Book Sale

Thursday 28 March 2024

Of The Antichrist

 


Israel really shouldn't be divisive for Christians.

Judaism is an antichrist religion (1 John 2:22). In fact, it is by definition, as it was the very first religion to reject Christ, and the example to those other religions that did so. This is a core tenet of Christianity and Orthodox Judaism.

Israel is not a Christian country. It is a country where Christians are barely permitted at best and sometimes persecuted. Only Christians are God's people (1 Peter 2:9-10; 1 John 3), so we have no natural affinity with the country, either spiritually or ethnically, it's just another country filled with lost people. 

Therefore, all Christians should see Israel as a largely godless country, just like Australia, Belgium, Canada or Vietnam, that needs vast missionary work to bring back to Christ. A nation in need of hearing about God, because if you don't know Jesus, you can't know God. This is all basic Christian stuff.

So why is it so divisive?

Because a large segment of the Church, mostly influenced by American teaching, from a theology that originated in Britain, has taken the most divisive thing in Christianity, eschatology, or end times teaching, and dragged it into the foreground of the present day and said, "See, we are in the final, or close to final generation, because this has all been fulfilled." They have made a tertiary thing, almost a primary emphasis.

In other words, a large section of the church has taken the most disputable parts of Scripture, developed a novel interpretation that dates back less than 200 years, and brought it to the forefront of their emphasis in a major way. As if theology were not already divisive enough, it gets far worse when people bring to the forefront the most difficult passages in the Bible, which have always caused massive disagreement in the church.

This has happened before. In the Reformation many chiliastic groups believed they were in the actual fulfilment of Revelation, that the pope was clearly the last Antichrist, and they got behind all sorts of political expressions of this theology, and the result was war (see the Debacle at Muster as one example), divisions like the Church had never seen, and disasters across Christendom. In fact, these disasters helped ensure the decline of Christendom. Because the divisive nature of it all drove much of Europe, especially among the powerful and influential, to Deism. The exact nature of these groups beliefs is not relevant. What is relevant is how they brought the most divisive passages of Scripture to the foreground and made them their focus.

Large segments of the Church are doing this today.

Take eschatology out of the picture, and Israel are an unsaved nation that needs evangelising just like any other nation. Any Christian of any theology can see this.

But bring back in a radical interpretation of Eschatology, that steps outside of Church history, and now Israel are God's people in a desperate fight to reclaim the Holy Land. And those who criticize them are attacking God's people. Therefore, beware!

Eschatology has always been divisive. Through most of Church history, the church teachers put it to the side as a second order or even third order doctrine. Orthodox Churches simply proclaimed the return of Christ. But when enough of the Church forgets how important it is to do this, it can have massive negative political implications which even effect world politics.

This is something to think about.

Even if your eschatology is right, and it's presumptuous for any of us to think that way, when an eschatology creates such an unhealthy focus, that should be a warning sign that something is amiss. Especially if it changes your view on who the people of God are. The Bible is not unclear about that. All who are in Christ are of God, all who are not are not of God. This clarity should be prioritized over the unclarity of eschatology.

Tuesday 26 March 2024

Bringing Disrepute Upon The Church

 

This is a bit of an old article, and I may have even referred to it in the past. But it is an even older story, as old as our faith, and this article was just shared by someone on my friends list on social media, and I think it bears further comment.  

“Megachurch pastor tells his congregation his newly built 16,000-square-foot house is gift from God

Pastor Steven Furtick of the Elevation megachurch in North Carolina has built a $1.7 million home

He told his congregation on Sunday that the home is a gift from God

Elevation Church and Furtick will not disclose what he is paid by the church or the church's earnings

Furtick's salary and benefits are not decided by an elected board of elders or his congregation

A panel of five 'appointed' members who are all pastors of megachurches decide Furtick's pay

The pastor of a North Carolina megachurch has built a $1.7 million mansion for himself and his family which he told his congregation at Sunday's sermon is a 'gift from God.'

Elevation Church Pastor Steven Furtick, 33, is unapologetic about his ostentatious new seven-and-a-half bathroom, 16,000-square-foot home built on 19 acres in Weddington.

He spent the first part of his sermon talking about the controversy surrounding its construction and apologizing to his parishioners for any 'uncomfortable conversations,' they may have been forced to have about it.”[1]

On occasion I get down my volume 2 of Plutarch's lives and have a read of one or two of the stories in there.[2] Plutarch's lives is a two-volume set of history about the greatest men of ancient Rome and Greece, written by an ancient great man of Rome himself, Plutarch.

One of the most consistent themes you see in this book is that good men generally do not live large. They almost always live very simply, so simply in fact, that it often shocks their opponents and friends alike. For example, one man, Phocion, received a gift from Alexandar the Great for 100 Talents, that's a lot of money. That is never having to work another day in your life kind of money. That is striking oil kind of money. Phocion sent it back. He did not want it. Often these great men show similar character with money and possessions. In fact, the famous lifestyle of leading your country and then going back to humbly live on your land was an ancient Roman ideal. A man who was beyond the temptations of wealth and power and only wanted good for his people, was their idea of the epitome of a man. A bit like Mel Gibson’s character in the patriot who is forged in a very similar manner.

The reason these men lived this way, is that they knew that even the perception of corruption could undermine their just life and just cause. So, they avoided even the perception of living like kings. Even though it was within their means, through honest gain. Perception matters and a political or religious leader who obviously lives large gives the appearance of a man that can be bought, or has been bought. 

So, this principle is something that has been recognized outside the Bible and inside the Bible. Pastors who live large never make the Church look good, they always bring it bad repute, and no amount of your trying to wish this away will change that fact. Some Christians will defend this to the hilt, and then some church will have its books revealed and they will be like, "Oh wait, they were doing what with the money?" 

So, honest gain or not, wise Christian leaders don't try to live the lifestyles of Jesus' most consistent opponents, the well off, because they know how this looks. This is why almost every traditional Christian denomination in history has asked its priests to take vows of poverty, or has determined moderate wages that allow pastors to support a family and not struggle. Going beyond this will always bring the Church into disrepute in the eyes of many. This was true in Ancient Greece, Rome and other civilisations, before Jesus walked this earth. It will be true in a thousand years, if we are still here. It is only very foolish denominations in times of great corruption in the church which ignore this wisdom.

How much is enough to support a family? There is a decent range in there. But most wise denominations have worked out that around about, or just above or below the average wage is sensible.

Someone will bring up some Old Testament Patriarch to try and contradict this, but they one) fail to understand why God made patriarchs rich, he was building a nation, two) we are talking about Christianity here, not Judaism and they are not the same thing. Show me a New Testament Christian minister known for living large and I'll consider your argument. Those who had wealth, and are mentioned, are known for giving large amounts of it away, which is why they are mentioned.

The Church of the West needs to reclaim the practice of not encouraging pastors to live large. It does so much damage to the Church's reputation. What is interesting is that you don't have to be a Christian to understand this, but I think you have to be a Christian to not see be able this. Interesting, isn't it? Jesus did say the people of this world were far shrewder with money. 

List of References


[2] I’ll read volume 1 once I am done. I treat it more as an occasional read than a book to get through. I chose to read them out of order because I wanted to do some reading on the Roman men in volume 2 for some research a while back.

Monday 25 March 2024

Evils Worse Than Islam In The West

 



People forget how much God wanted to bless Ishmael too,

"20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year" (Gen. 17:20-21).

If God treats Ishmael this good, I wonder how he thinks about how the West treats Ishmael's descendants, the people of the Arab nations?

People forget that before there was ever a church in London, Berlin, New York or Brisbane, that the Arab peoples were filling churches in their own land and taking the gospel far. Some of these churches still stand to this day.  

No people is made to be cursed without redemption. And redemption squandered brings about a worse curse. Because the latter state is worse than the former, as Peter the Apostle himself said,

“20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire” (2 Peter 2:20-22).  

If the low state of the descendants of Ishmael in the world today, relatively speaking, is because they rejected, in large part, the message of God. Imagine how bad it will be for the West, which has chosen evils even worse than Islam.

Some people might think, "How can you get worse evils than Islam?" Well, that is how depraved humanity is, it is capable of thinking up and applying many types and levels of evil. But it is really very simple to answer this question. How is the evil that has overcome the West, worse than Islam? Countries can flourish, even prosper under Islam, many have, for centuries. Today some of the wealthiest and most industrious parts of the world, places with influence and power over much of the world, are nations where Islam is the dominant religion. Islam may be oppressive, but it is also conducive to preserving the family and the nation and that is the key point. Anything that conserves the family and the nation is better than that which does not, even if it is not an ultimate good. Whereas whatever you want to call the evil that has overcome the West, whether Communism, Marxism, Feminism, Satanism, Globalism, GAE, or whatever else, it is not capable of sustaining either the family or the nation, hence the massive birth rate declines, and the massive reliance on immigration to plug those holes.

The evil that grips the West is worse. This is a pretty confronting truth to ponder, because for so long now the West has considered itself the good guys on the world stage, but it is a dying civilisation rotting from the core, and it can no longer sustain itself without fresh minted citizens and fake money; both being things that'll backfire in the end. We may be shocked how low the Western nations can fall on the ladder of the nations, before it hits rock bottom and does the soul searching required to make itself great again. But we should not be shocked that this is what happens when a nation rejects the Lord Jesus Christ in such large and thorough measure.  

Saturday 23 March 2024

Get Checked, Now, For Cancer

 



I haven’t written about covid on my blog for some time, one reason is that I generally tend to prefer writing about what I am reading about, or things of general interest to me, and the other is that we live in a context where most people have made up their minds on this issue and it is rare to bring someone around now. The globalist elites have managed to get away with one of the greatest heists and greatest cons in the modern world, maybe not perfectly, but at least so far in large measure and most people just want to leave it behind them now.

But the aftermath of their worldwide medical experiment is becoming clearer to at least some of us. You cannot manipulate the human immune system so massively and not have massive down flow effects. One of those things that many people are noticing is how many people are now getting cancer, and how aggressively they are getting it. Many people are seeing previously healthy loved ones, or relatively healthy in the sense of being cancer free loved ones, going down to cancers very quickly, and it is hard not to draw a correlation from the not-vax that was given to people just a couple of years ago.

One of the things that people predicted would be increased cancer rates, rates that would make it hard for the authorities to continue to deny what was happening. Of course, they continue to point in other directions, while admitting that there is a massive observed and predicted increase in cancers,

“Global cancer cases are predicted to rise by more than 75% by 2050, according to the World Health Organization.

Latest figures from the WHO’s cancer arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, makes plain the growing burden of cancer, rising from 14.1 million new cases and 8.2 million deaths worldwide in 2012 to 20 million new cases and 9.7 million deaths a decade later. The IARC predicts there will be more than 35 million new cancer cases by 2050, an increase of 77% from 2022 levels, and that deaths will have nearly doubled since 2012 to more than 18 million.

The IARC said tobacco use, alcohol consumption and obesity were key factors behind the increasing incidence of cancer, as well as population ageing and growth.”[1]

Of course, all those things are known causes of cancer. But none of those things was invented and put into people in the last two years, out of the blue.



And it is not just unhealthy people who are coming down with cancers all of the sudden.

 


It is also healthy people with the best possible healthcare and health advice in the world who are getting unexpected cancers early in life. Something is up.

Official Australian data shows that cancer rates have increased in Australia, though they are mostly put down to increases in population over time, and an aging population,

“In 2000, there were around 88,000 cases of cancer diagnosed in Australia. By 2023, it is estimated there will be around 165,000 cases of cancer diagnosed in Australia. This 88% increase in the span of just over 20 years is mainly due to increases in population size and increasing numbers of people reaching older ages for which cancer rates are higher.

Had the cancer incidence rates from 2000 for the various age groups remained constant between 2000 and 2023 there would be around 154,000 cases of cancer diagnosed in Australia in 2023 – an increase of around 66,000 cases. This number is reflective of increases due to population size and the ageing population alone. The additional 11,000 cases to arrive at the estimated 165,000 cases is indicative of the increase due to increasing cancer rates. Overall, around 86% of the estimated increase of cancer incidence increase between 2000 and 2023 levels is attributable to population increase and the ageing population alone.”[2]

But it is also noted that there is an “increase due to increasing cancer rates.” Cancer is going up more than it should, “By 2033, with increasing population and estimated increasing rates of cancer, it is estimated there will be over 200,000 cases of cancer diagnosed in Australia.”[3]

There is more cancer, but it is also more survivable,

“The age-adjusted cancer incidence rate increased from 584 cases per 100,000 people in 2000 to an estimated 626 cases per 100,000 people in 2023. Over the corresponding period, age-adjusted cancer mortality rates decreased from 255 deaths per 100,000 people to an estimated 195 deaths per 100,000 people (Figure 1). Increasing cancer survival rates increase the gap between incidence and mortality rates.”[4]

So, even the official data, which seeks to explain much of the increase by noting increased population levels, admits that the rates of cancer per 100,000 people, that is per capita, are increasing. So, it is not just about population levels, or aging, though they are both factors. The good news is that there is now a 71% chance of surviving cancer, as opposed to a 51% chance in 2000.[5] Which is good motivation to get checked early.

Some of you may think it is in poor taste to mention Princess Middleton in this discussion. But she is a high-profile example of a disturbing new trend of increased cancer rates in the younger generations. She is not much older than myself, and much healthier than most people my age. But scientists are asking the question:

“Too young: why are Australians under 50 increasingly being diagnosed with cancer? Scientists think the rise in early-onset diagnoses may be the result of lifestyle changes and more exposure to risk factors – but questions remain.”[6]

“Doctors across the world are sounding the alarm over a surging epidemic of young people being diagnosed with cancers more commonly associated with the elderly.”[7]

“Nearly every continent is experiencing an increase of various types of cancer in people under 50 years old, which is particularly problematic as the disease tends to be caught in later stages in this population because most doctors aren't trained to look for it in young people.

The disparities of rates and types of the disease are puzzling scientists and have prompted some to kick off multi-decade research projects that will involve hundreds of thousands of people from around the world.”[8]

You may say 42 is not young, but it is in terms of certain types of cancer.

Admittedly the researchers are noting that these increases in cancer rates have been happening for some decades now. But they are increasing, and it has only come to the attention of many people in the last few years.

Are we right to see some correlation between the experimental vaccine and increased cancers? Well, consider this, though there is a current media narrative that cancer rates have been steadily increasing year on year for decades, not so long ago the opposite was noted:

“In 2020 there were 288,753 new cases of cancer diagnosed in England. Incidence rates (the number of new diagnoses adjusted for changes in the size and structure of the population) rose between 1995 and 2013 but have since fallen each year apart from 2018.

2020 saw a large fall in new cases and the rate of cancer relative to the population. However, it should be noted that the Covid-19 pandemic had an impact on cancer testing and diagnostic services throughout the year.”[9]

Up until 2020 cancer rates had begun a near decade long decline. In Britiain now? Well we read in the BMJ,

“Although four major sites influenced the overall pattern of cancer incidence and mortality, increases in rates among some of the less common sites do raise concerns. Four cancers showed substantial increases in incidence (more than 2% per annum) in both sexes: liver, melanoma skin, oral, and kidney cancers. All have strong associations with established risk factors: alcohol consumption, smoking, and HPV for oral cancer; overweight and obesity, smoking, alcohol, and hepatitis B and C for liver cancer; ultraviolet light for melanoma; and obesity and smoking for kidney cancer.”[10]

So, we see evidence of an uptick of some cancers, when we had evidence of a decline before-hand.

Of course, you may not find this convincing. But how many people have been thinking, “Wow, a lot of people are getting cancer right now.” Perhaps some more detailed research could bear out enough evidence to convince even the most ardent sceptic, but that is not my purview, or my concern. If you got the vaccine you want to be sure you are ok. Get checked. Get checked now. Maybe you have nothing to worry about. But you did take an experimental MRNA gene therapy, people predicted a possible result could be increased cancer rates, and we see these increased cancer rates. Correlation does not equal causation, but it shows us where to look.

Get checked, get checked now, and if you have already had cancer prior to this last couple of years get checked doubly quick.

List of References



[2] https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/cancer-data-in-australia/contents/overview-of-cancer-in-australia-2023

[8] https://www.msn.com/en-ae/health/other/global-cancer-phenomenon-its-not-just-america-the-uk-japan-south-africa-and-australia-are-among-dozens-of-countries-suffering-mystery-spikes-of-all-different-kinds-of-tumors-in-young-people/ar-BB1jXAJe 

Thursday 21 March 2024

Women, Victims or Perpetrators of Abortion?

 



Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in our modern world. The simplistic view is that there is a divide between pro-life and pro-choice. This should be the only real divide, those on the right, as in the right side of the issue are pro-life and anti-abortion, and those left on the wrong side of the issue are those okay with snuffing out a young child’s life in the womb. In a world where the moral poles of north, south, east and west, actually pointed north, south, east and west, this would not only be the correct divide, those on the pro-abortion side of the argument would be considered deranged. But, we live in a world that has corrupted so many values and morals in so many ways, that which ought to be believed and affirmed is often rejected.

But this is not the only divide on this issue. There is another divide, the accountability divide. Should women be held accountable for their abortions? Another way to phrase this would be to ask, “Are women who have abortions, victims as well?” I have always found this perspective shocking, but it is actually very common, this idea that there are two victims in most abortions, the child and the mother of the child. I have seen it often asserted by prominent pro-life advocates that abortion is not a power women have, but a power men have over women, and something women do because they are helpless. The narrative on the prominent pro-life right is that generally women are pressured into, or made to feel pressured into abortion, by bad men. To give these people credit, they are correctly against abortion, and therefore this is an inhouse debate, but they miss the mark widely on this issue, because the fact of the matter is that abortion is a feminist right, advocated for and defended strongly by feminists, to empower women. It is not a power men hold over women, but a power women hold over the child in the womb. So, the rhetoric that women who have abortions are just as much victims as the children being aborted, falls short, because it does not point to the truth of the situation.

This does not mean some women are not coerced into having abortions. There are plenty of anecdotal examples of this, and every pro-life advocate can draw on a few accounts of this having actually happened to someone they know, or have spoken to at least. This reality must be acknowledged. It is evil, and must be condemned, and the men and families involved in this coercion should face harsh sanctions. However, research, admittedly tentative research, shows that woman are much more likely to be pressured to continue pregnancy than to abort it.[1] It has also been claimed that 15% of abortions are the result of coercion by some pro-life advocates. However, this number comes out of a UK study that found that 15% of the women surveyed had faced coercive pressure to get an abortion, it did not actually state whether they went through with it.[2] So, this number is not reliable. In fact, it would seem to indicate that some number less than 15% of abortions are the result of coercion, because not every woman who was pressured gave into that coercion. This supports the other study, that the vast majority of abortions are not the result of partner, or other, coercion.

This appears to be the conclusion that other researchers have found too,

“For most women in Australia, the decision about whether or not to have a baby is a profoundly personal one. But for some, control over this decision is taken away from them, usually by an abusive male partner. This can happen via the use of verbal pressure, threats, blackmail, physical violence or rape.

In 2010, researchers in the US came up with the term “reproductive coercion” to describe these behaviours. Since then, some work has been done, primarily in US family planning clinics, to help understand reproductive coercion.

Despite this, it mostly remains a hidden issue. We don’t know how common it is, and it’s very likely (as with most forms of violence against women) it’s grossly under-reported. The US National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey suggested around 8% of respondents had experienced reproductive coercion in their lifetimes, although the survey only asked about a limited range of behaviours.

In Australia, we don’t have any reliable prevalence data. But Queensland organisation Children By Choice reported they’re seeing it in around one in seven women presenting for abortions.”[3]

1 in 7 equals about 14%. So, while this number is still too high, it is far below the majority.

I sympathize strongly with women who have been coerced into an abortion by a violent man, or by others. Women are the weaker vessel, as the Apostle Peter tells us, and a violent man can be a terror to a fragile and vulnerable woman. These cases obviously do exist, and should be addressed. But every data point shows far less women are coerced into having an abortion than those who actually choose to have one.

The reasons often given for abortion are, “financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%). Most women reported multiple reasons for seeking an abortion crossing over several themes (64%).”[4] Someone might latch onto the mention of “partner related reasons” as proof for a much higher rate of coerced abortions, but this is further explained,

“Almost one-third (31%) of study respondents gave reasons relating to their partner. For example, some individuals said they did not have a good or stable relationship with their partner or that their partner was unsupportive. Around 8% wanted to get married before having children. Others mentioned that they had a partner who was abusive or who did not want the baby.”[5]

Partner coercion is a subcategory of “partner related reasons”, but not the whole of it. Again no one is denying that some women are coerced into having an abortion, but it is not the norm.

Interestingly, 20% of women said they had an abortion simply because it would interfere with their life goals and future opportunities.[6] So, in the vast array of reasons, the number of women who abort a child just for career reasons is far higher than those who are coerced into having one.

So, as can be seen, there is simply no way that one can say that the vast majority of abortions are not a women’s personal choice. The Conversation appears to have hit the nail on the head when it stated, “For most women in Australia, the decision about whether or not to have a baby is a profoundly personal one.” It is something most women who have an abortion choose willingly. 

The continued over-emphasis on coerced abortions is a right-wing talking point, that garners lots of sympathy from men and women in the pro-life camp, but fails to gain traction in the abortion debate, because it is rhetoric that does not comport with most women’s experience with abortion. Most women who have abortions are not victims.

For the vast majority of women who are pro-abortion, abortion is a right that they intend to defend, because they believe without it they do not have autonomy,

“Women Can’t Be Free If They Don’t Control Their Bodies,” read a placard held by a pregnant Jennifer Lawrence on Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. on Saturday. The Academy Award-winning actress was present at one of many marches held throughout the country to support abortion access in the wake of the recent rollback of human rights for over 50 percent of the population in Texas. By J-Law’s side was Amy Schumer, who held a Center for Reproductive Rights sign that said: “Abortion Is Essential.”[7]

Abortion, then, is more of an act of defiance, of women seeking a power over nature, that God has not afforded them, but which they take anyway. It is a way of asserting dominance in an area where God has commanded chastity or marriage, not abortion. This is the reality of the reason behind the majority of abortions. Some are coerced, many, many more are choices made by the woman, so that they do not have to live with the consequences of their sexual choices. The degree to which the men involved in these pregnancies have a part in this decision would vary, but it is not really the main issue, because men don’t have abortion rights. The main issue is many of the advocates want this choice, because they believe without it they cannot be truly free.

As Michelle Williams said in her Golden Globe acceptance speech,

“I’m grateful for the acknowledgment of the choices I’ve made, and I’m also grateful to have lived at a moment in our society where choice exists. Because as women and as girls, things can happen to our bodies that are not our choice.

I’ve tried my very best to live a life of my own making, and not just a series of events that happened to me, but one that I could stand back and look at and recognize my handwriting all over—sometimes messy and scrawling, sometimes careful and precise, but one that I had carved with my own hand. And I wouldn’t have been able to do this without employing a woman’s right to choose: to choose when to have my children, and with whom.”[8]

These are not fringe perspectives in the abortion debate. They are the mainstream, and the data on why women have abortions appears to show they are also the norm, the vast majority.

Therefore, the rhetoric of much of the prominent pro-life advocates in Australia that banning abortion is about protecting women from being coerced into having abortions, is rhetoric that is dead on arrival, because it does not point to the truth which encompasses the full reality of the situation. It points to a mere sub-category of what is happening, and therefore it cannot land successfully. I have personally seen women laugh off the suggestion that they are victims because they have had an abortion. I am sure there are women who genuinely feel that they are. But the vast majority of the pro-abortion crowd do not see it that way. Not all women are going to wear the right proudly and loudly, but nor are the majority claiming to be victims. They would say: It is a right. A sacred woman’s right. A right men should not be allowed to touch, that allows women to function in society like men and not be held back by their biology. That is the dominant view for pro-abortion advocates.

The kind of rhetoric we use should be based on that truth. When the sinner tells you why they love their sin, you have to hit them with the truth of the word of God on that issue. Someone sent me this tweet, and it is what prompted me to write this article, because the author is on the money:

“Perhaps the most controversial position abortion abolitionists hold is that mothers who have abortions should be penalized. But the witness of church history affirms this stance:

"She who has deliberately destroyed a fetus must bear the penalty for murder. Moreover those who aid her, who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb, are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons."

 — Basil of Caesarea (Canons 118.2)

"We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God. The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God's care."

 — Athenagoras (A Plea for the Christians 35.6)

"Those who use abortifacients to hide their fornication cause not only the outright murder of the fetus but of the whole human race."

 — Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 2.10.96)

"They deny in their very womb their own progeny. By use of parricidal mixtures they snuff out the fruit of their wombs. In this way life is taken before it is given. Who except man himself has taught us ways of repudiating our own children?"

 — Ambrose (Hexameron 5.16.58)

"They who drink potions to ensure sterility are guilty of rebuffing God's own blessings. Some, when they learn that the potions have failed and thus are with child through sin, practice abortion by use of still other potions. They are then guilty of three crimes: self-mutilation, adultery, and the murder of an unborn child."

 — Jerome (Letter to Eustochium 22.13)

"They provoke women to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to murder the unborn child."

 — Augustine (On Marriage 1.17.15)

In other words, those who insist that women are second victims of abortion are undeniably outside of Christian orthodoxy on this matter.[9]

Rather than excuse women who have had abortions as victims, they should be shown why they are murderers. Of course, those who were coerced by abusive boyfriends or husbands should be extended extra grace. And even those who chose to have abortions of their own freewill can be forgiven; Paul the Apostle, was a murderer and repented and became a great leader in the early Church. But we do no one a service by not assigning accountability where it should be assigned. There is a strange tendency in conservative circles to not want to ascribe full responsibility to the vast majority of women who have chosen to have abortions. I won’t get into why I think this is, because it leads into speculation, but we can say for certain that those who do this are in error.

One thing we know from the Scriptures is that a correct preaching of the law of God as applied to the sinner to bring contrition for sin is the most successful way of bearing the fruit of repentance in that same sinner. In other words, how can we seek to turn around a great sin, if we don’t use the right rhetoric, based in solid realities, that creates the right response in the person to which it is directed? The answer is we can’t. Just as you can’t get a genuine response to the gospel, with a false message of salvation preached, no matter how real the emotion is. You cannot create the right godly sorrow without the right application of biblical truth. Hence, much modern pro-life advocacy fails to land.

The ancient church understood this, obviously better than we do.

List of References



[1] Karen Trister Grace and Jocelyn C. Anderson, 2016, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577387/

[6] Ibid.

Monday 18 March 2024

Palestinians Are Just Like Other Arabs?

 


One of the most consistent arguments made by Christians who believe that Israel is the favoured nation of God, is that Palestinians are just Arabs who should just move out of the land of Israel and become Jordanians, or Syrians, or Egyptians, etc, etc. I have heard this argument many times in my life, I even once was convinced by it when I was much younger, less informed and had not really considered the issue from every angle. Palestine is its own nation, this is an undisputable fact, I have written about this here, if you would like to see a more developed argument. But in this piece I would like to let a Palestinian make this argument for you.

Before the founding of Israel, indeed, before the 20th century, there was already a national understanding amongst the Palestinians that they were a people, who were tied to their land. As we read in the book The Hundred Years War On Palestine,

“This sentence is sometimes cited, in isolation from the rest of the letter, to represent Yusuf Diya’s enthusiastic acceptance of the entire Zionist program in Palestine. However, the former mayor and deputy of Jerusalem went on to warn of the dangers he foresaw as a consequence of the implementation of the Zionist project for a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine. The Zionist idea would sow dissension among Christians, Muslims, and Jews there. It would imperil the status and security that Jews had always enjoyed throughout the Ottoman domains. Coming to his main purpose, Yusuf Diya said soberly that whatever the merits of Zionism, the “brutal force of circumstances had to be taken into account.” The most important of them were that “Palestine is an integral part of the Ottoman Empire, and more gravely, it is inhabited by others.” Palestine already had an indigenous population that would never accept being superseded. Yusuf Diya spoke “with full knowledge of the facts,” asserting that it was “pure folly” for Zionism to plan to take over Palestine. “Nothing could be more just and equitable,” than for “the unhappy Jewish nation” to find a refuge elsewhere. But, he concluded with a heartfelt plea, “in the name of God, let Palestine be left alone.”

Herzl’s reply to Yusuf Diya came quickly, on March 19. His letter was probably the first response by a founder of the Zionist movement to a cogent Palestinian objection to its embryonic plans for Palestine. In it, Herzl established what was to become a pattern of dismissing as insignificant the interests, and sometimes the very existence, of the indigenous population. The Zionist leader simply ignored the letter’s basic thesis, that Palestine was already inhabited by a population that would not agree to be supplanted.”[1]

The idea that there were never any “Palestinians” or that they are just the same as other Arabs and should move on is debunked by the people’s own understanding of themselves as Palestinian in the quote shared above. These people saw themselves as indigenous to the land (something genetic studies also support), they felt a tie and kinship to each other, apart from Arabs in other parts of the Ottoman empire, and therefore they believed they should be respected in this self-determination. They had this understanding at least as early as the 19th Century. 

The Palestinian author being quoted above also predicts the many conflicts that would result, how this would cause conflict for Jews in other Muslim lands, and for all people in the land formerly called of Palestine, which is now re-established as Israel. His observations are insightful, but also really what should have been predicted. The only result of such colonization would be conflict. Also you can’t respond to a people who do not exist, and a people who do not exist do not resist their land being colonized. The international power brokers may have ignored the reality of these people living in the region who are of the region, but often when we try to ignore reality it jumps up and slaps us in the face. Reality always gets the last vote.

What also helps us establish that Palestinians are their own people is that Jordanians and Palestinians know they are separate nations, just as are the Germans and the French, even though the Franks were a Germanic tribe originally. Khalidi notes,

“Dr. Husayn knew that Ismail was going to Amman at the behest of the Arab-American Institute to see King ‘Abdullah of Transjordan, and he wanted to send him a personal but official message. When my father heard its contents, he blanched. On behalf of Dr. Husayn and the Arab Higher Committee of which he was the secretary, Ismail was to tell the king that while the Palestinians appreciated his offer of “protection” (he had used the Arabic wisaya, literally “tutelage” or “guardianship”), they were unable to accept. The implicit meaning of the message was that were the Palestinians to succeed in escaping the British yoke, they did not want to come under that of Jordan (which, given pervasive British influence in Amman, meant much the same thing). They aspired to control their own fate.

 My father weakly protested that passing on this most unwelcome news would ruin his visit, which was meant to gain the king’s support for the work of the Arab-American Institute. Dr. Husayn cut him off. Other envoys had brought King ‘Abdullah the same message repeatedly but he had refused to listen. Given the importance of family ties, he would be obliged to believe it coming from Dr. Husayn’s own brother. He curtly told Ismail to do as he had been asked and ushered him out of the office. My father left with a heavy heart. Respect for his older brother obliged him to transmit the message, but he knew that his visit to Amman would not end well.

King ‘Abdullah received his guest and listened politely but without great interest to Ismail’s enthusiastic report of how the Arab-American Institute was working to change American opinion on Palestine, which, even then, was overwhelmingly pro-Zionist and largely ignorant of the Palestinian cause. For decades, the king had attached his fortunes to those of Great Britain, which subsidized his throne, paid for and equipped his troops, and officered his Arab Legion. By contrast, the United States seemed far away and insignificant, and the king appeared manifestly unimpressed. Like most Arab rulers at the time, he failed to appreciate the postwar role of the United States in world affairs.

Having carried out the main part of his mission, my father then hesitantly conveyed the message Dr. Husayn had entrusted to him. The king’s face registered anger and surprise, and he abruptly stood up, compelling everyone else in the room to stand as well. The audience was over. Exactly at that moment, a servant entered, announcing that the BBC had just broadcast the news of the UN General Assembly’s decision in favor of the partition of Palestine. It happened that my father’s meeting with the king had coincided with the assembly’s historic vote on November 29, 1947, on Resolution 181, which provided for partition. Before stalking out of the room, the king turned to my father and said coldly, “You Palestinians have refused my offer. You deserve what happens to you.”[2]

A lot of Palestinians do live in Jordan. But they are not Jordanian, they are Palestinian. And before the founding of the modern state of Israel took place the Palestinians and Jordanians recognized each other as different, and even had their own separate goals for their interactions and nations. As this Khalidi notes, the Palestinians wanted to control their own fate, the right of self-determination, which is a right of all nations. This feels like pointing to the sky being blue, but in the case of Palestinians many Christians think the sky is green; that is they can’t see reality or they simply deny it, for ideological reasons.

A lot of arguments about the nature of Palestine and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians people are based on ignorance - sometimes well-meaning ignorance - of both the facts on the ground, but also the concepts of nationhood, self-identity and self-determination.

As I noted in my article on the subject referred to above when the Palestinian people were conquered by Israel in 1948 this gave every one of them a national origin story, just as the did the Exodus for the Hebrews in the Scriptures. I’ll come back to this in a later piece. But it should be noted, that as with the Hebrews, they still had a recognition of their national identity before this, this catastrophe, the conquering of regions of Israel partitioned for the Palestinians, simply reinforced it.

Palestinians are Arab, just as Danes are European, but this is not their nationality. So, we should never let the error be stated that Palestinians are not a nation, or that they are just the same as other Arabs. Many nations make up the people group called the Arab peoples, just as many nations make up the people group called Europeans. Palestinians are no more Jordanians, than Italians are Swedes. We need to look at this topic not through surface level theology, but through the Biblical understandings of nationhood and nationality. Esau, and Jacob both had the same father, but they founded different nations. This happens throughout history. Australians are not English, or even British, though we stem from the British isles and have a unique kinship with Britian over other lands. Australian is no older an ethnic identity than the most modern Palestinian self recognition we observed above, yet people recognize how distinct Aussies are. Everyone can tell the different between a Brit and Aussie. So why can’t many do this for Palestinians?

The answer is because of ideology, not reality.

List of References



[1] Khalidi, Rashid . The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: The New York Times Bestseller (p. 5). Profile. Kindle Edition.

[2] Khalidi, Rashid . The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: The New York Times Bestseller (pp. 57-58). Profile. Kindle Edition.