Hey, if you want to continue to use a service that violates people’s rights (kinda like Jim Crow Laws, but for the digital age, and ideology instead of race), than that’s on you. Since you don’t think violating people’s rights on the internet isn’t a big enough deal to act, then, at least, at a minimum, take SOME sort of action, any sort of action, in the name of liberty and freedom; do SOMETHING if anything:
Continue reading
WTF is wrong with the “patriots” of today?! “Follow the rule of law” oh ya? Like all the laws that oppress? Did the Patriots of the Revolutionary War follow the rule of law?! Did the founders of America follow their current rule of law?! “Condemn these acts of violence” oh ya? Like the violent acts of our Founding Fathers, you know, killing and burning the government of their day? With mass censorship and all kinds of illegal unconstitutional violations, WITH the court system utterly failing… what is the modern patriot’s response; vote harder? WTF is wrong with you pathetic fake false patriots?!
EVERY SINGLE TIME someone condemns the storming of the capital building, they are ALSO condemning the actions of the Founding Fathers of America AND every single REAL patriot during the revolution. The founding fathers and patriots of the revolution KILLED the police and government officers of their time! They WENT TO WAR for less reasons! They burned government buildings. They rioted against government actions. After years of peaceful petitions and protests, the system they were under, failed them. So, they went to war! YOUR F*CKING WELCOME.
Now, we live under a government that deems its people “nonessential” and then orders them to close their business and ending their ability to make a living. Their government forbids them from worshiping. The government imposes taxes WAY HIGHER than what the founding fathers would even fathom. Reading the court records of the election challenges, the election system is broken, and the courts refuse to anything about it. The supreme court even avoids it. The court system has failed. The police arrest people gathering to worship, and raid homes, violating the 2nd Amended and Due Process because of Red Flag laws, that the courts find lawful, yet, clearly in direct violation of constitutional rights. The ATF enacts regulations that violate constitutional rights, and these people aren’t even elected officials, and their regulations aren’t even laws. Police are militarized and kill people, act as judge and jury, and get away with it with “qualified immunity.” They murder a protester in the capital, and no investigation is considered. Yet, when one of their own is killed, omg it is going to be investigated and every single protester will be severely punished. And God for bid you exercise your free speech on Facebook, Google, and Twitter; you get punished there too AND THE GOVERNMENT WON’T FIGHT THAT EITHER.
THIS IS WHAT “PATRIOTS” OF TODAY DEFEND. “Back the Blue”?! Back the arm of the government that is used to enforce all these rights violations!
And what have all those peaceful protests done over the past decade? Not a damn thing. In fact, over the past decade there has never been such an infringement on constitutional rights since slavery and Jim Crow laws.
And what has voting done? Ya? What happen in November 2020? Did you not vote hard enough or something? See, even voting has failed.
Oh, but you can just take it to court? Ya? How’d that work out?
So, what, you just going to repeat it all again in the hopes it will work this time and fix itself? Vote harder next time, sue harder next time, protest more peacefully next time?! This is proof, you have become irrelevant, useless, and pathetic.
The founding fathers would have tried everything you’ve tried. Then, when they were at the point of uselessness and failure, they escalated in their efforts. They eventually, dare I say it, turned toward righteous violence, which, given all the reasons above, is justified. What’s your sad excuse?
What are you going to tell your children and grandchildren when they have less and less rights? “Sorry honey, we tried peacefully, and failed.” And that’s it? You gave up because you were too cowardly to become righteously aggressive against oppression? You going to fall back on “Well, at least we remained lawful.” THANK GOD not all slaves and oppressed African American’s remained lawful. THANK GOD they broke unjust laws and become more aggressive against government oppression. What’s your pathetic excuse?
The Boston Massacre, when the government killed its citizens (colonialists). Did you ever wonder what the protesters were doing? They were aggressively protesting. They were throwing rocks and things at the government troops. They were yelling and violently protesting the governments oppression. Then, the government shot and killed protesters… kinda like the what happened at the Capital when the Air Force Veteran was murdered by capital police. She was unarmed! She closer resembled the patriots than you do, sitting on your couch, eating Cheetos taking shit about those who actually took action.
Before there was even war declared or any sort of formal organizing, there were REAL Patriots who grouped together to form militias. Groups, completely not connected to the formal government military. Just a group of small business owners and farmers coming together, ready, to defend themselves and their property from government intrusion and oppression. What are you doing? Posting on Facebook and tweeting? STFU.
To the government of that day, these people, the REAL Patriots and local militias were “domestic terrorists” and even colonialists who were loyal to the government of that day, condemned them. Sound familiar? Is that you? Are you a statist loyalist? Are you a modern day Red Coat loyalist?
You should read Patrick Henry‘s “If this be treason, make the most of it!” speech. Is Patrick Henry a hero or a radical you condemn? Read Patrick Henry‘s “Give me liberty or give me death” speech, do you believe the freedom and liberty is worth more than your comfortable safe slavery?
On June 9, 1772, a local vessel out of Newport was under way to Providence when its captain baited the HMS Gaspee and led Duddington into shallow waters near Warwick. The Gaspee ran aground at a place that is now known as Gaspee Point. News of the grounding quickly reached Providence and a party of fifty-five, led by a man named John Brown, planned an attack on the ship. The following evening they surrounded and boarded the Gaspee, wounding Duddington and capturing the entire crew. All were hauled ashore and abandoned, to watch as the Gaspee was looted and then burned.
Let us never forget the Boston Tea Party. Is that something you condemn too?
Don’t call yourself a “Patriot” if you condemn the actions of REAL PATRIOTS. Shut up and take a seat, peasant.
Take notes from the Founding Fathers, Patriots of the American Revolution, and Civil Rights movement: You know, that time the Black Panther’s stormed a state capital building, armed. It’s sad, when the Black Panther Party is more of a Patriot than all those who claim to be patriotic condemn the same action of the founders of America.
What should you do?
Think about who of your closest friends and family members share the same views as the Founding Fathers and Patriots of the Revolution. Talk to them, in person, quietly, about uniting as a small militia.
Purchase burner phones. Use encrypted messaging apps. Pull cash out and store it. Start stocking up on essential goods. Come up with an local “alert system.” Be ready to pool money together to pay for legal fees. Heck, even make your unofficial militia a formal “Gun Club” or social club. So that, next time there is a gathering of potential REAL patriots, you can participate and network. Inject yourself in your local party meetings, town halls, city counsel meetings; be an influence and voice locally. The heart of the fight, is local.
Or just sit there, tweet, be irrelevant, and be a economically and system enslaved peasant, dependent on your pathetic $600 stim check from your master because your government deemed you nonessential.
Emotions aside, we examine the recent “Stay at Home” orders issued by Governors and county Judges nation wide. Do they even have the power to order you to do so? Are they constitutional? Are they even ethical and moral?
First, let’s look at what the constitution says.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Immediately we see that there are some direct, explicit constitutional issues with Stay at Home orders. The prohibition of religious rituals and gatherings is a big, clear, violation. The next obvious violation is completely taking away the right of the people to peacefully assemble. Making these “stay at home” orders an actual large scale violation of the rights of every single person they are imposed on.
If taken to court, no doubt, it will go up to the Supreme Court.
Due to the impact and drastic nature of the order, the Supreme Court would use their “Strict Scrutiny” test to determine if it is even Constitutional.
The first prong of the test is that It must be justified by a “compelling governmental interest.” While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
Does the government have a compelling governmental interest that would require explicitly violating large number of individuals constitutional protections?
The obvious justification would be the Coronavirus and the national emergency declaration; and the need to “lower the curve” and “save lives” by being forced to “stay home.” But what happens when the actual data is argued in court and that it is on record, legally, that this virus is just a newer and nasty flu? Is a nasty flu compelling governmental interest to explicitly violating large number of individuals constitutional protections? The judicial answer to this question COULD set a VERY scary precedent.
Big government lovers, mommy daddy government dependents, socialists, and closet communist would all say that “yes, there is a compelling governmental interest to protect the welfare of the the people, the common good, from a flu virus” So, we could only speculate how the court would rule based on their view and philosophy of government, federal system and a confederation of individual states held together by a constitution that elect persons to represent that state nationally; a constitutional republic. So, let’s look at the known rulings and characteristics of the current supreme court justices.
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice. He is a wild card. Hailed as a ‘conservative’ he has not been one according to his rulings. He, however, does not seem to vote based on his personal ideology. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, dissented against the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, is a stout moralist. He is conservative in his world views and interpretations and is very methodical in his opinions. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data. Oddly supported a more nosy government. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he dissented in an interesting manner in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. I irony is that he, the only African American on the court, dissented, leaving an all non-African judges to rule that an all non-African jury may be bias. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, dissented against the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, she is extremely close to retirement and his most likely holding on until after the next election (I’m sure she is hoping that Trump does not get re-elected). She is as liberal as they come. Like most liberal judges, she rules based on her emotions and ideology, then digs for legal justifications to support her preconceived liberalism. In Department of Commerce v. New York, she shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did. She hates Trump and is liberal in her immigration views. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek she disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, she upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, she dissented in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, she joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, favored imposing state secularism over the free exercise of religion. Apple Inc v. Pepper, she joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, has been on the more liberal side of things. Though, not as extreme as Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan, he has those sort of left leaning judicial ideals. He interprets the constitutions, looking for “purpose and consequences” not just literal textual criticism. And he seems to be more supportive of government authority and action over the people. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did. He is liberal in his immigration views. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, he upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, he dissented in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, has been on the more conservative side of things. He is a Roman Catholic and his faith is not benched in his world view. He is a literal originalist in his interpretations of the constitution. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data. It was interesting that he supported a more nosy government. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, is most definitely a liberal when it comes to constitutional interpretation and the role of government in a society. In Department of Commerce v. New York, she shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did. She is a liberal in her immigration views. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek she disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, she upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, she dissented in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, she joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, favored imposing secularism over the free exercise of religion. Apple Inc v. Pepper, she joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, just like Justice Sotomayor, she is liberal when it comes to constitutional interpretation and the role of government in a society and stout Democrat given her political employment backgrounds. In Department of Commerce v. New York, she shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did. She is a liberal in her immigration views. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek she disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, she upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, she, oddly, agreed with the majority in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, she joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, she favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, she joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, is a texutalist and originalist in his interpretations of the Constitution. He is without a doubt, conservative in his world view and a government minimalist. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data. It was interesting that he supported a more nosy government. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined Justice Thomas in the dissent opinion in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, dissented against the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, much like Justice Gorsuch, is a texutalist and originalist in his interpretations of the Constitution. He is conservative in his world view and seems to be more libertarian in his government philosophies. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data. It was interesting that he supported a more nosy government. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority opinion in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, oddly, joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.
So, given their ideologies and most recent 2019 rulings, we can have some idea about how they could view Stay at home orders.
Liberals would put more weight into the concept and principle of mandatory, government imposed stay at home for the greater good. Conservatives would put more weight in the individual freedoms and personal decision making of the people for their own good.
In general, it would seem like a split court with Justice Roberts as the wild card. It seems like he would be against closing down private businesses, given his rulings for private companies. He also seems to favor traditional religious expressions, so forcing churches to close on Sunday, specially Easter Sunday, sounds like something he would disagree with as well. It almost seems he would be 55% against Stay-at-home orders and 45% for. This would swing the court to a 5-4 decision against Stay at home orders.
Is the violation of rights from a flu like virus a compelling government interest? It seems the court would go either 5-4 or even 6-3 on this one.
The second prong is that the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
A broad stroke of declaring entire aspects of a society “non-essential” would not sit well with a majority of these justices. Forcing the closure of entire industries wouldn’t sit well either. It seems that the court would rule that these actions and orders are NOT narrowly tailored and encompasses way too much; 7-2, 6-3 court, easily.
The third prong is that The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this “least restrictive means” requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.
Now this is almost laughable. There are millions and hundreds of other, least restrictive means to “flatten the curve.” But, given some of the ideologies of the court, the failure of this test may not be so clear. 5-4 ruling on this prong is a reasonable guess.
Only a totalitarian authoritarian tyrannical oppressive Court would rule “Stay at home” orders constitutional. The same kind of supreme courts that agreed with slavery and internment camps.
Now, lets apply our Liberty Test to dig deeper in this issue.
First prong; No, it does not support ANY constitutional rights. One may argue, it supports the right to life and pursuit of happiness but… this virus isn’t any more deadly than a peek flu season AND there are WORSE things that KILL MORE people. And the “pursuit of happiness” is not protected as quarantine and unemployment will cause an increase in poverty and suicide… With that said, we can see that it will create hardships that didn’t exist prior. Most defiantly NOT supportive of any of our rights.
Second prong; No, it does not expand any rights, nor does it loosen any government regulations or laws around any rights. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. As the secondary prong explores, it creates, increases, and tightens limitations and restrictions around just about all rights. We can conclude that this is the most hateful act towards human rights.
Third prong; No, the simple fact that the government can just deem whomever it pleases as essential while others non-essential is the same as picking favorites and showing bias and partiality in a society that claims to be defenders of equality. It is NOT levied equally on all people. Some people are given special treatment through being deemed essential and others are targeted unequally by being deemed non-essential and ordered to close and stay home. This is the opposite of equality and freedom for all.
Fourth prong; No, it does not. The issue is so broad in that the issue encompasses the entire planet. The issue is a virus. There are hundreds of viruses, all over the place, all the time, every year, everywhere. The broadness, vagueness, vastness, and subjective nature opens the door wide open for governmental abuse and large scale control and oppression; justified by a virus.
With the Constitutionality of the orders in question and doubted, and its massive failure for freedom and liberty, it then makes us question the moral and ethical nature of these sorts of orders.
The statistics to support the claim of how dangerous the virus is, are skewed and heavily flawed. At this point, with the sheer number of people that have possibly been infected, even with the CDC guided inflated death count; there is a reasonable argument that it is just another, new, flu strand; with a fairly similar mortality rate of the seasonal flu. This can not be discounted. But it exposes the flawed proclamation of the scariness and dangerous-ness of the virus; leans more toward propaganda.
The orders are justified with the idea of “safety, for the common good… a little sacrifice for the community” and “security from a common enemy, the virus” The ethical problem is that those are the same justifications used for Japanese Internment Camps and a host of other unethical government oppression… so to use them, would also require you to justify Internment Camps to remain consistent and prevent being a logical hypocrite. The Supreme Court also upheld Japanese Internment Camps too… So that is the ethical question:
This question answers both “Stay at home” orders and Japanese Internment Camps because they both depend on the same logic and justifications. Let’s go through the logical similarities and elements:
Logic proves there that if you justify one, it justifies the other. So the real question you have to ask is:
You can’t say Japanese Internment Camps were immoral but Stay at Home orders are not; because, again, as logically proven above, they follow the exact same logical expression.
If you defend “Stay at Home” orders, you then must defend Japanese Internment Camps, to remain logical and rationally consistent. If not, you are illogical, irrational, and hypocritical.
We can even evaluate Jim Crow laws, using the same line of logic and rational thought. We know that Jim Crow laws and Japanese Internment Camps ARE UNETHICAL and IMMORAL; therefore, we can conclude that Stay at Home orders that depend on the very same logical must then be unethical and immoral as well.
Though, we should NOT solely depend on The Supreme Court to determine our ethical and moral grounds. They too defended Jim Crow laws (the “separate but equal” ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson) and Japanese Internment Camps (Korematsu v. United States). And let us not forget the host of other court rulings throughout history that WERE and ARE and forever will be unethical and immoral (Historic American Government Oppression). Ethics and Morality transcends the Supreme Court. They did not invent it or define it. They either agree with it and defend it, or violate it.
Those who defend “Stay at Home” orders, would have also defended Japanese Internment Camps and Jim Crow laws in those times. They may say that they wouldn’t have but their thinking and cultural emotions is of the present. But their logic is timeless. And the logic, if applied in that era, within that era’s thinking and cultural emotions, would have led them to the same conclusion; the justification of taking away rights for the common good.
It is amazing to see the sheer amount of people demanding that OTHER people forfeit, suspend, neglect, and give up their freedoms because of a fearful feeling imposed by unreliable stats and unconstitutional government orders. Even vilifying people who exercise their constitutional rights. What is the rationale behind this? Are their concerns legitimize?
Yes, a lot of people have tested positive for the Coronavirus. But as we have extensively researched, we don’t really know how many because the ideological agendas. If we do basic math, using various data centers we can conclude that the average mortality rate of the virus is 0.793% (see below).
Here come all the sheeple saying:
Your right, which is why we depend on data and statistics of the experts; see below. So, with that pathetic argument out of the way, let’s continue to look at the expert data.
Not even 1% mortality rate overall and under 60 years old, which is 92% of the world’s population. If, only *66,722,200 world wide are infected, that means, 0.85% of the world is infected… not even 1% And of that 0.85% infected, only 0.793% of that 0.85% population may, statistically, die; we can estimate that 0.0068% of the world’s population, under 60, may die. That is 6 THOUSANDTHS OF A PERCENT… roughly 529,107 people, world wide, under 60 years would will die. Sounds bad right?
Heart disease killed 7 million people in 2000; 7,000,000 deaths world wide! Ischaemic heart disease and stroke are the world’s biggest killers, accounting for a combined 17 million deaths in 2016. These diseases have remained the leading causes of death globally in the last 15 years [8]. 29x more deadly than COVID-19!
But there’s more:
Half of these will kill more people world wide than COVID-19. And most of these numbers can’t be inflated or statistically manipulated.
Now, the numbers for the population that are over 60 years old is more scary, anywhere between 5-9% mortality rate… but they only make up 8% of the world population. And due to their reduce chance of mobility and travel, they are less likely to become infected as they are more likely to remain at home or be more stationary.
Now, using logic, reasoning, and math; we can remove the emotionalistic indoctrination of fear and worry and see that this really isn’t as bad as governments, government puppets, and government employees make it out to be. We can see through the propaganda and manipulation.
Here comes another sheeple argument:
I’m glad sheeple bring up this point. Let’s look at it:
195 MILLION jobs have been wiped out, world wide, and “More than four fifths of workers globally live in countries affected by full or partial lockdown measures… Workers in the informal sector – who account for 61% of the global workforce or 2 billion people – will need income support just to survive and feed their families if their jobs disappear” [9, 11]. The Australians report, “We calculate that between 17% and 28% of Australian workers – 2.2 million to 3.6 million people – could be out of work in the coming weeks as a direct result of the spatial distancing measures now in place. If they are not already,”[10]
The government(s) did this, not the virus.
In America, the “Gross domestic product will plummet an annualized 25% from April through June after a smaller setback in the first quarter and the jobless rate will hit 12.6%, the highest since the 1940s, according to the median forecasts in Bloomberg’s monthly survey of 69 economists… “Even if the economy starts to re-open in mid-May, more than 20 million Americans will have lost their job with the economy likely having contracted around 13% peak-to-trough, more than three times deeper than the global financial crisis,” The Bloomberg survey was conducted April 3 through Thursday, when a report showed another 6.6 million Americans applied for unemployment benefits, suggesting the jobless rate is already approaching 15%.” [12]
The virus didn’t do this, America did.
And it could be even worse, up to 47 million jobs lost and an unemployment rate of 32% [13]
Entire industries, small businesses, mom and pop shops that provide a living for entire families; deemed non-essential by government. Ending the services that family depended on, as essential, for paying bills and putting food on the table.
The government did that, not the virus.
Even Forbes noticed it; “A disturbing trend noticed during the outbreak was the heavy-handed nature of the government. Whether you agree or disagree with the closing of businesses and orders to stay home, it smacks of “Big Brother,” 1984 Orwellian stuff. Government officials telling citizens to “rat” on their fellow Americans seems scarily like something you’d expect under an authoritarian regime.” [14]
Then, as everyone is hurting for money, cities and police departments started going around and issuing citations and fines for not obeying Orwellian orders [20]!
And those who preach “care about others, stay in side” clearly don’t care that a majority of people who will be suffering from these government actions; far worse than the virus. Suicide rates are expected to rise because of all this! [15, 17] And this is caring for others? Substance abuse is on the rise [16]. Might have something to do with the government declaring alcohol sales as essential and church not.
This propaganda hit piece in the LA Times about a small protest in LA quotes an “expert” as saying this:
“This blows me away,” she said. “People are dying — and at an alarming rate!”
The healthcare worker said she had seen a friend from her Huntington Beach church moments earlier. “He said he is tired of his rights being taken away,” the woman said.
“This has nothing to do with politics … It’s science!” she added. “This is a mob mentality,” she said, noting the police presence but lack of action [19].
Actually, math says that random “expert” is wrong. In fact, in LA the mortality rate is dropping at an alarming rate as they test more, discover more, more recover, and less die… But why does that person think that? Because they were told so…
LOL “its science” She would be the kind of person, in the 14th century, that would have believed the earth was flat, simply because of the leading science said so, without question.
And, secondly, her friends rights ARE being taken away. Do we need to do another Bill of Rights lesson? Sure:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
LOL the government is doing exactly that. Enforcing laws/orders that ARE prohibiting the free exercise of religion AND the right of peaceful assembly. This healthcare worker, is a moron, indoctrinated tool.
Then, in San Diego, a woman has been notified she’s facing a $1,000 fine or jail time for organizing a “freedom rally” against COVID-19 orders [20, 21]. Naomi Soria, 27, on Wednesday confirmed she was facing penalties for the downtown protest that drew hundreds. Later, she announced another rally this Sunday in Pacific Beach. The San Diego Police Department confirmed it has contacted the City Attorney’s Office “requesting their review to issue charges against the protest organizer for violating the county health order by organizing a gathering,”
The county health order supersedes her Constitutional right to peacefully assemble?!
The Center for American Liberty should take this trash all the way to the supreme court, win, and then she should sue the shit out of the city.
Do we care about our community?
And you clearly don’t. You support that which is going to cause more harm than the actual virus.
And, they clearly don’t. They are more than willing to follow orders and comply to something that will harm their community long term and worse than the virus.
Police departments declare that “protesting is a non-essential activity“ . (The same shitty police departrment that shot someone as they were running away [18]). PROTESTING IS A HUMAN RIGHT!
local governments dictate where and when you can an can’t go with essential/non-essential declarations and curfews. LIBERTY IS A HUMAN RIGHT!
Governments declare alcohol and abortion clinics [23] are essential and can remain open but churches and Christians can’t worship on their holiest of days (Easter). THEN even force church services to stop and fine people… people who may be out of work and in financial trouble… FREEDOM TO WORSHIP AND ASSEMBLE IS A HUMAN RIGHT!
Facebook and Twitter are banning free speech and free press about all the problematic data [24, 25]. This article may even, eventually, get banned (even though I quote all the sources they deem as reliable).
For what?
Over fear of a virus with a 0.79% mortality rate…
If you believe that is justifiable, you are a damn indoctrinated government tool and you deserve to have your rights taken away.
YOU are allowing this! the prosecution of whistleblowers, free speech, and free press through Julian Assange [6b] and Edward Snowden [7b]; which exposed the governments involvement in illegally spying on citizens and murder of civilians; police targeting Christians who worshiped on their holiest day when the local governments ordered them not to, 2020 [1b]. Raleighn Police Department and in San Diego acting against peaceful protests in 2020 [2b, 20]. Virginia Governor declares a state of emergency prior to peaceful protests in 2019 [3b].
Sources:
From the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, and letters from the founding fathers, of the once-most-free nation on earth, we see a RIGHT of the people, that no one wants to talk about because of what it entails:
The very opening of the Declaration of Independence we see a shadow of it:
“…it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”
Then, in the second paragraph, it hits:
Now, revolutions and abolishing the government is NOT and SHOULD NOT be a knee jerk reaction to something that is oppressive to the people.
These evils should be suffered, endured; and change from within, peacefully, should be sought first and foremost.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
BUT, when the government resists change, grows in oppression, and continues in evil; despite the people’s peaceful attempts to change it…
THEN this RIGHT is justifiably exercised:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government“
The colonies suffered through these oppression. They tried to get the government they fell under to change its oppressiveness toward them. But, it resisted them. It grew in oppression. So, the time came to exercise their RIGHT:
“and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.“
And is futile if only a couple of people agree to, it takes an entire community. Roughly 33% of the colonist were pro-revolution and about 13% of the colonist actually participated in the revolution. These 13% of brave, selfless, bold men received support from only more 20% of their communities. And that was it. Everyone else was either comfortable in their peaceful slavery and abuse or were loyalists and received some sort of benefit for being loyal to the crown.
But, we see here, that feelings, don’t trump rights. The feelings of the peaceful slaves, and the feelings of the Loyalist, didn’t trump the feelings of the revolutionaries. The peaceful slaves didn’t want change and the Loyalist didn’t want a new form of government. Yet, the revolutionaries strived for both. The offense of others does not negate what out of necessity, needs to be done.
We also see that the “common good” neglected 1/3rd of the community so that 2/3rds could be comfortable. This abuse and neglect of the smaller portion of the community for the betterment of the larger portion of the community was not a justifiable reason to continue on and endure the government abuse.
The Stamp Act was passed by English Parliament in March 1765, which put a direct tax on the colonies for the first time. Every single thing, made or mailed to and from the colonies must have an official Stamp, and to get the Stamp, they had to pay a tax. They didn’t complain that the tax as too high, but that it was so low it was more of an inconvenience AND they didn’t have representation when it was passed. Benjamin Franklin testified in Parliament in 1766 that Americans already contributed heavily to the defense of the Empire.
The Sons of Liberty formed that same year in 1765, and they used public demonstrations, boycott, and threats of violence to ensure that the British tax laws were unenforceable. In Boston, the Sons of Liberty burned the records of the vice admiralty court and looted the home of chief justice Thomas Hutchinson. Several legislatures called for united action, and nine colonies sent delegates to the Stamp Act Congress in New York City in October. Moderates led by John Dickinson drew up a “Declaration of Rights and Grievances” stating that taxes passed without representation violated their rights as Englishmen, and colonists emphasized their determination by boycotting imports of British merchandise. Parliament agreed and repealed the tax on February 21, 1766, but they insisted in the Declaratory Act of March 1766 that they retained full power to make laws for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever”. The repeal nonetheless caused widespread celebrations in the colonies.
In 1767, the Parliament passed the Townshend Acts which placed duties on a number of staple goods, including paper, glass, and tea, and established a Board of Customs in Boston to more rigorously execute trade regulations. The new taxes were enacted on the belief that Americans only objected to internal taxes and not to external taxes such as custom duties.
In January 1769, Parliament responded to the unrest by reactivating the Treason Act 1543 which called for subjects outside the realm to face trials for treason in England. The governor of Massachusetts was instructed to collect evidence of said treason, and the threat caused widespread outrage, though it was not carried out.
In February 1768, the Assembly of Massachusetts Bay issued a circular letter to the other colonies urging them to coordinate resistance. The governor dissolved the assembly when it refused to rescind the letter. A riot broke out in Boston in June 1768 over the seizure of the sloop Liberty, owned by John Hancock, for alleged smuggling. Customs officials were forced to flee, prompting the British to deploy troops to Boston. A Boston town meeting declared that no obedience was due to parliamentary laws and called for the convening of a convention. A convention assembled but only issued a mild protest before dissolving itself.
On March 5, 1770, a large crowd gathered around a group of British soldiers. The crowd grew, throwing snowballs at them. There was no order to fire, but the soldiers fired into the crowd anyway. They hit 11 people; three civilians died at the scene of the shooting, and two died after the incident. The event quickly came to be called the Boston Massacre.
In 1771, at Great Alamance Creek, 2,000 Tar Heel farmers called Regulators had led an uprising, the largest armed rebellion in any English colony to that time. They wanted to “regulate” the governor’s corrupt local officials, who were charging huge fees and seizing property. The royal governor, William Tryon, and his militia crushed the rebellion at the Battle of Alamance.
In June 1772, American patriots, including John Brown, burned a British warship that had been vigorously enforcing unpopular trade regulations in what became known as the Gaspee Affair. The affair was investigated for possible treason, but no action was taken.
In 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act to lower the price of taxed tea exported to the colonies in order to help the East India Company undersell smuggled Dutch tea. Colonists in Boston, Massachusetts, had thrown shipments of tea into the harbor rather than pay Parliament’s taxes on the tea. This came to be known as the Boston Tea Party and word spread of the act all throughout the colonies.
The British government responded by passing several Acts which came to be known as the Intolerable Acts. The first was the Massachusetts Government Act which altered the Massachusetts charter and restricted town meetings. The second act was the Administration of Justice Act which ordered that all British soldiers to be tried were to be arraigned in Britain, not in the colonies. The third Act was the Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston until the British had been compensated for the tea lost in the Boston Tea Party. The fourth Act was the Quartering Act of 1774, which allowed royal governors to house British troops in the homes of citizens without requiring permission of the owner.
In June 1774, the Massachusetts legislature issued a call for all of the colonies to meet at Philadelphia to consider these problems. But Royal Governor Josiah Martin refused to call a meeting of North Carolina’s legislature in time (on purpose) to select delegates to go to Philadelphia. So the colony’s Whigs (those who favored independence) formed a provincial congress that sent representatives to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in September.
Then, in 1774, the the Massachusetts Bay Colony elected ruling council was abrogated and replaced with a British military government under Gen. Thomas Gage, the commander of all British troops in North America. He began warlike operations all throughout New England such as seizing stores of weapons and powder. But, the Sons of Liberty and Committees of Correspondence dispatched Paul Revere December 13, 1774, to issue a warning to local allies.
In 1775, Gen. Gage then received orders to arrest of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress. In a letter to him it stated, “arrest and imprison the principal Actors and Abettors in the [Massachusetts] Provincial Congress.”
In April 1775, British soldiers, called lobsterbacks because of their red coats, and minutemen—the colonists’ militia—exchanged gunfire at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. Described as “the shot heard round the world,” it signaled the start of the American Revolution and led to the creation of a new nation.
And then, the revolution began.
We can take from their justifications in the declaration of independence and the events that took place in history, and see how they were justified in exercising this right.
Then, in conclusion states this:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
This made them “rebels” and “revolutionaries.”
They banded together, organized, formed an allegiance, and were willing to sacrifice their lives, fortunes, and honor for freedom.
Patrick Henry’s speech on March 23, 1775, sums it up very well, in part:
“For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery… Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven… Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation… what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission?… They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years… we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on… If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!.. Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?.. we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty… we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave… There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come… Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
These “People” formed a “more perfect union” and sought to correct all the things that the previous government failed.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. – The Constitution, Preamble
When you look at their justifications in the Declaration of Independence, you see The Bill of Rights.
#6 is extremely important. It is what justifies the absolute right of revolution. The government can not say the people exhausting all other peaceful options before resorting to violence. It is then the fault of the government for ignoring the petitions for redress. The People can have a clear conscience that they did everything else possible to avoid this, to avoid exercising this ultimate right.
What happens when the government makes laws prohibiting and abridging these rights and ignores the petitions for redress?
The idea of the need for the 2nd Amendment is what the founding fathers knew was necessary for THEM to exercise their absolute right to abolish oppressive governments.
Now, consider Congress now.
Are those who are in Congress actually representing YOU?
Are they imposing laws that go against your local communities needs?
Has Congress made the system so complicated and difficult for YOU to actually participate in?
Is YOUR local justice system fair?
Do the Police act as a “standing army” imposing laws you did not participate in creating and act superior to The People of their community?
Does your government and Congress address and fix your Petitioned for Redress, or is petitioning just pointless and vain?
Is your freedom and liberty being abridged by laws and Congress?
Doe you feel like your vote even counts?
Remember, it was a peace of paper that revolutionized the government… it was their right to revolt put into action.
We will logically, rationally, and, with the use of research and science, consider the arguments for abortion to determine if they are, in fact, logically and rationally, justified. If you have any other arguments not addressed, please contact us so that we may consider them and determine a response.
Response #1: Can women walk around in public naked? Nope. Can women legally elect to clone themselves? No. Can a woman, who has a conjoined twin, choose to kill her conjoined twin? No. Can a woman choose to have sex in public? Nope. Can woman choose to become prostitutes or not register as porn stars, yes, but it is illegal. We can go on and on about examples of what woman can not do with their bodies.
The injection of the word “moral” does not change the context of the subject, which is, freedom to do with their bodies as they choose. Further more, this “right” is not in the constitution, in fact, the constitution DOES limit this idea in the sense that some choices may interfere with the rights of others. Therefore, we can logically and rationally conclude that woman (and men) do not have an absolute right to decided what to do with their bodies.
Lets look the the ‘moral’ addition. Who’s morals are we imposing here? If the morality is determined by the current trend in society, than that is a problem. “The Moral Majority” justified slavery, segregation, oppression of woman’s rights, and is actually just subjective totalitarianism and authoritarianism disguised as a “universal morality” and forced on to the population by the advocates of this argument. Logically, historically, these were the people that used this same line of ‘moral’ logic that justified the Holocaust. They are not “moral” simply because they say they are or they just feel as though they are.
It is hypocritical for Christians to make this argument. Aside from the fact that threw out the bible, pregnancy is stated as a “reward” and “gift” from God (Gen. 25:21, 29:31, 30:1, 22; Deut. 7:14; Psalm 127:3). What exposes the contradiction and hypocrisy with this argument for any person claiming to be Christian is this: “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Therefore, for Christians, their “body is not your own.” and in demanding this right is in contradiction to their faith. Jesus, himself, in the Bible actually states this: “Jesus said, “Leave the children alone, and don’t try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.” (Matthew 19:14). Abortion would actually be disobedient to the command Jesus gives here. Christians who support abortion aren’t even obeying Jesus or even in agreement with the book that they claim is from God.
Response #2: The trend in abortion rights legislation actually seeks to exclude husbands and fathers from the decision process; thus, not seeking equality but superiority. If the husband and or father objects to the abortion, there is no legal standing for the husband or father to prevent the abortion of his unborn off-spring. Therefore, the argument for abortion as vital for gender equality, is false, in that, it actually gives a unequal superiority to one gender over the other.
Response #3: The assumed idea as part of this argument is that women who are stay-at-home moms are not achieving their individual full potential. There are mothers who see being a successful mother as the ultimate fullness of life. This argument also degrades single mothers who are successful in raising children and working; that the success of their children is directly caused by them achieving their full potential. The idea of “full potential” is subjective and is dependent on the beliefs and values of different people. To say that a woman, who has an abortion so that she will not have anything to interfere with their career, can now achieve her full potential is an insult to women who see raising children as a greater achievement. Therefore, this argument is solely subjective.
Response #4: The case of the legal abortion Doctor, Dr. Gosnell provides a problem for this argument. A woman died in his care, and he was a legal abortion provider. According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics there were only 39 women who died from a botched abortion in 1972. That is lower than people who have died from other basic procedures of the same year. The claim that thousands died in illegal botched abortions is just untrue and nonfactual.
The secondary argument is that those doctors were untrained and did not have the proper medical equipment. The secondary response to that is according the former medical director of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone. She wrote an article in 1960 for the American Journal of Health where she cited a 1958 study that indicated 84% to 87% of illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. By 1960, Dr. Calderone said that 90% of abortions, illegal though they may be, were performed by trained physicians. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology also disagrees with the increased risk of illegal abortions. In 1978, they stated that Roe V Wade “has had no major impact on the number of women dying from abortion.” They cited their own study which supported Dr. Calderone’s claim that 90% of illegal abortions had been performed by licensed physicians.
Notice that in the first argument, the word “moral” was used. This argument essentially calls for the legalization of an unjust act; which is, of itself, immoral.
A third argument uses stats from other countries and their maternity death rates. They pick data from countries will more legalized abortion showing a lower maternity death rate with other countries where abortion is more restricted with higher maternity death rates and assume its due to the access to abortion. The response is this: What they fail to consider is the healthcare systems themselves in each country. The highest-mortality nations are developing countries with poor maternal health care; the lowest-mortality nations are developed countries with advanced maternal health care. This is true irrespective of abortion policy. Some countries, for example, permit abortion and have high rates of mortality because their health care system is lacking. Other countries prohibit most abortions and have very low rates of maternal death (often lower than that of the U.S.) These countries include Chile, Ireland, Poland, Malta, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Lebanon.
Therefore, given the facts of abortions prior to legalization and now, the argument for an increased risk is untrue. It is more like a bias dishonest talking point, and straw man argument. How do we know there exists dishonest data? Take it from the fundamental Abortion advocate, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the NARAL co-founder who helped lead the effort to legalize abortion. He actually later acknowledged that his movement’s claims about the number of deaths from illegal abortion were wildly inaccurate:
“It was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the “morality” of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”
Response #5: This argument is a failed argument when considering history alone. The supreme court justified slavery and segregation. This is a disproved subjective metric for justifying anything.
Response #6: The viability of a fetus is problematic. Where the fetus must be able to survive outside of the womb to be considered a “person” and be granted constitutional rights. The logical problem with that is a 1 year old, born a year after exiting the birth canal, still can not survive on its own, alone. A 1 year old needs the parents to supply them with food, shelter, and care. A 1 year old does not know how to gather its own food and feed itself. If left alone, it will die. Logically, there is no different between a 1 year old and a 23 week old fetus. There are sick 3 year olds that require constant medical care to survive. According to the viability of a fetus logic, they can not be considered a person either.
The secondary argument is the stage of development. But again, runs into the same logical problem. A 23 week old fetus is still developing. But, the human brain does not stop developing until 20 to 30 years old. Most humans don’t stop physically fully developing until the age of 18 years old.
The third argument is that the fetus still requires development inside the womb. But, a 21 week fetus, has survived outside of the womb born in San Antonio, Texas, in 2014. That is 19 weeks less than a full term pregnancy. Did that baby not deserve a right to live? This argument is still dependent on the idea that the fetus requires assistance for development which goes back to Argument #1.
Response #7: This argument focuses on a primary instance. If the fetus DOES feel pain, does it then deserve a right to live? For the sake of argument, let us assume that this would be the deciding factor. But, there is a serious flaw with this. Unlike with blood pressure or body temperature, for example, there’s no definitive way to measure pain. Fetal pain is so controversial because pain is always a subjective experience, said Dr. Anne Davis, an OB/GYN and the consulting medical director for Physicians for Reproductive Health. People do have ways of communicating how much pain they’re feeling; for example, doctors often ask people to rate their pain on a scale of 1 to 10. But the experience of pain is fundamentally subjective, Davis said. In other words, what might be very painful to one person may cause very little pain to someone else. “Pain occurs in [the] brain,” Davis said. When a person is injured — say, you stub your toe, for example — a signal travels from the foot up through the nerves in the leg to the spinal cord, and then from spinal cord up to the brain, Davis said. Once that signal gets into the brain, the information is transmitted through a complex web of neurons to an area of the brain called the cortex, she said.
Receptors in the skin that sense injury are developed around the 7th week and continues on into the 15th week. Around the 15th to 19th week, the spinal cord develops the neurons that transmit the sense of injury to the brain. Dr. Anne Davis then states some fetuses may develop a little earlier, and some fetuses may develop a little later.
If a fetus can potentially feel pain at around 19 weeks, is it worth risking the mothers self perceived “fulfill life’s achievements” to cause that level of trauma to another human life? If “pain” determines “a living human” than “pain” is no longer the question but the sacrifice of that pain feeling human for the “betterment” of the host? Should choosing to cause extreme pain and death to another human even be a choice?
Therefore, because science is increasingly showing us that a fetus can feel a perceived pain earlier than expected, than this argument is ignorant of the science and is actually risking the pain and death of another human life.
Response #8: This argument is truly morally repugnant. At its premise is the idea that special-needs children are a burden and less valuable in life. This is the antithesis of discrimination against the disabled and special-needs. That life may be some how better without them. If this is an argument that someone truly believes, they are heartless, inhuman, intolerant, and subconsciously hateful toward special-needs persons; as they are more willing to sacrifice the fetus than to raise a special-needs child.
Response #9: So let me understand this argument a little better. Aborting a fetus so that a woman does not have to raise a child saves them money. The goal of this is money. Apparently, being a very good mother, raising a child for the betterment of the future, while having to live at a financial disadvantage; is not worth it. The issue here is how the person views the value of parenthood and motherhood. To someone who wants an advantage financially, and values that over motherhood; of course, abortion would be more desirable. But this again, brings us back to the ‘moral’ aspect. What is more valuable, motherhood or money?
Response #10: A person who chooses to perform acts that creates fetuses, and does not use the readily available contraceptives and protections; is surprised by pregnancy? This argument attempts to justify the behavior without the consequences. It indirectly implies that the consequences, a baby, is less valuable. Simply put, abortion should be an option simply because the mother does not want to be a mother. This elevates the desires of a person above the value of human life itself. This logic would also then justify this: A adult should not remain in the world if others do not wanted them. Congrats, this argument justifies suicide and assisted suicide- even genocide.
A secondary argument to this is that it would be morally wrong to bring a child into poverty and hardship and about the fetus to save a life from suffering. The response to this secondary argument is three fold. First, how do these proponents suddenly know the future life of that fetus? They are so selfishly blind, they disregard all the successful happy individuals that were raised in abuse and poverty. Second, suddenly there is a moral element of the wrongfulness of suffering and hardship that this future person shouldn’t experience. And some how, imposing a hardship and causing suffering of the fetus is excused from the immorality of hardship and suffering. This hypocrisy is only justified when morality is relative, which ultimately makes it arbitrary. Third, the argument disregards, eliminates, and discriminates against the rights of that future person to choose for themselves what they want to do with their body. At the core of the secondary argument is contradictory and hypocritical justifications which renders the argument invalid and completely ignorant of its own arguments.
An argument for abortion to prevent future pain and suffering of that future person is the same logical argument for infanticide, genocide, and forced euthanasia all the while denying the rights of that future person.
Response#11: Much like Argument #5, this is a terrible metric for justification. Many religious organizations and people of faith supported slavery, segregation, and in many parts of the world today, don’t even support woman’s rights as a whole. This is nothing more than subjective ‘feel-good’ self justifying argumentation.
Response #12: The logic behind this argument is almost laughable. Technically, we are all a group of cells. Does the number of cells constitute a human life? Does the look/development of a fetus constitute a human life or not? The problem is that the human body is constantly growing and replacing cells, throughout all your life. The human body is constantly developing and replacing cells. This argument is nothing more than an attempt to make someone feel better about abortion and to dehumanize a human fetus.
Response #13: The implied argument is that by removing the fetus, it would be no different than a medical procedure to remove tonsils or spleen. The issue with this is that a fetus is far more complex than a single organ. In fact, the fetus has its own organs; the same kind of organs as the mother.
On day one, the fetus has its own DNA, different from the mothers. The fetus’s own brain begins to form at 7 weeks. At 10 weeks the kidneys, intestines, brain, and liver are developed and starting to function. At 11 weeks the fetus can now hiccup but is too small for the mother to feel. At 12 weeks you can start to hear the heart beat. At 14 weeks the fetus’s kidneys are functioning and releasing urine into the amniotic fluid. At 19 weeks the fetus can hear the mothers heartbeat. At 24 weeks the fetus’s taste buds are developing and hair may even be growing. At 27 weeks, the fetus’s lungs are developing but won’t be fully functional for several more weeks. The fetus may be “practicing” for life on the outside by inhaling and exhaling amniotic fluid, sleeping and waking up at regular intervals, opening and closing his eyes, and sucking its fingers. All before the 3rd trimester. Does this sound like just another organ of the mother? It is far more complex than ALL other organs of the mother. It has all the same (gender-less) organs as the mother, of its own! To call this fetus, just another organ of the mother, is to be willingly or unwillingly ignorant of science.
Reason #14: This argument brings religion and The Bible into the discussion. Seeing that this issue is directly related to morality, that would actually make sense. So, let us consider The Bible verse used to justify late-term abortion. “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being, (Genesis 2:7).
On its face value it seems this settles it, but, when we actually take time to think about the verse in its entirety and in full context, that is not the case. According to this verse, these humans were formed from the dust of the ground… after that, they are formed in the womb. So these, first persons, were unique in their origin. From then on, in Genesis, it says that life is in the blood (Genesis 9:3-6) which the rest of the Old Testament continually affirms. So THIS initial statement about “becoming a living being” is the initial beginning of humanity, not every person after.
Then, as we research more into what The Bible actually teaches, we find this verse: “Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me,” (Psalm 51:5). Hu, how can a person be guilty of sin, before they are even considered a sinful person? This verse reinforces the later Genesis verses about life (after Adam and Eve) is directly related to flesh and not breath.
The nail in the coffin for this breath argument is this: “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret,” (Psalm 139:13-15). The author makes it clear he was HIMSELF, a living person, made in secret (in the womb), before his first breath.
Since people want to bring in the opinions of God, let’s do that. Here is a verse where God himself spoke through the author : “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). God himself, makes known, that we are a PERSON long before our first breath. An Apostles of the Christian faith also affirm this when the Apostle Paul stated: “But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through His grace” (Galatians 1:15). Paul admits that he was a PERSON, before birth and his first breath.
The BIG dilemma for this argument is anyone of faith, who adheres to this problematic contradictory argument must then admit that JESUS, The Son of God, was NOT a person until his first breath… if that was the case, than he could not be The Son of God, or even God as Christians believe.
A second verse that some of these adherents use is Job 33:4. But in full theological context, this is affirming the new life that God gives to those who come to faith and are “born again”.
A third verse is used, but usually, cut short to avoid the other verses after it. It is this: “When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. If there is an injury, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Exodus 21:22-24). The “born prematurely, but there is no injury” does NOT mean the baby died. It means there was no injury in the total situation. That means, the baby, did not die. BUT, notice verse 24, “If there is an injury, then you must give life for life…” That includes both wife and or baby. THAT MEANS, if the baby died, then… “life for life…” This is why it is important to read the context and include the totality of what The Bible teaches, not just out of context cherry picked verses. That is real research for those who are searching for truth, not selfish justification.
But, given the full context and totality of Bible verses, we can conclude that The Bible does not support this argument, but, in fact, teaches the exact opposite; that an unborn person, is a person before birth.
A nagging related consideration is, what about people are on life support and do not breath on their own, and if left on their own, they don’t breath and die… are they no longer a person because they are not breathing on their own?
Response #15: As noticed above, there are several attempted uses of Bible verses to compel Christians and justify abortion. Please see Response #15(F). Just as reasoned above, those have failed in their correct interpretation of the verses. But, that doesn’t stop people from using those debunked misinterpretations and other misunderstood verses. This is NOT a promotion for The Bible, but rather, an articulated response to the use of statements made in the Bible.
(A) Genesis 2:7 is always a go-to verse, but, as shows in Argument #14, it is ignorantly misunderstood and taken out of the full context. Exodus 21:22-25 is also addressed and disposed in Argument #14.
(B) Then we get to Numbers 5:11-31. This verse, at face value and in certain modern translations, supports a human induced miscarriage. But much like other verses in scripture, there is more in the context, culture, and theological undertones that help us correctly understand. For example, when Jesus explicitly said he is the door, he is not literally saying he is a literal door; even though that is exactly what was stated (John 10:9). There are contextual and theological undertones that help us understand and correctly interpret what he is actually saying. Same for Numbers 5. So there are some external factors that must be incorporated into understanding this passage.
First, the ancient Jews, themselves, did not understand this verse in the context of abortion. Ancient Jewish historian Josephus explained that verse, with no discussion of abortion (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, Chapter 11, Section 6). He did mention abortion in a previous book, however, but condemned it (Josephus, Against Apion Book 2, Chapter 25, Section 202). Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Nashim, Sotah 3:16-17 states that the point was not abortion but was an execution of the unfaithful woman AND man. Even the Samaritans, who believed in the Torah (The Old Testament) understood this passage to be about a vindication of the innocent or execution of the sinner, and not about abortion (John Bowman, Samaritan Documents (Pickwick Publications, 1977) 72). Even the early church did not see this verse about abortion but a vindication of purity. According to multiple heretical, apocryphal “gospel” traditions, Mary and Joseph were both subjected to the test of the water and both came away unharmed (Protoevangelium of James, Section 16; Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Chapter 12). So, we must understand and interpret this verse how it was meant to be. Given that no one until recently understand this verse as justifying abortion, we must see how they saw it; a test to curse adultery or vindicate those who were pure, and condemn the overly jealous husband. The context was never about inducing a miscarriage.
Second, we can look at the context clues of the verse itself. IF miscarriage did happen, due to the wife’s curse and death, that was a result from a curse! Even if this verse was about abortion, it is still saying it is a negative outcome. Induced miscarriage was part of the curse! We can see that the purpose of this was NOT to CAUSE a miscarriage but to determine PURITY and expose SIN. The sin of the unfaithful wife or the excessively jealous husband in contrast to the declaration of purity of the wife or husband. Justifies one person and exposes the other. That is the point.
Third, there is even debate in the biblical scholarly community whether or not that verse is contains the concept of miscarriage. The New Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford University Press, 2007). Renders the verse “And this water that brings the curse shall enter your belly, to swell the belly and make your thigh fall to pieces,” (Numbers 5:22, LXX). Keep in mind that all the ancient Jewish scholars did not interpret the passage to be referring to induced miscarriages.
Fourth, the blessing in verse 28: “she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.” Why would she WANT to have children if this verse is justifying having a willful miscarriage? Logic shows that this verse can not be justifying induced miscarriage if being “able to have children” is on the same lines of being “cleared of guilt”.
(C) Then we hear that ‘life is not sacred according to Deut 28: 18-24.‘ There is a fundamental element missing in this logic. It is God who determines what is sacred, not man. An eternal Creator of all space, time, and matter is perfectly justified to declare what he determines to be sacred, when, where, and how. He alone has that just authority. We do not. With that in mind, he is perfectly justified to curse those who are disobedient to him (verse 15). This does not negate the sacred nature of humanity. We are all still made in the image of God; and God is sacred (Gen 1:26). He has the authority to curse, even that which he has declared sacred. That means, he is the only logical authority that can make such a declaration and justified act. Therefore, Life is still sacred and Deut 28 does not negate that.
Isa 13:18 is another that is attempted to be used to degrade the sacredness of life. But those who us this verse as means to degrade the sanctity of infants fail, again, to remember the fundamental elements of God and humanity. God is perfectly just and humanity are sinners. Here, God is allowing humanity to do exactly what they do, sin, but he is using what mankind is already willingly guilty of, for his purposes in his divine judgement over the sinful Babylonians or Chaldeans with the sinful the Medes. Life is still sacred because God alone is justified in how he judges sacred sinful humanity.
Hos 9:10-16 again talks about the judgement for sin, which included infanticide. But notice this “But when they came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol and became as vile as the thing they loved…But Ephraim will bring out their children to the slayer.” These people already were sacrificing their children! Seeing as how they were already killing their children, God wasn’t going to allow them to have children to kill, “Ephraim’s glory will fly away like a bird— no birth, no pregnancy, no conception.” This whole verse makes disposing of infants and children negatively! Either by willingly sacrificing them or as the punishment of no pregnancy or conception. Its not a positive light not matter what. Restated in Hos 13:16.
(D) Just like the reasoning of Argument #14(C), God, the eternal authority of all things can do all that he pleases. When the bible says God will rip open pregnant mothers-to-be (2 Kings 8:12) he can do just that. How so? Because, according to God (the Bible) we are all sinners and sin is a capital offense. The funny thing with the use of this verse is that it is not even talking about God in the first place. Hazael is going to kill the pregnant mothers. God just gave Elisha a heads up and Elisha is telling Hazael what he is going to do in the future (because of his sinful heart). This verse has absolutely nothing to do with abortion and it just reveals the ignorance of some who try to use it for such. There are many more verse that record evil and sinful people doing evil acts, such as killing pregnant women. This is not a justification for it, just a narrative and record of it. History books that record slavery and murder are not condoning it, just historically documenting it. (2 Kings 15:16).
In Psalm 137:9 we see the captive Jew author being mocked by their captors in Babylon. The author is calling for justice to their oppressor. Notice “happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us.” followed by “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” That is what they did to them; the author, a sinner, is asking for equal violent justice. And only God can rightly deliver equal justice over sacred human life.
(E) As shown, there are a lot of events in the Bible where it is recorded that pregnant women and infants are killed and miscarriages happen. We must never forget two things when correctly understanding biblical passages. #1: Mankind are sinners before God and the just punishment is death. #2: God alone is the authority over what is sacred. When the bible records murder, it is not condoning it, but recording it. When the bible records a killing, only God can justify it.
(F) When atheists and non-Christians use bible verses. They have a major logical dilemma. Those who are not a Christian already begin with the premise that the bible is incorrect, faulty, and fallible. Their lack of faith in its divine truth is proof of this. How reliable is trusting information from someone who is completely dishonest and unbelievable? By using the Bible as justifications for your arguments, that just validates the truthfulness of The Bible. Which then, you would be contradicting yourself in your disbelief of The Bible; invalidating your whole argument simply because of your lack of trust in The Bible at your premise. Some will use it in an attempt to expose, what they perceive to be, irrational beliefs. But, hypocritically, they themselves, misunderstand and misinterpret the verse they are using.
This is THE question that answers all objections and arguments; and actually reveals at what point are people committing murder, the absolute universal moral wrong.
Does the stage of development determine our “Personhood”? No, it cant, because WE are continually developing as young adults as well.
Does being dependent on the mother determine our “Personhood”? No, because, even toddlers are completely and absolutely dependent on the mother for food, shelter, and care; or they too, die.
Does simply being in the womb exclude us from being a “human being”? No, because it is the same in respect to dependency. The only difference is the location. So then does the location determine our “Personhood”? No because that doesn’t change, who we are, no matter where we are at. Even outside of the womb, infants and toddlers must remain intimately close to the mother. When the mother feeds an infant they are, in fact, only inches away from where they were a few months before, in the womb…
Does not having certain organs or certain feelings, such as pain, determine our “Personhood”? No, because one does not stop being human if they have an organ removed or are born without certain organs. Even some adults don’t have the same feelings of pain or have neurological disorders that prevents them from feeling certain ways. Are they less human? No.
Does not looking human determine our “Personhood”? No, because there are people born without arms and or legs. Some are born with deformities. Are they less of a human? No.
Is a person, still developing, but has their own DNA and organs, who is completely dependent on the mother, and must live in close proximity to the mother, who does not have a certain organ or legs, can be financially and emotionally costly, and does not look like a normal person… is this “person” not a person? Congrats, I just described a fetus and a toddler, at the same time. Of which abortion justifies the killing of both.
This is an age old question for the religious and non religious. In regards to the Christian faith, this issue is tackled directly in scripture and through scripture we can understand this issue of eating meat. Is it morally wrong? Are we free to eat any food? Why some meat was forbidden and what changed. What does God reveal about killing animals and eating meat?
In The Beginning
Genesis 1:29 is where we start: “God also said, “Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the surface of the entire earth and every tree whose fruit contains seed. This food will be for you,“.
Clearly in the beginning, before sin entered the world, there was no need to eat meat. That would requiring killing an animal. But ‘killing’ was not even a known occurrence before sin. In God’s original design, there was not need, thus, meat was not a necessary thing in a diet. But then, sin entered the world and corrupted everything, even the human body. Changing the dynamic of what the human body needed to be efficient and function effectively.
Genesis 1:17“…“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
No longer did the ground offer all the important essential nutrients for the human body to work
efficiently. Even the human body changed where it needed some nutrients that are not found in plants. “Animal protein contains all the essential amino acids in the right ratios. It is important for muscle mass and bone health, to name a few [2]… Carnosineis protective against various degenerative processes in the body and may protect against aging. It is found only in animal foods [3]… Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) is the most active form of Omega-3 fatty acids in the body and primarily found in animal foods. The plant form of Omega-3s, ALA, is inefficiently converted to DHA in the body[4]…”[1] There are studies that validate this just to name a few.
Genesis 1:21 “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.”
This is the first ever instance in recorded history where an animal was sacrificed for man to hide their newly discovered nakedness. Not only is this symbolic of what God did for us through sacrificing Jesus, and covering us with his righteousness; but also showed that killing animals was not morally wrong in itself, as God can not do something morally wrong.
Eating Meat Permitted By God
Leviticus 11:1-3, 9, 21, 46 “The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud… Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams you may eat any that have fins and scales…. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat… These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves about in the water and every creature that moves along the ground. 47 You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.’”
Now we see God explicitly allow mankind to eat meat. The reason for the Israelites to only eat certain kinds is for reducing health issues and also to bet set apart from the rest of the world that eat everything without a care, without thankfulness to God, or knowledge of health issues.
Some of those meats chosen by God for Israelites not to eat were for religious reasons, and not because they were necessarily bad. Leviticus 11:4 “it is ceremonially unclean for you.”. This command establishes the difference from those who obey and trust God and those who live a part from God. This shows people that desire to obey and worship God over their own desire to eat what they please. Again, this is God’s Law to the Israelites for ceremonial and health reasons.
Eating Meat With Jesus
Jesus’ miracle of feeding the multitudes in Matthew 14:13-21 included bread and fish. Jesus miraculously multiplied fish specifically for the people to eat. Did he lead them to sin? Of course not, God does not lead people into sin (James 1:13). Matthew 14:20 states “They all ate and were satisfied”. That includes the disciples and Jesus. If that wasn’t helpful enough, in John 21:3-13, Jesus helped the disciples catch fish for the purpose of eating, and then ate the fish with them!
The Holy Spirit, through Paul
If God allowed to us to eat meat, and Jesus himself ate meat, wasn’t enough; The Holy Spirit, through Paul, should settle the matter. In Romans 14:1-3 it is explicitly stated “The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.” Someone who wants to have a vegetarian diet may do so, but NOT judge those who eat meat. Someone who eats meat should not have ‘contempt’ on those who are vegetarian. Faith in Jesus Christ and God’s glory is primary, and the specifics of a diet is a secondary “disputable matter”. Its not what you eat, but why you eat, and who you thank for it (Romans 14:6); Thus, again, we see eating meat as acceptable to God just as much as not eating meat.
Weak In Faith?
The interesting statement made by Paul is this: “One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The Greek word for “weak” here is ἀσθενέω which means: “to be weak, feeble, to be without strength, powerless”. Why would people who “eat only vegetables” be “weak, feeble, without strength, powerless”? They are not being rebellious or purposely doing something selfish or self-righteous. They are weak because they are still growing in faith (feeble) and still do not have the kind of faith that makes them feel able to eat what ever they want out of fear of offending God. They are not fearless enough in their faith to not be concerned about food. Those who eat meat know they are doing no wrong because they deeply understand what is stated in Matthew 15:11, 1 Corinthians 10:31, and Romans 8:1. They are more thankful to God for any food and are less concerned about what kind of food. God is their focus and not their diet. But though people who are still feeble in faith, still need to be completely and wholesomely accepted in the church; because God has accepted them despite their focus on their diet.
When Does A Strict Diet Become Wrong or Immoral?
Being a vegetarian or eating meat becomes wrong and immoral when we feel that our diet justifies us and makes us ‘more’ righteous. When someone hypocritically judge others and claim those who eat meat are “murdering innocent animals”; they look at themselves as more righteous because they do not. This kind of logic means that God is a murderer and immoral for doing the very first animal killing. This kind of logic means that Jesus is immoral or less righteous because he ate meat. We know that God can not be immoral and Jesus is perfectly righteous; so killing animals to eat, and being thankful to God for it, can not be wrong. Maintaining a strict diet so that someone feelsmore right, and thinks they are justified by keeping it; is a form of legalism that Jesus frees us from.
Summery
Eating meat is not immoral just as being a vegetarian is not immoral. We are weaker in faith when we focus more on the specifics of our diet and not on our thankfulness to God for any and all food. God killed the first animal, Jesus ate fish, and The Holy Spirit through Paul made it clear both are accepted by God in faith for his glory.
Well, it’s officially obvious, a majority of Americans desire peaceful slavery over a dangerous freedom. They are willing to obey a system that puts their human rights on hold for the flu. They are so easily influenced by constant media that they are thrown in to a panic over toilet paper. They claim to hate socialism and the bullying of the moral majority, yet praise a president that is exerting extreme government control and influence. Government officials declaring that churches can’t meet. Government officials telling you where you can and cannot go. This is reality.American freedom is an illusion.
Suddenly all these government regulations can be put on hold to better the economy… if that’s true, why have them at all to always have a better economy?
And who are these officials and experts we are listening to? They are all part of a system that is completely dependent on the government. Of course their going to support MORE governmental action. Of course they are going to demand more government spending. Of course they are going to demand government bailouts. Oh and don’t forget, down the road, they are going to demand increasing the taxes on the rich and the corporations to help fund more massive government programs and expansions to “ensure this doesn’t happen again.” But, it will, can’t control nature and China, Communist Massive Government Control China couldn’t even contain it. But these officials and experts will cry for more government anyway.
Then the government tells free people they can’t go to church, can’t go out and eat, can’t go to work. Then they tell the private business they can’t open. Then, what do you know, it turns into an economic problem! With the government coming into save the day, of the problem they created… And these “free” people, obey like slaves. Then complain about “how am I going to feed my family or pay my bills if I can’t go to work…” STFU you slave, you agreed to go home, you agreed to close your business, you obeyed like a bitch, now live the consequences.
When scared, a nation’s true colors show. Suddenly they want mommy daddy government to save them because they failed to be prepared. They want closed borders. They want to be hold what to do. That saying, “weak-men create hard times” is a historical fact, and now, we have nothing but a majority of weak men, creating a hard time. And it’s only going to get worse.
Not a single freedom group in California are in the streets. They are okay with the government suspending their constitutional rights, over a flu virus. And don’t worry, these authoritarian politicians are taking notes. They see exactly what they can get away with and how far they can push being in control and restricting rights.
So let’s address some of those bootlicking arguments for this level of obedience:
That’s a cute argument. Odd how no one really argues for this, this hard, every year, for a virus that is statistically more dangerous. The general population goes and gets their flu shot and goes about their business. 56,000 people died in 2012-2013 flu season (1) and around 710,000 flu hospitalizations (not even counting those who were infected but did not go to the hospital or where hospitalized). So why wasn’t there a run on toilet paper and country wide shut down in 2013? Right now there are an estimated 27,000 cases with 347 deaths (2). That is no where near the 2013 flu season numbers.
So what stopped the stead of the virus in all the other years prior? Well, logic demands us to admit that it wasn’t the government’s commands to shut down all business and schools and order free citizens to stay home…
Yeah? I like to hear that argument from people who support abortion clinics in their community, impose a tax increase on targeted members of their community, or force certain members of their community to accept anything… They are also the same people who buy 500 rolls of toilet paper, because F everyone else. And usually, these aren’t the type of people to volunteer additional money, along with their taxes, to the local government either. Forcing the closing of local businesses is actually worse for the community; local employees go home without paychecks. Local business lose out in important income to pay their works and buy/produce more product. This has a lasting effect on the community. But because the government said so, it must be right…
Keep Businesses open, BUT empower them to conduct MORE cleaning and sanitizing of their places of business. Request the aid of local non-profit and local volunteers to assist. Leave it up to that private business to decided a customer limit or change in business hours.
Empower and support Employers to send home employees with symptoms or have been around someone who has/had symptoms. Request compensation from state or federal agencies or even donations from the local community to financially support those who missed work so the business doesn’t face the full financial force.
Whatever government agency is closed down, divert those tax funds toward cleaning and sanitation supplies and conduct cleanings of government buildings and public grounds and create fund for local businesses to apply for financial aid.
Just a few ideas to assist in efforts to combat the virus while simultaneously keep the local economy going strong, and families bills paid and fed.
What we have learned from this is a number of things:
1. The modern American culture is weak. To toughen up, it will take very hard times or very hard parenting to changed the negative trajectory next generation. If the flu can throw the nation into chaos, just imagine what else could. And notice how easy it was. Some bad news, repeated over and over by the media, and a little bit of fear-mongering and hype. that’s it.
2. Need to be prepared to be self sufficient for at least 6 months. This means growing your own food, jarring your own food, freezing your own food, stocking up on can goods, non-perishables items with long life spans. Having a chicken coop, going fishing, and raising other animals for food such as rabbits and squirrel. This frees up money for the purchasing of other times. Becoming less dependent on the local energy supply and water supply by having generators, solar power items, water catching and filtration set up. Sustainable food, water, and energy supply will get you through the hard times that are too come.
3. Financial Independence. Dependence on the government is shameful. Having a savings account is extremely important and paying off your debt is very important as well. But, notice influence go through the roof because of what Trump did. Printing off trillions of dollars. That is going to drive the value of the dollar DOWN. So, because the dollar is just expensive monopoly money, it would be a good idea to actually invest in and store hard precious metals like gold and silver.
4. Network of Patriots. Communicate with a close group of local friends to share plans and resources during hard times.
You really can’t blame this virus for all the hardships to come, really. The seasonal flu infects more and kills more, annually. But it was the government that closed all the businesses and turned off the economy, not the flu. Then, it was the government that injected trillions of printed dollars into the banks, printed out of thin air. It was the government that infringed on all your basic human rights; and you were okay with it. Why? To make you think and feel like you “need” the government more than you ever have, and to give them a greater control over the private sector and you.
But, you can’t blame the virus. You elected these people. You obeyed without question…
There is a new kind of HATE that is acceptable in American culture. It is not strictly race or religion based but ideological. If you subscribe to a particular ideology, it is acceptable in the culture to be hateful towards you- more like Culturally Approved Hypocrisy and Hate. To PROVE this, I just need to cite a couple of real life examples that are more common in day to day life. These 5 points help reveal this truly hateful accepted American ideology.
PROOF: It is WRONG to refuse business against to particular ideology (Modern Liberal) BUT it IS okay to refuse business of those who have a different ideology (Conservative).
A). https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/
B). https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/06/27/like-red-hen-restaurants-can-often-refuse-service-based-politics/734215002/
Notice the thoughtful justification in both articles, then compare their standard with each other…
PROOF: It is WRONG to censor free speech BUT it IS okay to censor free speech of an different ideology (Conservative).
A). http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/389262-nfl-player-freedom-of-speech-does-not-exist-for-nfl-players-now
B). https://atlantablackstar.com/2018/08/07/candace-owens-charlie-kirk-attacked-by-antifa-protesters-yelling-f-k-white-supremacy/
C). https://www.vox.com/2018/8/6/17655658/alex-jones-facebook-youtube-conspiracy-theories
PROOF: It is WRONG to silence black speech BUT IT IS Okay to silence black speakers who hold a different view of oppression liberal theology.
A). https://ncac.org/resource/black-voices-silenced
B). http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/400547-antifa-protests-tpusas-candace-owens-charlie-kirk-over-breakfast
PROOF: It is WRONG to associate Hitler with Obama, but it is OKAY to associate Hitler with Bush and Trump.
A). https://fair.org/extra/playing-the-nazi-card/
B). https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/08/nancys_nazi_shock_did_she_forget_the_bush_years_97812.html
C). http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/media/AnalogiesUSPresHitlerMegan.htm
D). https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/why-comparing-trumps-america-to-nazi-germany-misses-the-point.html
E). https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/10/democrats_have_become_what_they_say_they_despise_137769.html
PROOF: It is WRONG to make any generalized judgement about an entire race UNLESS they are “White”. It IS OKAY to judge “white people”, some, most, others, whatever the amount, a judgement that is race focused on a sorted group of people, of whom the judge has NEVER MET.
Example: “I don’t mean ALL white people… just some white people”… is a racial judgement on “some white people” that are judged solely based on assumptions and skin color because the true ethics, qualities, and characteristics of those “some” is still unknown.
A). https://www.theroot.com/white-people-explained-1827479753
B). https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/28/racism-white-defensive-robin-diangelo-white-fragility/637585002/
Now, lets LOGICALLY and RATIONALLY look at all that is going on, put sissified emotionalism aside and see what is REALLY GOING ON.
Fight racism, but use racist ideologies against people who may disagree. They cry for free speech, then censor those who they disagree with. They want equality, then discriminate those who they disagree with. They cry, “my body, my choice” but then MAKE YOU pay for it!
The NEW form of HATE in America is Modern Liberalism. It IS exactly what it claims not to be! Hateful.
The really sad part is that three things: either people see it and turn a blind eye to it because they are to cowardly to confront it, or they are blind to it, or they believe it and are okay with it…
With the spread of the flu-like Covid-19 virus, government orders to close, and the community in fear of getting sick; at what point should a church close its doors and temporarily end meeting? To get clear guidance, we must seek God’s Word, and not our feelings or thoughts from our fragile emotional state. What did Jesus and The Apostles do? What did the early church do? What does Holy Scripture say?
John 4:46-53 is interesting, not only is it a sickness healing, but Jesus brings up a interesting point.
46 Then He went again to Cana of Galilee, where He had turned the water into wine. There was a certain royal official whose son was ill at Capernaum. 47 When this man heard that Jesus had come from Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and pleaded with Him to come down and heal his son, for he was about to die.
48 Jesus told him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will not believe.”
49 “Sir,” the official said to Him, “come down before my boy dies!”
50 “Go,” Jesus told him, “your son will live.” The man believed what Jesus said to him and departed.
51 While he was still going down, his slaves met him saying that his boy was alive. 52 He asked them at what time he got better. “Yesterday at seven in the morning the fever left him,” they answered. 53 The father realized this was the very hour at which Jesus had told him, “Your son will live.” Then he himself believed, along with his whole household.
Now, it doesn’t say WHAT the boy was sick with except the fact he was sick and was going to die. There is something interesting to note. Jesus didn’t travel to the sick boy’s house. Instead, healed the boy from the a distance. Right here, some people may use this as an example was to why self-isolation is acceptable for the church because God heals from a distance. BUT, that is a failure to see the REAL reason for this sort of RARE “distance” healing. Verse 51 would be completely irrelevant. That’s the point. The time and distance PROVES Jesus has divine healing powers. THAT’s the point. Not the distance. So, this is actually a poor example for self-isolation and God’s healing of the COVID-19.
Now, there was a very important point to be made, by Jesus. Jesus REBUKES the people, including the royal official. He literally says “you people,” referring to the crowds that follow him to see what he does and don’t really ponder what he says. He generally rebukes them for not believing in HIM as the living WORD and trusting the WORDS that he says as coming from God himself. Instead, these doubters need to see miracles for themselves in order to give some sort of self satisfying credence to his words.
There is a natural thing inside humans that if it tickles our senses, it feels more satisfyingly credible. This is also true for fellowship. If you meet people in person, or see people in person, and hear a pastor speak in person, and sing your favorite worship song in person; how much greater of the a feeling do you have than if you just watched it online. There is a natural and massive difference. Keep that in mind (1).
LUKE 4:38-40, a high fever
38 After He left the synagogue, He entered Simon’s house. Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Him about her. 39 So He stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. She got up immediately and began to serve them. 40 When the sun was setting, all those who had anyone sick with various diseases brought them to Him. As He laid His hands on each one of them, He would heal them.
Peter’s wife’s mother had “a high fever.” In this day, a fever of 101 would almost just feel like a hard days work. So for them to note, at this time, she had a “high” fever, means she was in bad shape. But look at Jesus, he “stood over her.” Jesus didn’t maintain any sort of “social distancing.” But it gets better, “all those who had anyone sick with various diseases brought them to Him. As He laid His hands on each one of them...” They were physically bringing their sick, possible with viruses, to Jesus. And Jesus would literally, physically touch them. No gloves, no masks, no protective gear; just faith.
These people would have NEVER had an encounter with CHRIST JESUS, if “social distancing” was enforced legally and or culturally. Keep that in mind (2).
LUKE 5:12-14, Leprosy
12 While He was in one of the towns, a man was there who had a serious skin disease [leprosy] all over him. He saw Jesus, fell facedown, and begged Him: “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” 13 Reaching out His hand, He touched him, saying, “I am willing; be made clean,” and immediately the disease left him. 14 Then He ordered him to tell no one: “But go and show yourself to the priest, and offer what Moses prescribed for your cleansing as a testimony to them.”
Though this translation does not specifically say “leprosy,” other early writings and translations do. It is a contagious bacterial infection that gets ugly quick. Jesus, in his human body, that gets tired, needs food and hydration, reached out his hand and literally, physically, touched him. There is a symbolic concept here too. This would, according to Pharisaic additional laws and jewish ceremonial laws, would make Jesus unclean. But, we know that Jesus is far from unclean, in fact, he is the exact, perfect opposite, he is perfectly sinlessly holy. BUT he TOUCHED an unclean, infectious person. He did not avoid them. He did not maintain social distancing.
There are countless more examples in Holy Scripture but the point is, Jesus and the Apostles didn’t shy away from infectious people: Matthew 14:34-36; Luke 17:11-19.
Here, people will make the argument “But Jesus was God, we are not.” Seems like a valid point. So, let’s look at the healing that the Apostles did AFTER Jesus had ascended to heaven.
“Also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed.”
Their faith and desire for God’s healing superseded their feeling to stay away from sick people. In fact, all the sick people and their friends and family were coming together. Remember, Jesus had already left at this point. This is just the first and early churches, after Pentecost. A mass sickness party was being held by the Apostles, and by faith, they were all being healed.
This would have never happened if the early church avoided meeting and maintained social distancing from all those who were sick.
Act 19:11-12
“And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.”
Acts 28:8-9
“And it happened that the father of Publius was lying in bed afflicted with recurrent fever and dysentery; and Paul went in to see him and after he had prayed, he laid his hands on him and healed him. After this had happened, the rest of the people on the island who had diseases were coming to him and getting cured.”
Again, no social distancing and avoiding meeting here.
So, we see that even the Apostles were not afraid of coming down with any of these diseases. They didn’t tell these people to say home and NOT bring their sick friends and family to them. They did NOT close their doors wherever they were at to avoid contamination. They WERE without Jesus, physically, and were on their own continuing his works.
The 412 BC Epidemic
In 412 BC, there was an epidemic of an unknown disease, but it is often identified as influenza due to the described symptoms. It was reported in Northern Greece by Hippocrates and in Rome by Livy. It caused a food shortage in the Roman, and a famine was only prevented with food relief from Sicily and Etruria, and via trade missions to the “peoples round about who dwelt on the Tuscan sea or by the Tiber.” In other words, it spread.
In 520 BC Cyrus the Great allowed Jews to return to Judea and rebuild the Temple in 515 BC, but did not allow the restoration of the kingdom. During the time of the epidemic, Persia was in control of Israel; and Persia traded with the Roman Republic until they were conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BC.
Israel did not stop conducting their ceremonies, worship services, and religious festivals even though there was a epidemic spreading from Rome.
The Antonine Plague of 165 to 180 AD
This was an pandemic brought to the Roman Empire by troops returning from campaigns in the Near East. Scholars have suspected it to have been either smallpox or measles; deadly and highly contagious. The disease broke out again nine years later, according to the Roman historian Dio Cassius (155–235), causing up to 2,000 deaths a day in Rome, one quarter of those who were affected, giving the disease a mortality rate of about 25%. The total deaths have been estimated at 5 million, and the disease killed as much as one-third of the population in some areas and devastated the Roman army. The plague may have also broken out in Eastern Han China before 166 AD, given notices of plagues in Chinese records.
The church was in the dead center of this pandemic. It was a monster of a plague. COVID-19 looks like a small cold compared to this one. So, what did the early church do during this extremely dangerous plague?
Irenaeus, who was about 30 years old at the time and was a pastor at the Church of Lyon during the plague. He was indirectly a disciple of Polycarp, who was an actual disciple of John. He never paused his mission work. He didn’t stop meeting and fellowship. He even discussed his conversations and debates with Gnostics; which lead him to write Against Heresies. Any sort of social distancing was not mentioned by him whatsoever. The thought of closing his church doors and stopping his ministry work during the plague was not an idea he had. In fact, as the plague spread, religious construction of sacred sites was increased [1]. There was an increased desire to a divine solution and Christianity was there to provide answers. Studies have shown, that Christianity greatly increased, due to consistent ministry work, during three pandemics in the Roman era, the Antonine plague, the Cyprian plague, and the Justinian plague.
The Cyprian Plague of the 3rd Century
Carthage’s bishop, Cyprian, encouraged Christians to care for the sick and dying. They buried the dead and risked getting sick by taking in the sick. This was repeated other times in the early centuries of the church during epidemics. Christians introduced a new concern and standard of care for sick people [4].
Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Notre Dame, notes that an “epidemic that seemed like the end of the world actually promoted the spread of Christianity.” By their actions in the face of possible death, Christians showed their neighbors that “Christianity is worth dying for.” The author of the Christian Post article even states “Nearly eighteen centuries after the Plague of Cyprian, Christianity still prompts people to run towards the plague when virtually everyone else is running away.”[5]
On Easter Sunday in 260 AD, Bishop Dionysius of Corinth praised the efforts of the Christians, many of whom had died while caring for others. He said:
“Most of our brother Christians showed unbounded love and loyalty, never sparing themselves, and thinking only of one another. Heedless of danger, they took charge of the sick, attending to their every need and ministering to them in Christ, and with them departed this life serenely happy; for they were infected by others with the disease, drawing on themselves the sickness of their neighbors and cheerfully accepting their pains.“
Lymon Stone, a research fellow at the Institute for Family Studies and an advisor at the consulting firm Demographic Intelligence, in Foreign Policy, notes. “But it did something else, too: It triggered the explosive growth of Christianity,” he writes. “Cyprian’s sermons told Christians not to grieve for plague victims (who live in heaven), but to redouble efforts to care for the living. His fellow bishop Dionysius described how Christians, ‘Heedless of danger … took charge of the sick, attending to their every need.’”[6]
The Bubonic Plague, 1485–1551
Just about all of Martin Luther’s life ran congruent to the Sweating Sickness that spread throughout Europe. As a pastor and professor, he did not close his church doors and theological school. During the spreading sickness, he revolutionized organized and formal worship services that changed history. But it gets better. The Elector of Saxony, John the Steadfast, ordered Martin Luther, to leave. He refused. Along with his pregnant wife Katharina, Luther stayed in Wittenberg, opening his house as a ward for the sick [2,6]. Someone literally asked him if it is wrong for a Christian to flee the cities that are infected, you can read Martin Luther’s letter here. It is important to note that Martin Luther did NOT say it was wrong to flee or in our modern conduct, close churches and self-quarantine; of itself. BUT that it WAS wrong to neglected the needy because you close churches and self-quarantine. He basically said that if you have no family and not you don’t know of anyone in need, than fleeing is a good option. Here in lies the problem, what church or elder doesn’t know someone in need? What Christian doesn’t know someone who doesn’t know Christ? Is that not the ultimate eternally worth need? Martin Luther chose to stay to minister to the sick. He said:
“[N]o one should dare leave his neighbor unless there are others who will take care of the sick in their stead and nurse them…. we are bound to each other in such a way that no one may forsake the other in his distress but is obliged to assist and help him as he himself would like to be helped.“
Would Martin Luther close his church and self-quarantine during a pandemic? No, he didn’t even close and hide during one of the most deadliest pandemics in human history. He willingly, faithfully, and boldly, ministered to the sick.
The 1563 London plague
Church leaders gathered to address some issues and iron out what the orthodox biblical faith teaches in 1563 AD and 1567AD, and drafted what is known as the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession. All the while the 1563 London plague was raging. Social distancing and closing churches did not happen.
The 1663-1668 Plagues of Netherlands, England, and France
While the “Great Plague of London” was spreading, from the Netherlands, and to France, the church gathered in London and drafted the The Westminster Confession of Faith in 1664AD. An extremely important document that helped shape modern Church orthodoxy and maintain biblical reliance and understanding. Asymptomatic persons were, in fact, quarantined for 40 days, but just about all who were quarantined died; but the Church didn’t close. They took part in helping the sick.
The court of Charles II, together with lawyers, merchants and doctors, fled the city, but the poor could not. St Bride’s vicar, the Revd Richard Peirson, remained to witness the devastation to his parish community. The parish distributed relief to stricken families [7]. While the communities wealthiest persons, including doctors, fled instead of helping, the church remained [8].
The Broad Street Cholera Outbreak of 1854
Charles Spurgeon admired the Puritan ministers who stayed behind to care for the sick and dying during the Great Plague of London in 1665 [9]. Charles Spurgeon stated:
“During that epidemic of cholera, though I had many engagements in the country, I gave them up that I might remain in London to visit the sick and the dying. I felt that it was my duty to be on the spot in such a time of disease and death and sorrow.“
“During the outbreak, Spurgeon recognized his responsibility to be present with those who were sick and dying. This was not a time to be an itinerant preacher. This was a time to focus on caring for his church and the community in which he lived. He would not outsource this task to his deacons or other church leaders but remained in London in order to fulfill his duty. We know that the congregation continued meeting during those days because the church’s minute books contain records of congregational meetings carried on throughout the fall of 1854.
Amid all the pastoral challenges of the outbreak, Spurgeon and his deacons continued to receive new members, pursue inactive members, observe the Lord’s Supper, and practice all the other normal activities of a church. Not only that, but in retrospect, it was particularly during this time, when news of death raged all around the city, that Spurgeon found Londoners most receptive to the gospel.
As the pastor, Spurgeon not only continued to gather his church, but he also made himself available throughout the week, working tirelessly to visit the sick and grief-stricken.” [10].
Charles Spurgeon didn’t self-quarantine and didn’t adhere to social distancing. He went to the sick and ministered to them. The never stopped meeting and proclaiming the gospel.
The Spanish Flu, 1920s
The Christian Reformed Church convened at the Synod of Kalamazoo and drafted the understanding of God’s common grace in 1924. The Spanish Flu was raging, world wide. They did not close down their churches or cancel their synod. The churches in America, as a whole, did not close down or stop meeting.
Influenza A virus subtype H3N2, 1970s
The Ebola Outbreaks of The 1990s
Now as then, this power confounds and confuses Christianity’s critics. A recent article in Slate acknowledged that many of the people fighting the Ebola epidemic in West Africa were missionaries [11]. The writer, Brian Palmer, admitted that he “[didn’t] feel good about missionary medicine, even though [he couldn’t] fully articulate why.” He knew that he shouldn’t feel this way but he did.
Ross Douthat of the New York Times suspects that Palmer’s misgivings have something to do with the fact that the selflessness of the missionaries “unsettles” his “secular and scientistic worldview.” In that worldview, “helping people is what governments and secular groups are supposed to do.”[5]
“John Fankhauser, a missionary doctor, said: “I have a very keen awareness of the risks and the need to be extremely careful, but I also feel very called to what I’m doing,” says Fankhauser, 52, from Ventura, Calif. “I feel very confident that this is where God wants me right now.” With the exception of Doctors Without Borders, international aid groups moved at a glacial pace. The World Health Organization deferred to weak local governments to tackle the terrifying disease. Even the U.S. military response was predicated on the idea that American troops would not be directly providing care to people affected by the virus” [12]. It was up to the church. And if these Christians chose to follow “self-isolation” and “social distancing,” who would help these people?
“Happy is one who cares for the poor; the LORD will save him in a day of adversity.”
So, if you are not sick, but yet you avoid taking care of the poor when given the opportunity, you are actually IN SIN. You don’t trust the Lord’s protection. You don’t believe in his divine healing. And you care more about your own life than the person you claim to love.
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” 19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.
Now, this is huge. Jesus said these things “WILL accompany those who believe.” They can touch deadly things, even receive into their bodies deadly things, and yet, “WILL NOT hurt them at all.” and then right after that he said “they WILL place their hands ON SICK PEOPLE.” Again, all these “will accompany those who believe.”
Think about the gravity of this. WHY are you scared to touch sick people? The REAL question is, why do you NOT believe Jesus’ word here? To simplify it; Why do you not fully trust God? Do you not trust God will/can heal them? Do you not trust God will/can protect you?
Peter could walk on water! but, because of his weak faith, he almost drowned (Matthew 14:30). If Peter walked on water, why can’t you minister to sick people? If it is fear, Jesus directly addresses you:
Matthew 10:28
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
The “who” could be a “what” or another noun; person, place, or thing. That “thing” can also be COVID-19. COVID-19 has killed people, but it only kills this temporary body. Jesus flat out commands us to “NOT BE AFRAID” of COVID-19… Is your lack of faith leading you to disobedience?
“A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep but the hireling sees the wolf coming and flees”
“8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, that is his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.“
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Now THIS is condemning. Social Isolation and avoiding fellowship risks THIS! Social Isolation and avoiding fellowship does not feed the hungry, hydrate the thirsty, not welcome the lonely and strangers, does not clothe the poor, and cold, OR VISIT THE SICK! Jesus literally says “sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Closing the church, stopping fellowship and corporate worship directly conflicts with what Jesus is getting at here.
16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 17 But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?
What does that look like now? You see people in need, or know of a friend, family, or community in need; you have the resources to address that need and have been part of that community assisting in helping that need before; then suddenly, stopping, no longer helping because of fear of getting sick. You are not willing to lay down your life for the brothers and sisters in your community.
All of these raise the question:
the priest is to isolate the affected person for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest is to examine them, and if he sees that the sore is unchanged and has not spread in the skin, he is to isolate them for another seven days. 6 On the seventh day the priest is to examine them again, and if the sore has faded and has not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce them clean; it is only a rash. They must wash their clothes, and they will be clean. 7 But if the rash does spread in their skin after they have shown themselves to the priest to be pronounced clean, they must appear before the priest again. 8 The priest is to examine that person, and if the rash has spread in the skin, he shall pronounce them unclean; it is a defiling skin disease.
Here we see “The Lord said to Moses and Aaron” and laid out this process of a sort of quarantine. This skin disease spoken about is a bacterial infection of Leprosy, which is contagious.
This is about those who HAVE symptoms or ARE sick. This is NOT about people who DO NOT have symptoms of any contagious sickness. The context can not be used to justify quarantining healthy people. Because, then how could the priest examine the person and determine their cleanliness or uncleanliness?
If, your sick, stay at home. If you are NOT sick, YOU HAVE A DUTY TO SERVE THE LORD STILL. But, what if the government orders the churches to close?
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
“devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer…every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts”
25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
We see throughout scripture the duty and responsibility for believers to care for the sick, physically. We see God commanding the church to NOT give up meeting, but to remain devoted to meeting together; no matter what the governing authorities impose or what worldly sickness is around. That closing churches and not meeting together, in fact, reveals a lack of faith and fear of worldly pressures over the duty of what God is owed; obedience and worship.
Having sex is way better than going for a run, and can be more beneficial to your body in all sorts of ways. Is it cardio day? Why not just have vigorous sex for cardio. From aphrodisiacs to stimulants, how can you turn your body into a sex machine, burn calories, all the while having a good time? Continue reading
Injecting steroids is for losers and those cowards who are scared of the hard work, dedication, self discipline, self control, and self respect. BUT testosterone is an extremely important factor in building muscle and burning body fat. Supporting and increasing testosterone production isn’t as hard as you think. Continue reading
It’s almost like being a citizen of another nation. Like a duel citizenship. The Republic of Texas. I’m almost more proud to be Texan than I am American. For real. Something that only Texans seem to understand. So, let me help non-Texans out a bit.
Let me give a quick tour of Texas:
While the homeless are taking craps in the streets of Cali and full term babies are being mutilated and sucked through a straw in New York… Texans do neither. Now, granted, Houston (the four largest city in America) is a nasty dump. They still don’t have needles littering the streets and human excrement splattered at every corner like the “sun shine state” California. They have the sorriest football franchises and after 20 years and 2 teams, still choke. But, they do have some of the nicest restaurants in the nation (also have the highest obesity rates too…)
Pasadena stinks. It’s called “stink-adena” for a reason. Then you head south to G-town, Galveston where some beaches are closed due to too much human wasted in the water… yeah it’s like the armpit of the Gulf of Mexico, but hey, it’s only 45 min from H-town. But we have Surfside with nicer beaches, Corpus Christy, and even better, South Padre Island where all the college kids go to party.
I worked as a prison guard for TDCJ for a bit so I lived in Huntsvegas for a bit. Nothing but a college down and prisons.
Then there is DFW. Dallas Fort Worth. D-town. Big D. Upscale. Nice. Modern. Not a shithole like Houston. But, crime ridden. In the early 2000s they had more homicides than L.A. But then DPD hit the streets hard and that has sense calmed down. They even got their own TV show, Dallas SWAT. There they got the most advanced football stadium for the wealthiest NFL franchise; worth more than some countries. Home of the world famous State Fair and Big Tex!
Head south west from DFW to Austin. ATX. Keeping it weird. Weird is okay. And they are just that. Nice area and capital of Texas. It’s trendy, hipster, artsy fartsy, and home of SXSW music festival. And 6th street on weekends is where its at.
Then head more south West and just west of Houston is San Antone! Not as trashy as Houston but it’s getting there. Most importantly, it is home of THE ALAMO! “Remember the Alamo!” And “Come and take it” flag. Not to mention Sea World where Shamu graced the waters (RIP).
Then we head more west to the oil fields and flat lands of West Texas to Odessa and Midland. Where football and “Friday Night Lights” is real.
Shoot straight up north to Amarillo where you experience all seasons of weather within a few hours time. See tornados and then get snowed on.
At the other far west end of Texas is El Paso… it’s kinda… just there. Nothing special besides drug mules, human traffickers, and gangs that work for the cartel. The news paints this as not true, but, they dont live in Texas. Just about everyone that lives there is one phone call away from someone connected to the cartel. Trust me.
Then, much like El Paso, you have Fort Hood military base. It’s called “The Hood” for a reason… a dump. But a very patriotic proud dump.
The People:
Southern charm meets an independent and free spirit with a liberty rebel mindset. You show people respect and help your fellow neighbor. Unlike those damn northerners and yanks. A-holes.
When you run into someone from Texas, no matter where you are in the world, they feel like family. Well, they are. They are a fellow brother or sister Texan.
When I traveled through Europe, they had Texas themed merchandise store in London England and Dallas Cowboy stores throughout. I spoke to exchange students from China and they knew exactly where Texas was. I was even asked in the middle east if we still ride horses to school… The world knows of Texas. Hell, people are flooding the boarder, illegally, to live in Texas.
What makes Texas great?
1. The people. Texans. The born and raised Texan is what makes the state so great.
2. Not extreme ideologically. They aren’t nut job lefties that ruin states. They may have the most disgusting, nations largest, abortion clinic, in Houston, and all kinds of liberalism in Austin… they aren’t Antifa nuts… yet.
3. Variety. You can live in the big city (Houston, DFW) or in the middle of nowhere, Cut n Shoot, Texas. You can live by the “ocean” (the gulf) or in the hills of south West Texas. The heat of south Texas or the more chilly panhandle. The woods of east Texas or the flat oil fields of west Texas. Texas has it all. Don’t forget about the canyons of Big Bend.
4. The state government aren’t overrun by totalitarian nut jobs. We have plastic straws, 30 round AR-15 magazines, and simple conceal carry laws. They are even starting to loosen up on marijuana laws. The financial situation of the state is good too. They can pay their state employees and aren’t bankrupt or billions upon billions in debt. They don’t need a state income tax to do it either. Texas even has a “Rainy day fund” with billions in the account lol.
5. The rich history! Texas was it’s own nation. They had their own president, army, generals, and currency. Hell, they even fought their own war. Crushed Santa Anna and the Mexican army. In the process have the most recognizable rally cry and flag, “remember the Alamo” and the ‘come and take it’ flag.
6. All kinds of unique things! Schlitterbahn, America’s greatest waterpark. NASA Command Center, “Houston, we have a problem,” Tex-Mex food! The rolling hills of Blue Bonnets that everyone takes pictures in on the sides of the road. Music legends such as ZZ Top, Pantera, and Selena. Local fun such as floating down the Guadalupe river in innertoobs and a case of beer. Did I mention SWSX music fest, 6 Flags theme park and Sea World?! And year around unlimited Hog hunting, from Helicopters!
Californians agree. They are losing population. There was a survey conducted asking people who were moving out of Cali where they were going and 70% said they were moving to Texas. Not that Texans what them moving there but it just proves my point.
If your from Texas, welcome brother and Sister. If not, sorry, but I’ll help you anyway.
The “Dad bod” is kinda like an title to excuse the cubbiness or out of shape physical appearance. Sorry, “Dad bods” is just evidence of becoming lazy and lacking self discipline and self respect. What? I’m just being honest. So, here, I will give you some simple dietary tips to shape yourself up, live healthier, and be an example for your family.
Okay. Wow. With the amount of F-words, testicles, penis’, and boobs being paraded around; these Pride Parades are worse than a softcore porn on skinamax. It’s like allowing your children to look up videos on PornHub as long as they are supervised… You don’t believe me?
There are some things I take pride in. My Lord, for one. I am proud to be chosen and a son of the Almighty God. I am proud that Jesus chose me out of the world and died on the cross for all my sins, past, present, and future. I am proud that the Holy Spirit convicts me of my sin and teaches me the truths of my faith. Notice how everything I take pride in is not of myself…
The first important question is SHOULD we, as Christians, make judgements on a person, or groups of people, based on Statistics? Can we rightly judge solely based on statistical analysis? Why is this even an issue? It goes to the heart of using statistics to see a need for the gospel. Of course, everyone, at all times everywhere, need the gospel, even we need the gospel. But Jesus strategically went to specific areas and the Apostles went to specific areas, whether it was locations or people groups. But how did they rightly judge where to go and who needed what message first. What does this have to do with racial profiling, prejudice, and rightful judgements?
If there was a community where 98% of the community participated in a survey stating that they are atheists and there was another community where they were all surveyed and was found that 98% were repentant Gospel focused people… it seems that we see a ‘greater’ situational need for one community over another. Jesus reveals the distinction in need in Luke 5:31. Paul makes the same point in Romans 10:14-15. This seems to justify the application of statistics to recognize a greater need. But is the judgement discerning more important situational need or a judgement of the people?
What happens when the statistics do not survey the entire community or entire people or nation but only a small portion. If a people group, we will use Smurfs for our example, has a survey where only 15% of the entire people group is surveyed and the results claim that 98% of Smurfs are atheists; are we right to assume that the rest of the 85% are more than likely atheists too? So when we hear about the Smurfs, are we right to assume every individual Smurf is an atheist? Lets say it another way. If there are 100 Smurfs, and 15 of them are surveyed, and 14 of them claim to be atheists, can we rightly judge the 85 other non surveyed Smurfs as atheists? Keep in mind, we have never met these 85 unsurveyed Smurfs. So, before we meet them, can we assume they don’t believe in God? OR do we see a situational need? Is there a difference? Lets magnify those numbers. What if there are 10,000,000 Smurf people and 1,500,000 were surveyed, and 1,400,000 claim to be atheists. Can we rightly assume the rest of the unsurveyed 8,500,000 other Smurfs are atheists too? This still leads to the same question.
Lets change the survey focus from “atheism” to “below X house hold income level“. And “X” is determined by an overall societal income average. If there are 10,000,000 Smurfs and 1,500,000 were surveyed, and 1,400,000 were below X house hold income level. Can we rightly assume the rest of the unsurveyed 8,500,000 other Smurfs are below X house hold income level too? No matter the statistical focus, the issue is still the same: Can we rightly judge all those who were not surveyed based on those who were? Would it be prejudicial (“a preconceived opinion not based on actual experience“) to view the all the other unsurveyed 8,500,000 as impoverished too?
Would it be wrong to assume they are all impoverished, based on their ethnic group and the statistics? That every time we hear about a person of that people group, can we assume they are more than likely poor?
What if a survey was conducted that showed Smurfs are responsible for more than half of all violent crime. If you were in a room of Smurfs, would you be justified to feel scared? For no other reason than them being Smurfs and that stat? If poverty directly influences crime rates, and Smurfs were surveyed showing they mostly live below the poverty level, would you then also be justified to be scared around Smurfs? Are these judgements based on their ethnicity and statistics justified?
The premise of the judgement is WHAT justifies us to judge those who we don’t personally know. OR do these kinds of stats lead us to prejudice and profiling? And is prejudice and profiling wrong?
The Don’t Judge Me Crowd
Clearly anyone who feels it is wrong to “judge” anyone are hypocritical when making assumptions about ace based stats. They are still making a judgement on someone they don’t know directly. Even if they do know the person, and tell the person not to judge them, they have still actually judged that person. They tell people not to judge them unless they have walked in their shoes but then judge other races based on stats… THAT is telling someone to take the speck out of their eye while you have a log in yours. The very same hypocritical judgement Jesus is talking about. If you go around and tell people not to judge you and you actively avoid ANY kind of judgement, you have already failed logically, rationally and, even, become disobedient to Christ (Lev. 19:15; Zech 8:16; John 7:24, 51; Luke 12:57). We CAN rightly judge and are called to. BUT, is judging a person based on statistics “rightly judging” or is in sin?
He Said, She Said, so You Must Be.
Would it then still be wrongful to make a judgement (assumption) about someone you have never met even when it is based on stats? How do you know those stats directly represent that person? You don’t. You have to apply an ignorant assumption and essentially hope (even have faith in your own judgement) that the stat does represent that person directly. According to Scripture, an ignorant assumption/ judgement about someone is unjust and not a rightful judgement because it is not based on the truth about that person… but is actually and truly based on a possible truth about someone else (the person(s) surveyed). It would be no different than believing gossip or second or third hand-talk about someone else. Someone spoke to some people, compiled the numbers, published a study, and then apply that ignorantly to someone else you don’t even know, with no knowledge if it directly applies to them, simply because of their race. That is in no way a justified righteous judgement in light of scripture.
Rightful Judgements – John 7:24
God IS the standard of righteousness and he alone is the author of just judgements (Psalm 7:11, 9:8; Isaiah 33:22). They are based on KNOWN TRUTHS about THAT specific person. Jesus tells us absolutely we CAN SEE the fruit of someones heart and KNOW them (Matthew 7:15-20; Luke 6:43-45). We must first fix ourselves “then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 17:5). God himself empowers us to be able to rightly judge (Judges 2:18). We ARE to judge those who profess to know Christ (1 Cor. 5:12), this is how we keep each other accountable to the Lord (2 Timothy 2:25, 3:16; Titus 2:1). We are called to correct and rebuke each other; which requires us to have the ability to rightly judge (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Timothy 6:20). Discernment, rightly judging, and correction are to keep unity (Ephesians 4:13; Galatians 6:1), only the hard hearted, self-righteous, fall away. And all righteous and just judgements come from God, and God has given us his very word (Ephesians 2:20). John the Baptist corrected Herodias (Mark 6:18-19). Paul corrected Peter (Galatians 2:11). They were filled with truth and knowledge (Colossians 1:9) and they obediently reproved and rebuked (2 Timothy 4:2) just as Jesus himself required (Matthew 18:15-17). ALL of which requires us to have the ability to Judge in the first place.
Assuming the facts before knowing them is a wrongful judgement (Prov. 18:13). Assuming to know someone based on their looks or gossip is also a sinful humanistic mistake (Luke 7:36-50). Assuming to be righteous where others are unrighteous, yet, actually falling in the same sin is a hypocritical judgemental error (Romans 2:1; Matthew 7:3-5). If you hold people to a perfect standard, and judge them for not meeting your self-righteous standard, you are judged by that same standard (Matthew 7:2). Assuming you are more righteous in your ignorance is sinful humanistic error (James 4:6; Luke 18:9-14). Assuming you know someone, when in fact you don’t, and then judging them based on your false assumption is a sinful untrue judgement (Prov. 19:5).
Thus we can see the core elements that makes a Godly Righteous Judgement is first having TRUE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE in direct regards and then discerning the rightfulness or wrongfulness with a clear mind and conscience, according to the whole council of God (Acts 20:27).
Seeing how Holy Scripture speaks about rightful and wrongful judgements, we already see a inconsistency with statistical judgements applied to individuals.
Racial Profiling and Prejudice
Having all these statistical studies can help see potential issues within a society and a situation BUT they are not the identities of the people they test. Even when it SEEMS harmless and “positive”, it is a contrary to Scripture and rightful judgements. Here’s an example: The NBA is 75% African American. The WMBA is 70% African American [2]. The biggest percentage of NCAA basketball athletes are African American [1]. Lastly, just about all the top high school basketball teams are majority African American [3]. From high school, to college, all the way to the pros. In every major organized basketball organization the majority of athletes are African American. Using the same reasoning to justify racial systemic inequality, can it be assumed that African Americans like basketball? That’s a harmless assumption right? Buying a basketball for an African American teen for his birth day isn’t racist right? Statistics would support the likelihood of him enjoying the gift. BUT why is there something inherently wrong with this kind of ‘harmless’ and ‘positive’ assumption?
The Moral Issue
We are applying what someone else says about another person, to them, and we don’t even know if it is true. We just assume it is. Its easier to assume something about someone and justify it with numbers from someone else. The Jews just assumed all Gentiles were hopeless and godless. They had stats to back up their assumptions about the gentiles. They did not have The Law of Moses. They did not have the Writings of The Prophets. They were not lead out of slavery from Egypt. They, at that time, and generations prior, were not declared as God’s Chosen people. BUT JESUS destroyed their statistical assumptions. Jesus GOES DEEPER than their statistically justified judgements. GOD shows that HIS WILL is more vast than statistical probabilities and averages. That HUMANS can not calculate and quantify God’s Will; and to assume so is our self-righteousness self-idolatry rearing its ugly head- even in the seemingly harmless positive assumptions/judgements.
THE ULTIMATE HYPOCRISY
It is wrong to assume all African Americans like basketball for the same reason it is wrong to assume all “white” people are privileged. Both are “positive” conclusions drawn from different areas of statistical data that seem to support and justify the conclusions. BUT, YOU CAN NOT KNOW if these assumptions are true about an individual UNLESS you KNOW THAT individual personally.
When you ASSUME YOU KNOW someone, that you actually don’t know, you feel RIGHT about your assumed knowledge of them, without really knowing if your are in fact right. Then, you justify this self-delusion of rightness with statistics that may not even directly relate to that person you don’t know. You are in essence, hypocritically judging them because you don’t even know them- and yet, you feel right about them in your true ignorance of them.
To arbitrarily say you CAN assume knowledge of an unknown person, with stats, regarding “positive” and “harmless” ideas; but you CANNOT assume, with stats, regarding “negative” and “offensive” ideas is HYPOCRITICAL. Logically, one can do both and remain rationally consistent (the moral issue aside). So lets look at “negative” and “offensive” assumptions that one can (but shouldn’t) make justified by statistics.
The Negative and Offensive Stats
According to Jones RK and Jerman J, Population Group Abortion Rates and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion: United States, 2008–2014, American Journal of Public Health, 2017. 27% of African Americans, aged 15-44, have had an abortion. THEREFORE, If we were in a room with 4 African American females ages 15-44; I would then be justified to assume that at least one of them have had an Abortion, simply because of their race and the statistic. To have this idea, I have assumed I have knowledge of at least one of them, even though I really and truly have no idea about any.
According to the FBI’s expanded data chart of 2015 homicides [4]; African Americans kill other African Americans with a rate of 89%; while white on white homicides was at a rate of 81%. White Americans are killed by African Americans at a rate of 15.7%, but White Americans kill African Americans only at a rate of 5.8%. From this data we see that in 2015, not only did more same-race murders happen with African American, but African Americans murdered more White Americans than the other way around, and almost by triple the likelihood. Is a White American fear of African American violence justified? Is that kind of assumption/judgement right? Of course not!
There are all kinds of studies being conducted and all kinds of interpretations and assumptions people will make from all these studies BUT we will always come back to the paramount issue: SHOULD we use all these studies to justify judgements of people we have never met? and the same question can be asked again: Can we rightly judge all those who were not surveyed based on those who were?
SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS
We ARE boasting in our self-righteousness when we believe we are justified in the rightness of our judgements when applying stats to people we have never met, and have no true knowledge of, then drawing a conclusion about that person in our self presumed rightness.
We THINK we can have the knowledge of God, knowing what we do not know. We THINK we can be RIGHT in our own knowledge about someone when we, in reality, have no knowledge about that person in direct relation to our assumption and the stat. We THINK we are JUST in our judgements solely based on what other “experts” tell us about unknown people- yet, we are hypocrites because the judgement is UNJUST because the person is actually unknown and we do not know the truth about that person.
CONCLUSION
Statistics can aid us in opening our eyes to injustice and spotting unjust SITUATIONS and societal trends BUT becomes SIN in our hearts and minds when we believe we can use it and apply it to PEOPLE and know people, we do not actually know. We then use statistics to self-righteously JUSTIFY racial profiling, where we convince ourselves that we CAN KNOW an unknown person, positive or negative, which feeds our natural inclination of prejudice and self-idolatry- which only leads to one primal thing- racism and hatred. And that racism and hatred is based all on the ignorant assumptions and judgements applied to people we don’t know, all justified initially by stats, then by our sinful hearts. Collectivism is contrary to God.
To be absolutely clear. Statistics and statistical studies CAN aid us in exposing injustice and oppression within a system and society. Is there currently, within America, systemic racism? We believe that the statistical data does point to this. Is there racism of other races in other countries, we think there is evidence to support this as well. The statistical data reveals the situational issue and points us to a spiritual just focus and a gospel need. BUT to then continue on and apply the broad statistics to unknown individuals collectively is simply wrong and immoral. We have NO true knowledge of an unknown person, and therefore, we can not, before God, be just and right in any sort of judgement about that person. We can not be right, and actually in sin, when we assume all African Americans like basketball, using the example previously discussed. We can not be right, and actual in sin, when we assume all white people are privileged. Again, that would require us to apply ignorant assumptions collectively to an unknown person to which we have NO true knowledge of.
The distinction between rightful judging with statistics and sinful judgementalism with statistics is to which the assumption/judgement is applied to. Situational and cultural awareness or judgement of an individual. To expose a broken society, or to judge an individual in the society. To reveal injustice, or to unjustly judge a person. To rightly see the systemic trends, or to claim to know the unknown individual. To rightly judge conditions justified by scripture, or to wrongfully judge a person justified by self-righteous ignorance.
This goes to the heart of Social Justice and Civil Rights. The church needs to SEE the statistical support for modern systemic racism, injustice, and oppression AND stand against the oppression, and injustice; BUT at the same time, be careful not to fall into disunity, dividing the Body of Christ through prejudice, racial profiling, and the untrue falsehoods of collectivism ignorantly justified with all sorts of statistical interpretations. Ignoring or discrediting systemic racism is dishonest but breaking fellowship and supporting disunity from “white evangelicalism” is equally unjust and unrighteous. The open willfulness to segregate yourself and your family from other races is sinful for all people. Peter was rightly and justly rebuked by Paul for this!
On Sunday, go to a less diverse church, and worship with other Brothers and Sisters in Christ of a different race. Participate in diversity ministries or less diverse ministries, and serve the Lord together. Break the sinful wall of prejudice, racial profiling, willful segregation, collectivism, all of are justified by statistics; be a light in the world for unity, grace, mercy, forgiveness, and love. Actually FOLLOW Christ without favoritism or partiality for one race or another.
1. 2016-2017 http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/displayResultsPercents.
2. http://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/17954156/wnba-scores-high-racial-gender-report-card
3. http://www.maxpreps.com/polls/basketball/xcellent25.htm
4. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2015.xls
In changing times and as cultural identities evolve, a constant issue has been and seems always will be the struggle of favoritism and discrimination of people who look and act different. Even God’s people struggle with this issue to this day. How we address the issue is not found in worldly political strategies and policies but in the truths in Holy Scripture and the Characteristics of God himself.
One Race
First we need to wipe our minds of what the world has taught us how to view racial favoritism and discrimination. There is only one Race, the human race. To state there is a ‘black’ race or a ‘white’ race is thinking the way the world wants you to think so that people are generalized, categorized, and marginalized. These concepts of ‘black’ people and ‘white’ people are human constructs and do not actually exist. Proven by the fact that light skin individuals can be considered ‘black’ and dark skinned individuals can be considered ‘white’. This construct of ‘race’ can not be based on where the person’s family linage is from; because we are all from the same place and same people. This then brings us to the defining factor and WHO decides what defines a ‘race’.
Humanistic Construct of ‘Race’
Someone decided to be ‘black’ you have to be descended from (a) Africa and subscribe to certain sub-cultural (b) behaviors and (c) ideals [including languages]. These three culturally normative rules define what it is to be ‘black’ (or any ‘race’). Who decided this? This construct has been around in various forms throughout human history. In ancient history, where you were from, defined you. Because where you were from incorporated the ideals and behaviors of that region. Our first big questions is; Is this social construct part of God’s original design for Humanity?
Even evolutionary biologist agree that all the different human ‘races’ came from one common ancestor and that all humans have the same melanin in our skins cells that give us the various shades of skin pigment (Gen 3:20). Biologist also know that it only takes a few generations to get very distinct people groups with various shades of melanin. From Adam to Noah, people seemed to have lived together. They shared the same language and locations. Then God dispersed them and confused their language. In this dispersion some people would have went to different climate regions and created different daily habits causing the different melanin shades, behaviors, and ideals over the generations.
9 Generations of long living people from Adam to Noah all with the same language and general regions (Gen 4,5,11,12). The children from Noah’s children became more and more diverse in culture and physical appearance by specific isolation in that gene pool in each splintered people group (Gen 10-11). This example image helps understand the genetics and the gene pool isolation possible outcomes:
The same is true for physical features such as hair and eye thickness and color. Eye shape, noise size, lip, chin, head, and muscle density; all in DNA in each isolated people group developing the common genetics over the generations. The Holy Spirit declares there is only one race but many ‘pre-appointed’ unique people groups in their regions (Acts 17:26).
So back to our question: Yes and No. Human DNA shows that even if the world did not sin, God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. In filling the earth and multiplying, there would be these genetic variations- unrelated to sin. These genetic variations were ‘pre-appointed’ by a the Holy Almighty Creator. BUT the cultural variations in the behavior and ideals were NOT. God confused the languages and dispersed the people for a negative reason- because of the sin in the human heart.
Genetic Variations in different people groups is of God. It should be celebrated and respected. Cultural Variations in different people groups is a judgement of God. It was due to the sin in the human heart. This is NOT to say, cultural norms should not be respected and celebrated; most are not wrong inherently, some even can glorify God. BUT there are cultural norms that are sinful.
The current humanistic construct of ‘race’ is NOT of God: It dis-unifies the human race and allows for sinful cultural norms to define and influence an entire people group; which leads to conflict between people groups. The racial definitions are not transcended nor objective but evolve with the heart of whom ever is currently in control of the society that definitions it and is subjective in each generation. The current humanistic construct of ‘race’ actually perpetuates favoritism and discrimination in the human heart. How so?
Identity Confusion
You may have dark skin, adhere to all the social norms of a particular ‘race’ but may not have any linage to that race’s defined source. Then it would be said that you were not really that race. More commonly in our time is the same rejection of someone due to differing ideals. Someone who identifies as ‘black’ may be rejected and dismissed by the ‘black community’ because of having different ideals. Supporting a political candidate may cause the rejection and dismissal by the current leaders of the ‘black community’. Not supporting a subjective cause which has been declared by leaders of the ‘black community’ as a defining factor would also lead to rejection and dismissing. Labeling and insulting words such as ‘uncle tom’ are used to shun and shame that individual for not conforming to the subjective humanistic social norms of what it means to be ‘black’. It discriminates against individuality and forces favoritism of a particular subjective worldly definition. It is racist and hateful against someone of the same identity. It is hypocritical and slanderous. It is the human heart; perpetuated by a humanistic construct of ‘race’ imposed by prideful and self glorified leaders of the ‘black community’. It is oppressive and enslaving.
The truth that sets free from Identity confusion is resting your identity of what defines you and your individuality in Christ and seek the kingdom of God and his Characteristics. What defines you is not of this world. It is not based on cultural leaders formulating subjective rules that define a racial community; but is only found in Christ and defined by God alone.
Unequal Favoritism
When an ideal, behavior, or other people group interferes or threatens the defined construction of the particular ‘race’- an unequal unbalanced form of discrimination is imposed on that which is threatening, greatly favoring that which feels threatened. It sacrifices the sovereignty of one people group for the unequal favoritism of the other. This will continue to happen because it is an ever changing construct of evolving definitions of ‘races’. The humanistic construct itself has built within itself the propensity for discrimination and unequal favoritism caused by the continual conflict of people groups and their collective wants and needs. This too is oppressive and enslaving because the construct itself does not allow for an escape from conflict and peace except through forced favoritism through forced ‘justified’ discrimination. To say one people group matter while remaining silent as another people group is slandered and discriminated against is unequal favoritism as well. Long term forced focus on one people group alienates other people groups. Continues to perpetuate inequality through favoritism and the disunity of humanity.
Unholy Norms
Within each constructed ‘race’ there are norms that systematically ensures the humanistic construct continues. In each ‘race’, acceptable generalizations are made and taught. Even generalizations about the ‘race’ its self ensures that the subjective humanistic identity continues within the constructed race. The hypocrisy is when a generalization from a different people group is imposed, then generalizing is seen as discrimination; when within that group, generalizing was acceptable. For example: “Black people are criminals” is deemed racist and wrong BUT “White people are wealthy” is seen as acceptable. Both are generalizations based on a socially constructed idea about an entire people group based on the subjective definitions of their ‘race’. Realistically and logically, both statements are discriminating and hypocritical judgemental ideals.
Another form of unholy social norms taught within particular people groups are subjective ideas of justified reasons to hate and cause violence. Because the reasons to hate are ‘justified’ within the ‘race’, it is not viewed as hate. Because the justification for violence is seen as ‘just’ it is not seen as violent. Committing heinous and unnecessary crimes to ‘survive’, creating and supporting violent resistance to simple government laws, and imposing ‘justified’ generalizations of other people groups while going on witch hunts and ‘race-bait’ for undesirable generalizations are taught social norms within a people group that do harm to the people itself. These generationally taught norms perpetuate the enslaving effect of the humanistic systematic construct of ‘race’ and maintain the blindness of the morally corrupt which is justifying hate and violence.
Ultimately when a people group is taught that they themselves are not responsible for their own decisions in the society but instead is due to historic injustices or a prejudice system and then impose unjust sanctions on another hypocritically generalized people group because of unrelated historic events; that people group are prevented from individual development through accountability and correction. Essentially, lack of responsibility and accountability perpetuate their enslaving to the humanistic system of constructed races in combination with all the other effects of the constructed racial systematic divide.
Hypocritical judgementalism, blind hatred, accepted discrimination, allowed inequality, forced favoritism, condoning and committing violence, silence in the face of hypocrisy, support and action of breaking just laws, slander and generalize other people groups, lack of accountability and responsibility; all are unholy social norms built in a humanistic constructed subjective definition of races that which perpetuates the enslavement of the mind and soul of a society that believes in and embraces the humanistic constructed subjective definition of their ‘race’.
WHO Tells You What To Think
Where you taught to believe you belong to a particular racial group because you meet the qualities you were told? Are you ‘black’ or ‘white’ because you have dark skin, act, speak, and think a certain way? Are you afraid of betraying your race if you change your ideals? Who told you what it means to betray a racial definition that you did not define? Are you an individual defined by God or a humanistic subjective construct of what someone else says you are? Are you free to be an individual?
Your Source
Those who have been granted faith in Jesus Christ have put to death their flesh and raised to a new life in Christ. Their minds have been renewed and have been given a new heart. Their eyes have been opened to see God and they have been BORN AGAIN. They are not their old self. They are no longer bound to their flesh and the limitations of it. They are a NEW creation. They are given a new life and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Their identity is IN Christ, not in the flesh. They may be defined as ‘black’ by the world, but are define as a Child of God which transcends how pigmented their skins is. God is the greatest and most important defining factor in their life for all eternity. They are not a black-Christian, or white-Christian, all are equally are eternally Christian. There is NOTHING that makes being Christian better and there is nothing lacking when in Christ.
God’s Construction of ‘Race’
God made man in his image. All shades and physical features is the unique Human Race created by God and set a part from all other creation. Each person, given their own unique qualities for the purpose of serving God in the community they were called out of while simultaneously remaining unified with the rest of the body of Christ made up of all nations.
There are worldly humanistic labels and dividing distinctions that define people; and break up unity of humanity but only two ways for God; those who worship God and those who do not. The world divides up, subjectively defines and labels, then marginalizes for the purposes of unequal favoritism and unjust discrimination. God divides up for the purpose of graceful eternal salvation and the need for eternal salvation from his perfect righteous justice.
Missions
All Christians are called out of a culture in the world, reborn, renewed, and equipped to re-enter the world as a missionary to find the rest of the lost sheep; to make known the grace of God. For those who come out of the ‘Black community’ or ‘Latin community’ are specifically equipped to go back as a missionary for those communities. But again, they are no longer defined by the community they came out of. Their citizenship is of heaven now. This is the mistake Peter made and the mistakes many Christians make now. They return to their familiar community and alienate everyone else. They show favoritism for the specific community they came out of and neglect the rest of their Christian family from all other communities. Favoritism and neglect are harmful to missions and the body of Christ as a whole. This goes against the grain of the worldly constructed expectations for people. The church needs to show that Black Lives Matter for example, without neglecting, belittling, and alienating the rest of the body of Christ form all the other people groups. To show the world the unity of God that can only be seen through The Body of Christ who is made up of all people.
The Lord has used people from different nations, races, and cultures to proclaim his message to the world. This article will focus on African Christian history, historic African teachers, modern orthodox African American teachers, the need for this ministry focus, the identity of being Christian, discerning racial favoritism, and reacting to racism.
Basic History of Early Christianity in Parts of Africa
(Central) Congo region – Christianity was brought to the Congo in 1483 and was made the state religion in the 16th century. Despite this, the Congo was a key location for the early slave trade and was even practiced within the Congo locally before the arrival of Portuguese missionaries. David Livingstone (1813-1873) continued to pursue the African people and opposed the slave trade.
(Eastern) Ethiopia region – Acts 8:26-38 records the conversion of an Ethiopian court official or even the Queen herself. The Apostle Matthew did mission work in Ethiopia as well. Christianity was declared the state religion in 330AD. Frumentius (4th century-383AD) was directly influenced by Athanasius of Alexandria and lived in Ethiopia for ministry work. By the 5th century, the established Christian church in Ethiopia aligned themselves with The Coptic Orthodox Church over the nature of Christ and harassment from the Roman Catholic Church.
(Western) Nigeria and Benin region – The Portuguese came in contact with these regions as early as the 15th century. Christian influence faded away until the 19th century when Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries returned.
(Southern) South Africa – In 1488 a limestone cross was erected in Cape Town. In 1618 the a Dutch Synod declared that any slave baptized should be freed. In 1685 the Dutch church had established missions in South Africa. Sotho King Moshoeshoe, king of the majority ethnic group of that time, stated that only the Christian teachings are the rules of life in his kingdom. His death in 1870 ushered in British colonialism in that region.
(North Western) Mauritania – These people groups were not evangelized until late in Christian history. In the 8th century Islamic merchants began converting the people in this region. It was part of French Colonization and became independent in 1960. There were a few Roman Catholic settlements but never had great influence.
The majority of early African Christian influence came from North African regions such as Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia but began to fall away after the Council of Chalcedon. Then after the disagreement with the two natures of Jesus Christ (451AD), came the spread of Islam (7th century), the foreign slave trade, and colonialism (18th century). These phases of history stifled the development of sound Christian leaders of African decent. It was not until the Christendom wide abolitionist and equality efforts with focused missionary efforts over the centuries that allowed for those of distinct African decent to be able to develop.
Historic Christianity of African Descent:
1st Century:
Peter Durrett – A freed slave who started the first African American church in Lexington Kentucky during the Great Awakening (1733 – 1823).
George Liele – Emancipated slave, Baptist pastor, missionary to Jamaica (1750-1820)
Phillis Wheatley – Born in West Africa, sold into slavery, brought to America as a slave and later Emancipated. Wast the first published African American poet with sound understanding of true Christianity. (1753-1784)
Lemuel Haynes – He was an indentured servant and was freed in 1777. He was part of the American Revolution, became a sound preacher in Vermont and was a stout Abolitionist (1753 – 1833)
Henry Highland Garnet – Born into slavery and later escaped to New York. He was an abolitionist and was the pastor of the first African American Presbyterian church (though he had extreme political views and advocated for violence) (1815-1882).
Francis Grimke – His ather was a slave owner and mother was a slave. When his father died they moved, and he later became a Presbyterian minister to helped found the NAACP (1852-1937).
Eugene St. Clair Callender – He was the first African American to study at the Westminster Theological Seminary where he later became a Presbyterian pastor and civil rights activist (1926-2013).
Martin Luther King Jr. – He was a Baptist pastor and civil rights activist who taught nonviolent civil disobedience to injustices (1929-1968).
Modern Sound African American Teachers
Eric Mason
Thabiti Anyabwile
Voddie Baucham
Jemar Tisby
Tony Carter
Trillia Newbel
Bryan Loritts
Tony Evans
Jackie Hill Perry
Anthony Carter of East Point Church
Cultural and Race Focused Ministries
Thriving
Reformed African American Network
The Kainos Movement
Kingdom Agenda Pastors
The Urban Alternative
CRU: Impact
Rafiki African Ministry
The Need
Cultural and racial focused ministries are important for a number of reasons: some individuals within their culture and race refuse to seek any thing outside of their heritage. Others are reminded of the past and do to see the love of Christ due to racism. Thus, when God does call someone out of their culture and race, they can be highly effective interments for God in those specific areas.
They are living proof that God does understand their uniqueness and has chosen someone they can relate to; so that they can hear the perfectly unifying eternal message of The Gospel and see the love of God through Jesus Christ in their own culture.
Even though the Gospel Message is colorless, non-cultural specific, and universal for all people, some hearers are not; and the most effective way to reach them is with the Gospel message because the messenger relates specifically to them and understands their culture directly. This is why it is important for Christians that come from African descent and African American culture to be sound in doctrine and be an instrument for God in this specific area.
Also read All Christians Are Missionaries
The Dangers
Because of human nature, this need and the various approaches, can be corrupted. The strategies and messages can become man-centered and divisive. An extreme amount of focus can rest too much on cultural and racial issues that it alienates the rest of the church who are from other cultural and racial backgrounds. The message can morph into such a drastic focus on race that the primary message becomes solely about race instead of The Gospel Message like Black Liberation Theology. From there other teachings develop and generate heresies like the The Hebrew Roots Movement.
Identity
Orthodox Christianity, according to scripture, makes it clear that our identity is in Christ, not our cultural or racial background. That we are to care for all people in the church and not just those of our own background (1 Corinthians 12:25). Christ is the head of whole church body, which unifies us (Ephesians 1:22-23) and Jesus Christ’s message is for all people and not one culture or race (Matthew 28:19-20). God does not show favoritism over one race or another, and neither should we (Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9). Just as Christ loved all people from different backgrounds, he wants us to do the same (John 3:16; 13:34). Even though race has been, and is still, used as a divisive form of humanistic god-like control over others and used to oppress others; we are still commanded to forgive each other (Ephesians 4:32) and be merciful (James 2:13). Understand that we are uniquely made, culturally and racially, and are to be instruments for God and proclaiming his unifying universal message (Romans 6:13).
Discerning Racial Favoritism
Knowing if what is taught, in regards to culture and race specific issues, is of God or of carnal agendas can be determined by asking 3 questions:
With out The Gospel message, unifying peace seeking efforts, and eternal selfless sacrificial love for all people, the message is carnal, vain, spiritually empty, and ultimately divisive. Those who are divisive and perpetuate racial favoritism and racism need to be held accountable.
How are Christians called to react to Racism?
Matthew 5:44 is the fundamental place to start. Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you. Christian love is NOT conditional and based upon the actions of others. Even in the face of injustice we are still called to do good and glorify God through it (1 Peter 2:18-20; Titus 2:9-11).
Secular and Non-christian ancient writers were made witnesses without even knowing it. Now it is easy for these and any ancient account to be attacked but think about this: We talk about and teach about Plato as if he was a real person of history who lived and taught around 400-300BC; yet the oldest manuscript we have of ‘his’ is around 800AD. That is roughly a 1,200 year separation. Yet, historians consider mentions about him in other earlier ancient writings as creditable and useful. Below are lists of mentions of Jesus that are within 17-115 years after Jesus. Closer and more reliable than most sources of other ancient persons and are accepted as reliable.
Quick and Simple History Lesson:
Initially Jesus was a no body. Later in his life crowds of Jews followed him (and some Romans). And then he was put to death. So from 3-35AD no one would have really known anything about this guy name Jesus out side of that local region.
Then suddenly, the apostles and others were going around saying he rose from the dead and came to them. The Jews admit there was no body found and Rome could care less. As the news spread (without internet or cell phones) apostles and disciples made it to Rome, Africa, Asia minor, and continue to teach what this unknown guy Jesus taught and did.
Meanwhile the known world is caring more about the Jewish Revolt (its second attempt against Rome). In 70AD Rome got tired of Israel and their riots and destroys their capital Jerusalem.
By this time with that problem gone, Roman citizens were converting to Christianity, and it is becoming more talked about publicly. For a Syrian Philosopher in 70AD to know about Jesus, for Jewish and Roman Historians to recognize Jesus as history, and for a comedian to feel the need to patronize a religion; it was growing.
Its not until after Jesus’ death that he gets talked about and focused on outside of the broad region he and his apostles came out of.
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
Julius Africanus quoted this because the date of this event coincides with the crucifixion of Jesus. The same darkness and earthquake that occurred when Jesus died on the cross as recorded by scripture.
Mara Bar-Serapion wrote around 70AD (~35 years after Jesus); He was a Syrian philosopher who was writing to his son. He used real life examples of the persecution people have faced wrongly for their beliefs. He uses Athenians against Socrates to death, the people of Samos against Pythagoras and then states:
“…Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted.”
The Jews never murdered their kings of the past. Jesus however was mockingly called “king of the Jews” on the cross. It was an argument that even Jewish leadership used to get Rome to approve his crucifixion. 35 years after Jesus was murdered, Rome destroyed Jerusalem. But “the wise King lived on in the teachings he enacted”. Thus Serapion was indirectly stating that Jesus was a real person of history, that his death was wrong, and that his teachings that he enacted are still taught and lived out.
Flavius Josephus (37-101AD; wrote ~45 years after Jesus) was a Jewish Historian whom was captured by Romans in Jerusalem, taken to Rome, and was freed. There he wrote his books. In one of his books he talks about Jesus. This is called the Testimonium. Down through history though it is argued that Christians added to his writings and the Testimonium. Two researchers, Edwin Yamauchi and John P. Meier, have constructed a copy of the “Testimonium” with the probable Christian insertions removed. In parentheses are what is found in the Arabic manuscript. The following paragraph is Yamauchi’s:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man (And his conduct was good and he was kown to be virtiucous) For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. (They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive). And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
Keeping in mind, Jesus was respected as a person and as a teacher in Jewish history until Christianity grew. It was not until later in history that Jewish Rabbis began slandering him and writing negative things about. Removing all positive statements about Jesus and assuming they were imputations by Christians is anti-christian bias in itself. Jews would have been positive about Jesus in Josephus’ day. They would however disagree on his actual resurrection but would not disagree that his apostles would claim he did. The reconstructed Testimonium above is what a Jewish historian would have said without Christian bias in that day.
In another place we see another mention of Jesus and an important identifier:
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,”
Jesus was a common name in that culture at that time. To know which person was the subject, the author would attach a family name or in this case a notable related person. Here Josephus attaches ‘of Jesus’ to the subject but because that was still a common name, he includes which Jesus, “who was called Christ”. This is not an affirmation of belief. Josephus did not believe that Jesus was Christ but he records that Jesus “was called” Christ. Thus this is how his readers would know which James he was talking about.
In this record we see that Jesus was an actual person of history and was in fact crucified. That his disciples fell away after he was crucified but then later reported Jesus appearing to them. This account (minus any kind of imputation suspicion) validates the synoptic gospel accounts.
Cornelius Tacitus (56-120AD); a very trusted Roman historian, senator, proconsul of Asia, and defiantly a non-christian who wrote around 116AD (~80 years after Jesus) an interesting statement about Christianity
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
From this statement alone we can learn a lot about Christianity. There was a class of people called Christians who got their name from someone who was named Christus. He suffered the extreme penalty during a specific and actual time of Pontius Pilatus. Christians also had a very “mischievous superstition” about this Christus guy. And that this class of people first started in Judea and spread to Rome.
Anyone who claims Jesus never existed or was not crucified must then disprove Tacitus. The problem is that Tacitus is proven reliable and is a major source for a majority our knowledge about ancient Rome. To question him is to question most of what we know about Roman history now.
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD; ~65 years after Jesus) a Roman non-christian wrote a letter to emperor Trajan and mentioned some things about Christianity. He states:
“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god”
Pliny can tell that these Christians have a ‘fixed day’ of the week in the morning where they meet up and sing “to Christ, as to a god”. Pliny unknowingly records that Christians worship Jesus Christ as God. He also shows that Christians met up on a selected day (Sunday) in the mornings, “before it was light”.
Suetonius (69-140AD) a Roman historian records how Christians were treated in Roman society. He mentioned a disturbance in Rome around 49AD (~14 years after Jesus) and then the fire of Rome in 64AD where Nero blamed the Christians.
“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)
“Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2)
Suetonius even states that the Christian religion is “new”. Rome was a mecca of culture of that time. He would be fully aware of Egyptian religions, Babylonian religions, and other eastern religions including Greek and Romes’ own; yet, Christianity was “new”. The disturbance of 49AD was also recorded by Luke in Acts 18:2
Lucian of Samosata (120-180AD; ~115 years after Jesus) was a satirist and Roman comedian who very negative and sarcastically critical of Christians. He wrote several books and in a negative since, affirms Christianity. He states:
“The Christians. . . worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced this new cult, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt for death and self devotion . . . their lawgiver [taught] they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take on faith”
Just from his derogatory account we still see that Christians worshiped Jesus as God. That Jesus was in fact a real person of history and was crucified. He also states that Christianity is “new” and not just a blend of past religions.
The Jewish (Babylonian) Talmud was written around 375 to 427 AD. It records that Jesus was crucified in Sanhedrin 43 and that he had close disciples.
“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (Jewish for Jesus) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!35 — Ulla retorted: ‘Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence”
“Our rabbis taught Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples, and these are they: Matthai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah:
In other places of Jewish texts we see more mentions of Jesus:
Shabboth 14:4/8 – “someone … whispered to him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera”
Abodah Zarah 17a – “One of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene found me”
Sanhedrin 103a – “that you will not have a son or disciple … like Jesus the Nazarene”
Sanhedrin 107b – “The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic
We can almost see a negative expression of the gospel. Jesus had disciples and went around doing unexplainable things (which Jews understood them to be sorcery and magic). People were healed in his name and Jesus was later “hanged” on the eve of Passover. This account supports the synoptic gospels accounts.
Why are there no writings of Jesus (out side of the bible) while he was alive?
A valid question. Joseph Caiaphas was the Chief Priest during the time of Jesus. According to the apostles he organized the trial of Jesus. Josephus records that he was the son of Annas who was deposed and Caiaphas was then appointed by Roman authorities. There is no mention of him ever writing anything. Pontius Pilate is mentioned by Roman, Jewish, and Christian historians is who presided over the trial of Jesus. By Jewish accounts he was very insensitive to Jewish culture but tried to maintain order. A document called Acts of Pilate is a later writing has no authentic qualities or support. Besides this later attempt to attach his name to a document, there are no known authentic writings from him. As mentioned in the introduction; during this time, he was a no body. It was not until he did what he did and told his followers to go make it known that things started to be recorded. God made him the only voice during this time. The apostles were his writers during the time he was alive.
The synoptic gospels are supported by the outside biblical sources above and by archeologically findings. Secular modern historians like EP Sanders, Michael Grant, and Maurice Casey, find the synoptic gospels to be historically reliable. Thus, the synoptic gospels are the written account of Jesus while he was alive
THE AMERICAN LIFE JOURNAL 