Thursday, August 18, 2011

Ayn Rand or Jesus: Christians and the Republican Party must choose

By Aerik Vondenburg

Republicans cite the philosophy and writings of Ayn Rand as an inspiration for their supply side ideology.

Rand advocated for a type of society that was ruled over by the most cunning and productive individualists of society. Egotistical Super-men who were not bound by the laws of religion and traditional morality.

Her philosophy of "Objectivism" promoted not only narcissistic pride and selfishness, but atheism.

She once said in an interview: (that can be seen below)
"I am against God." "I do not approve of religion."

To right-wing conservative evangelical Christians we say:
Who is it that you will align yourselves with?
Ayn Rand or Jesus?

Here is a good related link to check out:
http://americanvaluesnetwork.org/

NOTE: There was a video attatched to this but having two videos on the same page was slowing things down. You can either go to YOUTUBE and type in "Ayn Rand GOP Jesus", or copy and paste this link into your browser window:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TxCWbTqz9s

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Spiritual. Mental, Emotional, Physical Healing

I was recently introduced by a friend of mine to the world of Reiki.
Reiki is a Japanese method of healing that is done through energy work -primarily through the use of the laying on of hands.

The Gospels tell us that one of the ways that Jesus healed people was to lay his hands on them.

If we could tap into even one quarter of the healing power that Jesus brought to this world, imagine the good that it would do.

It is easy for this world to poison us with mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual toxins.
Meditation, prayer, and reiki healing are methods by which we can release ourselves from these maladies.


Thursday, August 11, 2011

The Return of the Robber Barons and the Rise of the Theocratic Plutocracy

By Aerik Vondenburg

The following is the full an unedited version of an article that I wrote for the Consortiumnews.com. It shows how the wealthy right-wing corporate elite are using conservative Christians for their own purposes.



Since the Gilded Age of the 19th century, the wealthy financiers and "Robber Baron" industrialist have been effectively purchasing power and creating further revenue for themselves by directing money into the coffers of business friendly politicians. Politicians who in turn vote for lower taxes, special exemptions, tax loopholes, deregulation, etc.

Although the Democrats have learned to accept big business money as well, it has been the Republicans who on average, not only receive a majority of the spoils, but are more likely to give their wealthy benefactors exactly what they want.

It was just over a century ago that the progressive Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, came into confrontation with the big business Republicans who supported William Taft, which resulted in the split of the 1912 elections. Running on a platform of opposition to the
League of Nations (a force for labor regulations and international law) and the promotion of supply-side economic interests, the Republicans solidified their connection with the corporations during the presidencies of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, in the 1920s.

The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce unprecedented prosperity—that is, until the reality of an unregulated economy reared it ugly head. Of course, what inevitably followed was the Wall Street crash and the Great Depression.

Realizing the powerful forces that he was up against, progressive Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, initiated a campaign to protect himself and the nation from the wealthy industrialists. His Secretary of the Interior, Harold L. Ickes, went after the superrich "Sixty Families," who, according to Ickes, comprised "the living center of the modern industrial oligarchy which dominates the United States." Left unchecked, Ickes warned, they would create a "big-business Fascist America—an enslaved America."

An oligarchy is a type of government that is run by an elite minority who are not democratically elected. Their position is attained by royalty, family ties, and/or military position; although, in America, it is usually attained solely by wealth. Therefore, a more accurate designation would be plutocracy (from the Greek word ploutos, meaning wealth).

Roosevelt had essentially declared war on the plutocrats. As it turns out, both Ickes and Roosevelt had reason to be concerned. The wealthy corporate elite were indeed plotting against him. In fact, a plot to oust Roosevelt from power via a military coup was discovered and foiled thanks to a high-ranking military whistle-blower (Marine Corps Maj.-Gen. Smedley Butler), who was approached by the plutocrats (under the name the American Liberty League).

Although the plutocratic plan to forcefully overtake the U.S. government failed, they did not give up. That is because they came to realize that they could commit their coup legally. By exploiting lax laws in the political system they could continue to effectively purchase power. Using paid off politicians as middle-men, the plutocrats could still get their tax breaks and deregulation. All they needed to do was to get the right politicians in office and the right judges on the courts. However, they knew that they had to do more than this. What they also needed was to have the American people themselves vote the middle-men into power.

In 1971, a corporate lawyer and future supreme court member, Lewis F. Powell, wrote a memorandum to the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The memo called for the increased role of the Chamber to effect public opinion through the means of "constant surveillance" and the monitoring of textbooks and media to guard against "criticism of the enterprise system." Powell also called for increased influence in the "radio and press" and a "more aggressive attitude" in order to "influence consumer decisions."

The Chamber heeded his advice and helped initiate a new movement that spawned the creation of more Republican think-tanks, as well as other powerful organizations that would serve to put more business friendly politicians in power. Billions of dollars were directed into organizations like the Heritage foundation, the Americans for Tax Reform, and the Libertarian Cato Institute.

The Chamber of Commerce also created front-groups like The Coalition: Americans Working for Real Change, and its spin-off: Americans for Job Security. These "astro-turf" (i.e. pseudo grass roots) organizations masquerade as patriotic citizen non-profits in order to help conceal their intentions and their plutocratic funders. It is said that to get to truth, one must "follow the money," however, groups like Americans for Job Security are devoted to covering the money trail.

Moreover, these were not the only questionable activities that were being concocted by the Chamber of Commerce. In February 2011, ThinkProgress.org exposed an operation by the organization to hire a set of private security firms to spy on the personal lives of their progressive opponents in an effort to find ways to undermine them. The plan not only involved the releasing of sensitive information related to the private family lives of their political adversaries, but also involved the fabrication of false documents as part of a draconian disinformation campaign.

Of course, to win votes the plutocratic Republicans needed to win minds. What they came to realize is that they needed to reframe the debate. One of the secret weapons in this war of minds is a man named Frank Luntz, an American political consultant, pollster, focus group analyst, and commentator and analyst for the Fox News Channel. Luntz's specialty is “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product, or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate." His stated intention is to cause audiences to react based on emotion rather than thought. It was Luntz who changed estate tax to "death tax," oil drilling to "energy exploration," and tax cuts to "tax relief." He was also awarded the 2010 Politifact.com Lie of the Year award for his promotion of the phrase "government takeover" to refer to healthcare reform.

However, Luntz was not the only one who was interested in using words to influence hearts and minds. In 1994, Congressman Newt Gingrich wrote and distributed a memorandum (the “GOPAC Memo”) titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.” In it, Republican candidates were instructed what words to use when defining their opponents. For instance: the word liberal is to be associated with bureaucracy, red tape, and traitors. While the word conservative is to be related to freedom, crusade, and pride. These connotations not only resonate in both the conscious and the subconscious mind, but more importantly, evoke emotion; which, according to Luntz, is the most important influencing factor of all—especially when pertaining to voters who are not well-informed on the issues.

Republicans have successfully turned the word liberal into a bad word, even though the original definition corresponds with the principles of freedom of speech, equality, fairness, and separation of church and state that the United States of America was founded upon.

A Gallup poll revealed that most people identify themselves as conservatives; however, when people are asked about individual liberal policies, such as spending on education, environmental protections, regulation of business and social security, a majority of people say they approve. The key is that they are not told ahead of time that these policies are liberal.

Even though most Americans identify themselves as conservative, the Democratic party is the largest of all political organizations, with even more registered voters than the Republicans. Of course, these numbers presented a significant problem for the wealthy elite, who represent only a very small minority of the American population. However, they realized that they were not the only segment in American society that were being offended by the progressives.

The other was the conservatives.

Many plutocrats are Libertarians; however, in order to get one of their own in the White House they needed to have the support of the vast conservative base in the Republican party. What they needed to do was to find a common link between their two belief systems. What they learned how to do is merge their interests with those of the mostly evangelical conservatives by rallying around their disdain for their common enemy. What most people do not know is that this link between these two worlds is mostly fabricated. For instance, in the teachings of Jesus, we do not find anything that would suggest that he would have condoned, much less have advocated for, anything resembling right-wing social-Darwinist economic and political philosophy. In fact, if anything, we find just the opposite. Indeed, Jesus spoke out against hard-hearted avarice and denounced rich people who did not use their wealth to help the less fortunate. Jesus was clearly someone who would most certainly be accused of being a "socialist" "bleeding heart" by today's Libertarian/Republicans.

The plutocrats realized that in order to win elections they needed to influence what right-wing radio personality Rush Limbaugh refers to as "the country class." The plutocrats found all the votes that they needed in the "heartland" of America. And it is these more rural "red-state" people—the good intentioned but often low information folk—who are being used for plutocratic purposes.

Here is what the Republicans told the conservatives:

1 - Democrats want to take away your guns.

2 - Democrats want to take away your Bibles

3 - Democrats want to let illegal immigrants into the country.

4 - Democrats are against Israel and stand on the side of the Muslims.

5 - Democrats care more about the rights of criminals than victims.

6 - Democrats want to replace capitalism with communism.

7 - Democrats want to give your hard-earned money away to lazy people who do not deserve it.

What they are doing is telling the conservatives that the liberals want to take away "their way of life." What they are doing is appealing to conservative fears and prejudices, and it is working. In some cases, the plutocratic Republican leaders are even knowingly misrepresenting information and undermining facts. This is done out of a sense that the ends justify the means.

In the Powell memo we read: "The threat to the enterprise system is not merely a matter of economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom." Individual freedom to a conservative means the ability to abide by things like traditional Biblical values and lax gun laws. Individual freedom to the plutocrats simply means the ability to be free from government taxation and regulation. These are two completely different objectives.

Just as the Powell memo suggested, the use of propaganda in the form of radio, news, and print media, for the purpose of indoctrinating the public was implemented.

The plan worked.

Since 1980, a majority of the South has become republican. In 2004, exit polls conducted by CNN showed that Bush led Kerry by 70%-30% among Southern whites. One-third of these Southern voters said they were evangelicals. They voted for Bush by 80-20. Although, the Republican party's strongest influence is in the Great Plains states and Mountain states.

The country class has been conditioned to:

1 - Protest against higher taxes on the plutocrats.

2 - Vote against the regulation of big business that protects the economy, consumers and public safety.

3 - Fight for wars for natural resources (so that companies like Halliburton can profit).

4 - Disbelieve overwhelming evidence from a majority of the world's leading scientists that pollution is having a dangerous effect upon our environment (so that the plutocrats can keep the factories running at full profit-making capacity).

5 - Protest medical insurance reform that will make access to healthcare more accessible and less fraudulent by taking power away from the unscrupulous private profit driven healthcare providers.

6 - Have contempt for labor Unions.

One of the most popular of the ideas that the think-tanks came up with was the anti "Big Government" campaign. What does limited government actually mean? To the plutocrats it means that the government is limited in preventing private industry from engaging in illegal and reckless behavior. The ultimate goal of this anti Big Government campaign is to essentially privatize government; to replace democratic federal rule with a theocratic plutocracy.

One strategy that the think-tanks came up with was the technique of redirecting blame for adverse situations, off of the private sector, and onto the government. Another strategy is the ongoing attempt to sabotage and defund government programs before turning around and complaining that "government does not work." We have seen this in the Social Security situation for instance.

Why was FDR successful and Obama having such a difficult time? Its not just because Obama is more of a centrist than a true progressive. It is because the plutocrats have become more successful in not only using money to influence politics and the law, but in using modern telecommunications to influence people to vote against their own best interests. This is something that their 19th century Robber Baron predecessors did not have the ability to do.

In 1944, FDR’s Vice President, Henry Wallace, wrote an article in the New York Times about the dangers of American Fascism. The following passages are excerpts from this article, in which he describes the plutocrats as "fascists."

"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. . . But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. . . They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."

The plutocrats strive to continue the dream of the enemies of FDR by ending what remains of his New Deal program. A large segment of this campaign involves the elimination of humanitarian social safety net programs, which is what they refer to as "entitlement programs." Some of their long-term goals are not only the elimination of the minimum wage, unions, and child labor laws, but the corporate privatization of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In order for this campaign to work, they need to convince voters that the people who benefit from these programs are nothing but lazy socialist free-loaders—even though, a majority of people on public assistance are the elderly and the disabled.

The U.S. Constitution declares that it is "We the People," not we the wealthy elite, who control the fate of the Republic. What was the plutocratic solution to this Constitutional dilemma? To have Republican appointed judges on the Supreme Court rule that corporations are people and that money is speech. Under these new laws, who ever has the most money has the greatest influence over the country. It is a situation that contradicts the spirit of the founders of this nation who were influenced by the humanist values of the 18th century Enlightenment.

Some believe that what is happening is a "culture war." Others believe that it is a "class war." Although it is not being fought with guns and armies, make no mistake, it is a war. It is a conflict that was unofficially declared by Ronald Reagan when he fired the striking air traffic controller union members, neglected the importance of the hard-working middle-class, and instituted his supply-side "trickle down" tax cuts for the rich—an economic theory that has since been discredited by even Reagan's own former budget director, David Stockman, the principle architect of "Reaganomics" himself.

If the plutocrats win this war, the American dream will be replaced by a modern form of Feudalism, in which wage serfs serve under the rule of a elitist class of hegemonic lords. In such an un-American system, politicians are no longer civil servants, but business men who enter public service solely as a money-making venture. These self-servers will no longer answer to the people, but to the plutocrats. Such a person does not have to be concerned if his or her policies cost them their re-election because the plutocrats will reward them with well-paying jobs in the private sector when their terms have expired.

Another adverse effect of a plutocracy is that white-collar crimes that are committed by rich Caucasian well-connected plutocratic males, will often go unpunished. This is the effect of the two-tier double-standard society that they are advocating for.

In a theocratic plutocracy, democracy and the American dream become only illusionary slogans; deceptive rallying tools to be held up as external emblems to the well-meaning but uneducated base. The plutocratic Republicans are doing this by waving Bibles with one hand, and wrapping themselves in the American flag with the other; when in fact, there is nothing religious or patriotic about what they are doing.

Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to President Nixon, admits that he believes that the United States is becoming a plutocracy. He said in a 2004 interview with Bill Moyers that the plutocracy has existed in a way that we haven't seen "since the Gilded Age." Although, instead of Carnegie and Vanderbilt, we now have people like the Waltons and the Koch brothers. Indeed, the top 1 percent of income earners in America were in 2008, earning 8 percent of the country’s total income, the same share as during the 1920s. A University of California-Berkeley study released in 2009 found that income inequality in 2007 was the highest it had ever been in recorded history, with the top 1 percent incomes capturing half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007.

The Robber Barons are back.

At the very core of their "rugged individualist" ideology, is a type of Ayn Randian social Darwinism; and as far as they are concerned, it is our own fault for not being one of them.

SOCIALISM. What Would Jesus Say?

By Aerik Vondenburg

Among the many accusations that have been directed at President Obama, is that he is a "socialist."So what does Socialism actually mean?

Socialism is an economic and political theory that advocates for public and common cooperative management in a highly regulated economy. It is an idea that is based upon the principles of equality and community. It advocates for the rights of the working class (proletariat), rather than only the wealthy oligarchic/capitalist ruling elite (bourgeoisie).
.
If Socialism was nothing more than this, then there would be nothing un-American (or un-Christian) about it, since we can find references to these principles in both the Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers—as well as the Gospels. The problem is with its affiliation with other more outdated, controversial, and extremist elements (such as the elimination of private property), and of course, its connection with the dreaded shadowy specter of Stalin's and Pol Pot's brand of Communism.

In a letter to Benjamin Rush in 1803, the Founding Father Thomas Jefferson wrote of the importance of "universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants, and common aids." These are the same type of principles that President Obama has been advocating for. And for this noble effort, Obama has been labeled a socialist by conservatives.

Anti government conservative Libertarian/Republicans will say that the government should not be obligated to provide what they refer to as "entitlement" programs for the people, although the government that was envisioned by the Founding Fathers was a government for the people by the people. In other words, it is a government that was responsible for providing for the "general welfare" of the citizenry.

Republicans say that so-called "socialist" healthcare (i.e. "Obamacare") is not Constitutional; however, in the Preamble to the Constitution it says that "We the people", not the wealthy corporate elite, "establish justice" and "promote the general welfare"; which is a reference to social justice. The same social justice that the Republicans mock and decry as un-American and socialist. Also, article 1 of the Constitution states that it is the job of the American government to "regulate commerce."

Republicans say that people are just too lazy to get health insurance on their own. However, since supply-side "trickle down" Reaganonmics, the hard working middle-class are having a much more difficult time making ends meet.

If healthcare reform is socialist, then fire and police departments are socialist. Medicaid, Medicare, and V.A. medical care are all socialist.

Republicans argue that fire and police relate to problems that effect other people. In that case, what about communicable diseases? Also, we must also ask ourselves: do we really want to live in a heartless society? Especially one that is supposed to be considered not only the greatest superpower on Earth, but also a so-called "Christian nation." Especially when it comes to public safety, people must come before profit.

Conservative Republicans like to say that "America has the best medical care in the world," even though according to the World Health Organization, America is actually ranked number 37, right below Costa Rica. (socialist leaning France was #1).

What they are not telling you is that America has the best healthcare technology, not the best healthcare system. These are two different things. The politicians are deliberately trying to confuse the two in order to satisfy their corporate sponsors. All that we have to do to find their true motivation is to follow the money.

The Republican party has claimed to be the party of the Christian faith; in that case, what would Jesus himself say about this issue?

In Mark Chapter 10:21-25, Jesus tells a rich man to distribute his wealth among the poor. He then goes onto say to declare that a rich man will have a difficult time making it into the Kingdom of Heaven. Likewise, in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus reprimands those who do not help the less fortunate. The Gospels clearly indicate that Jesus related more to the proletariat than to the bourgeoisie elite. He was clearly an advocate of distribution of wealth, which is something that the conservatives have actually used as an accusation against President Obama. This is because Democrats believe that with great power comes great responsibility, as opposed to Republicans who think that with great power comes great special privilege.

What the Gospels are telling us is that Jesus was someone who would be classified by today's conservatives as a socialist.

MAY 21st APOCALYPSE!? (A Case for Preterism)

By Aerik Vondenburg
( Originally appeared in http://www.tcpc.org/library/article.cfm?library_id=1015 )

According to the president of the Radio Christian Network and fundamentalist preacher,
Harold Camping, the world was supposed to end on May 21st 2011. Just like many other doomsday predictions, the day came and went without incident. That is because, according to the Bible, these events have already occurred.
In the book of Luke, Jesus tells his followers that the great tribulation would occur in their very own “generation” (Luke 21.32). This statement is documented in the Gospel of Mark as well:

I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
—Jesus,
Mark 13.30

Jesus was actually indicating that the tribulations would occur in their own time, and not in some era in the far future. This statement is repeated in the Book of Revelation, where it clearly indicates that the time of the unveiling, and of the fiery war of Armageddon, were not 2000 years in the future, but “near”:

Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, for the appointed time is near.
—Revelation 22.10

The Book of Revelation itself clearly reports that the time of the tribulation and Apocalypse would take place in the age in which it was written:

Behold! I am coming soon.
—Revelation 22.12

Biblical scholars know that the characters, places, and events in the book of Revelation refer to Rome and Roman authorities, who were the main persecutors of the Christians in those early years. The reason why Revelation was encrypted with symbolism was to conceal its message from the Roman authorities who would have burned it along with anyone who possessed it. It was an institution that was not only originally unreceptive to the Christian religion but was also involved in the worship of pagan gods. Therefore, the author of Revelation related it to the ancient Biblical city of Babylon. There is even a cryptic reference to Rome in the following passage:

This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads [of the beast] are seven hills on which the woman [the Whore of Babylon] sits.
—Revelation 17.9

The “seven hills” refers to the seven hills on which the city of Rome was built (Broderick 1976). We know from the following verse that the “woman” represents the city of Rome itself:

The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.
—Revelation 17.18

The hostile pagan Romans incarcerated the Judeo-Christians and sentenced them to cruel deaths:

I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.
—Revelation 17.6

This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it
goes to perdition.
—Revelation 17.9

The five who have fallen refers to the five Roman emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty who had ruled and passed since the time Jesus was born (Those emperors being: Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius (i.e. Caligula), Claudius, and Nero). The three emperor “kings” who came after the first five were from the Flavian family dynasty of Vespasian. It was “king” Domitian who sought to establish the formation of an imperial cult that was based on himself and the Flavian family that he descended from (Friesen 2001). This bloodline included Vespasian and Titus, the very same Roman persecutors who were involved in the attack on the rebels in Judea. By establishing an imperial pagan institution with religious connotations that was hostile to Judeo-Christianity, Domitian had established himself as a “false prophet” in the eyes of the author of the Book of Revelation.

The second Beast that is from the “earth” is either a high-priest of the imperial cult, or a provincial governor (perhaps of Asia Minor—the same location where the churches mentioned in Revelation were located). This so-called “beast” made the people worship the image of the first. Both the “image” and the “mark” refer to monetary currency. We know this because in Revelation 13.17 we are told that they are linked to “buying” and “selling. What this means is that the Beast and his cohorts sought to control the currency and the wealth of the land.

The “image” of the Beast was the face of one of the emperors that appeared on the Roman coinage of the time. The “mark” of the Beast also refers to the infamous number “666.” Modern-day scholars have discovered that by assigning numbers to the Hebrew alphabet, that the numbers 666 can be derived from the words “Nero Caesar” (Gentry 2001). Therefore it is most likely that the image that appeared on the currency was that of emperor Nero, the infamous persecutor of the early Christians.

A primary reason why these Biblical passages have been ignored is because of the belief that Armageddon, the Tribulation, the Rapture, the Apocalypse, and the return of the Christ, are about to happen, infuses their belief-system with an element of exciting faith-bolstering relevance. The other effect that this interpretation has is that is compels fearful obedience for those who may be concerned about the horrendous adversity that is foretold and about the horror of being “left behind” during the “Rapture.”

The interpretation of the Rapture that is believed by many Judeo-Christian Protestant fundamentalists, is that Christians will simply vanish into thin air and be taken up into Heaven right before the Apocalypse is about to begin; however, this link between the Rapture and the apocalyptic end-times was not developed until the 18th century by men such as the Puritan minister, Cotton Mather.

According to the Gospels themselves, Jesus himself indicated that on that day, ones material possessions will no longer mean anything. The reason for this is because on that day one will no longer be in the physical world. In the Book of Luke, where some of the alleged references to the Rapture occur, Jesus also makes a reference to a dead body:

Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.
—Jesus,
Luke 17.37

The reason for the references to a dead body and to the end of material possessions is because he was actually referring to the process of physical death. This is what the Rapture actually is. This is also what the “Day of Judgment” is as well. Indeed, during the original Tribulation which occurred during the Jewish Roman war and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., many people lost their lives. During that time, worthy spirits ascended into Heaven.

The reality is that the “signs of the times” have always occurred and will continue to occur for years, centuries, and perhaps even millennia to come. That is because, whether intentional or not, the events and characters that are described in Revelation are infused with a certain fundamental archetypal significance that can be applied to a wide array of individuals and situations—including ones in the present-day. However, the situation that is referred to in the Book of Revelation originally applied to individuals and events that were happening in the time in which it was written. This is the "preterist" position.



Broderick, Robert, C. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Thomas Nelson Inc, 1976
Friesen, Steven J. Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
———. Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia, and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993.
Gentry, Kenneth L. Jr. The Beast of Revelation. (Revised Edition) Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2001.


My Experience at a Gnostic Christian Mass

By Aerik Vondenburg

A couple months ago, I had the pleasure of attending a Gnostic Christian mass. (The Queen of Heaven Gnostic Church, a parish of the Ecclesia Gnostica) ( http://www.gnosis.org/ecclesia/ecclesia.htm )
It was held in a living room of a house that had been converted into a chapel. The liturgy seemed heavily influenced by catholic mass, although with more references to the "wisdom of Sophia," "innefable mysteries," and the "divine pleroma."

The subject of the sermon was the Knights Templar.

The Gnostics were some of the earliest Christians. Not much was known about them because of persecution by Paul's Roman Christian sect, who saw them as heretics.

The word 'Gnosticism' is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the Greek word meaning 'knowledge', gnosis (γνῶσις). However, gnosis itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in Platonist philosophy. This term was used to differentiate themselves from the Pauline sect, who they felt did not understand the true teachings of the Savior.

Gnosticism was a group of ancient religions that combined different elements from Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism), Neoplatonism, and eventually Buddhism.

The following is from their website: ( http://www.gnosis.org/portland/ )


The Queen of Heaven Gnostic Church is a parish of the Ecclesia Gnostica, a Christian Gnostic sacramental church with its headquarters in Los Angeles, California. As a sacramental, liturgical church we employ chant, candles, incense, bells, vestments and other accoutrements for the purpose of elevating consciousness out of the ordinary and commonplace. The structure and content of our liturgies are age-old and inspired by the practices and metaphorical writings of the early Gnostics of the First through Fourth centuries.

What is our purpose?
The primary mission of our Church is to provide the ancient wisdom and redeeming power of the Gnosis, our means of spiritual liberation, within the living context of traditional Christian ritual and sacrament. By working with the literature of various Gnostic traditions in a sacramental setting, the words of the early Gnostics begin to awaken in us and subtly bring to us mystical insights into the existential meaning of the material world and the spiritual realities which transcend it. We begin to know what they knew. By this means we can recognize the true divine core of our being as a spark of the divine light. We begin to find out from whence we have come and whither we shall return in the journey of the soul, the journey by which each individual spark of the Light returns to its home in the Fullness, the Pleroma, the Place of Light.

What do we offer?
Although we practice an Independent Catholic tradition with similarities to mainstream Christianity, we have the additional interpretation and approach of the ancient Gnostics to more deeply participate in the divine mysteries of the sacramental life. As a community, we bring together a broad range of spiritual interests and backgrounds to amplify, deepen and expand our understanding of our Gnostic readings, rites and symbols. What we share as a community is an attraction to the sacramental mysteries of the early Church as a means for connecting us with this wide-reaching spirit of the ancient Gnostics. Although the Valentinian Gnosticism that we most closely resemble died out soon after the 4th Century, we retain an unbroken lineage to the early Apostolic Church of which it was a part, and have a direct succession from its Gnostic revivals in France and England.

Creationism Versus Evolution: A Case for Intelligent Christianity

By Aerik Vondenburg

Traditional Judeo-Christianity would have us believe that God simply uttered some words and the universe was born in one week, some 6000 years ago. Unfortunately, it is this type of ancient thinking that turns many people away from Christianity.

Just because the creation records do not extend past thousands of years does not mean that creation itself is that old.

Scientific study has confirmed that our planet has developed over the course of millennia. The author of the book of Genesis used the description of “days” in order to describe the different stages that the planet went through as it was formed. This reasoning also applies to the creation of the first man and woman as well (which would explain why physical evidence of half primate, half homosapien hominids have been discovered.)

What should be considered is that the author of Genesis was not present during the creation of the world. Nor was he there for the creation of the first human-beings. Instead, the author used metaphorical descriptions in order to convey certain key primary points.

Proponents of creationism—under the banner of “Intelligent Design”—will only accept scientific theories that they can make fit into a pre-established belief system; while at the same time, automatically rejecting any evidence that indicates the contrary.

Conservative Christians have been using the airplane/tornado argument to support their claims about evolution (based on a theory by astronomer Fred Hoyle, in his 1983 book The Intelligent Universe), saying that: Darwin's theory of evolution is the equivalent of a tornado whirling up spare metal fragments in a junkyard into a fully-formed working 747 jet airplane. The problem with this theory is that metal parts are not organic, and therefore, do not mutate and adapt over the course of millennia the same way that biological organisms do.

We must also remember that it was the old world Dark Age Christianity that rejected the science of its time as well. History tells us that it was the narrow-minded guardians of the traditional fundamentalist Judeo-Christian interpretation that rejected the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and that the Earth was not flat, but round. We have also seen this type of reaction manifested in our own time in the traditional fundamentalist Judeo-Christian attack on the scientific theory of evolution as well.
Science is not heresy. Christianity will only grow and succeed when it is made more acceptable to the intelligent, the rational, and the informed.

It could at least be said that the energy of God is what ignited the Big Bang. In other words: it could be said that GOD CREATED EVOLUTION!

What Would Jesus Say About Homosexuality?

By Aerik Vondenburg

On Wednesday, December 22, 2010, President Obama will sign the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 into law, ending a 17-year policy of banning gay and lesbian service members from serving openly in the military.

Republicans explain that their opposition to the bill has nothing to do with homophobia; although, the conservative members of their party have demonstrated a long history of intolerance toward homosexual people.

Right-wing Christians have been using the Old Testament book of Leviticus to justify their position, which has culminated in the "God Hates Fags" movement of the Kansas Westboro Baptist Church. The reference is found in Leviticus 18.22, in which we are told that Jehovah considers homosexuality to be an “abomination.”

Although Jesus himself never directly commented on this issue, we know from the record that is provided in the New Testament itself, that it is unlikely that he would have outright condemned consenting same-sex adults who engage in intimate relationships. For instance, in the very same book of the Old Testament where Jehovah is reportedly condemning homosexuality, a blasphemer is ordered to be stoned to death (Leviticus 24.23), and the law “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is decreed (Leviticus 24.19)—both of which are practices that Jesus directly overturned! Also, in this very same book of the Old Testament, Jehovah decrees that pigs—which would include bacon and ham—and seafood that do not have “fins and scales”—such as crab and lobster—are “detestable” and must never be eaten (Leviticus 11.7-10). One must wonder how many right-wing fundamentalist Christian zealots who are condemning and discriminating against homosexual people are guilty of this ancient infraction?

The New Testament clearly indicates that it was the Heavenly Father's intention to manifest a new and more compassionate era upon the Earth when he sent the Christ into the world of man. Based on the teachings of Jesus himself, it can be concluded that he would have said that it is not those who love who do not make it into the kingdom of the Heavenly Father, but those who hate.


NOTE: An updated and more detailed examination of this topic is posted on my website (under the title: HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE MISINTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE . Please click the following link: www.aerikvondenburg.com/essays

JESUS WAS NOT A REPUBLICAN (or a Democrat)

By Aerik Vondenburg

All too often it is the conservative right-wing that is the first to dominate the conversation on the nature of Judeo-Christianity and the interpretation of the meaning of the Christ's mission on Earth.

However, we know by what is recorded in the New Testament record itself, that if Jesus was what we would call today a Republican, he would do things like: not help the sick and the poor (unless they paid him); he would not turn the other cheek when struck by an enemy; and he would be in league with the money-changers and the powerful elite.

Jesus did not do these things because he was the progressive of his time!

The Gospels tell us that Jesus was a caring and compassionate person who spoke out against those who's "hearts had been hardened." In this case, it could be said that the Savior was someone that would be labeled as a so-called "bleeding heart"—a term that is nowadays commonly ascribed to liberals.

 Jesus taught that besides crimes like murder and theft, sin was also "slander" and bearing "false witness." Also, in Mark 7.22, Jesus said that among other things evil was "malice, deceit, arrogance and folly." How many times have we seen this type of behavior from characters in the right-wing conservative media? (Beck, Limbaugh, and Coulter come to mind.)

It is certainly unfortunate that so many Republicans would have such a callous outlook when it comes to humanity and the underprivileged. This uncompassionate and selfish behavior is related to what they refer to as "rugged individualism"—which is the type of behavior that Jesus actually spoke out against.

 In the Book of Genesis, we read that it was God's intention for human-beings to be good stewards of the land and to take care of it. But how are the so-called "conservatives" taking care of it when they are disregarding the polluting and the damaging of the planet? The Republicans have been the advocates for money and big business over not only the welfare of the people, but the welfare of the environment—i.e. God's creation. How can a good Christian be complaisant with this?

 The conservative right-wing have taken over the interpretation of the teachings of the Christ, while at the same time not only misinterpreting them, but in some cases, even disobeying these very same teachings as well. They have been able to do this by being active and zealous in their own interpretation of the Bible and of Christianity. In this case, perhaps we progressives should learn strategy points from some of our brethren on the other side of the isle and become just as outspoken and adamant in our own beliefs as well.