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?

God's Dealings with Man-- Before and After Christ

In the past few years there seems to have been a great burst of nostalgia for things ancient, even in the religious sphere. Christians have been opening the first half of their Bibles and perusing the Old Testament. Bible study is a good thing, but regrettably, a certain group of these innocents are coming to the incredible conclusion that they must somehow revive the old ways and become 'New Testament Jews,' or perhaps 'Old Testament Christians.'

The word regrettable for this spiritual regression is, if anything, too mild. This looking backward for spiritual progress is being fostered, I believe, by serious misunderstanding of Holy Scripture. In addition, we've seen a major retreat to conservative views in the social and political arenas, so this religious phenomenon follows the same pattern. In any case, I believe that the Christian world is much imperiled by this kind of movement that Paul took pains to warn the nascent Christian church to avoid! This weak-willed yearning for the familiar ways of the past threatened to extinguish the very life of the early body of believers, and Paul was zealous in preventing the death of his 'adopted protege'. He himself had made the leap from his traditional upbringing to the Christ-centered faith, and he really 'got it.' Paul understood precisely what the Messiah had accomplished, and what a radical departure it represented from the ages-old thinking of his fellow children of Israel. When he saw the believers of Galatia starting to slip back into observing the old traditions, trying to 'up-grade them' and integrate them into the new way of relating to God, he used strong words to rebuke them, and gave them direct instruction on their new faith.

The biggest problem with the Galatians is that they wanted to play 'double jeopardy' --they wanted to piggy back Christian beliefs on top of their old Jewish beliefs. Put another way, they were attempting to combine the Old Covenant with the New Covenant, creating a monstrosity in the process. Paul knew: you can't live the New Covenant life with an Old Covenant mindset! Jesus had warned his followers against this very problem when he related the parables found in Matthew 9 (vs. 16, 17). He stated clearly that you can't store new wine in old wine-skins. Wine was often used in scripture as a symbol for spiritual belief, and the message here was (supposed to be) unmistakable. To reinforce the same idea, Jesus cited the other example of sewing new cloth onto an old garment. Again he made the point that this is a recipe for failure; the new and the old are simply not compatible!

What were the 'new' and the 'old' things that Jesus was referring to, anyway? That, it turns out, is a fundamental question at the heart of the Christian faith. Not surprisingly, Jesus was referring to the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. But that just raises the subsidiary question: what are these 'covenants' that seem so crucial? Right. The first thing to know is that 'covenant' means the same as 'testament,' and we notice that the Bible has been divided into two major parts that are labelled as 'OT' and 'NT'. The next detail to keep in mind is that a covenant is a legal agreement or pact or treaty, as in fact, the word is still used to this day. So, apparently, the Bible is composed of records relating to two legal contracts. The obvious questions then are, what are these contracts all about, and why were they created?

A great deal of ink has been devoted by an army of scholars of all levels of knowledge and training to the subject of covenants as used in the Bible. Hence, a massive amount of information--and perhaps even more dis-information--is available to the inquiring mind concerning covenants. My purpose here is not to write yet another treatise on covenants. Rather, I would like to paint for the reader 'the big picture' of why the covenants exist, and how they are important to our faith. Therefore, I will try to present a very brief look at the concept of covenants, and then proceed to my main analysis.

If covenants are legal agreements, what are they doing in the Bible? The answer comes from the nature of God Himself. The two ultimate, personal characteristics of God's nature are these: justice and love. John wrote that 'God is love,' and indeed, that is what Jesus was trying to demonstrate throughout his earthly ministry. But God is also a God of justice; He rewards righteousness and punishes injustice or wickedness. His war with Satan is based on His divine justice being affronted by evil, whether by angels or mankind. In accordance with His justice, God does not do things willy-nilly; God acts in a legal, just manner, showing that He is responsible and accountable, despite being the supreme intelligence of the cosmos. Therefore, in His dealings with mankind, either individuals or groups, God establishes His promises on a contractual basis. Think of it--this is really phenomenal; that the God of creation is ready to hold himself to a legal agreement!

That observation covers the 'why?' of covenants. But the 'how?' questions are entirely more complex. For the purpose of this overview, I'm attempting to condense a lot of material into a broad panorama. (The interested student is urged to do individual Bible study and other research). What we'd like to know is: "What were the OT and the NT, and what do they mean for us today?" It turns out that there were numerous covenants cited in scripture. God made covenants with Adam, with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses, and later, with David, and with others. One can analyze these various agreements, and notice the features they share in common, as well as their differences. Many scholars have done just that, and in the process, made the whole analysis as complicated and convoluted as imaginable. In the end, one has to wonder if any of that really benefits the poor believer!

In the face of almost overwhelming information, with a resulting inverse degree of knowledge, I can only turn to the scriptures themselves in seeking clarity. I believe that the essential clarity is not lacking. The Holy Spirit did not leave us to the mercy of multi-lingual, multi-degreed academics, who cannot reach any accord among themselves in any case. Thank God, He inspired his servants, the writers of the Bible, to speak the simple truth. We don't even know for certain who wrote the book of 'Hebrews,' (many believe it was Paul), yet it is a key treatise on the comparison of the covenants, and ought to be essential reading for any professing Christian. That said, most Christians have rarely, if ever, heard a teaching, let alone a sermon, based on 'Hebrews.' Pastors shy away from this fundamental text, while evangelists apparently realize that it would demolish much of what passes for Christian dogma in their campaigns. Our outspoken friend, Paul, tackled the issue head on (how else, for brother Paul!) in his letters to the believers in Rome, in Galatia, and to a degree, those in other early congregations.

So, dear reader, you can start ploughing your way through all those academic treatises on biblical covenants, and get thoroughly confused. Or, you can pray as you read the explanations given in the scriptures themselves, and see the plain truth. It may help to be familiar with the books of the OT part of the Bible as you read the NT parts; but the important ideas can be discerned on the strength of the latter texts in themselves.

The author of 'Hebrews' is addressing his letter/essay to Christian believers from the ranks of his confreres, the people known as (the Children of) Israel. Israel was the name given by God to Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of the patriarch, Abraham (who came from a group called 'Hebrews' in Mesopotamia). Jacob had 12 sons who were the progenitors of the tribes that constituted the nation of Israel. By the time of Christ, in fact, the original nation of Israel had metamorphosed considerably. Briefly, the original 12 tribes had divided into two nations: Judah (basically the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) and Israel (composed of the other 10 tribes). They had re-united for a time under David, only to split again after the death of his son Solomon. The nation of Israel was taken into captivity by Assyria in 722 BC, and later dispersed, disappearing from the annals of history. What existed in Jesus' day was Judah, now the remnant of the original 'Israel.'

Hebrews' writer, a master of scripture, takes his readers through a solid, logical line of reasoning with one main intention in mind: to point his flock forwards in the (new) Christian faith, and to make it crystal clear why they should, by no means, even long for the good, old days. What were the two 'paradigms,' old and new, that this letter analyses? Let's take a brief look.

Hebrews states plainly that the old system under scrutiny is the Sinai Covenant, brokered by Moses in the dessert, some 1300 years before Jesus' birth. This is the agreement that the people of Israel had been living under for all those centuries, and it was firmly entrenched in their collective minds as their religion and ethnicity--the two are inextricably identified. Yet, building on Jesus' own teachings, Paul was telling Jewish believers to abandon the old traditions, and walk in this new system founded by their savior! The writer of Hebrews explains, in terms that Jews could understand, why this radical departure was unavoidable and, moreover, desirable.

Anticipating Jewish objections, Hebrews defines how Jesus was a perfectly legitimate High Priest, although he did not come from the usual tribe of the priesthood (the Levites). He identifies Jesus with Melchisidek, a famous priest-king who was paid homage by Abraham himself. The writer goes on to consider each major feature of the Jewish religious order--the temple, the great feast of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), and the sacrificial system. Without providing another analysis of those individual arguments, the summary is that Jesus introduced a new system that is superior in every way to the previous arrangement. The ministry of Jesus is wholly efficacious and all-sufficient in ensuring the salvation of all who believe in Him (Heb 7:25).

In contrast, the writer demonstrates how the old, Mosaic system was inferior in every respect, being installed in its day for the purpose of leading the Israelites to the 'real thing' to come. The old contract contained 'object lessons' such as the Tent of the Lord's Presence, and the articles that furnished it; and the sacrificial system for symbolic removal of sins, and so on, to provide tangible correlatives for a nation that had spent the last 400 years under Egyptian authority. The Old Covenant was, in fact, a complete 'constitution' for this people who had arrived in Egypt as a large family, and left, four centuries later, as a nation of possibly, two million souls. All they had known was Egyptian rule of law and social norms; now God, through Moses, supplied them with a full legal package for an orderly society! Reading the 'Pentateuch' (the first five books of the Bible, and attributed to Moses' hand), one can see that it includes, notably, rules of conduct (principally, the Ten Commandments, but there were dozens of extra rules added by Moses to account for various situations common to society). It also covers rules of public health and nutrition, as well as a system of animal sacrifices to atone for wrong-doing. Without such a comprehensive package, the people of Israel could well have broken down into chaos in short order following their hasty departure from Egypt! God was concerned about His own holy name; if Israel fell into chaos, they would ultimately turn to alien gods and idols, as the model they had grown up with, and His honor would be besmirched. That's why He instituted a 'national covenant' with Israel.

So, the Old paradigm had its utility; but as a means of attaining personal right standing with God, it was hopelessly misunderstood by the Israelites. To begin with, the Sinai covenant didn't promise 'salvation' in return for Law-keeping. Many Christians believe that notion to this very day: i.e. that individual Jews were supposed to 'keep the Commandments' in order to 'be saved' (presumably, meaning attaining salvation or paradise in the next life). But the agreement really tells the Israelites that if they (the collective nation) observe His laws, and thus institute a 'theocratic utopia', then their nation would be supremely blessed and attain pre-eminence among all nations. Individuals who aspired to right standing with God were directed to the sacrificial system that was a foreshadowing of the later, perfect work of the Messiah to come. In invoking the sacrificial protocol, individuals were demonstrating the kind of faith evidenced by Abraham when he was ready to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, but was provided with a ram by God, in its place (Gen 22). It was the Israelites themselves who decided that observing the 'Decalog' (the Ten Commandments) was going to represent righteousness for them (Deut 6:25).

It is doubly ironic that, about three centuries after the inauguration of Christianity in Judea (as Rome called its province) the mainstream 'Christian' church gradually adopted the same fallacy. Although some church leaders still understood that Jesus had come to proclaim God's favor towards mankind, the notion became dogma that Christians had to keep the Ten Commandments in order to 'be saved.' Since there arose a backlash against Jews and their religion, the church fathers decided to 'Christianize' the Decalog--just as they had Christianized various pagan and Jewish feasts, such as the winter solstice (into Christmas) and Easter, in place of Passover. So, having to get rid of the 'Sabbath' of the Commandments, they substituted Sunday worship in its place. The gospel of Christ--the good news that God was gracious, and that all that is needed for right standing with Him is for us to believe in His Son--got completely muddled and concealed. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that the gospel emerged into the light of day once more. Yet, sadly, the Protestants too, soon forgot the essential message, and almost unbelievably, they continued the false gospel invented by the Roman church.

That same false gospel continues its unholy existence to this 'enlightened' day, in a confusing message that proclaims, in effect, 'all you have to do to be saved (eternally) is to believe in Jesus... and oh yes, then live in complete compliance with the Ten Commandments for the rest of your life!' This mixed message is an abomination that desolates the gospel of Christ! Yet, it is the dominant 'gospel' being preached to the world today. And Christians wonder why the pagan masses are not beating a path to their churches. This is not 'good news' to anyone; we know it's impossible to keep those rules 100% of the time, and we're told that slip-ups are not permitted. But this is the kind of thing that arises when we try to live the NT life using the OT mindset.

Paul sternly admonished the Galatians in blunt language intended to get their attention. He told them they were 'bewitched' by the old mindset, the desire to return to the old, bankrupt ways (ch 3, vs 1). If that weren't enough, he told the men who wanted to retain circumcision (the physical mark of belonging to Abraham's lineage) that they might as well go all the way and castrate themselves (ch 5, vs 12)! Now that's blunt language, friends. I won't go through his arguments again, (study them yourselves), but his conclusion is that the faith of Christ is a totally different, freeing way of relating to God. He understood fully that this faith was the one described by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, which he had summarized with 'the golden rule' (Matt 7:12). In chapter 4 (vs 21-31) Paul compares the two covenants to Abraham's wife and concubine, with the former standing for the new covenant of freedom, and the latter representing the old one of 'slavery.'

Similarly, the writer of Hebrews understood that the 'new covenant' was the fulfillment of the prophecies of Jeremiah (see vs 3:16, and especially 31:31-34) who spoke of a new covenant that would NOT be like the one made at Sinai through Moses. This one would have its rules written on the heart, not on tablets of stone. As foreseen in Psalm 40, it would not require animal sacrifices; it would require a heart turned to God. As Ezekiel had prophesied (vs 36:26-27), the 'heart of stone' would be replaced with the heart of flesh (love, grace). It was to be a spiritual revolution! Instead, it was perverted over the years into a confusing abomination, grafting the new ideas from the gospel age unsuccessfully onto the old traditions from the antiquated days of Moses.

God did not leave things in a confusing state; far from it. It was recorded in the gospel accounts (Luke 23:45) that at the moment Jesus exhaled his last breath, the curtain in the Temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. This was a clear demonstration that the old order was finished. The way into the 'Holy of Holies' was now wide open to anyone who approached (Heb 4:16; 10:19ff); the priesthood was futile (Heb 7:27ff), the animal sacrifices valueless (Heb 9:12ff). Both were no longer needed; the 'shadows' were superceded by the things they foreshadowed. Just in case some people didn't get this graphic message (and most did not), God made it abundantly evident a few decades after the Cross when the Roman legions invaded Jerusalem in 70 AD, and completely demolished the great Temple, which the Jewish priests, law-givers and rulers were so proud of. What more could God do? Well, we know that the surviving Jews were dispersed all over Europe, and Judah/Judea disappeared from the map.

To certain inquiring minds, it is a matter of considerable amazement that the early Christian church, which had manifested miracles, degenerated to such a degree over the subsequent ages, that today, it is almost a laughable institution in terms of its moral power and spiritual influence in the modern world. How could this have happened? My thesis is that the miracles disappeared at about the same time as the 'mixed gospel' became the common currency of Christian faith. With this abominable admixture of grace plus works, the resulting 'false gospel' has no real power to attract and hold souls. Worse, it quickly engenders a spirit of legalism, as people scramble fearfully to 'keep the Law.' And legalism is a deadly, stultifying disease, in the life of a believer or of a church, make no mistake! History proves that Paul was entirely justified in his attack on regression to the old ways, the Mosaic Covenant.

Some students label the Sinai Covenant a 'covenant of works.' But, as you can see by now, that is not exactly the case. It was not intended by God to be a covenant of works; it was the Israelites who fashioned it into such a beast. God intended the sacrificial system included in the Old Covenant to point sinners to the coming Messianic Savior, just as Abraham's sacrifice had done... and (many believe) just as practiced by Adam and Eve, and their son Abel. Thus, 'salvation' was always effected through faith in the provision of God. Jesus 'ratified' that eternal covenant when he instituted his 'Covenant of Grace' at the last supper (Matt 26:27), and delivered with it a New Law (or new commandment; Jn 13:34, 15:12, 17). That law of love, abiding in the heart (or mind, literally) is infinitely superior to the old Decalog, the constitutional law written on stone. (That contrast can easily be the subject of another, separate essay, so I'll leave it, for now.)

In summary, the reader can see now, this writer sincerely hopes, that... 1) God holds His dealings with humanity on an orderly, legal basis, expressed in 'covenants' that He made with individuals and with groups. The major covenants considered in the Bible are the one made at Sinai, through Moses, with the children of Israel, and the one sealed with Jesus' blood at Mount Calvary. 2) The Old Testament was re-interpreted and mis-interpreted by the Israelites to assume 'salvation by works', and their faulty understanding has been passed on, over the ages, to the organization known as the Christian church. 3) The New Covenant manifested by Jesus, and ratified by his sacrificial death at Calvary, is the only means to personal salvation. This covenant is based on God's grace, without reference to Law, and is invoked by belief, faith, in Christ and his perfect ministry.

In closing, this writer acknowledges that much of the preceding essay may appear to be radical, and even 'antinomian'--the fancy word used by scholars to mean lawless. You must understand that living in the gospel's freedom does in no way give anyone licence to live a hedonistic, lawless life. Far from it! Living under the law of love (God's grace) means living a responsible life, putting others' interests ahead of our own. There's nothing antinomian about it. Under Jesus' covenant, the focus is taken away from a check-list of external, written rules, and shifted to the completed work of Christ. We are judged righteous, not on the basis of performance, but purely due to faith in Him. Through that faith, we enter into 'covenantal solidarity' with Jesus, and are seen by God as identified with His Son. These concepts, again, are sufficiently important to represent the subject of a separate study (available from this author and others, too.)

Is the SDA Church Christian?

Some people suppose that the SDA (Seventh-Day Adventist) Church is just another protestant denomination, while others regard it as a cult due to their reliance on the writings of one of their 'founding mothers,' Ellen G. White. The truth is more surprising--the SDA Church, while believing itself to be ' the 'remnant church' of God, is instead, an anti-Christian organization. That may sound outrageous, but will make sense after an explanation. And why do I pick on the SDAs, out of the babble of self-proclaimed, official voices of the faith of Christ? That too, I will clarify below.

The crux of the problem lies in the errant 'gospel' espoused by this Sabbath-based church. (Sabbath is the 24-hour period from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, and was cited in Moses' Ten Commandments). Any church that lays claim to the title of Christian must have, at minimum, a proper understanding of the basis of Christianity, the 'good news' of Jesus Christ. Of course, Adventists think they alone have the true gospel... the majority of members blissfully unaware that it is actually opposed to the message that Jesus came to bring. For the skeptical or curious, let me outline what they hold as the 'gospel,' and where that reasoning leads.

Like all their teachings, the SDA version of the gospel is marvellously complex, and requires considerable study and time to define and absorb. They talk about a two-phase process of salvation that some of them call 'the objective gospel' and 'the subjective gospel,' which refer to the more familiar theological concepts of 'justification,' and 'sanctification.' They say that Jesus' death paid the penalty for our sins, thereby providing the justification that gives us the legal right to eternal life. However-- before he or she can breath easily, there's the second little matter for the converted Christian to deal with. 'Sanctification is the work of a lifetime,' is a phrase familiar to Adventists-- meaning that the new convert must spend the rest of his/her natural life working on 'character perfection,' another buzz-phrase of Adventism, which refers to how one gains sanctification, the second mandatory requirement of salvation.

Now, to get around the obvious argument that this is a 'works-based' salvation, and therefore, unChristian, recent SDA theology brings in the Holy Spirit: it's the Holy Spirit working in me and thru me, who perfects my character, not really 'me.' It sounds credible, especially to new, unstudied Christians. The trouble is, the Bible simply doesn't speak anywhere about this kind of bilateral gospel. Scripture tells us that the work of Christ was all-sufficient, and needs no assistance from the human spirit or the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 1:30; Heb 10:10, 10:14, among many others). Okay, the Christian may agree; that's an un-biblical gospel... But, does that make it anti-Christian? The answer is yes.

Any gospel that requires a person to do some 'work,' to take an active role in his/her own salvation, is by definition, anti-Christian. If we have any part to play in our salvation, it makes the life and sacrifice of Christ of no account; it renders the grace of God not a gift but a wage. Second, one has to follow this theology to its logical conclusion to really see how demonic it is. For the Adventist, the outcome of this thinking is that s/he must be able to develop a sinless character over time... and that those who fail to do so must have weak moral fiber. It follows for them that the 'losers' of life are there by choice; they haven't allowed the Holy Spirit to work in their lives. The attitude that we can achieve perfection of character (i.e. sinlessness) hardens the heart towards those we judge as spiritual laggards, and can create envy towards those we perceive as 'high achievers' (or perhaps as just fakes). Legalism always entails judgementalism; one who hasn't accepted unconditional grace can hardly extend it to his fellow sinners.

In conclusion, any gospel that negates, or adds requirements to, the grace of God--the free gift of eternal life--is a pagan philosophy, anti-Christian. And the illustration above shows how adhering to this belief leads directly to anti-Christian behavior. In short, the Seventh Day Adventist Church is an anti-Christ organization posing as 'the remnant church' (their catch-phrase) with the message for the end of this age. And, incidentally, that claim puts them into the same category as such other self-proclaimed oracles as The Watchtower Society (Jehovah Witnesses), the 'Latter Day Saints' (Mormons), and even Baha'i.

Now, why did I select the SDA church for this analysis? Because they epitomize the same problem that affects virtually the whole panoply of churches calling themselves by the name of Christ! To give them credit, at least the SDAs follow their false gospel to its logical conclusion. And in doing so, they illustrate the error of the mainstream denominations. You see, almost all the churches proclaim a warped, hybrid version of the gospel that tries to graft the heart of the Old Testament (also called the Sinai, or Mosaic Covenant) into the body of the New Testament proclaimed by Jesus Christ. In his brief ministry, Jesus warned his followers against this very mistake (Matt 9:16-17). How do the churches do it? (And they've been doing it for almost 2000 years!). They do it by carrying the Ten Commandment law of Moses from the Old Covenant, and making it an essential feature of the Covenant of Christ (which it most certainly is not; study Hebrews, ch. 7-10, for ex.). Hence, the false gospel proclaimed by mainstream church spokesmen goes along the lines that 'You are saved by believing in Christ... and you maintain that salvation by obeying the Ten Commandments.'

Now I realize that most people who read the last statement will scratch their heads and say, 'So-- isn't that right?' No! It isn't right. That's not why the Son of God lowered himself to become a human, live a sinless life, and die ignominiously for our sins. The 'good news' is much better than that official party line from the organized churches! The true gospel is that Jesus has liberated us from all reference to the code of Moses, from behavior-based religion (and, not insignificantly, from hierarchical, patriarchal religious organizations). If the mainline churches really believe we have to obey the old, Ten Commandments, then they should do as the Adventists-- they should observe the Mosaic Sabbath, and not Sunday as the 'day of rest.' All the churches have fallen into the 'Judeo-Christian' trap of keeping old wine (the Ten C's) in new skins (the message of Jesus); and they've been doing it for so long that few people, no matter how sincere, are able to see outside the paradigm (the 'strong delusion'). In attempting to base a Christian theology on this error, the SDAs have been more consistent than other churches, and thus make the issue more apparent. Whether observing Sabbath or Sunday, the result is equally futile! As Paul labors at length to teach, believers are not under the Old Covenant, and the Commandments are a moot point-- a holdover from a specific tribe, from a long bygone era.

Christian Faith and Bahai

There are many good things to admire about Bahai, a religion that sprang up around 1844 in present-day Iran. So much so that many of its converts come from the ranks of ostensible Christians. One of the main claims of Bahai is that it builds on the doctrines of the prior, major religions including Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. They refer to this cumulative effect as 'progressive revelation'... an expression similar to one used in the Christian faith, but having quite a different meaning. Do the claims of Bahai really hold up to Biblical scrutiny? Here are my own thoughts, having associated with informed Bahais.

To begin with, the claim of progressive revelation itself is essentially contradictory. Since the major historical religions differ markedly among themselves on certain fundamental issues (eg. reincarnation) then how could a later religion represent an accumulation of their collective wisdom? Bahais like to find as many points of agreement among the world faiths as they can-- and yes, there are many, as one would expect-- but at the same time, they overlook the often grating differences among the creeds in order to support their claim of 'essential unity of religions.' Certainly, the Christian creed does not acknowledge progressive revelation in the Bahai sense. Jesus stated 'I am the way, the truth, and the light,' and the New Testament elaborates on his pivotal role in history as the ultimate redeemer of humankind. There are no later Messiahs or incarnations of God expressed in Christian scripture.

As regards society, Bahai holds that on a collective basis, human consciousness is evolving, progressing in a positive direction towards ultimate 'god-awareness.' They believe that after sufficient disasters, mankind will come to see the folly of bad choices and will consequently make the decision to adopt the principles of Bahai. This belief, while comforting to them, simply flies against the statements of Christian scripture... not to mention the plain evidence of our planetary history! Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John all wrote that we are born with the inherent tendency of selfishness-- to do evil. This predisposition may be an unavoidable consequence of free will... without which we would be mere robots. It's like a genetic flaw that we are powerless to eliminate. History amply demonstrates the truth of this assertion. The 20th century, despite hyperbolic technical achievements including landing men on the moon, was the bloodiest century in recorded history. There is simply no veracity to the naive belief that our race is morally improving; in fact, quite the opposite is the inescapable conclusion of a disinterested examination of history. What Christianity asserts is that Jesus Christ is our only hope for the future. The solution to our self-destructiveness is not within us-- it is in our Lord and savior, Jesus, who will ultimately rescue us from our own waywardness.

In keeping with their belief in the progress of human consciousness, Bahais have made representations to the UN urging more resolutions and action in the sphere of religious freedom. On the surface this appears laudable; yet it demonstrates a naive faith in human bureaucratic mechanisms to accomplish what only God's Spirit can effect-- namely, a change in the human heart. In fifty years, the UN has made a few brave attempts to define universal morality, and merely tentative efforts at actively promoting and achieving those goals. Despite any of its efforts, virtually every member of the UN continues to violate even basic human rights every day. As Christianity teaches, the human race is incapable of pulling itself up to Godly levels of morality; it can only come from the gracious act of God towards us.

Although Bahai states a belief in one God, and even believes in His Holy Spirit, the creed does not believe in the existence of Satan (the Devil). They hold that evil is what happens when you remove good, as darkness is the absence of light. It is an outlook that is shared by many modern (eg. New Age) philosophers and religions. But, does it hold up to the evidence of 'demon possession' and other satanic manifestations? When thus pressed, some Bahais will claim that such phenomena are really due to mental disorders. That might explain some cases, but by no means covers all. Where do some people get the ideas that motivate them to commit heinous crimes? Is it purely self-generated? Where do some get the knowledge and powers they need to accomplish some of the worst atrocities? If there is a personal force for good, whom we call God; can't there be an opposing, entity of evil? Since freewill is an essential ingredient for expressions of genuine love from created beings, then even the angels (whose existence Bahai acknowledges) have the option of rebellion. That the most powerful such being chose to exercise that option and became Satan ('the opposer') is not much of a mental stretch. That this creature prefers that humans not recognize his reality is also an easy conclusion.

After examining the teachings of Bahai, the clear conclusion a Christian must reach is that Bahai, for all its surface attractiveness, is yet another instrument of deception for the souls of humanity. 

Popular American Myths

While still a relatively young country, nevertheless, Americans have a number of popular myths that they love to believe for the comfort they bring. Let's have a look at a couple of the most common.

America was founded by Christians. Everyone knows that, right? The founding 'fathers' were a group of largely God-fearing men from Christian traditions, who must have been guided, therefore, by God Himself in drafting the constitution of the USA. I used to believe that, too; after all, there's plenty of reference to God in those old documents. No doubt, a lot of American 'Christians' (certainly among solid Republican supporters) rest comfortably at night knowing that God is running their country thru the men who are elected to high office. But, lately, I have finally learned the truth, the awesome truth. America was not founded by Christians; it was founded by Freemasons. A search on the web or a newer history book will reveal that, indeed, many of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were high-degree Freemasons. Okay, some readers will retort 'So what?; Freemasons are Christians, too.' Well, perhaps among the low-level Masons that may be true. However, at the highest levels of the craft, those men are quite the opposite. They may pay lip service to 'God,' but their god is really Satan. The high-degree symbology of Masonry is inextricably demonic in nature, having to do with 'occult' diagrams, geometry, and numerology. This is easily demonstrated by simply examining a US dollar bill, with its occult eye atop a pyramid, and its latin inscription (the reader is invited to investigate these symbols for him/herself). According to one source, the Masonic symbolism on the dollar bill reveals in coded form the true origins and destiny of the United States. More tangible evidence of the Masonic roots of the USA is embodied right in the geometry of the streets of Washington, DC. A study of the plan view will reveal that the 'mall' is designed as a picture of the compass and square of Masonry, and moreover, a Satanic pentagram (inverted 5-point star) is described by the streets, with its major apex sited on the White House. Other commentators have stated that 'every key Federal building from the White House to the Capitol Building has had a cornerstone laid in a Masonic ritual and had specific Masonic paraphernalia placed in each one.' George Washington was the first of many Freemasons to occupy the White House as president.

Much more could be said, but the point here is that, far from being a nation founded by Christians and based on Christian principles, the USA is instead a nation founded by demon-worshipping Freemasons who injected their principles in numerous subtle ways in the US constitution and related documents. The naive belief of so many Americans that God has granted special status and protection to the USA is a pathetic myth-- a fable of similar proportions to that of an Ayatollah proclaiming his Islamic nation to be the special object of Allah's grace.

Another common myth of Americans is that they live in a democracy-- in fact, the best democracy in the world. Is that true? I maintain that it has never been true; the US has always been ruled by a mere handful of shadowy men who manipulate elections and candidates behind the scenes to ensure that their interests are guarded and promoted. Some of the original participants in the foundation of America had grave misgivings about the constitution and selected model of governance; but the Freemasons carried the day, and inevitable oligarchy was ensured. To those who deny this, I say that the current administration will soon remove all doubt, if they haven't already. The Bush cabinet is populated by individuals drawn from the executive ranks of business who hardly pretend not to promote the interests of big business. More evidence is found in the federal taxation system that has been tilted in favor of the wealthy and burdens the masses of the working/middle class. The last two presidential elections were characterized by voting 'irregularities' the like of which would be soundly condemned by observers in any 'third-world' state. What the plutocrats want to do is preserve the illusion of democracy, to keep the masses in their pacified state of endless consumerism, while actually controlling the government to achieve their desired goals.

An examination of the record of legislation over the past few decades also makes clear that there is, essentially, no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats-- both are in the employ of big business (mainly big oil, big pharma, and the defense industry). Under the American system, it is virtually impossible for an independent candidate or party to intrude in this two-party game. Even if a grass-roots movement should coalesce around a suitable candidate, the big media would simply ignore this impudent upstart, and with no vehicle to carry the message to the electorate, that candidate would quietly flop. So, with two copies of the same character to choose from, how can anyone call it democracy? The truth is that democracy-- to the extent it ever existed in America-- is dead; long dead.

Obviously, the two myths are related. Because the USA was from its very origins designed by self-interested, demonically-inspired Freemasons, the system they implemented was deliberately set up to allow co-opting by a plutocracy, the wealthiest cadre of individuals who were deemed most suitable to govern. It has taken some 230 years (less for perceptive observers) for the wolf to be spotted lurking under the sheep's clothing. Now the secret is out; the US is not a viable democracy, in fact, never was, but has been promoted vigorously by forces that wanted the populace and the outside world to believe the grand illusion. Many will prefer to cling to the illusion than accept the aweful truth. No matter; soon all the pretences will be stripped away as the oligarchy, drunk on the prospect of having control over the mighty American military machine, takes on full authoritarian control of the government. They will do this under the staged threat of 'terrorism' by fabricated enemies that demands drastic assumption of absolute powers to 'protect' the populace. Exercising all the leverage of fear, the draconian action will at first be welcomed by the stupefied citizens, whose reasoning has been compromised by decades of TV drivel and subverted media spin-doctoring. Only when many of them are incarcerated in mega-prison camps will they start to open their dull eyes to the incredible reality.

This sad tale has been foretold in the Bible, in symbolic language to preserve it from the tampering of the guilty. Instead of a wolf in sheep's wool, the Bible talks of a 'lamb-like beast' that suddenly 'spake as a dragon' (Revelation ch. 13). In biblical symbology, a beast represents a nation. A 'lamb-like' beast would be a nation that appears beneficent, peaceful. To speak like a dragon would be to issue fiery, frightening edicts. Does that brief description fit the US? At this moment of history, it certain can. The next few months and years will be literally apocalyptic-- revelatory of where events are going. I believe that only then will the biblical prophecies become decipherable. Stay tuned.