Iran’s Hostility Toward Israel

Iran’s Hostility Toward Israel

Thomas Allen

In “The Iran War: A Background of Decades and Centuries,” Beyond Today, May–June, 2026, pages 18–21, Scott Ashley discusses Iran’s hostility toward Israel and the United States. My comments are enclosed in parentheses.

Ashley blames the current Iranian war on Hamas’s invading and killing some 1200 Israeli civilians. (He fails to mention that Israel and the United States created Hamas. Furthermore, he neglects to reveal that the Israeli armed forces killed many of the 1200 people.)

According to Ashley and many others, this war with Iran began in 1979 with the overthrow of the Shah, the taking of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, and the capture of 52 U.S. embassy employees, who were held for 444 days. He identifies several other Iranian attacks against the United States since then. Thus, Iran has been at war with the United States for almost 50 years. (However, he ignores the United States being at war with the Iranian people since the early 1950s when they started meddling in the internal affairs of Iran. The United States sided with the despotic Shah against the despotic prime minister. Apparently, the regime of the Shahs became so unbearable that most Iranians rejoiced at the arrival of Khomeini in 1979.)

Ashley discusses Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As he notes, the ostensible reason for the war with Iran is to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. (Protecting and advancing Israel’s Greater Israel agenda is the real reason. That the United States destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a sneak attack in 2025 — that is what President Trump told the world — seems to be forgotten. Did Trump lie in 2025 or is he lying now?)

Ashley implies that the United States initiated this latest attack on Iran. He asks, “Why did Israel join in joint attacks with the U.S. military?” (In reality, the United States joined Israel. Israel was going to attack regardless of the U.S. participation. In an attempt to reduce American casualties, the United States joined Israel in the attack. They knew that Iran would strike American bases in retaliation for an Israeli assault.)

Quoting two passages from the Quran, Ashley shows that anyone who practices any religion other than Islam is an idolater — hence, the Muslim antipathy toward non-Muslims, i.e., Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. Iran’s religious leaders have adopted and applied this animosity toward non-Muslims. (Yet, Jews have synagogues and Christians have churches in Iran. Moreover, Christians seem to have just as much religious freedom in Iran as they have in Israel — if not more.)

According to Ashley, the reason for Muslim abhorrence of Israel is that Muslims cannot accept the notion of territory once controlled by Muslims coming under the control of Christians or Jews. (If true, why do Muslims not display the same degree of hostility toward Spain, Portugal, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania, which Muslims once ruled? Could it be that the primary cause is Israel’s malevolent treatment of Palestinians? Since 1948, it has driven most Palestinians from their homes and stolen their land. Now, it seeks to genocide the Palestinians.)

Finally, Ashley discusses the “end times” theology of Iran’s religious leaders. (It closely resembles the end times theology of Christian Zionists.) The Islamic messiah, Mahdi, will arise at a period of end-time tribulation (the Great Tribulation of Christian Zionists) and establish Islam as the dominant religion of the world (similar to Jesus returning to establish his religion as the global religion).

According to Ashley, Iran’s leadership wants nuclear weapons with which to attack Israel to precipitate a nuclear war to hasten the appearance of Mahdi. (Likewise, many Christian Zionists want to start a nuclear war with Iran to hasten the return of Jesus.)

(Whether the current war with Iran leads to a global nuclear war and the appearance of Mahdi or Jesus remains to be seen. May God bring humility, sanity, and wisdom to the world’s leaders so that they will act like adults instead of narcissistic, psychopathic, spoiled brats.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Eating Pork

Eating Pork

Thomas Allen

I posted a comment to a comment on “TikToker Fired After Exposing How Plastic Is Getting In Pig Feed” by Anthony T (https://welovetrump.com/2022/09/08/tiktoker-fired-after-exposing-how-plastic-is-getting-in-pig-feed/#comment-5976483530). I argued that, according to the Scriptures, we were no longer obliged not to eat pork. My comment caused some discussion, with most commenters siding with the prohibition against eating pork. I call them Old Testament Christians because they seem to place more weight on the Old Testament than on the New Testament. Yet, none claimed that we are compelled to keep all the Old Testament laws; apparently, we are only required to keep the dietary laws. One claims that I did not know the difference between laws, statutes, and ordinances. Yet, when I asked him to explain the difference,  he refused.

Of all the conservative websites where I have posted comments, with rare exceptions, the commenters at this site have the least intelligence and knowledge. Most of them can only parrot back the Republican, neoconservative, and establishment conservative propaganda that they have managed to absorb. When they lack any good counterargument, they often resort to name-calling.

This discussion is presented in the appendix. The names have been changed to protect the guilty. I have added an afterthought to one comment.

Appendix

B: There are many reasons God forbids eating swine, add this to the list.

M to B: Pigs will eat anything, including humans. We need to run China out of this               country. Never buy Smithfield. Democrats would make good pig feed. Or, maybe                 we’ll find out there are some things pigs just won’t eat.

Me to M:  Most pigs eat a more nutritional diet than nearly every human in this                    country.

M to Me: Regardless, they will eat anything and Smithfield is owned by                                China. I eat bacon, just not any brand.

W to M: No worries. If I get hungry enough to eat Swine I’m already doomed.                      I’m not a Jew but when it comes to pigs, I’m Kosher.

Besides, God tells us that it is naughty to sup on Pigs!

M to W: But you can’t have a BLT without bacon. If we feed the democrats                          to the pigs i’m [sic] done with bacon.

Me to B: In Mark, Jesus declared all food, which would included [sic] pork, clean.

B to Me: No he didn’t

Me to B: Mark 7:19 — because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and                  goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.

Pork is a meat; therefore, Jesus declared it clean. Your argument is with Jesus,                     not with me.

Cs to Me:  Yeah, no food can deflie [sic] you. Spiritually. Thats [sic] what Jesus                    was talking about. If you read the whole chapter, thats [sic] the topic. Read the                      next verse for clarification. Mark 7:20 

But God the Father did give us dietary guidelines on what to eat and not to eat, as                  it pertains to the body. Why would he repeat himself and say ‘Eat honey’ if later                    on he’s just gonna say, “Just kidding. Eat whatever you want.”

Its [sic] wisdom not legalism.

It wasnt [sic] about phyiscal [sic] health but spiritual. If the rabbis touched pigs,                    they were ceremonially unclean and couldn’t attend their services, etc.

Jesus was saying thats [sic] nonsense.

Now when it comes to health, pigs eat crap. Eat pigs and you;re [sic] likely to get                 worms Youre [sic] decision.

If you just go by Mark 7:19, it sounds like there’s no such thing as junk food.

Hope that makes sense.

Me to Cs: In Galatians 3:23–25, Paul writes that Christians are no longer                              under the law. “23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the                              law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 So that                            the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be                                      justified by faith. 25 But now that faith is come, we are no  longer under a                              tutor.”

Animal sacrifices were a major part of the law. Do you still follow the law                            by sacrificing animals, or did God repeal that law for Christians? If He                                  repeals one law, why can He not repeal another law?

“Now when it comes to health, pigs eat crap. Eat pigs and you're likely to                             get worms.” Obviously, you know little about modern-day pig farms. What                            you say may be true for pasture raised pigs. However, nearly all pork sold                              today comes from pigs whose hoofs never touch the ground from the time                              that they are born to the time that they are slaughtered. These pigs live in an                          environment more sterile than almost every human household. Moreover,                              chickens eat crap, and there is no scriptural prohibition against eating                                    chickens. (An old farming book that I have gives the following advice for                              maximizing a pasture. First, run cattle across it. Then, run pigs across it to                              eat what passes through the cattle. Finally, run chickens across it to eat what                          passes through the pigs.)

B to Me: Matt 5:18 (Jesus’ words) says he will not change the law. Lev. 11                            (entire chapter but focus on v 46-47). The clean and unclean foods are LAWS,                      Jesus didn’t change the law. You are misunderstanding an interpretation.

Me to B: Then, according to you, Jesus lied. Both statements cannot be true.                          If he did not change the law, why are we not doing animal sacrifices as the                           Old Testament commanded? [Afterthought: Jesus did not change the law; he                         fulfilled the law by completing its purpose and meaning. He was saying that                         nothing would pass from the law until he fulfilled it.]

B to Me: You don’t know the difference between laws, statutes and                                        ordinances. Jesus never changed the law.

Me to B: Please explain the difference between the three and                                                  provide a list of laws, statutes, and ordinances.

B to Me: II Tim. 2:15

Me to B: 2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a                                                                        workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly                                                                      dividing the word of truth.

Uh! Your response avoids answering my question.                                                                    Please explain the difference between the three and                                                                 provide a list of laws, statutes, and ordinances.

B to Me: Study yourself, i’m [sic] not going to                                                                        spoon feed you

Me to B: My studies show that I am right and                                                                           you are wrong. Moreover, most of the                                                                                       theologians and clergy that have consulted                                                                               agree with me and not with you. Also, I                                                                                    must conclude that you do not know the                                                                                    difference between laws, statutes, and                                                                                        ordinances and that you cannot provide a list                                                                            of them.

B to Me: Keep tooting your horn and                                                                                        puffing your chest out and eating that                                                                                        swine.

O to B: go outside both those books there were multiple                                                          references and (ellen g white is not a second god or                                                                 prophet... just a shrewd Mormon clone and a diet nazi                                                             [sic]) 1 Timothy 4:1-5 “Now the Spirit speaketh                                                                     expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from                                                           the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines                                                             of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their                                                                   conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry,                                                           and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath                                                        created to be received with thanksgiving of them which                                                        believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is                                                          good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with                                                              thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and                                                         prayer.” KJV

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Loofs on the Christology Views of the New Testament

Loofs on the Christology Views 

of the New Testament

Thomas Allen

In What Is the Truth about Jesus Christ? Problems of Christology Discussed in Six Haskell Lectures at Oberlin, Ohio (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), pages 177-184, Friedrich Loofs presents and discusses five points that show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views. Dr. Loofs is a professor of church history at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. His discussion of the Christological views of the New Testament follows.

[1] It is a view of vital importance to orthodox Christology that the historical Jesus is the preexistent Son of God. Do we find anything about this in the New Testament? Certainly many New Testament passages assert the pre-existence of Christ; that is, they assert or assume that Jesus did not begin to exist when his earthly life began. “O Father,” Jesus says in the high priestly prayer in the Gospel of John, “glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:5.) But where in the New Testament is this prehistoric, yea, this antemundane, Christ called the “Son of God”? Where are we told that he is as such begotten of the Father before the world? In the prologue of the Gospel of John, the pre-existent Christ is not called the “Son” but the “word,” and we are told that “this was in the beginning.” (John 1:1, 2.) Only one passage in the Pauline epistles might be suspected of referring to an antemundane birth of Christ. In Colossians 1:18 Paul calls Christ “the first-born of every creature.” But here the Greek equivalent for first-born only means that he was before every creature and above all creatures. Then the only remaining support of the later doctrine is Jesus’ title “Son of God,” which, as we all know, occurs very often in the New Testament. But in the New Testament it is applied to the historical Jesus, either with reference to his birth out of the Spirit of God, (Luke 1:35.) or because the Spirit came down upon Jesus at his baptism, (Mark 4:11.) or without reference to a date of its entrance because the Spirit of God lived in him, (Rom. 1:3.) or because Jesus was the Messiah, (Matt. 16:16.) or because he stood in a unique position of love toward God. (Matt. 11:27.) The term, “the only begotten Son,” too, only signifies what was mentioned last. For the Greek equivalent for “only begotten” does not mean anything else than unique or peerless. And it was not modern exegesis that first interpreted the term “Son of God” thus. In the first half of the fourth century Marcellus of Ancyra emphatically pointed out that in the New Testament Jesus is called the Son of God only after the incarnation, and not in his pre-existence. And the older apostolic fathers, the so-called first epistle of Clement, dating from about 95 A. D., and the Ignatian letters interpret the term “Son of God” in this manner only.

[2] It is easier to show, secondly, that the idea of the triune God, as dogmatized later, is foreign to the New Testament. We surely find the belief in the New Testament that God was in Christ, and that the Holy Spirit that lives in the single Christians and in the whole community is the spirit of God. That God the Father reveals himself also in the Son and in the Spirit, that is a conviction which is in accordance with the New Testament. But there cannot be the least doubt, nor can we alter the fact, that when  the New Testament speaks of “God,” it is thinking only of the one God whom Jesus called his Father and the Father of the faithful, too. This is shown without the shadow of a doubt by the apostolic greeting: “Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:2; II Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1.) And the case is not different throughout the New Testament. In the Gospel of John, in the high-priestly prayer of Jesus, we even read: “This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3.) Also the well-known prayerful wish of the apostle Paul: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all”(II Cor. 13:13.) points in the same direction. For the apostle does not speak here about three persons in the one God, but about the love of the one God, and in addition thereto, or better: in connection with it, of the grace of Jesus Christ and the communion of the Holy Ghost.

[3] It is easier still to show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views in a third respect. According to the  orthodox Christology, the personal subject, the supreme I, of the historical Jesus is the second person of the holy Trinity. Does the fact that Jesus prayed harmonize with this? Does the circumstance that he said to Mary Magdalene: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God and your God,” (John 20:17.) harmonize with it? We have seen, indeed, that the self-consciousness of Jesus surpassed the measure of a human self-consciousness. But can we deny that in the whole New Testament a human self-consciousness is the frame in which the inner life of Jesus first comes to our notice? His humility, his obedience, his trust in God cannot be interpreted differently. We shall discuss in the last lecture how this view can be reconciled with the fact that the frame of a human self-consciousness proves to be too strait to make the personality of Jesus intelligible. Here it will suffice to have shown that the orthodox Christology which considers a divine person as the personal subject in Christ does not correspond with the New Testament views. 

[4] The fourth point I wish to mention is, that the experiences of Jesus, like his self-consciousness, are at variance with orthodox Christology. Orthodoxy of all ages was worried by the fact that we are told of Jesus, with regard to his youth, that “he increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men.” (Luke 2:52.) Could this be harmonized with the assumption that the real subject of the historical Jesus was the eternal Son of God? Orthodoxy of ancient times considered these two statements as being harmonized by the assertion that the eternal Son of God grew, suffered, and died only according to his human nature. But who will deny that our very self itself is growing during our life? And certainly it sounds very forced to say that the Son of God, who by his own nature could never suffer, suffered nevertheless in his human flesh and in his human soul! Surely such forced constructions are quite foreign to the New Testament.

[5] Fifthly and lastly, I shall have to point out that in the New Testament Jesus, even after his exaltation, appears in such an organic connection with the human race as hardly to agree with orthodox Christology. Especially those very writers of the New Testament who most obviously do not assume that the life of Jesus was a purely human one viz., Paul and John make this very clear. For Paul the risen Lord “is the first-born from the dead,” (Col. 1:18.) “the first-born among many brethren.” (Rom. 8:29.) The faithful, in Paul’s opinion, are predestinated by God “to be conformed to the image of his Son as heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.” (Rom. 8:29 and 8:17.) Very similarly we read in the high-priestly prayer in the Gospel of John: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:16.)  and: “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; (John 17:24.) “that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, . . . that they may be one even as we are one; (John 17:21.) and “Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:23.) In Revelation we find the same thoughts. Here the exalted Christ says: “He that overcometh I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father in his throne.” (Rev.  3:21) . . .  

These five points show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views. And those who are impartial enough to see this are thereby convinced that the old orthodox Christology cannot give us the correct interpretation of the historical person of Jesus.

More religious articles.

Beware of the Satanic Dream of Nimrod

Beware of the Satanic Dream of Nimrod

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: This article was submitted in 1988 to the "Southern National Newsletter" of the Southern National Party.]

One of the greatest threats that faces the Caucasian-white (Aryan) Christian today is his ignorance of the dream of Nimrod. This ignorance has brought the South to the verge of destruction that it faces today.

The dream of Nimrod[1] is a universal brotherhood of man with its concomitant one-world government, economy, culture, religion, and race. The dream of Nimrod is the universal one-world state with its socialist economy and totalitarian government. (Whether this government is democratic, aristocratic, oligarchic, or autocratic in form matters little. By the nature of its objective, universal brotherhood, it would have to be totalitarian.) The society of Nimrod would have one culture, language, religion, and race. The difference among men could not be tolerated.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting a political system that consolidates and concentrates political power in the hands of the majority (democracy), which is often erroneously and euphemistically called the people, a particular class or faction (aristocracy), a small group (oligarchy), a particular religious order or sect (ecclesiarchy), or an individual (autocracy or monarchy), beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting communism, socialism, fascism, mercantilism, protectionism, welfare statism, or any other economic system where political power is used to transfer wealth from one group to another, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting a social system that accepts racial integration, miscegenation, homosexualism, adultery, fornication, licentiousness, debauchery, governmental indoctrination of children (public education), human sacrifice (abortion and euthanasia), and other forms of moral degeneracy, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting humanity while belittling the spiritual or advocating or exalting atheism, agnosticism, Gnosticism, animism, naturalism, Marxism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Calvinism, Unitarian Universalism, Quakerism, and other forms of secular humanism, paganism, pseudo-religion, or universal religion, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

That a person advocates one or more of the aforementioned positions does not necessarily mean that he is possessed by the dream of Nimrod. Nevertheless, the more consistent a person is in advocating these positions, the more likely that he is possessed. If a person advocates a political, economic, social, or religious system that resembles Nimrod’s, i.e., systems that concentrate and consolidate power and create uniformity, he is most likely possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

Most of today’s political, business, labor, social, and religious leaders, however, are possessed by the dream of Nimrod. They seek a satanic universal state with its one-world socialistic economy and government and its satanic society and culture of debauchery and licentiousness. They seek to destroy the Heavenly Father and His Christ.

The South is one of the few strongholds[2] of Caucasian-white [Aryan] Christians remaining in the world today. For this reason, those possessed by the satanic dream of Nimrod are diligently working to destroy the South. Only a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States can, with God’s help, save the South from the demonic dream of Nimrod. Only then will the Southern States be able to drive these modern-day Nimrods from among them. Only then will the Southern States be able to defend themselves from the dream of Nimrod and those possessed by his dream. Only then will the people of the South be able to live free and enjoy the liberties that God intended them to have. They would then become a beacon guiding their Caucasian-white [Aryan] brethren in Europe, the Soviet Empire, and the remainder of the Americas to throw off their oppressors.

Endnotes

1. Nimrod was the architect of the Tower of Babel. His goal was to rule the world and all mankind. Before God intervened, Nimrod was well on his way to establishing a universal state with one government, religion, culture, language, and race.

2. South Africa, especially the Afrikaner, is perhaps the only other stronghold of any significance remaining. This is why the world powers are trying to destroy South Africa with a race war and turn it into a Soviet colony. Unfortunately for the South African Whites, their “leaders” betrayed them. Now, the Afrikaner faces genocide as thorough as the genocide of the Indian tribes in the Americas, many of whom are now extinct. [Note: This article was written before the Afrikaners and other White South Africans were betrayed by their "leaders," who surrendered almost unconditionally to African Negroes.]

Copyright © 1988, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel

Thomas Allen

In “Daniel’s 70 Weeks,” which is based on a lecture by Emma Moore Weston, Charles Gilbert Weston gives a different explanation of Daniel’s 70 weeks or 490 years than that given by dispensationalists. (https://www.gospeltruth.net/scofield.htm.)

Daniel 9:24-27 (World English Bible) reads:

24 “Seventy weeks are decreed on your people and on your holy city, to finish disobedience, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.

25 “Know therefore and discern that from the going out of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Anointed One, the prince, will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times. 26 After the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One will be cut off, and will have nothing. The people of the prince who come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end will be with a flood, and war will be even to the end. Desolations are determined. 27 He will make a firm covenant with many for one week. In the middle of the week he will cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. On the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate; and even to the full end, and that determined, wrath will be poured out on the desolate.”

In Daniel 9:24-27, each day equals a year. The 70 weeks or 490 years began with the Jews returning to Jerusalem from Babylon in 457 BC. Thus, rebuilding Jerusalem accounts for the first seven weeks or 49 years. From the return to Jerusalem until the baptism of Jesus accounts for 69 weeks or 483 years. So far, Weston and the dispensationalists agree. The last week or seven years is where they disagree.

Weston understands the second part of verse 26 (“The people of the prince . . .”) to be a parenthetical statement because it is outside the 70 weeks. Titus is the prince and the Roman soldiers are the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD and turned the country into an uninhabitable desolation.

Verse 27 pertains to the final week or seven years of the 70 weeks or 490 years. This final week is where the principal disagreement between Weston and dispensationalists occurs. Whereas Weston has the final week or seven years immediately following the 69 weeks or 483 years, dispensationalists have a lengthy gap between the 69 weeks and the final week.

Many dispensationalists identify the covenant in verse 27 as a treaty between the Antichrist and the Israelis, who are, according to John, antichrist. After three and a half years, the Antichrist breaks the agreement, and the Great Tribulation begins. Other dispensationalists have the Great Tribulation beginning at the start of the seven years. Most have the Christians being raptured at the Great Tribulation’s beginning whenever it occurs. The Great Tribulation ends when Christ returns.

Weston objects to this explanation. This covenant is the New Covenant that the Messiah makes.

According to Weston, the final week or seven years is “the dawn of the Son of righteousness . . . and the focal point of the Covenants of promise, of typology and of prophecy. . . . This one week is the historical, chronological, moral and redemptive fulcrum of all the ages of the human race.” (P. 29.)

At the end of the 69 weeks or 483 years, God identified Jesus as His Messiah when John baptized him. The 69 weeks or 483 years began in 457 BC with Artaxerxes’ decree and ended in 27 AD when God identified Jesus as His Messiah. In 27 AD, the final week or seven years began. In 34 AD, three and a half years after Jesus was crucified, the final week ended with the death of Stephen and the scattering of Christians in Jerusalem.

Thus, Daniel’s prophecy of 70 weeks or 490 years has been fulfilled. It began in 457 BC and ended in 34 AD.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on Paul’s Letter to American Christians

King on Paul’s Letter to American Christians

Thomas Allen

In "Paul’s Letter to American Christians," Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 145–153, Martin Luther King, Jr. presents an imaginary letter from the Apostle Paul. This letter expresses King’s views and objectives. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

This imaginary letter begins with the imaginary Paul discussing scientific and technological advancements. Then, Paul observes “that your moral progress lags behind your scientific progress, your mentality outdistances your morality, and your civilization outshines your culture. . . . Through your scientific genius you have made of the world a neighborhood, but you have failed to employ your moral and spiritual genius to make of it a brotherhood.” (P. 146.) (Hereafter, I substitute King for Paul because King is the real author of the letter.)

Next, King expresses his concern about Christians giving “their ultimate allegiance to man-made systems and customs.” (P. 146.) They fear being different and want to be accepted socially. For many, “morality merely reflects group consensus. In your modern sociological lingo, the mores are accepted as the right ways. You have unconsciously come to believe that what is right is determined by Gallup polls.” (P. 147.) (King is chastising Christians for supporting segregation instead of integration. They supported segregation because they feared being different and wanted to be socially accepted. Today, many Christians support integration because they fear being different and want to be socially accepted. Would King condemn these Christians? Most likely, he would not. Nevertheless, the Christian segregationists follow the teaching of the Bible while the integrationist Christians do not. [See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen.])

Quoting Paul’s letter to the Romans, King urges Christians not to conform to this world. (Since integration dominates America today, conforming to this world requires one to be an integrationist. That King would condemn conformity today is highly unlikely. More likely, he would rebuke nonconformity because today nonconformity requires one to be a segregationist.)

Thus, King correctly states that a Christian’s “highest loyalty is to God, and not to the mores or the folkways, the state or the nation, or any man-made institution.” (P. 147.) (Since God created humans “and the bounds of their habitation” [Acts 17:26], God is a racial segregationist and not a racial integrationist. Therefore, Christians should support racial segregation and oppose racial integration. King urges Christians to do the opposite of what the Bible teaches.)

Continuing, King remarks that if “any earthly institution or custom conflicts with God’s will,” (p. 147) Christians have to oppose it. (Since segregation is God’s will, then Christians have to oppose racial integration.)

Next, King states, “You must be willing to challenge unjust mores, to champion unpopular causes, and to buck the status quo.” (P. 147.) (For those who lambaste me, I am merely following King’s advice. I am challenging unjust mores of diversity, inclusion, equity, discrimination against Whites, and the genocide of Southerners. I am championing unpopular causes of racial separation, anti-Zionism, and non-interventionism. I am bucking the status quo of integration, amalgamation, American imperialism, and Zionism. Today, King would condemn anyone following his advice because today’s mores, causes [except peace], and status quo are what he advocated.)

Then, King condemns what he considers the misuse of capitalism. He denounces having concentrated wealth in the hands of a few and having “taken necessities from the masses and given luxuries to the classes.” (Pp. 147-148.) However, Communism does not solve this problem because “Communism is based on an ethical relativism, a metaphysical materialism, a crippling totalitarianism, and a withdrawal of basic freedom.” (P. 148.) (At least, King recognizes the evils of Communism. Nevertheless, Communism is the ultimate merger of big business with big government as the two become one.)

King asserts that America’s “powerful economic resources to eliminate poverty from the earth,” must be used to eliminate domestic and global poverty. (Thus, he promotes the redistribution of wealth.)

Next, King discusses the church. He notes, “When the church is true to its nature, it knows neither division nor disunity.” (P. 148.) (When the church replaced the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King, which grew into wokeism, the church became so divisive that many people left it.) He sees the multiplicity of denominations as a tragedy. (A nineteenth Methodist clergyman agreed with King. He believed that all the denominations should unite as one. According to him, when all these denominations agreed that the Methodist doctrines were the correct doctrines, then they could become one.) King is a proponent of ecumenicalism. (So are Communists and Communist sympathizers [ see “Ecumenism” by Thomas Allen].) He endorses the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches and notes that most major denominations are affiliated with one or both councils. (Members of these councils have abandoned the gospel of Jesus and preach the gospel of King, wokeism, amalgamation, and the LBGTQ+ agenda.)

Continuing, King complains about having a White church and a Negro church. (In the South, both Whites and Negroes went to the same church until Negroes wanted to segregate. They wanted to be independent. King wanted to strip them of this independence. Did he prefer Negroes being dependent on Whites?)

Then, King moans about Christians using the Bible to justify segregation and to assert that the Negro is innately inferior. (First, many stories in the Bible teach segregation. Few, if any, teach integration. Second, King does not define what he means by inferior. In surviving and reproducing in the higher latitudes, Whites are superior to Negroes. In surviving and reproducing in the lower latitudes, Negroes are superior to Whites. Turanians are superior to both because they can naturally survive and reproduce in both the higher and lower latitudes. Further, in boxing, Negroes have an advantage over Whites because they have thicker skull bones and a longer arm reach.)

To support his claim that the Bible supports integration, King cites Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (I assume that King is emphasizing “neither Jew nor Greek.” Jews and Greeks are ethnicities of the same race, the White race. So it does not support racial integration. Moreover, if Paul is taken literally, he is endorsing transgenderism and bisexualism —”neither male nor female.” [If Christian integrationists can use this verse to support integration, then LGBTQ+ adherents can use it to support transgenderism and bisexualism. After all, it more clearly supports transgenderism and bisexualism than it does integration.])

Continuing, King cites Acts 17:26: “. . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” (P. 149.) (First, whatever blood means in this verse, it is not what King implies. A person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from an analysis of his blood [for a detailed discussion, see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen]. Second, King fails to quote the end of this verse, which reads, “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” He does not cite it because it supports segregation. More than supporting segregation, it supports racial separation.)

After citing these verses, King urges Americans “to be rid of every aspect of segregation.” (P. 149.) (Americans did get rid of every aspect of segregation. It has granted Negroes benefits and privileges beyond King’s imagination. It has opened its borders to unlimited numbers of nonwhites. Integration has been so successful that some Negroes now seek segregation. White America is dying and traditional American culture is dead. The Constitution is meaningless trash. Queerdom, wokeism, and Zionism, which controls all, now dominate. Black power has replaced White power. Is the country now better off following King than it was before 1960?)

King claims that segregation “destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible.” (P. 149.) (Integration has been far more destructive. America was much more unified under segregation than under integration. Integration is tearing the country apart — that is the mentality behind integration is tearing the country apart.)

Further, King hopes that “the churches of America will play a significant role in conquering segregation.” (P. 150.) (They did, and the country is dying because of their victory.) The church must challenge the status quo. (Since integration is now the status quo, King would object to the church challenging today’s status quo.) “The church must move out into the arena of social action.” (P. 150.) (It did and now the church is dying. That is the price it paid for replacing the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King, wokeism, and social justice.)

Then, King offers Negroes advice on overthrowing segregation. They should “[n]ever succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter.” (P. 150.) (Many did, and many still are although they have won nearly everything that King sought and are now the dominating race in America.) They should “move with dignity and discipline using love as your chief weapon.” (P. 150.) (Few Negroes followed this advice. Even King failed to follow it. He claims that love was his weapon, yet his chief weapons were violence and the threat of violence.) Further, they should never hate. (Again, King and many Negroes failed. He hated most Southerners and all segregationists.)

King writes, “If you sow the seeds of violence in yourself you sow the seeds of violence in your struggle, unborn generations will reap the whirlwind of social disintegration.” (P. 151.) (King and other civil rights leaders sowed the seeds of violence. Now, we are reaping the whirlwind of social disintegration.)

Continuing, King states, “In your struggle for justice, let your oppressor know that you have neither a desire to defeat him nor a desire to get even with him for injustices that he has heaped upon you.” (P. 151.) (King, most other civil rights leaders, and most Negroes wanted Whites to know that the Negro had defeated them. To let Whites know that the Negroes had soundly defeated them, Negroes demanded and Whites gave them benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed even at the pinnacle of White supremacy and Jim Crow. Thus, Negroes got their revenge.)

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Unitarianism Around 1860

Unitarianism Around 1860 

Thomas Allen 

In Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine Father, Son and Holy Ghost; A Course of Lectures (Boston: Walker, Wise & Company, 1860), Frederick A. Farley, describes Unitarianism in the mid-nineteenth century. (Today, like most Trinitarian denominations, most Unitarian denominations believe in woke agnosticism that stresses social justice much more than the message of the Bible. Since man can save himself, the state has replaced Jehovah as the God and savior of mankind. Along with worshiping the state, they also worship Moloch and Gaia.) The following is quoted from his book, pages 255 to 259.

  Christian Unitarianism affirms in the first place — That there is One only God; that He is one Person, One Being; that He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God and Father of all mankind. It lays stress not only on the strict personal Unity of God, but especially on His Divine Fatherhood. “To us, there is but One God, the Father.” (1 Cor. 8:6. )

In the second place it affirms — That Jesus is the promised Christ; the Divinely-appointed Messiah or Anointed of God; pre-eminently the Son of God, preeminently the Son of Man: the most distinguished Messenger and Representative, the brightest visible Manifestation of the Invisible God; second only to God in the glory of that office and rank with which He has invested him; one with God by a moral union and harmony of wisdom, will, holiness, and love; acting with the delegated power and authority of the Supreme; by His indwelling Spirit given him without measure, the infallible Teacher of God’s holy Truth; and exalted with the right hand of God to be a Prince and All-sufficient Saviour, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins. “To us there is . . . One Lord, Jesus the Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:6.) 

In the third place it affirms — That the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God; not a distinct person, or person at all; but by and through which, God is always present with us and ready to help, inspire, succor, comfort, enlighten, and sanctify the spirits of His children, will they but seek the precious Gift. (Luke 11:13.)

In the fourth place it affirms — That all men are born innocent; free at birth from all taint of sin and guilt, as they are destitute of holiness; gifted with a nature of glorious capacities, but exposed to temptation, liable to sin, actually sinners; needing the provision which God in His abounding mercy has seen fit to make in the Gospel of His Son for their regeneration and salvation; but free to choose, and therefore, free to accept or reject the offered grace.

In the fifth place it affirms — That the Atonement — At-one-ment — is the Reconciliation of man to God; not of God to man, for that could not be necessary. As the All-gracious Father, He never needed to be reconciled to his human family; but on the contrary, as the crowning expression of his exhaustless compassion and boundless Love, He sent His only-begotten Son into the world, to teach and bear witness to the truth, to labor, suffer, and die for us, that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9.) The divine instructions, the miraculous works, the sinless and perfect life and example, the sufferings and death, the Resurrection, Ascension, and present Intercession of Christ, being all part and parcel of the means appointed in the counsels of the Infinite Mind, for accomplishing this great Reconciliation and Salvation of the world. (Rom. 5:10; 8:30; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19.)

In the sixth place, it affirms — That the Bible is the History and Record of God’s Revelations to our race; furnishing, especially in the New Testament, the Divine, and therefore sufficient Rule of Faith and Practice to all Christian Believers; the Holy and inestimable Volume, which the Inspiration and Providence of God have caused to be written, preserved, and transmitted, for the Religious Instruction of mankind in every succeeding age.

Finally, it affirms — That the present is a life of moral discipline and probation, introductory and preparatory to a higher and an eternal life, in which a righteous judgment and retribution await all, and God will render to every man according to his deeds.

Thus much for the positive or affirmative side. But while thus on the one hand, in contradistinction to all systems of mere Naturalism or Rationalism, Christian Unitarianism affirms the reality of God’s last and fullest revelation in and by Christ and his Gospel, and these as the chief and leading doctrines of that Gospel; on the other, in contradistinction to the popular or received Orthodoxy of the Church, it denies and rejects the following dogmas, viz.:

1st. A Tri-personal God, or Three co-equal, co-eternal Persons in the Godhead.

2d. The Supreme Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It holds, asserts, maintains as earnestly as any form of faith in the Christian Church, his Divinity — his Divine Mission, Office, and Authority; but denies that he is God over all, the Supreme and Eternal God.

3d. The Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit; denying that it is literally a Person; or God in any sense, except as the spirit of a man is the man himself.

4th. The expiatory, vicarious, and infinite Atonement of Christ; with the entire doctrinal scheme of Calvin.

Upon other points, Unitarians, recognizing in others and claiming for themselves the right of private judgment, do not entirely agree, viz. :

I. As to the metaphysical nature of Christ.

1st. Some believe him to have pre-existed, the first in order of time of all created intelligences [sic]; — 

2d. Some believe him to have been born of Mary, but miraculously conceived;—

3d. And some rest on his own declaration for the present, and await God’s pleasure for further light; — “No man (no one) knoweth who the Son is, but the Father.” (Luke 10:22.)

II. As to the Future Punishment of Sin. While they agree in rejecting the popular belief in the eternal damnation of the impenitent, and all believe in a righteous judgment and retribution hereafter; —

1st. Some believe, that the sufferings or punishment of the impenitent will terminate in their annihilation; — 

2d. Others, that all punishment under the righteous and benevolent government of God, must be disciplinary and remedial; and must finally result in the universal recovery of the lost to holiness and happiness;

Finally, others believe, that while progress is the law of the soul, the eternal consequences of unfaithfulness here will be realized hereafter, in the consciously lower plane on which the unfaithful and impenitent must enter, and forever relatively continue, in “the world to come.”

One important item that Farley does not discuss is salvation. Is salvation by faith and only by faith in Jesus and nothing else? Or, is it by faith plus something else, viz.:

– faith in Jesus plus baptism,

– faith in Jesus plus baptism and repentance,

– faith in Jesus plus good works,

– faith in Jesus plus reliance on and commitment to Jesus,

– faith in Jesus plus obedience;

– faith in Jesus plus perseverance until death,

– faith in Jesus plus membership in the correct church or denomination,

– faith in Jesus plus belief in the Trinity Doctrine,

– faith in Jesus plus believing that Jesus is the one true God, i.e., he is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

– faith in Jesus plus speaking in tongues;

– faith in Jesus plus whatever.

Likely, most Unitarians of this era were like most Trinitarians: Salvation was by faith in Jesus plus something else.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on Our God Is Able

King on Our God Is Able

Thomas Allen

In “Our God Is Able,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 109–117, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses the importance of God, evil, colonialism, and segregation. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King declares that Christians are convinced that God exists and that He can “do exceedingly abundant things in nature and in history.” (P. 109.) Moreover, the God whom Christians worship is neither weak nor incompetent.

King rejects the notion “that only man is able” (P. 109) and the substitution of “a man-centered universe for a God-centered universe.” (P. 109.) “The laboratory began to replace the church, and the scientists became a substitute for the prophet.” (P. 110.) Correctly, King writes, “Man is not able to save himself or the world.” (P. 110.)

However, events cause people “to question the ableness of God.” (P. 110.) Evil, both manmade and natural disasters, leads people to question God’s abilities. Why “do these things occur if God is able to prevent them?” (P. 110.) King’s answer is “that there is and always will be a penumbra of mystery surrounding God.” (P. 110-111.) (Instead of admitting their ignorance, especially about questions about God, most preachers will assert that it is a mystery, which may be true, but why do they not simply say that they do not know? Moreover, much confusion about God results from manmade doctrines.)

Although man may believe that he is the master of the physical universe, God sustains it. To defeat man-centered arrogance, King describes some of the things that God has done, such as the God-created solar system.

Then, King discusses God’s ability “to subdue all the powers of evil.” (P. 112.) To Christians, evil is real. “History is the story of evil forces that advance with seemingly irresistible power only to be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice. There is a law in the moral world — a silent, invisible imperative, akin to the laws in the physical world — that reminds us that life will work only in a certain way.” (P. 112.) To support his claim, King cites some examples.

To King, colonialism is one of the world’s great examples of evil. (Whether or not colonialism was evil, it brought a great deal of benefits to Africa. Before the arrival of Europeans, the people of sub-Sahara Africa sat on vast unused agricultural and mineral resources. Europeans taught Africans how to develop and use these resources. Europeans greatly improved the health and safety of the Africans. Furthermore, they brought the Africans the gospel of Jesus. Because of the colonial exploitation of European powers, Africans enjoy a much higher standard of living today than they would have if the Europeans never arrived. Nevertheless, colonialism has led to the destruction of the colonial powers. Consequently, contrary to what King would argue, Africa has benefitted more from colonialism than has Europe. To King, Africans exploiting Europe is justice.)

Also, to King, segregation is another great evil. (Since God is the Great Segregationist, how can segregation be evil? While the Bible endorses and teaches segregation and separation, it condemns integration and amalgamation.) Further, King claims that segregation “inflicted the Negro with a sense of inferiority, deprived him of his personhood, and denied him his birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (P. 113.) (If true, integration should have liberated everyone, both White and Black, from the debilitating effects of segregation. Then, why are Negroes still complaining in this fully integrated America where Negroes have benefits and privileges that Whites never had? Why are Negroes segregating themselves from Whites? Why do so many Whites feel so deprived of personhood that they hate their own race and long for its genocide? Why are Whites being denied their birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — what are affirmative action, quotas, and many other privileges and benefits that Negroes have that are denied Whites if not a denial of the birthright of Whites? In the 1960s, the righteousness of integration slew the evil of segregation. If integration is righteous and segregation is evil, why have the United States been disintegrating ever since? Now the United States are on the verge of shattering.)

King sees the end of colonialism and segregation as “the passing of systems that were born in injustice, nurtured in inequality, and reared in exploitation. They represent the inevitable decay of any system based on principles that are not in harmony with the moral laws of the universe.” (P. 113.) He views the end of colonialism and segregation as evidence of “God working through history for the salvation of man.” (P. 113.) (As noted above, Africans have benefitted more from European colonialism than have the Europeans. Moreover, segregation is in harmony with the moral laws of the universe. Integration is disharmony, which is why the integrated Western world is dying. Integration replacing segregation has nothing to do with the salvation of man. More correctly, the replacement is God working through history to chastise Whites.)

Next, King states, “God is able to conquer the evils of history.” (P. 114.) (Thus, hope exists that God will eventually conquer the evils of integration and amalgamation, which His holy book condemns.) He laments that integration is not progressing as quickly as he desires. Further, he asserts that God is walking with the Negro in his “sometimes difficult and often lonesome walk up freedom's road.” (P. 114.) (Now, Negroes have walked so far up freedom’s road that they can steal and wantonly destroy property with immunity. Moreover, Negroes have enslaved Whites to support them through welfare, job preferences [more qualified Whites have to give their jobs to less qualified Negroes], etc. If a person is unfamiliar with the demographics of the United States, watching American television would convince him that a majority of Americans are Negroes, and American television commercials would convince him that most marriages are interracial. Since the days of King, Negroes have come a long way.)

Continuing, King notes that if people disobey the absolute moral laws of the universe, these laws will break them. (Since racial segregation and separation is a moral law of the universe, the country grew stronger while practicing it. However, since America has abandoned racial segregation and separation in favor of integration and amalgamation, it has been deteriorating toward its death.)

Next, King states, “Christianity affirms that God is able to give us the power to meet them [problems and disappointments]. . . . He is able to provide inner peace amid outer storms.” (P. 115.) Then, he discusses the good times leading people away from God and the bad times drawing them back. Also, people relying on gods other than the one true God results in disasters. (America is witnessing the disastrous results of relying on King and his gospel instead of Jesus and his gospel.)

In closing, King gives a brief discussion of how the Montgomery protest affected him.

In this essay, King gives an excellent discussion on the necessity and importance of God. However, his discussion of evil begins well but ends with erroneous assertions about colonialism and segregation being evil. Colonialism has benefitted Africa far more than it benefitted the European colonial powers. Also, since the Bible teaches, endorses, and promotes segregation, it can hardly be evil.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Christian Zionists

Christian Zionists

Thomas Allen

Christian Zionists are peculiar people. Of their theology, their most important doctrine is based on the commentary of Cyrus I. Scofield, primarily the futurist school interpretation of Revelation with the rapture. Zionist Jews financially aided Scofield in writing his Zionist commentary, which proselytizes for Zionism, and promoted his Bible.

Most Christian Zionists seem to confuse “Jew,” “Zionism,” and “Israel.” They consider them to be nearly synonymous. However, they differ significantly.

“Jew” is an ethnicity. Anyone born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, with the possible exception of a person born of a nonwhite Jewish mother. Although many Jews practice Judaism to some degree, many Jews are atheists or agnostics or are areligious. The only way that a person born a Jew ceases to be a Jew is to convert to Christianity.

“Zionism” is a political movement. Its objective is to convert Palestine into a Jewish homeland governed by Jews. Some Zionists expand the boundaries to cover all the land between the Euphrates and the Nile. What surprises many Christian Zionists is that not all Jews are Zionists and oppose establishing a country for Jews.

“Israel” is a country governed by Jews that covers most of what used to be Palestine. Only about 46 percent of the world’s Jews live in Israel.

Moreover, Christian Zionists delude themselves by believing that those who call themselves Jews but are not are God’s chosen people. Almost none of today’s Jews are descended from Judah or even Jacob, Israel. Ironically, their theology has led the Christian Zionists to support outlawing the New Treatment and to root for the slaughter of Jews.

With the support of Christian Zionists, the United States House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. It codifies the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This definition leads to outlawing the New Testament, which has been a goal for Jews for centuries. One example that IHRA gives as antisemitic is “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews. . . .” Jesus told the Jewish leaders that they were the children of the devil (John 8:44) and called them hypocrites (Matthew 15:7; 23:13-15; 23:23, 25, 27. 29). Thus, from a Jewish perspective, he made mendacious, dehumanizing, and demonizing allegations. Therefore, Jesus is antisemitic. Since the New Testament is the story of Jesus that glories him, it is antisemitic and, consequently, illegal under the Antisemitism Awareness Act.

Furthermore, Paul wrote much of the New Testament. Like Jesus, Paul is also an antisemite. According to IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, anyone who makes “claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel” is an antisemite. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, Paul states that the Jews killed Jesus. Therefore, Paul is an antisemite.

Further, Christian Zionists imply, if not outright claim, that the Bible states that God blesses those who bless Israel (Jews) and curses those who curse Israel. Many insinuate that “Israel” refers to the country of Israel. On the contrary, according to the Bible, God blesses those who bless Abraham, who was not a Jew or an Israelite, and curses those who curse him (see “Commentary on Genesis 12:3" by Thomas Allen). No country has supported Zionism, Israel, and the Jews as much as the United States. This support even extends to giving Israel and Jews control of the US government. Yet, instead of being blessed, the United States have been cursed (see “The Results of Supporting Zionism and Israel” by Thomas Allen).

Also, some Christian Zionists claim that if a person does not promote Zionism and support Israel despite what it does, that person is not a Christian. Such a person needs to be shunned, disfellowshiped, and excommunicated.

Additionally, most Christian Zionists do not know that Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived together in Palestine peacefully before the Balfour Declaration of 1917. In 1920, of the population of Palestine, about 11 percent were Palestinian Christians, about 10 percent were Jews, and the remainder were Muslims. By 1940, the population of Palestine was about 8 percent Christians, 30 percent Jews, and 62 percent Muslims.

After World War I, Jews began moving to Palestine and creating strife, primarily by driving Palestinians from their land. Following World War II, Jews began pouring into Palestine in large numbers and stealing Palestinian land. Palestinian attacks against Israel and Israeli attacks against the Palestinians are just a continuation of the war that the Jews started following World War II to steal Palestinian land.

Many Christian Zionists fail to understand why Palestinians do not accept their plight and get on with their lives. They assert that today’s Palestinians should not hold today’s Jews responsible for the wrongs committed more than 7 decades ago by other Jews against other Palestinians. However, most of today’s Palestinians do not hold Jews who came to Palestine in the late 1940s and early 1950s responsible for what is happening to Palestinians today. They hold today’s Jews accountable for what they have done to Palestinians in recent years and decades. Israelis have continued to steal Palestinian land and murder Palestinians.

Furthermore, Christian Zionists show their compassionate Christian love by cheering for the extermination of Palestinians, i.e., the genocide of Palestinians. They rejoice over killing Palestinian children (future terrorists) and women (breeders of future terrorists). On top of that, many claim that Palestinians are subhumans, who do not and have never existed. That group that calls themselves Palestinians is no more than squatters who illegally occupied land that belongs to the Jews. Moreover, Palestine never existed. (Apparently, the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, ninth edition, 1890, were too stupid or too ignorant to know that Palestine did not exist because they wrote eight pages describing Palestine. Also, Joel must not have received the notice that Palestine does not exist; he mentions Palestine in Joel 3:4.)

If nothing else, Christian Zionists are hypocrites. Out of one side of their mouth, Christian Zionists claim to care for Israel and the Jews and want to provide them unlimited aid. Out of the other side of their mouth, they want and pray for a world war in which most Jews are killed. Moreover, since most Christian Zionists are members of the rapture cult, they believe that they will not be on earth to enjoy the slaughter of the Jews. They will enjoy the slaughter safely in heaven.

Jews and vaccines have one thing in common. Both are sacred and are innocent of causing any problems or adverse effects. They are immune to criticism because they can do no wrong.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

King on Love in Action

King on Love in Action

by Thomas Allen

In “Love in Action,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 31–41, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses Jesus’s crucifixion and the lessons it teaches, such as forgiveness and spiritual blindness, and the need for moral enlightenment. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King cites Luke 23:34: “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (P. 33) (Once more, King does not practice what he preaches. He never seems to forgive Southerners and segregationists for resisting his agenda.)

Continuing, King praises Jesus for his ability to match his words with action. (King often fails to match his words with action. However, he does imply that he fails to meet the standards set by Jesus.) He chastises people for promoting the principles of Christianity but who practice paganism, who claim that they want peace while preparing for war, or who ardently plea for justice yet pursue injustice.

Next, King discusses Jesus’s teaching about forgiveness. (However, King seldom shows forgiveness for Southerners and never for segregationists.) He notes, “Forgiveness is not an occasional act; it is a permanent attitude.” (P. 33.) (King never acquires this attitude.)

Then, King writes, “Yet Jesus taught them that only through a creative love for their enemies could they be children of their Father in heaven and also that love and forgiveness were absolute necessities for spiritual maturity.” (P. 33.) (Based on his attitude toward Whites in general and Southerners and segregationists in particular, King never achieves spiritual maturity.)

Continuing, King comments, “The potential beauty of human life is constantly made ugly by man’s ever-recurring song of retaliation.”  (P. 34.) (In a sense, King’s movement is based on retaliation — getting even for wrongs, real or perceived. It is void of the forgiveness that Jesus taught and that King claims that people ought to have.)

Next, King states his opposition to capital punishment. “Capital punishment is society’s final assertion that it will not forgive.” (P. 34.) He seems to imply that criminals should not be punished for their crimes (except segregationists). (Perhaps the reason that he opposes punishing criminals for their crimes is that on a per capita basis, Negroes commit far more crimes than other races. Also, many of his followers are rioters who are arrested for various crimes although most are never tried.)

Then, King remarks that Jesus “did not seek to overcome evil with evil. He overcame evil with good.” (P. 35.) (Once again, King falls short of Jesus’s teachings. His movement has brought far more evil than good.)

Besides forgiveness, King states that Jesus taught about people’s spiritual blindness. The men who urged his crucifixion “were not bad men but rather blind men.” (P. 35.) (Many of the men who advocated the crucifixion of Jesus were bad men, such as the Pharisees, who were disciples of Lucifer.)

According to King, people who consider war as the solution to the problems of the world, are not bad men but are blind. (Contrary to what King claims, many of these men are not blind; they are bad men. They are disciples of Lucifer; they are evil people.)

Correctly, King asserts, “Wisdom born of experience should tell us that war is obsolete.” (P. 36.) (The way that most political systems are designed, the worst men become rulers. Most rulers are power-hungry, sociopathic, sadistic miscreants. Most of the rest are stupid puppets whom power-hungry, sociopathic, sadistic miscreants manipulate and control. Rarely does a wise statesman rule.)

King is a proponent of disarmament. (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to promote disarmament even if it is unilateral.)

Then, King proceeds to comment on slavery. “Slavery in America was perpetuated not merely by human badness but also by human blindness.” (P. 37.) (Whereas King excuses most other evils, including the crucifixion of Jesus, as a result of human blindness, he declares that slavery in America resulted primarily from human badness.) “Men convinced themselves that a system that was so economically profitable must be morally justifiable.” (P. 37.) (No mention is made of Africans enslaving their fellow Negroes and selling Negro slaves for a profit to Europeans and others.) To justify slavery, theories of racial superiority were developed. (Racial supremacy did not disappear with the civil rights movement. It merely shifted from White supremacy to Black supremacy.) Religion, the Bible, philosophy, and science were mobilized to support White supremacy. (Now, religion, the Bible, philosophy, and science are mobilized to prove White inferiority.)

Continuing, King states that the blindness that justified slavery is found in racial segregation. He writes, “Although some men are segregationists merely for reasons of political expediency and economic gain, not all of the resistance to integration is the rear-guard of professional bigots.” (P. 38.) Some seek to preserve segregation because they believe that it “is best for themselves, their children, and their nation.” (P. 38.) (Segregation was less divisive and destructive than integration has been. Integration has been so demoralizing and destructive that today more Negroes are openly segregationists than are Whites.)

Correctly, King comments that segregationists claim that God is the first segregationist. Then, to disprove their argument, he offers the absurd example that some segregationists used: “Red birds and black birds don’t fly together.” (These segregationists failed to use an authentic and appropriate example of God being the first segregationist. God segregated Cain from his family after he killed Able.) 

Next, King claims that the segregationist argument that the Negro’s brain is smaller than the brain of the White man is pseudo-science. (The notion that Negroes have smaller brains on average is not pseudo-science. Actual measurements show that the average Negro brain is smaller than the average White brain.)

To support his assertion that the idea of an inferior or superior race is false, King cites several anthropologists, all of whom are left-wing Negrophiles. (If no inferior or superior races exist, why is the White race considered so inferior that it must be exterminated and policies are in place to genocide it? Such policies include miscegenation, unrestricted nonwhite immigration, affirmative action, and never-ending wars involving countries that are predominately White.)

Then, King says that the four primary types of blood are found in all races. (Nevertheless, a person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his blood. See “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen.)

Correctly, King writes, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” (P. 39.) (The history of the United States for the last 160 years proves this statement. Unfortunately, sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity have been accelerating at an accelerating pace as the years pass. The point has been reached that if the White race becomes any more ignorant and stupid, it will perish. When it perishes, so will Western Civilization and the material advantages that it has given the world.)

Then, King comments that the church is the moral guardian of the community. It must continuously remind people “that they have a moral responsibility to be intelligent.” (P. 39.) However, the church has often failed in this task. (Obviously, King is saying that the church has failed to condemn adequately the sin of segregation and to preach fervently the virtues of integration. Today, the reverse is true: Segregation is ardently condemned, and integration is fervently praised. Is the country, which now is close to splintering, any better off?)

Continuing, King remarks that Christians need to avoid intellectual and moral blindness. (That is, they need to support integration and oppose segregation. Also, they need to support a guaranteed annual income and the welfare states.) Not only must people conquer their sins, they must also conquer their ignorance.

King warns that if Western Civilization continues to degenerate, it will fall hopelessly into a bottomless void. (The programs and policies advocated by King, most of which Western Civilization has adopted, have hastened this deterioration.)

King notes that “intellectual and moral blindness is a dilemma that man inflicts upon himself by his tragic misuse of freedom and his failure to use his mind to its fullest capacity.” (P. 40.) (Unfortunately, King was never able to overcome his intellectual or moral blindness. On the contrary, he seemed to have reveled in them.) Continuing, he writes, “Only through the bringing together of head and heart —  intelligence and goodness — shall man rise to a fulfillment of his true nature.” (P. 40.) (Again, King failed. He never succeeded in uniting intelligence and goodness. He was seldom kind toward Southerners and never toward segregationists. Whatever intelligence that he had, he used to destroy them.) He defines intelligence as “a call for open mindedness, sound judgment, and love for truth.” (P. 40.) (Thus, since King was closed-minded, seldom showed sound judgment, and had little love for the truth, he lacked intelligence. To him, segregationists were closed-minded. Segregationists lacked sound judgment, while integrationists had sound judgment. Segregationists hated the truth, but integrationists loved the truth.)

Except in the eyes of King-idolizing conservatives, King, like the rest of us, falls far short of the example that Jesus gives us. He lacks forgiveness. Moreover, he is spiritually blind. Also, he suffers from sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Regrettably, King fails to practice what he preaches, which is a common human trait.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.