Theology Driving Understanding of the Bible

Theology Driving Understanding of the Bible

Thomas Allen

A person can understand the Bible in terms of his theology or can derive his theology from the Bible. Most fundamentalist and evangelical Christians argue that the Bible should be understood in its most literal sense. One exception is when a figure of speech, such as a metaphor or simile, is obviously being used; for example, the description of Jesus as a lamb in heaven in Revelation should not be understood literally. 

However, these Christians are not consistent in their literalist interpretation. When a literal reading contradicts their theology, they abandon literalism. Thus, they let their preconceived theology drive their understanding of the Bible. The following four examples illustrate this point.

Chapter 4 of Genesis describes Cain leaving his homeland and going to the land of Nod where he finds a wife and raises a family. Literalist fundamentalists and evangelists understand this chapter in light of their theology: the unity of man, all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. These Christians argue that Cain married his sister, whom he apparently carried with him in his exile. However, nowhere does the Bible make this claim or even suggests it. A strictly literal reading of Genesis leads to believing that Cain discovered other people in Nod and married one of them. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that Adam and Eve had any children between Abel and Seth. Moreover, the events of Cain’s arriving in Nod, marrying, and beginning his family seem to have occurred before Seth’s birth. Consequently, Cain could not have married his sister. A strictly literal reading of the Bible leads to the conclusion that people inhabited Nod before Cain’s arrival, and these people were not descendants of Adam. Other events about Cain also support this conclusion, such as his fear of other people killing him, which led to God placing a mark on Cain to warn others not to kill him. 

Instead of understanding Genesis 12:3 literally, fundamentalists and evangelists spiritualize the verse while condemning people who spiritualize Biblical passages.  (Genesis 12:3 reads, “and I will bless them that bless thee [Abraham], and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”) They have to spiritualize this verse because a literal reading conflicts with their premillennialist theology. A literal reading of this verse shows that the promise of blessing and cursing applies to those who bless and curse Abraham. It does not apply to those who bless or curse the country of Israel. Fundamentalists and evangelists spiritualize this verse and claim that it applies not only to Abraham but also to Israel today.

Like most Christian Zionists, literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals argue that today’s Israel is entitled to all the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. This claim is based on Genesis 15:18, which reads, “In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” (Some identify the river of Egypt with the Nile while others identify it with the stream that is now called the Wady el-‘Arish, whose mouth is near Arish.) According to these Christian Zionists, ancient Israel never fulfilled this promise. Therefore, the promise has not yet been fulfilled; it lies in the future. However, Joshua disagrees with these Christian Zionists. According to Joshua 21:43-45, “So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. . . . There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.” Thus, the promise made in Genesis 15:18 occurred in the time of Joshua. Consequently, literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals like most Christian Zionists ignore Joshua for the sake of their premillennialist theology.

Like almost all Christians, these literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals are Trinitarians. They understand the New Testament in the light of the Trinitarian creeds developed in the early centuries of Christianity and elaborated on since then although they disagree on what the Trinity really is. Thus, they let their theology drive their understanding of the Bible.  However, if they read the New Testament literally with an open, unbiased mind, they probably would not arrive at the orthodox Trinity dogma. Most likely, they would arrive at a doctrine similar to what the Arians espoused, which was similar to the subordination doctrine (the Son had a beginning and was subordinate to the Father) that was orthodoxy in the second and third centuries. Or, perhaps, they would arrive at an adoption doctrine (God the Father adopted Jesus the man to be His Son). These two require much less mental gymnastics than does the Trinity doctrine to explain away contradicting passages.

Many Christians start with their preconceived theology and proceed to understand the Bible in light of their preconceived theology. Only a few let the Bible determine their theology. Nevertheless, nearly all Christians of the former group will claim that they derived their theology from the Bible.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

More on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

More on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Thomas Allen

This article reveals more hypocrisy of Biden’s and, by that, America’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Furthermore, these hypocrites are habitual liars. When Biden, Congressmen, federal bureaucrats, and presstitutes tell half-truths, they are telling a whole lie. As J.I. Packer said, “A half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” Nevertheless, as one evangelist said, “People love being lied to.”

The Russia-Ukraine conflict is very simple to understand: Russia is bad; Ukraine is good. Putin and Russia are totally depraved and can do nothing good even if they wanted to, which they do not. Like America and Israel, Ukraine is sinless and can do nothing evil even if it wanted to, which it does not.

Russia attacks its neighbor, and that is bad. Israel attacks its neighbors, and that is good. Russia attacks Ukraine, which is a potential threat to Russia, and that is bad. The United States attack Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, which are on the other side of the world and of no threat to the United States, and that is good.

Biden claims that he wants peace in Ukraine. Yet, he continues to fund Ukraine’s war efforts and to make insulting belligerent remarks toward Putin. Moreover, Biden urges Zelensky to continue to fight the Russians. His deeds do not match his claims. How much of Biden’s urging Zelensky to fight the Russians to the last Ukrainian relates to preventing evidence of the Biden crime family’s crimes from falling into Russian hands?

Both Biden and Zelensky seem to want a nuclear war. Zelensky would rather have the world destroyed by a nuclear war than loses his power over the people within the borders of Ukraine as they were in 2010. Is Biden’s desire for nuclear war on purpose or from stupidity? 

Antichrist

Some rapture-is-imminent futurists identify Putin as the latest Antichrist after Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and other recent candidates have failed to be the Antichrist. John defines the Antichrist as one who denies Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:18, 2:24, and 4:3). When John wrote this definition, he had Jews in mind. Being a Jew, Zelensky meets this definition of the Antichrist while Putin, who seems to be a believer, does not. (Being Antichrist may explain why Zelensky is trying to persuade Biden, who is also Antichrist, into militarily attacking Russia and, by that, precipitating a nuclear war. What a sacrifice they can offer to their master Satan.)

Petrodollar

Moreover, Biden and his administration and their controllers, the oligarchs, are on the verge of destroying the petrodollar, the US dollar. Biden and NATO’s embargo against Russia and their thief of Russian financial reserves have led Russia to sell its natural gas in Russian roubles instead of US dollars. Because they are losing trust in the United States, both China and India are moving toward buying oil and other imports with the yuan and rupee. Even Saudi Arabia is considering selling its oil in currencies besides the US dollar. If countries start buying and selling oil in currencies other than the US dollar, the value of the dollar will collapse and inflation in the United States will soar. Is this destruction of the US dollar being done deliberately, or is it being done out of stupidity?

Fascism

Russia accuses Ukraine of being a neo-Nazi country. Americans accuse Russians of being neo-Nazis. Both are correct. Nearly all countries today have a fascist political economy. (Corporatism, business-government partnershipism, classical fascism, socialism, national socialism [Nazism], and communism are merely different forms of fascism.)

Under fascism, the government heavily regulates businesses primarily for the benefit of its favorites — the business-government partnership. (Communism is the ultimate form of business-government partnership since business and government become the same entity.) Often the government subsidizes favored businesses, such as bailing out banks. Moreover, the government may own some types of industries and businesses, but such ownership is not necessary because regulation and taxation can achieve the same purpose as governmental ownership. Accompanying the economic system is the welfare state.

Moreover, fascist countries are authoritarian in various degrees; some approach totalitarianism, such as Canada and Australia, or even become totalitarian, such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China. True liberty exists in none of them. Nevertheless, the governments of most fascist countries are democratic in that the people elect the principal governmental leaders in elections that are at least as honest as the 2020 US presidential election.

Although not a necessary component of fascism, a common component is a racial or ethnic extermination policy. Under Germany’s national socialism, it was the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, and other “undesirables.” Under the fascism of Western Europe, the United States, White Anglophone countries, and South Africa, it is the extermination of the White race. For Ukraine, it is the extermination of Russians, especially in Donbas. For China, it is the Tibetans and Uyghurs who are being exterminated. The Israeli fascist government seeks the extermination of the Palestinians. Nevertheless, not all fascist countries have racial or ethnic extermination policies.

Another component of fascism is militarism. Many fascist countries today have not adopted this component. However, the United States have incorporated militarism. They have been the most militaristic country in the world since World War II.

Crimea

Some claim that Russia has no right to incorporate Crimea into Russia because it entered a treaty that recognized Crimea as part of Ukraine. Apparently, Crimeans are not allowed to have a say in their political status. Only foreigners have the right to decide Crimea’s political status. That a plebiscite of more than 95 percent voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia does not matter. This plebiscite was at least as honest, probably more honest, than the 2020 US presidential election. So much for democracy!

Conclusion

What America needs is more humility and less arrogance. It needs to purge itself of Yankee Puritanism. America needs to stop patrolling the world and imposing its views, i.e., the views of the oligarchs who control the US government, of proper behavior and forcing countries who deviate from America’s standards and ideals to conform with American standards and ideals.

Hopefully, Americans will wake up before it is too late and see the matrix of lies erected around their lives since at least World War II and throw off their chains. If they do not, they will live the worst of the horrors of Moa’s China — even worst than those depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles. 

A Letter: Tariffs

A Letter: Tariffs

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to two articles published in The New American magazine, which is associated with the John Birch Society.]

    There seems to be some disagreement between two articles in your April 21 issue. Chamberlain argues correctly that tariffs, especially protective tariffs, are detrimental to the economy. Lockman, apparently in agreement with Ellis and Kurowski, whose book he reviews, argues in favor of tariffs as a primary source of revenue for the U. S. government. He evens favors protective tariffs.
    Lockman surely favors taxing imported oil heavily to subsidize domestic oil producers. U.S. industry and military run on oil. They certainly should not rely on foreign supplies. Let us have autarky for everything that the U.S. government considers essential — especially chrome, platinum, and other strategic metals for which there is little or no domestic sources.
    Certainly, not all the Founding Fathers favored protective tariffs. John Taylor of Caroline and many other leading Southern statesmen and agriculturalists realized that tariffs made the farmer a serf and the agricultural Southern States colonies of the Northern bankers and industrialists.
    To rely on Hamilton’s arguments in The Federalist Papers is to rely on the representative of the bankers and industrialists. Hamilton, the author of the federal deficit, was part of what the JBS [John Birch Society] would call the Insiders.
    Another fallacy of Lockman is that tariffs on imports are paid by foreigners. Tariffs on imports are no more paid by foreigners than sales taxes are paid by retailers. If the objective is to get foreigners to support the U.S. government, an impost on exports would be much more effective.
    Tariffs may be an acceptable source of revenue for government — as long as the tariff is uniform without favor to product or country and is no more than about five percent. Once a tariff becomes protective in nature, it subsidizes inefficiency, incompetence, and the politically powerful. It injures the economy in the ways Chamberlain points out — and worse.
    The Southern colonies have but one hope of regaining their lost liberties, free trade, and low taxes. That hope is to follow the example of the Founding Fathers, who seceded from England. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1986 by Thomas C. Allen.

More economic articles.

More Observations on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

More Observations on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Thomas Allen

    These observations are directed mostly at Biden, who is more of a communist than Vladimir Putin, and his administration, the presstitutes, and neoconservatives. When we need adult leadership, all that we have leading us are mental midgets. Whatever they say is most likely a lie. The opposite of what they say is most likely the truth.
    The presstitutes including the neoconservative press have done an effective job in creating irrational hysteria toward everything Russian. People vandalize Russian restaurants even when the owners and workers are not Russian and even express their support for Ukraine. Russian conductors, singers, musicians, and other entertainers are fired and denied employment. Thus, people lose their jobs because their ancestry is Russian. Moreover, the works of Russian composers who died more than a century ago are banned. Even children are bellying children with Russian ancestry. Yes, the media have done a great job of stirring up hate. Hate makes duping gullible sheeple into a senseless war much easier — a war that only transfers ever more wealth and power to the rich and powerful while enslaving the people.
    Moreover, the presstitutes have so thoroughly brainwashed the American people that about one-third want a nuclear war over Ukraine so that Ukraine can shell the Donbas Russians by maintaining a corrupt puppet government in Ukraine and the United States can operate bioweapon laboratories in Ukraine.
    The United States retaliate against Russia by shutting down fast-food restaurants, internet entertainment sites, and some consumer goods exports. Over time, these embargos will make Russia healthier and stronger. Because of Russia’s lack of foresight, many countries have stolen Russia’s foreign exchange reserves, which Russia foolishly left in hostile countries. Fortunately for the United States and Europe, Russia has not yet placed a total embargo on its major exports: energy and minerals. If it does, it will economically destroy Europe and greatly damage the United States’ economy. Furthermore, the United States cannot get to the space station without Russia.
    American politicians and presstitutes promote Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a great defender of democracy. Is the reason that Americans consider Zelensky a great defender of democracy because the Ukrainian government rivals the US government in corruption? Ukraine is a center for laundering money, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, developing biological weapons, and the like for American political and business leaders.
    Although Biden and the presstitutes present Putin as a dictator, he is the duly elected president of Russia. His election was less corrupt than Biden’s. Unlike Biden, Putin did not steal his election; he did not have to steal it.
    Further, Democrats and Republicans are always preaching the virtues of democracy. However, Crimea illustrates their true love of democracy. More than 95 percent of the Crimeans voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia with a plebiscite that was more honest than the 2020 American presidential election. Nevertheless, both Democrats and Republicans reject this vote — so much for their love of democracy. They only love democracy when the vote goes their way. Otherwise, they have no use for democracy. Hypocrites all!
    Moreover, Zelensky is portrayed as the “free” world’s last hope against the great dictator Putin. Zelensky is advanced as a saint, yet he wears the NAZI iron cross.
    Freedom has not existed in the so-called free world since World War II. Many countries in the so-called free world have acted more despotic than Russia in their approach to COVID-19. The West’s approach to COVID-19 proves that it is not the free world. A free world would not have forcibly locked down businesses, forced people to wear masks, forced people to be vaccinated with a deadly experimental gene-therapy drug to work, or forced people to have a vaccine passport to travel or enter places of business. Moreover, a free world would not have forced churches to close, nor would it suppress opposing views or facts. (Here are two articles describing freedom in America: “Freedom” and “A Letter: Freedom American Style.”)
    Biden expresses support for the Ukrainian people. He feels their pain. If he really cared about the Ukrainian people and their country, he would have negotiated with Putin when Russia was begging the United States and NATO to negotiate and, by that, spared Ukraine of this war. Instead of negotiating with Russia, Biden spate in Putin’s face.
    If Biden had wanted to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, he would have entered an enforceable agreement to keep Ukraine from becoming part of NATO. Moreover, he would have pressured Ukraine to cease shelling Donetsk and Luhansk and to keep its agreement to make these two oblasts autonomous. Biden has a great deal of influence over Ukraine. He can prohibit Americans from using Ukraine for money laundering, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, bioweapons laboratories, and other illegal activity. Moreover, he can end military and financial aid to Ukraine.
    Biden does not want peace because he benefits from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Now, Biden can blame Putin for the energy problems, inflation, and other disasters that he (Biden) has caused in America. Consequently, Biden is not man enough to accept responsibility for his disasters. Is this why Biden kept insulting Putin in hopes that Putin would invade Ukraine and, thus, distract the sheeple’s attention from inflation and other crisis that Biden has created? Is this why he continues to verbally attack Putin? Biden needs this conflict to last at least until the November election.
    By letting the war drag on, Putin has under impressed Europe and has encouraged European governments to remain puppets of the United States. Moreover, he encourages NATO to remain an offensive alliance that does the bidding of the United States in maintaining and expanding their imperialistic hegemony. Worse, he has encouraged the United States and NATO to initiate future wars.
    What is saving Ukraine is that Putin and the ruling class in Russia may be as stupid as Biden and his administration although in different ways. Putin is fighting the war the way that wars were fought before Lincoln’s War instead of the way that wars have been fought since 1861 where rules and humanity do not exist. As a result, instead of the war lasting a few days, it has lasted long enough for the United States and NATO to conduct highly successful psychological warfare against Russia. If he had followed Lincoln and the allies in World War II, he would have ignored civilian causalities and utterly destroyed Ukraine in total war. He would fight the Ukrainians the modern away with shock and awe and consider civilian casualties as necessary or even deliberate collateral damage.
    Saber-rattlers express concern about Russia’s attacking military targets near the Polish border to prevent military supplies from reaching the Ukrainian army. For the United States to condemn Russia for these attacks is extremely hypocritical. The United States are notorious for attacking targets in other countries that may be supporting hostile forces in countries where the US military is operating. Cambodia and Syria are good examples. To prevent Cambodia and Syria from supporting those with whom the United States were fighting, they invaded both countries. Thus, the United States do not stop at the borders of the countries in which they are fighting. They also invade any adjacent country that may be supporting the enemy. When one is the biggest bully in the world, one can get away with things that the lessers cannot.
    Why are the Biden administration and neoconservatives so eager to have a war with Russia? Is destroying evidence in Ukraine of the Biden family’s and other American politicians’ corruption the reason? Is transferring taxpayers’ money to the military-industrial complex the reason? Is it to turn the world over to China, which will be the winner of a war between Russia and the United State?
    Why are most American political leaders and NATO countries eager to turn Europe into a battlefield far more destructive than World War I and World War II combined? Why are they so eager to incinerate America with nuclear explosions? Is it to finish genociding the dying White race?
    Furthermore, those who control the US government are like the Pharisees of the New Testament. Like the Pharisees, they manipulate the people into doing what is beneficial for the ruling elite and harmful to the best interest of the people.
    Everything that the United States condemn Russia for doing, the United States have done worse. Before condemning Russia, the United States need to cleanse themselves first.
    Please remember; just about everything that the presstitutes and the federal government are telling you about the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a lie!
    (When his enemies are considered, Putin is not the bad guy in the Russian-Ukraine conflict. Klaus Schwab, one of the evilest men on the planet, has ended all relations with Russia and has expelled Putin from the World Economic Forum. Schwab is the founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum is promoting “the Great Reset.” Under the Great Reset, no one except the global billionaire elite will own anything. A global social credit system similar to the one in China will be instituted, and all money will be replaced with a global cryptocurrency managed by the global elite. Moreover, the Great Reset implements the climate-change-green-revolution-sustainable-development-social-justice agenda; it essentially promotes wokeism. The Great Reset is a global totalitarian regime run by the global elite. Other enemies of Putin include Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, both Clintons, Bush the Younger, and Obama — all evil people.)

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Russia Versus Ukraine

Russia Versus Ukraine

Thomas Allen

The following are some of my observations about the Russian-Ukraine conflict. Most of these observations are aimed at the hypocrisy of the United States government and its warmongering supporters.

One should not believe known liars until their story is verified by independent sources. “Our” governmental officials and the presstitutes are known liars and everything that they say is highly suspected. Also, whatever the governments of Europe, Ukraine, and Russia say is suspect although Putin has been more forthright in his plans than the others involved in this war.

Moreover, far too many Americans are addicted to war. These Americans hate peace. A few months without war is more than they can bear. That is why they are pushing for war with Russia, which means nuclear war. 

Except those who have condemned America’s wars since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans who condemn Russia for invading Ukraine are hypocrites. Since World War II, no country has been as many wars as the United States. Also, since World War II, no country has invaded as many countries as have the United States. Moreover, the countries that the United States invaded or attacked were not a threat to the United States.

Furthermore, many liberals and most other left-wingers thought that the Soviet Union was the greatest country on the planet and could do no wrong. Now nearly all liberals and left-wingers believe that Russia is the evilest country to ever exist and that Putin is viler than Satan.

Additionally, one thing that I have noticed is that AM conservative talk shows place most of the blame on Putin while shortwave conservative talk shows place most of the blame on Biden.

There is one thing that I find interesting, amusing, puzzling, and hypocritical about the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Until a few weeks ago, most conservative and right-wing commentators believed that Biden and his administration and the presstitutes were a gang of crooks and lied about everything. Now, unless Trump is blamed, many of these same commentators believe that just about everything that Biden and his administration and the presstitutes say about Russia and especially about Putin is the unadulterated truth. Concerning Russia and Putin, Biden and the presstitutes have the integrity and honesty of Jesus. 

Moreover, many conservatives and right-wingers who do disagree with Biden and his administration on the Russia-Ukraine conflict do so because Biden is not belligerent enough. They seem impatient with Biden for not militarily attacking Russia. Also, they demand that Biden cut off all Russian energy supplies to Europe and, by that, destroy the European economy and greatly damage the US economy.

Who has brought us the highest inflation since the 1970s? Putin or Biden. Who has greatly retarded America’s energy independence? Putin or Biden. Who has left the borders of the United States unprotected? Putin or Biden. Who is destroying America with wokeism and perversions? Putin or Biden. Who is causing the federal government to become ever more intrusive in the lives of the American people? Putin or Biden. The answer is obvious: Putin is the blame. He is the blame because Trump made him do it — at least that is what any good Democrat and never-Trump Republican would assert.

Furthermore, the saber-rattling with Russia is to distract the stupid sheeple not only from COVID issues, but also from inflation, shortages, the disappearing US borders, and other Biden and Democratic party disasters. To incinerate the world in a nuclear war is better than to lose an election in a landslide. A nuclear war will destroy many voting stations and contaminate most of the remainders.

Is the reason that Biden is trying to start a war with Russia is to prevent a rout of the Democrats in the upcoming election? Never fear, the RINOS will fill the void left by defeated Democrats to ensure that Democratic policies remain in place. The GOP (or the Stupid Party as Sam Francis called it) does not know how (or want) to win. (Francis called the Democratic Party, the Evil Party.)

Biden values Ukraine while he hates the United States. He wants to protect the borders of Ukraine but not the borders of the United States.

Immigration is like poverty. Too many people are getting rich from immigration for immigration to ever go away.

Additionally, “our” generals have reached the point where if given the choice between one female who has transgendered to a male or a thousand Rambos, they would choose the transgender because he, she, it, or whatever pronoun is superior to a million Rambos. “Our” military leaders place more importance on wokeism than on military tactics. A woke military can defeat all.

Also, Lindsey Graham says that “we” should assassinate Putin as “we” have other world leaders. Graham needs to put his body where his mouth is and challenge Putin to a duel. If broadcast on live TV, it would slaughter the previous viewership record. 

Moreover, the United States objects to Putin's increasing his political power over Europe because it decreases the United States’ control over Europe. Germany is still a US occupied-country although World War II ended more than 75 years ago.

The United States want Ukraine to join NATO and to put missile bases in Ukraine. How would the United States react if Russia were seeking to put missile bases in Cuba?

A primary cause of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is that he does not want Ukraine to join NATO. When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, Bush the Elder promised Gorbachev that the European countries formerly allied with the Soviet Union would not become part of NATO. A few years later, this promise was broken. This war would never have happened if the United States and NATO had abided by the agreement that Bush made with Gorbachev when the Soviet Union collapsed. 

 The United States should leave NATO to prevent some third-rate country from dragging the world into a nuclear war — like Poland dragged the world into World War II. Great Britain guaranteed Poland that if Poland went to war with Germany, Great Britain would also go to war with Germany. We see how well that agreement turned out.

Moreover, why would Russia want to invade countries that remain outside NATO? Russia's primary reason for invading Ukraine is to keep it out of NATO. (At least that is the stated primary purpose. Other stated reasons are to get Ukraine to recognize the plebiscite in Crimea in favor of rejoining Russia and the recognition of the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk.)

Two ways of addressing the secession of Donetsk and Luhansk are the Wilsonian and Lincolnian. According to the Wilsonian principle, all nations capable of maintaining an independent country should have their own country. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Since the people of Donetsk and Luhansk are capable of maintaining their own countries, they should have their own independent countries, which they have done with Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic.

According to the Lincolnian principle, once a region is part of a country, it can never secede and form an independent country unless it wins that right with war. Thus, being part of Ukraine, the two oblasts of Donbas can never be independent countries unless they defeat Ukraine in war. Furthermore, under the Lincolnian principle, Russia has the right to annex Ukraine because Ukraine seceded from Russia and did so without defeating Russia in war. Under the Wilsonian principle, the Ukrainian people deserve their own independent country less the other nations now in Ukraine, who deserve their own independent countries.

According to many, Putin is going out of his way to kill civilians. Other sources claim that Putin is going out of his way to keep civilian casualties low. If Putin did not care about civilian casualties, he could have conquered Ukraine in several days. At least, Putin has done the world a favor by knocking out or causing the Ukrainians to destroy US bio-weapons laboratories in Ukraine. (These laboratories violate the UN Biological Weapons Convention. Thus, Americans involved with these laboratories are war criminals subject to the death penalty.)

If Putin had approached his war with Ukraine as the United States would have done with its Sherman tactic of warring against civilians, the war would have been over by now. Instead, he has sought to minimize civilian causalities. On the other hand, Ukraine has sought to maximize civilian causalities by refusing to let them leave areas of combat, placing their big guns in residual areas, and mining civilian escape routes. (Unfortunately, Ukrainian resistance may lead Putin to adopt the American approach to war by bombarding cities.)

Nevertheless, Putin is more justified in invading Ukraine, which is on Russia’s border and will be a real threat to Russia if Ukraine, i.e., the United States, installs missile bases, than Bush the Elder was in invading Iraq, Bush the Younger was in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, Clinton was in bombing Serbia to distract from his sexual escapades, and Obama was in attacking Syria and Libya. The United States are still occupying Iraq although the Iraqi government has asked the United States to leave. (The United States are still occupying Germany, and World War II ended 75 years ago.) All these third-rate countries that the United States have attacked were on the other side of the world and were no real threat to the United States.

Also, Putin is being accused of committing all sorts of war crimes. How many war crimes has the United States committed since 1990? Is the United States the only country that has the right to invade other countries with immunity? Before Putin is tried for war crimes, Clinton, Bush the Younger, Obama, Trump, and Biden need to be tried for war crimes.

When are Americans going to open their eyes and see that their real enemy resides in Washington and not in Moscow?

Furthermore, the war between Russia and Ukraine could have been prevented without loss to anyone. First, the United States had to promise an enforceable agreement not to make Ukraine a member of NATO. Second, Ukraine had to keep its agreement to make Donetsk and Luhansk autonomous oblasts within the Ukraine boundaries. Third, all parties needed to recognize the plebiscite in Crimea in favor of rejoining Russia. When Russia asked the United States and NATO countries to negotiate on these issues, they spat in Russia’s face. 

Unfortunately for the world, mental infants in adult bodies govern America. In the hand of these idiots rests the fate of the world. Not since the Cuban missile crisis has the world been so close to nuclear war. At least then, the world was fortunate to have adults in charge. If a nuclear war happens, the United States and most of its inhabitants will die. Much of Russia’s population will survive because Russia cares enough about its people to provide them with well-stocked shelters. However, Americans only care about their masters because the US government only provides them with shelters for a nuclear war.

The more Biden insists that America will not get involved militarily with Ukraine and denies that nuclear war will occur, the more certain that the United States will get involved militarily and will precipitate a nuclear war. If war between Russia and the United States occurs and if God takes sides, Russia will defeat the United States because Christianity is growing in Russia and dying in the United States.

In closing, how many American lives is Ukraine worth? Pick a number between 0 and 330,000,000. My answer is all the warmongers at their own expense and without any taxpayers’ support.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Two Creation Stories

Two Creation Stories

Thomas Allen

In Pre-Adamite Man (1866), Mrs. George John C. Duncan argues that the creation described in Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis are two different creations. Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of the pre-Adamite while Chapter 2 describes the creation of Adamic man.

According to Chapter 1, God created plants and animals before He created the pre-Adamite. Moreover, He created the pre-Adamite and the plants and animals ex nihilo. Yet, according to Chapter 2, He fashioned man from the dust of the earth. Furthermore, He also fashioned the plants and animals from preexisting material after He had made Adam. Thus, Chapter 1 describes God creating ex nihilo while Chapter 2 describes God creating with preexisting material.

Unlike the pre-Adamite, whom God created fully and instantaneously, He created Adamic man in stages. First, He molded Adamic man; then He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Finally, He animated his whole frame and gave him understanding.

The pre-Adamite came into the world complete and had power and dominion over all the earth. On the other hand, Adamic man’s power and dominion were limited. Moreover, God taught him humility and dependency. While pre-Adamite entered a world fully created, Adamic man entered a world that was blank and sterile, which was void of plants and animals.

Duncan believes that the “days” in Chapter 1 are eras of various long lengths and not literal 24-hour days. (Before the Reformation, most clergymen held the notion that the “days” in Chapter 1 were eras and not literally 24-hour days.) Moreover, the creation of Chapter 2 occurred on the eighth day. During the seventh day, which was the day of God’s rest, the earth was a paradise until the rebellion of Lucifer, Satan.

According to Duncan’s argument, the pre-Adamites were sinless, and they were angels. However, they became extinct on earth before God made Adamic man. Instead of dying like Adamic man, they were spiritualized and etherealized or caught up like the saints of the rapture and removed to another world. This event probably occurred when Michael defeated Lucifer. (The geological features that proponents of a young earth credit to the Noachian Flood, Duncan credits to the war between Michael and Lucifer.)

Duncan refers to Chapters 18 and 19 of Genesis and to Chapter 19 of 1 Kings to support her claim that pre-Adamites were angles. They looked like a man and ate like a man. Luke 24:4 gives another example of an angel looking like a man. Further, resurrected humans are similar to angels. Consequently, she contends that if saints and angels are alike in heaven, then in an earlier earthly life, pre-Adamites could have been like Adamic man.

After the war between Michael and Lucifer, God reformed the world as described in Chapter 2 of Genesis. He made a paradise in Eden in which He placed a new man, Adam, who is the father of Adamic man and whom He formed from the dust of the earth.

Further, God created for the first time animals and plants or recreated animals and plants that failed to survive the catastrophic war of Lucifer’s rebellion (Genesis 2:19, 20). God formed these plants and animals from preexisting material and for the benefit of Adam. However, many types of plants and animals that had survived the war lived outside Eden.

In addition to some of the differences discussed above, Duncan notes several other differences between the pre-Adamite and Adamic man. Unlike the pre-Adamites, the family of Adam, Adamic man, is federal and united under one head and is dealt with as one, i.e., all suffer from Adam’s curse.

Another difference is that the pre-Adamite saw all of the earth as an unlimited sphere that was to be filled and subdued. Adamic man was limited to a garden in the eastern part of Eden with no sea and only one river.

Further, God created both male and female pre-Adamites at the same time. For Adamic man, God formed woman from Adam after He had formed Adam and after He had finished preparing Adam’s sphere of life.

Thus, Duncan discusses two different creations: one is depicted in Chapter 1 of Genesis and the other, in Chapter 2. Chapter 1 describes the original creation of the earth and the pre-Adamites, who are angels. Chapter 2 describes another creation, which is the creation of Adamic man. These two creations refer to two distinct species: the pre-Adamite and Adamic man. The pre-Adamites passed away after an indefinite period of inhabiting the earth. Some time afterward, God created Adamic man.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

A Letter: End Governmental Control of Education

A Letter: End Governmental Control of Education

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1989 to the editor of The Franklin Times.]

    If President Bush hopes to solve the problems of public education by allowing parents to send their children to “schools of choice” and giving parents, teachers, and local administrators more say, he will be disappointed. Even Mr. Ruth’s suggestion of electing school board members and county commissioners who are leaders instead of wimps and eradicating the incompetents will not solve the problems of public education. They will not work because the problem is governmental control of education.
    People have been free for years to choose which post office to use for their postal services. Such free choice has not solved the problems with the post office. (If switching post offices were a solution, The Franklin Times could solve its mail delivery problem by going to a different post office.) It is not going to solve the problems with public education. Competing buildings in the public school system will be no more effective in solving the problems with public schools than it has been with the post office.
    The solution to the failure of public education is to depoliticize it by abandoning socialism. Under the present socialistic system of governmental monopoly in education, failure is rewarded, and success is penalized. The more public schools fail to educate students, the more money they receive. As long as public schools remain a governmental agency, this will always be so. In a governmental bureaucracy, which is what the public school system is, success is determined by the size of the budget and number of employees. It is not determined by the product, educated children. In fact, public schools have little incentive to educate children. To educate children is to their detriment. Bureaucracies grow by having crises. If public schools were producing adequately educated children, then the clamor for increased school budgets would wane. The failure of education in this country can never be solved until socialism is abandoned.
    Under a private school system, success is rewarded, and failure is penalized. Those schools that succeed in educating students prosper. Those schools that fail to educate students go out of business. (Although there are numerous private schools in this country, there is still a public school monopoly because parents of children in private schools and even people who have no children must pay tribute to the public school system.)
    A private school system solves many of the problems of public schools that go beyond adequately educating children. It solves the problem of Bible reading and prayer, creationism versus evolution, sex education, and many other controversial issues.
    Because the public school system is a governmental agency, it politizes education. Thus, education becomes a political contest where the winner takes all, and the loser gets nothing. When fundamental Christians control the public school system, bible reading and prayer are in. When the agnostics and atheists control the public school system, bible reading and prayer are out. Under the public school system, large segments of the population are forced to support the indoctrination of children with values with which they disagree. Large segments are also denied the right of having their children taught values in public schools with which they agree. (Does anyone really believe that under a “school of choice” program that any public school will be allowed to indoctrinate students in Christian dogma?)
    Under a private school system, these problems are avoided. Parents choose the values their children are to be taught and pay the school of their choice to teach them. They are not forced to pay for the teaching of concepts with which they disagree as they presently do.
    The solution to educational problems in this country is to replace the socialistic monopolistic public school system with a free market private school system.
    [The above does not discuss the use of vouchers for private schools. Such a program would be disastrous and effectively end private schools. They would become no more than charter schools and would have to kowtow to governmental bureaucrats for their money. Moreover, I am amazed that the public education establishment still objects to vouchers for private school. A voucher program will end up like every other governmental aid or subsidy program. It will give the government absolute control of private schools accepting vouchers, albeit through the back door. Everyone should know by now that one dollar of governmental money means 100 percent of governmental control once the victim becomes addicted to the “free” governmental money.]

Copyright © 1989, 2022 by Thomas C. Allen.

More politicl articles.