From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Does God want Messiah Trump on the Cross?

Evangelical holy war: Why some Christians think Trump will end the world Matthew Burkholder, University of Toronto
Wed, March 18, 2026 at 2:04 p.m. EDT
6 min read
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.
Add Yahoo on Google

Soldiers in the United States Armed Forces have lodged more than 100 complaints with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) stating
that their commanders are using extremist religious rhetoric to describe
the U.S.-Israel war against Iran.

According to some complaints, American military commanders have told their troops the attack on Iran is a holy war, and that U.S. President Donald
Trump was �anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.�

In a recent interview with Democracy Now!, the MRFF�s president, Mikey Weinstein, said the foundation was �inundated� with calls from soldiers indicating that commanders across the armed forces �were euphoric� because
the war would serve as a way to �bring their version of weaponized Jesus back.�

The comments are among other violent religious rhetoric to come from U.S. officials. The U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, caused a
diplomatic row when he suggested Israel had a biblical claim to take over
much of the Middle East.

The language also comes as some American officials have sought to
characterize the Iranian government as fanatical. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran was run by �religious fanatic lunatics.� Secretary of
Defense Pete Hegseth said: �Crazy regimes like Iran, hell-bent on prophetic Islamic delusions, cannot have nuclear weapons.�

Meanwhile, American televangelist John Hagee recently claimed that Russia, Turkey, �what�s left of Iran� and �groups of Islamics� would soon invade Israel and be destroyed by God.
American evangelicalism

During my PhD in Christian theology, I�ve asked why some American
evangelical religious movements, which have gained increasing visibility
and power through President Donald Trump�s MAGA politics shaped heavily by white Christian nationalism, embrace violent interpretations of what theologians refer to as �eschatology� (a theology of end times).

Read more: When war looks like prophecy: How U.S. �end time� narratives
frame the war with Iran

While the term �evangelical Christian� is notoriously difficult to define, historian David Bebbington, who focused on these movements in the United Kingdom, delineated four broad charactersitics: a strong belief in the
Bible, the death of Jesus for sins, a conversion experience and social activism.

My own research specialization is how modern Protestant Christians,
including evangelical Christians, understand the significance of Jesus�s death, also referred to as the atonement, and its relationship to the end times.
Seeking Armageddon

Rhetoric about wars being religious, and Trump being divinely anointed and about to cause Armageddon, is deeply disturbing and has catalyzed
condemnation from Christians in the U.S. and beyond advocating non-violent
and diplomatic foreign policy.

Violent U.S. religious rhetoric being amplified with the U.S.-Israel war against Iran is associated with beliefs that once Israel is restored as a nation and the temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, Jesus will return and judge humanity.

Read more: As Iran war expands, some conservative Christians interpret the conflict through biblical prophecies

Christians adhering to these views read the Biblical Book of Revelation,
with its vivid symbolic apocalyptic language, as making literal claims
about history. They maintain their inspired and authoritative Biblical interpretation allows them to know that conflicts in the Middle East
initiate God�s final act in history, with Trump seen as the dominating and aggressive man who can help usher in God�s violent judgment of his enemies. Interpretations of Jesus�s death and violence

It�s relevant to consider how some Christian beliefs about Jesus�s death correlate with a willingness to support or justify violence.

Protestant Evangelical theologians, such as J. I. Packer and John Stott,
argue that Jesus�s death primarily �paid the penalty� for human sin. They emphasize that God�s holiness requires a payment for this sin. In this framework, God orchestrates the violent death of Jesus to satisfy God�s
penal justice to forgive humanity.

Non-evangelical Christians, on the other hand, like 19th-century Congregationalist Horace Bushnell and contemporary Mennonite theologian J. Denny Weaver, understand the death of Jesus as an example of God�s love.

In this interpretation, Jesus doesn�t endure violence to pay a debt to God. Instead, the death of Jesus is more akin to that of a martyr�s tragic
death. These theologians reject violence as a condition for forgiveness.

A 2012 debate in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) about a hymn demonstrates this tension, with a proposed change of hymn lyrics from �on that cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied� to �the love of God was magnified.� Ultimately, the authors rejected the proposal.

But the conflict demonstrates that Christians are passionate about their different interpretations of Jesus�s death.
Divine violence in atonement

Researchers have shown that penal atonement beliefs predict a negative association with a sense of responsibility for reducing pain and suffering
in the world. This is not surprising when violence is incorporated as redemptive into theological frameworks.

I make a connection in my PhD dissertation between accepting divine
violence in the atonement and divine violence in eschatology. Of course,
this topic is far more complex and nuanced. Nonetheless, Christians are
always going through a process of interpretation and negotiation when it
comes to sacred texts.

For example, is Jesus the warrior Christ of Revelation 19 riding a warhorse
to go into battle against his enemies or the teacher of peace in Matthew 21 who commands his followers to love their enemies just as God perfectly
does?
Biblical interpretation and political beliefs

For those who see violence as a tool for redemption, they are more apt to subvert Jesus�s nonviolent teaching with images found in the Biblical book
of Revelation. For those who see violence as incompatible with Christian ethics, they will interpret this allegorically, and with humility, paying attention to signs of God not just in their own lives and �insider� group. These two approaches will also inform political beliefs as well.

Consider a recent social media post by Reformed Baptist theologian and
pastor John Piper. The post simply quotes Leviticus 19:34:

�You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land
of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.�

Piper was quickly labelled �woke� and pushing an �irresponsible� theology
by Trump supporters. American theologan Russell Moore noted years ago:

�Multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting
the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching � �turn the
other cheek� � to have someone come up after to say, �Where did you get
those liberal talking points?��

A more responsible evangelical theology

I argue Christians should not believe in a God of violent death, but life. Violent atonement and eschatology portrays a God who is not above revenge
and a God who leaves most of humanity hopeless.

We are left asking a series of disturbing questions if God is indeed about
to end the world with violence. Why does the tone of this theology resemble the tone of empire, which crushes enemies instead of building bridges with them? Why does Jesus, as One Person of the One God, expect his followers to love their enemies � if God the Father ultimately does not?

All Christians in the U.S. and beyond need to reject violent theology as incompatible with the love of God that was magnified on the cross.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 20:07:15 -0000 (UTC)
"Michael Knowles, Daily Wire" <mknowles@dailywire.com> wrote:

Does God want

Fuck off Rudence:
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.survivalism/c/O_95Kh78WUM
Jonathan Ball 5327 Shepard Avenue, Sacramento, CA95819-1731, USA
163 views
Derek's profile photo
Derek
unread,
Nov 28, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
to
http://www.whitepages.com/name/Jonathan-D-Ball/Sacramento-CA/2sind2i
This little squirt who posts under a great number of nyms
http://bit.ly/1MU8oan boasts about having a Ph. D. in economics and goes
around threatening people with physical violence, and so he should be made known to you here in alt.california and his other main haunts because he
often tries to make fellow participants known to their fellow participants.
The list of nyms he uses, often multiple times to argue and defeat himself
in a bid to feel triumphant, is far from complete and is still growing. Jonathan Ball (real name)
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
sil...@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Sc...@deutsche_telekom.de"
<prickerbush2...@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notgen...@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.steakho...@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb29...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Derek's profile photo
Derek
unread,
Nov 28, 2015, 4:40:38 PM
to
snipped newsgroups reinstated
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 14:08:10 -0800 (PST), DCI <50b...@gmail.com> wrote:

And when you, Derek, have to go to such length to attempt to discredit Rudy, you are actually discrediting your self, all, without refuting any of his points and arguments,

No, that's false. I haven't refuted any points or argument here because he hasn't presented any to me. I merely followed him over here because he won't defend himself in the newsgroup he usually trolls where he's been dodging people, including myself, for fifteen years.

Now can your post any personal information about you

You need only go to the newsgroup I've been posting regularly from for
nearly fifteen years, with my full name in the legitimate email address I
use at alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian to see that Jonathan was the first to reveal my email address today after being pressured by me to come
clean about the lies he's been spreading about having gained a Ph. D. in economics. Sure, my full address has been posted there before and I have no problem with that. Jonathan, on the other hand, hides behind a growing list
of nyms to keep his identity secret while posting the details of others. I'm certainly not the first person who's identity and personal home address has been revealed by him, and I definitely won't be the last. If he wants to
make a new post with my full name and address as the subject title, he
should expect the same in return. Now that you're aware he posted my particulars in the subject headers before I retaliated are you going to say that he has discredited himself more than me by doing such a thing?

and how you arrive at the drivel you are posting?

I haven't been posting any drivel. To dodge explaining why he lied about his academic achievements, or lack of them, he tried to turn the tables by
writing that I "clumsily pretend to a level of education and
sophistication [I] don't have, striving earnestly for good marks
It's fake - but also funny. It's also sad, because it bespeaks a
massive insecurity." That's simply not true. I haven't boasted about my academic achievements. There's nothing really to boast about. Jon, though,
has lied about his, and the proof is found in Google archives, no matter how strongly he resents it. Years ago he often used to state that he tried but failed to complete a Ph. D. program in economics at UCLA.
“For the record, I did not complete my Ph.D. program
in economics at UCLA, and I have never worked as an
economist.”
Jonathan Ball 8 Nov 2002 http://tinyurl.com/53e2m2
and
"... it's important to me to be known as honest. Honesty
compels me to admit that I didn't complete my Ph.D."
Jonathan Ball 08 Jun 2003 http://bit.ly/1NdkK0O
Fair enough. No problem, though I did doubt that honesty compelled him to do anything. But then I found posts he's made in Google archives pretending the exact opposite, stating under no uncertain terms that he had in fact gained something which honesty compelled him to deny he'd achieved.
[start – Doug Miller to Jonathon Ball]

What do you have?

Ph.D. economics, UCLA. You?
[end]
Leif Erickson (Jonathan Ball) 8 July 2006 http://tinyurl.com/48w68m
And
[start - "Fooled By Folksy Republicans" to Jonathan Ball

So you're a drop-out

Nope. Ph.D. in economics; UCLA.]
Rudy Canoza (Jonathan Ball 9 Jan 2007 http://tinyurl.com/yztzj7x
And so it is Jonathan, not I who "clumsily pretend to a level of education
and sophistication [he doesn't] have, striving earnestly for good marks
It's fake - but also funny. It's also sad, because it bespeaks a massive insecurity." Hope that helps.
newsman's profile photo
newsman
unread,
Nov 28, 2015, 5:41:52 PM
to
Better go check his group. Derek is right. Jonathan Ball did start a
thread with Derek's home address about an hour before he retaliated.
james g. keegan jr.'s profile photo
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2