Tag: Christianity

The path of truth

An observation on Gab

voxday is fiercely loyal to people. But there is something else. He has an almost uncanny ability to sense who is seeking the path of righteousness, even if it is not superficially apparent from their behavior. Roosh has taken a far more spiritual path of late. Milo clearly wants to change.
Samuel Nock

There is really nothing uncanny about it. Most people tend to look at others where they were, and judge them by things they have done in the past, even in the distant past. That is why the Left constantly digs through long-forgotten personal histories in seeking to discredit people; to them, you will forever be whatever the worst interpretation of the worst thing you have ever done or said is. That this is patently absurd, of course, is irrelevant to them. They care nothing for the truth, they only seek to destroy. They are little satans, accusers in service to the Great Accuser.

But they are not alone. Petty people always insist on trying to force people into the box of their past. They cannot conceive of change, of personal growth, or personal improvement, and they hate it when others make them feel as if their understanding of the world is incorrect. They will never stop trying to remind even the most successful, most transformed individual of his less impressive past.

Fewer people look at others where they are. And fewer still look at the trend line formed by what a man was to who he is now, thereby providing a glimpse of what he may one day become. The man I am today is very different than the arrogant young man with a record contract whose primary interests were girls, music, and video games. The writer I am today is very different than the author of Rebel Moon and the generic, obvious-twist-at-the-end short story that was rejected by Asimov’s Science Fiction Magazine.

The individuals I appreciate most are those who seek after the truth, even when they find it uncomfortable or personally distasteful. I am far more comfortable with the seekers than with those who are convinced that they have arrived at the final one true understanding of God, Man, the universe, and everything, whether it is the Catholic Church, the Bible, or Science that provides them with the basis for their baseless confidence.

I prefer those who know they see as though through a glass, darkly, probably because they are the only people who are not hopelessly self-deluded who also possess the courage to reject the despair of the nihilist.

Not everyone who walks the hard and narrow path of truth is, or will become, a Christian, but it is a path that eventually leads to Jesus Christ all the same.

The culling of the cucks

This is what failed SJW entryism looks like:

Joy Beth Smith joined Focus on the Family in May 2016 as the editor of Boundless.org, a website for single people in the church. The 28-year-old is fairly media savvy: By the time she started at Focus, she was shopping a book proposal and had bylines at magazines like Christianity Today. When her blog posts for Boundless started getting picked up—including a piece republished by The Washington Post in June—her bosses were thrilled, she told me recently.

But Smith was also pushing the Boundless audience. She commissioned a post about race that she described as “mild”—“it basically addressed that there are still racial divides,” she said. When Omar Mateen murdered dozens of people at Pulse, the gay nightclub in Orlando, she wrote a tribute post, which caused a “bit of a stir” among readers, she said: “I don’t know how you can get stirred up over lives that were lost, but people were. That’s kind of the conservative space we existed in and were working against at times.”

In October, Smith wrote a piece for The Washington Post about her experience with sexual assault, criticizing Trump for his derogatory comments toward women and Christian leaders for not speaking out. And that’s when she started getting serious internal pushback.

Almost as soon as the article went up, Paul Batura, Focus’s vice president of communications, pulled Smith into a meeting with her supervisor, Lisa Anderson, Smith alleges. Batura asked Smith if she could have the piece removed from the Post’s website. That would be impossible, Smith explained; and besides, she had written the piece under her own byline, not as a representative of Focus. Batura told her to remove her affiliation with Boundless from her personal social-media accounts, and at the end of the day, she was given notice of an official conduct warning.

The next day, Focus leadership sent out an email to the staff clarifying the organization’s policy on political speech, according to documents shared by Smith. “The most prudent path for all of us—and the most protective approach for Focus—is to leave the policy statements up to Jim Daly, Paul Batura, the quarterbacks, or others authorized to speak on Focus’ behalf,” wrote Joel Vaughan, the chief of staff and human-resources officer at Focus. He added that “it is permissible of course—and often helpful—to agree publicly with positions Focus has taken, such as linking personal pages to Focus posts … or to Jim Daly’s blog.” A few days later, they asked Smith to take down several social-media posts about Evan McMullin, who she was supporting for president. The message was that “‘sometimes the wisest course of action is not to engage,’” Smith told me. “Of course, that’s what Christianity has been doing for years, and it hasn’t worked so well for us.”

At the beginning of November, Focus circulated a “spokesperson” policy, according to Smith. It stated that public-facing representatives of the organization were not allowed to comment on candidates for political office, and could only speak on political issues with Focus’s authorization. Smith was asked to take down more posts: Right after the election, she wrote a Facebook status lamenting transgender suicide. “It comes across as smug, disrespectful, and distinctly partisan,” a staffer told her, according to a text exchange Smith shared. “I think there’s a lack of wisdom in going at this on social. Please pull.”

On November 18, Smith’s bosses told her they didn’t think she could be a good spokesperson for Focus on the Family, according to Smith. She was given two options: She could resign, get a severance, promise not to take legal action, and sign a non-disparagement agreement. Or, she could choose to be fired. She chose firing.

That’s exactly what an organization should do once it discovers an SJW has infiltrated. However, there is no point in issuing warnings; SJWs are always going to double-down, so at best they’re going to bide their time and continue to undermine the organization in every way they can.

Any organization that does not wish to be converged needs to establish proactive anti-SJW measures, including formal policy statements banning the advocacy of social justice and warnings that any public support for social justice will be grounds for instant termination. The inevitable SJW rules-lawyering needs to be anticipated, and stamped out the moment it appears.

Remember that they always start with mild and gentle prods at the boundaries. Focus should have known – and probably did know – that she was trouble at that point. And anytime you hear phrases like “contrary to conservative Christian opinion”, “staying silent isn’t an option” and references to “fighting”, you know you’ve got an SJW entryist on your hands. Deal with them accordingly.

This is not Christian leadership

Here is the thing. There are some jobs where you can make certain mistakes, apologize, and just keep doing them. Being a Christian pastor is not one of them:

According to the woman, Simmons came over to discuss starting a business and providing less fortunate kids with clothes and shoes,” but they ended up in bed together. The woman told police she and Simmons began “establishing a relationship” last October.

After the husband interrupted the tryst, he yelled “I’m gonna kill him” and ran to the master bedroom for his handgun; Simmons fled the apartment naked and hid behind a nearby fence.

The wife then called the police and her husband left with Simmons’ clothes, wallet and car keys, which he threatened to drop off at the church. He also threatened to expose Simmons on Facebook.

The wife told police her husband never threatened her and she declined to press charges. Simmons also declined to press charges. State Attorney Jack Campbell, “citing the interests of all involved,” decided against prosecution.

After phone negotiations with police, the husband arranged to return Simmons’ belongings. The husband turned over the handgun to NAACP Tallahassee Branch President Dale Landry.

“My prayers to the families involved and the church and our community,“ said Landry. “May God guide all our hearts and minds as we move through this period.”

Simmons, who has led the independent church since 2005, said he won’t quit.

“What I want from God, I have already received – that’s his forgiveness, ” Simmons said in his address. “What I am asking of our members is your prayers and your forgiveness.”

In response, the congregation stood and applauded for several minutes.

No, you don’t forgive and applaud for a charlatan like this. If the man hasn’t resigned, he clearly hasn’t repented. One of the primary banes of the modern Churchian pseudo-church is easy, repentance-free, consequence-free forgiveness.

I would not hesitate to leave a church that hesitated to fire a pastor guilty of adultery. There is virtually no chance that this guy isn’t going to do the same damn thing again at the earliest opportunity. He’s obviously a con artist; I particularly enjoyed the lame cover story of “providing less fortunate kids with clothes and shoes”.

Nobody is perfect. But nobody has to be a leader either. And if you can’t keep yourself off the women in the congregation, then you can’t be a Christian leader. Period.

“Christians” oppose helping Christians first

This is utter madness. It’s time to start aggressively expelling the Churchians from the Church. They are worse than unbelievers. Since it’s not possible to assist everyone, assisting non-Christians ahead of Christians means not providing for fellow Christians. Moreover, those Christian refugees aren’t Americans and therefore don’t belong in the United States anyhow. Assistance does not mean moving people permanently in next door.

Is there any doubt these people also oppose the America First policy as well?

Christian leaders have said they oppose Trump’s decision to prioritize Christian refugees.

‘We believe in assisting all, regardless of their religious beliefs,’ Bishop Joe S Vásquez, who chairs the migration committee of the US Conference Of Catholic Bishops, told the newspaper.

One of the religious leaders speaking out against the executive order was Jen Smyers, the associate director for immigration and refugee policy of Church World Service, a ministry with more than 30 denominations in its members. Smyers said that Friday, the day Trump signed the executive order setting up the immigration bans, was a ‘shameful day’ for the US.

‘Christ calls us to care for everyone, regardless of who they are and where they come from,’ World Relief’s senior vice president of advocacy and policy Jenny Yang told The Atlantic. ‘That has to be a core part of our witness—not just caring for our own, but caring for others as well.’

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
– 1 Timothy 5:8

As we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
– Galatians 6:10

What Christ is that, exactly? Judeo-Christ? Antichrist? Meanwhile, are there any doubts about the Argentine Francine being the Pope of SJWanity?

Answering questions from young people in the group this morning, the pope said, “the sickness or, you can say the sin, that Jesus condemns most is hypocrisy,” which is precisely what is happening when someone claims to be a Christian but does not live according to the teaching of Christ.

“You cannot be a Christian without living like a Christian,” he said. “You cannot be a Christian without practicing the Beatitudes. You cannot be a Christian without doing what Jesus teaches us in Matthew 25.” This is a reference to Christ’s injunction to help the needy by such works of mercy as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and welcoming the stranger.

“It’s hypocrisy to call yourself a Christian and chase away a refugee or someone seeking help, someone who is hungry or thirsty, toss out someone who is in need of my help,” he said. “If I say I am Christian, but do these things, I’m a hypocrite.”

The idea that the worst sin is “hypocrisy” is straight out of the Left’s playbook. Granted, we are told that faith without works is dead, but Francine isn’t even disguising the fact that he is playing works police here. And speaking of hypocrisy, if there is anyone on this planet I suspect of not being a Christian despite claiming to be one, it is Francine himself.

Here is the question: if Jesus came, as we are told, to divide us, in whose service is Francine seeking to unite us?

Pagan rhetoric is not Christianity

The actual Christian position on refugees and immigrants:

It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.
– Matthew 15:26

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
– 1 Timothy 5:8

But what about that verse from Exodus?

Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
– Exodus 22:21

When were Americans ever foreigners in Egypt? That is not Christian compassion, that has nothing to do with Christianity at all. Anyone who is appealing to Christianity in arguing for settling refugees and foreigners in the USA is a confirmed liar.

Got that, Churchian cuck? You have denied the faith and are worse than an unbeliever. If you genuinely want to go help the foreigners, go to foreign lands and do so. Take your neo-Babelist melting pot paganism with you and go.

A failure of dialectic

This account of feminism perverting theology is an excellent example of the way in which dialectic is impotent when faced with a literally unreasonable opponent:

The meaning of head in Ephesians 5 is critical not for egalitarians, nor even for traditionalists.  Even if head meant “source” in Ephesians 5, the passage still tells wives to submit to their husbands, and it is merely one of many which does so.  Egalitarians are lost even if they win this argument, and traditionalists are largely unfazed even if they somehow lost it.  On the other hand, the meaning of the word head is critical for complementarians, because complementarians twist themselves into knots to avoid telling wives to submit to their husbands out of a fear of seeming harsh, demeaning, and male supremacist.  The only way complementarians can sound traditional while avoiding preaching submission is to focus all of their energies on the responsibility of the husband to act in such a way that his wife naturally wants to submit.  This is not the biblical model of marriage, it is the complementarian model of marriage.  The closest to a biblical justification for this invention is the word head in Eph 5.  This is true despite the fact that even the word headship is discomforting to complementarians, who have coined the term servant leader and focus on cartoonish chivalry.

Even so, Grudem has done a great service by vigorously refuting the spurious claim about head.


Why did I do this? So that commentaries, Greek lexicons, and Bible translations in future generations will accurately teach and translate a crucial verse in the word of God. If head equals “authority over” as has been shown now in over sixty examples, then the ballgame is over. And even today, twenty-four years after my first article, there are still zero examples where a person is called “head” of someone else and is not in authority over that person. Zero.

But as Grudem notes, despite the original claim being made without evidence, and having been thoroughly debunked, the Bible is not (and never was) the issue:


That kind of evidence would normally settle the debate forever in ordinary exegesis of ordinary verses.


But this is not an ordinary verse. Because the evangelical feminists cannot lose this verse, they continue to ignore or deny the evidence. I think that is very significant.


It now seems to me that, for some people in this dispute who have thought through the issue and are committed to the egalitarian cause and have the academic knowledge to evaluate the evidence for themselves, what the Bible says on this question is not decisive. And, sadly, InterVarsity Press (USA), in spite of being given evidence of multiple factual errors in Catherine Kroeger’s article on “head” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters,5 still continues to refuse to make any changes to the article.

Grudem goes on to recount his recollection of the founding of the CBMW.  I won’t summarize it here, but you can read it in the linked piece.  After the CBMW was founded, Grudem had his second major learning experience with egalitarians. Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) asked for CBMW leadership to meet with them in an effort to find common ground.  At CBE’s urging the CBMW created what they expected would be a joint statement on abuse.  The CBMW leadership did not seem to understand that feminists are very open that their focus on abuse is about eradicating headship, not on actual abuse.  Even worse, the CBE was merely trying to take the CBMW off message, and had no interest in a mutual statement:

As we talked, there seemed to be agreement that one thing we could do together would be for both organizations to agree publicly that abuse within marriage is wrong. So we agreed to work on a joint statement on abuse. After the meeting, Mary Kassian drafted such a statement, and we got some feedback from the CBE people, and we were going to issue it. But, then on October 10, 1994, we received a letter from them saying that their board had considered it, and they would not join with us in the joint statement opposing abuse. I was shocked and disappointed when the letter came. I wondered then if their highest goal in this issue was to be faithful to Scripture above all and stop the horrors of abuse, or was to promote the egalitarian agenda. We ended up publishing the statement ourselves in CBMW NEWS (later renamed The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).

Even after this, Grudem seems to have still expected good faith from egalitarians.  In yet another incident, Grudem and the CBMW were assured that the gender neutral version of the NIV had been scrapped:


But just before the meeting began, the IBS issued a statement saying they had “abandoned all plans” for changes in gender-related language in future editions of the NIV. So we thought the controversy was done and the NIV would remain faithful in its translation of gender-related language in the Bible.


Little did we know, however, that the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV had not “abandoned all plans”! Far from it! Unknown to anyone outside their circles, for the next four years the Committee on Bible Translation, apparently with the quiet cooperation of people at Zondervan and the International Bible Society, continued working to produce a gender-neutral NIV. They had publicly “abandoned all plans,” but privately they were going full-steam ahead. Then suddenly in 2001, they announced unilaterally they were abandoning the agreement not to publish gender related changes in the NIV, and they published the TNIV New Testament in 2001 and the whole Bible in 2005.

In his conclusion Grudem says he originally thought the whole feminist rebellion would blow over once he and others carefully explained the correct meaning of Scripture:

I am surprised that this controversy has gone on so long. In the late 80s and early 90s when we began this, I expected that this would probably be over in ten years. By force of argument, by use of facts, by careful exegesis, by the power of the clear word of God, by the truth, I expected the entire church would be persuaded, the battle for the purity of the church would be won, and egalitarian advocates would be marginalized and have no significant influence. But it has not completely happened yet!

Unspoken in this (and complementarianism at large) is an attitude that Christian feminists are not rebelling against God in a pattern that dates back to the fall, but are the natural reaction to a suddenly harsh generation of Christian men.  This is why Grudem and his colleagues repeatedly fell for the feminist ruses, and why to this day they are most concerned with showing how reasonable they are.

I have a simple and efficient metric that permits me to avoid such problems. Any time anyone relies on “equality” for any aspect of their argument, I assume they are, at best, deluded, and on average, dishonest. I take arguments that appeal to, or rely upon, equality, about as seriously as those that rely upon “unicorns” or “leprechauns” as their justifications.

I have yet to see anyone make an honest and compelling argument that utilized equality. It is an intrinsically evil concept that always leads even otherwise honest men astray.

Mr. Grudem could have saved himself 21 years of pointless argument by applying this extraordinarily reliable metric. But at least he did the rest of us the favor of demonstrating that Churchian equalitarianism is every bit as evil and deceptive as its worldly counterpart, and that it is only a matter of time before Christian feminism drops the adjective as well as the concept of Scriptural authority.

What a pity that even Biblical scholars don’t know how to utilize the wisdom of Proverbs.

A continual dripping on a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike; Whoever restrains her restrains the wind, and grasps oil with his right hand.
– Proverbs 27:15-16

The fear of woman

Is the beginning of dyscivilization. Pastor Doug Wilson addresses one way in which modern Churchians have attempted to neuter the Christian man.

If over the course of a few months of pastoral counseling, say, I encounter three instances of husbands and fathers getting angry in the home, you can expect that problem to start showing up in sermons—either in sermons on anger, or passing illustrations about anger in sermons on something else. My assumption is that the instances I have found out about are the tip of the iceberg.

Now suppose—just suppose—the presenting problem in three marriages I am trying to help is the problem of lazy and idle housewives. Is there any practical way, without becoming a Pariah for the Ages, to preach on “Lazy Housewives”? I could get myself into a fit of the giggles just thinking about it.

Anything said along these lines will be immediately translated into an “attack on all women.” The violent response will insist that what you said about a small subset of women is to be understood by the entire world as an attack on all women, and the violent response will be led by women who also insist that they are every bit as rational as men, and should therefore be trusted to preach and teach and handle the text of Scripture, and they will do this when they have just finished parsing a statement that some mammals are marsupials into the clownish doctrine that all mammals are marsupials, and how dare you say that all mammals have pouches? Whales don’t have pouches, you maroon.

The reason for this reaction is that Satan hates women, and does not want them to have any pastoral care. He does not want them to have husbands who protect them. He wants them to be surrounded by feckless cowards, who refuse to tell them the truth.

He wants them to have men in their lives who would rather lie than lead.

I don’t know if I can go along with this hateful attack on women. After all, did not Judeo-Christ say: “I do not permit a husband to criticize or to assign blame to his wife; he must be silent in his servant-leadership. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”


I am confident all right-thinking Churchians will agree with me that it is both wrong and sinful for a man to criticize any woman, but particularly a woman to whom he is, or was formerly, married, and that the proper role of a husband is to provide, without complaint, for his wife and his wife’s son.

Who needs Jesus?

It’s a joke, obviously, but one does wonder what the women-can-do-no-wrong pedestal preachers think is likely going to be the consequence of their extremely extra-Biblical teachings.

According to reports coming out of Hope Community Church, first-time visitor Brittany Wilson remains unsure about why she needed “this Jesus guy” in her life after the pastor spent the entire Sunday sermon reiterating how awesome, amazing, unique, and special she is.

“The message was super-encouraging. It was all about how I need to let the goodness within me shine and ‘just do me,’ without worrying about all the haters,” Wilson said after the service.

“But then the pastor said I needed Jesus, out of the blue. Like, what? It made no sense. I’m not sure what He has to offer that I don’t, based on how wonderful the pastor said I am.”

Women are not only every bit as fallen as men, but they have been the primary weapon utilized by the architects of the decline of the Christian church. I won’t attend any church with a female pastor, nor will I attend any church that habitually excoriates men while elevating women. Whatever it is that they are teaching, it isn’t from the Bible and it isn’t compatible with Christianity.

The severed branch dies

A professor of religion and culture only requires five years to observe the obvious in the Washington Post:

Mainline Protestant churches are in trouble: A 2015 report by the Pew Research Center found that these congregations, once a mainstay of American religion, are now shrinking by about 1 million members annually. Fewer members not only means fewer souls saved, a frightening thought for some clergy members, but also less income for churches, further ensuring their decline.

Faced with this troubling development, clergy members have made various efforts to revive church attendance. It was almost 20 years ago that John Shelby Spong, a U.S. bishop in the Episcopalian Church, published his book “Why Christianity Must Change or Die.” It was presented as an antidote to the crisis of decline in mainline churches. Spong, a theological liberal, said congregations would grow if they abandoned their literal interpretation of the Bible and transformed along with changing times.

Spong’s general thesis is popular with many mainline Protestants, including those in the United Methodist, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian (U.S.A.) and Episcopal churches. Spong’s work has won favor with academics, too. Praising Spong’s work specifically, Karen L. King of Harvard Divinity School said in a review of Spong’s book that it “should be required reading for everyone concerned with facing head-on the intellectual and spiritual challenges of late-twentieth-century religious life.” Harvard Divinity professor and liberal theologian Harvey Cox said “Bishop Spong’s work is a significant accomplishment,” and indeed, Cox himself has long been at the task of shifting Christianity to meet the needs of the modern world. Thus, liberal theology has been taught for decades in mainline seminaries and preached from many mainline pulpits. Its enduring appeal to embattled clergy members is that it gives intellectual respectability to religious ideas that, on the surface, might appear far-fetched to modern audiences.

But the liberal turn in mainline churches doesn’t appear to have solved their problem of decline.

Over the last five years, my colleagues and I conducted a study of 22 mainline congregations in the province of Ontario. We compared those in the sample that were growing mainline congregations to those that were declining. After statistically analyzing the survey responses of over 2,200 congregants and the clergy members who serve them, we came to a counterintuitive discovery: Conservative Protestant theology, with its more literal view of the Bible, is a significant predictor of church growth while liberal theology leads to decline. The results were published this month in the peer-reviewed journal, Review of Religious Research.

We also found that for all measures, growing church clergy members were most conservative theologically, followed by their congregants, who were themselves followed by the congregants of the declining churches and then the declining church clergy members. In other words, growing church clergy members are the most theologically conservative, while declining church clergy members are the least.

A nominally Christian church that does not believe in God or Jesus Christ has no reason to exist. By severing themselves from God’s Word, the Bible, and freeing themselves from its strictures, they inevitably decline and die.

It is a reliable predictive model. Welcome women into the pulpit in defiance of Scripture and your church will almost instantly go into decline. Once Jesus Christ is evicted from the building, the genuine Christians soon follow.

Anti-Christian hate crime

Israeli parliamentarian destroys the New Testament and declares that Christianity “belongs in the garbage can of history”.

MK Michael Ben Ari (National Union), a member of the Israeli parliament tore up a copy of the New Testament and threw it in the trash, an act that was apparently caught on camera. Ben Ari and several other Knesset members received by mail on Monday a copy of the New Testament, sent by the Bible Society in Israel, an organization that distributes religious books.

In the letter sent with the book, director of the Christian organization Victor Kalisher wrote that the new edition “sheds light on the Holy Scriptures and helps understand them.”

“We hope the book will help you and illuminate your way,” Kalisher furter wrote.

However, while most MK’s chose to ignore the book or return it to its sender, the rightist lawmaker chose to term the book a “provocation,” tore it up into shreds and then threw it out.

“This abominable book (the New Testament) galvanized the murder of millions of Jews during the Inquisition and during auto da fe instances,” Ben Ari said adding that “Sending the book to MK’s is a provocation. There is no doubt that this book and all it represents belongs in the garbage can of history.”

Imagine the outrage if a U.S. Congressman tore up a copy of the Talmud and denounced Judaism on camera.

There is no such thing as Judeo-Christianity. It does not exist. There are no “Judeo-Christian values”, any more than there are “Islamo-Christian” or “Hindu-Shinto” values.

What many naive Christians need to understand is that many Jews absolutely hate Christians and Christianity. Such Jews are neither our friends nor our allies, but our overt enemies.

That does not mean that all Jews are enemies of Christianity. It doesn’t even mean that most of them are. It simply means that they are a distinct people with their own distinct interests, a nation who should neither be favored nor trusted on the sole basis of their religious or ethnic identity. And like everyone else, Jews should be judged as individuals, on the basis of their individual statements and actions.

As for Israel, the USA should support it to the extent it is in American interests to do so. As a regional power in the volatile Middle East, Israel is much more useful to Americans as an ally than as an enemy. But Christians nevertheless need to understand that many Israelis, including some Israeli political leaders, are their open and avowed enemy.

Now, I realize there are more than a few Jews and Christians alike who would prefer to bury all signs of this Jewish enmity for Christians and Christianity for one reason or another. This is understandable, and it may even be well-intentioned. But if you are inclined to knowingly keep the deceived in the dark, I think you really need to ask yourself whom you are serving in that regard.