John Dickson: Hugh “…Mackay’s godly-but-godless-ethic is really just a relic of the Judeo-Christian culture in which he, like most of us, was raised.”

It’s blindingly foolish to claim that Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, and Jesus are different.

For anyone who missed the easily understood story: Jesus is Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament. In fact, Jesus is God, period.

Yet it’s become “a thing” to talk about how Jesus wants us to be compassionate to one another which is really a way of saying “Hey Christian, shut your mouth about God and truth but open your wallet and pay to fix all the problems that godless people have created.”

No surprises but that sounds a heck of a lot like Communism. If you can’t see it though, don’t strain yourself.

Frankly, either you quote Jesus on God’s judgment on the godless and the establishment of his rule over the nations or you don’t get to quote him.

You can’t ignore the topics Jesus speaks predominantly on – like judgment on the Godless, the lake of fire, the coming kingdom of God where Jesus rules the nations – in favour of the ones that atheistic Marxisxs accept to further their dominance in Western society.

Nonetheless, on a regular basis someone who totally rejects the biblical scriptures and Jesus own testimony of who he is will come out and attempt to tell all of us exactly why Jesus only cares about social justice issues and how to treat people.

Welcome to the May 2016 edition of that farce.

For good measure, here is a great response to said farce:

To suggest Jesus never told anyone what to believe in is not only historically wrong, it misses the essential connection between what we believe and how we treat others, writes John Dickson.

At the Sydney Writers’ Festival yesterday, the much loved social commentator and author of The Good Life and Beyond Belief Hugh Mackay opined about the teacher at the root of Western ethics: “Jesus never told anyone what to believe in. He only spoke about how to treat each other.”

My colleagues in the room – experts on this stuff – raised an eyebrow. The festival social media department thought the remark worthy of an immediate verbatim tweet.

Who knows whether Mackay’s words were a throwaway line or studied aphorism. But they are inaccurate in the extreme, both as a religious statement and as a historical one. Mackay may come from the modern school of thought that says that religion is not really a proper field of study. Anyone is therefore allowed a firm view without reference to “experts”. I mean, how can someone be an expert in something that doesn’t exist? And so on.

But forget religion. What about history? What do our first-century texts say Jesus said? I’ll spare you the long list, but what struck me once I gave this five minutes’ thought is the way almost all of the paradigmatic statements in the Gospels urge beliefs as the logical basis of ethics.

The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel opens with the words, “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The most famous sermon of Jesus, in other words, begins with a reminder that he is not just looking for moral riches but a humble recognition of our moral poverty as the key that unlocks the door to God’s kingdom. There’s a bit of belief in there.

Or consider the opening words of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel: “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel”. There’s that pesky “kingdom” stuff again, and a call to believe it all – as “gospel”.

Luke’s Gospel is often thought to contain the most “ethical Jesus”, with loads and loads of material about caring for the poor, being a Good Samaritan, and all that. The opening manifesto of Jesus in Luke declares, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners … to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” As so often in the Gospels, God’s grace and favour are the drivers of the grace and favour we are meant to show others.

What about the fourth Gospel? John has Jesus sum up the work of God in this way: Jesus says, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

It’s only a matter of time before a society which rejects the love of God realises that loving everyone, including enemies, is merely a cultural-historical habit.

Of course, a sceptic like Hugh Mackay might reply that these key passages represent the opinions of the Gospel writers not Jesus. Jesus, he might suggest, is authentically heard only in the humanitarian stuff about “loving enemies” and “turning the other cheek”. But maybe it’s the other way around. Perhaps the real Jesus only ever banged on about believing theological stuff, and it was the Gospel writers who invented the ethical material Mackay prefers. That’s the point: Mackay is just picking and choosing.

In truth, neither caricature is likely. Everywhere you look, Jesus appears to have endorsed the old-fashioned idea which Mackay wants us to abandon: namely, that what you believe about ultimate things impacts how you think you should treat others.

Two further examples bear this out clearly. When asked by an expert in the Jewish tradition, “Which is the greatest commandment?” Jesus replied that there were actually two great commands: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart. This is the first and great commandment. And a second is like it: love your neighbour as yourself.” Like it or not, Jesus probably thought the religious hypocrite was in exactly the same position as the moral agnostic. The former cares for God but ignores people; the latter cares for people but ignores the source of all reality. Jesus would have condemned both.

And when Jesus himself summarised all his beautiful sayings about “love your enemies”, “do good to those who hate you”, and “turn the other cheek”, he concluded the speech with, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” Here we find the inner logic of all that Jesus taught about ethics: it is precisely because mercy is at the heart of God that it is also the central ethical principle of the universe.

I am almost tempted to say that Jesus never taught people “how to treat each other” without grounding it in stuff we are “meant to believe” about ultimate things, including God and his kingdom.

Read charitably, Hugh Mackay is trying to open up an important discussion about the role of “beliefs” – or fundamental convictions – in shaping ethics. Jesus is a bad example to use, but I agree it’s a vital public conversation to have.

Personally, I reckon Mackay’s godly-but-godless-ethic is really just a relic of the Judeo-Christian culture in which he, like most of us, was raised. It seems obvious to him that we should be humble, love our enemies, and show compassion to the destitute. But, historically, these things were connected with religious ideas in the West about the inestimable value of human beings made in God’s image, the love and mercy of God for all, and so on. These particular morals – humility, love, etc – played no role in the ethics of Greece and Rome for the simple reason that Greeks and Romans did not believe that everyone was made in God’s image or that God loved everyone the same. Their different beliefs led to different moral emphases.

I would love to see a genuine debate about whether one can logically justify an ethic of love, humility, and compassion – things Mackay admires so much – without appealing to the “kingdom of heaven” Jesus spoke so much about. I don’t think we can. I think it’s only a matter of time before a society which rejects the love of God realises that loving everyone, including enemies, is merely a cultural-historical habit rather than a logical match between fundamental realities and human ethics. I could be wrong, but it’s a debate that needs to be had. And if we’re going to have it, important public intellectuals like Hugh Mackay need to do better than give us quotable memes like “Jesus never told anyone what to believe in. He only spoke about how to treat each other.”

Mackay’s sad hope will not comfort him or anyone else when Jesus is established on the throne of the nations and executes long deserved judgment on everyone who refuses to belief exactly what the Truth proclaims is truth.

Do yourself a favour and get to know Jesus for yourself – he cares infinitely more about your future than Hugh Mackay does.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-20/dickinson-can-we-love-our-enemies-in-a-godless-world/7433288

Hedonists And Atheists Are Happy To Acknowledge That Game Of Thrones Turns Them On Sexually And Encourages Them To Fantasize, Porn Use Actually Decreases On The Nights That The Show Airs, And Yet An Increasing Number Of Christians Insist They Have The “Spiritual Maturity” To Watch It’s Graphic Sex Scenes And Gratuitous Nudity With An Immune Stoicism

I know a bunch of Christians who watch the show and try to justify it in a bunch of different ways – the depths to which they sink is terrifying.

“It’s a great story, it’s unconventional story-telling, it’s full of morally complex-characters, it shows us our need for redemption, it exposes us to the darkness of humanity, it’s got really great art design, yada yada, blah blah.”

One particularly clever saying shifts the spotlight over the violence, as though that somehow justifies it:

“Oh, yes I do find some of the sex and nudity shocking…but the violence is also shocking.”

Nice try.

How about these Christians explain to us how watching packet corn syrup splatter and plaster cast heads drop off fills them with the same dread and horror as scoping out some young, buxom bosom?

Yeah, recovering from that shock must be really tough – you got my deepest sympathy, bro!

I was addicted to pornography for a good decade of my life so I know porn when when I hear about it. I also read the books way back when I was addicted to porn and I longed for a movie version of it because, hey, it would be violent and full of sex and nudity – a lot like porn which, if you have a minimalist moral compass (and boy did I), sounds fantastic! 

I write this to make the point that if a Christian is going to try and justify their immoral lifestyle choices that completely contradict the biblical scriptures and the historical teachings of the church regarding sexuality, they have your work cut out.

But try they do.

The “spiritually mature” argument is a great one – it essentially gives you the licence to do, well, anything you can think of and make an appeal to the liberty we have in Christ.

They even deceive themselves so far as to apply Romans 14 to justify themselves. Let’s recap:

“One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” Romans‬ ‭14:2-6‬ ‭ESV‬‬

I suppose Paul, the apostle appointed by Jesus Messiah himself to reach the Gentiles with the proclamation of God’s coming kingdom, could have meant that people who abstain from watching pornographic sex scenes are weak!

Sure, Paul may have intended that if you are fully convinced in your own mind that watching all those bouncing breasts and vivacious vaginas, then watch away in honour of the Lord!

Then again, Paul did earlier write:

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” Romans‬ ‭1:22-25‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Perhaps the worship of images Paul refers to extends to the pornographic ones on the television screen?!

Indeed, Jesus does set people free but in case the point needed emphasis, he doesn’t do it so you can watch Game of Thrones and pretend that watching naked women feigning  orgasm has no effect on you. 

It’s like watching porn and claiming it has no effect on you. Seriously?!

Anyone Christian who disagrees is welcome to demonstarte their conviction by sending me naked pictures artistic portrayals of their wives or girlfriends, or if they are a woman, themselves. After all, there is a beauty in nude “art” that us spiritually mature can handle.

Anyway, about the following article: I loathe to publish something supportive of Game of Thrones but if it exposes the self-serving lies of Christians who promote any show with sex and nudity as permissible before God, then the words of your enemies can actually point people to the truth about God. 

PornHub data shows the sexually-charged and barbaric (but totally awesome) program is so good at fulfilling our sexual needs, the nights it airs leads to a drop in porn consumption.

And for those not getting their fill during airtime, search words “Game of Thrones” increase on the porn site that evening — by a whopping 370 per cent, in fact.

So statistically we know the show turns us on — but anecdotally it’s also liberating our conversations around sex.

What’s a bit of incest between siblings? 

Gone are the days where my friends and I were timid about sharing our sexual fantasies. Now my colleagues are leaning over the partition to tell me watching Games of Thrones with a beau is the perfect “warm-up” to an evening filled with sexual delight.

The night is dark and full of pleasure, indeed.

We’re also sharing what gets us off and there’s no holding back on the fact that a bit of disturbing television romance may be helping in that department. Yeah, we might not want to invite Joffrey and his thirst for pain into our bedroom, but we’re no longer afraid to say we enjoy watching it.

And it’s not just medieval style-sadism that is rocking our world — “softer” pornography like Fifty Shades of Grey has women changing their porn habits also. Early last year PornHub reported a 219 per cent increase in searches conducted by women for the word “submission” in the days after the premiere of Fifty Shades of Grey.

Searches for “dominate” and “spanking” were also on the up.

The release of the film version of Fifty Shades of Grey last year saw a dramatic shift in the porn searches conducted by women. 

Rewind more than a decade and it was Sex in the City loosening up women’s dialogue about men and dating. All of the characters talked opening about orgasms, regularly faced dilemmas such as Carrie’s politician boyfriend asking her to pee on him, and sleeping with as many men as they pleased was A-OK.

But women are now well past being comfortable talking about what brand of vibrator we use — we want next level in a space we feel at ease sharing and GoT airing on primetime is giving that to us.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/how-game-of-thrones-made-porn-socially-acceptable/news-story/40b149ce4b39cf4756719fd00413c49f

Joel Richardson’s The Global Jesus Revolution: The Church Must Embrace Prayer And Missions, Target Muslims As Largest Unevangelized People Group

Joel Richardson is one of the most important voices in understanding the role of Islam in biblical eschatology. Richardson has outlined this relationship in numerous books including Islamic Antichrist, Mideast Beast, and When A Jew Rules The World. 

Most recently, his documentary End Times Eyewitness reviewed this idea from the midst of the Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East over the past few years.

Now, Richardson has released the follow up documentary The Global Jesus Revolution, which focuses on how the Church in the West needs to respond to the increasing troubles we see across the world, especially in the Middle East.

In a recent episode of The Underground, Richardson discusses these issues and the roadmap forward for Christians:

http://www.amazon.com/End-Times-Eyewitness-Joel-Richardson/dp/1938067517

Communism, Islam, Or Christianity: These Are Literally Your Only Choices

There are two great powers in the world today: Islam and Progressivism.

You may know Progressivism from its starring role in murdering 100 million people last century. It also made a significant part of the world far poorer than it ever needed to be, given the whole Industrial Age and all. 

Like any destitute soul trying to hide a wanted felon, it’s proponents knew that Communism would not be able to show its face for a long while. It needed a disguise!
So they took Communism and threw a wig on it, gave it a spray-on tan, let it grow out a refined moustache and voilà: “Progressivism”.

In what must surely be the greatest snake oil rebranding in history, Progressivism offers the same impossible utopia at exactly the same asking price: your every human right and freedom. 

But who wants to believe that the West is going to get eaten alive by Islam when successive liars continue to promise the Marxist utopia?

When you reject biblical Christianity, those are your only two options and if you don’t much like truth, then crossing of the genuine and proven threat of Islam is just one more denial.

It is overwhelmingly obvious that we are being governed by people who absolutely do not share in the traditional values that once made this country great. The vast majority of people in this nation, however, still hold the ideals of individual liberty in very high regard, as well as the fundamental Christian principles that were the driving force behind the creation of our government and system of laws. People still believe our constitution should remain the law of the land, and, furthermore, many people are becoming increasingly frustrated with the continuous usurpations of power by the current governing body. In fact, many people are fully aware that we are being governed by communists whose number one goal is the destruction of American sovereignty in favor of a global hierarchy, in which we find ourselves subservient to the whims of global dictators. In order to overcome this, we have to understand it for what it is: spiritual warfare.

Communism is generally understood, at the very least, to be a system of economics in which government controls all aspects of a society’s production. This is purported to ensure equality and fairness among the masses. Communist regimes have historically claimed that a utopian, egalitarian paradise awaited the masses if they would simply surrender their rights and let government have the necessary power. Others believe communism to be a system of absolute atheism, where the belief in a God other than the state was absolutely forbidden, as people who worshipped a God would not offer total subservience to the governing powers. While these descriptions may give someone a basic understanding of what communism is, they are not totally accurate. Communism was actually created for the very purpose of destroying religion and being the anti-thesis to western capitalism. Communism itself is a Hegelian dialectic created to cause conflict between two world views, religion and anti religion, which would eventually see the rise of what many people recognize as the New World Order.

In order to gain a better understanding, we have to look at Karl Marx, the man who was understood to be the founder of socialism/communism. Though there is reason to believe that Marx was simply financed by others to create this system, it is generally understood that he was an atheist and his lack of religion is what motivated him to create what has become known as the most oppressive governing system known to man. Karl Marx was not an atheist; he was, at one point in his life, a devout Christian whose knowledge of scripture and Biblical principles were well-rounded. In fact, the following quote was written by Marx when he was young.

“Union with Christ could give an inner elevation, comfort in sorrow, calm trust, and a heart susceptible to human love, to everything noble and great, not for the sake of ambition and glory, but only for the sake of Christ”. 

This certainly doesn’t sound like the ramblings of someone who hated or didn’t believe in God. The truth is, at some point in the life of Karl Marx, he became very angry and turned on God. Karl Marx became a Satanist. Why this happened remains unknown, but the later writings of Marx confirmed that he had indeed turned his back on God and became one with God’s adversary. The following quote illustrates this.

“…Yet I have power within my youthful arms

To clench and crush you (i.e., personified humanity)

with tempestuous force,

While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.

You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,

Whispering in your ears ‘Descend,

come with me, friend.’”

For some reason, which again remains unknown, Karl Marx became a man filled with hatred towards God, and this is what motivated him to create communism. Though, as stated above, there is reason to believe that others from a group commonly known as the Illuminati actually paid Marx to create it. Take this quote for example from cuttingedge.org.

“We know that, in 1848, a highly select body of secret initiates who called themselves the League of Twelve Just Men of the Illuminati, financed Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto.”

This puts our understanding of communism into a different perspective, doesn’t it?

The essential understanding that should be taken from this is that communism wasn’t created as an economic system to create total equality; it was created as a system of governance to be run by Satan in an effort to destroy humanity and man’s divine connection to God. That is why it was created as an “Anti-Thesis” to western capitalism. The ideas behind capitalism, liberty, the free market, and every other value that made America great all revolve around one spiritual absolute, and that is that man was created with free will. What do socialism and communism always do? They create populations of non-thinking people who become totally helpless and dependent on government. Would this happen if they retained their belief in God and operated from the notion they were born with free will? This is why communism seeks to destroy religion, or, as Marx described it in The Communist Manifesto, “Destroy God in the minds of men.” The purpose wasn’t to create a system full of atheists but to create the conditions that would enable the creation of Satan’s new order. Creating atheism was but a means to an end in the quest to defeat God.

To further illustrate this, let’s examine our current presidents continuous assault upon the economy that does little but destroy opportunity and create dependence. The economy has become so bad that we have more people living on welfare than working. This does nothing but enslave and destroy an individual’s initiative. Soon, people forget how to care for themselves and they will forego their principles and vote for whomever guarantees to maintain their lifestyle of dependence. By removing opportunities to live self-sufficient lives, the Marxists create a system of slavery and convince everyone that it was done in the name of fairness. It’s the same story every time. The question is: can Marxism prevail in the Land of the free? Or, do we still have the moral, intestinal fortitude to stop it?

http://freedomoutpost.com/communism-is-spiritual-warfare-created-to-destroy-god/

The Importance Of Christianity To Western Foreign Policy

Nations dominated by Christianity tend to make pretty good allies to nations that enjoy things like not becoming a cesspool of poverty and/or warfare.

It makes sense if a large portion of your populous thinks it’s important to speak the truth, not steal from people, act generously, and value the life of others.

Even given the imperfection of even the best Christians around, it sure wins any contest against “allies” whose creed runs more like “kill the infidel”.

That may indeed be why Islamic countries can’t even be friends with other Islamic countries.

There are many Americans out there, close to 20%, that are atheist or agnostic. To those in this category, religion is typically meaningless and/or foolish. It is more often than not seen as a negative- one that can create wars and strife between nations.

Perhaps some of that is true, but the reality is that every American should desire that other nations should become more Christian. A simple look at our strongest allies, and our worst adversaries, clearly demonstrate this theory.

The section below show the list/rank of our allies and also some of our enemies- along with the top 2 prevalent religions in each country.

Top USA allies- per http://listaka.com/top-10-countries-usas-allies/#vymtIwRf

United Kingdom (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

Canada (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

Israel (1. Judaism, 2. Islam) – big disparity

South Korea (1. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious, 2. Buddhism)

Mexico (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/Irreligious)

Japan (1. Shinto, 2. Buddhism)

Australia (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

France (1.Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

Germany (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

Philippines (1.Christianity, 2. Islam) big disparity
Top US adversaries – per a recent Gallup poll.

China (1. Confucianism, 2. Taoism)

Iran (1. Islam at 99.4%, 2. “Other”)

North Korea (1. Juche, 2. Korean Shamanism)

Note that out of the countries with the strongest geopolitical alliances to the USA, 70% list Christianity is the majority religion in their nation. 10% list Judaism, the older cousin of Christianity, and 20% list a different religion. NONE list Islam as the prevailing theology. The two countries that list Islam as #2 each have an enormous statistical spread between #1 and #2.
On the flip side, our 3 biggest adversaries are varied but have one main thing in common: Christianity is NOT their #1 or #2 religion. Iran is 99.4% Islam, which is merely an admission that an Iranian really cannot be anything other than Muslim, officially. The other 2 countries are special conditions that have nothing to do with Islam, or religion in general.

When searching out new worldwide alliances, the US needs to be looking for Christian nations. That is the #1 litmus test, it seems.

This topic became of interest after hearing a story on the radio about The Bible League- a missionary group that distributes Bibles (in native languages) across much of Africa. As many know, there is a battle for the hearts and souls of the majority of African peoples. Most in Africa practice some form of tribal religion, and both Muslims and Christians are actively trying to evangelize and convert these masses. The direction of these current religious leanings will likely determine if most of Africa will be a friend or foe to the United States.

So regardless of your view on Christianity, it is in your best interest as an American and for national security to hope (and pray if you believe in that) that Christianity is spread in non-Christian parts of the world. In this ever-dangerous world, we never know who could help us, or harm us, in the future.

2015: Worst Year For Christian Persecution On Record

Ji recently read some atheist’s comment (on a Christian website nonetheless – like bugs to the flame I tell you) mocking Christians for complaining about persecution.

Sucks to be wrong.

But it sucks even worse to be aggressively and sarcastically dismissive of Christian persecution just because you reject Christianity, especially when it’s clearly a serious issue where large swathes of innocent people are being brutally murdered across the world.

Admittedly, a lot of this particular atheist’s ire was directed at the persecution of Western Christians.

Well that both explains and justifies it then, right?

Certainly, because murdering Christians never begins with social exclusion and political pressure – in the same way that the Holocaust never began that way.

Anyways, if you care about human life (no matter their beliefs) then you might be interested in knowing about Christian persecution:

Open Doors, an organization that advocates for persecuted Christians, recently released its latest World Watch List—a report that highlights and ranks the 50 worst nations to be Christian. It found that 2015 was the “worst year in modern history for Christian persecution.”

Who claims the lion’s share of this unprecedented persecution? Muslims—of all races, nationalities, languages, and socio-political circumstances: Muslims from among America’s closest allies (Saudi Arabia #14 worst persecutor) and its opponents (Iran #9); Muslims from economically rich nations (Qatar #21) and from poor nations (Somalia #7 and Yemen #11); Muslims from “Islamic republic” nations (Afghanistan #4) and from “moderate” nations (Malaysia #30 and Indonesia #43); Muslims from nations rescued by America (Kuwait #41) and Muslims from nations claiming “grievances” against the U.S. (fill in the blank __).

The report finds that “Islamic extremism” is the main source of persecution in 41 of the top 50 countries—that is, 82 percent of the world’s persecution of Christians is being committed by Muslims. As for the top ten worst countries persecuting Christians, nine of them are Muslim-majority—that is, 90 percent of nations where Christians experience “extreme persecution” are Muslim.

Still, considering that the 2016 World Watch List ranks North Korea—non-Islamic, communist—as the number one worst persecutor of Christians, why belabor the religious identity of Muslims? Surely this suggests that Christian persecution is not intrinsic to the Islamic world but is rather a product of repressive regimes and other socio-economic factors—as the North Korean example suggests and as many politicians and other talking heads maintain?

Here we come to some critically important but rarely acknowledged distinctions. While Christians are indeed suffering extreme persecution in North Korea, these fall into the realm of the temporal and aberrant. Something as simple as overthrowing Kim Jong-un’s regime could lead to a quick halt to the persecution—just as the fall of Communist Soviet Union saw the end of religious persecution. The vibrancy of Christianity in South Korea is suggestive of what may be in store—and thus creates such fear for—its northern counterpart.

In the Islamic world, however, a similar scenario would not alleviate the sufferings of Christians by an iota. Quite the opposite; where dictators fall (often thanks to U.S. intervention)—Saddam in Iraq, Qaddafi in Libya, and ongoing attempts against Assad in Syria—Christian persecution dramatically rises. Today Iraq is the second worst nation in the world in which to be Christian, Syria fifth, and Libya tenth. A decade ago under the “evil” dictators, Iraq was ranked 32, Syria 47, and Libya 22.

The difference between Muslim and non-Muslim persecution (e.g., communist) of Christians is that the latter is often rooted in a particular regime. Conversely, Muslim persecution of Christians is perennial, existential, and far transcends this or that regime or ruler. It is part and parcel of the history, doctrines, and socio-political makeup of Islam—hence its tenacity; hence its ubiquity.

Moreover, atheistic communism is a relatively new phenomenon—about a century old—and, over the years, its rule (if not variants of its ideology) has greatly waned, so that only a handful of nations today are communist.

On the other hand, Muslim persecution of Christians is as old as Islam. It is a well-documented, even if suppressed, history. 

To further understand the differences between temporal and existential persecution, consider Russia. Under communism, its own Christians were persecuted; yet today, after the fall of the USSR, Russia is again reclaiming its Orthodox Christian heritage.

North Korea—where Kim Jong-un is worshipped as a god and the people are shielded from reality—seems to be experiencing what Russia did under the Soviet Union. But if the once mighty USSR could not persevere, surely it’s a matter of time before tiny North Korea’s walls also come crumbling down, with the resulting religious freedom that former communist nations have experienced. (Tellingly, the only countries that were part of the USSR that still persecute Christians are Muslim, such as Uzbekistan, #15, and Turkmenistan, #19.)

Time, however, is not on the side of Christians living amid Muslims; quite the opposite.

In short, Muslim persecution of Christians exists in 41 nations today as part of a continuum—or “tradition”—that started nearly 14 centuries ago. As I document in Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, the very same patterns of Christian persecution prevalent throughout the Muslim world today are often identical to those from centuries past.

A final consideration: North Korea, the one non-Muslim nation making the top ten worst persecutors list, is governed by what is widely seen as an unbalanced megalomaniac; conversely, the other nine nations are not dominated by any “cults-of-personalities” and are variously governed: including through parliamentarian democracies (Iraq), parliamentarian republics (Pakistan and Somalia), one-party or presidential republics (Eritrea, Sudan and Syria), Islamic republics (Afghanistan and Iran), and transitional/disputed governments (Libya). Looking at the other Muslim nations that make the top 50 persecutors’ list and even more forms of governments proliferate, for example monarchies (Saudi Arabia #14).

The common denominator is that they are all Islamic nations.

Thus, long after North Korea’s psychotic Kim Jong-un has gone the way of the dodo, tens of millions of Christians and other “infidels” will continue to suffer extreme persecution, till what began in the seventh century reaches fruition and the entire Islamic world becomes “infidel” free.

Confronting this discomforting and better-left-unsaid fact is the first real step to alleviating the sufferings of the overwhelming majority of Christians around the world.

Unfortunately, however, while some are willing to point out that Christians are being persecuted around the Muslim world—why that is the case, why 82% of the world’s persecution is committed by Muslims from a variety of backgrounds and circumstances—is the great elephant in the room that few wish to address. For doing so would cause some long held and cherished premises of the modern West—chiefly the twin doctrines of religious relativism and multiculturalism—to come crashing down.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262036/muslims-responsible-worst-year-modern-history-raymond-ibrahim

Imagine A World Where Christian Terrorists Murder Muslims In The Name Of The Cross

It sure makes for an amusing fantasy and doubles as a great means of highlighting and underscoring the raging hypocrisy of Islamofacists (both Muslims and leftists):

Writing in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai, Nadine Al-Budair asks how Muslims would react if western youths acting in the name of Christ blew themselves up in their midst. She also slams Muslim attempts to absolve themselves of guilt by saying that terrorists do not represent Islam, calling such disclaimers “pathetic.”

Taking the largest acts of terror from the last couple of decades, Al-Budair, who today lives in Qatar, wonders what would have happened if they had been perpetrated in the Arab world. Citing terrorist groups like the Islamic states desire to impose 7th century Sharia law, Al-Budair writes:

Imagine a Western youth coming here and carrying out a suicide mission in one of our public squares in the name of the Cross. Imagine that two skyscrapers had collapsed in some Arab capital, and that an extremist Christian group, donning millennium-old garb, had emerged to take responsibility for the event, while stressing its determination to revive Christian teachings or some Christian rulings, according to its understanding, to live like in the time [of Jesus] and his disciples, and to implement certain edicts of Christian scholars.

She asks readers to imagine a world in which Christians call Muslims “infidels” and pray that God will eliminate them all. She continues by conjuring an Arab world that grants foreigners visas, citizenship, jobs, free education, and healthcare, and then asks what would happen if one of those foreigners killed Arabs indiscriminately.

Referencing American engineer Paul Marshall Johnson, who was abducted and beheaded by Al-Qaeda operatives in Saudi Arabia in 2004, Al- Budair writes:
“Imagine a Frenchmen or a German in Paris or Berlin leading his Muslim neighbor [somewhere] in order to slaughter him and then freeze his head in an ice box, in a cold and calculating manner … as one terrorist did with the head of an American in Riyadh years ago.”

The liberal writer condemns Muslims for thinking it is within their rights to condemn Trump’s statement rather than “address the implications of some of our extremist curricula, our education, and our regimes, and [to] be ashamed” of them.

Regarding Trump, she wrote:

“However, how much longer [will this last]? Today things are different. [Western] anger [at Muslims] is apparent, and they make scary declarations. One who recently championed [these views] is Donald Trump, who demanded to bar Muslims from entering the U.S.

“It is strange that we [Muslims] believe we have the right to condemn such statements rather than address the implications of some of our extremist curricula, our education, and our regimes, and be ashamed [of them]… It is strange that we condemn [the West] instead of addressing what is happening in our midst – the extremist ways in which we interpret the shari’a and our reactionary attitudes towards each other and the world. It is strange that we condemn instead of apologizing to the world.”

She takes the Muslim world to task for continuing to condemn the West instead of addressing its own radicalism, which holds that killing Westerners is part of a holy jihad that “leads to virgins of paradise.”

“It is strange that we condemn instead of apologizing to the world,” Al-Budair write. She says that claims made by Muslims that those who commit terrorism do not represent Islam are “farces” and “pathetic” attempts to absolve Muslims of guilt.

http://shoebat.com/2016/03/02/saudi-female-journalist-supports-donald-trump-asks-christian-terrorists-blowing-muslims-streets/

Hollywood, Testament To The Success Of Capitalism, Now Actively Promoting Communism

“Progressive” is the current name Communists go by. 

Sure, they’ve abandoned the revolutionary means of establishing Communism in favour of the culture eroding long march through the institutions but the end result is still the same: poverty and death for the masses, wealth and power for those in control.

Now Hollywood, the perfect example of an industry built on the freedoms of capitalism but long overrun by progressive types, is out to portray a new victim group: Communists.

Yep, why only remember legitimate victim groups like the millions of Jews murdered in the holocaust when we can also remember faux-victims whose ideology in practise murdered 100 million people during peace time!

Here’s the fun:

My wife and I sat down the Saturday before the Academy Awards to watch the 2015 film Trumbo. Dalton Trumbo is played by Bryan Cranston who did a marvelous job, certainly worthy of the Academy Award nomination he received for Best Actor.

It’s loosely based on the Hollywood screenwriter, author, and self-admitted Communist Dalton Trumbo (1905-1976) who was cited for Contempt of Congress for which he spent nearly a year in prison and blacklisted by film studios. I’ve been familiar with Trumbo’s work since the early 1970s through his 1939 anti-war novel Johnny Got His Gun, based on a case of World War I survivor who suffered shocking debilitating injuries.

“Shortly after the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union, Trumbo and his publishers decided to suspend reprinting the book until the end of the war.” With the escalation of the Vietnam War, the book became popular again, so much so that Trumbo directed the 1971 film version of the novel that starred Timothy Bottoms.

Metallica’s song “One” is based on the film.

One scene in Trumbo caught my attention. Trumbo’s oldest daughter asks him if he’s a communist. Instead of answering yes or no, he asks her, “Would you share your sandwich with someone who did not have one?” to which she replies, “Of course.” Ipso facto, he replies, “So that makes you a communist too.” If Communism is just sharing, then who could be opposed to Communism?1

Are people sharing their sandwiches in North Korea and Venezuela? No, because there are no sandwiches to share. Communism isn’t about sharing. It’s about brute force.

Charity is sharing . . . voluntarily. That’s not Communism. The Good Samaritan extended mercy by way of self-sacrificing charity by sharing what belonged to him with a man beaten by robbers:

“‘But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you’” (Luke 10:30-37).

The oil, wine, the Samaritan’s mode of transportation, and the two denarii were his.

Jesus and His disciples shared a common purse as they traveled. This, too, was voluntary. No one was forced to participate.

Appeal cannot be made to Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-37. These early Christians voluntarily sold their property and used the proceeds to help those in need. Neither the Roman Empire nor the Church had any role in the sale of the property. John R. Richardson writes:

“No one was forced into giving up his goods and possessions. It was not socialism legislated either by church or state. It does not resemble modern communism in any respect. . . . Ananais was free to keep or sell his property. When he sold it, he had the right to determine whether he would give all of it, or part of it, or none of it, into the treasury of the church for the alleviation of the needs of poor Christians. J. W. Lipscomb is certainly correct when he says, ‘The program was a voluntary expression of Christian concern for the needs of fellow Christians, and was not a program for compulsory collectivism such as we hear advocated all too often today.’”2

Paul takes up a collection for the Jerusalem church “from the saints” (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-9:15; Rom 15:14-32). They gave “according to their ability, and beyond their ability, of their own accord” (2 Cor. 8:3).

The Pilgrims were initially organized as a Collectivist society as mandated by contract by their sponsoring investors. No matter how much a person worked, everybody would get the same amount. It didn’t take long for the less industrious to realize that their diminished labor would net them the same result of the mot industrious.

William Bradford (1590-1657), the acting governor of Plymouth Colony, wrote the following in his first-hand history of events:

“The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years . . . that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God.

“For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without [being paid] that was thought injustice.

“This [free enterprise] had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”

Not only is Socialism immoral by being in violation of the Eighth Commandment; it doesn’t work.

Democrats who claim that rich people are not paying their “fair share” in taxes are the less violent version of Communism. The government only uses force if you refuse to pay. No guns are needed. The long arm of the law will just empty your bank account, garnish your wages, and sell off your property for your failure to “share.”

Trumbo was a man of multiple contradictions. He claimed to be a Communist but was a very rich capitalist, described by his communist friends as a “swimming pool Soviet” because the 320-acre ranch where he and his family lived had its own private lake. No community swimming hole for the Trumbos.

The biggest lie of Trumbo, Danusha V. Goska writes, “is the film’s treatment of communism. Soviet communism murdered tens of millions of innocent human beings. The USSR did have spies active in the US. They did do damage. Dalton Trumbo did obey party dictates to insert communist material into scripts.”

It’s not as if Trumbo was ignorant of Communism’s atrocities. He admitted in a letter that he had read former Communist authors who haddenounced their former affiliation and exposed “Stalin’s repression and the existence of a secret Gulag.”3 One of them was Arthur Koestler. Koestler had joined the Communist Party of Germany in 1931, but by 1938 he had left the party having become disillusioned with Stalinism. In 1940 he published his anti-totalitarian novel Darkness at Noon.

“Darkness at Noon is an allegory set in the USSR (not named) during the 1938 purges, as Stalin consolidated his dictatorship by eliminating potential rivals within the Communist Party: the military, and the professionals. None of this is identified explicitly in the book. Most of the novel occurs within an unnamed prison and in the recollections of the main character, Rubashov.”

Trumbo knew what Koestler was describing, and he chose to ignore the warnings, not only Koestler’s but other writers as well. Koestler also edited the 1949 book The God That Failed “which collects together six essays with the testimonies of a number of famous ex-communists, who were writers and journalists. The common theme of the essays is the authors’ disillusionment with and abandonment of communism.”

The history of Communism is a record of genocide,4 as D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe show in their book What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?:

“Mao killed about 72 million human beings from 1948 to 1976. When we add the 40 million Stalin is responsible for, we come to a number of 112 million. Throw in Hitler’s 15 million (not counting the devastating war he started!), and we come to about 127 million. Add other killings by other atheistic and totalitarian states — as a result of their atheistic ideology — you come up with a number of more than 130 million.”5

Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “estimates reach as high as sixty million” deaths just during Josef Stalin’s reign of terror.6 “Historian Robert Conquest, in The Harvest of Sorrow, his definitive account of Stalin’s reign of rural terror, estimated that 14.4 million people, half of them children, perished.”7

In addition to supporting an ideology that led to the deaths of tens of millions, Trumbo hid behind the First Amendment, a right that would not have been afforded to him if he had moved his family to a Communist nation. Trumbo was like so many limousine and private-jet liberals who support Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and their wealth confiscation policies after they’ve made their multi-million-dollar fortunes. They love socialism because it keeps the competition at bay.

There’s Leonardo DiCaprio — net worth $245 million with at least five homes and a private island — promoting the scare of global warming while he jet-sets around the world burning up tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
As reported in Movie Freak, Trumbo’s daughter Niki says the depicted scene never happened. “‘No,’ she chuckles, ‘we never had a conversation like that one while riding horses. That’s made up. But it’s also what I was referring to earlier. It’s another essence moment, a scene that fits what was going on at the time and the emotions we were feeling, but not actual reality. The real moment was more like me asking, “Daddy, are you a communist?” and him replying that he was. The follow-up question was something like, “Can I be a communist when I grow up?” and I wanted him to say that of course I could be; that he’d be so proud of me if I was. Instead he told me I had to be 21 before I could make decisions like that. I had to be old enough to vote. I was so disappointed! Of course, what I wanted was his approval more than I wanted to be a communist. But, I also think he didn’t want to influence my political beliefs, so he wanted to distance himself a little bit from doing that until I was older and could actually talk about, discuss and debate those sort of topics from a place of mutual understanding.’” [↩]

Christian Economics: The Christian Message to the Market Place (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1966), 60. [↩]

Ronald Radosh and Allis Radosh, Red Star Over Hollywood: The Film Colony’s Long Romance with the Left (New York: encouner Books, 2006), 218. [↩]

Mark Kramer, ed., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 4. [↩]

D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 236. [↩]

Lloyd Billingsley, The Generation that Knew Not Josef: A Critique of Marxism and the Religious Left (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1985), 38. [↩]

Lewis Lord, “A reign of rural terror, a world away,” U.S. News & World Report (June 30/July 7, 2003), 4. [↩]

It’s not long before we’ll be seeing films about hard-done by paedophiles (but only non-Catholic ones, of course) and polygamists winning the Academy Awards, I kid you not.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/soft-selling-communism-in-the-film-trumbo/

Lone Leftist Commentator On Islam-Inspired Mass Sexual Assualt Of Women Across Europe Uses Opportunity To Criticize All Of Us Who Warned This Has Been Happening For Years

It’s all our fault.

It’s our racist, bigoted, xenophobia that caused Muslim immigrants to sexually assault women all over Europe, both on New Year’s and for the past couple of decades.

But the good news is we are wrong!

Multiculturalism actually works fine. Islam really is the “religion of peace”. Women do need to learn how not to provoke Muslim men to grope them.

I loathe to promote this drivel but a few select quotes with some commentary is required just to drive home the point that genuine Leftists are so deluded, no undermining of their Marxist agenda will make them question. They are hopelessly lost in their own idiocy and they are bent on dragging us all down with them. 

It really is Communism all over again with these people.

Shall we?

Commentators have a responsibility to discuss the shocking events that took place in Cologne, because those who want to exploit this story for their preferred agendas won’t be so reluctant, writes Michael Bradley.

One sentence in and already the blame is not with the thousands of Muslim men who sexually assaulted hundreds of women but rather with people like me and many others who have warned about the inherent dangers of both Islam and the Leftist idol of multiculturalism.

Nice euphemism with “shocking events” Michael – how about actually mentioning the rape and sexual assaults perpetrated by Muslim men before you start attacking conservatives, Christians, or anyone who has ever experienced the rotten fruit of Islam and Marxist multiculturalism.

I am speaking of the mass incidents of sexual assault on women in Cologne and other cities in Germany on New Year’s Eve, and the fascinating near-silence with which the media has responded.

Nice try Michael. 

While you got the “silence” part right, it’s neither fascinating nor surprising and most importantly, it’s only silence from the Leftist mainstream media who don’t want to reveal the catastrophic disaster that is their favourite idol: multiculturalism. 

It’s not surprising because Leftists will happily silence any opposition to their ideas. They historically did it using violence but in the West these days, they control significant parts of the education system, the legal system, and the media and so “silencing” can be a legal threat or through marginalisation or omission.

Just think about how often we hear about homosexuality and transgender in the the mainstream media when there really aren’t that many of them (2-3% of the population), or how little we saw reports about the horrors of Planned Parenthood’s organ trade.

When was the last time you saw coverage of Christian persecution by Muslims all across the Middle East and Africa? Personally, I saw it once in the past decade. Once!

It’s hard to disagree with the German justice minister’s conclusion that the attacks in Cologne must have been planned and coordinated.

It is hard, Michael. Really hard. Thousands of Muslim men coordinating thefts and sexual assaults. 

It’s hard to continue to believe multiculturalism works too.

Focusing on the act rather than the cause should also trigger a more mature debate than we’ve been able to have so far about the correct balance between the surveillance capabilities of the state and the civil liberties of the people.

Ah, all we need is a bit more statism to solve our problems. 

Obviously, what then is that the forces of the far right, the anti-immigration lobby, ultra-nationalists, racists and xenophobes will say “We told you so.” While that will be as unhelpfully meaningless as everything else they say, their myopic cause-and-effect worldview now has some handy supporting evidence.

Who wants to add fuel to that fire? We’re already awash with bigotry, and 2016 is shaping up to be a banner year for destructive hatred targeted by race, religion, gender and every other point of difference we can find. Cologne is a flaming match nobody wants to throw onto the pyre.

Straight to ad hominem, mud slinging and name calling. Typical Leftist. When you don’t have an argument, as Michael ruefully admitted, he makes it clear who the real enemy is: anyone who puts the blame for these sexual assaults where it belongs: Muslim refugees.

If you don’t like Islam, you’re a bigot. Period.

It’s not like Islam has caused the murder of 240,000,000 plus people…

Oh.

How exactly are we awash with bigotry?

Oh, that’s right, because Leftists say so. In fact, Marxists have always made a living of dividing society into groups by superficial differences and accusing one group to promote conflict. “Divide and conquer” is a saying for a reason, y’know. Marxists divide so they can conquer society and they have given it a good go.

What started as a conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeois to bring about a social utopia end up killing a heck of a lot of people while a select few Marxist leaders reaped the benefits of “social equality”.

Any “point of difference” can be used by Marxists like Michael, who always present themselves as the kind, accepting saviours (if only you vote them into government money and power). Just consider how Leftists bash white people to gain the support of blacks, how they bash men to gain the support of women, or how they bash Western Christian values to promote any value that is abnormal and immoral, be it homosexuality, gender theory, murdering children through abortion, multiculturalism.

The total upheaval of Western culture over the past 70 years or so is unprecedented but certainly no accident.

Our culture was indoctrinated into Marxism, primarily through the education system and mainstream media.

On the far right, this easily translates to “all Muslims don’t respect women”, and worse. On the left, it leaves confusion. The benighted hordes of tragic humanity are not entirely what we’d like them to be. The truth is much messier than either polarity would prefer.

Let’s finish with this misleading red herring.

Nobody says ALL Muslims anything – we are clearly warning against the raping, murdering terrorist types (unsurprisingly common).

Islam maketh the Muslim. Muslims do not maketh the Islam.

Plenty of Muslims know very little about Islam and so they are pretty nice people. 

No one is stupid enough to believe that every single Nazi was like Adolf Hitler. Plenty were useful idiots caught up in the movement without realising the catastrophic end goal while others were cowards who chose to save themselves.

The only point is that Nazis came in different shapes and sizes but Nazism is what it is.

Likewise, a Muslim can change how he or she behaves but Islam is an unchangeable ideology according to its own texts and doctrine. Even more importantly, the life of Mohammed is to Islam what the life of Jesus is to Christianity: the perfect example of the faith.

Islam is where the problem lies and the closer a Muslim follows Islam, the more dangerous they become.

And Leftists who want to defend Islam are doing it to the death of our entire culture.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-14/bradley-silence-about-cologne-only-adds-to-the-harm/7086702