“many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ…and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.” (Matthew 24:5-9)
In our ethnocentricity we automatically assume that “my name” is Christ and his followers are “Christians”. But that doesn’t even make sense in context. The false Christ is going to kill his followers for his name’s sake?
If we stay consistent with our study, at the time that this was being spoken, the name that was raising such ire was a Jewish name – “Yeshua”, YHVH’s Savior.
“He [Paul] he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles [non-Jews],..I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.” (Acts 9:15-16)
Remember from previous posts that name = way. The noun derives from the verb, and is only true when action backs up the claim. The name is a message of salvation – not other people’s oppression – but from ones’ own sin! How insulting! Of course anyone who promotes God’s righteousness is hated everywhere they declare this hateful gospel.
The United States Constitution allows individuals to practice any religion they choose. However, the austerity of this right is tested when an individual’s belief is publicly displayed. For Muslim women wearing the hijab, or headscarf, the intersection between private religious practice and its social expression is explored on a daily basis…With the rise of Islamophobia, the participants found a stronger sense to exert their right to express their religious identities. Moreover, the women interviewed…embrace their religious practice despite intersecting forms of discrimination.
All Muslims in America, even those who are American citizens, have been subjected to levels of persecution far exceeding those experienced by Christians abroad.
American Muslims have been subjected to a multibillion-dollar securitisation effort that has devastated the community.
The New York Times Magazine published a feature article profiling a former FBI agent who was imprisoned by the US for exposing the rampant abuses in the government’s domestic war on terror. In the piece, Terry Albury recounted the FBI’s systematic harassment and intimidation of American Muslims, its spying on the community, and its prosecution of many of its members under the guise of combatting terrorism.
Upon joining the FBI shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Albury recalled, “It was made very clear from day one that the enemy was not just a tiny group of disaffected Muslims. Islam itself was the enemy.” Its uniquely candid and self-reflective tone notwithstanding, there was little in this account that would come as a surprise to most American Muslims.
Twenty years on from the launch of a war that would place an entire minority population under a cloud of suspicion, it is worth examining how the lives of American Muslims have been irrevocably transformed. As securitised subjects, they have existed on one of the many front lines in the global war on terror, forced to reassess their identity and core values in the name of belonging.
Bible-believing churches are being blamed for the HIV epidemic.
NPR, February 2019: The medicines to prevent and treat HIV already exist…[but] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about half of all gay and bisexual black men in the U.S. will get HIV…people [are still] dying of a disease that is preventable and treatable…
[An] issue that makes it hard for young gay and bisexual black men to protect their sexual health [is being] raised in a church that [imposed] Shame [on being gay]…
ending the HIV epidemic requires fighting stigma…
a law that allows doctors to refuse to serve patients based on religious beliefs...could prevent people from seeking care in the first place…
I think it’s reaching to try and say that this bill is going to make it worse for people with AIDS… the bill was to protect people’s First Amendment right to adhere to the tenets of the faith, which is guaranteed in our Constitution…If you know that participating in unprotected sex is dangerous, but yet you do nothing to try and alleviate that, you greatly increased
It’s all about the sin. Antichrist
- accommodates our sin
- while blaming the consequences of our sin on others
- and promises to eliminate the problems caused by our sin by eliminating others’ ability to limit our self-indulgence
- while trapping us into self-destruction.
Take obesity. Isn’t this a straight-forward example of over-indulgence?
“Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty…put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite.” (Proverbs 23:20-21, 23:2)
World Health Organization began sounding the alarm in the 1990s, spearheading a series of expert and technical consultations. Public awareness campaigns were also initiated to sensitize policy-makers, private sector partners, medical professionals and the public at large. Aware that obesity is predominantly a “social and environmental disease”, WHO is helping to develop strategies that will make healthy choices easier to make.
Centers for Disease Control: Obesity is a national epidemic and a major contributor to some of the leading causes of death in the U.S., including heart disease, stroke, diabetes and some types of cancer. We need to change our communitiesinto places that strongly support healthy eating and active living.
Individuals need to stop their individual unhealthy eating practices.
Anyone who chooses this way of life invariably becomes evil. And that assessment doesn’t come from the Bible. It comes from PsychologyToday.
The Meaning of Good and Evil
What do we really mean when we use these simplistic terms, ‘good’ and ‘evil’?
‘Good’ means a lack of self-centeredness. It means the ability to empathize with other people, feel compassion for them, and put their needs before your own. It means, if necessary, sacrificing your own well-being for the sake of others. It means benevolence, altruism and selflessness, and self-sacrifice towards a greater cause — all qualities which stem from a sense of empathy. It means being able to see beyond the superficial difference of race, gender, or nationality and relate to a common human essence beneath them…
‘Evil’ people are those who are unable to empathize with others. As a result, their own needs and desires are of paramount importance. They are selfish, self-absorbed, and narcissistic. In fact, other people only have value for them to the extent that they can help them satisfy their own desires or be exploited. This applies to dictators like Stalin and Hitler, and to serial killers and rapists. I would argue that their primary characteristic is an inability to empathize with others. They can’t sense other people’s emotions or suffering, can’t see the world from other people’s perspectives, and so have no sense of their rights. Other human beings are just objects to them, which is what makes their brutality and cruelty possible.
I would argue that their primary characteristic is not a lack of feeling described as “inability to empathize with others”, but a perverted feeling of pleasure in causing pain, suffering and death. Rapists and serial killers don’t risk being caught because they are numb to feelings. They seek recurring orgasms of feeling which makes the risk worth it.
The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder:
individuals who habitually and pervasively disregard or violate the rights and considerations of others without remorse. People with Antisocial Personality Disorder may be habitual criminals, or engage in behavior which would be grounds for criminal arrest and prosecution, or they may engage in behaviors which skirt the edges of the law, or manipulate and hurt others in non-criminal ways which are widely regarded as unethical, immoral, irresponsible, or in violation of social norms and expectations. Those with APD often possess an impaired moral conscience and make decisions driven purely by their own desires without considering the needs or negative effects of their actions on others. Impulsive and criminal behavior is common.
Can we not see through the lies to recognize that American society has become antisocial?
The heart of progressive-liberal values is simple: empathy(caring about and for people) and responsibility (acting responsibly on that empathy). These values translate into a simple principle: Use the common wealth for the common good to better all our lives. In short, promoting the common good is the central role of government.
The right-wing conservatives now in power have the opposite values and principles. Their main value is Rely on individual discipline and initiative.
Apply the liberal agenda just to sexual rights, which takes the position that the common wealth – that would be taxes on working persons demonstrating individual discipline and initiative – should be spent on alleviating the problems caused by “individuals seeking recurring orgasms of feeling which makes the risk worth it.”
- Developing medical advances in the form of vaccines, treatments, etc. allowing unrestrained sexual activity so those individuals without individual discipline and initiative to protect themselves don’t have to personally pay for the known consequences of AIDS, now Monkey pox, not to mention herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, genital warts despite widespread knowledge and existing provisions for protection from catching these diseases through use of prophylactic devises and medications. “Only 4 percent of sexually active gay and bisexual men in the United States use Truvada, a highly effective medication used to prevent the transmission of HIV, according to the results of a first-of-its-kind study.” “Correct and consistent condom use is the most effective method to prevent HIV and other STIs among sexually active MSM...condom use among MSM is low“
- Providing taxpayer-funded abortion on demand for those individuals without individual discipline and initiative to use birth control, or the morning after pill, or the abortion pill, or establish an economically stable domestic environment in which to raise a child, or limit sexual activity to a responsible partner, or modify their lifestyle to meet a child’s needs.
- Developing new social infrastructures throughout society to support unrestricted self-identified gender by a minute proportion of individuals. “About 0.7% of adults 18-24 identify as transgender, and 0.5% of adults 65 and older identify as transgender. When it comes to LGBTQ rights, the United States has made significant strides over the years. Several states have protections for transgender people, including employment, public accommodations, housing, credit, and schools.” There is no historical or sociological long-term evidence of the effects of this startling new trend on these individuals or society.
Yesterday, The New Atlantis released a comprehensive “study of studies,” taking a look at the accumulated body of credible scientific research on LGBT issues. The study is by Lawrence Mayer, a scholar-in-residence at Johns Hopkins University, and Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and its findings destroy the narrative.
First, regarding sexual orientation, the view that it is “an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.” Indeed, the authors highlight numerous studies finding that sexual orientation is often fluid, with one study showing high rates of abandonment of non-heterosexual identification as young men grew out of adolescence.
Second, “compared to the general population, non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes.” The numbers are sobering. Non-heterosexual populations have 1.5 times the risk of anxiety disorders and substance abuse, twice the risk of depression, and 2.5 times the risk of suicide. The transgender population also is at elevated risk for mental-health problems, with the suicide numbers particularly troubling: “The rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population”…
what emerges is a messy, realistic vision of human beings who are shaped by myriad social, cultural, and biological forces.
To take one example, the authors spend considerable time talking about the high incidence of childhood sexual and physical abuse in the LGBT community. Do LGBT people experience higher rates of abuse and assault because of their orientation, or does the life-altering experience of abuse and assault contribute to the formation of an LGBT identity? As the authors note, the answer is not necessarily either/or. A person can be targeted because they’re perceived to be gay and “sexual abuse perpetrated by men might cause boys to think they are gay or make girls averse to sexual contact with men”…
in spite of the mountain of evidence that those who forsake the allegedly oppressive “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement”…face far greater challenges…some on Left want to…keep selling their moral vision to the public without any competition…and the resulting physical or emotional harm is either reasonably tolerable or can be alleviated through a combination of government programs and public re-education.
The Judeo-Christian model, by contrast, is aspirational, calling on people not to do what they want, but what they should. The Left’s response is alluring, but it offers a self-indulgent path down which lies cultural ruin. The LGBT Left is driving us there just as fast as it can depress the gas pedal, but thanks to McHugh and Mayer, we now know they most assuredly are not doing so in the name of “science.”
While claiming empathy as a motivation, the liberal agenda is overwhelmingly antisocial towards the vast majority of the population – those who practice ethical behavior. Is it not obvious that centuries-long religion-based morality is being systematically defined as evil through politics?
“Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.” (Mattew 24:6-9)
What is so detestable about the name of Jesus / YHVH’s Savior?
Being forced to take responsibility for one’s own sins rather than being supported in blaming someone else. Contrast the soothing explanation on this psychiatrist’s pillow.
“…thou shalt call his name Yeshua / YHVH’s Savior: for he shall save his people from THEIR sins.” (Mathew 1:21)
“If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their THEIR sin.” (John 15:22)
“And he said unto them…if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in YOUR sins.” (John 8:24)