Hard for me to understand why a female (like AOC) would support this Muslim…. I mean does she think that Muslim men will make an exception in her case and she won’t have to wear the hijab? Does she think that they’ll look at her and not see chattel? How in the heck can anyone be so dang ignorant to support someone with this way of life and not think it won’t affect her?
Ok so this is going to sound quite odd. Coming from me perhaps not so much. But in all honesty, it sounds pretty odd to me too.
When I was at MacArthur's church for quite a number of years, I sought very deeply to understand their ministry philosophy. It did not seem straight forward. And constantly through me for a loop. This was not passive pew sitting quarterbacking. For me, it was for overcoming quite a few bad mental habits I had developed over the years. And even more, it was truly about survival for me. It could have been something I walked away from Christianity regarding. And I knew if i did not seek long and hard to have an idea of what i was dealing with at that church (for it greatly affected so many crucial areas of my life), I might have taken a huge break from the faith.
Even in my pursuits to do so, God was utterly faithful where I was faithless. And left the 99 to the lost me. He would constantly show up in my life many times through my stray years before turning back to Macarthur's church which at the time seemed to have more solid teaching than most churches. What I discover over the years was being able to piece together a blueprint language of sorts. For it was rather different than how i would track. So I wrote reminders of how their language worked. And laminated it. Even looking back, it was dead on target.
The language was not exactly unbiblical. But kind of extra-biblical if you will. I bring that up because to me, there are similar overtures somewhat with our modern-day eschatology. What I am not saying is that its definitely accurate there with eschatology as I had come to be accustomed to at Grace Community Church. The church was a major part of my life. So it mattered a lot to me. Not to have more insight and knowledge. But more like knowing how to tie my shoes. Like that pragmatic in ways.
. . . . .
So an example would be the discovery of what was being tested by leadership was if I could see God transcend them. For example, where they wanted to see growth in me, for them, was to test the opposite. So if I was weak in faith in some way, they would throw a cluster form of things to doubt if i so chose to accept them, or alternatively prove by faith I knew better in Him. Almost like testing by antithesis. Or faking someone out to see if they know better kind of thing and theme.
And where I might see similar connection to eschatological patterns of neo-language like...is, perhaps (if true and of course only if true), to see irony as tells. Or rather "clarity" more than it just mystifying. I tend to think that is the sort of rule of thumb that might be somewhat in operation in eschatology. Not because I got used to an alien language of ministry philosophy...and therefore end times has to be about that too. My first few years in taking in that it might be end times, had nothing to do with irony or antithesis. That would not have even made sense to me in those early days of discovery any laying over of any end time prophesy today.
But the irony angle seems to actually answer quite a bit. I don't share this to invite others into a journey with irony. Even if it is true, God deals with us differently. And that would likely mean that even what i tend to notice about irony, even if it is true, may possibly be more for me than others or for others to agree to it. For God has wired us differently.
So for the interest of clarity, here is an example: There are quite a few things that throw me off about Trump. I mean i believe he is being used by God in some prophetic way concerning Israel. But anything outside of that, for me, has quite a hill to climb to merit that. However, I did notice an Andy Woods video that very recently came out. And it surprised me, the title. I don't know exactly what Andy would say for i have not watched it myself. I'm just posting it because it is an example that Trump does raise eyebrows.
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
The kicker: I had to ask myself, "Why might God include Syria and a former leader in Al Qaeda in working with the USA?" One pragmatic answer would be: Iran. Which makes sense. Syria is not interested in partnering with Iran. So there is that. But still, a terrorist with a recent bounty on his head as a terrorists visits the white house? lol. That sounds pretty bad. But perhaps not as bad as where that sort of thing leads me to think like.
There was a movie that came out decades ago with Eddie Murphey called Trading Places. There was also a common understanding among various social groups to question in our post modern era: Which is more ethical...the laws of street gang war fair ethics, or the polite society that can often be fake or disingenuous? That theory would point out that the laws of the jungle might be more respectable that perhaps the corporate working class back stabbing that occurs in "polite" society.
I bring that up not to suggest we do street jungle ethics (where devotion can be the only law to count on--but would seem perhaps a bit higher on the street because of tha nature of its necessary survival), but as a set-up for irony. So here is where my views will likely seem rather pedestrian or very low in street smarts or both perhaps. But it would just seem that we have 2 main classes in operation today (there are of course so many more...but for the sake of brevity if not already to late for that...lol). Class 1) Old school nationalist. And 2) Neo globalism. If this is accurate, then Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa leader might be rep of old school nationalism. If the enemy of our enemy is our friend matters, then it would make sense that God could imply by this (should globalism further collapse) that there is such a radical global shift afoot, that even the street gangs come against the polite society of globalism. When looked at this way, the irony might matter quite a bit. And brings living color as to this divide even by shock-jock radio tactics (i.e. -- a street thug that represents nationalism is more at play possibly today than the mature, sophisticated and wide spread operation of globalism).
Based on those simple (very simple...likely too simply...lol) principles, it could be that Syria is somewhat like a David to the globalist Goliath (metaphorically speaking). Like this could be totally wrong, but the way i understand Iran in this equation is that they are what globalism would have wanted for North Korea. Pit Bull lapdogs to infuse chaos, mayhem and war. And use of Syria to unite against Iran is a move against globalism, as far as I can tell.
So if something like that is accurate or near accurate, Syria coming to the white house might be more of a tap on the shoulder about considering how serious the level of globalist confrontation is on the rise in our world. For its ability to firestart discussions about what the heck that is and why it might be going on is at a remarkably high level.. But it would make sense as an underscoring of the age we are leaning into becoming here. The fact that Ahmed is historically Al Qaeda could tend to be a bad dream hard to wake up from. And i believe it could imply highlighting that issue. Almost like: To the degree Ahmed is a shocker to have visited the white house, might be a good time to consider how the lines in the sand are drawn. And this division forming if that R E A L. And if so, its pretty loud too to get the point across lol. "Yall keep your eyes on Nationalism vs. Globalism...to the degree a street punk is honored by the USA Whitehouse as a nation state leader. Yes, to that degree." If true. Just saying. Though it might be interesting to consider or even marginally contemplate. Blessings.
(I'm just kidding with the emoji. ) What I have come to appreciate about your posts in general is that they are not an echo chamber of common understandings. They open me to fresh ways of thinking. Yes, your verbiage at times can be difficult, even frustrating; but the effort to follow you is always interesting and sometimes radically thought-provoking.Thank you.
Very appreciated and encourages me to still refine in His love. Amen. Blessings.
