Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Tax-Funded CPAC Brazil, Brazil’s Largest “Conservative” Event, Criticizes… Tax-Funded Socialists


Tax-Funded CPAC Brazil, Brazil’s Largest “Conservative” Event, Criticizes… Tax-Funded Socialists

By Julio Severo
Defending the minimum state, Eduardo Bolsonaro presented CPAC Brazil, which he said it was the biggest conservative event in Brazil. Although the idea of “minimum state” means “less taxes” and fewer government people spending tax money, what was seen at CPAC was “conservatives” criticizing tax-funded socialists at an event that cost the Brazilian taxpayers US$ 275,000.
Eduardo Bolsonaro introducing Olavo de Carvalho at CPAC Brazil
CPAC stands for Conservative Political Action Conference. CPAC Brazil, which happened on October 11-12, 2019 in São Paulo, was the first ever event of this kind in Brazil.
Although the event was designed for 2,000 people, according to its organizers the conference had about 1,200 participants.
For socialists, it is very easy to use the state machine for their power projects. Now, in the right-wing version, Eduardo Bolsonaro used the state machine for his personal power project.
Instead of promoting their causes with their own money, socialists always use the money of others, preferably taxes. Not unlike that, “Prince” Eduardo promoted CPAC in Brazil not with money from his own pocket, but with tax money. If this is not right-wing socialism, then what is it?
However, the problem is not just taxes being used to fund what Eduardo Bolsonaro called Brazil’s biggest conservative event. As stated on the event website itself, the CPAC Brazil conference was officially held by the Indigo Foundation, which has already advocated the legalization of the medical and recreational use of marijuana.
“The legalization of possession, distribution and sale of marijuana for medical and recreational purposes could solve several Brazilian public problems, such as prison overcrowding, the existence of complex and very profitable trafficking schemes, reduction of crime rates and reduction of deaths caused by trafficking and overdose by the use of more toxic substances,” argued Indigo Foundation, which sponsored CPAC Brazil.
Because Eduardo Bolsonaro and his allies did not want, according to conservative values, to fund CPAC Brazil with their own money, the Indigo Foundation was used to fund the event with tax money.
This is not the first time Eduardo has held a tax-funded “conservative” event using the Indigo Foundation. In July 2018 he attempted to hold the Conservative Summit of the Americas, which was eventually held on December.
It is obvious that with so much tax money used in a “conservative” event, what was exalted was not conservatism. The exaltation was given to Eduardo Bolsonaro, who is the son of President Jair Bolsonaro. The second most exalted man was Olavo de Carvalho, a Bolsonaro advisor who for his long history as an occultist and astrologer is considered “Bolsonaro’s Rasputin.”
The Conservative Summit of the Americas, which glorified Carvalho, cost the Brazilian tax-payers US$ 125,000.
Under Brazilian law, funding events with tax money is not illegal. But from a conservative point of view, its not correct. It is even immoral.
“He paved the way for Bolsonaro to come,” said the president’s son about Carvalho’s glorification at CPAC. In March 2019 Eduardo was reprimanded by televangelist Silas Malafaia for dismissing evangelicals to credit Bolsonaro’s victory to Carvalho. Malafaia, who is the greatest conservative evangelical voice in Brazil today, was not invited to the CPAC conference, although he led millions of evangelicals to vote for Bolsonaro.
The only major international news service that wrote a report on the CPAC conference was the BBC, but only in its Portuguese edition. Its English edition ignored the event. In fact, although the U.S. has thousands of conservative websites, none have so far written about the CPAC event in Brazil.
The BBC showed a big screen at CPAC where Carvalho was exalted. The truth is that the president’s son can say and do anything he wants, from extolling a Rasputin to channeling taxes to hold a “conservative” event.
This is not the first time the BBC has addressed Carvalho. In 2017, when no conservative U.S. channel wrote about Carvalho taking part in a debate with a Brazilian socialist at Harvard University, the BBC was the only big news outlet to interview Carvalho, who said he supports the socialist idea of “minimum income,” where the state grants a minimum wage for each citizen. This seemingly generous salary would come entirely from tax money.
In a very real sense, Carvalho is not far from Satan, not only for his poorly explained occult connections, but also for being the greatest advocate of Inquisition revisionism in Brazil. Carvalho’s opinion is that American evangelicals are liars for supporting the “lie” that the Inquisition tortured and killed Jews and Protestants.
Because it is the largest Protestant nation in the world and it is the nation that most protected Jews in the world, the United States has also become the country that fought the Inquisition the most. Although Carvalho does not hide his disgust at the role of American evangelicals in helping Jews fight the Inquisition, he prefers to live in the U.S., an inconsistent behavior not unlike Brazilian socialists who criticize American capitalism and evangelicalism but prefer to live in the US.
Carvalho also said that evangelical churches did more harm to Brazil than the entire left did.
However, defending the Inquisition is not their only problem. Allan dos Santos, who was extolled by Eduardo Bolsonaro and Mercedes Schlapp as official representative of the “conservative press” in Brazil, is an adherent of Carvalho who was unmasked by journalist Felipe Moura Brazil in his report in Crusoé magazine “Os Blogueiros de Crachá” (Accredited Bloggers) about bloggers who support Carvalho and Bolsonaro and receive financial favors.
Moura Brasil’s report shows how Allan dos Santos and even Felipe G. Martins, the president’s special international adviser, allegedly act in conspiracies to overthrow ministers who are not aligned with Carvalho. One of the overthrown ministers was General Carlos Alberto dos Santos Cruz, who allegedly objected diversion of his ministry’s tax money to fund Carvalho and his groups.
Thanks to the action of these militant groups, there is no real freedom in the Bolsonaro administration. All ministers who tried to criticize Olavo de Carvalho’s harmful influence on the government were fired. So if people say in the future that Carvalho was a person respected by everyone in the Bolsonaro administration because all the ministers praised him, it’s because no one had a choice.
How not to praise Carvalho? He received from Bolsonaro the highest award from the Brazilian government, a clear signal, according to the words of a Bolsonaro’s party leader, that Bolsonaro is in love with Carvalho. It is also a sign that Carvalho cannot be criticized in government.
Fortunately, I am not in government and can criticize Carvalho with Christian responsibility. When Carvalho advised President Bolsonaro to appoint Ricardo Velez as Minister of Education, I reported that Velez supported Hillary Clinton and did not like Trump. When Velez fell, Carvalho advised Bolsonaro to choose Abraham Weintraub, exposed by me as a socialist rightist.
In Brazil, it is not the leftist mainstream media that criticizes Carvalho for his defense of the Inquisition. In fact, the left does not seem to care that he defends such past atrocities. His biggest critic on this subject is me. Because of my criticism, Carvalho, using and abusing his influence in government, has already appealed to the Federal Police to investigate me, as if it were a crime to criticize him for the Inquisition and his occult involvement.
Although evangelicals were the main supporters for Bolsonaro in the Brazilian presidential election of 2018, there are very few evangelicals in senior government positions. These evangelicals are also not free to criticize Carvalho.
In an exclusive interview with HuffPost Brazil, Eduardo Bolsonaro scoffed at the denunciation of journalist Moura Brasil, saying that there is “a deliberate persecution of anyone who does not align with the conduct desired by the left.” (His interview was inconsistent, because if he does not like the left, why did he accept to be interviewed by left-wing HuffPost?)
For the simple fact that the journalist denounced witch hunt in Carvalho’s service, he was labeled a leftist. It is an unjust accusation.
Felipe Moura Brazil is the editor of a best-selling book by Carvalho and the author of a video against socialism with over 7 million views in the United States. The video (https://youtu.be/bKhR9i5CGkA),) entitled “How Socialism Ruined My Country,” was shared by Dennis Prager, a well-known anti-Marxist Jew.
There is no Brazilian anti-Maxist video more famous in the U.S. than Moura Brasil’s video.
If criticizing occult influences in the Bolsonaro administration makes you vulnerable to being labeled a “leftist,” Eduardo Bolsonaro will soon use this charge against me, although I have anti-Marxist militancy long before him. During the Lula administration in 2006, I criticized his homosexualist campaign. One of the biggest exposés published in the U.S. against the Lula administration was written by me in 2006.
While in 1999 Jair Bolsonaro was supporting Hugo Chávez and his Venezuelan socialism, I was fighting socialism and the gay agenda. I am the author of the book “O Movimento Homossexual” (The Homosexual Movement), originally published by the Brazilian branch of Bethany House Publishers in 1998. This was the first Brazilian book against the homosexual agenda.
Because of my Christian conservatism, I am even criticized by the U.S. left.
So who participated in CPAC Brazil, where the most exalted men were Eduardo Bolsonaro and Olavo de Carvalho?
The American speakers were:
Matt Schlapp
Mercedez Schlapp
James M. Roberts
Christine S. Wilson
Charles R. Gerow
Senator Mike Lee
Kassy Dillon
Since they do not understand Portuguese, the Americans were unable to understand that instead of being with representatives of Brazilian conservatism, they were actually seeing representatives of the Olavo de Carvalho movement who, not surprisingly, were the Brazilian speakers, including:
Minister Ernesto Araújo, an open fan of Olavo de Carvalho, René Guénon and Julius Evola. Islamic occultist René Guénon, much recommended by Carvalho for decades, had as his main disciple Evola, whose books advocating a right-wing occult inspired Italian fascism and Nazism.
Abraham Weintraub, the education minister who promised to create more day care centers in Brazil than previous socialist administrations in a campaign of right-wing socialism. His ministry also launched a campaign using astrology and the Brazilian public attributed this nonsense to Carvalho’s influence on his life.
Bernardo Kuster, a former evangelical who converted to Carvalho’s esoteric political cult. Today he defends the idea that the Inquisition was a court of mercy.
Ana Campagnolo, an “evangelical” fan of Carvalho. She became famous for battling Marxism in the classroom, and was equally famous for indoctrinating students into making star charts (astrology) without their parents’ consent and knowledge.
Damares Alves, a Pentecostal minister, also spoke. Her subject was pro-family issues. She is not a Carvalho disciple but she is also not free to criticize him and some homosexualist items of Bolsonaro administration’s agenda. In fact, she has been ordered to implement such items.
CPAC Brazil also had a round table with Carvalho’s supporters — Filipe G. Martins, Rafael Nogueira, Flavio Morgenstein and Taiguara Fernandes — to discuss his importance.
In addition, there was a round table with “independent media” — a term that Eduardo uses to mean the media that extols Carvalho. In “independent media” Eduardo included Conexão Política, Visão Macro, Daniel Lopez, Terça Livre (of Allan dos Santos) and Crítica Nacional.
As president’s son, Eduardo Bolsonaro can include or exclude who he wants. He has privileges guaranteed by his father and plenty of tax money to do what he wants. The fact that he used tax money to hold CPAC Brazil shows the power of the “prince,” a term used by Major Olimpio, leader of the Bolsonaro’s party in the Brazilian Senate. He said President Bolsonaro’s children have “princes’ craze” and cause problems for their father.
The latest prince craze was for him to want to be Brazil’s ambassador to the U.S.
Daniel Lopez, who is considered an evangelical pastor and attended CPAC as “independent media,” has fallen into Carvalho’s loquacity and today promotes books openly against the evangelical faith, including books sanitizing the Inquisition. One of these books is entitled “Inquisition, a court of mercy.”
In Daniel Lopez, there is no independence from Carvalho. In fact, all the other “independent media” are not independent from Carvalho.
The hallmark of Carvalho’s supposedly rightist movement is the intransigent defense of the Inquisition. I say supposedly rightist because Carvalho himself refuses the title of right-winger and conservative. Another hallmark of this movement is Carvalho’s personality cult.
Allan dos Santos, from Terça Livre, was the main “independent journalist” exalted by Eduardo. According to UOL’s exposé, Allan has already benefited from tax money for his personal expenses. What is missing in Brazil is an “independent journalist” whose pocket is independent from tax money.
I don’t know if Matt Schlapp, Mercedez Schlapp, James M. Roberts, Christine S. Wilson, Charles R. Gerow, Senator Mike Lee and Kassy Dillon would attend CPAC Brazil if they really knew who Olavo de Carvalho is, and I don’t even know if they agree that CPAC Brazil was only used and abused to glorify Eduardo Bolsonaro, Carvalho and their supporters.
However, apparently they had the idea that the leader of the conservative movement in Brazil is “prince” Eduardo Bolsonaro. Walid Phares, CPAC’s U.S. speaker, said Eduardo is “leading a rising conservative national movement.”
I don’t know if the American organizers of CPAC are innocent and did not deserve to be duped. Last year their U.S. event banned a conservative pro-family evangelical group and hosted a homosexual group. In addition, CPAC has already featured a prominent conservative homosexual speaker, who eventually humiliated CPAC after engaging in a public pedophilia scandal.
Attempting to unite homosexuality with conservatism is something a real conservative Christian would never do or accept. But a money-driven opportunist does and accepts anything.
At CPAC Brazil, Eduardo Bolsonaro proudly posed with the rainbow flag, showing that he believes there is homosexual conservatism.
Eduardo Bolsonaro and the gay flag
If there are “conservatives” with socialist attitudes (spending US$ 275,000 of tax money to hold a “conservative” event like the CPAC), why not gay “conservatives” as well?
Nevertheless, U.S. businessman Sean Fieler displayed at CPAC Brazil in sequence the flags of the Soviet Union, Cuba and the gay movement, equating them as forms of totalitarianism.
 “It’s the most dangerous movement in the U.S. today,” he said. It is such a destructive movement that it is already infiltrating conservative groups and parties, including CPAC itself.
The Brazilian lesson that will remain with CPAC for a long time is that CPAC Americans are highly vulnerable. They preach minimal state, less taxes and denounce tax-funded socialists. But at the earliest opportunity, they accept to attend a highly tax-funded event.
President Jair Bolsonaro did not attend the event, perhaps as a dissatisfaction with Trump’s refusal to include Brazil in the OECD in 2019, after Bolsonaro showered him with several signs of good will.
At this point, CPAC organizers may be wondering if the Brazilian swamp, which is full of problems on the left, has no problems on the right. Whether it wanted to or not, CAPC eventually legitimized the extremist pro-Inquisition right that threatens true Christian conservatism. It also legitimized Carvalho’s personality cult, who spares no effort to glorify himself, even at the expense of true conservatism.
It legitimized a misrepresentation of the Brazilian conservatism.
As for Eduardo Bolsonaro, CPAC was a great toy for the “prince.”
With information from CPAC Brasil, BBC, HuffPost Brasil, O Antagonista, Notícias Yahoo, Congresso em Foco, Gazeta do Povo, Notícias UOL and El País.
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, October 13, 2019

Should or Not Brazil Enter OECD?


Should or Not Brazil Enter OECD?

By Julio Severo
In his report titled “A New World Tax Regime” in The New American in 2014, Alex Newman said,
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — a 34-member (presently) international economic organization that works to influence world financial operations — openly announced plans to advance the longtime socialist-backed dream of a planetary taxation regime. The plans call for legitimate governments and dictatorships worldwide to share all private financial data on citizens… that, experts say, in conjunction with other related machinations, such as an emerging plan to force businesses to pay equally high corporate taxes in all jurisdictions of the world rather than setting up shop in lower-tax nations, will lay the foundation upon which to build a “World Tax Organization.”
And in his report titled “U.S.-Funded OECD ‘Cartel’ Seeking Higher Global Taxes” in The New American in 2011, Newman said,
American taxpayers are sending over $100 million per year to a bloated international bureaucracy that has morphed into a “cartel enforcer” for welfare-state politicians seeking to prevent tax competition, according to a new study. Entitled “Cartelizing Taxes: Understanding the OECD’s Campaign Against ‘Harmful Tax Competition,’” the paper examines the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and its increasingly fierce campaign to “cartelize” global taxes. And the picture that emerges is troubling to say the least, according to experts.
So should or not Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro force Brazil to enter OECD? From the conservative standpoint, as shown by Newman, Brazil and the United States should have no part in OECD, which is a socialist and globalist organization.
Yet, Bolsonaro has been pressing so hard for the Brazilian inclusion in OECD that his excitement was interpreted by his supporters as a sign that the Trump administration would be granting support for Brazil to be included in OECD in 2019. When such immediate inclusion did not happen, people interpreted that the Trump administration had revoked its support. But U.S. President Donald Trump himself renewed the support, even though giving no specific date for the inclusion.
Trump said on October 11, 2019:
“The joint statement released with President Bolsonaro in March makes absolutely clear that I support Brazil beginning the process for full OECD membership. The United States stands by that statement and stands by @jairbolsonaro. This article is FAKE NEWS! bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
However, Trump is giving support for a more immediate inclusion of Argentina, whose economy is in a quagmire. Besides, Argentinian voters are choosing socialism again.
Even though using Argentina against Brazil is an old geopolitical trick of U.S. strategists, the non-support of the Trump administration for the Brazilian entry in OECD in 2019 is not bad news. It is good news. And if Brazil refuses permanently to join OECD, it would be joyful news.
Alex Newman would also like the U.S. to join such conjectural refusal. His view is that the U.S. should leave OECD, which is a socialist and globalist organization. So why would the U.S. government under Trump support the inclusion of Brazil, considering that Bolsonaro has openly condemned socialism?
But not only Trump has helped OECD. When Newman wrote his articles for The New American, former U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama was channeling US$100 million annually from U.S. taxpayers to OECD. Why Trump is doing what Obama would have done is a mystery.
A greater mystery is Bolsonaro’s excitement and efforts to force Brazil to enter OECD. Years ago, Bolsonaro confessed that he evaded all taxes he could. So he hates high taxes as all Brazilian do.
Because Bolsonaro has forcefully spoken against socialism at the United Nations and because he has a history of advocating tax evasion, it was expected that he would avoid putting Brazil in OECD or another socialist organizations.
Bolsonaro has much bad experience with high taxes, because he was born in Brazil, which has historically high taxes, and socialism only makes worse what has already been very bad in Brazil for centuries. With such Brazilian experience, it is no wonder that Bolsonaro evaded taxes. But it is a total wonder his current excitement to force Brazil to enter in a socialist organization determined to increase taxes around the world.
Alex Newman said that the main agency to bring a global tax is exactly OECD. He said, “The OECD’s global tax-information regime should do the trick,” adding:
Unsurprisingly, also pushing the schemes has been Socialist International, the premier alliance of socialist and communist political parties around the world. The powerful coalition, which met in South Africa in 2012, again called for global taxes, a planetary currency, and a global tax information-sharing regime in one of its resolutions.
Newman noted,
“According to a brief by the OECD, among the data that governments would share with each other as part of the ‘automatic exchange of information’ regime are various categories of income, changes of address, purchase or sale of property, and more. Instead of being secure in one’s house, papers, and effects without a warrant and probable cause, governments and autocrats around the world will be free to rifle” through most sensitive information of citizens around the world at will.
Other quotations from Newman:
The chance for abuse of individuals’ information is 100 percent. Consider that among the early participants in the scheme is the imploding socialist regime ruling Argentina — currently searching frantically for wealth to plunder as the economy it misrules collapses around it. Also on board is the radical South African Communist Party-African National Congress regime, which has been implicated in genocide in South Africa by the world’s leading expert in the field, and which has more poverty today than when power was transferred from the white government to the ANC. Eventually, globalists hope to force every government and dictator on the planet into participating. More than a few brutal autocracies are already lining up to join.
Top OECD leaders also admit that benefiting rulers, not those they rule, is the goal of the machinations. “We are happy to redouble our efforts in this area, working closely with interested countries [governments] and stakeholders to design global solutions to global problems to the benefit of governments and business around the world,” declared OECD boss Ángel Gurría, though it was not clear how having massive compliance costs and mandates foisted on companies would benefit them.
“The OECD began to seek to restrain both member and non-member countries from lowering taxes and to encourage lower tax jurisdictions to raise their rates,” explains the 54-page paper, authored by University of Alabama law and economics scholar Andrew Morriss and economic researcher Lotta Moberg with George Mason University. And the organization has now turned “into a cartel aimed at restricting competition among states.”
Some experts even said the OECD might be among the most destructive programs financed by American taxpayers in relation to the cost. “I’m not a fan of international bureaucracies … But the worse international bureaucracy, at least when measured on a per-dollar-spent basis, has to be the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,” noted long-time OECD critic Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Can anyone think of a more destructive item in the federal budget, at least when measured on a per-dollar-spent basis? I can’t.”
So if OECD is so detrimental to the sovereignty of nations, including with its ambition to create high global taxes, why doesn’t U.S. President Donald Trump withdraw the U.S. from it? Why has he been encouraging Brazil to enter this socialist and globalist organization?
Newman abundantly recognizes that OECD is a socialist and globalist organization. And he also recognizes that OECD is funded in large part by $100 million annually from U.S. taxpayers.
The fact that Trump is supporting Bolsonaro to force Brazil to enter OECD in no way makes OECD a good organization. Trump is much better than Hillary Clinton, but he is not perfect. In fact, recently he congratulated China for the 70th anniversary of its communist revolution, which slaughtered some 50 million Chinese.
Bolsonaro is not also perfect. He has honored a man who has dishonored Trump. Steve Bannon, a man honored by Bolsonaro and his son Eduardo, said that Trump is “just another scumbag” and crook.
Notwithstanding their mutual imperfections, instead of letting Trump lead him to force Brazil to enter in a socialist and globalist organization as OECD, Bolsonaro should use his past experience as a tax-hating and tax-evading man to encourage Trump to leave OECD.
Portuguese version of this article: O Brasil deveria ou não entrar na OCDE?
Recommended Reading:

Wednesday, October 09, 2019

Leaked Army document reveals 84 percent of women have FAILED the new rigorous combat fitness test


Leaked Army document reveals 84 percent of women have FAILED the new rigorous combat fitness test

By Julio Severo
A leaked Army document reveals that 84 percent of women have failed the new Army Combat Fitness Test, which will become the official annual US Army physical exam next year.
The rigorous six event strength and endurance test, known as the ACFT, has been in place at select training units since October 2018 and is slated to become the official physical test of record by October 2020, if feminists and left-wing activists do not oppose.
A leaked document shared online has gone viral after its shocking results revealed that the overall passing rate of the ACFT test was just 64 percent.
Among men about 30 percent failed the exam and — even more alarmingly — 84 percent of women failed, according to the Army Times.
The test was conducted by 11 battalions, which equals more than 3,200 soldiers — 2,849 of which are men and 357 are women.
According to the data, overall about 30 percent of soldiers failed the rigorous exam and 84 percent of women failed. Men passed the exam at a rate of 70 percent and women passed with a mere 16 percent.
Such result for women is a predictable defeat for the social experiments imposed by feminists and left-wing activists.
With information from DailyMail.
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, October 08, 2019

Theological Zombie Tries to Turn Author of the Gospel of Luke into Zombie


Theological Zombie Tries to Turn Author of the Gospel of Luke into Zombie

What would be left of the Gospel of Luke if it had been written by a cessationist theologian?

By Julio Severo
I just saw the sermon of a famous Presbyterian theologian who used Luke as an example that not all of Jesus’ disciples had visions, revelations, and prophecies. Not content with living cessationism for himself, he has tried to turn Luke into a cessationist. He has tried to recreate Luke according to his cessationist image and likeness.
He used Revelation and the Gospel of Luke as a comparison, saying that the author of Revelation had revelations while the author of the Gospel of Luke had none.
Cessationism is the heresy that teaches that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased two thousand years ago.
There is no biblical basis for the idea that Luke had no vision, revelation, prophecy, and supernatural experiences with God. There is also no biblical basis for the cessationist heresy. But let’s just assume that the Presbyterian theologian is right.
In his Gospel, Luke wrote about abundance of Jesus’ miracles in his day without raising a single question. If the Presbyterian theologian were in Luke’s place, would he write about such miracles, including about a virgin girl getting pregnant by the Holy Spirit, without raising any questions?
The Presbyterian theologian has several books. None of these books mention abundance of miracles today. But they bring plenty of questions and cynical attacks against those who believe that God acts today, including by giving visions, revelations, and prophecies.
If by a fate of destiny, the Presbyterian theologian had to write the Gospel in place of Luke, would we see abundance of miracles without question? No. We would inevitably have a gospel full of questions without any miracles.
In turn, if Luke were alive today in the place of the Presbyterian theologian, he would write several books showing the miracles God is performing today among Jesus’ followers, with visions, revelations, and prophecies.
Were there heresies and false miracles in Jesus’ day? There were, but Luke’s focus was true miracles. Were there false prophecies, visions, and revelations in Jesus’ day? There were, but Luke’s focus was true prophecies, visions, and revelations. If he were alive today, Luke’s focus would not change. He would exalt what is true.
What would you prefer? The Gospel of Luke, full of miracles and without any questioning of these miracles or the gospel of the Presbyterian theologian, full of questions about miracles and no miracles?
This theologian, aware or not, is a legitimate heir to the Pharisees, who were the greatest theologians of the Bible in Jesus’ day. They were pompous and always ready, using theology and distorting the Bible abundantly, to question all the miracles of Jesus and his apostles. They were always ready to attribute to the devil the operations of the Holy Spirit.
Modern Pharisees, equally using theology and distorting the Bible abundantly, are always ready to question all the miracles of Jesus through his followers today. They are always ready to attribute to the devil the workings of the Holy Spirit.
As Solomon said in Ecclesiastes, “There is nothing new under the sun.” There is nothing new in today’s pompous Pharisaic theologism.
Theological zombies always seek to transform others according to their own image and likeness of zombies. This is why Jesus said to theologians of his day,
“How horrible it will be for you, scribes and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You cross land and sea to recruit a single follower, and when you do, you make that person twice as fit for hell as you are.” (Matthew 23:15 GWV)
It’s not just witches that lead people to hell. Theological zombies, with their questions against the Holy Spirit, can make theology and its twisted interpretations of the Bible produce victims who become twice as fit for hell as they are themselves.
Recommended Reading: