The Heart of the Issue

Over the last several months, a question cooking for years has come to the forefront of my consciousness regarding the position of the Christ-based faith amongst the panoply of religions. Because it is becoming clear to me that where this question is heading is towards an inevitable confrontation between Christianity and all other contenders in the broad field. That may sound like an overblown assessment, but I believe it will, probably soon, prove to be true.

This confrontation will not emerge willy-nilly as an accidental artifact of religious progress; it is being deliberately fomented by ‘powers and principalities’ operating behind the scenes. You can see the situation crystallizing if you observe the current trends. In parts of the world, it has become ‘politically incorrect’ to say things considered negative against certain religious groups—primarily, Jews and, sometimes, Moslems. Usually, other religions (eg. Hinduism, Buddhism) get swept along in this current, becoming incidental beneficiaries of the implied protection. However, it appears that the protection offered the ostensibly maligned groups has, behind it, the tacit motive of shielding the race, rather than the religion, per se. Thus, it’s not really Judaism that is being sheltered, but all Jews; and not Islam, so much as Moslems, which usually means Arabs. The tacit reasons tho, are quite different. If ‘political correctness’ is bestowed to Islam (thus, Arabs) it appears to be designed to create the impression that the authorities involved (be it government, universities, or whatever) are not prejudiced against Arabs, but only against ‘religious extremists’ of that stripe. The hope seems to be that, appearances to the contrary, we in the Western ‘democracies’ are not innately hostile towards Arabs, but only towards the ‘terrorists’ among them. In the case of Judaism, on the other hand, the result of ‘anti-hate’ legislation has been to supply a convenient instrument to silence any criticism of the state of Israel or its proponents.

One group that has received rather little benefit from political correctness and its adjunct legalities is Christianity. The kind of remark that would immediately elicit the label of ‘hate’ if directed towards Judaism (or possibly, but not always, Islam) can slide by the public awareness with nary a concern if it is directed instead at the Christian faith. Of course, there are historical reasons for this ambivalent response. One being the long-standing effect of the Schism. Since that event, it was ‘normal’ for Protestants to denigrate Catholics, and vice-versa, in the battle of faith that was waged both militarily and metaphorically over the past centuries. Another reason might be the feud between science and religion (essentially Christianity) in the USA, wherein the faith became more and more an open target for abuse as the society at large becomes increasingly secular.

The media have played a role in the gradual erosion of the position of respect once held by the Christian credo. Movies and TV ‘exposés’ have taken stories of the failures and dereliction of prominent Church leaders and turned them into ‘compelling dramas’ that, while based on truth, have cast aspersions on the whole concept of religion and Christianity. So far, the other major religions seem to get a ‘free pass’ on this accountability of leadership, except for the vilified Islamic extremists of course. Surely there are corrupt leaders in every faith; but the fact is that the USA—epicenter of the entertainment industry—was recognized, until recently, as a Christian nation. Time will tell if the microscope of Hollywood will be turned on other religions for ‘realistic depictions’ of their fallible leaders.

The point of these observations is that the religious scene is being segregated in the public, or secular mind into the two major camps of Christianity (such as the caricature exists) versus the collection of other beliefs. In the realm of religion or, to employ a broader term, spirituality, there are interesting movements afoot. Many of the New Age branches have unabashedly borrowed concepts and personages from Christianity, often claiming to enhance that structure with their ‘new insights,’ yet not hesitating to criticize the main tenets of the treasury they have just robbed. These revamped and upgraded versions of ancient mystic religions (Babylonian, Hindu, etc.) will mix reincarnation with Jesus and other notions to create hybrids that are abominations to the Christian faith. The worst phenomenon is that the primitive Christian creed itself has been so fragmented into smaller, more diluted, less authentic, more heretical sects that it has been sapped of almost all of it original vitality. It is essentially impossible to find a pure Christ-based creed in any institutional church. If it exists, it does so in the bosom of small study groups and in individual believers scattered thru-out the family of man.

One of the more insidious religious belief systems to emerge among the galaxy that sprang out of the 19th century explosion of religious energy is Baha’i. There is much to commend in the beliefs of Baha’i—that, in fact, is what makes it so subversive to Christianity. For any pilgrim ready to flee the wretched futility of materialism for the sanctuary of religion, the fundamental tenets of Baha’i are compelling indeed. Their system offers the ‘three unities:’ Unity of God, unity of religions, unity of mankind… You can’t quarrel with that, can you? In addition, to those ‘window shoppers’ from other faiths, Baha’i assures that ‘you don’t give up your faith, you upgrade it.’ (They can state this because of their doctrine of ‘progressive revelation’… see my essay on Baha’i). To the Christian skeptic, they say that their founder, Baha’u’llah, fulfilled the NT scriptures that foretell the Second Coming of Christ, and anticipating the obvious objections, that it was all accomplished in a spiritual rather than physical sense. That interpretation using the scriptures of Christianity is very hard to refute. If you disagree with it, they say you are not looking thru spiritual eyes but are focused on the material world. If you persist, they can accuse you of being stuck in the same blinders that prevented the Pharisees from recognizing the First Incarnation of Christ! It becomes very difficult for a Christian to dispute the claims of Baha’i, and may even dislodge some believers with shallow roots into being transplanted to their backyard.

Yet there is a fundamental tenet of faith that distinguishes the Christ-based belief from all other systems devised by man or god. That is why the final showdown will transpire between Christianity and all other belief systems (and that includes even ‘science’ which is more accurately labeled scientism). The distinction is embodied in the Man-God, Jesus himself, and is the quintessence of the faith that is called by His name. You see, every religion devised by the mind of man is based on the idea that each person must earn his/her way to ‘salvation.’ Now, salvation may be understood as ‘heaven’ or as ‘Samadhi’ or the final liberation from physical incarnation, or whatever; but it’s the destination after death in this world. The word ‘earn’ also needs explanation. In some faiths, it’s clear—you must obey the ‘Law’ (as they define it by, for e.g., Torah, or the Koran). In the Eastern traditions embracing reincarnation, it’s more complex—you must live a ‘spotless’ life (after innumerable attempts) until you finally earn liberation from the cycle of karma. While Baha’is don’t talk much about laws, they are assiduous laborers for the cause they hold dear, following the directions of their founding fathers to bring about the desired end of world peace. Their focus seems to be on what they can do to move humanity towards this goal.

The subtle pivot point about the systems based on works is that we are not all equally capable of performing them. Some people just have more self-discipline than others. Some people are better able, at least, to present a righteous appearance to the outside, despite the rot within their soul. This inevitably creates a class system where there are the priests, gurus, holy men, etc.—who are perceived as ‘masters’ who have lifted themselves to holy heights—and there are those below them, who have attained some lower degree of righteousness by their efforts. Of course, there are the absolute ‘losers,’ who can’t manage to get anywhere, spiritually, for reasons of moral turpitude. The inevitable result of a caste system is that those near the top end will naturally judge themselves spiritually superior to those seen as ‘below’ their level. We are familiar with the typical outcome of this attitude when assumed by ‘Christian preachers’ (you know the names of those guys from TV). The same happens in any faith. One extreme result is illustrated by Hinduism, where the Brahmin caste hardly thinks about the suffering of the lowest Harijans because, after all, they earned this fate by their failures in past lives. Any works-based religion brings division and discord from pride and prejudice, automatically.

Those creeds that teach that ‘God is within you, or within everything,’ lead to the notion that we are God, therefore everything we do is perfect, is part of our ascension to final merger with the ‘cosmic consciousness’… who is just the collective mind of…us. This human-centric belief can lead to some egregious abuses, as self-serving, eloquent leaders can convince gullible followers that even heinous acts are legitimate since they are committed by ‘gods.’ Once again, it is a works-based platform, but perilously, the works are not evaluated on the premise of an external, divine judge, but decided by the doers themselves.

In complete counter-distinction to the path of ‘works’ to attain nirvana/heaven, the pure Christ-based faith (as expressed in the Bible, but rarely proclaimed by any institutional church) puts all humanity on an equal footing. It tells us ‘All have sinned, and are far from God;’ and ‘There is none righteous, no not even one!’ Because of the stain of sin, embedded in our very DNA, we are born with the nature to follow the compulsions of our mind, to act selfishly, in other words, to sin. It’s a vicious cycle, and there is absolutely no way we can exit from it on our own efforts. Then, you wonder morosely, ‘Are we doomed; is there no hope?’ Yes; that’s our predicament! Well, praise God; not really. That is precisely why God sent the Christ, as Jesus, our one Savior. Jesus alone, of all humans, lived a perfect life, as our representative; and God offers us all the opportunity to partake of that achievement, vicariously in Christ. That is the very crux of the faith! By ‘faith,’ anyone can accept the gracious gift of ‘imputed righteousness’ extended by Jesus. The good news (gospel) was enunciated clearly, succinctly, unequivocally by Jesus, and recorded by John (John 3:16): ‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, so that whoever believes in him will not die, but will have eternal life.’

One could deliver a sermon on that one verse of scripture, but I’ll just tantalize with a paragraph. The ‘world’ in this context is translated from a Greek word that implies all humanity—it doesn’t matter what race, language, nation, or church you come from, God loves all, equally. God doesn’t have other ‘begotten’ offspring; Jesus was the only one, ever, and thus is uniquely qualified to offer the perfect antidote to the vexing sin problem. ‘Whoever’ came down as ‘whosoever’ in the King James translation, but either way, it obviously includes every human being, regardless of birth-right, position, wealth, intelligence, piety, or ethnic descent. We are all eligible to partake of the benefits. But, we have to signal our acceptance of the free offer. There’s no skill-testing question involved, but we have to acknowledge that, yes, God’s plan makes total sense—I believe His promise simply because it comes from the Creator, and I’m ready for the package. The benefit, of unparalleled value, is the promise of eternal life, sentient existence in some plane of reality that is beyond our present understanding. And this life to come is the alternative to what is, otherwise, the natural consequence of unregenerate, physical life outside of God’s provision—death. Note that there are just two choices, diametrically opposite one another—‘death’ versus ‘eternal life.’ Notice, it’s not ‘eternal death’ versus ‘eternal life,’ nor even ‘hell’ versus ‘heaven.’ (I’ll let you think about that without trying to elaborate what I am convinced it means. But to add a clue, ‘death’ is apparently final, while life is described as ‘eternal,’ by the only person ever to resurrect from the grave.)

Quite clearly, in the Christ-based system, there are no class distinctions, no swollen-egos, no losers, for we are all in the same, sorry state. We are lost, except that, through no striving of our own, God extends a golden favor, a divine boon, the attainment of liberty from karma, forgiveness of sin, through His emissary, His Avatar, Jesus. Instead of the futile attempt at the impossible task of self-improvement, we have only to accept the achievements of Jesus on our behalf. It sounds too good to be true—and therefore, many who hear the gospel just can’t accept it. They are to be pitied. Many of them decide to ‘accept’ it but they have to adduce their own formula to it, like a spiritual hedging of bets. (E.g. I ‘believe’ in Jesus, but I ‘keep’ the Ten Commandments too, just in case.) This just brings them back to a works-based faith, and we end up with the notorious abuses of the spiritually privileged over the ignorant.

In conclusion, there are only two religious systems: the pure Christ-based faith on one side, and the works-based creeds in the opposite corner. You who call yourselves spiritual have a clear choice before you—will it be God’s sublime plan… or some concoction devised by the devious mind of man? To say you choose ‘science’ and rationalism over ‘mere religion’ is to opt for another, disguised religion, for these are simply ingenious means of worshipping ourselves as gods, making idols of abstractions and conjecture. At the closing days of this Age, this World, there is no third option, sorry.

Toward a Credible Prophetic View…

In an earlier, introductory essay on the question of whether we live in the ‘End Times’, I pointed out the confluence of numerous prophecies, ancient and modern, that converge on some kind of vision of the end of the present age… whatever that means. I stated that there was a thread of commonality running among these disparate models, that lends a collective gravity to them. After all, one may dismiss an isolated oracle; but dozens pointing in the same general direction cannot be ignored or conveniently explained away.

Having made that point, I now have to deal with the more difficult problem. In their details, themes, and basic values, the various prophetic models differ considerably, sometimes radically. So the truth-seeker is faced with the always thorny problem facing all humans: which one(s) is/are presenting a true picture, and which are not? As I implied in that previous piece, there’s no secret guide book, no decoder ring you can order online; everyone is on his/her own in this cosmic dilemma. Well, perhaps not quite alone… but that will emerge later. In that intro, I laid out the kind of approach that works for me—briefly: examine all pieces of information that come along, placing them in a great metaphorical puzzle board, rearranging them as reason and inspiration direct, into as coherent a collage as possible at the moment. You just keep doing this, like a philosophical algorithm, until the truth starts to emerge, by virtue of consistency and inner conviction. As the saying wisely goes—the truth will prevail. And as it solidifies, you know where to direct your successive efforts.

As a tangible example of how this can work, I cite for your consideration, the Bible… asking the skeptics to please concede that the process requires an open mind… we’re not talking about ‘religion,’ mark; this is about information. The Bible, summarizing, is a compendium of literature, compiled over some two millennia, written by numerous authors of widely differing backgrounds and dealing with a variety of subject areas (e.g. history, poetry, prophecy, proverbs, spiritual insight, etc.). It starts with five books attributed to Moses (the ‘Pentateuch’) followed by stories of kings and prophets, ‘wisdom books,’ and more history and prophecy, all packaged as the Old Testament. That’s the Bible for Jewish believers. For Christians, there’s a whole, added section called the New Testament, dealing with the life and teachings of the one called Jesus, the Christ (Greek for ‘Messiah,’ which means ‘anointed one.’).

Okay; my point here is that this dense book contains a great deal of information. In fact, one can argue that it contains too much! Certainly, there’s more in that book than one needs to find the ‘gospel’ of Christ and consequent ‘salvation.’ An objective onlooker could logically enquire why do Christians even keep the Old Testament? Of what use is it to their faith? Indeed, then, why is the Bible so voluminous? The answer may surprise many. It has to do with redundancy that ensures reliability… to apply a key concept from information theory. What the heck? Well, you have to know a bit of secular history. You have to know that, down thru the ages, dark forces conspired to destroy Jesus’ message of hope, the gospel. They did this by attempting to destroy the receptacle of God’s truth, the holy scriptures. Councils were convened in the centuries after Christ by men with various views, orthodox or heterodox, to define the canonical Biblical texts. Authorities of the self-appointed Church kept the scriptures hidden from the eyes of all but the adepts. Primordial text was translated from one language to another, allowing the potential for selective editing. And yet—thru all this manipulation, the essential message of Jesus remains available to any who seek. Why? Because under divine guidance it is woven so skillfully into the words that no human could extirpate the truth without gutting the entire book! Nowhere in the book does a gospel or epistle writer indent a paragraph or underline a sentence, and insert a heading ‘This is the gospel.’ No; a reader must assemble it from interrelated scriptures under the unction of God’s Holy Spirit. The Bible’s message, to use a modern analogy, is fractal—it is nowhere yet it is everywhere, like a divine hologram. Or put another way, the Bible is merely the physical vehicle; the message is infused within it, and only discerned by means of a sincere search. You see, this is precisely why Jesus could state unequivocally that he has hidden the message from the wise and revealed it unto little children.

Alright, I hope you are still with me. I believe this is the same way we can discern truth in our present age of rampant deception. Allegorically, we are creating a hologram, using pieces of information, some of which fit the pattern, and some that don’t. Having laid that groundwork, the next thing we can do is examine some of the main lines of prophecy that confront our minds today.

For centuries, the primary prophetic optic for the Western mind was the Bible, but in the 19th century a veritable eruption of potential new sources appeared… almost by magic. There were individuals like Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Charles T. Russell (Jehovah Witnesses), Ellen G. White (Seventh-Day Adventism), who started new churches derived from the Christian tradition. Outside that circle, there were movements like the Theosophical Society (Mme Blavatsky), Spiritualism (the Fox sisters), Baha’i (Baha’ullah), and the new popularizing of various enlightened gurus from India (Aurobindo, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, etc.). From this original vanguard grew the tangle of spiritual avenues that now branch out on the roadmap to truth. I will try to choose the most popular routes that have become recognized for their signposts to the future. And the best way to do that is to divide the choices into groups, because it turns out that there are really just two main schools of thought in this subject area (tho there are, as expected, many variations on the themes).

In fact, the bifurcation in end-times prophecy comes down, basically, to the Biblical eschatology versus the rest. (Eschatology refers to end-time theology). Virtually all the non-Biblical schools profess a cyclical model of cosmic history, in which civilization rises and progresses thru an age or ‘aion,’ until a pre-ordained point in time and space is attained, at which point the world is physically destroyed and mankind must start the cycle anew from the few survivors. There are variations on this model, for example, one variant teaches that there is a change in consciousness associated with each such passage from one aion to the next. For Hindus, the present age is called the Kali Yuga, which implies an age of self-gratification. Another, principally New Age, view is that we are on the verge of a jump in consciousness, going from what they term ‘third density,’ to (you guessed) forth density. This school is further divided into those who envision that only ‘evolved souls’ will make the jump to forth density, while the laggards remain in 3D and presumably perish. Then there are the aboriginal people of the Americas who have had, apparently, an amazingly accurate body of oral prophecy. In their lore, the outcome of the coming calamities will be a new civilization wherein all races will live in harmony and cooperation, acknowledging the wisdom of native peoples everywhere whose traditions emphasized careful custodianship of nature.

A growing community believes in some form of ‘alien intervention,’ either just prior to, or during or following the calamities that denote the paradigm shift in human awareness. I place this group with the others because most often the ETs are viewed as ‘spiritual guides’ who will help mankind make the leap to forth density. In some schools, the aliens are evil impersonators of ‘beings of light,’ including their leader, Satan, who attempts the ultimate counterfeit—the Second Coming of Christ. This school of thought includes believers who are professed Christians, and others who are not.

Some may wonder ‘What about Nostradamus?’ ‘What about him?’, is my retort. After years of considering the enigmatic quatrains of this so-called seer, I have come to the conclusion that you might as well just read them for entertainment; you’re not (ever) going to get anything useful out of those obscure verses. Certain of his proponents claim to read various prophecies into them—after the fact; often long after. But those tenuous successes are of no help in deciphering other quatrains of ostensibly still future events. Sure, some will argue his case; but at the end of the day, my advice is don’t waste time on Nostradamus… it isn’t worth the effort.

Can you see what the main characteristic of all these non-Biblical sources is? They essentially foresee this next end of the age as typical; i.e. that the survivors will, after the time of turmoil subsides, resume business as usual among humanity on planet Earth. These prophets envisage a new aion wherein we’ll have another go on the great cosmic merry-go-round… with or without a new consciousness to help us do it better this time. In these oracles, humans are mostly on their own, or dependent on ‘extraterrestrial entities’ for continued survival and development. Hence, many believers in these camps are ‘American survivalists,’ stockpiling food, goods and guns for their supposed continued existence in the ‘after time.’

In stark, perhaps isolated contrast to all those ‘humanist’ styled prophecies stands the ‘book of our age,’ the Christian Bible. (I deliberately attach the modifier lest anyone doubt that the majority of end-times scriptures are found in the New Testament.) Astronomically, we are living near the end of the era of Pisces, as reckoned from the precession of the polar axis, a slow cyclical ‘wobble’ in the axis (as seen in a gyroscope, for instance) that takes almost 26,000 years. The north pole points within one ‘sign’ for about 2,160 years, and is presently passing from ‘the Fish’ (still used as a symbol of Christianity, tho few know why) into the age (or sign) of Aquarius. This has been the period of the flourishing of the Christian religion (such as it has existed), and of reverence for the Bible as the premier source of transcendent wisdom over that age. Now that period is reaching a transition stage, and momentous events are under way.

Biblical prophecy is not cyclical, nor humanist; it is presented as linear, and theistic. The prophecy embodied in the great vision of Nebuchadnezzar, interpreted for him by Daniel in the second chapter of his ‘book,’ (see Old Testament) displays human history as a giant statue, the head being the King himself and his then great Babylonian Empire, and the feet and toes representing the final nations on Earth at the time of the ‘end.’ Thus, quite linear, from head to toes. Now, the end scene in this vignette is depicted as a huge boulder, ‘cut without human hands,’ that smashes into the feet with sudden, explosive force, and destroys the entire statue. It is ground into dust, and the Rock (of Ages) grows to fill the entire world. Without laboriously decoding this ‘verbal-video,’ even a neophyte can discern the allegory of the earthly order being utterly terminated and replaced with the order of Christ. Now let’s move on to the New Testament.

The premier prophecy in the Christian Bible must be (no—not Revelation!) the sermon of Jesus, recorded in Matthew 24 (and parallel passages in Mark 13 and Luke 21). Yet, here again, there is confusion… which I argue is deliberate and effectual. The ingenuous apostles tacitly assume that the destruction of Jerusalem and their fabulous Temple must, naturally, highlight the end of the age. So, they enquire of Jesus, ‘Tell us, when will be the destruction of the temple and the end of the age?’ (paraphrased). Jesus, in replying to the hybrid question, seems to provide a hybrid answer. He warns his followers about the attack of the Roman army and the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives them a warning sign to watch for. Within 40 years of his death, his words were fulfilled, and those who remembered and heeded his warning were able to escape the carnage that ensued in 70 AD.

However, Jesus embedded that warning within a larger description of various, further events, apparently yet to be fulfilled. (One might argue that it was the evangelists who got things confused as they recorded these words, much later, from memory thru the filter of their cultural blinkers. But I submit this is unlikely, since the parallel accounts did not edit the convoluted sequence.) In fact, so skillfully intertwined are the dual narratives that today there is a sub-set of Christians (‘Preterists’) who are convinced that Jesus’ entire sermon describes His ‘Second Coming’ as occurring in 70 AD, everything having a ‘spiritual’ rather than literal, physical fulfillment. I leave it to the reader to investigate Preterism in the strict glare of scripture, and see its folly. The important thing to note is that by giving his ambiguous response, Jesus thwarted later attempts to edit the text into some form that would suit the self-serving agenda of church authorities. Another important point is that several parts of Jesus’ sermon are corroborated in the writings of Paul, Peter, and John, the other NT writers; and similarly, nothing Jesus stated is contradicted in any other text.

I don’t intend in this essay to do an exegesis of NT, end-times, prophetic texts. (Maybe another time!) What I hope to demonstrate is that the Christian prophecies depict the End of this world as we know it. There will be no following aion, populated by the ragged survivors of the cataclysms, ready to start the whole sorry cycle over again, ‘by the bootstraps,’ i.e. on human effort alone. There will be no New Age populated by gurus enlightened by alien intelligences. No; the Bible is clear in enunciating ‘a New Heavens and a New Earth wherein righteousness dwells.’ This revolution is impossible for humans or for ‘ETs’ to accomplish; it is solely a work of the Creator. What the final days of Earth reveal undeniably is the inherent corruption of mankind, and our utter inability to institute righteousness globally. We will finally see, beyond any shadow of doubt, our abject sinfulness and absolute need of a divine savior. And that is what scripture promises—God with us, a savior who becomes our beneficent ruler in a worldwide Kingdom of God. Further, we are told that we will not live in these corruptible, fleshly bodies, but in new, glorious bodies similar to Christ’s resurrection body. (Okay, you could think of that as ‘forth density,’ but obviously in a radically different setting.)

None of this sounds much like the extra-Biblical descriptions of the end of the age. So those are the two main streams of thought on the approaching cosmic crisis. Without going into minute detail (you can do that yourself), I have set out the two big paradigms that await the investigation of the seeker of truth. These are archetypal models at opposite poles of the prophetic spectrum. They present a clear choice: a choice between a path that purports to be delivered from God, and a labyrinth of paths that branch wildly from a multiplicity of mostly human sources. Of course, if you’re an inveterate rationalist with no regard for mysticism or anything that smells of it, you may not care for either description. In that case, you can always continue to listen to the explanations of the official experts, the scientists in the employ of governments and corporations. You will see how consistent and reliable is their version of reality… if you haven’t already noticed the endless lies and cover-ups. If you’re an atheistic skeptic of both governments and religions, then I invite you to maintain a ‘healthy skepticism,’ but to try my process of weighing all the facts while suspending a prejudged conclusion. And ‘weighing ALL the facts’ means taking the trouble to investigate claims that you think you already know about (that is mostly arrogance, and inexcusable to the true seeker). It also means keeping an open mind about things you would ‘prefer’ to dismiss in some convenient category of your personal design.

As for me, I make no excuses for adhering to the Christian Biblical prophetic vision. I do not do so out of some blind, fundamentalist, dogmatic faith that is really the last refuge of the moral malingerer. No, I accept this paradigm because it has demonstrated its robustness, from the aspect of spirit, of logic, and of experience. My final advisory note is that the seeker must go directly to the scriptures themselves; never put your trust in any human middlemen (and their odious denominations). Yes, it’s not easy, I understand… but who said finding truth was going to be easy? This essay has tried to provide the reader with a roadmap; now it is up to you to follow it and see if it, indeed, leads you to a trustworthy destination.

The Root of Extremism

With the tragic, highlight events of the dawn of the 21st Century emblazoned on people's consciousness, it is easy to think of extremism as a religious and a foreign phenomenon. However, both assumptions are false.

Let's deal with the second issue first. Is extremism--in today's understanding--strictly something that exists 'out there', that is, beyond the borders of the 'North American' or 'developed' world?

Part of the problem is the question of degree. If we think of extremism as manifested in 'acts of terror,' then it's too easy to relegate the idea to shadowy, foreign sources--most likely clad in flowing robes, and having bushy, black beards. But, the real danger is in the mind-set of extremism--the kind of thinking that, given the right circumstances, results in extreme acts of violence. In my view, that mind-set is evident in every society, whether developed or developing, in narrow economic terms. It is, regrettably, all too evident even (or especially) in the ranks of the Christian community in the USA. Let me explain.

One statement to emerge from the last US presidential election (2004) was intended to be humorous... while packing a great deal of truth into a few phrases. It goes like this: "the reason that GW Bush won the election is that the Democrats erroneously believed that the most important issue was the engaging of the US in an illegal, unjustified, bloody war in Iraq over the need of greedy corporations for access to oil... while the Republicans correctly knew that the real issue was abortions and homosexuality." At first glance, this statement looks simply like a clever, political commentary; one that is both patently true and ironic. On looking deeper, it also exposes one of the more curious aspects of American religious fundamentalism.

Think about it. How does it happen that many people reading that statement can't see the irony at all, and are convinced that the latter were the overriding issues? In other words, how has it come about that ostensibly educated, 'modern' people in a so-called developed nation, are adamant that certain sexual practices represent a bigger threat than an immoral war that has cost thousands of needless American deaths and many thousands of Iraqi deaths? Isn't that essentially the same as Moslems believing that insulting the Koran is a crime worthy of a 'fatwa' (death decree)? How has the Western world become so blind, lost so much perspective, 'taken leave of its senses' (to use that flowery Victorian phrase)? For let's be serious; is the prospect of two males or two females engaging in sexual conduct so heinous as to eclipse the horror of modern warfare, with its phosphorus explosives, smart bombs, depleted-uranium shells, weapons of mass destruction, etc., etc.?

To the liberal mind (or indeed, I'd argue, the impartial thinker), the answer is an obvious 'no way!' Yet, to the far-right, conservative way of thinking, the immediate response is 'of course!' An objective person has to ask 'where do the conservatives get their response?' One could point to 'holy scripture' which, again, is basically the same source of Islamic extreme ideas. Then what is it about religious scripture that leads its readers to conclude that certain matters of sexual morality are more important, and their infraction more horrific and of greater consequence, than the exercise of mass murder-- which we have given the convenient label of 'war'? When stated in such monochromatic terms, I hope the situation becomes much more discernible.

But to return to the basic question: where do religionists derive this notion of sexual propriety over everything else? In truth, if one reads the Christian scriptures carefully, one is hard pressed to reach any such conclusion. Sure, the New Testament warns against sexual immorality; but it hardly makes a fuss about it, and certainly doesn't place sexual sins in any greater status than any other sins. If one decides to include the Old Testament, the scripture of the Israelites (whom we now call, rather loosely, Jews) then we might have more ammunition. In elaborating on the Ten Commandments, the books of Moses do inveigh heavily against 'fornication,' homosexuality, incest, and other sexual perversions. And the prescribed penalties for these crimes was usually pretty stiff, up to death by stoning. Why Christians continue to attach the Old Testament scriptures to their own, superceding holy writ is a big question that deserves a substantial answer that is outside the scope of this essay. Suffice it to say that for historical reasons, the Christian church(es) adopted the Jewish canon as an integral part of their own.

Altho I must confess ignorance of the contents of the Koran (or Quran) it seems more than likely to me that this book, too, simply does not elevate one category of fleshly sins as being more heinous than any other. Certainly, it would not assign sexual sins as more reprehensible than murder. Yet, again, a significant segment of Islamic adherents believe that nonsense (as demonstrated in their harsh treatment of 'adulterers'-- usually female, of course). More troubling among Moslems, though, is that plenty of them believe that those who transgress any of the tenets of Islam are deserving of death. To this element, suicide for the sake of the cause is not only justified but merits martyr status. While moderate Muslims question the violence espoused by the extremists as unsupported by the Koran, the fringe are always oblivious to such appeals to their ostensible authority.

So, the extreme elements of either Christianity or Islam have concluded that certain behaviors are more sinful than others, and worse, that correcting those errors can justify any punishment, up to and including death. This is a great face for religionists of any stripe to display to an on-looking and increasing secular (irreligious) world! Is that what these religions really teach? Well, yes and no. No, the scriptures do not single out certain behaviors as so awful as to require aggressive eradication; (definitely not the teachings of Christ, in any case.) And no, the present-day, official stance of the mainstream churches and mosques is to denounce violence as a solution to bad behavior. Yet... there are certain sects among Islam, Christianity, and Judaism that reserve the right to resort to extreme methods to enforce morality as they define it. And even within any given mainstream religion, there are always certain individuals who have decided that the official position is far too 'soft' on crime, and that God 'demands punishment' of whatever happen to be their favorite perversions.

Now where do these religionists who hold extreme views get them? One can postulate all kinds of psycho-babble, but in the end, the answer is legalism. What is legalism? It is the inculcated paradigm that we must all perform within strictly defined boundaries in order to keep God satisfied with the human race and with individuals. Those defined boundaries can be very narrow and often enforced with incredible harshness. The record of history as illustrative of legalism is a sorry one, indeed. Think of the Inquisitions of the Dark Ages; incarceration of petty thieves in mediaeval Europe; public floggings and beheadings for various misdemeanors; and so on. But note something else; the legalism that has infected and distorted religion has also carried over into what we call the secular (non-religious) world. Conservatives and legalism seem to fit together like a hand in glove. For in the fear-based conservative mind, everyone is judged on behavior, and 'bad behavior'--as they define it--is deserving of punishment. That punishment is sanctioned by God, for the religionists, or else by the state, for the legalistic secularists. Ironically, there's little difference between them; the church-goers eagerly join hands with the government when they see an opportunity to achieve their ends. This common cause of legalism answers the first part of my opening question--is extemism peculiar solely to religion?

Of course, secularism is a recent, modern phenomenon, since the world up until the 'Enlightenment' era, made little material distinction between the religious and non-religious realms. There was only 'one world under God' for most societies, until scientific materialism came along in Europe. Such was the overarching influence of religion in previous times that today's Western populaces, even religious folk, could hardly imagine it. We continue to see examples of such religious states today, notably in the Islamic countries (though even tiny Tibet was a Buddhist state before being invaded by the People's Republic of China). These present-day religious nations are, for the most part, sad testimonies of the glories of godliness. They tend to be strict, authoritarian regimes, brooking no opposition to their rule, and dealing harshly with crime, especially with that age-old whipping-boy, sexual offences. They are particularly repressive of women, although this fact is always disguised as 'protecting womanhood.' There's probably not one religious regime anywhere in the world that the ultra-conservatives of the American 'religious right' would honestly care to call home.

Yet, back in America, the religious right call for restrictions on homosexuals, making abortions illegal, banning 'pornography' (as they may define it) and stiffer penalties for 'perverts' of various kinds. At the same time, they see no problem with sending US troops to a far-away country they can't find on a map, to topple a dictator their government once actively supported, and to find weapons that didn't exist. They don't have a problem with that warped patriotism, nor with the spilling of 'collateral blood' of innocent Iraqi civilians... since in their minds, all Arabs are potential terrorists, and all terrorists deserve to die. The notion of state-directed terrorism is a nuance that flies over their primitive consciousness. While eagerly supporting American terrorism abroad, the religious folk seem to have no interest in using that military might to end the suffering of the people of Darfur, in southern Sudan. Just as they let the US sit on its hands during the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, so they are satisfied to ignore the situation in Darfur in 2005. Why is that? Because those African countries are of no 'strategic' (read commercial) value, being peopled by poor blacks and possessing no exploitable resources, perhaps?

Enough legalists cast their vote in the last US election that they managed to squeeze their moral leader into the White House for another bloody term of office. They felt justified that their man was in agreement with them and opposed gay rights, and abortion. Now the 'free world' would be a decent, safe place for law-abiding folk. There's a lot wrong with this naive picture, but let's just consider two. First, it appears that the religious folk, like the mass of Americans, have become so inured to the constant depictions of violence on their viewing screens (TV, movie theatres, video-games) that they no longer even think of it as a perversion to be opposed. At least, not until the USA itself becomes a scene of violent attack. So, while they howl against 'homos,' they have little serious compassion for the suffering going on in Iraq, Afganistan, Darfur, and so on. Second, by his stubbornly misguided decisions, their man in DC has certainly not made the world either more decent, or safer! By persisting in justifying their illegal and immoral foreign policies, the present administration is simply goading the extremists, and worse, supplying them with useful propaganda in their efforts to recruit more martyrs. As for decency, is it more decent to persecute individuals born with an unorthodox sexual nature, or to accept them as children of God who need special understanding? By every measure, the religious bigots in and out of the White House have made a mockery of the faith they claim to believe in, and in the process have set the world on a very dangerous path for the future. In attempting to enforce their childish, legalistic views on society, the extremists of every religion simply make the notion of religion repulsive to the unbelieving... while being counterproductive to any lasting solutions to the ills of society.

What will these 'religious' folk say to their God when He enquires about their obvious inconsistent sense of morality on Judgement Day?

An Upside Down World

Today, there is a group of people living in America who come from diverse backgrounds but who share a spectrum of subversive characteristics. These people tend to be vehement supporters of fundamentalist religious views. They believe in violence as a solution to their perceived problems, so they support the use of armed force to achieve their aims. This group believes that the poor should be taken off any social benefits and made to fend for themselves. Many of them would like to enforce the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. These people would like to grab the reins of power in order to implement their extremist views. Generally speaking, they are strong supporters of the right to bear arms, and various other 'survivalist' ideas.

So, who is this seditious sounding group that has infiltrated the heartland of America? Is it the rising Muslim population? If you haven't guessed, it's none other than the so-called Christians! And when I speak of Christians, I refer to the vocal element of church-goers who are led by men with political aspirations or who support candidates embracing their ideologies. Yes, isn't that interesting-- the Christians of contemporary America have, incredibly, managed to stand the primary principles of Jesus Christ on their head. For those who can't believe it, let's take a closer look at the situation.

At this writing, the USA, the mightiest nation on earth, also regards itself as the stronghold of Christianity, being the bastion of every hue of that faith. In fact, the ranks of Americans who profess affiliation with a Christian organization is very high, around 75%. Some Christians have professed that if there were enough believers in society they'd be able to usher in the Kingdom of God on Earth. You'd think three out of four ought to be enough, wouldn't you? You'd think with all these church-going Christians in the population that the USA would be a pacific, generous, altruistic force in the world, bringing peace and prosperity, along with the gospel, everywhere on earth. But-- is that what we see?

Isn't the one, unique, distinctive feature of the Christ-centered faith embodied in the word 'grace?' The concept of grace surely embraces the notion of forgiveness; forgiving as opposed to retaliation. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, gave G.W. Bush a singular opportunity to show the world how a Christian president, of a 'Christian nation' responds to a foreign attack. After all, George Jr. claims to be a Christian, even 'born again,' to use the tired phrase. Did Bush announce a response of reconciliation, of grace, of Christ? Hardly! The president's response was predictable, vengeance-based, militant, and certainly not Christian in any way, despite his calculated invocation of the name of God in support of his cause. Regardless, the reaction from 'Christian' churches in America was largely to swear allegiance to the president, to wave the flag of patriotism and equate it with the banner of Christ.

What about the use of force to achieve noble ends-- isn't that justified, even for Christians? When the mob came to arrest Jesus, one of his disciples pulled out a sword and struck the high priest's servant. This was an unruly gang coming to drag away the founder of Christianity by force. Wasn't it reasonable to resist with force? Jesus told the disciple to put away the sword, for those who live by violence will perish by it. Another time, Jesus told his followers to 'turn the other cheek' if they were struck unjustly. Does that sound as if Jesus was quite okay with the use of violence? Does that Biblical fact have any influence on the Christians of the USA? Apparently not. In the wake of revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib, and of 'extraordinary rendition' of prisoners to countries known to use torture, where were the spokespersons for the American Christian church? Silent as church-mice, they were. That is more than shameful, 500 years after the infamous inquisitions! The 'moral majority' as they modestly call themselves, should be outraged by the abuse of human rights taking place at 'git-mo' and in Iraq-- 'should', but no; instead they applaud the tough line taken by their lawless leaders. Christ help us.

Consider also the way we deal with the 'underclass' of modern society, such as the unemployed, unmarried mothers, homosexuals, AIDS carriers, and so forth. These are precisely the kinds of people Jesus hung out with in his day... and he was roundly condemned by the good, establishment, synagogue caste as being an obvious sinner by association. So today; who are the people giving help and hope to those underdogs among us? Is it the Christians? Sure, a few churches are involved in charitable works; it's good PR. But as a voting block, individual church members tend to be very reactionary in their attitudes towards the 'scum of the earth.' Those who are ministering to these despised 'losers' are, quite often, people of liberal, tolerant, socially progressive views, often agnostic or even of 'New Age' beliefs; certainly not what today's Christians want to identify with. The social gospel is swept aside by a wave of Christian indignation over what? The horror of 'gay marriage?'

While the practice of homosexuality is certainly condemned in scripture, nowhere does Jesus advise his followers to hate those caught up in specific sins. Plainly, the invective hurled forth by the moral majority Christians against gays and lesbians has really achieved nothing in terms of exalting the name of Christ... nor in containing the emergence of the 'gay community' as a force in contemporary society. Perhaps by displaying a more Christ-like attitude towards gays and lesbians, the Christian community might have had more influence in mitigating the stridency and demands of that group. Instead, by their irrational, fear-based reaction, they virtually ensured a stronger effort from the gay side to advance their agenda. One could go farther and ask whether, at the end of the day-- or of the World-- is it really a matter of rational religion to focus the Church's indignation against the pathetic sins of the weak flesh... while turning virtually a blind eye towards the rampant portrayal of gross violence that has taken such root in contemporary America as to be taken as a cultural granted?

The issue of abortion is the other, big case in point. Again, the response of the majority of Christians is to get militant in their opposition to abortion. There seems to be little offered in the way of dialog, of attempts to understand, of exploring better options to abortion, and so on. While the imperative to preserve life is, indeed, noble and worthy, again we have to wonder whether it is worthy enough to require a response based on use of force. When confronted with real-world situations that challenge the Christian ethic, the unfortunate reaction of too many contemporary church-goers is to use the same tactics as the secular world. They instantly forget all about the 'love your neighbor' ideal of Jesus, and fall into the pattern of worldly, force-based confrontation. Some in this camp are stridently anti-abortion... yet have been equally strident supporters of the US-led sanctions on Iraq that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of children in that country. Where's the moral logic?

The USA sings anthems to itself as the 'land of he free'... while it incarcerates more of its citizens than any other 'democracy' on earth. How does a Christian nation not only keep a high proportion of its people in prison, but pride itself for the fact? The ironic imprisonment of 'losers' seems to enjoy strong support among the bench-warmers in those buildings with the cross on top. I say it's due to that horribly warped perception of the faith, rooted stubbornly in the misunderstood Old Testament mentality of legalism... either follow the rules or you go to the American gulag.

In all the challenges outlined above, one has to wonder, 'Where are the Christian leaders and spokespersons, and what is their position on these issues?' The answer, over the last several decades, has been that they are in the forefront of leading their flocks in the charge against those designated dark forces of evil. But, aren't they supposed to know what the Bible and Jesus really teach about living in a sinful world, and dealing with those who have very different views and behaviors? Of course; but apparently they either don't know scriptural teachings... or they do, and prefer to ignore them.

So; I think the point is clear-- we are living in a truly 'Post-Christian' world; one where Christians are no longer in touch with the reality of their faith. It is even an upside-down world, where it's become almost impossible to distinguish the 'bad guys' from the 'good guys' because they seem to have changed places! This is a very serious state of affairs for the Christians of the world-- one that ought to provoke some anguished and sincere soul-searching at both the individual and collective level. Is there any indication that leaders in the organized churches are taking any action to address this dangerous inversion? Hardly! One should, rather, ask if there's any indication that leaders are even aware of the perversion of the Christian faith.

Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. Prominent Church figures, far from recognizing the absurdity of modern Christianity, are in the vanguard of reinforcing the unholy inversion. Preaching from their TV pulpits, their mass-rally stages, their innumerable books, tracts, and now, websites, the thought-molders of the Christian faith aggravate the situation, using the specified 'abominations' as convenient pretexts for appeals for funds to fight the battle against their favorite pariahs. How do they get away with these un-Christ-like behaviors, year after year, despite occasionally exposed scandals? These men are cynical opportunists, using the weapons of fear and ignorance with skill in deceiving the masses of church members. And after years of mind-conditioning, too many lethargic believers are vulnerable to the Bible-babble and theatrical antics employed in the unholy cause.

Certainly, there are many sincere pastors in the churches. But they have come up through a system that has become distorted with the compromised views of modern scholasticism, and more ominously, conditioned by Christian celebrities who are media manipulators. For example, the popular, Evangelical belief in 'the Rapture' of Christians from the face of the earth prior to a final cataclysmic war is presented with utmost conviction and theatrics... yet it rests on erroneous, if not outright fraudulent Bible interpretation. But the idea, as weird as it is, has been marvellously effective in selling books and videos pumped out by the eager ministries promoting this nonsense. That is perhaps the most egregious example of how modern, American-style Christianity has become the haven of money-loving hucksters who know how to use the naivete of believers to accumulate great wealth... often tax-free, at that!

In ages past, it was the Catholic Church that was guilty of keeping its flocks of believers in ignorance of the Bible, and using that cultured innocence to the advantage of the hierarchy. Today, anyone has access to the scriptures and countless auxiliary publications, and there is no real excuse for the lack of knowledge so prevalent in the Christian churches. Yet, having gone through two major, 'Christian' church systems (denominations) in my spiritual journey, it's clear to me that the institutions have developed very carefully crafted and covert means of indoctrinating their adherents... without exactly appearing to do so. It's all part of what has evolved into the modern concept of the Christian Church, and it doesn't seem to matter what denomination one happens to select. By means of cradle-to-grave programs, using 'guided studies' and denominationally sanctioned literature, every church has found ways to keep the faithful informed of only the 'right' material, and understanding Biblical scripture in the required orthodox manner. I'm not saying that these techniques are invariably conspiratorial; however, they have become such an unquestioned, inherent part of modern 'Churchianity' that their employment and consequences escape our notice and suspicion.

The other essential ingredient in the corruption of Christianity is the use of fear in motivating and mobilizing the faithful. At one time the appeal to fear was quite explicit and characterized as 'fire and brimstone'. Today, we are more sophisticated, so the use of fear is usually more subtle. Yet, in fomenting indignation against homosexuals and the pro-abortion lobby, the opinion leaders most often appeal to fear. It's the fear that a gay teacher is going to teach your kids to follow his sinful lifestyle; fear that if abortion is approved then your disabled grandmother will be next; and so on. Now the pro-Zionist Evangelicals use the fear of terrorism as a key tactic in their biased support of Israeli state terrorism against Palestinians. Fear is probably the basest human emotion, arising in the most primal, limbic region of the mind. Once excited, history amply demonstrates that fear can lead to actions that are unimaginable under calm, objective circumstances. In the extreme, fear will justify any atrocity as acceptable for survival of the threatened. As experience in Rwanda in the early 1990s vividly demonstrated, professed Christianity is of no avail whatever in preventing mass mutilations and murders, once the spirit of fear and madness is unleashed in a society. Even some of the leaders in the atrocities were prominent figures in Christian churches.

That is Africa; the same can't happen here, we smugly assure ourselves. Yet, wait a moment. What about the so-called 'Patriot Act' (a.k.a. Homeland Security Act)? 'Well that's to fight terrorism,' is the ready reply. Really? What that legislation represents is a contract whereby the population agrees to give up many civil liberties in exchange for the vague promise of protection from terrorism. Using fear as the lever, the Bush administration is given power to exert autocratic authority over the populace. And who constitute a majority of his supporters in this exercise of worldly hegemony? Why, the Christians, the 'moral majority', of course! With their Freudian fixation on sexual sin, the Church-goers have been easily duped into throwing their votes behind the wolf in sheep's clothing.

In modern society, though, fear prefers to be disguised in subtler garb; better yet, to secret itself in an attractive Trojan Horse. In the modern Church, the vehicle is legalism. After all, who wants to stand up against 'high standards' in his church? Who would dare to appear to oppose the 'Laws of God?' But underneath the 'upholding of the law,' there is a spirit of fear. To begin with, the whole point of laws is that one is supposed to be afraid of breaking them... either because of immediate reprisal from the law-giver (God, for Christians), or of ultimate, dire consequences (damnation). Today's Christians state that they keep the laws (generally, referring to the Ten Commandments) out of love for God, not fear. Yet they will use fear-based schemes, such as shame, guilt, etc. to keep the faithful in line. Ultimately and unavoidably, laws are rooted in fear; the link can't be circumvented. That's why Jesus came along with a 'better law' - the law of love. It is written that God is love, and John goes on to add that 'perfect love casts out all fear.' That is key! (Why the Christian Church continues to promote an ostensibly Christ-based message of salvation, yet packages it with an Old Testament, fear-based theology is subject for another essay!)

So you see-- that is the crux of how and why modern Christianity got so inverted. Whereas the early Church was freshly a love-based institution, after a few short centuries characterized by accommodation with the pagan world, it regressed to a fear-based organization, highjacked by opportunists who used it to gain wealth and power that persists to this day. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the modern Church has lost most of its moral authority in the world, and has had little choice but to revert to the strategy of attempting to gain political office (speaking of the USA, the self-acknowledged citadel of the Christian faith in a secular, unholy world). In so doing, the Christian Church bears an uncanny (and unflattering) resemblance to the harlot, apostate religion, riding the beast of government, depicted in the book of Revelation (ch. 17).

Given a pattern of characteristics, of behaviors, anyone with maturity and a degree of wisdom can predict with some accuracy the logical outcome. With the accumulation and convergence of the negative stories reported in the web alternative news, it is not hard to project that the USA, and the world, are destined for very difficult times; and in not a long time from now. Soon, the co-opted 'Christian' (apostate) church will be fully linked with a corrupt, despotic government, and there will be unparalleled havoc abroad in the earth. Those of us who can see it coming must trumpet the abhorrent message, wherever and whenever we can, and prepare souls, especially ours, for the time of trial about to come. One of the hardest audiences to reach will be the nominal Christians who have not investigated the soothing claims of their crafty leaders, and who think they are safe simply by virtue of membership. They will be unraveled in this upside-down world.

Demons.... or UFOnauts?

Did that title pique your curiosity? Obviously, I have to provide some context to it. First of all, I have to state that I believe the phenomenon we call UFOs, or 'alien life' or whatever, is genuine. That doesn't mean I hold to some hard position as to what this phenomenon is. I'm saying that hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life (including police and military officers, pilots, and astronomers) over many years of reporting, cannot ALL be delusional or mistaken; and that thousands of sightings, including videotaped ones, cannot ALL be dismissed with the kind of nonsensical answers supplied so glibly by so-called authorities. Just because something is unexplained is not reason to deny it exists! There is no longer any doubt that humanity is being visited by some kind of intelligent entities; the first question is, 'What are they?'

Since 'legitimate science' has been effectively removed from the study of UFOs (by threat of public ridicule, etc.) it has been left to maverick researchers of various kinds to step in and fill the gap. Some of the better known have done a very good job, bringing a high degree of rational analysis on a most mysterious subject. After half a century of studying the phenomenon, it remains, largely, a mystery. However, some researchers-- those who can think outside the already stretched box-- have reached a fascinating, and ominous, conclusion. They believe that the UFOs and their occupants represent a demonic manifestation. Without going into a lot of detail, long-time observers like Aimee Michel and John Keel, have noted the parallels between the keynote characteristics of the UFO phenomenon and reported demonic activity (over ages). For example, how they both materialize and de-materialize in a virtual blink of an eye; how they both defy the physical laws of our space-time dimensions; the presence of a sulfurous smell that often accompanies the appearances; and the sheer, apparent pointlessness to many of the manifestations.... their capriciousness, if you will. And I might add that follow-up research often demonstrates that bad consequences have befallen those individuals who have been involved in either type of phenomenon; they are both associated with evil.

Alternative theories regarding the UFOs postulate that they are the technologies of highly advanced races of beings coming from some far-off origin such as planets in a distant solar system or even galaxy (e.g. they are 'Beta-Reticulans'). Yet given the generally bizarre behavior of these beings, and their ages-old taunting of humanity without proper, appropriate disclosure, a cogent observer is compelled to agree with those who identify them as a form of demon; more explicitly, as evil spirits. Having said that, though, I must return to my original query: are the UFOnauts demons... or are the demons of historical accounts really alien beings? The latter choice is saying that all those mysterious manifestations that the ancients and even modern man ascribed to evil spirits were in fact produced by alien intelligences whose superior technological capacities were viewed as supernatural. The former choice is saying, on the contrary, that the UFOs and their occupants are really evil spirits purporting to be alien, physical beings from another world who possess advanced technology. You can see that the argument might be made in either direction, based on the accumulated evidence; but the conclusions are vastly different.

If the UFOnauts are an advanced race of physical beings, then their activities provide an explanation for various 'spiritual' phenomena, and more importantly, would lend great evidence to the theory (becoming more widely spread) that the human race was created, not by God, but by alien intelligences. Hence, some people think we are soon to experience a grand 'coming out of the closet' by the UFOnauts, presenting themselves as our creators and cosmic custodians, come to usher us away from primitive religious notions, and from the incipient disasters we have generated on this planet, and into a brave, new world of higher consciousness. Many people, especially among those who have become disgusted with organized religions, have come to believe, and expect, that this scenario is going to emerge 'very soon.' (Some even suggesting that it will be in 2012, based on the abrupt end of the Mayan 'long count' calendar in that year.)

Now, on the other hand, what if the other alternative is true-- that the UFOnauts are demons? This view sees the UFOs/occupants as being evil spirits manifesting in a way that is intriguing to modern mankind, but ruinous. For a long time, I have been undecided, agnostic, on this subject, since I needed more information. Lately, I have found the pieces of the puzzle that, I believe, settle the issue. You see, the Bible warns that in the 'last days' (of this present age) Satan will arrange a delusion so compelling that it is capable of deceiving even the believers in Christ. Scripture also states that Satan will appear, impersonating Christ, as a false Messiah, producing miracles, and deceiving multitudes into accepting him as the New-Age savior of mankind. If you put the 'demon scenario' (above) with this warning, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how it can all fit together, direly. Imagine: after centuries of teasing, the UFOnauts finally 'descend from the heavens', possibly at various capitals around the world; they proclaim their mission to lift up the befuddled race they created millennia ago, and 'make them as gods,' as they themselves, in other words. They perform various miracles, heal some people from diseases, and appear as benign as your favorite aunt. "Sorry to inform you religious folk, but there really is no God, just the universal consciousness that you too can tap into to make your dreams come true." I expect that they will produce their leader, Satan, under an assumed name and title, as a shining being, dazzling with brilliance and oratory skills, who will explain how he fulfills figuratively the promises of the second coming of the Messiah. That would be strong delusion indeed!

So the question, demons or UFOnauts is a very crucial one. At present, it may seem entirely frivolous, even meaningless; but at some future time, it may be of utmost import. My hope is that my readers will start thinking about the issue, and recognize its possibility and eternal importance. The Bible has given us generally phrased warnings... if it had been any more specific, it would have been incomprehensible, misunderstood, ridiculed, or suppressed. Many scholars are finding new and innovative ways to discredit the Christian scriptures. Science has exalted itself above spiritual discovery. False shepherds of religion have perverted it and brought widespread shame and discredit upon religion. Most of the pieces are in place for the grand deception of the ages to unfold. Who will you believe-- earthly and unearthly authorities and powers... or the Word of God?