Jump to content
The World News Media

Did Watch Tower Teachings from Rutherford's Time Influence the "Nation of Islam"?


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member

Reverting to the original question and ignoring the complex analysis of detail since, could we reword this as:

Did the demon influencing the teachings of the "Nation of Islam" plagiarise Watch Tower Teachings (erroneous or otherwise) from Rutherford's Time, to create confusion in the minds of the "ignorant and unstable"?

or is that going a "bridge too far"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 4.9k
  • Replies 19
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ha! Not Olin Moyle  Just one happy family 

Reverting to the original question and ignoring the complex analysis of detail since, could we reword this as: Did the demon influencing the teachings of the "Nation of Islam" plagiarise Watch To

Allen, You have made a lot of good points. In fact, there are no points made in any of the evidence you quoted from that I disagree with. I still agree with every one of your sources. I thin

Posted Images

  • Member

Allen,

You have made a lot of good points. In fact, there are no points made in any of the evidence you quoted from that I disagree with. I still agree with every one of your sources.

I think the problem is that we have come at this issue with a different understanding of what it means to be "influenced." I notice that you keep going back to questions about whether Rutherford had a positive influence on the NOI, and you have spent a lot of time showing that the NOI is very different from the Watch Tower Society and perhaps not even worthy of any influence by the Watchtower. I still agree on those points too.

I'm guessing that you have thought about this idea of "influence" and are thinking of the perspective that if there is nothing of any socially redeeming value in the NOI, then there must be no evidence that it was influenced by something good. I understand your perspective.

I think you have also wanted to make the point that if I am claiming that there was some level of influence on the NOI from the teachings of Rutherford, that this somehow reflects badly on Rutherford or the Watch Tower Society. I didn't understand this, but I'm thinking that it must be based on the corollary of the idea just stated. It must have sounded like I was saying that if something that is so "totally bad" (like the NOI) was influenced by the Watch Tower Society, then it's like saying that the WTS influenced something to be "bad." I don't believe the WTS produced any kind of bad or negative influence -- AND I don't think that what I am calling influence produced anything positive in the NOI. The only possible, potential advantage I mentioned was that any familiarity with Rutherford's teachings might have made the transition just a little easier if anyone would have later decided to convert from NOI to JW.

In fact, my reason for bringing up this idea in the first place was to support something you had said earlier about the variety of beliefs within the supposed "umbrella" of the Bible Students. In fact, I have always agreed with you on this point: that there was no actual "umbrella" that defined all groups of Bible Students. You mentioned the Bangalore Bible Students, and I thought you might also be aware of some of their differences, and that there were dozens of Bible Student groups that would draw crowds and congregations after themselves in many countries around the world. There were several who had associated with Bible students, and then made themselves "prophets" or claimed to be the fulfillment of some prophetic Bible character as a modern-day "antitype." Some used a small part of the original Bible Student message that they had picked up from Russell and then created something quite strange and almost unrecognizable from it.

In fact, you can still go back to the topic where this came up and see that I was supporting something you, Allen, had recently presented.  http://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/28202-what-does-it-mean-with-the-april-2017-study-edition-of-the-wt-are-all-who-wereare-baptized-still-bound-to-this-vow/ The following is an exact quote from that topic, although below I highlighted the sentence where I had mentioned you.

On 1/8/2017 at 10:19 AM, JW Insider said:

The "Bible students" under Russell had similar problems with the various "Bible student" associations. "Allen Smith" has pointed out examples, in some of his posts. The split-offs of both Russell-styled Bible Students and Rutherford-styled Bible Students (and even Jehovah's Witnesses in a few cases) have been springing up for years. There has been a long-standing problem with dozens of such splinter groups and self-styled prophets in Africa, for example, that make use of the Watchtower publications as a foundation. Rutherford's doctrines have even been traced as a factor in the growth of the Black Muslim [Nation of Islam] movement in the United States.

The idea that the NOI had been "influenced" was just mentioned as an extreme example of how some of the Watch Tower Society's teachings have been misused. Apparently you might have agreed with the idea had I worded it a little differently. Perhaps you have a better idea how to word it in a way that supports the point you had made in previous posts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

For anyone else still interested at all in this question, or this subject, I should mention that there are easily about 100 pages of resources and material on the subject that has not been touched upon yet. I doubt that we will get through very much of it, but I thought that the explanation in The Centennial Review appeared quite accurate and speaks of similarities without attempting to prove causation. Naturally, it's long and I can't quote all much of it. These will be excerpts from 21 pages, with some portions highlighted. There are certain problems with his overview of WT and JW teachings, but at least shows a good awareness of most of the historical changes. The things he gets wrong includes the exact relationship he implies between Russell and Second Adventism, and I think this is worthy of more discussion under a separate topic. (I didn't mention it before, but I think that AllenSmith was right in a prior post where he credits B W Schulz with the most accurate history on that topic, although I wouldn't mind hearing where Allen differs from Schulz' view.)

THE BLACK MUSLIMS: AN AMERICAN MILLENNIALISTIC RESPONSE TO RACISM AND CULTURAL DERACINATION Author(s): Perry E. Gianakos Source: The Centennial Review, Vol. 23, No. 4 (FALL 1979), pp. 430-451

Black Muslims have ties to two earlier American black nationalist groups and share some of the ideas of each: the Marcus Garvey movement of the late 1920's and the Moorish-American Science Temple movement of Noble Drew Ali (the former Timothy Drew of North Carolina).5 The Islamic elements in the Black Muslim belief system probably derive originally from the Drew movement, but they were reenforced by W. D. Fard, the "Arab peddler" whom some Muslims believe to have been Allah. Appearing mysteriously in Detroit in 1930, Fard assumed leadership of the Moorish movement upon the death of its founder the year before, claiming at the time to be the "reincarnation of Noble Drew Ali." The movement soon split into factions, one of which led by Elijah Muhammad (the former Elijah Poole of Georgia) remained faithful to Prophet Fard (Master Wallace Fard Muhammad). It is this faction — "The Nation of Islam" — to which C. Eric Lincoln gave the name "The Black Muslims." According to E. U. Essien-Udom, how ever, in the early sixties Malcolm X and other Black Muslims denied any connection with the Moorish movement and asserted Fard's uniqueness (pp. 35-36). Fard's origin, though, remains a mystery, as does his disappearance in June, 1933.6

The influence of at least two other American religious movements — both millennial in character — can be detected in the Black Muslim eschatology: the Jehovah's Witnesses and, to a lesser extent, in their economic activities, the Mormons. The millennial element, of course, also links the movement to traditional Christian groups and ultimately to Judaism. Similar ities to the Ras Tafarian movement of Jamaica, now established in northeastern United States, derive solely from common links to the Garvey movement.7

...

Answers to the question of specifically when the millennium will begin have been offered by various groups over the years. Most of these predicted dates have been derived from abstruse and highly individualistic juggling of Biblical numbers — a latter day adaptation of the Hebrew Kabbala. As one would conclude, as long as the beliefs remained vital, these dates were subject to constant revision. In the United States, probably the most famous of these predictions, because so many people acted on it, even going so far as to purchase "ascension robes," was that of William Miller in 1832, who predicted that the Advent would take place in 1843. During the Civil War period, other millennialists believed that the Advent would take place in 1866, and that the war then raging was but the prelude. E. L. Tuveson, for example, has discovered this note of expectancy in Julia Ward Howe's "Battle Hymn of the Republic," composed during the period.14 More recently, the Jehovah's Witnesses — founded in 1872 in Pittsburgh around a nucleus of former Millerites — have offered a series of date, all of which, of course, have had to be revised. Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the group, made his first prediction in 1878. which he later pushed forward to 1914. His successor in the movement, Judge J. R. Rutherford, first set the date at 1925, and subsequent calculations of the Watchtower Society moved the date up to 1975.15 The Reverend Billy Graham has wisely refrained from announcing a date, but, in citing the chaos of the present era as an unmistakable sign, for the past five or six years he has been preaching an imminent second coming. The Black Muslims, themselves, originally took the Jehovah's Witnesses' date — 1914 — but explained that a "grace" period had been granted to allow American Blacks to heed the message of Muhammad. The "final" date was to be 1970. It is presently expected that the event will take place some time before the year 2000, though whether this, too, is to be modified or abandoned under the new leadership is not clear.16

...

One must preface an examination of millennialism in the Black Muslim "social myth" by looking first at the celebrated break between Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X, supposedly over Malcolm's remarks on the assassination of President Kennedy. Though unstated at the time, the break resulted from a conflict over different millennialistic assumptions, assumptions which mirror perfectly the disparities that exist between those followers of the Edwardsean, activist or northern, millennialistic version and the southern, or passive, version currently publicized by the Reverend Billy Graham: in short, between post-millennialism and premillennialism. Such a change or shift (from pre- to post-millennialism), which was implicit in Malcolm's evolving position, as we shall see, would have required an abandonment of much of the Black Muslim "social myth," a step which Elijah Muhammad was not disposed to take. The Kennedy remark became a convenient excuse for Muhammad to rid himself of a charismatic personality who threatened to destroy the "social myth" which had been so successful.21 The most obvious indication that the Black Muslim movement is premillennialist is its original belief in separatism and its long-standing injunction against political activity on the part of its members, including voting. Since the government is corrupt, it would be sinful for any righteous Muslim to participate.22

... man is by nature evil and his civilization doomed to destruction, there is, of course, no reason to integrate with it nor attempt to "reform" what is obviously "unreformable": hence separation with expectancy. Until that "final" day, however, Black Muslims expect the system to treat them justly, and Muslim leaders enjoin their members to obey all just authority. Since they must, they submit, although, as in the celebrated draft refusal case of Muhammad Ali and others, they do not submit in all things. In their attitude toward government the Black Muslims resemble the Jehovah's Witnesses, who regard all government — not just the American or Caucasian ones — as imperfect. All governments, in fact, are "obstacles" standing in the way of the establishment of Jehovah's Kingdom, the only perfect government. (Both Elijah Muhammad and Judge Rutherford, leader of the Jehovah's Witnesses, were sent to jail for obstructing American war efforts. Rutherford in 1914 and Muhammad in 1942).25 ...

Because the Fard movement in Detroit in 1930 appears to have modeled itself in many respects on the example set by the Jehovah's Witnesses, one may be easily tempted to conclude that it was responding to a set of conditions similar to those which precipitated the founding of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Black Muslim resemblances to the Jehovah's Witnesses, however, are traceable to a congruence of aims rather than to a similarity of originating conditions. Because in the beginning days of the movement Fard had no copies of the Koran to give to his followers — most of whom were illiterate — he had urged them to listen to the radio sermons of Judge Rutherford of the Jehovah's Witnesses. These sermons were consistently and sufficiently anti-religious establishment to serve Fard's aim, namely to alienate his followers from their traditional "white" Christian beliefs. Fard was shrewd enough, however, to warn his followers not to take the white man's worlds literally. They were, he warned, "symbolic," requiring "translation" by him in the Temple service. But one suspects that there was little in Rutherford's broadcasts requiring "translation," for his diatribes against established Christian religions were so extreme that he was banned from a number of radio stations. Rutherford's performance thus emboldened Fard to do the same: Christianity was the Negro's "graveyard," he declared, "the slave holder's religion."33 Fard recognized that in order for his followers to accept a new identity the old one had to be destroyed: they were to become, in the parlance of the present day, "born-again Muslims." But Detroit in 1930 was not the same as Pittsburgh in 1872, though both situations gave rise to despair, the originating emotion of millennial movements; nor were the Southern rural blacks who made up the bulk of Fard's followers in Detroit the same as those white, laboring-class Second Adventists in Pittsburg some sixty years earlier. Fard's followers faced a different and an even more despairing situation, compounded now as it was by the additional cruel factor of racism.

For while many southern rural blacks had migrated to the Detroit area during the period of the first World War, so had many southern whites, most of whom brought their racism with them. The Ku Klux Klan had become very strong in Michigan during the post-war period, and fully half of the state's membership of 70,000 resided in Detroit. During the twenties they almost captured the mayor's office. Several council members, in fact, were known to be Klan members. A particularly ugly racial confrontation had taken place in 1925 over the "Henry Sweet affair," but Clarence Darrow's brilliant courtroom victory in that case served, for the moment at least, to prevent the racial situation from deteriorating further.34 The tense racist environment remained, however, and undoubtedly facilitated the founding of the first Black Muslim community.

...

Under the leadership of Wallace D. Muhammad and his successors, the future of the Black Muslims promises to be different in some respects. The "white devil" belief is being abandoned, which means that the "Yakub" myth will be discarded and that whites are now eligible to join the organization.44 The belated recognition that Malcolm X was "ahead of his time" suggests that we shall see the Black Muslims become politically involved. In terms of millennial belief, such a shift means an abandonment of the premillennial pattern and an endorsement of the post-millennial position, since a more activist program was what Malcolm X was urging at the time of his break with [Elijah] Muhammad.

--- end of quotation ---

That was long, but it indicates a second level of complexity to the question. Much of the supposed influence, as Allen has pointed out, is not even related to doctrinal influence. In this I fully agree that there was something very important that Fard and Elijah Muhammad thought they saw in Rutherford's philosophy and social positioning and practice that they considered useful in their method of "peddling" a new religion. Also there was a more general reason to point to the doctrinal teachings of Rutherford due to their anti-establishment and anti-Catholic emphasis.

We can leave to the side for the moment any questions about just how they happened to pick up on the idea that 1914 was the time when the lease of the world's rulers ran out, or the 6,000 years since Adam leading to a 1,000 year millennium to follow, or that they as a chosen people would survive Armageddon into a new world. But that doesn't mean we covered all of the similarities yet. For example, even though Babylon the Great is considered to be America herself, the NOI taught that Babylon had fallen just shortly after 1914, in the sense that she was now doomed, and that her complete fall would be accomplished by the time of the final battle of Armageddon. At the time the Watchtower taught that Armageddon had already begun but the judgment was cut short for more to be chosen to survive. So even some ideas that seem different to us today, were actually a closer match at the time. But admittedly, causation of influence is a complex subject.

What make it more complicated is that there has been change in doctrine in both religions, JWs and NOI. Over time, the NOI may, in some ways find itself apparently more similar to JWs on some millennial doctrines, especially as they adopt a less racist and more inclusive philosophy. But it would be a mistake to think that changes they make now are evidence of influence back in the 20's and 30's. So, as I've pointed out before, no one can just look at any of these similarities one by one, outside the historical context of the full doctrine of NOI, and believe they are always seeing causation by influence. Some of the similarities will derive from coincidence, just by virtue of being another millennial religion that pulled a few ideas from the Bible (such as the 144,000, etc.).

The Nazi philosophy was a millennial philosophy, too, we must remember, but they were definitely not influenced in any way by the Watch Tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Here, the author cites “Rutherford’s” Books, not by name but by year only so the reader would have to accept his word at face value. (Scheme)

@AllenSmith   This was not a "scheme," as you called it. It's actually a PROPER way to document research. What you might not have known is that when you write a thesis or similar academic paper, you usually create a "Reference" section for all the sources that were quoted or utilized for their ideas.

This way you can simply reference them with just the author's name, year and page as a kind of shorthand in the text of your work. (So you don't have to use up so much space repeating the titles each time you refer to the same work.) In this case, Maesen, on page 324-325 (of the "Journal" edition quoted earlier), included just such a section, where those books were identified correctly:

 

Rutherford, Joseph F.

1921 The harp of God. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

1926 Deliverance. Ibid.

1927 Creation. Ibid.

1928a Reconciliation. Ibid.

1928b Government. Ibid.

1929 Life. Ibid.

1930 Light II. Ibid.

1932 Preservation. Ibid.

1933 Preparation. Ibid.

1934 Jehovah. Ibid.

1936 Riches. Ibid.

 

reference.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

And yet, this author “James L. Conyers Jr.” conspires with many past authors to link the WTS teachings to be the same as the NOI.

Just to be accurate here, James L Conyers, Jr. was not the author of this. He was the editor of a collection of essays on a more general subject of various faiths in Africa. He happened to include the author, Maesen, in his collection. That's why the page numbering is different from its original "Journal" publication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

The listing, however, is "NOT" mentioned by any means to search the index for the listing. To me, that's a scheme since it's not forthcoming. Isn't that an argument you usually criticize? or is it only when its convenient to you.

No. The listing IS INDEED mentioned with a means to search the index for the listing. It's on page 256 of Africana Studies. If you are using a Google Books source, then you probably won't see page 256. Instead it will say: "Some pages are omitted from this book preview." But if you scroll up to page 251, you will see that this entire "Chapter 14" is just a copy of the same Maesen source I quoted earlier. The full copy of the book has the entire "Reference" section.

Also, there is a trick to seeing the text of some pages in the Google Books preview, even if the visual, formatted image of the page is omitted. You may already know this trick, but if you know that certain exact text exists on a page, or if you search for the exact text that ends the previous page, you can often get a few words of the context that are actually on the omitted page. If you take the time, you can sometimes re-create an entire omitted page if you tediously repeat searches on any additional exact text that you discover on the omitted page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
34 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Well, I not going to argue what a reference number should be to the listing and where it should be applied for easy reference. That still doesn't alleviate the fact that "false" data is being applied to any book that references Maesen Reseach, or how this person in the" Africana" wrongfully applies the WTS teachings. That is the "main" point.

OK. I understand that point, and as I said in several of my last posts, there is plenty of wrong info in Measen's work, and it is not corrected by other authors that make use of him.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

That doesn't mean this Editor didn't error with the assumption of what the Bible students were actually teaching versus what is fictionally produced by either this person or Maesen. That's my point that you continue to insist on "FALSE" data. And you continue to push that false data on others.

Yes. I would agree that Maesen (and other authors) included some bad assumptions about what the Bible Students were actually teaching. Maesen even admitted some of the weaknesses of the argument as I pointed out earlier. But these authors we have seen so far get a lot of things wrong, either due to how anxious these authors are to prove their assumptions, or from a serious lack of understanding of Bible Student teachings (or both). 

I mentioned earlier that I already understand your position on this a bit better. You agree that there is commonality, but you have noted some cases where these similarities are much more divergent than the author claims. So I completely understand, with that explanation, why you say it's wrong to call this "influence."

Personally, I would still use the word "influence" only because so many of the remaining points of similarity are not so easy to dismiss or counter, and even though some of these assumptions made by these authors still contain mistakes, they are much less serious than the errors you (and I) have already pointed out. Also, I have already agreed in the very first post that the points of commonality were a misuse of the Watchtower's intent for these same doctrines. It's just that I believe someone can also be "influenced" by some teaching,  and then distort it so greatly, so that you might not even recognize where the "influence" came from. I can think of other cases where you might call this same type of process "influence" but I don't want to get too far off topic.

This is a little off topic, but you asked a few questions earlier in this "thread" that I skipped. I can at least try to answer direct questions.

On 1/20/2017 at 4:53 AM, AllenSmith said:

You claim to have copied a book while at the Bethel House by a Book author that accepted this Gossip, for what purpose did you copy that book, for what purpose did you read the COJ book, for what purpose do you defend people like “Barbara Anderson” that claimed “Rutherford” is buried in the garage floor at Beth Sarim in San Diego. If she was willing to accept that as a researcher for the WTS, as you claim to be?

I didn't copy that (Horowitz) book while at Bethel. That was from a university library where I maintain alumni access. Also, Horowitz doesn't accept "this gossip" in that book, which is about Russell's particular form of Zionism, based on Russell's speeches and writings. I copied the book because I didn't have time to read it, and because I didn't want to check it out to take home (because I don't live that close to Massachusetts). Also, I get a very cheap rate on photocopies there. :)

You also asked why I read the COJ book. Initially, I read the manuscript with the idea that I would find the time to do some research and counter the very weak or specious arguments I expected to find. The person who first allowed me to see a small copied portion of it thought the person should be disfellowshipped just for writing it. The person (in Writing) who gave my wedding talk and let me see the whole thing believed that someday someone should be able to respond to it, but by then I already knew I wasn't at all equipped to help, and he didn't show it to me with the idea that I would ever get such an assignment, anyway. It was way out of my league at the time, but I have since obtained and read many if not most of the reference sources to check whether it was accurate, and I also obtained and ran several different software programs to double-check the dates for calculations of eclipses and planetary positions from astronomical diaries quoted.

You also asked for what purpose I defend people like "Barbara Anderson." I don't defend people (unless I know enough about them). I defend ideas that appear to be based on evidence. But I'm very skeptical of anything anyone says unless it matches evidence, and even then I know that new and additional evidence can always come along someday and change what I think to be true. I know of a few things that Anderson has said that I don't believe at all based on contrary evidence. I also know of a few things she has said that I thought wouldn't be true, but turned out to have more evidence than what I previously believed. So far I've been impressed with her ability to do research and I therefore understand why the Watch Tower Society trusted her with so much research. But this doesn't mean I automatically trust anything she says in the future. I automatically assume bias, as I do with anyone, and I recognize biases in my own thinking, too.

I really don't care where Rutherford is buried. That's probably why I don't remember reading anything on Anderson's site about that particular fact. I think I recall a request to the city of San Diego to bury him at Beth Sarim, but I thought the request was denied. I assume that the Watch Tower Society has the correct information on that subject. I wouldn't expect them to be that concerned about it anyway. Even if the WTS or someone else has said something incorrect about it, it's not a Biblical or doctrinal issue, anyway. It has nothing to do with the effects of our publications or preaching work. It's just more trivia.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Well, like I Said before, a good researcher finds "facts". I just happen to think the worst researchers come from Bethel

I just listened to it. It's all about hearsay evidence. Hardly any verifiable facts at all.

Sounds like the person showing her the house had just made use of some unsubstantiated rumors just to make the property more "interesting" for some kind of "shock value" effect. I think it's very odd that the Staten Island property doesn't have any grave markers, but it really was used as a cemetery according to a notice in the Watchtower. And it doesn't mean anything that Rutherford's grave is unmarked if there really are other persons in unmarked graves there, too.

The quote from Franz is the first I heard of it, so I'm guessing it must have been mostly shared in apostate or exJW circles. (You probably know that Franz was the kind of person to sometimes blurt out little-known historical facts, but surely this one would have gotten a lot more quick traction because it's the kind of sensational gossip that spreads.) Yet, I knew two old-timers at Bethel who admitted a real hate for Rutherford, and who told some of the stories that they thought were true, but may or may not have been. I saw one of these persons every day a breakfast and the subject came up only about once a month, but he was the kind who would have shared something negative like this, if he thought there was any chance it was true. 

I just did some more reading about it, and realize it's a strange circumstance, but that's not evidence. Strange circumstances give rise to false rumors, but they don't make the rumors any more likely to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.