Author: Sheila Marler

  • The New Age and Gender Rights

    It’s beginning to look like the New Age was created by a committee of the political establishment. This might explain why they are so determined to protect their reign in Washington DC–they are true believers. The establishment’s ‘ownership’ of the New Age is especially glaring in the video series Changing of the Gods, a slick presentation of the last 60 years which showcases the counter-culture revolution of the 60s It showcases Gloria Steinem, and her magazine, Ms., among other events. It soon becomes clear that the New Age was going to include trans-rights, regardless of what anyone might say. This article will explore the phenomenon of combining the new age and gender rights.

    The New Age and Gender Rights

    An article in Ms. Magazine illustrates how the liberal establishment has used trans-rights, to equate women’s issues with unrelated issues. This article by Alexandra Wilson-Mcdonald combines concerns about attacks on reproductive freedom with LGBTQ-rights. It also criticizes far-right politicians in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland who from 2015-2022 opposed gender studies as an academic discipline. Wilson-Mcdonald laments that similar policies are sweeping across the U.S. today.

    Apparently, attacks on gender equality are to share the limelight with attacks on democracy. In addition, gender equality and democracy are on equal footing with anti-racism. By citing Ron DeSantis’s Don’t Say Gay bill, the author lumps the issues of slavery and racism with gender ideology.

    But some of us respect the new age enough to know that it can’t be harnessed for a particular ideology. Combining the new age and gender rights is one example of this attempt.

  • The Divinity of Jesus Christ

    Arianism is the issue that led to the Council of Nicaea. It is one example of a doctrine that questions the divinity of Jesus Christ.

    Arius (c. 250 – 336) believed that Jesus was just a man. His doctrine is now called Arianism. “Arianism affirmed a created, finite nature of Christ rather than equal divinity with God the Father.”

    Arius’s views were eventually denounced as heresy, but not before they divided the Church’s bishops. They caused so much turmoil in the early Church that the Emperor Constantine called a council to reconcile the factions. The final decision about this doctrine was composed at the council of Nicaea.

    I’m Against Re-litigating Arianism

    It is surprising to find that the divinity of Jesus is currently being litigated on YouTube as if the Council never happened. For reasons I will explain here, I am against re-litigating Arianism.

    But it is important to state at the beginning that this debate is connected to another important topic: the Virgin Birth of Jesus. In this article I will use Thomas Boslooper’s book, The Virgin Birth, to add the information that I wasn’t allowed to add on Wikipedia. Boslooper’s account indicates that Christian scholarship has a long history of skirting the topic of the virgin birth.

    There is Power in Christianity

    There is power in the Christian religion. Many people have testified of this. Based on my own experience, people of faith are not bothered by a critical approach to the virgin birth. However, a certain editor on Wikipedia was bothered so much that he became a thief. Then he bullied me and told lies about me for daring to write about it.

    Sincere objections can usually be overcome. However, on Wikipedia the insincere party has the ability to block anyone it disagrees with. This makes reconciliation, not to mention real understanding, impossible. I think it implies either a lack of faith or the desire for a public spectacle.

    Here on my own blog, I am at least able to write without interruption. The question remains as to whether anything I write will get through to anyone. And yet, I keep writing.

    My Cautious Approach to the Scholarship

    Before I begin, it is important to remember that the The Virgin Birth was published in 1962. Religious leaders have had more than thirty years to consider or make changes based on Boslooper’s arguments and criticisms. So, some of the criticisms may no longer be justified.

    I have noticed while studying James B. Adamson’s commentary on the Book of James that Christian theologians must be familiar with the findings of biblical scholars. Apparently, when they agree with those findings they are willing to make changes. What else can explain the omission of this phrase from the Lord’s Prayer, ‘And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil’?

    Boslooper Cites the Failure of Biblical Scholarship

    Boslooper was convinced that biblical scholarship had failed to present the kind of analysis of the story of Jesus’ birth that would serve as the basis of a satisfactory interpretation. He was mainly inspired by Oscar Cullmann’s1 disappointment when he could not find a single book on the virgin birth that presents a historical approach to the subject. The purpose of this book was to fill this need in biblical critical scholarship. The Virgin Birth is a history of interpretations of Jesus’ birth.

    Thomas Boslooper’s Introduction Summarized

    The subject of the virgin birth brings with it an entire history of interpretations. Christian communities have always taken different views on this part of Jesus’ story. There is also a history of responses from the non-Christian community.

    Beginning with Ignatius and continuing through Origen, the virgin birth was at the center of the Church’s controversy with the non-Christian world. The exact point of disagreement differed with every non-Christian community.

    The Debate With Jews and Gentiles

    With the Jews, Christians struggled to demonstrate the relationship of the virgin birth to the Old Testament. With the Gentiles, the discussion centered on the relationship of the virgin birth to other religious traditions.

    Meanwhile, within early Christianity itself the virgin birth had a positive effect over all with the development of Marian theology. A theology of Mary developed at the same time as a body of extra-canonical literature to support it.

    Protestant Christianity

    In Protestant Christianity, two main factions developed around the story of the virgin birth, supernaturalists versus naturalists. The supernaturalists considered the virgin birth historical. For them, it was an indispensable support to the whole structure of Christianity. The naturalists on the other hand, thought the virgin birth was unhistorical and therefore, unimportant.

    Examples of How Modern Historians Dealt With the Virgin Birth

    The story and doctrine of the virgin birth are treated as almost invisible by modern historians and contemporary theologians. They all tend to follow the naturalistic interpretation and attach it to a single historical or theological idea. Many of them treat the virgin birth in the narratives of Matthew, chs. 1 and 2 and Luke, chs. 1 and 2 as unrelated to the main story of Jesus. Boslooper gives several examples of historical treatments:

    • Harnack thought the virgin birth should be understood as the outgrowth of a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14.
    • Lobstein proposed the view that the virgin birth is a myth created by popular devotion to explain the divine Sonship of Christ.
    • For Percy Gardner, the narratives of the virgin birth represent two separate attempts to give a date for the divine origin of Jesus.
    • Soltau saw the story of Jesus’ conception as an attempt at the end of the first century to reconcile the belief that Jesus was born in Bethlehem on the one hand, with the earlier tradition of his origin in Nazareth on the other.
    • Conybeare understood the virgin birth as a legend adopted by the Catholic Church to reconcile the Ebionite and Docetic parties.
    • Charles Guignebert argued that all the stories of the miraculous birth were a solution to a Christological problem that arose in the primitive community. This problem had to do with the conflict between the terms ‘Messiah’ and ‘Son of God’.

    Contemporary Theologians

    According to Boslooper, Emil Brunner, Nels Ferré, and Paul Tillich oversimplify the problem of interpretation. They underestimate the significance of the virgin birth by linking it to the early Christian doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus. This association was not a positive development in their opinion. They thought it stood in the way of a true understanding of the incarnation.

    For Brunner and Ferré, the virgin birth obscures and obstructs the fact of Jesus’ true humanity.2 For Tillich, it represents one of the New Testament’s rationalizations. He thought it changed a positive religious concept into a negative form.3

    Positive and Negative Aspects in the Interpretation of the Virgin Birth

    On the negative side, the history of interpretation has been a history of error. The Old Roman Catholic Church maligned the Biblical narratives by transferring the chief emphasis from Jesus to Mary and from marriage to virginity. Following the Protestant Reformation, the rationalistic naturalists underestimated the importance of the narrative through their a priori judgments against miracle, and the theological supernaturalists by attaching the virgin birth to the deity of Christ and by insisting on the ‘literal historicity’ of the story removed Jesus’ origin from the context of history. Historical critics, by being obsessed with the compulsion to demonstrate what was the source from which the Biblical narrative was ‘derived,’ tended to deprive the church of the significance of the content of the story of Jesus’ virgin birth. (Boslooper pp. 20-21)

    But the history of interpretation has also had positive effects. Boslooper argues that it has provided insight and contributed to our understanding of the Biblical narratives.

    The Roman Catholic Church preserved the relevance of the virgin birth to personal morality. The naturalists have helped the church recognize the true moral character of the narratives and helped curb the abuses that appeared through apocryphal tradition. The supernaturalists have insisted on the importance of the story of Jesus’ origin and demanded that the church take the doctrine seriously. Historical criticism gave a proper literary classification to the virgin birth. It eventually recognized its true role in the world and provided the basis for understanding the content of its message. (Boslooper p. 21)

    The Crux of the Problem (In Boslooper’s View)

    Boslooper argued that both the Roman Catholic and Protestant positions took the virgin birth in the gospels as literal history. In this way they weakened the thrust of its morally redemptive message.

    The Catholics produced a Docetic theology of Mary, questioned the sanctity of sex, and idealized virginity. The Protestants used the virgin birth to prove the deity of Christ and to set forth a moral idealism attached solely to the person of Jesus. In these approaches the original message was lost. The original message was that moral order is to be established within the marriage bond.

    Boslooper’s Objection to the Literal Historical View

    Boslooper argued that ‘The virgin birth is ‘myth, in the highest and best sense of the word’. He thought both Roman Catholics and Protestants were wrong to insist on the ‘literal historicity of the narratives’. For him, the universal message of Jesus’ origin is the important thing. The ‘truth’ in Boslooper’s opinion, is found somewhere between the Roman Catholic tradition and the Protestant tradition.

    My Conclusion

    I will point out that Boslooper goes beyond presenting a history of interpretations of the virgin birth when he tries to explain the purpose of the story. It seems to me he exceeded his stated purpose with mere speculation.

    Why do I say this? The statement that the virgin birth is myth ‘in the highest and best sense of the word’ is one thing. Defining its purpose and limiting its influence to the attestation of the humanity of Jesus and the sanctity of sex and marriage is a bit high-handed. For one thing, even assuming it is myth, the inspirations or motivations behind the story can’t be known.

    However, the main problem might be that the question of Jesus’ divinity has been forgotten entirely. In what way is he divine? How might this divinity be possible for a human born to a woman?

    The Perspective of Faith

    The faithful who experience his divinity probably don’t need an explanation for it. Maybe that’s why so many scholars have treated it as unimportant or detachable from the rest of the story. The most I can do at this point is acknowledge that the virgin birth really is a difficult subject. One might argue whether it is a myth in the best sense of the word, but the virgin birth is definitely a mystery in the best sense of the word.

    1. Nels F. S. Ferré, The Sun and the Umbrella (1953), pp. 28-29. ↩︎
    2. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2 (1957), pp. 126-127, 149. ↩︎

  • Isaiah 43:19

    Isaiah 43:19: Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it?

    I think of this verse whenever I hear someone say that Jesus was at work in the world before the Christian era. If he was always here, how can he be a new thing? This is important because of the promises Jesus has given Christians. It is also important because there is another entity who has been here at least since the world was created: the prince of this world.

    In this article I will expand on Isaiah’s revelation of ‘the new thing’.

    The following is the entire passage from Isaiah 43:16-22.

    16 Thus saith the LORD, which maketh a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters; 
    17 Which bringeth forth the chariot and horse, the army and the power; they shall lie down together, they shall not rise: they are extinct, they are quenched as tow.
    18 Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old.
    19 Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert.
    20 The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.
    21 This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise.
    22 But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel.
    (Isaiah 43:16-22 KJV)

    Political Theology

    When I wrote Justice of the Rupture, I was inspired by an article on the Political Theology Website. The article seemed to agree with my understanding that the birth of Jesus was a new thing in this world.

    Was Jesus a New Thing or Has He Always Existed?

    As I understand it, the claim that the Christ has always existed has two distinct sources. It can refer to a teaching of Hermeticism or to the decision of the First Council of Nicaea.

    The following is the decision of the First council of Nicaea:

    We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion [τρεπτὸν in Greek; convertibilem in Latin] — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

    First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325)

    My Paraphrase of the Decision and a Request for Correction if Necessary

    I understand this decision to say that Jesus was begotten of the substance of the Father. He has always existed, just as the Father has always existed. Therefore, it is not correct to say there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he did not exist. Or that he is made of a different substance or essence from the Father.

    I’m not a theologian and normally I would not attempt to analyze theology. However, an understanding of the Council’s decision has bearing on who and how we worship. I could be wrong, but the decision doesn’t seem to be explicit about Jesus’s pre-Christian working in the world, independent from the person of the Father.

    The Christ of Hermeticism

    One problem I see with Hermeticism’s claim that ‘the Christ’ operated in the world from the beginning, is the effect it has on our view of pre-Christian religions. If the Christ has always existed and he has taken part in the world from its creation, pre-Christian believers in those religions were wrong or evil. On the other hand, if Jesus was truly a new thing the ancient people were not at fault. They couldn’t be expected to conform to our understanding of the Christian religion. It is likely they were pressured to conform to the demands of another deity.

    Ancient Egyptians Were Compelled to Obey Their Gods

    The burial practices of ancient Egypt suggest that the Egyptians did not love their god or gods the way we love Jesus. Their deities compelled them to perform certain rituals in order to gain eternal life. And they found ways of hedging their bets.

    For example, it is interesting that the ancient Egyptians disguised the gender of women in their burial ceremonies. It was apparently the only way women could attain eternal life. If those deities had their way, women would not have been allowed in at all.

    In the ancient Egyptian mindset, only male divine beings such as Atum, Osiris, or Re had access to the powers of creation or resurrection (Bryan 1996; Roth 2000). Goddesses were believed to be protective vessels.1

    The Egyptians clearly knew what their deities demanded and yet they defied them in behalf of their women. I propose that those deities represented the prince of this world. If I’m correct about this identification, the prince of this world does not like women.

    I would argue that the Egyptian deities represent a hostile and indifferent cosmos; the same cosmos that was hostile to Jesus.

    The Baptism of Jesus

    According to the first chapter of Mark, something remarkable happened at the baptism of Jesus.

    In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.  And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.  And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:9-11)

    In the Political Theology article cited above, J. Leavitt Pearl argued that when the heavens were torn open it was an apocalypse. The voice from heaven had to burst through the cosmic order for the Spirit to descend on Jesus like a dove.

    Wikipedia’s Struggle Over the Virgin Birth Article

    When I wrote about my work on Wikipedia’s Miraculous Births article I concluded that Wikipedia’s editors must have an unspoken agreement that the Virgin Birth article should remain empty of content. Maybe they think such an article would be offensive to believers. (Wikipedia now has a separate article entitled Virgin Birth of Jesus. But the article, Virgin Birth, is still empty.)

    In my opinion, it is not necessary for Christians to deny virgin birth stories from other cultures. Those stories might resemble the pattern of the Christian story but their heroes are not comparable to Jesus. They belong to the ideology of earthly empires and have a different character. More importantly, they are not opposed to the prince of this world.

    The West’s Dalliance With Empire

    In this light, it is ironic that the West is currently being presented with the bellowing of empire-minded officials. It is especially revealing that their ideology comes complete with the denigration of women. Fortunately, their error has been carefully defined by scholars such as Robert Eisler.

    It seems our current ideologues have mixed up the metaphors not to mention the religions involved. They apparently don’t have the empathy shown by the ancient Egyptians. They have taken the side of the prince of this world.

    Orpheus the Fisher

    In his book, Orpheus the Fisher2, Robert Eisler had this to say about the development of Christianity:

    …I have certainly been deceived in my expectations of discovering early extensive and important Pagan influences on the initial formation of Christian ritual and cult symbolism. In 1908 I was still under the illusion–which I am afraid is even today cherished by many students of comparative religion–that primitive Christianity was, to a great extent, a syncretistic religion. In particular I had been strongly impressed by the statement of Eichhorn and other scholars, that we must look out for a pagan or, more exactly, an Oriental prototype for the Eucharist, since a sacramental, not to speak of a theophagic rite is unknown to the Jewish cult-system.(Eisler, Preface p. v)

    Here Eisler is telling us that due to the scholarly influence of his time he mistakenly connected the sacramental eating of fish and bread by Jesus’s disciples, with a hypothetical ritual of bread and fish-eating in pre-historic Canaan. But when he gave a lecture on this hypothesis he was criticized by a scholar named von Dobschutz-Strassburg. After further study, he came to the conclusion that the criticism was correct.

    By the time Orpheus the Fisher was published Eisler no longer believed in a connection between the Canaanite ritual and Christianity. He admits that there were later developments into a mystic theophagy and these had Pagan parallels, but pagan influences were not at work in the initial stage of Christian origin. Instead, the source of the Eucharistic rite is a purely Jewish ritual.

    Eisler went on to modify his views on similar problems. For example, he explains that although the deities of the mysteries seem to be similar to the Christian fisherman, those deities are cruel and unforgiving. Therefore, they do not resemble the character of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

    Jesus was not cruel. He was Isaiah’s ‘new thing’.

    1. Kathlyn (Kara) Cooney, Gender Transformation in Death: A Case Study of Coffins from Ramesside Period Egypt ↩︎

  • The End of the Line for This Regime

    I heard today that ICE has caused at least two women to miscarry their babies. Another woman was forced to give birth in detention and two days later her baby was taken away from her. After everything else they have said and done, this is the end of the line for this regime. These people have offended mothers and babies and tainted the entire world. They must go.

    Donald Trump is now enlarging his bunker under the East Wing. He obviously plans to hide in it like a troll and govern us for all eternity. This is not acceptable. We do not deserve to be governed by such people. The world we envision will not humbly bow its head and wait for Trump to give it permission to come forth.

    I declare that the Trump administration and the people who prop it up belong in the trash heap. It is a travesty for them to continue to make their plans like free men and women.

    Every individual who agreed to this regime is responsible for these crimes. First in the dock are members of the political establishment. Then the ignorant voters who supported Trump. Next in line will be the people who marry and celebrate holidays and birthdays while this repugnant administration is lording it over us. Let us instead initiate a period of mourning for the sad plight of the American Republic.

    I say to the poor excuses for human beings in the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, get out! It is painful to see you. It is sickening to hear your voices. Get out!

  • Trump’s Use of Alligators

    At last it’s time to write an article about Trump’s use of alligators. This is the article I really wanted to write when I was getting bogged down in the last post. I wrote the article about Wikipedia first because I suspect its editors may be responsible for my difficulties with readership. That fear made me worry that this more important article would not be noticed. Not that I think writing about it will solve the problem of readers, but this worry was on my mind.

    I’ve also been a little worried about presenting this idea here. It has the potential to annoy both the Left and the Right. It could even ruin whatever credibility I have. This concern has put a lot of pressure on me, but these are desperate times and I believe these things are important for me to say.

    The Alligator

    For about fifteen years I’ve known that the alligator is sentient. She can acknowledge and respond to the kindnesses we perform in her behalf, or in behalf of the earth, and she can bestow spiritual gifts. (I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that the alligator herself is as dangerous as ever.)

    I’m saying this now because I believe this knowledge can be a source of hope, and because I believe I have a responsibility to announce her presence.

    Why Now?

    I haven’t given you this information before now because I didn’t understand how it fit in the conversation. Strangely enough, it was after I was told that the alligator’s gift to me is not Christian that I began to understand.

    How is that helpful you ask? When I thought it was a Christian gift it made me very nervous. I didn’t know where it fit in the Christian scheme of things. However, if it’s not Christian it doesn’t imply anything about Christian beliefs.

    Again, how is that helpful? Likewise, the idea that it is not Christian does not worry me because I’m not talking about an ideology or a system of beliefs. I’m talking about something real. The gifts of the earth and her creatures, like the alligator, are as real as the Holy Spirit.

    Am I’m suggesting a new belief system? No, I’m not. I’ve done a little reading about Pantheism and I have learned that humans are natural theologians. They easily spin new systems of beliefs and pit them against other systems of beliefs.That is not what I’m talking about. And it is not necessary.

    How Might This Help With Our Political Chaos?

    I hope this can help us see reality. First, it might help our leaders by assuring them that their drastic, destructive plans are not necessary. And if it guides their behavior, it would help the rest of us. On the other hand, if their necessity stems from their determination to rule, they are currently in peril.

    But the most urgent reason for this message is the realization that this understanding will put America’s cultural peculiarities into perspective. For example, if the well-being of the alligator is primary, what does it say about someone who envisions the alligator as an inanimate token for his cruel detention center in Florida? How sad is that? Trump’s use of alligators represents the worst sort of poverty.

    The Alligator is Ancient

    Trump's Use of Alligators

    The Alligator is ancient. The distinct genus has been here about 37 million years. And it will be here long after the human race destroys itself, God forbid.

    The broader lineage of crocodilians is much older. It’s 80-200 million years old.

    Don’t Forsake the Holy Spirit

    However the reader responds to this message, it is important to maintain ones connection to the Holy Spirit as well. The Holy Spirit found me before I received this understanding of the alligator. I probably would not have discovered one without the other.

    Again, I can’t tell you how you should respond to these things. I can only offer the hope this spirit can serve as an additional source of strength in this strange time.

  • Meltdown

    I published an article yesterday that later I realized was not fit to publish. It was a meltdown about Wikipedia. And not a good one. I realized it was a mess last night and deleted it. Then I stayed up all night trying to make sense of it. This is especially annoying because I didn’t consider it an important subject in the first place. It was just something I wanted to get out of the way so I could talk about a more important topic. But I learned something that I want to tell you about.

    In this post I’ll explain what I learned from this mistake and I will try to rewrite it after more careful thought.

    The Lessons

    The first lesson I learned is that I should have discussed my experience at Wikipedia many times on this blog. Instead I politely mentioned it once or twice because I assumed everyone understood what happened to me there.

    I knew I didn’t deserve to be blocked at the time, and so I didn’t feel the need to explain anything. And when I was suddenly confronted by its importance, I experienced the betrayal and injustice like it was yesterday.

    The second lesson that comes to mind involves my impatience while writing this article about my time at Wikipedia. My impatience was based on the belief that it is a trivial subject.

    It is not trivial. It’s important to set the record straight, if for no one else but myself. It also needs to be set straight for anyone who is influenced by editors on Wikipedia. This needs much more thought than I have given it.

    A Meltdown Pandemic?

    A meltdown is what happens when you are treated badly and you have no recourse. There’s no one to complain to and so you just continue on without a resolution. Then one day, 15 years later, everything spills out.

    What really worries me is that I thought that article was fit to publish. I’ve heard there’s a lot of that going around. Some are calling President Trump’s most recent speech a meltdown, not to mention some of his staff’s interviews. It might be a good idea to avoid important interviews and speeches this week. Just a thought.

    Wikipedia’s Editors

    Overall,Wikipedia was a miserable, thankless experience. But the real hell of it was the absence of supporting voices.

    I am aware that worse things are happening to people now. They are made to feel powerless in all kinds of terrible ways, including imprisonment and physical abuse. But no one ranks these evils when they appear. They are all terrible in their own way.

    Wikipedia’s Cowardice

    In my case, it is painful to realize that Wikipedia not only got away with what they did to me, but apparently the editors have continued to argue their case online at my expense. It never occurred to me to check on them. I would have thought they would be too ashamed to continue with this. Now, after it’s too late to dispute their claims, I have to wonder what effect it’s had on my progress here.

    The word ‘cowardice’ is important with respect to Wikipedia. The editors and their allies remain anonymous. This is shocking considering their ability to delete contributions they don’t agree with and even deny access to the authors of those contributions. And the cowardice doesn’t end there. Even if we do discover what they’re doing to our reputation in secret, we don’t have the ability to dispute their statements.

    Nameless, Faceless ‘Scholars’

    My first experience on Wikipedia was the Patriarchy article. Working there was like combat. So, when I experienced something similar with the next article I thought it was normal.

    Many people had been trying to edit the Patriarchy article before me but were held off by a few determined editors. You can see the current version here with contributions from many people. It’s much better than it was.

    The main editor at that time claimed to be a college professor. I sincerely doubted it. I couldn’t imagine that a college professor would say traditional women walk a few steps behind their husband.

    Even so, I thought the article just needed more information. He did not want information and happily deleted everything. I would not have accomplished anything with that article without the help of another editor who stuck up for me. That is the only way you can get anything done there.

    The Dramatic End of My Wikipedia Job

    When that article was complete, I decided to work on the Virgin Birth article. I didn’t start that article. It was already set up, but lacked content. All I planned to do was add information I already had. However, I got pushback right away.

    It wasn’t long before everything I wrote was moved to the Miraculous Births article, without notice. Then the editor who moved it claimed he wrote it. It was all downhill from there.

    Are They Doing Religion or Writing an Encyclopedia?

    I didn’t know it at the time, but I stepped into a landmine. After the fight in the Patriarchy article I thought I knew how to proceed. However, I see now that the Virgin Birth article was not open to negotiation. There seems to be an unspoken agreement that the subject is too delicate for believers. I didn’t put this together until recently. Last week I discovered that the Virgin Birth article still has no content.

    It has also occurred to me that maybe English was not the editor’s first language. Or maybe he’s a religious authority. I couldn’t be expected to know that because the editors use pseudonyms, but it might explain his authoritative manner.

    Since I didn’t have the help of a referee, Miraculous Births continued to be a constant struggle. I would have liked a real discussion about the editor’s objections but that never happened, and I was eventually kicked out of Wikipedia without warning. This took place before 2011.

    I still don’t understand why the material in Miraculous Births is less offensive than it would be in the Virgin Birth article. The majority of the information I added was from Boslooper’s book, The Virgin Birth.

    A Pattern of Discrimination

    I don’t mind if someone disagrees with me. If they will explain the problem I will fix it. But first I need the explanation.

    A disagreement is logical. Its words and phrases actually relate to what the last person said. However, I was not dealing with a disagreement. I don’t even know the name of what he was doing, and no one ever addressed his problematic demands.

    A large part of the problem seems to be that no one is paying attention. My struggle went on for a long time without interference from a helpful editor. It ended with me being blocked permanently.

    Again, no one objected to what was happening, not at that time and not since I left. And in the end, another editor was allowed to make personal use of the Miraculous Births material that got me kicked out.

    Wikipedia wronged me in many ways and used up much of my time in the process. It didn’t seem unintentional to me. It seemed malicious and personal.

  • James 1: 16-17

    This entry is part 11 of 11 in the series The Epistle of James
    16. Make no mistake, my beloved brothers (I'm not arguing. I'm telling you):
    17. Every good gift, yes, every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights of heaven, whose nature (unlike those lights) suffers neither the variation of orbit nor any shadow. 
    
    James phrased this truth in a high-toned way. This tone has raised doubts and disputes among commentators. James B. Adamson restates James's meaning like this:

    All human good comes from the perfect Father of the universe.

    Three Ways of Interpreting Verse 17

    In discussing James 1: 16-17, there are three ‘notable’ ways of taking the opening words of verse 17. Adamson prefers that of KJV (King James Version) and RV (Revised Version). In addition, he cites Ropes.

    Ropes translation: Every good gift…is from above, coming down: i.e. taking from above as the predicate, with coming down as an explanatory expansion. 1

    Adamson follows this by comparing the alternative translations to the versions he favors. He argues that if we couple the word ‘is‘ with ‘coming down‘ it would express ‘comes down’ (Syriac version). This translation is less likely in style for this context. The same is true of T. Erskine’s “Every giving is good and every gift is perfect from above” or “from its first source” (see Hort). 2

    Concerning Erskin’s translation, Adamson argues it would be giving ‘from above’ a meaning it ‘cannot bear in this case. Also it would state that all God’s gifts are good, not that all good gifts come from God. A specific sense of meaning is required in both the verse and the context of this discussion. This is: ‘all good gifts come from God‘.

    It seems that James had in mind here some older Greek verses, which Adamson lists in note #106 on page 74. In his opinion, James was as willing as Paul (Acts 17:28) to use a ‘pagan hexameter‘ from an ‘extant hexameter’.

    The Focus in Verse 17 is on the Textual Problems

    Adamson thinks the meaning of the rest of verse 17 is clear enough. However, the words variation and shadow present some difficulties.

    Variation

    The word for variation is used only here in the New Testament. It is also used once or twice in the LXX (Septuagint). In Greek it expresses the setting of the teeth in a saw or stones set alternately. It could also be used for a sequence of beacons or seasons. Adamson prefers variation in the RV to variableness in the KJV for denoting some regularity or system in change.

    It is not necessary to interpret the word in a technical sense. It alludes to the light of the sun and its change from hour to hour and from day to night. Adamson considers this proper to the Greek of the Epistle of James in its reference to the variation of an object in constant orbit. It’s a question of whether the words are in grammatical agreement. He provides the Greek words in the notes.

    The genitive is a genitive of definition, ‘a variation consisting in turning,’ like ‘the city of Athens’ or ‘the gift of sleep. (Adamson p. 75)

    Shadow

    The word shadow is found only here in the New Testament. It is not found in LXX or Philo. There are three possible meanings.

    • The Shadow cast by an object, as in an eclipse (Plutarch ii. 891)
    • The Act of overshadowing
    • A reflected image
    James 1: 16-17

    None of these things can block God’s light. Nothing can interrupt the flow of his goodness, or put us ‘in shadow,’ so that we are out of the reach of his ‘radiance.’ Here Adamson quotes a hymn by Horatius Bonar:

    Light of the world! for ever, ever shining,
    There is no change in Thee;
    True Light of Life, all joy and health enshrining.
    Thou cans't not fade nor flee.
    1. J. H. Ropes, The Epistle of St. James. ICC (1916). ↩︎
    2. F. J. A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James. i. I-iv. 7 (1909). ↩︎
    3. ↩︎

  • Mob Infestation

    Sam (Mooney) Giancana’s move to Mexico coincides with the time period of the Blue Ocean strategy1 of American organized crime. Blue Ocean refers to a business strategy. For the Mob, it refers to branching out beyond American shores. It involved not only geographical diversity, but the attainment of higher education by Mob figures. These figures would eventually became CEO’s, attorneys and bankers. Today we can only guess at the degree of mob infestation around the world.

    Organized crime has political goals in addition to its business strategy. It wasn’t understood that organized crime operated like a business until quite recently. Its political aims took longer to be recognized. The Mob pursues many of the same goals as governments. This has been understood for twenty-five years.

    The Testimony of James Woolsey

    In 1999, when James Woolsey was CIA director, he appeared before the Committee on Banking of the United States House of Representatives. He testified that it had become difficult to tell mafias, businesses, and states apart.

    If you should chance to strike up a conversation with an articulate, English-speaking Russian in, say, the restaurant of one of the luxury hotels along Lake Geneva, and he is wearing a $3,000 suit and a pair of Gucci loafers, and he tells you that he is an executive of a Russian Trading company and wants to talk to you about a joint venture, then there are four possibilities. He may be what he says he is. He may be a Russian intelligence officer working under commercial cover. He may be part of a Russian organized crime group. But the really interesting possibility is that he may be all three–and that none of those three institutions have any problem with the arrangement. 2

    Mob Infestation is a Global Phenomenon

    This is not unique to the United States. Boris Yeltsin admitted in 1993 that the Soviet Union had become a ‘mafiya’ power on a world scale. Over the next decade several former Soviet regimes evolved into mafia states. Under such regimes, organized crime groups work as a complement to state structures. Their purpose is to do everything the government can’t legally do as a government. This includes trafficking arms, carrying out domestic assassinations, extortion, money-laundering, drug trafficking and controlling offshore investments in strategic industries.

    By 2012 analysts were warning of the convergence of criminal, political and business power in Latin America Africa and Asia. The warnings were issued by analysts such as Moises Naim, Misha Glenny, Douglas Farah and John T. Picarelli.

    Signs of a Worldwide Convergence of Organized Crime

    Signs of a worldwide convergence of organized criminal activity have been identified in North Korea and the Middle East. Armed groups are found in Afghanistan, Colombia, Mali and Myanmar. These groups traffic drugs, sometimes with the help or participation of state actors.

    The traffic in minerals and wildlife fuels conflict in Africa, and organized piracy has emerged as a central factor in Somalia’s political economy. It goes without saying that it aggravates Somalia’s politics and civil war.

    In the Sahel and North Africa, terrorist and militia fortunes have been tied to organized hostage markets as well as drug, oil and cigarette smuggling.

    In the Balkans, there is cigarette smuggling, organ trafficking, human trafficking and a trade in stolen cars. All of these activities factor into the region’s bloody past and post-war politics.

    The Death Toll Rivals War Deaths

    Homicide rates in Central America are higher than Afghanistan, Syria and South Sudan. The high death rate is the result of struggles by locals to control drug, human trafficking and extortion markets.

    The Blue Ocean Strategy

    It’s important to mention that government collusion with organized crime is not the fault of a single administration. We have talked about the Kennedy Administration’s dealings with the Mob, but JFK and his brother, Bobby Kennedy, inherited the problem. However, the Blue Ocean strategy began after the Bay of Pigs operation failed to oust Castro.

    Of course the Mob kept this strategy to itself. Previously, the Mob had been counting on its American partners to help recover its investments in Cuba. With the Blue Ocean strategy, this became less important.

    Making Sense of the Collaboration

    When the Castro government came to power, it hurt the interests of the Havana Mob, the American Mob and the US government. So, these three entities cooperated in the attempt to remove him. But there were complications.

    The Mob had more autonomy in international affairs that anyone realized at the time. However in spite of this relative freedom to maneuver, its manipulations may have contributed to the failure of the Bay of Pigs.

    Before Kennedy was elected, the Mob was a participant in the larger Cold War. So, the Kennedy’s continued to believe it would assist in removing Castro after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Unfortunately, the Mob had lost interest in Cuba by 1961 or 1962. It did not keep its partners informed of this fact.

    The Kennedy Administration

    US relations with Cuba had already soured when Kennedy became president. Cuba had turned to Soviet protection in the mid-50s as a result of Eisenhower’s coercive policies. Then, in February 1960, Cuba signed a five-year trade and investment deal with the Soviet Union. In response the US pressured Esso, Texaco and Anglo-Dutch Shell not to refine Soviet Oil. The government also blocked sales of Cuban sugar to the US. It wasn’t long before Cuba began accepting arms shipments from the USSR. 

    On July 9, Khrushchev threatened to provide military support to Cuba in the event of an invasion. In September Castro moved against US commercial interests in Cuba by nationalizing $1 billion worth of industries.

    In October 1960, Eisenhower imposed an embargo on US trade with Cuba for anything other than food and medicine.  This embargo lasted more than 50 years. This history is covered in detail in Cockayne’s book, cited below.

    What Went Wrong at the Bay of Pigs?

    JFK was concerned about Soviet escalation from the beginning of his presidency. As a result, he was less hawkish on Cuba than the previous administration. This was another factor in the failure of the Bay of Pigs. An additional factor was the plot between the CIA and Mob to assassinate Castro. Although the two efforts were separate, some of the participants assumed the assassination was one part of the effort to overthrow the regime.

    The two plans had actually been combined at one time, but as subsequent plans developed the connection was lost. The aim of the invasion changed. It was now supposed to create a political shock inside Cuba. This would trigger an uprising or a failure of the Cuban military.

    Both the CIA and the Mob failed to inform the US administration of their collaboration. The partners had originally planned to assassinate Castro before the operation began, but as planning progressed the Mob dropped this plan. Unfortunately, Richard M. Bissell, CIA agency officer, continued to believe Castro would be dead before the Brigade hit the beach.This may explain why the CIA did not inform the President that landing exiles at the Bay of Pigs would not hurt Castro’s popularity. Bissell still depended on the assassination.

    The Kennedys Chose the Wrong Friends

    Both the Kennedys and Eisenhower were more involved in plotting the overthrow of Castro than they admitted. Plausible deniability was an important reason for covert action for all of these actors, the administration, the CIA, and the Mob.

    The Kennedys’ may have been more culpable however. They knew exactly how the Mob worked, but they continued to work with them. Removing Castro was the bigger priority.

    The administration’s plans switched to covert methods after the Bay of Pigs, which made the Mob’s methods seem even more important. What the Kennedy administration didn’t understand was that the Mob-CIA partnership was the main problem. Because JFK did not understand this, he refused Castro’s offer to negotiate. He chose to continue working with the Mob.

    What Bobby Kennedy Knew

    Bobby Kennedy knew Operation Mongoose involved working with Cuban gangsters. (Operation Mongoose was a covert operation to cause a popular uprising in Cuba as a pretext for US intervention.) He also knew that the lead military planner, Lansdale, had previously cooperated with criminal groups in Vietnam.  Last but not least, he knew the CIA was working with Sam Giancana. Bobby didn’t object to any of this. However, he did order the FBI to watch Giancana. As a result he learned that Giancana was sharing a mistress with JFK. 

    What Bobby Kennedy Did Not Know

    As it happened, the CIA omitted choice bits of information from their briefings with the Kennedys, just as the Mob withheld information from the CIA. They all had incentives to do so. For example, aside from plausible deniability, the Mob had a domestic incentive to string the CIA along. The CIA provided protection against prosecution.

    As Cockayne put it, they were all practicing the mafia’s omertá. They were conducting themselves by the internalized code of the covert operator’s governmentality. The end result of all these factors was inoperability. (Cockayne, p. 243).

    The Situation From Castro’s Point of View

    As complicated as things were for these participants it was even less clear to Castro, especially since he was not able to distinguish between plots of the CIA, the US government and the Mob. There was a good reason for his confusion. The goals and methods of these actors did not really differ from each other. Castro began to call American diplomats and officials ‘gangsters’. In retrospect it seems inevitable that he would allow the USSR to put nuclear warheads in Cuba.

    One effect of Soviet intervention was that it made killing Castro irrelevant to the US Government. Castro’s death would not solve the strategic threat posed by the Soviets. Kennedy formally suspended sabotage or militant operations during negotiations with the Soviets. But after an agreement was reached, Castro remained concerned that the US would continue covert attacks.

    The US Government Limited its Covert Actions But its Partners Did Not

    At this point, Kennedy shut down support of Cuban exiles from within the US as well as cooperation with the Mob. However, killing Castro remained relevant to the CIA. Agents promptly sent commando teams to Cuba by submarine without clearing it with the President. 

    And of course, the Mob was determined to reestablish its gambling colony in Cuba. American mafiosi worked with Cuban exiles to create another government in exile. They planned to install it through force. The CIA-Mob collaboration raised the possibility that Castro would view Mob freelancing as US strategy. Suddenly the Mob was a wildcard in geopolitics.

    The US Finally loses faith in its Mob Partners

    The US distanced itself but did not try to prevent the Mob’s activities. It did however break up a planned air raid on Cuba by Santo Trafficante Jr. The US government was beginning to understand that criminal groups could be self-serving and unpredictable. Military forces would clearly be more effective, especially when the objective was to send a political message.

    All along there had been warnings to the US Government about the costs of collaboration with the Mob. In January 1961, a US assistant secretary of defense warned the Eisenhower administration what might happen in Latin America if the Castro assassination plans became known. J. Edgar Hoover warned Bobby Kennedy of political blowback caused by the CIA’s collaboration with the Mob. William Harvey warned his CIA superiors of the possibility of the mafia blackmailing the CIA. However, no one considered the possibility that the ‘monster’ would turn on its former master.

    The Mob’s ‘Frustration’

    When he became Attorney General, Bobby Kennedy continued his attempts to shut the Mob down. He was establishing the existence, structure and activities of the mafia Commission, and its record of political activism. This threatened to disrupt the Mob’s connections with the political establishment and it caused Mob leaders much frustration.

    When JFK was assassinated, there were immediate suspicions about the Mob. Both Bobby Kennedy and LBJ voiced these suspicions in private, but they could never be proven. There was even talk that Castro may have collaborated with the Mob. This possibility had been a major concern of the Navy at the beginning of the Underworld Project. If the US could collaborate with the Mob, what would stop other countries from doing the same?

    Blue Ocean and The Birth of Offshore Capitalism

    The Mob apparently had a centrally directed strategy. In the Mob’s case, the Blue Ocean plan involved criminal relocation and strategic learning. The ambition was far-reaching. It sought to shape political developments amidst the changing geography of power. 

    There had been signs in 1958 and earlier that Batista was losing his grip on power. As a result, Lansky had begun to consider other locations where they could duplicate the Havana joint venture. This eventually led to the birth of offshore capitalism in the Bahamas.

    Haiti had been the first target, but it didn’t work out. The Bahamas on the other hand were ruled by a small, white establishment clique, the Bay Street Boys. They did not mind breaking international law.

    Globalization, Deregulation and Money Laundering

    Under globalization, state power does not depend so much on territory. It depends on deregulation to attract transnational capital. Under such a regime, state leaders can use arbitrage by legalizing or licensing goods that are illegal nearby. For example, using casinos and financial institutions as money laundering services.  

    The Nature of State Power

    State power is like mafia power. In Cuba, a CIA-Mob collaboration operated between organized crime’s coercion and state covert operations. In the Caribbean and Atlantic City it operated between the strategic logic of organized crime and economic statecraft.

    The Weakness of Global Financial Regulations is the State’s Downfall

    For the state, international power depends on controlling sovereignty and governmental institutions to broker between international capital flows and local jurisdictions.  However, the weakness of global financial regulations means there are few checks on shady deals. 

    In subsequent decades offshore tax and banking havens proliferated. This was due to the Mob’s strategic vision. It was important to them to create venues for private accumulation of capital without losing capital to public governmental purposes. In the presence of a functioning state, private accumulation would be limited through redistribution, social welfare, or provision of public goods.

    The Bahamas became an ‘exemplar’ of the offshore plaza.

    The strategic logic of organized crime and the economic logic of states seemed to be converging.  The stage was set for the merger of criminal groups’ political strategies with states’ economic strategies. [This Merger] was hinted at by the term ‘mafia states’. ( Cockayne, p. 262)

    Ideally, Capital in a Democracy is Public. In the Underworld, Capital is Private.

    Contrary to the ideal use of capital in a democracy, capital in the underworld economy is always private. Criminals deny that it has any relationship at all with the public order. It follows that any rules and regulations that would restrain capital accumulation or allocate it to those less fortunate is firmly resisted (criminologist Alan Block, cited by James Cockayne).

    The Blue Ocean Strategy and Atlantic City

    Atlantic City was one of several places where rules were relaxed. It was developed to bring weekenders from Philadelphia’s steel mills and New York’s tenements by railway to New Jersey seaside amusements. Grand Bahama on the other hand, involved bringing the middle class and professional criminal class in by airliner. And then there was Las Vegas.

    Resorts International

    Legalizing gambling in Atlantic City was finally accomplished by a constitutional amendment. But not without a struggle. The 1976 referendum campaign was bankrolled by a Bahamian company, Resorts International. This was the old Mary Carter Paint Co. which partnered with the Mob in Bahama.

    Resorts lobbied for political influence to get the license approved and contributed to political campaigns. When this didn’t work, they switched to coercion.  For example, a private security subsidiary of Intertel with connections to U.S. law enforcement, sent politicos to jail.  However, civil servants uncovered Resorts’s link to organized crime and recommended against it. In response, Resorts bought blocks of advertising. This made Governor Byrne comfortable with approving it.  The new Resorts Casino opened May 28, 1978.

    Donald Trump and Resorts Internatinal

    (The following is not included in Cockayne’s book.) Donald Trump bought a controlling interest in Resorts International Inc. in 1987. There was another bidder, but the family of the late Resorts Chairman James M. Crosby, believed Trump was more able to complete the massive Taj Mahal casino project. (Crosby held the controlling interest in the company.)

    The company was later sold, and Trump became the owner of the Taj Mahal casino. The casino was also sold later. Other properties that previously used the “Trump” name, are no longer affiliated with him. One example is the former Trump International Hotel & Tower in Vancouver.


    Donald Trump’s Ballroom in the White House

    To conclude we have to go back to the Mob’s development on Grand Bahama. DevCo’s new resort, the Lucayan Beach Hotel, had a mysterious, giant 9,000-square-foot handball court at the center of its plans. It was eventually revealed to be a gambling floor.

    1. James Cockayne, Hidden Power: The strategic logic of organized crime, C. Hurst and Co. Publishers ltd, Sept. 2026. ↩︎

  • Fake News Story in Britain

    I have deleted the post I published yesterday. It may have been accurate, but subsequent information made me think the best thing would be to delete it. The main problem was not the subject of my post, it was what appears to be a fake news story in Britain. I had included links to that story in my article to correct one aspect of my main source, but then the second story fell apart.

    I’m talking about a video on my YouTube feed claiming that Prince William and King Charles had rebuked Keir Starmer. As the day wore on, I wanted to learn more about the dispute. But instead of more details, I found a complete absence of corroboration on channels that would be sure to report such a thing. Finally, I found the opposite of corroboration. I found a story that called the whole dispute a fabrication.

    If it was a fabrication, it was a thorough one. There were even reports that the British markets were collapsing due to fears of a constitutional crisis–also that the British Reform Party was rising in popularity. Last but not least there was a quote from Barack Obama voicing support for the King.

    It may have been an attack on Keir Starmer.

  • James 1:15

    This entry is part 10 of 11 in the series The Epistle of James
    James 1:15

    Then his lust having conceived gives birth to sin: and when sin is full grown it brings forth death.

    James 1:15 reminds Adamson of Thomas à Kempis’s analysis of temptation (the phrase, à Kempis, indicates his home town of Kempen, Germany. His name is Thomas Hemerken ). Adamson believes James 1:15 and the other verses in this section inspired Hemerken’s analysis.

    At first it is a mere thought confronting the mind; then imagination paints it in stronger colours; only after that do we take pleasure in it, and the will makes a false move, and we give our assent..1 (Note 101a, p. 72)

    Adamson Demonstrates the Theology and Psychology of the Process

    • Stage One: I see something in a shop. I say to myself: “I should love to have that–but I can’t afford it.” That is the first stage. I am feeling the pull and lure of the bait, but I have suffered no more harm as yet.
    • Stage Two: “I know! I will steal it!” That is, lust, impregnated by the devil, “conceives” the notion and “gives birth’ to the act of theft. Adamson says we should not read too much into the twin image of conception and birth. The grammar behind “having conceived gives birth” is similar to the Hebrew construction rendered “she conceived and bore” (Genesis 4:1, etc.), the participle and finite verb in this instance bringing “thought and act together as a single stage between the temptations on the one hand and death on the other”(Hort)2. “Lust” produces “sin.” James expresses this single idea by the metaphorical parallel of motherhood, signified by the two chief steps–the first and the last–of that single process. “Conceives and bears” are not two separate points.
    • Stage 3: That sin , unless (however late, like the penitent thief) I properly repent before my physical death, will, “being fully grown,” cause my damnation and my spiritual “death” at the Day of Judgment. This agrees with Ropes and supplements him. The “consummation” and the death are in the “next world,” not in our earthly existence.

    The Analogy of a Human Infant Growing to Full Manhood

    James is picturing the growth of sin from birth onward in the analogy of a human infant growing to full manhood. In other words, in the context of a human conception, birth, and growth to maturity.

    “Sin, when full grown, when it becomes a fixed habit…brings forth death.”

    The immediate cause of death is sin, and sin, when full-grown, is in its very nature self-destructive, containing seeds of death in its womb and nurturing its unborn chid until the time of delivery. (Adamson,pp. 73-74)

    1. The Imitation of Christ, tr. Ronald A. Knox and Michael Oakley [1959], p. 32. ↩︎
    2. F. J. A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James, i.1-iv.7 (1909). ↩︎
error: Content is protected !!