pt2006

[pt2006]

Is there any evidence that BLM is being run by Communists and Marxists, and if so what is that evidence?

Is there any evidence that BLM is being run by Communists and Marxists, and if so what is that evidence? TL;DR: Yes, there is absolutely a widespread Communist influence on the coordinators of BlackLivesMatter, all the way from the founders at the top to individual state-level leadership.

1) The biggest piece of evidence is statements made by the founders themselves.

• ⁠Patrice Cullors, one of the starting founders and top leaders of BLM along with Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi, did a 2015 videotaped interview with a progressive media outlet called TheRealNews.com.

Radio Host: "There is a concern that there is a lack of perhaps, ideological direction in BlackLivesMatter, that would allow it to fizzle out in comparison to OccupyWallStreet. As you are advanced in your own organization, as you are headed to Cleveland to participate in this BlackLives movement conference, how do you respond to that particular critique?"

Cullors: "The first thing I think is that, we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on, sort of, ideological theories."

There is basically only one reasonable way to interpret this. Either Cullors is a Marxist outright or at the very least she believes Marxist ideology is an important part of BLM because she mentioned it as an explicit answer to the question "is there an ideological direction in BlackLivesMatters?".

• ⁠The other person mentioned above, Alicia Garza, wrote in her self-bio on blackpast.org that "Garza describes herself as a queer social justice activist and a Marxist". That article was written in June 2018, so not long ago. However in the last month, the mention of Marxism on her bio has been deleted. A charitable observer could conclude that means she no longer identifies with Marxism. A less charitable observer may conclude that she is trying to hide her political leaning from the public now that BLM is more popular. It is impossible to look into people's minds so it would be unfair to guess one way or another. But we can confidently say that for the first several years of the organization's founding, she too identified as a Marxist.

• ⁠The third founder, Opal Tometi, has not explicitly linked herself to Marxism. However she has also indicated sympathy for the ideals of socialist nations. In a very long open letter she states Hugo Chavez was a fair democratic leader with a positive legacy, and that it is slander to call him a dictator. "In these last 17 years, we have witnessed the Bolivarian Revolution champion participatory democracy and construct a fair, transparent election system recognized as among the best in the world... we denounce the corporate media lies about electoral corruption voiced by Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sander’s defamation of late President Hugo Chavez labeling him a dictator."

2) Of course, BLM is not a monolithic organization, so the fact that all 3 founders have sympathy for communist ideals doesn't imply every BLM activist feels the same way. That then leads to the question: what are the political leanings of ground-level leadership who do the daily coordinating? Similar sentiments have been echoed by lower level leadership across the country. BlackLivesMatters DC, for example, is one of the biggest sub-groups within the movement, and includes on its webpage a dedication to "creating the conditions for Black Liberation through the abolition of systems and institutions of white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy and colonialism." By definition, the abolition (not reform or tempering, but abolition) of capitalism is a clear endorsement of the socialist-communist spectrum. Seeing that capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit, abolishing that would necessarily mean not allowing private ownership of means of production and not allowing private profit. In other words, total publicly distributed ownership of property. In other words, somewhere on the spectrum between socialism and communism.

3) Usage of terminology frequently associated with Marxists. This latter point is circumstantial but relevant. BLM frequently uses words and terms that have a rich interconnection with communist movements. Notably "comrade", a preferred term for communists to refer to each other throughout the 20th century. The word comrade shows up all over the place in BLM. The national BLM website says on their main page, "we recommit to healing ourselves and each other, and to co-creating alongside comrades". BLM Los Angeles mentions that "we practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts. Opal Tometi, the third BLM founder, mentioned in an interview with the New Yorker that "I worked with some amazing comrades in New York"

4) Support from communist organizations. This is again circumstantial just like #3, but relevant because it shows that socialist/communist organizations feel like the leadership of BLM is guiding the organization in a way that they like. SocialistRevolution.org did an article on outreach among BLM members and stated that "This was not the same Black Lives Matter movement from a few years ago, but represented a qualitative leap forward in consciousness for many young people who are looking for ideas. The growing openness to Marxism was evident at the end of the demonstration when our tables were swamped by people, many of whom bought our literature and asked to get involved." Communist Party USA likewise is optimistic about BlackLivesMatters and thinks that it will lead to establishment of communism in the U.S. On their website, they state Black Lives Matter has become the slogan of choice, a rallying call of demonstrators filling the streets, and a broadly accepted driving force for change.

[pt2006]

Don’t let the FREAK SHOW of your past define the OSCAR WINNING performance of your future!

pastortlb

[pt2006]

Every time my 82 year-old mom asks me yet ANOTHER annoying question about her iPhone… I’m happy that she’s still here to ask the question (love ya mom).

[pt2006]

We now live in a Society that says, “Feeling it makes it right to pursue.” But we live by a Word that asks, “’Everything is permissible?’ But is everything beneficial?” It is only beneficial  if it denies self and brings glory to Father.

From the blog of Ptr. Paul Van Buren

Timely for everyone. Praise God for reminders.

[pt2006]

The magic was in YOU.

image / twitter / facebook / patreon

[pt2006]

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

[pt2006]

Bible Showdown: Literal Vs. Allegorical Interpretation

horizontescuriosos asked:

I came across one interpretation of Genesis that I thought might be insightful to ask someone about. The idea I found is that Genesis is really an allegory about human sin … Like before sin, Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed. Then Eve tried to sneak eating the apple, sin entered, and from then on Adam and Eve wore clothes out of shame … As a pastor, do you think this idea of Genesis being an allegory for human sin has credit? (Edited for length)

Hey dear friend, I’ve definitely seen Genesis (and much of the Bible) interpreted as allegory, and it’s a legitimate way of reading the Bible, called the Alexandrian method, that’s been around for centuries.

However, I personally view most of the Bible as literal, factual history — or at the very least, I assume that the Bible authors had an original intention that wasn’t meant to be stretched towards a “spiritualized” meaning that says whatever we fancy.

Scripture doesn’t read as an allegorical account, but more like a news periodical. There are parts of Scripture that are definitely allegory, but it’s usually obvious, with the author even saying so.

Ancient accounts of legend only revealed details that were much like Chekov’s gun, which were set-ups for a moral lesson. From the Epic of Gilgamesh to Beowulf to The Odyssey, no detail was wasted. But Scripture would describe things that had no other purpose but to describe them. Jonah talks about buying an actual ticket to board a ship. Peter and his fellow fisherman caught 153 fish, which has no other meaning, except that they caught 153 fish. When Jesus is arrested, a naked guy totally flees the scene. Mythological stories never read this way. Most of Scripture has a prosaic, open-ended description that was not a type of genre for myths back then, but for eyewitness testimony.

While the Alexandrian method certainly has merit, here’s one huge advantage of the literal interpretation of Scripture.

Literal interpretation of Scripture leads to deeper change. In the third century church, John Chrysostom, the Archbishop of Constantinople (also known as the Golden-Mouthed Preacher), held to a literal interpretation despite the popularity of the Alexandrian method. This brought about a revolutionary revival in the third century church that lit a fire under complacent Christianity.

When John Chrysostom read, for example, that Jesus said to “feed the least of these,” he took that to mean, “feed the least of these.” He used charitable donations from the wealthy congregants to build hospitals for the sick instead of fixing the church building.  He constantly preached to help the poor; the aristocrats hated him. At one point the Roman government invaded the city to retaliate against a riot, and while other pastors fled, John Chrysostom stayed. The Emperor ended up pulling back the invasion, and word got out that St. John had remained with the people, so his church filled with disciples just like him. At the cost of John’s own reputation and even his life, he followed Jesus when it would’ve been easy for him to soften up Jesus’s teachings into cute whimsy Instagram quotes.

The thing is, when Scripture is seen as mostly allegorical, it’s too easy to have a pick-and-choose mentality of convenience. In a heated moment, Scripture becomes malleable to the point of suggestions. When I allegorize the Bible, I run the risk of softening its edges when I disagree with parts of it, which is a bit like pressing an off-button on my wife whenever I disagree with her. Then I don’t have a real Bible and a real God, but a butler who tells fables that simply affirms what I’m already doing.

This sugar-coating tendency isn’t something we do on purpose. In fact, consider the opposite case. When you watch a movie “based on a true story,” there’s a subconscious visceral weight to the story that this actually happened, and it deepens what you’re watching. In the same way, when you know the Bible is describing real commands and real miracles and can’t be stretched to an ethereal type of philosophy, then it shakes us at the ground floor. The Bible puts flesh and blood on Jesus.

If you really knew that there was spiritual warfare and it wasn’t just “negative energy,” if you really knew there were angels and demons and heaven and hell, if you really knew that prayer could affect the substance of the universe, if you really knew that Jesus died for you on a dirty Roman cross — then, my guess is that the proportion to which you hold Scripture as true is the degree to which you’ll be transformed, and you’ll live in such a way that doesn’t bend when life bends you. I’ve witnessed it, in others and in me. The higher you hold Scripture, the more likely you’ll live in a Christ-like way even when it’s not easy, because the objective reality of a real God who really does something remains steadfast.

I think it’s absolutely commendable and necessary to investigate the Bible, just like you’re doing, and to discern all the riches it has for you as you wade through some of its tougher passages. There are parts of Scripture which are difficult, confusing, and frustrating to interpret literally (especially Genesis and Revelation), and I’m sure I’ll wrestle with those to the end. And of course, I still think that allegorical interpretation is an historical, qualified way to read Scripture, with its own advantages. The important thing is that we love Jesus and we love people, and that the reading of Scripture convicts us and moves us into grace-driven action.

— J.S.

[pt2006]

7 steps for good character

1. Assess yourself honestly. Humility isn’t the same as low self-esteem. Being humble doesn’t mean you think you have nothing to offer; it means you know exactly what you have to offer and no more. Don’t cherish exaggerated ideas about yourself or your importance, but try to have a sane estimate of your capabilities by the light of the faith that God has given you (Romans 12:3).

2. Don’t take success too seriously. Scripture gives this warning: When your silver and gold increase, your heart will become proud (Deuteronomy 8:13-14). Counteract this pride with reminders of the brevity of life and the frailty of wealth. Ponder your success and count your money in a cemetery, and remember that neither of the two is buried with you. People come into this world with nothing, and when they die they leave with nothing (Ecclesiastes 5:15). I saw a reminder of this in a cemetery. Parked next to the entrance was a nice recreational boat with a For Sale sign. You had to wonder if the fisherman realized he couldn’t take it with him.

3. Celebrate the significance of others. In humility consider others better than yourselves (Philippians 2:3). Columnist Rick Reilly gave this advice to rookie professional athletes: “Stop thumping your chest. The line blocked, the quarterback threw you a perfect spiral while getting his head knocked off, and the good receiver blew the double coverage. Get over yourself.” The truth is, every touchdown in life is a team effort. Applaud your teammates.

4. Don’t demand your own parking place. This was the instruction of Jesus to his followers: Go sit in a seat that is not important. When the host comes to you, he may say, ‘Friend, move up here to a more important place.’ Then all the other guests will respect you (Luke 14:10). Demanding respect is like chasing a butterfly. Chase it, and you’ll never catch it. Sit still, and it may land on your shoulder. The French philosopher Blaise Pascal asked, “Do you wish people to speak well of you? Then never speak well of yourself.” Maybe that’s why the Bible says, “Don’t praise yourself. Let someone else do it’ (Proverbs 27:2).

5. Never announce your success before it occurs. Or as one of the kings of Israel said, ‘One who puts on his armor should not boast like one who takes it off’ (1 Kings 20:11). Charles Spurgeon trained many young ministers. On one occasion a student stepped up to preach with great confidence but failed miserably. He came down, humbled and meek. Spurgeon told him, “If you had gone up as you came down, you would have come down as you went up.” If humility precedes an event, then confidence may follow.

6. Speak humbly. Let no arrogance come from your mouth (1 Samuel 2:3). Don’t be cocky. People aren’t impressed with your opinions. Take a tip from Benjamin Franklin. ‘[I developed] the habit of expressing myself in terms of modest diffidence, never using when I advance any thing that may possibly be disputed, the words certainly, undoubtedly, or any others that give the air of positiveness to an opinion; but rather I say, I conceive or apprehend a thing to be so or so. This habit I believe has been a great advantage to me.’ It would be great advantage to us as well.

7. Live at the foot of the cross. Paul said, “The cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is my only reason for bragging’ (Galatians 6:14). Do you feel a need for affirmation? Does your self-esteem need attention? You don’t need to drop names or show off. You need only pause at the base of the cross and be reminded of this: The maker of the stars would rather die for you than live without you. And that is a fact. So if you need to brag, brag about that.

[pt2006]

Funny. I know I have God, but I feel so alone. Depression is horrible.

[pt2006]

[pt2006]

[pt2006]

Congratulations, you're a People Persuader! You love to convince others of your point of view. You probably think everyone has a right to their opinion- and you have a right to try to change it. Do you work in sales? Because maybe you should - you can sell anything. Or maybe you should run for office, and sell your own ideas! Be careful though - you're so persuasive, that sometimes you can come on a little too strong. And sometimes, people might not realize how much you do care. But when it comes to people skills, you know how to get people to do what you want. Use the #ArtofPeople to continue to improve your stellar people skills. If you already own the #ArtofPeople, pay special attention to chapters 16, 21, 26 and 52. If not, order the book now at http://BuyArtofPeople.com

[pt2006]

Psalm 77 and the peace it gives

This psalm was written by a man named Asaph, a Levite from the priestly line in Israel. Asaph was also a singer, and served as David’s appointed choir director. He wrote eleven psalms and they were so filled with righteous instruction for God’s people that I would even call this man a lay preacher.

Asaph wrote Psalm 77 after he fell into a horrible pit of despair. His condition grew so bad that he was beyond comfort: “My soul refused to be comforted” (77:2). This godly man was in such despair, nothing anyone said could bring him out of his anguish. And Asaph himself couldn’t manage to say even a word: “I am so troubled that I cannot speak” (77:4). Have you ever felt this way? I have many times.

Yet Asaph was a praying man. We see this in the same psalm as he testifies, “I cried unto God with my voice … and he gave ear unto me” (77:1).

I’m sure Asaph had heard David’s very similar testimony, in Psalm 34: “The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry” (34:15). David says earlier in this psalm, “I sought the Lord, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears… . This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles” (34:4, 6).

Pray this psalm to the Lord in times of great dispair, our lofty God will give ear to you also.

[pt2006]

Hope in discouragement

Not even the godly, devoted apostle Paul was immune to times of discouragement. He wrote to the Corinthians, “Trouble … came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life” (2 Corinthians 1:8).

The Greek word that Paul uses for despair in this verse translates as, “We could not understand it; we despaired, even to death.” He’s saying, in short, “We longed to die, because we couldn’t comprehend what we were going through. We were pressed beyond our endurance.”

It’s hard to imagine these words coming from Paul. Who trusted God more than this fearless apostle? Who fasted and prayed more than Paul? Who had as many prayers answered? Yet there came upon Paul an hour of despondency such as he had never experienced. What was this condition?

Some Bible commentators believe it was a combination of trials. Among these was a deep mental anguish, caused by people whom Paul loved later turning against him. These close friends not only abandoned Paul but spread lies about him. They defamed his name. In addition, Paul was brought low by violent illnesses. He experienced shipwreck on more than one occasion, and evil plots were hatched against him, aimed at taking his life. On top of these things, Paul had anxiety over the care of many churches.

This would all seem too heavy for one man to bear. Yet even put together, all these things still don’t explain the deep despair Paul felt. He wrote, “I fell into such agony, I didn’t think I would survive. I thought it was going to kill me.”

Of course, Paul was delivered. He came out victoriously. But he never forgot that awful hour of despair.

“Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us” (2 Corinthians 1:10). Paul is saying, “God rescued us and He will rescue us again. We have put our confidence in Him and He will deliver us.”

[pt2006]

I despise the picture that’s painted in our culture of this sissified, needy Jesus. “He’s just yearning for you. He’s longing for you. He wants friendship and relationship with you. He needs you. Oh, you’re breaking his heart.” No, he’s going to break you. By definition, God is self-sustaining, self-existent, and self-sufficient. Therefore, by definition, He needs nothing. God does not need you.

Voddie Baucham (via slaveofchrist)

[pt2006]

This One Bone Is The Only Skeletal Evidence For Crucifixion In The Ancient World

The Romans practiced crucifixion – literally, “fixed to a cross” – for nearly a millennium. It was a public, painful, and slow form of execution, and used as a way to deter future crimes and humiliate the dying person. Since it was done to thousands of people and involved nails, you’d probably assume we have skeletal evidence of crucifixion.  But there’s only one, single bony example of Roman crucifixion, and even that is still heavily debated by experts.

Crucifixion seems to have originated in Persia, but the Romans created the practice as we think of it today, employing either a crux immissa (similar to the Christian cross) or a crux commissa (a T-shaped cross) made up of an upright post and a crossbar.  Generally, the upright post was erected first, and the victim was tied or nailed to the crossbar and then hoisted up.  There was usually an inscription nailed above the victim, noting his particular crime, and sometimes victims got a wooden support to sit or stand on. But Seneca, the Roman philosopher, wrote in 40 AD that the process of crucifying someone varied greatly: Read more.

[pt2006]

There are 5 gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and you. Most people won’t read the first four.

Unclean Lips (via uncleanlips)