Scarlet Letter: A Christian With AIDS
The following is a actual letter I sent to a close Christian friend in 1999, immediately after I was diagnosed with HIV. Since then the HIV has progressed on into AIDS.
Does God Heal Today?
When I was first diagnosed with the HIV virus, I read innumerable articles on it and later suffered from an information overload and depressing confusion. One article would speak in favor of taking the highly toxic HIV/AIDS medicines, and then I'd read another one that spoke against it with just as convincing of an argument.
Brokeback Mountain Blues
I wanted to see it, but I didn't want to see it. I'm talking about the "gay cowboy" movie called Brokeback Mountain (even though I read Jake Gyllenhaal, one of the two major actors - "Jack Twist," wants it to mean much more than that to its audience).
God and the Gays - To Be or Not to Be (Part 1)
Homosexuality.... Is it a matter of choice? Are some born that way? And if so, then how could God condemn it? Or does He? Does it make a difference?
God and the Gays - All That Glitters Isn't Gold (Part 2)
The gay bar scene or high risk promiscuous sex... Is it so happy-go-lucky? Something so sweet and wonderful we'd "wish you were here?" Or is it actually something you wouldn't wish upon your worst enemy?
God and the Gays - Once Gay, Always Gay? (Part 3)
Once gay always gay? How about once an adulterer always an adulterer? Better yet, once a sinner always a sinner (1 Cor. 6:11; 1 John 1:9)? WHO says so?
God and the Gays - Of Vice and Men (Part 4)
Everyone - gay or straight - has the "fire" within (1 Cor. 7:9). Some burn more than others, but it's still there. God understands proper sexual desire and simply commands that we develop His character to control and channel it. He knows our human need to love and be loved, to touch and feel, to give of ourselves totally in a reciprocal relationship.
God and the Gays - A Time to Heal (Part 5)
God calls people from all walks of life and performs a miracle in their minds: they're offered a fresh perspective, given a new outlook, and enabled to try a different approach (Philip. 2:5). Their former "records" aren't held against them and they're started out with a new attitude and identity (2 Cor. 5:17).
God and the Gays - Make Up Your Mind (Part 6)
We can make things easier or more difficult for ourselves. Either you're totally convinced God's way is right and worth living, or you're not sure and continually ride the fence and risk rupture; tormenting yourself and sending out conflicting signals and confusing signs (Matt. 6:24; 7:16).
"Let us make man in our image." Such a Scripture does not support the trinity, but it does support the plain truth that the Word was God and the Word was with God, two Beings with the one sacred name of God/Elohim (John 1:1-2).
"In the Beginning was the WORD (Logos/Spokesman/Revelatory Thought), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." This clearly reveals TWO Beings who shared the ONE family name of GOD (Ephes. 3:15). God created all things through Yeshua/Jesus who was the Word (Ephes. 3:9).
When the Word became flesh He was "God with us" and thereby became the "Son" and the One who remained in Heaven thereby became the "Father." They had coexisted eternally in a SHARED GLORY (John 8:42, 7:5, 8, 16:27-28). We can either accept or reject Yeshua's revelation of the UNKNOWN FATHER FIGURE whom mankind has never heard or seen. The Word who became Yeshua is the Divine Being who dealt with ancient Israel. They didn't know the Father and most still don't today, and they can't unless the Son reveals Him (John 5:37, 6:44,46, 8:54-55).
And we can either accept or reject Yeshua's explanation/interpretation of what "one" means: unity/united. He said the Father was in Him and He was in the Father (through the Holy Spirit and unity of mind and purpose) and He prayed for the Church of God to express and exhibit that exact same unity and oneness by the Holy Spirit (John 14:11, 15:4, 17:11, 21, 23). Please check out these Scripture references and see that it is so. One Holy Spirit of UNITY AND DIVINE PURPOSE (I Cor. 12:12-20).
The Scripture says "Let us make man in our image," and it says "ELOHIM (not YHVH) made man in His image." It's saying the Word and God made man "in OUR image" and, that as ONE GOD FAMILY UNIT/KINGDOM, the united God made man in HIS image. It elaborates, for our sakes, by also saying Elohim created MAN in His image..."MALE and FEMALE created He THEM" (Gen. 1:27).
So there's a reverse of the singular and the plural, man/them and our/His. This "mystery" is further revealed when it's written in Gen. 5:1-2: "In the day that Elohim (Gods) created man, in the likeness of God made He HIM; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name ADAM." The ONE ADAM FAMILY then had a son, Seth, in "his (Adam's) own likeness, after his image" (Gen. 5:3).
Does this exclude Eve? Wasn't Seth also in her human likeness and image? Yes. For conclusive proof that God PURPOSELY inserted all this into the Genesis account to REVEAL to us later about the ONE GOD FAMILY/KINGDOM, the apostle Paul preaches: "For we [Christians] are members of his [Yeshua's] Body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they TWO shall be ONE FLESH. This is a GREAT MYSTERY: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church" (Ephes. 5:30-32).
That's how the ONE GOD FAMILY (Elohim with the Father Supreme and the Son gladly subject to His authority - 1 Cor. 15:28) can be and is presently composed of two God-Beings, and is in the conversion process of "bringing MANY SONS TO GLORY" (Heb. 2:10) since Christ was the "FIRSTBORN OF MANY BRETHREN" (Rom. 8:29). Jesus was the PROTOTYPE of a new genus: the Kingdom of God!
It's illustrated that even as MANKIND has shared in Adam's earthy image, we're soon to share in the HEAVENLY image of the Second Adam when we're born again of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3,6 4:24), with righteous character and composition! Mankind after the Godkind! And all through the ONE SPIRIT of God that unites us.
"Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27), "who shall change our vile body that it may be FASHIONED/CREATED like unto His GLORIOUS BODY" (Philip. 3:21), "for we know that when He shall appear, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM" (1 John 3:2) - we are not going to be dogs or cats, or even angels, we are to be heavenly beings, HOLY SPIRIT-COMPOSED, born again GOD-BEINGS in the one divine family unit/Elohim!
We are presently members of MANkind, huMAN, in the ADAMic Family unit (Gen. 5:2), but God promises we'll soon be changed in the twinkling of an eye, miraculously transformed, and join the HEAVENLY SPIRIT/GOD FAMILY.
We've clearly seen how "two" can be "one" whether in the God Family or in the Adam family. It's right there in the Bible if we'll just believe what we see and read. It's the plain truth of the Bible for those willing to believe what God has revealed.
Those who reject the testimony of the Scriptures (to hang on to vain traditions of men, whether trinity or oneness) are unable to explain what we're to become. Why have we received the down payment/earnest of the Spirit? (Ephes. 1:13-14). What conversion process are we in? (2 Cor.3:18). What are we being converted to if not into the character and composition of the Holy Spirit?
God is spirit. We must be born again of the SPIRIT. Yeshua is the FIRSTBORN of many brethren (Rom. 8:29). We're presently partakers of the DIVINE nature (2 Pet. 1:4). God is our Father, Yeshua is our elder Brother - a family relationship. We're in Adam's human/earthy image now; we're to be in the Second Adam's spiritual/heavenly/divine image soon.
God is reproducing Himself! That's what the conversion process is all about: God became man so man could become God. Mankind was created after the Godkind so after a life of conversion and purification, we can be resurrected to GLORY and share the glory of the Father and Son as born again sons of God (Elohim).
Again, what are we to become? How can you strive to enter the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Gods (Elohim), leaving the human kingdom behind, if you refuse to accept the awesome potential God (Elohim) offers? Take receiving the Holy Spirit and being born again of the Holy Spirit to its logical/biblical end/fulfillment.
When we're glorified God-Beings, worshipping our Supreme Father God in His Kingdom (1 Cor. 15:28), just like Yeshua will submit to the Father as all in all, we'll be immortal Priest-Kings (Rev. 5:10, 20:6), and God will be the "God of Gods" (Ps. 97:7, 136:2). Christ is the King of Kings (we're those kings), and the Lord of Lords (we're those lords), and the Father is God of Gods (we're those Gods/Elohim - Micah 4:5).
We either accept Yeshua's revelation of the UNKNOWN FATHER and His eternal coexistence with Him, and His work as Creator, as the Word, under the supervision of the Father, or we must reject the New Testament.
The Jews know Yeshua's claims and don't water them down to fit their religion. They reject His revelation for now, like most of traditional Christianity, but both Houses of Israel (Anglo-Saxon-Celtics, Western Europeans and Jews as taught by Brit-Am Israel) will get over this stumbling block and soon embrace our transcendent calling to become literal members of the Heavenly Family of Gods (Elohim), higher than the animals and angels - divine (Heb. 2:9-10).
We don't call God the Father for nothing, or do we? We're to be the literal children of God, the Children of the Resurrection (Luke 20:36). What glorious GOOD NEWS!
Following four days of quiet after Israel and Hamas struck a ceasefire, last Sunday, Israel increased allowed for increased activity at several Gaza border-crossings.
read more
Condemnation of the rebellion heaped up. The United Nations applied international sanctions intended to cut off Rhodesia from the rest of the world in 1966.
Mr. Smith would not bend. "No African rule in my lifetime," he said. "The white man is master of Rhodesia. He has built it, and he intends to keep it."
As he aged, he remained bitter that, in his view, successive outside powers including the United States, South Africa and most of all Britain had broken promises, betraying Rhodesia’s white minority and its leaders in the name of political expediency.
"And in all honesty, what had Rhodesia done to deserve all of this treachery?" he wrote in his 1996 memoir, "Bitter Harvest: The Great Betrayal." Returning to his prophecies of economic decline under black majority rule, he added in a 1998 postscript to the book: "I think I can correctly comment: I told you so. History records that my predictions have materialized."
You are banned from TWEB for repeatedly posting racist material after you were warned that this is unacceptable on this site numerous times.
Years of observation and study have taught me to be an honest racist, a realist, without apology. Racism is not the unpardonable sin that politically correct fascists would mislead folks to believe. Dishonest racists would have us deny our God-given differences and foolishly pretend we're all equal when everything proves we're not equal except in our potential to be born again into the Kingdom of God-Beings, and even then salvation is offered first to the Jews (Israelites) and then to the Greeks (Gentiles).
"I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."
- Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln Was A White Supremacist
“Cam Rea describes the Assyrian Conquest of the northern Israelite Tribes and their subsequent history alongside that of Assyria itself. The account is historically accurate as well as exciting. Cam Rea has the ability to bring the past to life. This work encompasses original research work and pertinent insights. Anyone who wishes to know what happened to the Ten Tribes of Northern Israel after their exile should read this work. The reader will both benefit and enjoy doing so.
In Romans 14:5-6, Paul wrote: "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks."
Many people assume from this passage that Paul is saying that whatever day one chooses to rest and worship is irrelevant so long as one is "fully convinced in his own mind" and "observes it to the Lord."
Does this mean that the Fourth Commandment, telling us to remember the seventh-day Sabbath day and keep it holy, is no longer necessary for Christians? Did Paul teach that the Sabbath is no different from any other day or that we are free to choose for ourselves whatever day we wish to observe?
To come to that conclusion, one must read it into the verse, because—notice carefully—the Sabbath is nowhere mentioned here.In fact, the word Sabbath or references to Sabbath-keeping are not found anywhere in the book of Romans. The reference here is simply to "day(s)," not the Sabbath or any other days of rest and worship commanded by God.
Keep in mind that Paul, earlier in this same epistle, had written, "The law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good" (Romans 7:12), "The doers of the law will be justified" (2:13) and "I delight in the law of God" (7:22). If he were saying here that keeping God's Sabbath day is irrelevant, it would be completely inconsistent with his other clear statements in this same letter. Also, no New Testament writers refer to the Sabbath by such ambiguous phrases as "one day."
Context shows the meaning of "days"
What, then, were the "days" Paul mentions here? We must look at the context to find out.
Notice first that this discussion is about "disputes over doubtful things" (verse 1). These were matters of "opinions" (NRSV), which tells us that Paul isn't addressing issues clearly stated in the Scriptures, such as when and whether to keep the Sabbath.
The passage in question about days is in verses 5 and 6, immediately between references to eating meat, vegetarianism and fasting in verses 2, 3 and 6. There is no biblical connection between Sabbath observance and any of these things, so one must take these verses out of context to assume that Paul was referring to the Sabbath.
The Expositor's Bible Commentary explains that "the close contextual association with eating suggests that Paul has in mind a special day set apart for observance as a time for feasting or as a time for fasting" (Everett Harrison, 1976, Vol. 10, p. 146). It is apparent that Paul wasn't discussing the Sabbath, but rather other days during which fasting or abstaining from certain foods was practiced.
Paul was writing to a mixed church of Jewish and gentile believers in Rome (Romans 1:13; 2:17). Personal eating and fasting practices that were not clearly addressed in the Scriptures had become a point of contention for some.
The Talmud records that many Jews of that time fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. They also had other traditional fast days (compare Zechariah 7:3-5). Since some of the Jewish Church members in Rome self-righteously criticized others (Romans 2:17-24), perhaps they had become like the Pharisee who boasted, "I fast twice a week" (Luke 18:12), and set themselves up as more righteous than others who were not fasting at these times.
Possibly members of the church at Rome were trying to enforce fasting on particular days on other Christians there, prompting Paul's pointed question: "Who are you to judge another's servant?" (verse 4). Paul appears to be setting the record straight by emphasizing that fasting is a voluntary exercise of worship not limited to a particular day. Therefore, one person's fasting on a particular day when another is eating does not make him more righteous.
Why were some avoiding meat?
In verses 2 and 3 Paul discussed vegetarianism ("he who is weak eats only vegetables") and continued this theme in verse 6 ("he who eats . . . and he who does not eat").
The context shows us that some members of the congregation there were eating meat, and others were abstaining from eating meat. The vegetarians were likely members who "so feared lest they should (without knowing it) eat meat which had been offered to idols or was otherwise ceremonially unclean (which might easily happen in such a place as Rome), that they abstained from meat altogether" (W.J. Conybeare and J.S. Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 1974, p. 530).
In 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, Paul addressed the issue of eating meat that may have been sacrificed to idols and consequently could have been viewed by some members as improper to eat. Paul's point in that chapter was that unknown association of food with idolatrous activity did not make that food unsuitable for eating.
Paul was addressing the same issue to both the Romans and the Corinthians, namely whether members should avoid meats that may have been associated with idolatrous worship.
This is indicated by Paul's reference to " unclean" meat in Romans 14:14. Rather than using the Greek word used to describe those meats listed in the Old Testament as unclean, he used a word meaning "common" or "defiled," which would be appropriate in describing meat that had been sacrificed to idols. (For more details, see "Does Romans 14 Abolish Laws on Unclean Meats?" beginning on page 94.)
Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 8 was the same as in Romans 14:15: Be especially careful not to offend a fellow member, causing him to stumble or lose faith, over the issue of meats.
In no way was this related to Sabbath observance because God's Sabbath is a "feast" day (Leviticus 23:1-3), not a day when one must abstain from eating meat. The Sabbath is nowhere mentioned in Paul's letter to the Romans; it simply wasn't the issue. (To learn more, request our free booklet Sunset to Sunset: God's Sabbath Rest.)
Those who look to Romans for justification for their view that Paul abrogates keeping Old Testament laws face the added burden of explaining why, if his purpose is to argue that those laws are done away, Paul quotes from that same Old Testament more than 80 times in this same epistle as authority for his teaching. This simple fact alone confirms Paul's view that "the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good" (Romans 7:12).
After receiving enough delegates to secure the Democratic nomination on Tuesday night, Barack Obama said he looked forward to debating John McCain’s very different policies and positions. “It is a debate the American people deserve,” Obama said. “But what you don’t deserve,” he continued, hoping to frame the upcoming presidential debates more narrowly, “is another election that’s governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon—that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize” (emphasis mine).
It remains to be seen how much of a wedge issue Barack Obama’s disturbing association with Jeremiah Wright will be in the upcoming general election. But if it does factor into the outcome, it is he—not his political opponents—who made it a wedge issue.
Suspicious of Racism
Barack Obama began his 1994 memoir, Dreams From My Father—A Story of Race and Inheritance, by describing the events surrounding the day he learned that his father, who abandoned him at the age of 2, had died. Barack was 21 at the time, living in New York. “When the weather was good,” he remembers, he and his roommate would “sit out on the fire escape to smoke cigarettes and … watch white people from the better neighborhoods nearby walk their dogs down our block to let the animals [defecate] on our curbs ….”
Evidently, life wasn’t easy for mixed-race students at Columbia University in 1981—even those who lived on the upper east side of Manhattan.
Before college, while living in Hawaii, Barack describes an awkward incident during his high school days, when he invited two white friends to attend an all-black party. Early on at the party, the whites became noticeably uncomfortable and asked if Barack could return them home early. During the ride home, one of them made the mistake of saying he could now better identify with Barack’s sojourn as a minority living in a mostly white society. The comment angered Barack, but he managed to suppress the urge to punch the guy. The impact of the incident, however, etched a deep, life-altering scar on Obama’s mental makeup. “I had begun to see a new map of the world, one that was frightening in its simplicity, suffocating in its implication,” he explained.
We were always playing on the white man’s court, Ray [his black friend] had told me, by the white man’s rules. If the principal, or the coach, or a teacher, or Kurt, wanted to spit in your face, he could, because he had power and you didn’t. If he decided not to, if he treated you like a man or came to your defense, it was because he knew that the words you spoke, the clothes you wore, the books you read, your ambitions and desires, were already his. … Following this maddening logic, the only thing you could choose as your own was withdrawal into a smaller and smaller coil of rage, until being black meant only the knowledge of your own powerlessness, of your own defeat.
Not long after the party, adding insult to injury, Barack was shocked to learn that his white grandmother had what Barack believed were predisposed attitudes that were racially insensitive. The revelation jolted him one morning shortly after his grandmother asked her husband, Barack’s grandfather, for a ride to work. The exchange led to an argument which resulted in her finally admitting that she was afraid to ride the bus to work. She had been harassed by a man the day before, she said—and he was black.
“The words were like a fist in my stomach, and I wobbled to regain my composure,” Obama wrote.
That night, Barack related the disturbing news to one of his grandfather’s drinking buddies, an elderly black man named Frank. He told Barack that his grandmother’s reaction to the scary incident on the bus indicated that she understood “that black people have a reason to hate. That’s just how it is,” he said. “So you might as well get used to it.”
Just before Barack left for college, Frank passed along his insight regarding the real price of admission.
“And what’s that?” Barack asked.
“Leaving your race at the door,” Frank said. “Leaving your people behind.”
Later, Frank explained, “They’ll train you so good, you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that [nonsense]. They’ll give you a corner office and invite you to fancy dinners, and tell you you’re a credit to your race. Until you want to actually start running things, and then they’ll yank your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well-paid n- - - - -, but you’re a n- - - - - just the same.”
So off to college Barack went, hoping to find his way in this world, while chasing women, smoking pot and occasionally snorting cocaine.
As an undergraduate student at Occidental, located just outside of Pasadena, Calif., Obama was surprised to hear that most of the black community on campus wasn’t interested in revolt and actually didn’t think about race all the time.
“So why couldn’t I let it go?” Obama asks himself.
He chose his friends carefully while at college—befriending the “more politically active black students.” He wanted to avoid the label of being a “sellout.” He enjoyed spending time with the “Marxist professors” and “structural feminists.” He studied Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness to help him better understand how white people learn to hate.
After transferring to Columbia in 1981, he gave up drugs and began to take his studies more seriously. Sobering up, however, did little in the way of suppressing his black rage. “I had grown accustomed, everywhere, to suspicion between the races,” he wrote.
“But whether because of New York’s density or because of its scale, it was only now that I began to grasp the almost mathematical precision with which America’s race and class problems joined; the depth, the ferocity, of resulting tribal wars; the bile that flowed freely not just out on the streets but in the stalls of Columbia’s bathrooms as well.”
While at Columbia, Barack decided he wanted to be a community organizer—a profession that would allow him to make use of his college experience as a black activist. After a lengthy job search which turned up no leads, he finally got a call from a white Chicagoan who had recently started an organizing drive.
During the interview a week later, after asking Barack why he wanted to be an organizer, the man said, “You must be angry about something.”
“What do you mean by that?” Barack asked.
“Don’t get me wrong,” the man later explained. “Anger’s a requirement for the job.”
Obama accepted the job and moved to Chicago in 1985. He worked within several black neighborhoods around Chicago—Roseland, West Pullman and Altgeld Gardens—communities that had been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs. “I started working with both the ministers and the lay people in these churches on issues like creating job-training programs, or after-school programs for youth, or making sure that city services were fairly allocated to under-served communities,” Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in 2004. “And it was in those places where I think what had been more of an intellectual view of religion deepened.”
Obama’s Spiritual Mentors
In Dreams From My Father, we first meet Jeremiah Wright a little over halfway into the book. But right away, we notice that Pastor Wright is quite unlike all the other deeply flawed male role models who played parts in Barack’s upbringing and education.
Barack has nothing negative to say about his pastor. After meeting him in his office to discuss community organizations, Barack decided to come back for a service one Sunday. As it happens, Wright’s sermon that day carried the same title Obama would borrow for his second best-selling book—“The Audacity of Hope.” In the midst of his message, undoubtedly delivered with the same bombastic style of some of his later, more controversial, sermons, Wright decried the evils of a world “where white folks’ greed runs a world in need.”
The message brought tears to the eyes of Barack Obama. It marked the beginning of an intimate and enduring bond between these two, who seemed to be perfectly matched.
According to the 2004 Sun-Times profile, Barack attended Trinity’s Sunday service every week—“or at least as many weeks as he is able.” The article also identified another long-time associate of the senator’s, a spiritual adviser who helped establish Obama’s moral compass—Michael Pfleger, who, until this week, pastored the St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church on Chicago’s south side.
“I don’t think he could easily divorce his faith from who he is,” Pfleger said of Obama in 2004.
The Anger Is Real
Less than three months ago, when Barack Obama attempted to distance himself from his spiritual mentor and close confidant Jeremiah Wright, the junior senator said his pastor had been misunderstood and unfairly characterized. He said the fact that so many people are “surprised” by Jeremiah Wright’s anger reveals how segregated whites and blacks are during the church hour on Sunday mornings. “[T]he anger is real—it is powerful,” he said in response to Wright’s diatribes. “And to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.”
In his speech, hailed by many in the major media as the best speech on race relations since Martin Luther King, Obama condemned the “controversial” statements of Wright, while maintaining his close personal relationship with the man. “He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children,” Obama said. “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”
Two months after that comment, Obama’s other spiritual adviser, Michael Pfleger, mocked Hillary Clinton’s campaign during a message delivered at Trinity United, accusing the New York senator of believing she deserved the nomination simply because she is white.
In response to yet another religious wedge issue, no doubt sensing that his disturbing associations with Trinity United might undermine his political ambitions, Obama did last week what he should have done in March—what he should have done long before that, in fact—he disowned Pastor Wright and Trinity United. Michael Pfleger’s remarks, he explained disingenuously, had caught him by complete surprise.
One commentator tried to brush aside Obama’s disavowal of Wright’s theology as nothing more than politics as usual. It was political opportunism that prompted him to join the church in the first place, just as it was politically expedient for him to leave the church last week, he explained.
But while political opportunism undoubtedly motivated his departure from Trinity United in 2008, Dreams From My Father reveals an altogether different motivation for Barack heeding Jeremiah Wright’s altar call in 1988, and then maintaining a close, father-son relationship with his pastor for the next 20 years.
Ideologically speaking, the two couldn’t have been more perfectly suited for each other.
How the Anger Will End
“[T]he evidence is overwhelming by now that Trinity United is a front for the hard left,” writes James Lewis, “which is trying to turn American blacks into another angry proletariat …. Radical leftists have been teaching ‘race consciousness’ to black people, just as the old left taught ‘class consciousness’ to impoverished people. The stated goal of Black Liberation Theology is to create racial strife, just as the stated goal of Marxist class propaganda was to whip up class war. This is preaching of race hatred for selfish political ends.”
Herbert W. Armstrong wrote of the same issues back in 1968, when student rebellions and racial violence were rampant on American campuses. In the November 1968 Plain Truth, he wrote:
Look, now, at these sudden emotional flare-ups of student revolt and of race consciousness, prejudice, resentments and hatreds. Why the sudden inflaming of student rebellion? Why have both exploded into violence? …
The underlying cause is, simply, human nature. … Human nature is the underlying cause of the strife, the revolt, the violence. But what has triggered it? …
[I]n most cases I can tell you definitely that these riots and student uprisings have been deliberately planned, intentionally provoked, well organized. …
Today Communists appear on college and university campuses, under the guise of “the new leftist movement.”
That old Marxist movement, he explained, worked to inflame blacks with “emotional resentment against whites,” reminding them of every possible “injustice”—fanning the flames of discontent, bitterness and hatred.
We see the same thing happening today.
As much as Obama might claim to disown Trinity United, and to whatever degree his contentious relationship with Jeremiah Wright affects his campaign, the bitter results of today’s movement to stir racial hatred in America are bound to lead to a racial explosion, just as it did during the 1960s. (Read Chapter Four of Ezekiel: The End-Time Prophet to see that this is indeed prophesied.)
Mr. Armstrong, however, went on to give the solution: “These problems will be solved! Our generation shall see world peace!
“But not until human nature is changed! Not until people quit hating one another!”
That time will soon come, he went on to explain, when Jesus Christ returns to this Earth and, by supernatural power and force, brings peace, prosperity and happiness for all! •
***********
History Nelson Mandela
January 31, 1985 in History
Event: South Africa President PW Botha offers to free Mandela if he denounces violence.
Mandela refused to do so.
Finally, Mandela walked to freedom in 1990 - without denouncing a continuation of violence.
His ANC has remained true to this view; since 1994
300,000 South Africans murdered.
Including 35,000 White South Africans.
Including 3,000 White Afrikaner Farmers.
For this Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
Peace and Democracy???????????
The Worlds Greatest “SPIN DOCTOR”