As I begin to write this post, it feels like something canceled on twitter, youtube, and facebook. No one must think this or this way. It must not be said or written. Perhaps a future reeducation camp in store for someone who crosses this boundary.
I was speaking this week to someone from China and the subject of effeminate Chinese men came up. This story made the news at the beginning of September 2021. You can find articles at major news outlets, such as ABC News and the Washington Post, reporting that as Xi Jinping, the general secretary of the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), starts a third term, the government cracks down on every sector of society with a “rectification” campaign. As part of pressure to align with the government’s vision of a powerful China and a healthier society, the CCP has banned effeminate men on television.
Apparently the trend or growth of effeminate men in Chinese society spread across the border of China through South Korea. South Korean and Japanese singers influenced Chinese pop stars toward unacceptable “niang po,” a Chinese insulting slang for effeminate men, which means “girlie guns.” The National Radio and TV Administration said that broadcasters must “resolutely put an end to sissy men and other abnormal esthetics.”
In a positive way, China’s government has ordered its broadcasters to encourage masculinity, a practice just the opposite of that of the United States. Its government says it wants to put a stop to abnormal beauty standards. The Washington Post article quotes Rana Mitter, an Oxford professor of modern Chinese and politics as saying:
The party does not feel comfortable with expressions of individualism that are in some ways transgressive to norms that it puts forward.
China does not see a future without two clearly delineated roles between men and women. Where does China get that idea? China wants effeminate women and masculine men.
Is there hope for any country that forsakes the God-ordained or natural roles of men and women? 1 Corinthians 11:14 and Romans 1:26-27 read:
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
China sees something abnormal or a transgression of natural norms and stops it. The United States encourages it and prohibits discouragement. Listening to a podcast a few weeks ago, Jordan Peterson in an interview seemed to bemoan or mourn the illegality in Canada of conversion therapy. Not long ago society required masculinity and the fulfillment of the male role in society. Now it’s bullying to do so.
Churches now cooperate with the perversion of men, ignoring effeminate behavior. Imagine someone in a church telling a boy to stop acting like a girl. Churches now exalt soft-spoken, effeminate sounding and acting men, calling their mannerisms the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Today’s tone police cancels masculine tone. Churches need their own rectification campaigns.
Will men do anything? Will the ostensibly godly men of churches do anything?
If the Lord tarries and you live, prepare for world takeover by the Chinese, the country with the last men standing.
************
Other articles from What Is Truth on the subject.
Refreshing Honesty from “Desiring God” on Men Acting Effeminate
Noticeable Increase in Effeminate Sounding Men
Ability to Judge, Standard of Judgment, and Judging Effeminate Behavior (and Separating from It)
Beauty, Worldly Lust, Effeminate and Truth in the Real World
As a matter of comparison, which is a greater conspiracy, the conspiracy to make men effeminate or the one to be vaccinated against Covid? Which one brings the greater uproar, the most mentions, among professing believers? Churches are silenced against effeminate men, but free to complain frequently about Fauci and vaccinations. Tucker Carlson doesn’t believe the gospel.
The United States doesn’t encourage this trend actually. The Talmudists of the United States encourage it. That is, those who call themselves “Jews,” and are not, but do lie.
Those sick, sick people. Only a sick person would fall for that antichrist ideology. I pray continually someone in this country with a backbone would stand up and finally, finally say something about the demented, habitually lying, sodomite talmudists taking over the discourse in our country. The Lord truly needs to anoint someone in our time to shine the truth on this and to judge righteous judgement. They lie about our history, just as much as they lie about our present. They promoted all of this effeminacy through people like Frank Kameny and through a literal army of corrupt legal scholars. Homosexuality or sodomy is a mental illness, it is a crime and a sin. Just because they got it redefined in some manual in the 1970s doesn’t change anything. That’s how they got abortion through as well. Fauci is one as well. The woke judges are largely part of it. See Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer. They all support this talmudic insanity. Practically all of Biden’s cabinet are either part of this ideology or have a spouse that is. Not to mention Trump. The chairmen of the Federal Reserve are almost all them. All of the major, “woke” news media are owned by them. Facebook was launched to prominence because it was owned by a guy named Zuckerberg. CNN is run by a guy named Jeff Zucker. You can go down the entire chart of news anchors on every major media and make a list of all the anchors who are involved in this deranged ideology/religion. It’s almost all of them. I can’t stand these people anymore. Worst of all, they even created a false theology in the churches, called dispensationalism, that takes over the role of the people of God for themselves. They are the enemies of the truth and antichrist.
The United States is not at fault for their numerous blasphemies. It’s not at fault for their effeminacy and sodomy, or the fact that they work so hard to make that degeneracy so prominent. We are not at fault for their intellectually dishonest word-play and murder of the unborn. What’s happened is they’ve taken advantage of us.
They have abused our trust with lies. Their religion tells them to lie to us, and it tells them to hate everyone except themselves, to think only of their own benefit. No kidding, because the true believers in that ideology, and in all of that ideology’s children – such as marxism – are of their father the devil. Whoever they may be. When we finally receive a leader ordained to us by God who is anointed to purge this enemy, I hope to see you joining the side of truth, and not error.
Remember what it says in 2 John:
“9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”
Talmudists? Wow. Why not just lost people, unsaved people, unconverted people, sheep that have gone astray. Pegging this on the Jews is a problem for me, isolating it on them. Israel is an apostate nation right now as it stands, that’s OT, but to say that America right now is against effeminate men, except for Talmudists. That’s just a lie. Ben Shapiro, who is an unsaved Jew, came out recently against Harry Styles, not a Jew, wearing an English gown.
https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a34700057/ben-shapiro-harry-styles-vogue-cover-dress-controversy/
Anonymous, you’re warped. You should also consider that non-Jewish, churches of almost every denomination have not opposed cross dressing for years. They say nothing. I’ll let you answer one time, but I’m not going to allow any more Jew bashing on this blog. I’m not sure, but I think it’s a faulty eschatology that is replacement theology.
Furthermore, Dennis Prager, who started Prager U, promotes the separate roles of men and women, against egalitarianism. He’s Jewish.
Hi, thanks for letting me answer one time.
Anyone who believes in talmudic ideology is undoubtedly lost. But I would add they are a special kind of sick, if they really believe in it, a kind of sick that we have only begun to see with the advent of modernism, corrupting our country in ways not previously imaginable. They have redefined marriage. They have brought pride parades. Look at where all of the sodomy started. Look at who was responsible for breaking the norms on this in the last century. It always originates with talmudists. Of which marxists are just one branch of what is unfortunately a much larger, deeply Christ-denying ring of unbelievers, a ring of people with a special hatred for what America as a Christian nation has historically stood for. They fought all of the fraudulent and malicious legal battles throughout our recent history through the ACLU, SPLC, ADL and other types of organizations like it. They financed the legal battles to remove the ten commandments from our courtrooms. They fought to remove prayer from our schools. They want to remove our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ from everything to do with our country. They also worked nonstop through the media and Hollywood to normalize sodomy, bestiality, and the child molestation that is known today as abortion. All of this was done through subtle and sly redefinition of words. Just as the word vaccine today has its definition changed, they have changed the meaning of past words, like “gay,” “homophobe,” “exterminate,” “antisemitic” et cetera. All of these subtle and sly word-games are meant to make communication of simple facts impossible.
The fact that other people, also unbelievers or people too willing to compromise, go along with this farce does not excuse them. Of course you are right. But we would not even be in the situation to begin with, we would still have the decency that once was here, if the Talmudists had not initiated all of this through Hollywood and television shows which they wrote and/or financed, in the 1960s and 70s especially, and increasingly so more and more today. The fact anyone would defend that ideology after being made aware of this, or accept any of its claims, makes them in some small degree a “partaker” in their evil deeds. That includes the following two claims– one of which defies logic, and the other of which defies Biblical theology, both of which I oppose:
1) If someone studies the talmud or is descended from someone who did in the last two centuries, that makes them a “Jew.” False. Nonsensical. Holding a certain belief does not equate to being descended from Jacob. And,
2) Being a genetic descendant of Jacob entitles one to claim, and this alone entitles one to claim to be the one chosen people of God. False, and refuted by the Bible. See Paul’s discourse on the promises to Abraham in Galatians 3 and 4. This is the error of Judaizing, particularly.
Yet these are the two implicit claims which I fundamentally challenge and deny. I do not accept anyone claiming themselves and their group specially to be a Jew, in the Biblical sense, as relating to genealogy. There is no way to prove that and no reason to do so. We are to avoid these kinds of genealogies. There are Palestinians of many different beliefs who are equally or moreso descended from Jacob in a genetic sense, regardless of whether they follow the talmud and pharisaicial or rabbinic teachings or not. Least of all would be followers of an especially antichrist Talmud which would place our Lord and Savior in hell (Gittin 57a). I don’t see how you can work with that. I don’t see how you can have dealings with that. What concord hath Christ with Belial?
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?”
– 2 Corinthians 6:14-16
You may be thinking, why condemn an ethnic group? The answer is I am not. I am not even referring to everyone who mistakenly refers to themselves as a “Jew.” They may simply be misguided on point 1) above. I am referring instead to people actually promoting the talmudic ideology. This is why I have called them talmudists. Their victims are many, and often this includes people who may mistakenly identify themselves as “Jews.” I know and have read from many people who have turned their backs on the synagogue of satan, which is like a crime family or a mafia organization more than anything else at this point. This makes it more painful to see some try to defend these actions and try to use the Bible recklessly and inadvisedly to cover themselves. The fact is, it pays to be on the side of these people. But we should not be attracted to the love of money or of gathering a bigger following if it means compromising what turns out is a most important truth which is what I am trying to say. People who think this group are “Jews” in the Biblical sense, in the sense that Christ Jesus is, are simply misguided. They have been led astray by the spirit of antichrist. You will notice that nothing in the Bible supports the hyperdispensational or commonly-called dispensational view. Nothing you can cite in context will support it. It was the brainchild of John Nelson Darby and popularized by Scofield in his 1917 Scofield Bible, the funding for the propagation of which is of dubious origin indeed, not to mention the author, Scofield, himself.
Finally, I realize I may not have provided the necessary sources for my first post, which is why I came back here so early today, and am surprised to see a response already, to which I am grateful to oblige with an appropriate response. But allow me in closing to post my sources for my initial claims and you and every reader may judge the evidence each for yourself.
Source #1:
In the Talmud (Szulchan Aruch, Edit. 1), in the “Jewish Encyclopedia” (Vol. 7) and in Jewish prayer-books one can read the following prayer which is recited three times by all J-ws in the synagogues on the day of Yom Kippur:
“ALL vows, obligations, oaths or anathemas, pledges of all names, which we have vowed, sworn, devoted, or bound ourselves to, from this day of atonement, until the next day of atonement (whose arrival we hope for in happiness) we repent, AFOREHAND, of them all, they shall all be deemed absolved, forgiven, ANNULLED, void and made of no effect; they shall not be binding, nor have any power; the vows shall not be reckoned vows, the obligations shall not be obligatory, nor the oaths considered as oaths.”
Commenting on Kol Nidre, the Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, page 541, makes the following statement: “It cannot be denied that, according to the usual wording of the formula, an unscrupulous man might think that it offers means of escape from the obligations and promises which he had assumed and made in regard to others. Many judges refused to allow them to take a supplementary oath, basing their objections chiefly on this prayer.
Scan of source: https://i.imgur.com/q2tqqDa.jpeg
Source #2:
Rabbi Elliot Dorff, rector and professor of philosophy at the University of Judaism, says that in Jewish tradition, embryos less than 40 days old are considered as “mere water.” …To those who believe endeavors such as stem cell research cross the line into God’s realm, Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, a professor of Jewish law at Loyola Law School, disagrees. “The idea that we have no right tinkering with G-d’s work is fundamentally anti-Jewish,” said Adlerstein, an Orthodox rabbi. “A central concept in Judaism is a ‘rodef.’ The idea is that it’s okay to defend yourself if you are threatened. A rodef literally means ‘pursuer.’ For rabbis who feel it would be okay to terminate a pregnancy, it’s seeing the fetus as a pursuer…”
“Polls have shown that more Jews support abortion rights and Roe v. Wade than any other religious or ethnic community in the United States… Roni Berkowitz, president of the Chesapeke Jewish Reconstructionist Federation: “It’s not just a matter of choice. The Talmud teaches us there are times that it is incumbent on women to have an abortion…”
Rashi, the venerated twelfth century Judaic interpreter of the Bible and Talmud, says of the fetus: “lav nefesh hu – it is not a person.” Rabbi Meir Abulafia decreed, “So long as the fetus is inside the womb, it is not a nefesh, and the Torah has no pity on it.” The noted Judaic legal scholar Rabbi Isaac Schorr stated: “The sense of the Talmud is that a fetus is not a person” (Responsa Koah Schorr, no. 20).
Scan of Source: https://i.imgur.com/0kbeyoP.png
Secondary source: https://i.imgur.com/5Q0OvSO.jpg
Anonymous (and I don’t know why you aren’t giving your name),
You throw in verse references that aren’t being interepreted or applied. You may as well take them out. You didn’t even answer my comment. It’s like playing chess and you’ve got all the moves in your mind, made up already. You lose men when you do that.
You say, Talmudic, and you don’t mean Jews. You mean only Jews. You are espousing replacement theology with what you are saying, even if you are not, it’s what you’re echoing. If I see another post like these two, I’m just going to delete them. This is out there and it’s an odd viewpoint that hearkens to the allegorization of Origen. The promises to Israel are not fulfilled in the church, and that isn’t some conspiracy through Darby and Scofield. It’s a literal interpretation of scripture. There isn’t a cabal of Jewish people that are causing the corruption of the United States and Christianity. Churches are not following Talmudic teaching. They are, as you can read in 2 Peter, written by the Jew, Peter, walking after their own lust, and they don’t want to be told what to do, because they want to be their own boss. Churches cowtow to the lust with to keep their people. This is not based on dispensationalism, which you call hyperdispensationalism, but you don’t mean that, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Your system has no symmetry or cohesion. It veers way out of the way to hit Jewish people. Israel will be saved. They will be converted as seen in Isaiah 52-53 and Revelation 11, etc. and Zechariah 14, among other places. I’ve broken these down with you, but you ignore them like the chess player I mentioned above, stuck in your barrel of anti-semitism. There are unsaved Jews, unsaved Gentiles, unsaved people of many nations. Assyria wasn’t saved. Rome wasn’t saved. Babylon. Egypt. The United States is forsaking its heritage, borrowing from the Christian worldview. Churches today are pragmatic and worldly, including the conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists.
The doctrine of separation is for churches. They separate from false doctrine and practice. I guess what you are saying is that our churches should separate from dispensationalists. In other words, separate from those who take a literal, grammatical and historical, viewpoint of scripture. But they are God’s people. Before the systematizing of premillennialism, what was holy and good that you track your theology or authority through? I know, you can’t answer, because I won’t let you if you write something like you have in the first two posts.
Dispensationalism systematized premillennialism, just like covenant theology systematized amillennialism. You are putting together a quiltwork and listening to or reading some people who’ve got it wrong. Perhaps I’ll do a series on this, even though I don’t want to do that.
Hi Kent,
You say I’m throwing in verse references without interpreting or applying them. My apologies if what I was saying before wasn’t clear. When I mention 2 John verses 9-11, I am meaning to say that if someone denies the Son, then they do not have God. This includes, of course, those who promote the talmudic worldview. As well as others, of course. But my point here is you cannot say that God is with a people that denies Christ, the Son. In 1 John 2:23 it says something very similar. John also says here, that those who deny the Son do not have the Father. This is something serious to consider before calling a group with a name, like God’s people, or the people of God, or the elect of God, or the chosen people. Elect and chosen mean the same thing. I hope that application suits the above discussion well.
When I mention 2 Corinthians chapter 6, I mean to say that truly Christian people should not be associating openly with, or defending, people who are enemies of God. In 2 Chronicles chapter 19, the prophet Jehu states to the king Jehoshaphat that him “helping the ungodly” and “loving them that hate the Lord” are bringing God’s wrath down upon them.
In Proverbs 24 it says the following. “He that saith unto the wicked, Thou are righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:
But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.”
Now the application of 2 Corinthians 6 and these passages is simply that being a “zionist” or however else you want to describe supporting an ungodly group, is the same as being a partaker in some very wicked deeds. Possibly the reason why so far the march of the sodomites down the streets hasn’t been stopped is because men behind pulpits have been more concerned with pleasing men than with truth and pleasing God. It does not encourage me to say this, but it has to be said. I want to say to every individual not to be a part of that. I believe what has been said is perfectly biblical and in line with our Lord’s teaching. I believe that all of this is sound doctrine, which we are instructed to keep.
I believe I have been as respectful toward others as loyalty to God and the truth can allow, and I believe a necessary warning has been made clear in writing all of this in response to your claim. Our country was (and is) sent down a dark path by particular spiritual wickedness in high places, as has been described above. The false accusers can come and attack me, they can take hold of my words deceitfully, and bring false accusation; they can try to explain to me what I mean when I know full well better than another person what I mean: do with me what you will, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
I can answer your comment in full, and I can answer every last statement but it would be a long reply, and I probably rightly believe that my space for making any points is limited. So, I stay with the more salient points in response to your central claim in this article that America is to blame for this public catastrophe. I begin with the more central overriding points, so that they won’t be missed, as they all too often are.
Since you asked me to respond to your comment(s), I will do so:
In your first post, you give specific examples. The exception, in this case proves the rule. The most important point, as I explained once after your first post, is that I have nothing against any ethnic group. I know people who have turned their back on the synagogue of satan after having been in it. I have heard and considered carefully what they had to say about all of this. God is willing that all be saved. All souls have value. But that doesn’t mean we avoid rebuking falsity, as such an apathetic attitude would be unloving and uncaring.
Eschatology is another entire discussion. I’m sure that if I went on a long discourse here it would be (rightfully) objected as going off topic.
On separation, I believe in this case in rightly dividing the word of truth. At some point people need to come to a decision on this. They have to rightly divide the word of truth. If they choose to follow the rudiments of this world and not follow after Christ, then I believe they are misguided. The truth divides people. And that’s okay, it’s supposed to. But there is always a truthful position. What’s important is unity around the truth, and being able to biblically justify any doctrine or belief as being biblically sound. I have cited plenty of Scriptures so far here and applied them to support this view. In the end, as Christ said, the elect shall not be deceived. The truth will prevail, regardless of what is said here.
Before the systematizing of pre-tribulationism, there was the Holy Bible. That is obviously what we all should subscribe to. I track my theology and authority through the Holy Bible. (The Bible is God’s word, and it has been preserved despite the world working against it.) I don’t know why you mention premillenialism however. I do not know why you mentioned that, as this is Biblical; it didn’t need to be systematized by someone. Only premillenialism is true. Amillenialism and its variants were invented as false doctrines later. The specific error I discussed before, however, is unrelated to these. The specific error I brought up before is Judaizing, and I believe a type of judaizing is going on in modern American 20th and 21st century churches in particular. John Hagee is an example of this. Many others more moderately follow the same error. Others dabble in it, claiming to represent the Biblical view of dispensations, when it is far from it. It does make a lot of worldly sense, perhaps. Just not Biblical sense. We are seeing the consequences of this today with effeminacy. But this shouldn’t be pinned on the United States or its historical principles. We shouldn’t lift up the Communist Chinese as a better alternative. They are deeply subverted as well. Working against their own people and committing genocides. They are also part of the forces that are promoting this in our country now, as well. They promote it here to destabilize us. The people promoting this stuff have a deep-seated hatred of freedom, and of our historically Christian way of life. They hate religious liberty, and the Lord Who was recognized in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
I will gladly forgive the comment about being warped. I have been commanded to forgive in order that my offenses and transgressions be forgiven. That is what I know will happen. I just want to let you know. I have opposed cross dressing. I have opposed all of the other things which need no longer be mentioned again. I know there are people with me. I know that we agree on what matters most, the Gospel. But on this specific topic, we have to see where this degeneration is really actually coming from, because if you bid those persons, organizations or entities “godspeed,” as it says in 2 John, then you become “partaker in their evil deeds.” I believe that is what is happening unless we repent as a nation and start calling this out earnestly, marking those which cause such grave offenses and avoiding them, as it says in Romans 16:17.
Finally, could you clarify for me what you mean by “writing something like I have in the first two posts”? What exactly is wrong with those posts? I’m not attacking an ethnic group. I am simply calling out and marking an evil ideology. That should be praiseworthy, I thought. This is indeed a great evil that many people are intimidated to expose. But I don’t understand what is wrong with those posts. But I’ve made my point already, there’s no need to cover old ground again. I just don’t know what exactly is supposedly wrong with those posts. Are you perchance misinterpreting them?
Thanks, Kent!
Anonymous,
It is very difficult to understand what you are saying. I would welcome anyone that explain to me what they know you to be saying. You are saying that people are taking a Talmudic worldview and they are causing men to dress effeminate, since that is what this post was about. You said nothing, nothing about the post, that the Communist Chinese know this is unnatural. No, the Jews are the cause, I mean, um, the Talmudists (who are all Jews). The Talmudists influenced Scofield and Darby to flesh out a system of interpretation based upon a literal interpretation of the Bible that ended with Jesus setting up a kingdom on this earth. They sucked up Talmudism to come to this position, which meant effeminate appearing men. We need to separate from Talmudists. No, the ones influenced by them, which would be separate from premillennial dispensationalists, because they take their positions from an influence of Talmudism.
Anonymous, I can read into your writing. Dispensationalism pushes Talmudists apparently by seeing the promises to Israel still not fulfilled, but yet to be fulfilled. No, those are fulfilled in the church to you in a metaphorical way, ala, Origen, Augustine, and the amillennialists. But I’m guessing you would say you’re not amillennial, but who knows? This is what I’m talking about your position being a patchwork. You’ve been reading people, who do not know what they’re talking about, picking and choosing and quilting it together into something that is incohesive. It’s why I can’t understand it. I can’t imagine anyone else does. It requires wresting scripture to get there, which is warping scripture, which you are forgiving me for saying. I’ve not wronged you.
Who is it that we’re supposed to separate from, who is bowing to Talmudism? Please let me know who these people are. Name them. It’s hard to separate from ambiguous nebulous entities. Romans 16:17 says mark and avoid. The Talmud is like reading a commentary. There are bad commentaries written by false teachers, but there are also Jewish rabbis that are anti-abortion, who say that the preponderance of the Jewish teaching is anti-abortion (read this). We argue against abortion from the Old Testament. And all of this has nothing to do with effeminate men. The connection is so tenuous. It’s disrespectful. Should I tell you before everyone that I forgive you because I know the Bible teaches that? No, I don’t want you to do it. It’s bad behavior on your part. You can take any post and then write on your favorite hobby horse, as if everything bad goes back to the Talmud. You’re wrong and the Bible doesn’t support your position.
Dear Dr. Brandenburg,
I don’t know if you will even let this post be allowed, but I want to apologize if something I said was perceived as being disrespectful, or if it was bad behavior, either of them. I certainly did not intend to come across that way in any of the posts I have made here.
Without getting into every single thing (and to avoid going in circles about things that were already said) I do have a few things based on your last post to respectfully to submit to you and your readers’ attention. The first of which is that with regards to your renewed request that I name someone, I did name someone to mark and avoid before, and that person is John Hagee. I believe he should be separated from based on the objections laid out earlier by me. If anyone wants to know what those are read my earlier posts. There are three of them, and I mentioned Hagee by name in the third.
Second and finally, I do believe the connection between men acting/behaving openly effeminate on the one hand, and homosexuality or sodomy on the other is clear enough. One is often meant to belie the other. And the connection between both of these things becoming more widespread, and the same behavior being promoted on television shows and films increasingly over the last sixty years is also obvious. Finally, the fact I point out that the Talmud teaches and even approves this behavior, and that people who practice the talmud in turn have been running the main media apparatuses all this time since the 1960s to now, is therefore a relevant point to your original topic, Dr. Brandenburg. I think there are people who understand what all this means, and I leave them to draw personal conclusions with this information made available.
Of course everyone, even the Chinese Communists, know that this behavior is destructive, which is why they are now promoting it in our country as well. They promote woke things, like black lives matter, as a way to deflect from their genocides in Tibet and Xinjiang.
Abortion ties into this as another example of something euphemized in the media over the past recent history, because while the Bible strictly prohibits it according to God’s law, the talmud takes a completely 180 degree opposite stance.
Now to close peacefully our conversation, if you will allow me the opportunity, Dr. Brandenburg, I would like to remark briefly on the article you linked me in the last paragraph of your latest post. I immediately notice in the opening lines, very specifically where your article says, “except when the life of the mother is threatened.” Aha. There is the catch. This is exactly what I described in my source #2 in the second post which I made above. There is often a catch in the fine print whenever you are dealing with talmudic-scholars. Maybe they really just mean “slightly inconvenienced.” Fortunately in this case, we can know for sure more than that, armed with the information I linked above in Source #2, that the article you linked is being disingenuous when it talks about being pro-life according to the usual definition of what we would normally assume the term pro-life is supposed to mean (opposing ALL abortion on the basis of it being killing an innocent person) because my source, which I even posted already beforehand, shows that the talmudists argue that the child is a ‘rodef’ and therefore a ‘pursuer’ and therefore supposedly by some strange string of talmudic logic the life of the mother is threatened, so they can actually commit abortions whenever they want.
But, of course, they misrepresent this when it suits them to not tell you this. See how it works? It could be that Shapiro himself is being misled about what that catch-22 really means. It just so happens that my Source #2 above already explains this very thing; what a fascinating occurrence that you would post an article about that very thing here! But do you see how it works? They get to define what “life is threatened” means. And then they simply don’t tell you what it means. It’s similar with Fauci and the vaccines being “effective,” actually. Similar with talmudists and following the Torah; They actually mean the “oral torah” or talmud, but they say it in a way to make you think, Written Torah – i.e. the Bible. It’s on purpose. It’s very tricky. All of it has a big asterisk next to it which they hope you, as the gullible “mark,” don’t look into, which only the talmudist is aware of. It’s very similar to how jesuits (another wicked group) would hold mental reservations about what they are telling you: Say one thing, and inwardly think another, while hoping you are misled by their ambiguous words. Hopefully that makes sense.
Jesus Christ very patiently explained to the Pharisees, in Mark 7:7-13, that they were making the word of God of none effect with their traditions which they have delivered. That’s what God said. What a judicious and wise statement to make by our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus. He also said that if the scribes and Pharisees had believed Moses, they would have believed Him also (John 5:46). I believe that applies today as well. Amen.
Anonymous,
No one here or anyone I know is in fellowship with John Hagee. The churches with whom we fellowship that are the least like us do not fellowship with John Hagee. Are you really warning us against John Hagee? He’s Pentecostal. No one I know fellowships with Pentecostals. He’s got so many other doctrinal errors. This seems like more than that, Anonymous, especially to break into a post on effeminate men with the same theme in your comment, tracing everything to Talmudists.
Everyone here is also anti-abortion. Someone who argues for the life of the mother, that’s an ethical argument. I wouldn’t even call it abortion. It’s not murder, unless the mother’s life is not truly threatened. If one of them is going to die, you can only save one, do you really think there is something in the Bible that says, you’ve got to kill the mother in that instance? Show me that verse.
You need to know, anonymous, that this line of writing reads as anti-semitic. It reads like you take an unscriptural position on Israel, the church, eschatology, because of that. This is a growing trend in the country right now.
You ask, am I really warning you against John Hagee? Yes, I am. Don’t be like that. This judaizing stuff creeps into churches.
This false doctrine creeps into churches because people are dabbling with it. Maybe they don’t even know they’re doing it, just picking it up from someone else. Maybe that’s how this all got started. But it’s not biblical. Blaming our country as a whole isn’t going to solve these problems.
How can anyone ever claim to know for certain that killing a baby will save anyone? I want to ask how anyone can have that absolute knowledge in the first place. Are they God? Think about it: It’s presumptuous to the extreme. It’s a scenario someone comes up with in their head. In reality, they can’t know that the mother won’t survive. 1 Corinthians 10:13. There’s your verse.
I have nothing against Arabs. I do wish to God that, if they are muslim or another false belief, that they would repent of any false way and accept the Lord Jesus, our Savior. But I am certainly not against semites like Arabs.
I’m still not sure what you thought was “wrong” with my first two posts such that you were (possibly) going to delete future posts. Did you answer my question but I was unable to perceive your answer to that, or was my question about this left unanswered?
Thank you and have a happy New Year!
Anon,
Maybe you just read my latest post, but I’m not blaming the whole country for what’s gone wrong. Judgment must first begin in the house of God. What I’m saying is that no one here fellowships with John Hagee. You were talking about biblical separation. Could his teaching creep into a church through one church member? Sure. But Talmudists are not to blame on what’s happening in the nation. That teaching is far more “creeping” into churches. I’ll tell you why I don’t publish something, but much of what you are righting has the echoes of an anti-semitic system even if you say you don’t believe it.
Anon,
I didn’t publish your last comment. The Talmud is a commentary. That doesn’t mean I use it. I don’t believe the Talmud though is the reason for the problems in the world. That is explained from scripture. I also don’t think that John Hagee has much influence on our churches, because we are separated from him. I believe some of what you espouse is being more influential through sources such as Steven Anderson.