Woke Christians Seethe and Rage, Say Viral Anti-Abortion Shirt is ‘Racist’
Raymond Chang is president of the Evangeleftist organization Asian American Christian Collaborative and functions like his counterpart Jemar Tisby, president of The Witness Collective. Like Tisby, Chang regularly supports such leftist causes as the Black Lives Matter movement, the gun control movement, and racial hierarchy politics. The AACC website’s recommended resources page is chock full of links, book recommendations, and podcasts that focus almost exclusively on race-baiting and racialization of the church as if the organization’s only purpose is to promote racial and political division amongst Christians.
We wrote about Chang recently after he was a speaker at a Christian ‘Pro-Justice’ conference, where ironically, almost all the speakers present were either pro-choice or were utterly silent on the fall of Roe v. Wade, demonstrating their commitment to justice for all except the unborn.
Days ago, pastor Tom Buck posted a picture of a group of men who participated in an expository preaching conference. One man wore a shirt that read ‘My Plantation, My Choice.’ with a pair of baby feet underneath. His choice of clothing was picked up by another user and racked up over a million views, catching the attention who could not believe his eyes.
He led a charge against the man wearing it, accusing him of being a racist who supports slavery and, by necessity, the lynching of black folk.
Though many sought to explain to Chang what the shirt was conveying, he obstreperously displayed a pathological inability to comprehend of put two and two together. Tom Buck tried, but his efforts were in vain.
Seriously. Chang doubled and tripled down.
For those of us on the front lines in the abortion battle, whether engaging with strangers in street ministry or participating in social media campaigns, comparing abortion to the holocaust or slavery has long been a rhetorical argument that we’ve employed.
Unfortunately, Chang is out of the battle and so unfamiliar with anti-abortion rhetoric that he can’t even comprehend how the abortion holocaust and the dehumanization and murder of tens of millions of children are perfectly paralleled in the dehumanization of the Jews during WW2, which is perfectly paralleled in the dehumanization of black folk in the 19th century.
This is not language that only rabid abortion abolitionist employ: even The Babylon Bee did an article about this, writing “Slavery 👏 is 👏 plantation 👏 care 👏. And if anyone criticizes you for your personal decision to have slaves, just remember to clap back with these powerful words: “My plantation, my choice.”
At one point, Chang became oh-so-close to getting it, but it flew over his head.
Sadly, Chang never did get it, and he was joined by Veggie Tales creator Phil Visher. Vischer insists he’s “pro-life” and is “against abortion,” and yet he believes abortion should be legal and allowed in some circumstances, such as in cases of rape and incest. Despite his protestations, something tells us he would never accept someone saying they are “anti-slavery” and “against racism” while still wanting slave-owning to remain legal in some cases and circumstances.
That neither Chang nor Vischer understands the natural parallel and comparison between the two demonstrates an ignorance and obtuseness that is breathtaking to behold. The fact that Chang will not show a little intellectual honesty and grant that the man wasn’t seeking to broadcast his support for naked racism shows why he should be marked and avoided.
About Author
Hey there! Your blog is an incredible resource for anyone interested in metaads . Your podcasts are incredibly informative and have helped us in our own efforts to improve in the field. We especially loved your recent posts about cybersecurity . Keep up the fantastic work and we look forward to reading more from you soon!
Appreciate this content
Legendary Business Ventures
Coach
http://www.clickedprofits.co.uk
Go away troll.
There is no such thing as a “woke Christian,” and please stop using that term. Christian means “little Christs” or a Christ follower. Woke is a belief system diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ in the Bible (the ONLY source for defining Christianity). As a student of the Bible for many years, I can assure you that Woke beliefs are more aligned with things Christ calls evil and more fit the attributes of God’s enemy, Satan.
People can slap labels on themselves, but that doesn’t change reality (e.g., bio men are never women, no matter how many labels and outwardly deceptive costumes they wear). Likewise, those who extensively violate the teachings of Jesus are no more a “Christ-follower” than Hunter Biden is a devotee of Donald Trump. To say the later would be absurd…to say the former is beyond absurd. “Woke Christian” at best is the rough equivalent of a RINO [Republican in Name ONLY). If you aspire to be accurate in your reporting, why not use CHRINO…(Christian in name only) so people are not confused. Thanks.
The problem is how many people that identify as “Christian” believe utter falsehoods about the Bible.
Let’s look at a few falsehoods.
1: Jesus was Jewish. FALSE – Jesus was JUDEAN. He was NOT A JEW. Easily disprovable if your only point of scriptural reference is “the woman at the well” and have never opened a concordance.
2: Jews are the “chosen people”. FALSE – Jews are those that God has CURSED. God HATES the Jews, and this is, once again, easily provable in scripture. We can begin with Genesis 3:15 and wade into Deuteronomy 20:17 for fun. Then perhaps a few verses from the book of John and Revelations.
3: There were only 8 survivors of the “Noah flood”. FALSE. There were only 8 ADAMIC SURVIVORS of the “Noah flood”. The Bible doesn’t concern itself with other races. Genesis 5:1, after all.
4: There weren’t any other people on Earth before “Genesis”. FALSE. Genesis 4:14 disproves this handily and easily.
Just a FEW things most “Christians” believe which are utterly false. There are more.
*rolls eyes* obviously you have no understanding or wisdom. nor do you know Jesus.
It should be noted that slavery was ILLEGAL in the colonies until a BLACK MAN SUED IN COURT for the “right” to own slaves. That’s right, slavery in America has BLACK ORIGINS. Uh oh…
It also should be noted that slavery was a JEWISH-OWNED BUSINESS. At least 20 of 28 slave ships were registered to Jewish owners, and the slave plantations in Africa were owned by Jews. Slave auctions were never held on Jewish holidays (nobody would show up).
Roughly 85% of Jewish households owned slaves, compared to 20% of white households.
The abolitionist movement and the underground railroad were ran by WHITE PEOPLE.
So, to put it succinctly…
Slavery in America is the fault of blacks.
Slavery in America (and most of the world) was ran by JEWS.
And the WHITE RACE is responsible for ENDING IT.
When we talk about “reparations”? Blacks are responsible for their fair share (say, 15% of the cost borne should be theirs). Jews are responsible for the rest (85% sounds about right).
And who should get paid? Blacks should get 50% of reparations (which, once again, they should pay 15% of), and whites should get the other 50% of reparations for REIMBURSEMENT for the Underground Railroad and the Abolitionist movement. And we expect a heartfelt thanks and some show of gratitude for our efforts, you’re welcome.
If you would like more information, please see “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews” which began as a single book but was later expanded to 3 volumes, published by the “Nation of Islam”.
And for even MORE, see “The Jewish Onslaught” by black professor Tony Martin, who faced the wrath of the Jews for daring to teach “The Secret Relationship” to students.
Just when you think it couldn’t possibly get any more paranoid, ignorant, and obtuse, in walks adolf
Just when you thought people couldn’t get any more ignorant, in walks some Jew calling names and not backing up its claim with a single verse of scripture.
For the purposes of this conversation, you should identify yourself as either a Jew or a shabbos goy.
Is calling me a Jew supposed to be an insult? lol
See how the Jew avoids just telling the truth?
It’s programmed to play little word games like this. The best course is to ignore the word games and keep re-asking the question so the entire group of onlookers has no choice but to realize the Jew’s subterfuge.
So…
For the purposes of this conversation, you should identify yourself as either a Jew or a shabbos goy.
See how it glazes right over the important stuff it should be answering? LOL!
Woke Christians aka wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Jesus’ lineage is given in Matt. 1, straight from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
And you’re wrong on every other point also, adolf.
Might help to try reading the Bible objectively, without dragging along your confirmation bias. It doesn’t say what you want it to say.
Exactly, GENIUS. Jesus is of ABRAHAM. Which would make him an ISRAELITE and a HEBREW.
It says in the JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA (Yep, quoting JEWISH SOURCES, moron) “Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a “Jew”, or a modern Jew an “Israelite” or “Hebrew”.
Jesus HIMSELF says this when he says to the Pharisees (JEWS!) “YOU ARE NOT OF ABRAHAM OR THE WORKS OF ABRAHAM YOU WOULD DO.”
It might help to try reading the Bible PERIOD, without dragging along your 501(C)3 tax exempt religious indoctrination centers’ confirmation bias with you.
See, now you blatantly misquote John 8:39. Jesus did not say “you are not of Abraham”
Some translations say “if you were”, which is not exactly correct, in that the greek word este doesn’t denote past tense. You are trying to apply English figures of speech to scripture. What Jesus said is just as properly translated as “if you are the children of Abraham, you will do the works of Abraham”
And how about “You are of your father THE DEVIL”?
And let’s get back to the JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA.
Notice, everyone, how it attempted to use the shadow of its giant nose to just…IGNORE stated facts about what THEY SAY in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
And notice how this pos doesn’t cite a single verse of scripture that defeats a single thing I said.
The black slave owner you’re referring to is Anthony Johnson. The slave was John Casor.
Though Johnson did go along with the ruling, and there were indeed black and white slave owners who went along with it hence, who would therefore bear a measure of complicity and guilt, the parties responsible for the ruling itself were the white judge and the white monarchy of England which he represented.
There is no evidence, that I’m aware of, which would indicate either Johnson or his neighbor Robert Parker, argued that Casor should be either man’s property for life. What they apparently argued was that the terms of indentured servitude had not yet been met, and disagreed on to whom the remainder of that service was due. That does not absolve them from accepting the ruling, but the ruling itself came from a white man on behalf of a white monarch. (neither of which was Jewish – the Judge’s name was Goldsmith, a surname which originates from Germany and Austria)
Those are the facts.
All other points you note are just as easily destroyed, adolf.
You didn’t “destroy” a single point, but rather confirmed exactly what I said to be true.
That blacks are originally responsible.
And that Jews ran the entire industry with VERY few exceptions.
So go eff yourself, Genrikh Yagoda.
Aw, poor adowf got him feewings hurt
How many accounts are you operating there at Unit 8200, hooknose?
And I’m familiar with your use of opposites, 6 nose. How you accuse the enemy of that which you are doing. The entire philosophy comes from your “As Above, So Below” Star of Remphan symbol, eh? The Kabbalah black magic mirror, yes?
What the Jew is saying here, is that it’s feelings are hurt, and it must project that onto me in an attempt to save itself from the truth.
DENIED, lol.
I suppose Goldberg and Goldstein are German / Austrian surnames, too. Right? I’m mocking you to your face. HA!
“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.” – Rom. 10:12
” Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? … ” – Matt 2:2
Idiot. Taken from STRONG’S CONCORDANCE:
Matthew 2:2…word in question…JEWS…
Word: Ioudaioj
Pronounce: ee-oo-dah’-yos
Strongs Number: G2453
Orig: from 2448 (in the sense of 2455 as a country); Judaean
AS A COUNTRY. There is no “country of Jews” (Jewlandia???) King of the JUDEANS is what is really said here. Idiot.
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” – Rom 1:16
Once again…JUDEAN…NOT JEW. There were NO JEWS when this was written, retard. The word “Jew” DID NOT EXIST. It is a fabrication of later centuries and EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.
“Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,” – Rom. 3:29
Once again, JUDEANS. NOT JEWS. And what does the word “gentiles” mean from scripture? Here’s a hint stupid…it doesn’t mean “one who isn’t a Jew”, which is a definition for retards and ignoramouses. The word “gentiles” means NATIONS. Maybe learn what these words actually MEAN before you use them, k?
Now go have a cracker and take a nap. You’re getting schooled.
“Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue.” – Acts 14:1
“When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover” – John 2:13
“He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people” – Acts 10:22
The Bible defines the word Jew. Its definition is the only one that counts.
There was no word “JEW” when the Bible was written, idiot.
Is it my fault you don’t know the history behind any of the Bibles you read? Um, no. You’re not bright enough to realize the word “Jew” was blatantly and INCORRECTLY used innumerable times in the various translations. It was done to deliberately confuse who the “Israelites” and “Hebrews” of the Bible are, and who they are NOT.
There’s a reason, adolf, that your predecessors had to remove a large percentage of the Bible in order to manufacture their “Positive Christianity” cult.
Even they knew the Bible didn’t support their anti-Jewish agendas.
Um, what in the hell are you even talking about? Working in opposites again?
This is called the JEWISH ANTI-CHRISTIAN AGENDA. Notice, ONCE AGAIN, how the JEW accuses their enemy of doing that which they themselves are engaged in. See how they try to sneak it by you?
But your Jewkikeness doesn’t get by me, pal.
There is no “anti-Jewish agenda” save for the truth about who and what you are, and our instructions from God about what to do with you (Deuteronomy 20:17). We are told to hate you (Genesis 3:15) and we are told by Jesus that you are of the DEVIL (John 8:44) and that you are NOT OF ABRAHAM (John 8:39) and to beware those who say they are JUDEAN but are NOT, for they are the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN.
S Y N A G O G U E O F S A T A N. These are the words of Jesus the Christ, son of the eternal Father Yahweh and Yahweh himself manifested in flesh body, risen from the dead after 3 days, witnessed by all the disciples. Who goes to synagogue, genius? Is it Christians that do that? Is it Muslims? WTF DOES JESUS SAY, TARDO???
The reason the word “Jew” is not in the original language is because it wasn’t written in English.
It’s not in the Hebrew language either! LOL
Jew is an English translation of the Hebrew word Yehudah
Matt 2:2 the word is Ioudaiōn – Strong’s 2453: Jewish. From Iouda; Judaean, i.e. Belonging to Jehudah.
Jehudah (Hebrew Yehudah) – a child of Jacob
Of course, your own pronunciation of Ioudaios should be a clue to you.
Sounds a bit like Yehudah does it not?
Might just be, ahem, because it just could possibly be a Greek translation of the Hebrew word. You reckon?
ee-oo-dah
Ye hu dah
That works.
ee-oo-dah
joo-dee-uhn
Nah, doesn’t work
The origin of the world Ioudaiōn is fairly obvious.
Been a long few decades since I took Greek, and I was so young I wasn’t half paying much attention at the time, but I do remember that the suffixes somewhat change the meaning of the words. You have to look at the endings. I believe the ending “on” means of, with, in, or belonging to. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong.
When it is used to refer to Judea it means the land of the Jews and the text will specify that information, such as John 3:22 “Ioudaian gēn” where gēn means land. That gets translated into English as “Judea”. So in the original language, Judea means “the Jews’ land” or “the land of the Jews”
At the time, Jews lived in that area, which is just a part of the land that God gave to them after being freed from Egypt. You can look at a map of Israel at the time of Jesus to verify. Some of the full land of Israel was occupied by non Jews. So the words were somewhat synonymous at the time. Judea got its name because it was “the land of the Jews”.
The Greek word for Judea is Ioudaia, which is also used in scripture. You can tell that it has it’s roots in the root word Iouda, but it is not the same Greek word.
They’re close, but notice there is one letter difference. Ioudaian vs Ioudaiōn
These are entirely different words. And when the word Ioudaia is used, the text won’t include the word “land”, because it is not necessary.
So the phrase “Ioudaian gēn” has the same meaning as the word “Ioudaia”, and for that reason both are translated as Judea.
This is why Strongs would emphasize the meaning of the word Ioudaiōn as “belonging to Jehudah”
Been a while, but if I remember correctly, the suffixes are ai, on, ais, as
I remember enough to know that “an” is not a suffix, and neither is “ia”
Ioudaian is a completely different word than Ioudaion
Fairly certain I’m correct on this, but a if not, someone is welcome to correct me.
My Greek may be severely lacking, but it doesn’t take a degree or a great amount of knowledge to see that Iouda (ee-oo-dah) is a translation of Jehudah, from Hebrew to Greek. They sound nearly identical.
It means child of Jacob.
The correct pronunciation of Judea (Ioudaia) is ee-oo-dah’-yah.
And “ia” is a suffix. It is added to denote a country – in this case land. So Ioudaia means land of the Jehudah, land of the children of Jacob, or land of the Jews.
No question my Greek is very bad. But the meaning was correct.
No clue how or why the English word became Judea.
So getting back to SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN.
This “maintain the focus on the least important bits” which is a non sequitur anyway when you accetp that Jews aren’t Hebrews or Israelites. THEY SAY THIS THEMSELVES, Unit 8200 tardo.
Rev 2:9, 3:9
I don’t know. Obviously some, at some time, falsely claim(ed) to be descendants of Jacob.
One group that comes to mind is the British Monarchy. Some who say Jesus was sexually immoral and had a child, and claim that they’re descended from that child. I’d say that’s satanic, wouldn’t you?
The antichrist will probably fit that category, if I had to guess, since he will be accepted by the non-Christian Jews as their messiah.
And again, I don’t care what they say themselves or what is in their encyclopedia. That’s irrelevant.
As I said, I care about the Bible’s definition. If you are going to try to reference scripture, you MUST use the Bible’s definition. You can’t inject definitions from other sources, in order to try to make it say what you want it to say.
The BIBLE defines Jehudah and Iouda as CHILDREN OF JACOB.
Your definitions don’t count. Theirs don’t count. The only definition that counts is the Bible’s own definition.
If you will look at all uses of the words in scripture (which are essentially the same word – Hebrew and Greek), you will see that the Bible itself defines the word.
Given the ridiculous amount of ad-hominem you’ve thrown out on this thread, your attempt to reference logic is hilarious. You haven’t made a rational argument yet. lol
In context, it apparently has something to do with the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia. Apparently there were charlatans in those areas falsely claiming to be Jews. Since we know the descriptions of the churches are prophetic, it would somehow apply to that also.
Both Smyrna and Philadelphia were in what is now modern Turkey.
I’m going to say this one last time, though I doubt it will sink into your ethno-deranged noggin.
In the Bible words translated to English as “Jew” are Jehudah and Iouda (Hebrew and Greek)
Those Hebrew and Greek words mean the children of Jacob (Israel).
Therefore, the word “Jew” in the English translation of the Bible means …………..ahem………….. the children of Jacob.
I can’t possibly explain it any simpler than that.
“They say it themselves!!!”
Yeah, there are people saying they’re the opposite sex, and demanding that everybody else go along. Doesn’t make it true.
You nazified sort and the wokists are two sides of the same coin. You both make the same foolish arguments. You both need to put on your dunce caps and go sit in the corner.
What matters is what God says.
If you claim to be a Christian you should use the Bible’s definition whether you’re referencing scripture or not. When you’re referencing scripture, you absolutely must.
One thing you might not know is that the Bible says, in Romans 2:25-29, verse 28 in particular, that Jews can essentially lose their citizenship, as far as the Lord is concerned. As far as He is concerned, if they reject Him and do not keep the precepts of His law, but are only outwardly Jewish, they’ve essentially lost their birthright.
That may also have something to do with Rev. 2:9 and 3:9, I don’t know. And it hearkens back to what Jesus said to the pharisees in John 8:39 (not to all Jews – to the pharisees to whom He was talking).
I make this point for you, so that you might understand that those few in power, of blood lineage, who are atheists, etc., who have rejected God, and whom you call Jews, and at whom you point the finger of blame for all the world’s ills, are no longer Jews by God’s definition. When they rejected God, they lost their right to be called by the name that He gave them.
There again, they call themselves Jews. The Bible says they’re not. For this reason, if you claim to be a Christian, you should not call them Jews either. If they’re an atheist, call them an atheist, but don’t call them Jew.
That, of course, doesn’t mean that the word Jew, as translated from Hebrew “Yehudah” and the Greek spelling “Iouda”, doesn’t still refer to children of Jacob. It simply means that not all descendants of Jacob are worthy of the name Yehudah, as some have lost that birthright.
Somebody like Soros, for example. As an atheist, when he rejected God, he lost the right to be called Yehudah.
Here again, the delineation is sin. The problem is sin. The determining factor is sin.