking. And he reiterated in his debate with these young atheists that he still does not claim to be a Christian and never has. Which is evident, anyway, if you pay any attention to his writings.

You might respond that he talks so much about Christ that he must be close. But when Jordan Peterson speaks about Christ, he does not mean Jesus Christ of Nazareth, born of Mary, a descendant of David according to the flesh, the Second Person of the Trinity; the Jesus of Christianity. He means a very different Christ,

"That is not to say (to say it again) that obedience is sufficient. But a person capable of obedience—let’s say, instead, a properly disciplined person—is at least a well-forged tool. At least that (and that is not nothing). Of course, there must be vision, beyond discipline; beyond dogma. A tool still needs a purpose. It is for such reasons that Christ said, in the Gospel of Thomas, “The Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, but men do not see it.”[2]

The Gospel of Thomas is a foundational Gnostic text. The Christ of Peterson is not your grandma's Jesus. Unless she is a Gnostic. Peterson has always presented something more akin to a pseudo-gnostic Christ-spirit rather than the Jesus of the Bible. To him Christ is a Jungian architype, not the real saviour of the world.

“Nietzsche believed that Paul, and later the Protestants following Luther, had removed moral responsibility from Christ’s followers. They had watered down the idea of the imitation of Christ. This imitation was the sacred duty of the believer not to adhere (or merely to mouth) a set of statements about abstract belief but instead to actually manifest the spirit of the Saviour in the particular, specific conditions of his or her life—to realize or incarnate the archetype, as Jung had it; to clothe the eternal pattern in flesh. Nietzsche writes, “The Christians have never practiced the actions Jesus prescribed them; and the impudent garrulous talk about the ‘justification by faith’ and its supreme and sole significance is only the consequence of the Church’s lack of courage and will to profess the works Jesus demanded.”144 Nietzsche was, indeed, a critic without parallel…

…There are other indications of this in the gospels, in dramatic, enacted form. Christ is continually portrayed as the purveyor of endless sustenance. He miraculously multiplies bread and fish. He turns water into wine. What does this mean? It’s a call to the pursuit of higher meaning as the mode of living that is simultaneously most practical and of highest quality. It’s a call portrayed in dramatic/literary form: live as the archetypal Saviour lives, and you and those around you will hunger no more. The beneficence of the world manifests itself to those who live properly. That’s better than bread. That’s better than the money that will buy bread. Thus Christ, the symbolically perfect individual, overcomes the first temptation. Two more follow.”[3]

What Jesus being able to multiply bread ctually means is that Jesus is the bread of life and we must trust in him. He is the provider of all things including salvation. But Peterson presents Christ as a spiritual principle rather than the saviour of all mankind. This is very different. This is nowhere near Christianity. 

Peterson has told us many times that he does not believe in Jesus Christ of the scriptures or the Christian creeds, and that he is not a Christian. So, I think it is time for people to move on from their obsession with this man. Peterson’s writings and teachings, in my view, are not designed to point people to Jesus Christ, but beyond Jesus Christ. Something the ancient Gnostics sought to do. This man is not a teacher any Christian should sit under.  

List of References

---

[1] Peterson, Jordan B.. 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (p. 196). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

[2] Peterson, Jordan B.. 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (p. 103). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

[3] Peterson, Jordan B.. 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (p. 182, 189). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Not Sorry

 

Here are two of my reflections on National Sorry day and Sorry Week here in Australia, which I have posted elsewhere:

Firstly it is abusive:

“Telling someone they must say sorry for something someone else did, that they had no control or authority over, is spiritual and emotional abuse.

It's designed to keep a person down. Or a society down.

It's not Christian to support this perpetual sorriness. It's a twisted antichristian spin on Christian themes. Those who push it should be ashamed of themselves.”

Secondly, it really is abusive:

“There are married couples where one partner commits adultery and then repents and they manage to get over it, and move on and have a happy marriage. True forgiveness and reconciliation has happened in this situation. They have put the past behind them.

But there are marriages where adultery happens and they start to move on, the offending partner repents, and bends over backwards to grow and avoid the mistakes they made leading to their terrible sin. But the other spouse uses the sin as a perpetual weapon to dominate them, perpetually crush them, and continue to get revenge for the rest of their married lives. They use it to drive the offending spouse into the ground, breaking them. No amount of sorries is ever enough. This marriage either ends in a bitter partnership that saps both people of their dignity, or in one spouse running for the hills.

The architects of national sorry day have based it on this perverted twisted spin on sorry and reconciliation. And what's worse is they are using it to attempt to guilt people who never committed the sin.

To participate in this is shameful. And frankly it is more than a little abusive.”

I actually believe that many indigenous Australians were wronged by the colonial settler movement. Could you imagine what it was like for these very primitive indigenous peoples to encounter the, to them, highly advanced British settlers, and be powerless in the face of their advancing modern society?

A good example of how this would have felt is found in the story the War of the Worlds. In this story advanced aliens come and annihilate human civilisation. Human armies cannot stand up to their power. It is only because of the sheer luck of a virus that humanity is saved from extension. But for the indigenous Australians it was often the case that they were powerless to maintain their land and hunting grounds, and, on top of that, the viruses that existed in that day hit them even harder. This would create a profound personal and cultural shock.

But neither the indigenous people alive today are those who were wronged, nor are the modern European Australians responsible for what happened to them. These are historical wrongs that are long in the past. And that is even if you grant that it was all negative, which many people would debate anyway. I certainly would debate this, as would many others. 

It is not godly to keep bringing up the past and calling this reconciliation. It is the very opposite.  

Population Decline is Not The Problem

 

Population decline is not the terrible thing that people make it out to be. Western birthrates are on the decline, that is true. But western populations are so large, that such decline would not even have a chance of becoming catastrophic. What is more likely to happen, and has been observed to happen many times in the past, is that instead of undermining society, declining birth rates would have a refining and transforming effect.

Population decline would naturally achieve several things:

1) Property values would decrease. This is because there would be less demand on all existing properties. City centres would become more affordable for the young people who need to work in those centres, and who are currently locked out of being able to afford to live anywhere near them. This is a good thing and a necessary thing. Too much money in our country is locked up in unproductive land wealth, rather than in actual productivity. Anything which reversed this trend would be a long term positive for our nation. Also large farms and other land would also become more affordable, meaning more people could buy into such businesses and be productive and profitable.

2) It would change the wealth distribution. The rapid decline of wealth during the black plague in Europe broke the European feudal system, and made the wage labourer more valuable than ever. This created new wealth, new businesses, and new opportunities. It broke many institutionalized barriers to success and wealth and made Europe more equitable for generations. It was this, not capitalism as many people mistakenly think, which created the middle class and made Europe great. Capitalism was more a result of this than the cause. The shattering of long stagnant landed aristocracies made it easier for ordinary people to trade and build wealth. It also forced wealthy but stagnant families to have to compete and be productive to keep their wealth. The nature of who was rich changed rapidly, working men rapidly became business moguls and competed with the landed classes. The wealthy aristocrats could no longer just afford to sit on land to stay rich, as many people actually do today as well, because the supply of cheap labour declined.

3) It would change politics also. This is because the electorates across the country would be weighted to an on average wealthier citizenry, and there would be less opportunity for governments to buy off voters. More people would have an ownership stake in society, something which has been on the decline for decades now. Democracy is not an ideal system in any way, but it has been conclusively shown to be more successful in smaller populations, made up of productive people with a stake in their society. It has been shown to be a terrible system in societies with lots of poor people who can just vote for handouts.

4) Child bearers would become more valuable. As the population declined women with childbearing ability, and men who were able to support them, would become much more valuable in the eyes of society, and more young men and women would aspire to be among both groups. This change would happen both at the top level in government, and at the lower levels in the eyes of the people. We see this happening in modern countries like Hungary which reject growing their population through immigration, the family unit becomes more highly prized. Being able to import workers shortcuts this, and basically means that most young women squander their young childbearing years in frivolous pursuits, because everyone has lost perspective on the value of child birth for society. In a society that is forced to grow its population the natural way, people’s attitudes towards family roles would be markedly different. And, even if this took a few generations to change, it would be changed by those who had those pro-family beliefs, because the childless do not pass their values on very well.

5) Society would get stronger on average. Weak, unproductive parts of society that could not adapt would begin to die. Like businesses that have gotten too used to cheap labour from a large population and could not adjust quickly. Things like that. It is the weakest branches on a tree that die when the ground is drier, but the tree that survives the drought is tougher.

The overall point, though, is that declining population rates actually improve the value of each person in society both economically and practically in every way. Plus declining birth rates always reverse anyway, except in very tiny and backward societies that have no ability to replace themselves through healthy births, of course. Artificially propping up population by importing “workers” who are really de facto-slave, or low income, workers and built in socialist voters, actually has the effect of making everybody, including those new immigrants, more expendable, because we are all easily replaced. All the government has to do if they have any trouble filling roles in any particular sector of the economy, or they have trouble getting votes in any electorate, is turn on the immigration spigot and they can claim job well done without actually having to do anything that is truly productive. Native peoples who complain about this are just sidelined and called bad names, and the system continues on towards creating an entrenched elite with no loyalty to their actual people.  

Declining birth rates would not and could not end the west. It would refine it. Immigration, on the other hand, actually can end a culture and nation. It has happened many times. The problem is therefore not declining birth rates, the problem is that governments are using this as an excuse to rob their citizens of their birthright.

 

Episode 7: To the Church in Sardis

 

Live streams can be found from 8pm to 9pm AEST at this channel here. Like and subscribe to get notifications for the livestreams.

(edit: you can watch the recording of the live stream at this link here). 

To the Church in Sardis

Background information

Sardis was a prosperous, yet small city in a region known formerly as Anatolia (which indeed is the same region all of the seven churches are found) until the early 20^th century, it is now called Turkey. Anatolia is a fascinating area, being credited with the oldest known structure (dated at about 9,000BC) called the Gobekli Tepe. This structure, by evolutionary reckonings of history, is thought to predate agriculture (which does not make sense really), and the bible would contradict this considering the first two sons were obviously farmers (Cain and Abel). In fact, there is a good case to be made that Adam was meant to farm the Garden of Eden. It makes sense for early humans to have been farmers since their parents had lived in a garden/farm called Eden; where we were created to work the land. Therefore farming is intrinsic to our creation. This contradicts the idea of theistic evolution which says (as does naturalistic evolution) that humans were first hunters and gatherers, and then evolved to a point where they decided to settle down and start farming. Farming is as ancient as historical records, so the argument that we were not first farmers is based on human assumptions, not good evidence.  

The title ‘Sardis’ is actually a plural word. This points to the city fortress which sat on top of a promontory, and next to the prosperous city of commerce, agricultural products, and related industry positioned on a level plane of the valley below. (Kistemaker)

The Top city could only be accessed by one road, so all attacking armies had to go that one way and could be funnelled into a narrow section of road and taken out at will. The rest of the city was protected by a high cliff, which was thought to be unassailable, and unclimbable. However in a time of war between King Croesus and Cyrus a soldier sitting at the top of the wall dropped his helmet and went down the cliff to retrieve it. He inadvertently showed the Persians that the wall could be climbed and so they did climb it and found there to be inadequate defences at the top. Cyrus was then able to defeat Croesus, making Sardis one of his principle cities. This happened in the 6^th century BC (546BC to be exact). Just a few decades after Jerusalem was destroyed (587BC), so the Jews would have been in captivity in Persia, as the Persian king was waging this war. Ironically, as people do, the future rulers of this city did not study their history (note after studying the Bible, the next most important subject is history, this is undeniable and unquestionable, if you do not believe me, study history and you will see why this is true 😉). In 214BC Antiochus the Great of Syria (a Macedonian ruler who was a descendant of one of Alexander the Greats generals; Seleucus) attacked the city and captured it in the same way as the Persians. They were able to do this because the then inhabitants had not bothered to study the historical weaknesses of the city in battle and therefore had not prepared for it. They had left the top of the cliff walls undefended again. Whoever says studying history is of no practical purpose is a fool.  

There was a thriving Jewish population in Sardis right up until the time of this letter and indeed beyond, who enjoyed citizenship and filled leading positions on the ruling council. However, they are not seen as opposing the church of Sardis in this letter. Kistemaker points out that this is likely because “the gospel that the local Christians proclaimed and applied was too weak to be offensive to the Jews.” This was also the case with the pagan religions. Obviously, the Sardinian Christians were too weak a Kingdom force to cause ripples in the false religions of Sardis. This was only not true of a few (3:4) who had not soiled their robes.

One of the principal gods of Sardis was Artemis (Greek) or Diana (Roman). These two gods hold the same place in both the Greek and Roman Pantheons and they are connected, though Diana probably rose separately in Italy, before being associated with being the same deity as Artemis. She is the goddess of the moon, the hunt and fertility. She is often pictured with a bow and arrow and with animals; that she has obviously hunted.

 Here is Artemis drawing an arrow while holding a deer captured on one of her hunts.

Here is Diana, which was the Roman name for Artemis. Notice the similarities.

Here is a modern drawing of Artemis, and under it a picture of Artemis Wonder Woman who was based on this ancient Greek goddess. Indeed, Diana, the most famous Wonder Woman with dark hair, was based on Roman goddess Diana, their version of Artemis. This was a done deliberately by the DC comic group, who actually do tend to study their history to some degree. There are still pagans who worship Artemis, and other Greek gods, as I found while I was researching this topic.  

These are the ancient ruins of the temple of Artemis in Sardis. As you can see it would have been grand once. Something which is important to note about Christianity is that it is the only religion in the world which does not require a temple building. Sometimes building debt can become too much of a focus for churches and really drag them down. This can divert billions of funds away from the work of gospel, while all the while being done in the name of the gospel. It is not wrong to have a building, or even a nice one, but we need to maintain some perspective. As you can see this is how they will all end up. But the real temple of God, his church, will live on forever in heaven.

Interestingly, Artemis is one of the few Greek gods which gets a mention in the New Testament. Acts 19:21-41 mentions some followers of Artemis in Ephesus who have rallied up against Paul. This is because his gospel preaching was so successful in that area it was starting to effect the sales of their idols, and this bothered the idol makers who made money by selling those false idols (shows what their true god was). Interesting how capitalism has a hold on people even in ancient times. What is also interesting is how people today get upset when religion interferes with their business, or money making schemes, but not just religion obviously. It is likely that Artemis gets a mention in the Bible simply because she was so widely loved, adored and worshipped, a bit like Ashtoreth in the Old Testament, the female god Jezebel was a promoter of (as well as Baal of course).  

The church in Sardis is a terrible church and the one which I believe most reflects the Australian church in general. We see Jesus in this passage urging people to wake up or God would let their church die. I think so far we have not woken up in this county, but as long as one believer remains God can work.

Let’s get into our passage:

1.     Why does Jesus introduce himself to this church in such a way? You may have noticed by now that he introduces himself to each church in unique ways.

1.1  I believe this is because it is the Spirit which gives life to the church, and Jesus is offering this church new life from the Spirit, if only they would reach out and take it. But there is also a threat here, because the seven stars in Christ’s hand are the ‘messengers’ of the seven churches, and Christ holds their life, as in Spiritual life, in his hands (Rom 8:13, 14).

 

2.     I once heard a pastor of a church say that their church had a great reputation in the community it was in for its worship music (ironically it was not a Pentecostal church, but a Baptist church). The church in Sardis had a reputation for being alive, but it is dead, stone cold spiritually dead. Where do you think your church sits? (Note Amos 5:16-24; Isaiah 58).

 

 

3.     V2, What are incomplete works? Who is being told to wake up? (Compare with 1 Cor 11:27-30).

 

4.     V3, What is it that this church has received and heard and failed to keep?

 

 

5.     V4, What makes someone worthy to walk in white?

 

 

6.     What is the negative implication of verse 5, or the implied threat? What is the positive encouragement?

 

 

Conclusion

One does not want their church to be like this one. Let us pray that we never hear these words, or similar from Christ about our fellowship.

How may we go about seeing that this is fulfilled?

 

 

 

  

 

They Lied About The Vax

 

In news that is news to absolutely no one who was paying proper attention:

“The Biden administration has been accused of purposefully covering up potentially deadly side effects of the Covid vaccines.

A Congressional investigation found White House officials held back warnings about heart damage from Covid vaccines in younger people, even after getting early alerts from other countries, including Israel.

Internal emails and memos suggest a planned Health Alert Network (HAN) message by the CDC regarding myocarditis - inflammation of the heart muscle - was not released.

Drafts of this alert reportedly downplayed risks, emphasizing vaccine benefits over potential adverse events, according to the report.

Emails indicate FDA officials, including then-Commissioner Janet Woodcock, expressed reservations about the language in the proposed HAN, leading to its suppression.

The Biden administration, the report alleges, gave former top infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci talking points to downplay the myocarditis risk, instructing them to say that the reported cases ‘have been mild and often go away without requiring treatment.’”[1]

I do not celebrate these after the fact reveals. I just expect them to come. The reason is that one of the things con artists like to do is reveal the con after the fact, so that they can show how they pulled the wool over your eyes. They almost always do this government narratives.

It is now well know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is now well known that much about what they said about going to war in the Middle East was based on lies. It is now well known that the United States had a good idea that Pearl Harbor was going to happen. More examples could be given. These grand narratives are designed to corral people into doing what the powers that be want them to do. Once the time of crisis, or manufactured crisis, is over, the reveals about the lies come in a flood.

The main take home point though is that when proven liars are telling you to do something and especially when they are seeking to pressure you to do something, you can be certain that they are conning you in one way or another. Don’t fall for it. Don’t let them pressure you. And never believe the government knows what is good for you medically. Since when did politicians know anything about being healthy? Since when did the best doctors become government mouthpieces and bureaucrats?

List of References

---

[1] Cassidy Morrison, 2025, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14736759/Biden-officials-hid-deadly-health-risks-COVID-vaccines-bombshell-Congressional-report-reveals.html

A Perennial Battle

 

As I have probably noted a couple of times I have been reading Plutarch’s Lives Volume 2 for a little while now. One thing that I have noted while going through Plutarch’s writing is that there were two main concerns for the great leaders of Rome and Greece. Those two main concerns were debt and war. They were always seeking to either extend their people’s boundaries through war, or secure their people’s safety through war. But also when they were not at war, many of the great leaders were seeking to address inequities in the city states and nations of the Mediterranean. This was an ongoing battle.

The more well-read Christians will know that the Jubilee was central to the theology of the Bible. But even many well-read Christians are not aware that the issue of debt forgiveness was a central and ongoing concern in the ancient world. Many nations in the classical era had notable periods and notable leaders where society wide debt forgiveness had been enacted. For the Greeks and Romans the greatest leaders were those who could subdue their enemies, and who could set their people at liberty, and by liberty I mean free them from slavery and debt, which was the same thing in this ancient world.

In fact, debt forgiveness was so common that it was often used in a cynical way. Great generals and politicians would use it to set free large numbers of captives and slaves and give them voting rights or places in the military in order to tip the scales in their balance. But whether used for cynical means or not, it was commonly understood that debt need to be cleared or dealt with, otherwise it could destroy your society. The Gracchi are famous examples of men who understood this and who fought for the relief of indebted Romans.

The Bible is thoroughly aware of how necessary this is. This is from something I am writing,

“The Scriptures recognize how the system can be turned against the people, how the wealthy can use their wealth to increase their own power and position and crush the poor. Because of this God set in place laws that required the cancelling of debts, for example the year of Jubilee in Leviticus 25, and other laws pertaining to releasing fellow Israelites who were enslaved through unfortunate circumstances and decisions. The Scriptures recognize that people are not equal, or the same, and because of this society will become unbalanced, and therefore the system needs to be reset from time to time. The great reset in the Bible is the concept of periodical freedom from debt. This is the context of Isaiah 61,

“1 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn…” (Isa. 61:1-2).

This passage, which many will recognize as being part of the foundation of the ministry of Jesus in Luke chapter 4, is intricately bound up in the biblical concept of periodically releasing people from their debts and the slavery incurred by debt, so the land would remain stable. Central to God’s judgement on the Israelites was their continual refusal to enact these laws of justice,

“13 Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I myself made a covenant with your fathers when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, saying, 14 ‘At the end of seven years each of you must set free the fellow Hebrew who has been sold to you and has served you six years; you must set him free from your service.’ But your fathers did not listen to me or incline their ears to me. 15 You recently repented and did what was right in my eyes by proclaiming liberty, each to his neighbor, and you made a covenant before me in the house that is called by my name, 16 but then you turned around and profaned my name when each of you took back his male and female slaves, whom you had set free according to their desire, and you brought them into subjection to be your slaves.

17 “Therefore, thus says the Lord: You have not obeyed me by proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother and to his neighbor; behold, I proclaim to you liberty to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine, declares the Lord. I will make you a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (Jer. 34:13-17).

God instituted a continual resetting of the economy so that people could be restored to their land and be able to provide for themselves, and continue to contribute to society. This was central to God’s ideal for his people, “And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan” (Lev. 25:10).

The simple response many conservatives will give to this examination of the need for debt forgiveness is that this was just something for ancient Israel. But this could not be further from the truth. Michael Hudson in his book …and forgive them their debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption From Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year, proves conclusively that the predatory rich who enslaved their populations were central to the collapse of the ancient Assyrian, Babylonian and other civilisations. The law of the word of God was written in this ancient context to seek to protect the Israelites from this same fate. This is the fate of all civilisations that allow debt to roll on unchecked. The predatory rich enslave their own people, weakening a society making it vulnerable to incursions from outside threats, this was true from Egypt to Rome and all the civilisations either side.”

We are not meant to live as extreme individualists. We are also not meant to live as just a cog in the collective machine. There is an intersection between our individual identities and our part to play in society, and debt forgiveness is relevant to this interplay.

I think the best way to explain this to conservative Christians is the idea of forgiveness in marriage. One of the keys in marriage is knowing that you should be quick to forgive, because if you do not even the best marriages can turn sour and turn into prisons, or worse, divorce. Forgiveness is key to stopping this from happening. It is incumbent on both the husband and the wife to not wrong each other. But it is just as necessary to quickly forgive those wrongs otherwise the relationship, the system, breaks down. It is incumbent on individuals to not make stupid financial choices. But it is just as necessary for the community to recognize that we are all often stupid, or unlucky, or both, and therefore there needs to be a societal mechanism for resets so that the system does not break. God understood this. So too did Caesar interestingly. But so too did many ancient peoples. We have forgotten this basic knowledge in our era.

It is time to remember it again. 

 

The Lion and the Lamb

 

My latest AI created song is based on Revelation 5. You can listen to this song here. This one is epic. I know some people have an aversion to use AI to do this sort of thing. But the creative possibilities are just incredible, and we can use this technology to lift up and worship our Lord greatly. This is exactly the kind of Christian song that I would like to be able to sing along to in the car, or even at church. And now we do not have to rely on the generally incredibly uncreative Christian musical industry.

Please, don’t let me discourage you if you like what the industry produces. That is good for you. And there are some incredible artists out there as well. But many are boring and now we can make the kind of music we personally really like with the kinds of lyrics that come straight from the Bible. I did not write these lyrics, I used a few prompts to get AI to create them based on Revelation 5.

We read in Revelation 5:

“5 Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals. ² And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” ³ And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, ⁴ and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. ⁵ And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”

⁶ And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. ⁷ And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. ⁸ And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. ⁹ And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll
    and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
    from every tribe and language and people and nation,
¹⁰ and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
    and they shall reign on the earth.”

¹¹ Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, ¹² saying with a loud voice,

“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might
and honor and glory and blessing!”

¹³ And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying,

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”

¹⁴ And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.”

 

Here are the lyrics:

[Verse]

I saw the book sealed up tight

No one worthy no one's right

Heaven wept but then he came

The lion lamb he broke the chain

 

[Chorus]

Worthy worthy break the seal

His blood the touch that makes us real

Every creature lift his name

Glory glory never shame

 

[Verse 2]

Seven horns seven eyes he stands

Power flows through wounded hands

Shouts and thunder fill the skies

Holy holy angels cry

 

[Chorus]

Worthy worthy break the seal

His blood the touch that makes us real

Every creature lift his name

Glory glory never shame

 

[Bridge]

Take the scroll the hosts all sing

Voices loud let praises ring

Honor wisdom riches bring

To the lamb the risen king

 

[Guitar Solo]

 

Pride Ruins Contentment

It is amazing to see how some men can have so much and yet be willing to lose it all to have some more. We read this about Pyrrhus in Plutarch’s Lives:

“These brought gifts to Pyrrhus, and told him they wanted a leader of reputation and prudence, and that he would find there large forces gathered from Lucania, Messapia, Samnium, and Tarentum, amounting to two thousand horse and three hundred and fifty thousand foot all told. This not only exalted Pyrrhus himself, but also inspired the Epcirots with eagerness to undertake the expedition.

Now, there was a certain Cineas, a man of Thessaly, with a reputation for great wisdom, who had been a pupil of Demosthenes the orator, and was quite the only public speaker of his day who was thought to remind his hearers, as a statue might, of that great orator's power and ability. Associating himself with Pyrrhus, and sent by him as ambassador to the cities, he confirmed the saying of Euripides, to wit, “all can be won by eloquence that even the sword of warring enemies might gain."

At any rate, Pyrrhus used to say that more cities had been Won for him by the eloquence of Cineas than by his own arms; and he continued to hold Cineas in especial honour and to demand his services. It was this Cineas, then, who, seeing that Pyrrhus was eagerly preparing an expedition at this time to Italy, and finding him at leisure for the moment, drew him into the following discourse. "The Romans, O Pyrrhus, are said to be good fighters, and to be rulers of many warlike nations; if, then, Heaven should permit us to conquer these men, how should we use our victory?"

And Pyrrhus said, "Thy question, O Cineas, really needs no answer, the Romans once conquered, there is neither barbarian nor Greek city there which is a match for us, but we shall at once possess all Italy, the great size and richness and importance of which no man should know better than thyself'.'

After a little pause, then, Cineas said, "And after taking Italy, O King, what are we to do?"

And Pyrrhus, not yet perceiving his intention, replied, "Sicily is near, and holds out her hands to us, an island abounding in wealth and men, and very easy to capture, for all is faction there, her cities have no government, and demagogues are rampant now that Agathocles is gone."

"What thou sayest,” replied Cineas, "is probably true; but will our expedition stop with the taking of Sicily?"

"Heaven grant us," said Pyrrhus, "victory and success so far; and we will make these contests but the preliminaries of great enterprises. For who could keep his hands off Libya, or Carthage, when that city got within his reach, a city which Agathocles, slipping stealthily out of Syracuse and crossing the sea with a few ships, narrowly missed taking? And when we have become masters here, no one of the enemies who now treat us with scorn will offer further resistance; there is no need of saying that."

"None whatever," said Cineas, "for it is plain that with so great a power we shall be able to recover Macedonia and rule Greece securely. But when we have got everything subject to us, what are we going to do?"

Then Pyrrhus smiled upon him and said, awe shall be much at ease, and we'll drink bumpers, my good man, every day, and we'll gladden one another’s hearts with confidential talks.”

And now that Cineas had brought Pyrrhus to this point in the argument he said, "Then what stands in our way now if we Want to drink bumpers and while away the time with one another? Surely this privilege is ours already, and we have at hand, without taking any trouble, those things to which we hope to attain by bloodshed and great toils and perils, after doing much harm to others and suffering much ourselves."

By this reasoning of Cineas Pyrrhus was more troubled than he was converted; he saw plainly what great happiness he was leaving behind him, but was unable to renounce his hopes of what he eagerly desired.”[1]

The rest of Pyrrhus’ life is history. Literally. From him comes the term “Pyrrhic victory” for he was able to defeat the Romans in battle, but it was observed by one of the his men that the cost of his victories would ensure his defeat. Pyrrhus could defeat Roman legions, but he could not get Rome to sue for peace, and ultimately he was forced to withdraw, and he ended up losing much of what he already had. He died because a woman threw a tile at his head and while he was still recovering himself he was taken and beheaded by one of his enemies.  

I cannot help but wonder if Paul had someone like Pyrrhus in mind when he wrote this,

“6 But godliness with contentment is great gain, 7 for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. 8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs” (1 Tim. 6:6-10).

Now, of course Pyrrhus wanted more than just wealth, he wanted basically world domination over the Mediterranean. He wanted to be great like Alexander. But how many people look at what they do not have and so covet it that they lose everything they already have. They “pierce themselves with many pangs.”

Godliness with contentment cannot be commended enough. God may choose to add to you much more than you currently have. But if you are not content to enjoy what you have now being gifted more will not solve this, and you may end up with far less and lose much in godless pursuits for more shiny things. Pride ruins contentment and can cause you to destroy yourself.

Pyrrhus was a great general of history. But his over estimation of himself caused him to bring himself to ruin. Don’t make that mistake in your own life.

List of References

---

[1] Plutarch’s Lives Volume 2, Castalia Library, pp. 534-535