The Trojan Church and Mind Control

download.jpeg

Some of you may be familiar with the words “Trojan horse.” It was a strategy of infiltration devised by the ancient Greeks to defeat the Trojans.

Both the Greeks and Trojans were good fighters, and after series of wars, it began to look as if neither side could ever win the war. Then the Greeks thought of a trick. They started building a horse of wood. It became bigger and bigger.

The Trojans, watching from the top of their city wall, were puzzled. Why would the Greek soldiers spend their time building this giant wooden horse? One morning, the Trojans looked down from their wall and saw that the Greek Army had gone away. They saw no Greek soldier nor army tents. All they saw was the strange horse outside their gate.

The Trojans liked this beautiful wooden horse and they pulled it inside their walls. They thought the war was over, so they put their swords and spears away. They sang and danced around the horse and held a big party.

But when they all went to sleep, the tough Greek soldiers hiding in the wooden horse crept out and opened the gate of Troy to all the soldiers from their warships close by. Before the Trojans knew what was happening, the city of Troy was captured.

After reading several apologetic penned by Christians on the Fatoyinbo sexual assault case, it dawned on me that in the midst of these rationalizations, there has been a paradigm shift in our brand of Christianity. A shift from a Christ-centred Christianity to a man-centred, bastardized form of Christianity.

From what I observed, the efforts of the believers arguing that the rape allegations against the pastor are false were nonetheless geared toward defending a human personality. It wasn’t about a quest for truth, it was more about upholding a dogma.

They are more concerned with a man’s public image than the broken state of his victims. It doesn’t matter what he has done, he just has to emerge spotless and glowing, or their entire Christian faith crumbles like a pile of pixie dust!

Their train of thought seems to follow these assumptions:

1. Pastor Biodun = Jesus Christ
2. COZA = Kingdom of God
3. Pastor Biodun’s sermons = the gospel
4. Pastor Biodun’s defenders = the children of Light
5. Pastor Biodun’s accusers = part of the devil’s gang opposed to #1-4.

One thing I want us to know is that the Holy Spirit always glorifies Jesus (John 16:14). He doesn’t glorify a human personality or a church. And no where in the Bible is a local church equated to God’s kingdom.

The above patterns of thought are in line with the Trojan horse of cultic paradigms that have been smuggled into the church to brainwash people.

A current member of COZA told us how the Sunday service was nuanced after their pastor was exposed. Several beautiful ladies came forward to the altar to passionately “testify how our daddy is being used by God”, how he’s so nice, so humanitarian and anointed. It was all about one man. “Their public relations and damage control tactic is top notch,” he said.

This was the same thing Japheth Omojuwa observed the Sunday after Ese Walter’s exposé in 2013:

Why is this church overly loud today, is it because of God or because of man? The extraordinary praise and worship session – which I really danced to because of my weakness for praises – and the loud cheers and applauses had a note to them that never used to be there. This was no longer about God, it had become about “our pastor.”

I ordinarily would not tweet during a church service but I did on this day because I was so sure in my mind I was no longer in church. I realized I was in a theatre. Everything was a show and it was at best a world-class show. It was no longer about God, it was about ‘our church, our pastor’ …

Leaders of such groups know most people in their congregation will never walk away in disgust after they are exposed, not necessarily because they lack the strength or that personal integrity means nothing to them, but because the religious leaders embody the truth that works for them in some other ways.

In the case of COZA, there seems to be this palpable fear expressed by ex-members. A number of Biodun’s close associates have suddenly resigned, left the church, and abruptly refused to talk to anyone about what they saw or discovered.

A former lead drummer at the church headquarter insists that the pastor is involved in the occult. He would have remained in the church if Biodun was just a philanderer (he confirmed that he’s a rabid sex addict who even visits places he shouldn’t), but he had to flee for his life when he found out that he’s also in a cult.

If these findings are true, it only lends credence to the cultic power of mind control wielded over his victims and the entire members at large.

Many Christians are oblivious of mind chess games or the religio-philosophical system called “Hermetics” (from the name Hermes, the Greek god of the mind) utilized by authoritarian leaders.

They don’t understand how an ordinary cobbler can wield an incredible influence over the thinking of erudite professors and CEOs and make them drag on grounds or allow him literally use their bodies as doormats.

They can’t explain how a religious leader who is physically unattractive and repulsive can possibly rear a horde of female sex slaves who even fight amongst one another on whose turn it is to sleep with “God” in person and receive his “holy fluid.”

They don’t realize that some dangerous religious/cult leaders actually groom their followers and make them do their bidding by using a “trigger” – sight, word, smell or gesture, just as Ivan Pavlov used to control his dogs and make them salivate at the ringing of a bell.

They don’t understand the psychological dynamics of cult programming, like the one Jim Jones used and 900 people committed suicide with him. Before then, he had been sexually abusing some ladies and men among his followers and they still saw him as God’s spokesperson.

I once read a letter written by a married woman to an editor of a Christian magazine. She wrote something like, “My boss raped me, but I can’t see myself quitting my job. He has raped me twice again and I find myself encouraging, tolerating and even longing for it because my husband is cold towards me.”

This is the dynamism that ties many people to pseudo-Christian leaders. They know these men deny God in their actions; they dole out spurious predictions; they still sell their “blood of Jesus” in bottles and folks don’t mind getting trampled to death to buy their “holy water” and “miracle trinkets.” Yet, they can’t see any reason to walk away.

It’s not as if they are stupid, it’s because they are victims of mind control. Mind control is when certain thoughts or ideas are infused into the mind of a person (or a group of people) making them succumb to domination, manipulation and intimidation by an individual or organization.

It’s like being in a wakeful somnolence. Just like a mind high on psychedelic drugs, you are oblivious to reality and your perception of good and evil is blurred. Each time you open your mouth, you only rehash the scripts given to you by the person who mentally programmed you.

It’s the reason that Christians who ought to be outraged at the evils being perpetrated in the name of God rather pick up their weapons to fight those pointing out the truth to them. Jesus paid a terrible price on the cross to purchase our freedom, why allow men to enslave us?

“You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men” (1Cor. 7:23). Paul said to the church in Corinth, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). This is not blind following, but one that is conditioned on the Christian’s discernment that Paul was truly following Christ.

You are not under any obligation to defend or follow the example of a man who lives contrary to the tenets of the Bible and your Christian conscience because of miracles or prosperity or whatever. We have one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). No clergyman died for your sin.

“Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith” is the admonition given to us (Heb. 12:2). No pastor, priest or prophet is the author and finisher of our faith, and we are not to fix our gaze on them. If your gaze is fixed on men, when they go astray you will also go astray.

Indeed, there are true men and women of God, “who labour in the word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17) and we are to listen to them and respect them, but we must never give them a place in our lives that should be reserved only for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Breaking free from religious mind control entails that you receive the truth of God’s Word and decide if you want to walk away or remain in that bondage. You need to ask God to forgive you for putting a man on a pedestal meant for God and prayerfully break off every hold of mind controlling spirits, hypnotic and post-hypnotic triggers over your life.

Seek for a healthy Christian fellowship where there is accountability, genuine love for the flock, where believers are being properly discipled to grow into spiritual maturity and leaders are not acting as “lords over God’s heritage” (1 Pet. 2:5).

In my next post, I will be discussing the biblical ethical codes that undergird accountability in leadership.

Does the Bible Endorse Slavery? (II)

download

One of the common charges levied against the Bible is that, since the New Testament writers exhorted slaves to obey their masters in the Roman social system, the Bible actually approves of slavery and has contributed to inhumanity and oppression.

First of all, the atheist has no moral or logical ground to stand on to condemn slavery. If our actions are determined by random collisions of molecules in our brain – as many atheists believe – then slavery cannot be morally wrong. It would be an expression of natural selection.

Unbelievers vainly boast that humans, not God, put an end to slavery in America while the slave traders justified their dehumanization with some Bible verses. The fact is, the abolitionists were Christians, and they appealed to the Bible to support their anti-slavery stance.

The chancellor of Protestant University, William Wilson, stated that slavery was “at war with the image of God in which man was created” as it treats other humans as less than human as God created him and lowering the person to property.

On the other hand, the biblical texts the pro-slavery advocates were able to cobble together were weak, astutely wrenched and tortured paths.

These men were simply a bunch of wicked, racist and bigoted folks who used the Bible to rationalize their atrocities. That didn’t mean the Bible was really on their side.

Even the most well intentioned religious text can be misinterpreted and misused by people for their own advantage. Interestingly, the Western slave masters and modern atheists are united in their absurd misinterpretation and mutilation of the Bible. They approach the Book the same way a butcher approaches a hog!

It’s not enough for skeptics of all stripes to quote some extracted Bible verses (often to “prove” their preconceived notions), we must examine the complete testimony and see the big picture.

Of course, the dogmatic Bible hater will derisively dismiss this, but once their false assertions are refuted, their propaganda collapses into a pile of pixie dust.

The following texts are often quoted to “prove” that the NT upholds slavery:

“Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord” (Colossians 3:22).

Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ” (Ephesians 6:5)

Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative” (Titus 2:9).

1. Jesus Christ had already pointed to the mission of freedom from all forms of slavery: spiritual, mental and physical. Quoting Isaiah 61:1-2, He declared:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed (Lk. 4:18).

The practical application of this verse is what led to the elucidation of freedom and the denunciation of forms of slavery.

2. The church was born into an already existing secular social world. Christianity didn’t come with a social reform programme for Israel and Rome, because that is not how the kingdom of God – which is inward, rather than geographical – works.

Therefore, when apostle Paul exhorts slaves within the Roman systems to behave themselves, he is not promoting or advocating the situation they were in, but was calling for good conduct while in such an already existing predicament in the hopes that their masters would see such good conduct and convert to Christianity and be saved (Titus 2:10). It was for the benefit of people’s eternal salvation.

3. The apostles weren’t revolutionaries and the early Christians were minorites. The older religions within the Roman Empire (Heathenism, Mystery Religions, State religion) should have borne a higher responsibility of emancipation of slaves because they had greater political might.

As for Eph. 6:5 what did unbelievers expect Paul to say? Should he incite Christian slaves to defy their Roman masters? What do they think happened to insubordinate slaves under Roman law? Did they even bother to think that far?

Under Roman law, a runaway slave was often mercilessly dealt with:

“He could be scourged branded, mutilated, or fitted with a metal collar, perhaps even be crucified, thrown to beasts, or killed. (Joseph Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon, Doubleday Publishing, 2000, p. 28).

I am sure that if the NT had admonished Christian slaves to rebel against their Roman masters, modern atheists would still find a way to gripe over that. If believers walked by the Tiber, cynics would still say they walked because they couldn’t swim.

4. Paul exhorts slave masters to treat their slaves well. He commands those who are slave masters in this existing social system to be good to and not threaten their slaves.

Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your hearts. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free” (Eph. 6:6-8)

5. Paul affirmed freedom over slavery

Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so” (1 Cor. 7:21).

Gleason Archer has shown that while Paul exhorted slaves to obey their masters, he said that slaves should do do all in their ability to purchase their own freedom. (Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, 1982, p. 87).

6. The Bible does not support Slave and Master casses

Slavery runs on the cultural machinery of racial, political, religious and social-economic superiority. But the Bible elevates man as created in the image of God and affirms the equality of all men. This conflicts with the idea behind slavery.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11).

Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1)

Here, apostle Paul affirms both slaves and masters are equal having a true master in heaven, and that masters on earth must not mistreat their slaves.

7. The Bible condemns slavery and the slave trade

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:9-10).

Notice that slavery is included in the list of vices here and slave traders are grouped together with murderers and ungodly people.

In Revelation 18:10-13 Babylon is rebuked and judged in the context of trafficking slaves and greedily making wealth with merchants:

And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo anymore … cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and slaves, that is, human souls.”

Most unbelievers are fond of selectively citing bible passages and neglecting cross-references, hence giving a distorted picture. And the most arrogant part is how they believe they know the Bible more than Christians who have spent the whole of their lives studying it.

Does the Bible Endorse Slavery? (I)

download

Whenever the topic of Islam-approved slavery is brought up by a Christian, a typical tu quoque (“you too”) response of Islam’s apologists is to point to some places in the Bible where slavery is allegedly endorsed – a response that ignores the fact that Christianity predates Islam by 6 centuries.

Slavery-in-the-bible also constitutes one of the garden variety arguments used by Atheists to virulently attack the God of the Bible. The “glue” binding both groups of Bible bashers – Muslims and atheists – is the dollop of emotional blackmail infused into their (mis)perception of slavery.

Whenever biblical slavery is mentioned by such people, it is often deployed to incite an emotional reaction connected with the racist slavery of the American south in the 18th and 19th centuries, or other brutal instances of slavery in the ancient world.

However, to read such concepts into Old Testament Israelite servanthood or the foreign slavery which the Bible permits, would be absolutely inaccurate and deceptive.

In this article, the stark differences between OT servanthood and American chattel slavery will be highlighted and passages often used by Bible haters will be explained. In the next article, we will examine passages pertaining to slavery in the New Testament.

1. It might interest skeptics to know that the terms “slave” and “master” used in the OT are not the best translations of Hebrew words ‘ebed and ‘adon. The word ‘ebed simply means “employee” or “servant” and should not be translated “slave.”

Old Testament scholar, John Goldingay, noted that “there is nothing inherently lowly or undignified about being an ‘ebed.” Instead it was an honourable and dignified term” (John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, Intervarsity, 2009, Vol. 3, p. 460).

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT notes that ebed can refer to “servant of a household” and cites Exodus 21:2 which will still be examined later in this piece.

Mounce’s Dictionary also defines the word as a “servant.” An ‘adon in Hebrew was a “boss” or “employer” in these contexts and “master” is a bit too strong of a translation.

2. The language used in the OT hardly suggests slavery, but rather a formal contractual agreement to be fulfilled. They were more of debt-servanthood arrangements.

When a family incurred debt or experienced a disaster, such as crop failure, an individual could voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement (that is, “sell” himself) to work in the household of another and pay off his debt. This is stated in Lev. 25:47 “one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself.”

A scholar explains:

“Even when the terms buy, sell or acquire are used for servants/employees, they don’t mean the person in question is ‘just property’ . . .  Rather, these are formal contractual agreements, which is what we find in the Old Testament servanthood/employee arrangements. One example of this contracted employer/employee relationship was Jacob’s working for Laban for seven years so that he might marry his daughter Rachel.” (Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Baker Books, 2011, p. 125).

3. In addition to what was clarified above, indentured servitude existed primarily as a means of debt payment. These employees lived with and worked for a family for economic sustenance (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:1, 12).

It was like enlisting in the army where you forgo certain freedoms you had as a civilian to enjoy compensatory benefits. The OT affirms God ordained servitude for people as a means of survival when all other means were exhausted.

4. OT slavery was never chattel slavery like the American South was. Indentured servants had certain rights and protections accorded to them by the Mosaic law:

“The ancient Hebrews as a people knew slavery in their Egyptian bondage (Exod. 1:10-14; 5:5-14), from which they eventually were led to be free people under Moses (Exod. 12:37-42). Because of that experience, Mosaic legislation developed certain rules about the keeping of slaves: ‘Remember that once you were salves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you; that is why I give you this order today’ (Deut. 15:15; cf. Lev. 25:42-45, 55).

“Even though slavery as a social and economic institution was recognized in ancient Israel, there was a clear attempt to humanize it in a way that set Israel apart from its neighbors. The social and economic structure of ancient Palestine was not, therefore, built on slavery, as it often was in other contemporary cultures and lands.” (Joseph Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon, Doubleday, 2000, p. 29).

This stands in contrast to American slavery. The agrarian economy of the old South was labour-intensive. Slaves were used as an easy source of cheap, mass labour.

5. OT servants were more like live-in butlers or nannies. They did not walk around with chains around their neck, enduring racism, or being worked to death like in the old South. Lifelong slavery was even forbidden.

Deuteronomy 15:16 shows servants often truly loved the leaders of the household and thought of them as family. Leviticus 25:53 says such servants were to be treated as men “hired from year to year” not “rule[d] over ruthlessly.” According to a reference work:

“Slaves were afforded a degree of legal protection in Israel. The Covenant Code stipulated three basic measures: beating a slave to death would necessitate an unspecified punishment (Ex. 21:30); if a master permanently injured a slave, release of the slave was required (21:26f.); and masters were required to provide the sabbath rest for their slaves (23:12) …

“Besides these general regulations, the law afforded Hebrew slaves further protections. They could be held for only six years (Ex. 21:2ff.; Dt. 15:12; but see Lev. 25:39f.). The Deuteronomic Code further stipulated that the master would have to provide the freedman with animals, grain, and wine (Dt. 15:13f.). They were not returnable to foreign owners if they succeeded in running away (23:15f.)…” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Goeffrey Bromiley, Eerdmans, 1988, Vol. 4, p. 541).

All of these facts destroy the emotional reaction atheists wish to evoke in people when telling them that “the bible endorses slavery.” It’s simple mindedness to meld narratives of slavery in history with this biblical servitude.

On Exodus and Slavery

A favourite passage Bible bashers use to play up their card is Exodus 21:20-21

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.”

Notice that according to verse 20, the murder of servants is strongly prohibited and was punishable by death. Of course, unbelievers often ignore this truth because it doesn’t go with the grand plan.

In vs. 21, the boss is given the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t intend to murder the servant but was disciplining him for doing some moral wrong he wasn’t supposed to. In that case the boss would not be put to death since it would be ruled accidental.

This didn’t mean bosses should discipline their servants so cruelly that they died after two days or that this was somehow endorsed. That’s not what the text is saying.

It’s simply saying if such an accidental death occurs after a disciplinary punishment, the boss did not deserve death. Life for a life applied only when there was a wilful intent to murder.

God didn’t allow physical abuse of servants. If an employer’s disciplining his servant resulted in immediate death, that employer (“master”) was to be put to death for murder (Exo. 21:20) – unlike other ancient Near Eastern codes (see Christopher Wright, Old Testament Ethics and the People of God, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2006, p. 292).

Infact, Babylon’s Hammurabi’s Code permitted the master to cut off his disobedient slave’s ear.

Some skeptics gripe over the end of vs. 21 which says, “for the slave is his money,” a remark that seems to suggest the servant was his master’s property. Such distortion of the text to fit the narrative of the bible basher is understandable. We call them skeptics for a reason.

The Hebrew doesn’t say “the slave is his money.” What it says is, “that is his money.” Ancient Near East scholar, Harry Hoffner, has shown in his work, Slavery and Ancient Slavery in Haiti and Israel, that based on the context of Exodus 21:18-19 the text should be rendered, “the fee is his money” in the sense that the fee the boss would pay for medical treatment for the soon-to-die injured servant was money.

From its Hebrew context, the text is saying that the death was accidental and the boss tried to save the servant by paying for medical treatment thus, the boss should not be executed since his punishment or “fee” for this tragic accidental death was money he paid in trying to save the servant.

Finally, another “troubling passage” is Exodus 21:7-11 which makes mention of a man selling his daughter as an ‘amah, rendered “slave” or “servant.”

Here is what an Old Testament scholar has to say:

“This paricope pertains to a girl who is sold by her father, not for slavery, but for marriage. Nonetheless, she is designated a ‘servant’ (‘amah, v. 7). Should the terms of marriage not be fulfilled, it is to be considered a breach of contract, and the purchaser must allow the girl to be redeemed; she must not be sold outside that family (v. 8). Always she must be treated as a daughter or a free-born woman, or the forfeiture clause will be invoked” (Walter Kaiser, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Zondervan, 1990, Vol. 2, p. 430).

Once the entire historical and linguistical context of the passage is grasped, the shrill assertions of the critic evaporate into thin air.

Sadly, in their seething rage to attack the Bible, unbelievers never pause to consider that the “50 bad bible verses” they cite (usually gleaned from a village atheist) consist of misinterpreted texts, context butchered, idioms or meanings of words vastly misunderstood, rudimentary, elementary exegetical and hermeneutical principles spat upon and scornfully dismissed.