There is an Anti Gospel
There is a common misconception among Christians and that is that the gospel is "the good news". It is the good news for creation which is groaning for the revelation of the sons of God, it is the good news to those who have received Jesus work of redemption, it is even the good news for people who obey the moral laws of God without actually receiving the work of Jesus done on the cross. But at the same time it is not good news for everyone.
Joseph was the "Master of the dreams". Now for the cup bearer that was good news, but what about for the Baker? Joseph was also given the name Zaph Naph Paaneah which means "Savior of the world" and for the Egyptians that was good news. But if Joseph was made prime minister what about the guy who got replaced?
Moses was a type of Christ leading the Jews out of slavery and into the good land. That was "good news" for them. But what about those people who lost their slaves? What about Pharaoh's armies that got buried in the Red Sea? What about all those families that lost their firstborn?
We read Esther and cheer for the underdog, we cheer when Esther and Mordecai win. But their winning meant that Haman and his sons lost.
Now many might think, this is obvious. Well if it is obvious then it should also be obvious that there are those who are fighting against the gospel. Not just when they get caught, tried and hung at the Nuremberg trials but even more before they get caught. In other words what you see as catastrophic, lets say the Oklahoma bombing, or the assassination of JFK or even 9/11, you see these that way because you are looking through the lens of the gospel. But what about the lens of those who are fighting against the gospel, how do they see it?
Hitler was an elected representative with a very small percentage of the vote of the German people. But he manufactured events that allowed him to get more power. For example he claimed the communists were destroying Germany, then they got some poor mentally challenged communist and framed him for the Reichstag fire. Instantly Hitler's ravings seemed to be "prescient". The formula is relatively simple, you argue about a problem that is insignificant or trivial, then you create a false flag event that makes it look like you are insightful and all the other politicians are clumsy oafs, then the people look to you for the solution, and the solution is to give you more power. Make Hitler the Chancellor, suspend certain laws, institute martial law, nationalize the police, etc.
There is an "anti gospel" which is the Machiavellian strategy to keep the 1% as the 1%. Think about it, if your gospel is to free the slaves that sounds great to everyone except the slave holders. If your gospel is to break the bonds that have us imprisoned, that sounds great to everyone except Pharaoh which uses prison labor to build his kingdom. The good news for the 99% is not the same as the good news for the 1%.
Democracy was a "good idea", an interesting "experiment". Why would they say that, Democracy is real isn't it? Well the 1% knew that if they control what you hear they can control what you think. If they control the school and the media you will do what they say. It is not hard to buy up 500 representatives, so even though they can't control 350 million people so what, cut you off from the business of governing, then buy out 500 key people and it won't matter.
We figured in a Democracy no one would want to fight a war unless it was to protect our country from attack. Is that why we fought the Vietnam war? Were we really afraid the North Vietnamese were going to attack the US? What about the Gulf wars, were we really afraid of WMD's? Did our government really believe Saddam Hussein, a secular ruler trying to hold together a variety of religious factions was behind an attack from a religious extremist? Were all of our police actions which for the most part damaged our international reputation, were they really about being a peacemaker or was it about power and influence?
Why is it that dictators are so paranoid they have to know what every person is saying and thinking? People who have nothing to hide are not paranoid. People who are not planning atrocities and genocide are not paranoid. Haman was paranoid, Pharaoh was paranoid, the Baker was paranoid.
There is a common misconception among Christians and that is that the gospel is "the good news". It is the good news for creation which is groaning for the revelation of the sons of God, it is the good news to those who have received Jesus work of redemption, it is even the good news for people who obey the moral laws of God without actually receiving the work of Jesus done on the cross. But at the same time it is not good news for everyone.
Joseph was the "Master of the dreams". Now for the cup bearer that was good news, but what about for the Baker? Joseph was also given the name Zaph Naph Paaneah which means "Savior of the world" and for the Egyptians that was good news. But if Joseph was made prime minister what about the guy who got replaced?
Moses was a type of Christ leading the Jews out of slavery and into the good land. That was "good news" for them. But what about those people who lost their slaves? What about Pharaoh's armies that got buried in the Red Sea? What about all those families that lost their firstborn?
We read Esther and cheer for the underdog, we cheer when Esther and Mordecai win. But their winning meant that Haman and his sons lost.
Now many might think, this is obvious. Well if it is obvious then it should also be obvious that there are those who are fighting against the gospel. Not just when they get caught, tried and hung at the Nuremberg trials but even more before they get caught. In other words what you see as catastrophic, lets say the Oklahoma bombing, or the assassination of JFK or even 9/11, you see these that way because you are looking through the lens of the gospel. But what about the lens of those who are fighting against the gospel, how do they see it?
Hitler was an elected representative with a very small percentage of the vote of the German people. But he manufactured events that allowed him to get more power. For example he claimed the communists were destroying Germany, then they got some poor mentally challenged communist and framed him for the Reichstag fire. Instantly Hitler's ravings seemed to be "prescient". The formula is relatively simple, you argue about a problem that is insignificant or trivial, then you create a false flag event that makes it look like you are insightful and all the other politicians are clumsy oafs, then the people look to you for the solution, and the solution is to give you more power. Make Hitler the Chancellor, suspend certain laws, institute martial law, nationalize the police, etc.
There is an "anti gospel" which is the Machiavellian strategy to keep the 1% as the 1%. Think about it, if your gospel is to free the slaves that sounds great to everyone except the slave holders. If your gospel is to break the bonds that have us imprisoned, that sounds great to everyone except Pharaoh which uses prison labor to build his kingdom. The good news for the 99% is not the same as the good news for the 1%.
Democracy was a "good idea", an interesting "experiment". Why would they say that, Democracy is real isn't it? Well the 1% knew that if they control what you hear they can control what you think. If they control the school and the media you will do what they say. It is not hard to buy up 500 representatives, so even though they can't control 350 million people so what, cut you off from the business of governing, then buy out 500 key people and it won't matter.
We figured in a Democracy no one would want to fight a war unless it was to protect our country from attack. Is that why we fought the Vietnam war? Were we really afraid the North Vietnamese were going to attack the US? What about the Gulf wars, were we really afraid of WMD's? Did our government really believe Saddam Hussein, a secular ruler trying to hold together a variety of religious factions was behind an attack from a religious extremist? Were all of our police actions which for the most part damaged our international reputation, were they really about being a peacemaker or was it about power and influence?
Why is it that dictators are so paranoid they have to know what every person is saying and thinking? People who have nothing to hide are not paranoid. People who are not planning atrocities and genocide are not paranoid. Haman was paranoid, Pharaoh was paranoid, the Baker was paranoid.