Sunday, December 22, 2013

Characteristics of the 144,000

..that they would be undefiled with women...

Literal, or spiritual?

If it is literal, we expect them to be exclusively male.

In the modern age, many are not okay with that. Some want it to include women.

A metaphorical take which says 'women' means false religious systems allows that there may be women.

I think it does not have to be one or the other but that it may be both literal and metaphorical.

But I cannot accept that it includes women because that violates the literalness of the verse, although that isn't to say it doesn't have a metaphorical application.

I raise three points:

It says they are undefiled with women. This suggests they are male.

It says they are 'firstfruits'. I have explained how that means they are off limits, they will not marry, or that it is unlawful for someone to marry them. They are physical virgins.

As to it having ANY metaphorical implication, God has instructed me in the literal mode all over the Bible. So I have witnessed with those who spiritualize in great measure often will spiritualize things we have trouble imagining in a literal sense, i.e. things legendary. But I have also personally seen in some remarkable ways how the Bible is MUCH more literal than we give it credit for. Put simply, I firmly believe that absent any significant factors suggestive of it having a metaphorical intent, then the presumption should rest on the Bible intending a literal purpose, corresponding physically to the thing described. IF it has a METAPHORICAL purpose, then I still don't see why a literal interpretation is dispelled. Even if it is fulfilled metaphorically but is not fulfilled literally then it is literally an untrue statement. I don't think there are errors of this sort in the inspired scriptures. To dismiss any biblical claim as not being literally true seems to be done when the things described are most unbelievable or controversial. This is a dangerous tool to hand to any and every one, to decide for himself what he thinks is literal and what is not. If the Bible cannot be believed as a literal document, then it is not valid for drawing any conclusion from. If it is not literally true, then it is literally false.

If it is a metaphorical excerpt, then it HAS to be shown why the literal is precluded. Otherwise it is either both metaphorical and physical, or it is only physical. I see nothing in Revelation 14 that discounts a literal value.


If the above is true, then this is true...

1) They are men.

2) They are virgins.


I add one speculative characteristic I have never heard presented: That they may be musicians.

I suggest they are musicians, in one sense or another, because they learn the song that no one else can learn. This doesn't mean there aren't organists or guitarists, harpists, flautists, or piccoloists. There is no reason there can't be all of those. Some musicians today play a whole variety of instruments most have never heard of and we could guess those are represented as well. I think they are musicians or at some point they will learn. And it could be that this song is unlearnable because the song is arranged for 144,000 musicians to collaborate and perform. No one, except a God, could organize such a massive musical endeavor. The sheet music, composition, and arrangement would take centuries to compose I suspect and the angels would not be short of work. Legions of angels would be required for such a work.


Some people after followers on Youtube and the need to be dramatic would put together a crappy video to say what I just said, and they'd add some easy listening music (piano and strings mostly) like from Titanic and then add the words "God told me in a dream" or some stupid crap. So basically, if you're looking for the 144,000, they aren't making dramatic videos in their free time. They're doing something much more boring, and that is probably why they never could marry a woman because they are hugely boring. That reminds me, making dramatic videos is boring also so maybe they are doing that, but I doubt it.

Explorations in Obsolescence

In keeping with the mood that 'that part of Law which is applicable is the part which is does not fall under the rule of obsolescence' then I want to examine clothing.

A major critic of mine has recently countered me by asking if I did the dietary laws. In fact, I abstain from unclean meats. That isn't the same as keep[ing dietary law, one law also states to eat only unleavened bread during Passover, which I will have to start next year. So I'm trying. He follows up by asking what about clothing weaved from two different materials. I do not do that. But I have not done it because I rarely ever go shopping and I have a lot of clothes that I've warn for many years and don't mean to stop. So as I start replacing things gradually as materials get old and fall apart, I will very seriously consider buying only those sorts of clothing. He, because he is warped and demented, thinks he has won the argument and shown that I am clearly a buffoon. But he hasn't won at all and this will explain why.


The Law's Purpose

These laws actually had very clear purposes. The land of Israel as we know today is quite small. The land of Israel in those days was larger but how much larger I'm not informed of those numbers but we'll suppose according to the maps seen regularly at the back of bibles it wasn't substantially larger in those days than it is now. Israel in that time was a quite fertile land, really a jewel of the Mid-East. Why, it seems perfectly logical that when you're sitting on a continent made up almost strictly of desert and arid climate, that you would want to implement proper agricultural practice so as to maintain the richness and fertility of the terrain you live on. Quite clever, Jehovah! And quite stupid for the humans who come along and think this is something to laugh at and mock.

Was this law designed to benefit the people of that region and in that time? Absolutely. Does it present a moral weight to us today? I don't think so. Because this overlooks exactly what is the type of soil of North America (that is, if you live in North America) and what are the techniques that are going to best consider what type of soil, what type of crops will be sustained, and what techniques are going to yield a bountiful crop. Maybe agricultural practice of Judea from 3000 years ago isn't best suited to the climate and geography of North America.

Nevertheless, if it helps my witness, and it puts my money where my mouth is, I will wear the proper clothing. Because I cannot make myself vulnerable on such a minimal point so that my most petty, belligerent, dim-witted adversaries can mock my ministry and say, "Hehe, he wears a cotton-polyester fabric!" I will simply choose to wear cotton and it feels much nicer to the touch so stick that in your pipe and smoke it. And if you're not a smoker you can just stick it.

The Verdict

To me, this is apparently something that falls under the rule of obsolescence but that I'd say if you were a farmer in Israel I think the law has continuing regional applicability unless the Jews have discovered some agricultural technique which supersedes the command in the Bible. And that's one aspect of obsolescence. For instance with hygiene and sanitary regulations it makes most sense that those laws are made obsolete by advances in terms of water treatment, sewer facilities, anti-septics and anti-bacterials, and all the many advances of Western culture which are more effective at eliminating the spread of disease than Levitical law. Those laws had definite value in that day and age but in a lot of ways, if not all ways, has been set aside in favor of modern medicine and science. So the law, if it applies at all, only applies to people in the state of Israel and nowhere outside of Israel. The law had a specific applicability and value in that era for that people and for us today does not serve the same value, but I will not say serves no value because I am not an agriculturist and would have no way to know that. I know if you're living on the only piece of tenable land in a radius of literally hundreds of miles and in some directions thousands of miles, and the LORD has said I will make you a great nation but you need to do this, this, and this, in terms of your crops, I would listen to Him, lest my land go to rot like every other pile of sand in that area. Will God burn me if I do something else with my fields? I don't think so. But if I go to plow land in Israel, I have a different take there.

Addendum: "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children." The Law teaches a conservation of land, if not for the purpose of contemporaries who will benefit, but so as to be protected for future generations. That would be sad for one generation to leave a desolated earth to its children.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Britney Spears

I was about 11 years old when Britney Spears first became really famous. The 'Baby One More Time' was her big hit at that time. All the boys were in love with her and she had looks that were classic attractive features. Her sleaze started out on a juvenile level initially but the steam picked up and it gradually turned into a debauched charade. Many in the Christian community understandably reviled her and made it as if she was a methodical whore of Babylon whose effect was to mislead the youth toward immorality.

The pastors were wrong. I want to explain why that is, why Britney is innocent.

Britney Spears is a slave.

Disney is well-understood in some circles as being a huge promoter of the MK- industry. You might have heard of MK-Ultra. Disney is hugely behind it, and it is an incredibly nefarious program that is about brainwashing children to serve rich old men. Generally, kids become involved in the same way kids get involved with anything, through their parents. We can guess that sometime in Britney's pre-teen years, she became involved with Disney, where she first gained recognition in The New Mickey Mouse Club tv show. Over time, she likely had the attention of executives who saw they could profit massively from her talents. You see, Britney Spears was apart of the first generation of this type performer and she was the most successful of them all. She was designed to have massive appeal to young people, with catchy beats and her classic looks that everyone liked about her. She was also being used as a sex slave. She was probably conflicted in her sexuality, later singing, "I'm Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman". She was conflicted between
wanting to enjoy her childhood and teen years but being revered as a sex symbol by America and behind the scenes being passed around for sexual favors.

Now for the rest of the story, I will provide a few references that will be enough to introduce readers to this modern-day slavery.[1][2] I have already read enough on it and can't tolerate reading anymore on the topic. And because I am no expert, I willingly defer to people who have much more information than what I can offer. My primary message here is that the pastors who have preached against Britney Spears and slandered her as a whore, they have absolutely not a clue about what it is they are discussing. I also mean to make a few others points.

Britney Spears is NOT RICH. You hear on the yearly round ups of top performers' earnings. They will tell you that Spears has brought in so many tens of millions through tours, TV appearances, and album sales. Check your facts. She will never see a dime of that money, other than a stipend they set aside for her, that IS A FACT. She has already said in interviews that one of her favorite places to shop is the dollar store [3]. Do you want to know why? The slave owners, no matter how much their slaves actually make, submit their slaves routinely to torture, constant rape, and even starvation and thirst and meanwhile collect the check. Whatever she is purchasing, she is purchasing with money that has been set aside for small purchases only to maintain an appearance. The $200,000,000 it's estimated she has earned during her career [4] is going to her producers, handlers, and owner.

She has made comments in the last few days on a radio show about her coercion. She is trying to be careful and not say anything too overt about the crimes being committed against her and she is making a serious cry for help. What she has said in this statement confirms to people in the research community that she is being coerced, and that she is being sexually coerced. She is being exploited against her will, to perform for her producers and she is troubled between her obligation to her kids and that the exploitation that started in her childhood is still continuing.

Although it cannot be confirmed what access to communications devices she has, it was reported by several agencies in 2012 that she was not able to own her own cell phone, although the link provided suggests only that she has some monitored usage. Internet is also included. [5]


Britney is not the person people thinks she is. She has been psychologically tortured throughout most of her life and if she has split personalities, how can anyone blame her for that? If you saw what she saw then you would dissociate to cope with the trauma. I think she started out as a very noble person who happened to have some of the sleaziest people around her growing up, who realized that she could be profitted off of enormously because she looks like an angel. And she's a great face for sleaze isn't she? The pastors over the years have dragged her name through the mud, they have made it out that she is a mastermind for a great enterprise to bring the youth to a state of depravity. The pastors and their wives, have kids. The kids in childhood watch all the old classics: The Wizard of Oz, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White, Robin Hood. They watch the Disney channel and listen to the Disney divas like Selena Gomez and Miley Cyrus. Maybe even some of the families went to Disney World growing up.

Do you know who are the whores, who are bringing depravity upon this nation? If I have to answer that for you it is far too late for anything to be done about it.

additional reading:

1. TRANCEformation of America, Cathy O'Brien,

This article is valuable for introducing readers to the intersection of the occult and the music industry.

You will say, 'Wait a minute, this also includes manicures, and other luxuries." Yeah, so what? She can't  make all those millions walking around with raggedy nails and looking like an old witch. Her owners are not stupid. It keeps her in a presentable condition and it allows her to feel better about herself. It's a win-win and costs chump change next to what she draws in.



Tuesday, December 10, 2013

About the Author

About the Author

Television: Revolution, The Blacklist, The Goldbergs, I grew up watching Frasier, Dragon Ball Z, The Practice


Fiction: anything by Dostoyevsky, Candide, Inherit the Wind

Non-Fiction: I don't really have a non-fiction author I have read extensively but these are a few books I've enjoyed:

Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur

Illiberal Education by Dinesh D'Souza

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

The Bell Curve by Murray and Herrnstein

Intellectual Morons by Daniel Flynn

David Horowitz I agree with on the state of civil rights, organized oppression against whites, and the progressive-totalitarian state of college campuses but I don't care to read it much because my identity with the oppressed, which is the frustration at injustice is balanced with not being able to do anything about it. And I'm already well aware of what's happening and has been happening so extreme frustration + being powerless to stop it = I choose not to read it and be made negative over it.


Playing music, guitarist of 10 years

Contrarianism, which is simply a willingness to examine all sides of an issue and if facts point you that way, to adopt highly controversial positions on things that gravely jeopardize you being tolerated in society in institutional settings such as the churches.

I enjoy trivial facts/knowledge and am a fairly good player at

I used to be pretty obsessive about news but it seemed over the last couple years society has deteriorated to a condition we couldn't contemplate even five years ago, that is, terrible events started happening more often and even worse things happened and I got burned out and stopped following the news mostly.

At this point, I'm enjoying reading the classical canon: Macchiavelli, Kant, Epictetus, Plato, Aquinas. The Principia Discordia says all is flux or all is in flux and I also add it is pointless, meaningless, nothing. Read or don't read, but I suggest you read. But when that great and terrible once in a century flu or some such pandemic comes along, Epictetus or no Epictetus you will still die terribly. Epictetus doesn't make you crunch numbers, bang your wife, or flip burgers at your crappy minimum wage job any better but at least it is better than huffing paint thinner or glue. I think Ecclesiastes is profane and an abomination, an altar to nihilism and I personally eliminate the book from canon but it is not wrong on the substance of worthlessness and meaninglessness but only in degree AND that it fails to synthesize the two with the idea of a compassionate and personal God who can inspire those who are struggling with not having a voice, being misjudged, or find it hard to produce anything of merit, or the person who is in no way short of experiences but also never found anything that offered them more than a temporary high, a temporary relief from the emptiness they feel in their hearts. These people are the cogs in the wheel: wake up, clock in, clock out, turn in. They repeat these many routines daily and without any meaning it sometimes can seem all as one complex machine where you are merely a component. God, through Jesus Christ, answers that. I can wrap it all up by writing Horowitz, Eccesiastes, and the news provide all kinds of depressing facts on daily life but they don't offer any answers. The Bible for me answers most questions really well. The questions it doesn't answer well doesn't not because it offers a poor answer but that those are questions it does not answer at all, but leaves room for contemplation. So finally, the Bible, love it or hate it, absolutely offers insights into every aspect of life and people of all walks of life can appreciate its advice.


"I think, therefore I drink."

"I don't care to be apart of an organization that accepts people like me as members."

"Either that wallpaper goes or I do."

"The English country gents galloping after a fox: the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."

"Thomas Jefferson lives!"

"Three generations of imbeciles is enough!"

"I don't want to achieve immortality by my work. I want to achieve it by not dying."



The Gay Lie

These are basic questions to be asked and juries ultimately want to answer if we can know to an extremely high rate of certainty if the defendant is in fact guilty  of the crime.

What you had in this case was one lone accuser or witness which is just not correct because it was not yet determined if she had witnessed anything at all. We know when this has happened previously, a naive fool would set up a charity page for the 'victim' and people would mindlessly give money to the person. For some people this seems to be enough of a reason to weave such a tale.

The popular image, or the image that is popularly imagined of 'prejudice' against gays. Many gays are fine with this sort of 'pious' fraud, if it generates sympathy for their case.

The value of the event... Many people who may not be onboard with the gay agenda but nevertheless can value the story as highlighting the fact the prejudice, discrimination, and injustice is still prevalent in society and reminds all persons to keep in mind the humane values that have always made Western civilization great. Certainly we acknowledge that even though the story is a fraud that it still has the value of calling attention to bigotry.

The confusion... there is a conflation of Western values... because bigotry is prevalent, and because our civilization values men as men, or as ends as Kant would say rather than means in themselves, and that gays have been mistreated, THEN it stands to reason that this story as reported MUST be true. But then you have a problem because the much longer standing tradition of Western society is the 'presumption of innocence'.

BECAUSE it serves a political agenda, BECAUSE it makes readers feel good who think piously towards themselves "Thank God I am not like the bigots in the restaurants, thank God I am not like the sinners and the publicans", BECAUSE the trend in our nation is towards leftism and this story is good political capital for that cause, BECAUSE it makes people feel sorry for a 'minority'.

Then let us hurry, rush to print, and not ask some basic questions as to legitimacy, and the big ones are Consider the Source and Qui bono?, Who benefits?

Anyone who has not been totally brainwashed by the educational system or the media saw from square one that (A) this trick has been used in the past to get free money, (B) to segue a person from obscurity to notoriety, (C) that many peoples' enemies have been TARRED AND FEATHERED and CRUCIFIED in the court of public opinion, and (D) that this is a group in society that admittedly has used psychological tactics to propagandize society, generate pity, and elicit support... She had EVERY reason to lie. But you know what? Her lies did her in. She's done, everyone in her small town knows exactly who she is and sees her for the snake she is. Instead of donations or star status she has just made her future more uncertain than she could ever imagine. She had a job and I'll give it to her that she may have even been a good employee. Now, anyone who has heard this story who might have given her a job in the past will treat her as a leper because they would never know what accusation could be made against their business to bankrupt them or what sort of thievery would occur. She is finished.

AND YET the gays really do suffer, not from society but in the inner man. Many have been raped for so long by someone in their family, they have been belittled in so many ways, they struggle being disgusted with themselves and questioning the ethics of their lifestyle. This results in many cases with them becoming recklessly promiscuous, unabashedly overtly homosexual and flaunting themselves any provocative way that they can. They are like Pagliacci, the crying clown, the Phantom, from the Phantom of the Opera, who couldn't see his face in the mirror, or the body dysmorphic demanding, "Tell me I'm pretty!" They have suffered in such terrible ways. YET suffering as a child does not excuse them all responsibility. Having your childhood stolen from you does not give you the license to destroy Western civilization and turn American society upside down! I don't know how to help you and it turns out many of you do not want help. If you are ever to heal from this, you must confront what happened to you as a child and be healed from that.

For the great majority of us who realize what a petty, selfish rat could have the gall to feel discrimination for a note? You were not refused a job, you were not denied equal pay or a promotion, you were not spit upon, you were not traded between owners which happens in every country that deals with slavery, you were not a victim of malicious prosecution, unjustly fined or imprisoned. You got a note, and even that has been shown to be a lie. People have to get a hold of themselves and see a note is simply a note. You move on and say you're going to have a nice day, no matter what anyone else writes or thinks and that's it.

And also for the great majority of us, you should see that the media and government and certain infamous groups like the gay mafia and fusion centers are all engaged in a massive collusion as a cooperative behemoth apparatus organized for the purpose of social engineering and writing history. That such a story even gains such notoriety that it does, when we are in such a dismal depression that we are never coming out of and true injustice prevails in the halls of Congress EVERY DAY PROVES this point OUTRIGHT, end of discussion. Before they controlled everything, they had to go back and rewrite the history. Now that they do control everything, including the media and the government and the textbook industry, they write it as they go along. 'Those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it' and I submit to you that Western civilization is DEAD and we are DAMNED.

Withholding A Prophetic Word

"I have a word for you, but you are not ready yet."

If a prophetic word is received, then it is incumbent upon the one receiving to reveal it. It is not for the recipient to debate within himself if the person is 'ready to receive it'. There are problems if the word is not brought forth.

A. A person may not receive guidance where they need it and possibly cannot receive healing until they receive a confirmation on their end.

B. The person who received it cannot be promoted. They demonstrate that they cannot be trusted because the word God gave them to give to someone they did not show wisdom in delivering to the person.

C. Neither the one the message is intended for or the one intended to deliver it can grow. The one who the message is intended for, if he receives it, may learn something about the person, is he reliable, honest, trustworthy. A respect between the two, learning more about each other, cannot be had.

D. If the two lose contact with one another, then the person cannot then receive the revelation.

As to who 'received' it.

1. If you are not confident enough to come forward with it, it is doubtful you have received a revelation at all or that you are simply demon possessed.

2. The statement is a unbelievably prideful. "I have a word (see, I am a spiritual person), but you are not ready (you are not a spiritual person).

3. It also is intended to make a statement about oneself. "I receive revelation from God".


Overall, there seems to be a lot of holes in making a claim of this sort and absolutely no upside. If you receive something from God about someone, it's not really a good idea to hold it from the person because while you might expect the opportunity to discuss it later, often times there is never such an opportunity.

Another thing that must be asked is is the word truly for the person or could the word also be significant for you? Does the word confirm to you something about yourself, or does it cause you to ask questions about yourself and explore how God is using you or intends to use you. These words may not always be as meaningful for the person they apply to as it is to you.

Also, if you receive a word about someone but you are not convinced it is the time to discuss it, then it may not be the time and the best thing you can do is not mention it at all. When the time comes to discuss it, if it ever does, you will know.

The Bible Is a Shadow, The Allegory of the Cave

Exaltation of the Word

The Word is not intended to be exalted. It is primarily an effect, e.g. the effect of what God has spoken. But no one exalts what God has spoken but only that that He spoke AND was written down. Indubitably, they even argue that there are no prophets today and God has gone silent. The idea of prophets being here today threatens the cult they follow, which decided that a few dignified sheets of paper with some special wording printed on it was unique. They are characters from the Allegory of the Caves.

The Bible is in fact only a shadow. What we perceive is not intrinsically synonymous with the way things really are. So Plato found it helpful to illustrate this by saying the common observer is likened to some one living in a cave, who sees shadows on the wall, and takes note of the shadows as if they are the living entities themselves, rather than a reflection of the beings whose outline they reflect.

If we consider the Bible as only a shadow, we can immediately understand why so many people become dogmatic in defending their version of doctrine as they insist quite dramatically that it is the shadows which are the beings! But we want to discourage them from idolizing the Bible in this way and have consider the following:

Revelation is predicated on the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, the autographs, the manuscripts, the translations, the translating committees, finally the optic nerve, the co-operation of the neurological structures, and lastly, the rational mind in comprehending it. Which of these stages is the Word (or is the Word in its purest state), or at what stage does it cease to be the Word? Only in the primary stage could it be 'breathed' (the Word). But then, everything which follows is merely a shadow. If this series of functions fail, then you have a resultant misunderstanding as to what the Bible says, or was intended to say, and the person arrives at a conclusion or interpretation at odds with the original intent.

Our most firm conclusion, everyone who is committed to the veracity of the preceding paragraphs, is to say that given the Bible in its role as the most effective and informative of the shadows must be investigated to discover precisely what it was that God told the prophets, in the event that what we have before us, in any or all translations, is not the most effective at representing those meanings.

If someone tells you something, it will often not be up for dispute as to the meaning or intention of what was said. If someone writes you, and more so if they tend toward complex and puzzling language, then it is quite the more ambiguous the intent of the author. Hence, original intent is harder to come by than the precise meaning of a speaker. But so frequently do men misunderstand speakers so all the more do they misunderstand the written word. Thus, the Word of God is most meaningful in its original condition.

If something is emitted, and is relayed, and transferred, and delayed, and lastly it arrives, it may come contaminated or in a less than perfect state, or something other than its original state. Therefore, when we rely necessarily on the word of authors, translators, committees, publishers, and printing presses, it's not uncommon that the ball will get dropped and it clearly has on certain notable occasions (the Adulterer's Bible). Very marginal errors years ago may even be imagined to result in more heinous errors today. What we see, is if the Bible is taken for only the shadow it is, and NOT an object deserving of our worship, then we can handle with greater care the interpreting of it, because a deeper investigation is required to determine the nature of the actual Forms rather than the shadows. Once we come to acknowledge that the Bible makes seriously contentious statements that were controversial not only in the time they were written, but continue to be among the prime controversies in our day, then we will consider more seriously before ascribing inspiration to our personal interpretations. So ultimately, our interpretations are only shadows that at times only reflect poorly the actual Revelation.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

'Jesus' Is Not a Magic Word

There are people who have unknowingly made 'Jesus' a magic word. In the Bible, it discusses the value of words, that they have power, and one specific example of a powerful word is the name 'Jesus'.

the power in the name 'Jesus'

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." [Romans 10:13]

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." [Acts 4:12]

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." [1 Timothy 2:5,6]

"Jesus saith unto him, 'I am the way the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.'" [John 14:6]

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." [Philippians 2:10,11]

To the CoC, Jesus has no power to save, outside the CoC institution. So for them, 'Jesus' is a spell that only those initiated into their coven can properly cast. This has made 'Jesus' a magic word.

But 'Jesus' is not a magic word. We know from the Bible that His name is the only name by which we can be saved. It is the name above all names, and Jesus said that to know the Father you must believe in Him and that if you believe in Him you will be saved. None of this suggests that there would be one group such as the CoC who have the power they claim for themselves. If the CoC is correct, then these verses are all lies and the only name by which we can be saved is Alexander Campbell.

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Infant Baptism and the Church of Christ

I live in an apartment complex and one of my neighbors who I stay in touch with frequently is a member of the Church of Christ. She stated her belief that only members of her denomination could possibly be saved. I was stunned because the Bible to my knowledge stated only one rule of faith. It was late last week I talked with a woman online who also made this same claim and a member of the Church of Christ.

But what about secluded islands or places, maybe such as Madagascar or the Maldives, or whatever island it is that the Church of Christ has not reached. Do they all burn miserably in hell because 'the' true church did not reach their island paradise? Either the Church of Christ does not understand this or they do not care.

Rousseau asked, "Will they all go to hell because of their seclusion?" [Émile, 1762]

And I also recognized that the Church of Christ insists that baptism is necessary for salvation. So in their system, they have three necessary articles of faith, to contrast my one.

This enters us into the topic of infant baptism.

"There are those who at heart are unwilling to grant that infants who die without Baptism ought to be condemned simply on account of lack of justice, as I have said.... If you think it over, however, even this sentence of condemnation of infants is not very different from the verdict of human beings. Suppose, for example, some man and his wife were exalted to some great dignity and estate, by no merit of their own but by favor alone, then both together inexcusably commit a grave crime, and on account of it are justly dispossessed and reduced to slavery. Who will say that the children whom they generate after their condemnation should not be subjected to the same slavery, but rather should be gratuitously put in possession of the goods which their parents deservedly lost? Our first ancestors and their offspring are in such a condition: having been justly condemned to be cast from happiness to misery for their fault, they bring forth their offspring in the same banishment. When the cases are similar, therefore, there ought to be a similar verdict, but in the latter case it ought to be all the more severe, since there is less likelihood that their crime could be condoned...

"Therefore, if, as I said, original sin is some kind of sin, it is necessary that every human being born in it be condemned unless it is remitted." [Anselm, The Virgin Conception and Original Sin, XXVIII, c. 1099-1100 tran. by Joseph M. Colleran)



"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." [Mark 16:16]

This would be the initally offered proof-text for the CoC or some other deranged group. But this statement just can't be read to say those two are necessary sums to combine to result in salvation. That is because it isn't an affirmative demonstration that either of the two individually without the other is not sufficient to effect the result. Elsewhere we see that belief is crucial to salvation,

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." [John 3:18]

So from here it's just as valid to salvation to have belief without baptism as it is to believe and be baptized since they both result in the person being saved.


For children

Anselm thinks that the child is made guilty through original sin and baptism is necessary for remission. I have a couple problems with this.

I don't expect God holds anyone accountable who is not capable of comprehending the basic circumstances of human origins, the subsequent introduction of sin, and our need to act and of a Savior. At some age, a child may still understand the basics of right and wrong but still not understand the basic points the Christian faith makes. If that's true, there are different stages of development when the child begins to gain an awareness of the reality of sin and their personal need to be saved. Prior to this, I don't expect children to be condemned. In many cases, of children, of isolated tribespeople, they may be judged according to what they did know but I can't see God justly requiring a person's acting in accordance with an agreement they have never made and are not cognizant of. That sounds monstrous. The Anselm quote where he refers to children born into slavery, it reminds me of the Calvinists who quietly tolerated slavery or practiced it while Arminians, in England and America, Methodists notably, fought for abolition. (http:///

The biblical teaching, that I do not want to read anything into or derive any extra teaching from, but I want only to stand for itself comes from Jesus... Jesus had the same problem much of His followers are now experiencing. They are surrounded by people of many different faiths and backgrounds and many of them well-meaning people. But because they have not received the revelation God has for them, they often times can only think the way the world does, with the same heartless, uncompassionate, impatient, self-centered thinking. Small children were hoping to get close to the Lord and have Him lay hands on them and pray for them. The disciples shooed them away. Yet Jesus rebuked them, saying,

"Suffer little children and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." [Mark 19:14]

"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." [Mark 9:42]

The little ones are afforded a special dignity from the Lord. This I want to neither add to nor take away from. The idea that this is the guy who wants millions of babies burning and skin melting, with worms crawling through them, and being impaled on spikes is really absurd. That's cool Anselm, that's cool CoC if you have secret fantasies of babies on spikes but do not dare say that that is what the Lord and His Father taught.

As to the problem we suffer today, that Jesus also knew, we are surrounded by religious people, zealots, who are troubled in their minds, they identify as being righteous, as being chosen of God. But this they find in themselves. They are self-righteous, self-pious, they are good in their mind's eye, self-religious, and they feel so convinced of this inherent goodness they find within themselves they assume it is the unction of God confirming it to them. Proverbs 21:2 says, "Every way of a man seems right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts."

One I noticed earlier, I stated 'the Lord'. I do not speak in the way the common man does who says 'Our Lord' or 'My Lord'. I'd not identify an 'Our Lord' because I do not know who your lord is. Your lord may or may not be the same as my Lord. And 'my Lord'. This one bothers me. If as many people did as their Lord said to say and do rather than only vocalize it, then I think this life would be a lot more bearable for many more people. Why vocalize when you can demonstrate through your actions? It makes no sense for any sinner to speak of an 'Our Lord' or 'My Lord' like a 'My couch' or a 'Your couch', or 'The guy who seemed pretty interesting so therefore I check a little box on applications to say I'm a Christian even though I live a depraved lifestyle."


I have discussed a three-step salvation, a two-step, and finally I've referred to my one-step salvation process. Many think they already know what that is. But the more I visit churches, the more I see they have added to the words of the Lord. They each have different requirements, but they all share one thing in common: They fundamentally miss the mark. I hope to soon write to my three readers, or however many it is now, to shed light on the crucial question fundamental in all man's traditions, "What must I do to be saved?/What is the meaning of life?"

The Principle of Holocausality

The cause of the Holocaust was the crime of the Jews in fomenting Communist revolt.

A result of the Holocaust was the Jewish state.

The six million estimated kiled is likely too high of an estimate.


One thing that is disturbing about this tragedy is the popular lies that one will hear from time to time from the Jews.

"Christians were behind the Holocaust."

I have heard this same lie on the Savage Nation, Michael Savage's radio program. It's a very insensitive remark given that many Christians gave their lives to protect and hide the Jews to keep them from being apprehended. And it is known that several million or over ten million were killed by the Hiterlian regime. But exclusive attention is paid only to the "six million" Jews who died in the Holocaust. There is no mention made of the Germans, or Christians, or disabled or anyone else killed in the Hitlerian regime. Two things on the validity of the six million figure are clear:

A. Certain Jewish sources are steadfast in promoting the number, despite any evidence that is harmful to their position.

B. The Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites are steadfast in all of their claims as well.

Neither of these parties can, or should, be believed.


Hitler was an anti-Communist. Because of the extensive Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the bringing in of Stalin to power, and of the Union's intent to invade Eastern Europe, it seemed logical for Hitler who imagine himself as the man who would save Europe, to oppress the Jewish minority and any who harbored them and pre-emptively strike against Russia. To do this, they needed the co-operation of Poland. Poland did not co-operate, and so therefore was crushed like the ants that they were. Because of our very own Communist president, Delano Roosevelt, when the Americans became involved, despite long-standing warnings from Generals Patton and MacArthur, we came to aid the Communist power, which was later to take over most of Eastern Europe, who would experience their own 'holocaust', the Holodomor, and the intentional sabotage of the Soviet farm plan, such that a vast number, tens of millions would die in the days of Stalinist regime. Yet we hear nothing of the millions of Ukrainians or native Russians who suffered during these years. And the lie that Christians were involved, when Christians gave their lives for the Jews make another thing apparent:

C. Jews have exploited the Holocaust for their personal gain and they refuse, even mock the suffering of other races and minorities as being a part of those who were responsible.



I. The Holocaust was Hitler's rational response to the meddling and sedition of the Jewish people.

II. It was divinely appointed because the Jews continued in their rebellion by not returning to their native land.

III. Without the Holocaust, there would be no Jewish state.

The Jews were not persecuted as some helpless, peace-loving minority. They were taken in because, as the Bible amply demonstrated their intractable stubbornness and provocation, they had committed the national sins of working for Communist takeovers and conspiracies. As to whether there were six million to die or no, the Jewish racists are no more to be believed than the White racists. That they should help to suppress the true numbers of ALL who died, rather than just the Jews, shows a disconnect when they also try to oppress those who hope to air more reliable numbers of the Jews who died. They are both liars who say six million AND one million and I have no idea how many. But I disagree that the Jews have made it that the lives of Jews who were lost are of greater worth than the others who died because they are not. And of course Jews have pathetically attacked the Christian religion for millennia, even killing its founder, which they also lie and say they did not. And if they use the Holocaust to slander the Christians, the Christians who liberated them in their camps, the Christians in the American military, then they should not expect anyone to believe their silly, unfounded and ridiculous six million claim.

Saturday, November 30, 2013

RE:, Children and the Last Days

The evangelist, Anita, who is doing a very valuable work that I see the hand of God on, writes on children and living in the tribulation times. On the emoaf website there is a page titled 'Children and the Last Days'. I have written another one of my columns on this very problem and I speak with the insight of the 144,000. She says that we must rely on God and that to fear for our children or the children we will have future-tense is contrary to this faith in God and I wholly agree. Our children you can even go on to say are merely wards in our care, who are the children of the LORD who we have been occasioned to raise. If we raise these spirits in the right and just way, they will be aided in their journey here so that they may be occasioned to reunite with the LORD. If we are not successful in this mission, the result is that they may be lost eternally. To carry on,

The Lord is clear on the rearing of children at the end of the age.

"And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!" [Matthew 24:19]

Jesus the Christ therefore appears to be saying that 'When the branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh'... It is therefore that when the branch is tender you will in the long-term be more effective if you do not have children. Consider the effects of torture...

If the interrogators desire that you submit to the beast system and mean to cause you such great pain that you are brought to the eternal shame of denying the Lord that bought you, then they might crush your hand in a vice. Very painful indeed. Yet for those who have children, the crushing of your child's hand is no less than the crushing of your own soul. Many who are committed to a trust, such as that of a religious convert committed to his god, will often not break the trust, although many of the weaker-minded will. Where it is introduced the prospect of bringing suffering upon your on your own offspring, then we might say even a few out of the former category (the strong-willed, or the hard-headed, depending upon your perspective) will break the confidence. Some of the more foolish might even suppose, "God has delegated me a duty to raise and care for my children, therefore if I deny the Lord and take the mark, I will still be ultimately be forgiven for that I have sought to protect from harm my own children." The devil sits at his poker table, or in his easy chair twiddling his thumbs perhaps in this very second, laughing at all the murderous ways in which he can inflict pain on you Christians and how he might make you just for a second deny the Lord, the people for whose sins the Lord died. Or better yet, he has had many thousands of years to perfect these procedures and now is taking up some extra dastardly assignment. If you are not spending your evenings in heavy contemplation and instruction then we see someone is many moves ahead of you.

And what about charity? It's not rational to think that there will be very many who do not rely on a stranger in that time. On the other hand, there are many who claim they will be so prepared. A couple men,  in two very different parts of the country assure me that they will be prepared in that time. One who owns a sprawling property where he intends to help the displaced and another who believes his guns will protect him. In discussing preparations, there is no short supply of armed men with bug-out plans, properties deep into the uncharted woods of our continent, months of food including methods for water treatment, or even underground bunkers who are convinced they will weather the storm. Yet at the moment they die, they will wonder what went wrong. Because, although many are convinced they have the training and know-how to live in these darkest of times, the devil recalls apocryphal Patton and will say, "I read your book!" The mere thought that a man of even fifty years might devise a plan that has escaped the plottings of the devil, who has had thousands of years to innovate the art of the hunt, is quite presumptuous of many of you. Some of you might wonder why I'm speaking in this way, wondering if I'm playing for the other side. I don't like him at all and God from the very beginning said he was a snake and he is. But he also is coming for you and so far I think his tricks have outsmarted you.

As to charity, God has certain individuals in place, or who will be placed into place to offer charity to individuals, like the Underground Railroad conductors, whose jobs are not to offer handouts, but to offer you the chance to get from 'here' to 'there'. This is just one of their jobs. There will be no shortage of boats, cars, and forgotten-about country roads which they have to affect their purposes. God said to flee from Babylon. Yet who has a boat to flee upon? or who has a plane? And how many will not leave until the last second? And He will also command many to go from one place to another and it won't be apparent at those times as to how you will get from this place to that. This is where God's conductors come into play. If you find yourself in a strange town or country, without shelter, and without instructions, then a helper will without explanation appear and will offer you lodging. As to their nature, some could be angels, but most I take to be men and nothing else. And because they are men trying to live day to day, and also execute their missions as conductors, some are going to second-guess accommodating seven souls. How do we move seven souls undetected? How do I extend my supply of food to last for the amount of time I expect it to last with the accommodation of seven souls? These are tough questions to answer. This touches upon mobility...

Mobility... This is the ability to pick up and move. It is, to 'flee into the mountains', no man turning back, to 'not come down to take any thing out of his house,' nor to 'return back to take his clothes' [Matthew 24:16.,17,18]. I see if I ever move, such as to another part of the country, many of my things it's going to be best planned to sell here and acquire replacements in the new locale. Yet one thing, my books, are something that I would have deep trouble in parting with. If the apocalypse arrived I would simply depart leaving my books behind ;(. And not only that, I'd have to leave everything behind, part relief and part sad. Part relief because every time I'm leaving there is something I must take If I could leave taking nothing, I could run and run and run, get in a car and go from here to there, with nothing and no need for looking back, and sad for obvious reasons. But it's a freedom that must be like heaven to experience, just once. If you have a wife and kids, this is obviously complicated. You can't just 'get up and leave'. You can't hurry when you're gone. There is a saying of the Senate which goes, "The Senate only moves as fast as its slowest ship." The Senate completes its business through cooperation, cooperation of a majority, and one, just ONE member, can shipwreck or delay the entire procedure. If you find yourself in a neck of woods, or a forest more specifically, and we are delayed from a twisted ankle, a sprained ankle, or a broken leg, then you are delayed. And delays often times are bad things. Let's say someone pulls up in their five-seater sedan, and says, "Hey, need a lift... I'm on my way to Timbuktu but first I'm passing through Timbukthree. Hop on." Aww, a divine appointment! But you wish him fair travels, "Enjoy Timbukthree and send a postcard because my wife and seven children will not fit in your car." Summarily you're picked up by local Malian authorities or whatever third world country you are in for 'questioning'. MOBILITY 1 YOU 0

(Mobility image: Segway creator rolling off a cliff. Pretty epic life and death but no picture. This one you will have to imagine.)

Or suppose you are in the streets of Jerusalem during the time of the ministry of the Two Witnesses. One of them is preaching over the sound of a crying child. Then Witness #1 says, "Hold on a

PREPPER: I have a great many cans of food laid up... CHRISTIAN: ...where moth and rust destroy. 'The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want'.

The idea that having children can hamper a person's ability or creativity is not new.

"Children sweeten labours, but they make misfortunes more bitter: they increase the cares of life, but they mitigate the remembrance of death. The perpetuity of generation is common to beasts, but memory, merit, and noble works are proper to men. And surely a man will see the noblest works and foundations have proceeded from childless men, which have sought to express the images of their minds, where those of their bodies have failed. So the care of posterity is most in them that have no posterity." Francis Bacon, Of Parents and Children (1612)

If you don't get the last one, just check out Sir Bacon's hat. What's he hiding under that thing?

While on the subject, attention could also be brought to addiction. I quit smoking in April. Quitting helps in many substantial ways. It reduces the risk of heart attack or stroke, premature death, cancers of various kinds. Also, if you're not a completely law-abiding citizen, it will help you outrun the police :). But to be serious, running helps not just in outrunning the authorities, but suppose you are working in a grocery and a little old lady forgets a back. For an old lady she walks tremendously fast, and it is all you can do to run and catch her before she speeds off in her Beetle. It also helps to temper the body and improve the cardiovascular health and many other things I'll just stop listing now because I am a pathetic runner. I'm not even a speed-reader. I do nothing fast. But I do it right. In terms of last days scenario, those who lack addictions are better positioned. Absence of a chemical routinely ingested into the body can cause among other things a lack of judgment and for this and other reasons odds are not good in a cataclysmic event. Additionally and unfortunate as it may be, when the trucks stop running, the dollar is worthless, and the stores close their doors, their are tens of millions that currently rely on medication and some of them life-sustaining who will either die or slip into a manic or psychotic episode or some other such terrible things. If you are diagnosed with a seizure disorder, hypertension, diabetes, or in some other such way rely on medications, good luck.

I spoke earlier on the crushing of the soul. Suppose a 'terrorist' is captured. And he 'has' information. What might the government lawfully do, what is the extent of what it might lawfully do in order to coerce from the suspect some necessary information? If the president decides it's necessary to crush 'the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

John Yoo, Justice Department official in the Bush years: No treaty... [could restrict the president from crushing a child's testicle].

That is something to pause and think on. Especially since many in our country refer to the Tea Party as 'extremists' or 'terrorists' and some say the same of Occupy Wall Street or some other heterodox political movements. To allege that someone who has a different opinion than you is equal to an insurgent in Syria is very dangerous rhetoric that gives rise to further divide this country me and many mainstream Americans think. We don't embrace the ideas of the Tea Party, or the Democrats, or the NARAL but we don't say they're destroying the country. Incidentally, the military is now saying Christians conservatives are tearing the country apart. That requires another pause. Like I said, to crush a hand won't break a lot of men. To see their own firstborn son have his testicles crushed changes the dynamic and I'm afraid even some people who are basically good will break down.

None of these points raised can be answered by me or anyone else. They can only be answered by each individual for each individual but never one individual for another individual. I pray that many people do not suffer the things that are discussed here. God for some reason might see some of His people suffer in these mighty ways for reasons that I cannot comprehend. My true and best advice to anyone who might be influenced is do not get married and do not have kids. But if you get married, do not have kids. My real point is don't have kids period. If you must marry, then marry. But even that adds to you liabilities. If you are a polygon and your sides are vulnerabilities, if you are a hexagon and you gain a wife, you have gained an additional heptagonal liability; you are a heptagon. A child presents octagonal liability, and two children is a nonagonal liability. If you continue these out, you have room for suffering that some can't ever know. An unmarried person, a childless person can't know the loss of a spouse, the loss of a child. Many people with four limbs can't really fathom life with three, as a paraplegic, or as a double amputee. The point is, the closer to being a circle that you are, as someone with the fewest liabilities, you are better positioned. Unless you are a moron, but that too is a liability.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

The Questions Men Ask of God

        There are both good reasons for believing and reasons for disbelieving. Oftentimes the reason for disbelief is because there is seemingly no resolution with some basic questions about life, basic questions men ask of God. I contend that often the questions which are asked of God are mistaken questions or questions that are not rightful for us to ask. It could be observed that some questions are unanswerable because they are each founded on a flawed premise. If the questions we have for God have flawed premises or are asking one thing when they should be asking another, then how can we expect, and receive, answers? I want to examine the mechanics of the fundamental questions we ask of God and hopefully more than just receiving answers to a couple questions looked at here, the reader can also learn basic facts of questioning.

        I. Often times we are not even really sure which question to ask.

This one isn't very obvious, but even the need to write on these questions means that none of them are very obvious. What I mean by this is to first make sure you are asking the right question. A good example is one that came up a lot in the last year: "Why did God allow Sandy Hook to happen?" But before that can be asked, we first need to know what actually took place at Sandy Hook.

        a. Was there only one perpetrator involved? No.

        b. Were there actors involved who fake mourned and pretended that they had children who died there? Yes.

        c. A few of the photos released claiming to be that of one of the family's involved, were they real? No, they were  photoshopped.

        d. Did the media lie about certain critical facts, such as the one where it was told Mr. Lanza's mother worked at the school and died there? Yes.

        e. Was there a media cover-up and law enforcement cover-up in the case? Yes.

        f. Did the government seize the opportunity attempt to pass restrictive gun control legislation? Yes.

        g. Why was the 'principal' recorded in a paper giving an interview later that morning when she was allegedly killed? In other words, who was posing as her to give an interview OR why is it claimed she was a victim in the killing when later that morning she gave an interview?

        The only explanation that satisfies the parameters is that there was more than a lone shooter involved.

        The question as stated suggests that God 'allowed' it to happen and furthermore that He is in some small part responsible. But for anyone who investigated the story for themselves would discover that it wasn't an unfortunate tragedy involving a lone shooter. Instead, it was an evil plot by evil men and unknown forces. God is not to blame for what evil men do. This proves even more how much we need God and are nothing without Him yet the enemy has manipulated the tragedy to destroy faith in people struggling with doubt. If the truth were known, the question as stated would be exposed as being the wrong question to ask.

        II. There in many cases seems to be no parity in the questions we ask or any firm rule that leads us to ask one question over another question.

        Michael Savage, whose radio show I listen to all the time, asked a week back on his show, 'Why did God allow so many people to die in the Philippines?' But this question has no parity. Here are examples that would suffice for parity:

        a. Why is Michael Savage worth so many millions? You might say, 'Well, he's a nice guy. He's earned several degrees and is an expert in several fields, and additionally, in radio, he is a gifted host and analyst who millions hear and are benefited from every day. In short, he has contributed inestimable worth to the planet and science.'

        And I agree with all of that and I'm not making a point on economics. I agree with Savage economically; I'm not saying people are not entitled to what they have earned, obviously they are. But what I offer as parity is what about all the great men of civilization who offered as much or more than Savage whose lives were cut short by some rare genetic disease or instead of being hailed as heroes by civilization were put in prison or the stocks. Or men like Tesla whose machines scientists in many ways still don't understand, who made the world we live in today possible but all his machines were stolen from him by barons, and he lived the majority of his life on the edge of bankruptcy and died penniless, communicating almost exclusively with pigeons in his final years. And he might have and probably should have been the richest man in the world. Why?

        b. Why does it happen so frequently that office pools win lotteries? Why do office pools at the Salvation Army or the Red Cross never win the lottery? And why do some people win small-stakes lotteries several times and most people will never get the thrill of winning even once? And to expand on that, why is it that one person could win two jackpots on the same day, when for others if they win a few bucks that is the most they could hope for?

        c. Why do the liberals insist that it's the woman's body and she has a right to do what she wants with it, but that only applies in the case of killing the unborn. See, they aren't lining up bills in the legislatures trying to make organ trafficking legal. But, you might observe, we all have two kidneys. Especially in a government allegedly based on free markets, why is it that a woman cannot enter into a contract with her consent, to offer a spare kidney on auction and sell it to the highest bidder? It is her body so she should be able to sell her kidney.

        d. Why do some take an aspirin and die from multiple organ failure and others have spent most of the time since the 1970s shooting heroin, binge drinking, and chain smoking?

        All this puts us back to the thesis of Ecclesiastes. Bad things fall upon the just and unjust with little reason or explanation. There really is nothing to explain it but pure chance and God can't be responsible for these things. Weather is chance, food poisoning is chance, and for those of us who only vote in elections but our total sum influence ends thereafter, anything the government does is total chance that we have no say in. 

        I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. [Ecclesiastes 9:11]

        Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, "for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." [Matthew 5:45]

        But there is one implication of parity. Whose lives were affected by that typhoon? How many decided to study medicine because of similar catastrophes and have saved millions of lives in the process? Imagine a child that saw death and mayhem in Hugo or Andrew who now is saving lives at one of our nation's hospital. How many billions have been donated that took villages, which before disaster had nothing but mud huts, no clean water, or really anything, and afterwards they now have the infrastructure to access all of those things? How many people had their faiths in humanity restored? How many people became heroes, that dedicated time to be a part of disaster relief and clean-up who discovered their mission in life was to be of service, to create, and build, and restore lives and communities? How many felt the tug of humanity and went out and donated blood? Bastiat said in a much different sense but also could be seen to apply here, there is 'that which is seen and that which is not seen'.

        Oh, but none of that is any fun. It's more fun to be sacriligious and question God and His integrity and suggest that He doesn't have the most scant clue as to what it is He is doing. But is that really what is going on or is God using these unique moments to reach out with His creation in ways like I just described? In these moments of trial, GOD IS CREATING HEROES. I know that God is all good and I know I have just described good things that I KNOW GOD is using these moments for. We have established that GOD certainly knows what he's doing. For parity's sake, Do you know what YOU are doing?

        III. By asking God, are we taking for granted that He is not responsible for everything, because in many ways He set a world in motion?

        This one has already been discussed. God is not responsible for everything that happens. Man is quite skilled at accomplishing for himself murder, conquest, corrupting government, etc. To impute that God holds special culpability in certain cases, which are no more than the cases we feel specially moved by, yet we do not impute this culpability in other cases? I've never heard anyone invoke the name of God in the case of innocent prisoners who were sent to death row for crimes they had nothing to do with (maybe because the presumption is our justice system does not make mistakes this grave). But there is a special injustice in that case that does not apply in Haiyan. We are also subject to any form of natural disaster, fire, hurricane, tornado, typhoon, landslide, earthquake, etc. But one party that should be spared is an innocent man from the death penalty!!! But who is outraged at that?

        Suppose that a disaster strikes a community that is resided in by many philanthropists, doctors, and humanitarians. Many of them are killed. Quite the tragedy! But then a one-of-a-kind storm kills a few thousand poor folks in New Orleans. We don't assign value to life or prioritize life of course, but it's also apparent in this case which one is a greater loss to society. Because in New Orleans, we predict that several rapists and petty thieves, who before the storm instituted terror in the city, have now been wiped out as well. Many, who don't care for the city would then move to other cities and there'd be a resulting increase in crime there. The people who did return and rebuild were the people who loved New Orleans, despite its faults and were hoping to see New Orleans restored and better than it was before. What reason does a petty criminal have to return and participate in the effort to rebuild? No. He simply transfers his housing and relocates his crack business. Do we know the hearts of those killed in Indonesia? How many Einsteins were killed? What if the child who had the potential to grow up and cure cancer was killed? But for parity's sake, if we grant that Einsteins were killed, let us also grant that several future dictators, corrupt military generals, and corrupt politicians were killed as well. What does it all mean? Frankly, it means nothing. A few thousand people died, meanwhile while people have been criticizing God, a few hundred thousand have died in military campaigns, from malaria, starvation, and preventable childhood diseases. But instead of working on preventing these largely avoidable crises, we'd rather spend our time in debauchery and faithlessness. And for everyone who was so 'moved' by the catastrophe (and all disasters as well), did we see drops in beer sales, theater ticket sales, or was any less money blown on the cards and slots in Vegas? Absolutely not. We wouldn't let needless and inexplicable suffering going on worldwide get in the way of our getting drunk or entertainment. God knows what He is doing. Do you?

        IV. Does there need to be a reason why?

        I could be shortchanging God myself here, but, Does there always need to be a reason why? In some cases, we might just need to see that there is a place for chance in all of this and determinism doesn't explain everything, simply put.

        V. Often times we ask God, we ask as from grievance rather than from inquisitiveness. Is it for us to lodge a grievance against God, for us to criticize Him?

        By grievance, I'm referring to launching a complaint toward God as someone with standing. We don't have any standing at all to question God on Indonesia or Katrina unless we are personally harmed. The only decent thing someone can do here is to ask from inquisitiveness, but not from grievance. But even if you are aggrieved, who are you to be aggrieved, to declare to God how you do not support the hurricane and how you hold Him personally accountable? You are clay and are questioning the potter as to motives when it is not in your constitution, it is not your place. We might still be troubled by suffering but nevertheless, we should recall that in all Job's trials, when his wife told him to curse God and die, he never sinned by falsely imputing unrighteousness to God.

        "'Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?' In all this did not Job sin with his lips."

        VI. Never lose faith for the sake of unanswered questions because many times they are not even the right questions to ask.

        I've showed that sometimes well-meaning questions are asking the wrong thing. It's not that God 'allowed' something to take place. It's fact that many horrors occur daily because of what MAN chose to do, and God can't be held accountable for that. Many questions of this sort inspire doubt and ultimate rejection of faith and are predicated on the lie that God should be personally responsible for everything which takes place. You see we were once a part of God's kingdom but we decided, first with Adam and Eve, and then subsequently through continued rebellion, that we thought we were better able to govern ourselves. You might say, 'There was no Adam and Eve,' but the point is still the same. Man decided at some point that he could take over the role of governing and answering questions for himself. It is because of this rebellion that our children now suffer from disease, hunger, war, and all other problems known to man. God shouldn't be blamed for this and we should remember the problem is with man, the problem we are hopeless to fix without Christ's sinless life and death.

An Example Of Why Logic Many Times Cannot Be Used To Adduce Biblical Truth, On Suicide

An Example Of Why Logic Many Times Cannot Be Used To Adduce Biblical Truth

I have been reading a work by Kant and today just got in a work by Hume. I have been interested for a while in the 'right to suicide' debate and believe as a legislative matter the government should budge on its stance on suicide. I make note of several things here:


1) The government has, except for a number of years in the 1970s and 1980s, practiced capital punishment against its own citizens. In other words, they have rights to terminate your life but you do not.

a) Capital punishment has also unfortunately led to the execution of many innocent people.

2) The government in the last few years has now declared lawful the assassination of US citizens.

3) The government's intervention into health care has resulted in the insurance of a few individuals who were receiving life-saving medical care being canceled. They will die because of government interference.

4) Growing police brutality and the fact that many people have been murdered by patrolling officers without even probable cause for arrest.

5) Abortion

6) The cozy relationship between Big Pharma and psychiatry, which suggests many interventions against the mentally ill are the result of vested interests and large corporations profiting off the lives of people.

The government has demonstrated by its actions that it has NO respect for life. So if someone wants to end their life, then why does the government feel the need to restrain them from doing so?

B. Medications for the Mentally Ill

The government can force you to take drugs and then they can demand you stop taking them!

1) Laws in the US that allow for the forced drugging of some individuals

2) Yet if you go to jail or prison, law enforcement can refuse you life-saving medical treatment, which may be in the form of benzodiazeopines which are habit-forming and often prescribed in the cases of seizure disorders. Because of their street value jails routinely restrict this medication from inmates and there have been cases where the inmate has gotten sick and died, for instance, having a seizure, falling, and slamming their head into the hard floor.


C. Medications generally

1) Interventions are often made in the case of children of religious parents of certain religious sects that oppose some or all medical treatment.

2) Yet the government also at times, such as described at B(2), also interjects itself to refuse a person medical treatment, resulting in their death. They mean to say they can force you to accept deadly treatment, deny you life-saving treatment, as well as make any and all treatment decisions for you!

3) The forced treatment of society as evidence through the variety of immunization laws. Some vaccinations provide virtually zero side effects and were instrumental in the suppression of childhood diseases that in previous generations killed thousands of youngsters. But some of the mandates have been ridiculous and off base, as well as being far more harmful than beneficial, the 1978 flu shot debacle being one noted example, in which the vaccine itself killed several times more than the seasonal flu. You might also consider the Gardasil/Cervarix vaccine that was briefly made mandatory in Texas and in the United Kingdom that was especially harmful in terms of the neurological effects including dystonic disorders and Guillain-Barr
é syndrome. The government still has shown utter disregard for life when it comes to novel varieties of flu virus including the media fear campaign for swine and avian flus, where they would have liked to demand unwitting citizens take an unnecessary vaccine for a flu that was not an impending disaster that the media wanted you to think.


The only conclusions that can be drawn is the government has NO respect for life and often times shows that it considers its citizens hardly more than slaves when it stands to profit Big Pharma and the bought-off politicians. If a person wants to commit suicide, then why should we stop them? I suggest that treatment be offered but if the person insists upon it then they should be left to do as they wish. In cases of terminal illness, a person should have even greater opportunity through doctor-assisted or other provisions to aid in the procedure.


First Amendment

My First Amendment argument states that pursuant to the right of religious freedom, if the person is content with any of the spiritual implications of suicide, that is, they are convinced a more tranquil life awaits them on the other side, or that otherwise the cessation of the physical life here will result in a better hereafter, then to deny him his right to commit suicide is a direct interference in his solemn practice of religion. Suicide should be a protected act under the First Amendment.


The Sorry Christian Argument and Why It Is False

The argument Christians have always made is

x) If forgiveness of sins requires repentance and
y) A person kills themselves


z) A person cannot be forgiven if they commit suicide. They will burn in hell.


This argument however is false. It shows all the signs of logical ingenuity and has the appearance of soundness. There is a presupposition at (x) which is to say that a person who commits suicide who also regrets the decision (1) and sees no other way out (2) that God cannot have mercy on and suggests that God is limited by an outside factor beyond Himself (3) that mandates he condemn the sufferer to hell, neither of which are true. God is not limited by an outside law (in this case). If the act is done in rebellion, that is something that I would not expect God to forgive. 1 Samuel 15:23 "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft..." In this case, it can be seen how God could have mercy on someone who is suffering affliction so great that he feels the need to end his own life.

Matthew 12:31 "And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

It says plain as day right here that there is one unforgivable sin. How can suicide be unforgivable if that violates the basic sense of the Word? It can't. But nevertheless men still feel that their 'logic' trumps that of God's. The next assumption, to continue from (1), (2), and (3), is that Jesus Himself is not clever enough to see the logic of the suicide question, that a man is worthy to correct the Son of God as being incorrect.

If you were to study the philosophical writings on the subject, you will see that the majority of the philosophers, at least the classical philosophers, made arguments against suicide. My only case is that of Bastiat's and Locke's, of the government's delineated roles in the classical sense, is to protect life, liberty, and property and not to make moral prescriptions or laws restricting the habits of others that even the majority finds detestable. That the public finds an activity distasteful or grotesque is hardly grounds for its prohibition. Mill goes on to argue that a young man, a father with children, is a case of why suicide should be unlawful, because his action tends toward the destitution and impoverishing of the mother and children. To answer that my friends, requires a philosopher greater than I.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

The Light of the Moon, pt. 2

         How many of you have kids? How many of you have kids who actually listen to you? Probably not many. It has always been a thought entertained by the youth that they know more than their parents or the adults around them. That also applies to the general society: 'We know, unlike the ancients, that the earth is globular, that the sun is orbited by the earth, of the germ theory of disease, and that religions are tools of oppression!' But it was already understood thousands of years ago that the earth was not flat, which is contrary to the popular legend that it was only discovered in the days of European seafaring, the Bible having recorded this thousands of years previously (Job 26:10)1. The stars and constellations (Job 38:31 referring to Orion and the Pleiades) were studied and named and their movements observed. Both climate (Matthew 16:2,3 among others) and the circulation of the waters were discussed. The earth, rather than discussed in mythological terms such as resting on the back of Atlas or on tortoises is said to hang upon nothing (Job 26:7). In biblical times, a germ theory of disease is to my knowledge never stated but they did make use of quarantines and had pioneered methods of sanitation and diagnosis of disease, whether infectious or not infectious (Leviticus 13-15 among others). They had methods for treating bone fractures, an advanced code of laws that we can see from the notes here integrated plenty of scientific knowledge especially medical and nutritional, and engaged in much commercial activity including traveling to the remote parts of the known world. They were not imbeciles like popular history suggests.

         Only a small few of my generation admire the contributions of Newton, Leibnitz, Kant, Jefferson, or Luther or can even identify what the great men of history are known for. One thing is certain: independent of the fact that many things considered revolutionary discoveries in their time are now commonly known, that is, if those things we took for granted that great men spent their lives discovering were no longer with us, this generation would be remarkable in its complete helplessness and incompetence at managing a society. We would await a Newton or Leibnitz to arrive to discuss basic mathematical laws, that would in turn allow us to restore all the machines that we lost the ability to operate by failing to answer basic problems of engineering. Novel diseases would arise and eliminate large portions of the population for failing to apply the sciences of van Leeuwenhoek, Lister, Pasteur, and Fleming. We would not even come close to mastering the construction of dams, something the humble beaver is innately gifted in, and nor would we be able to construct a simple aqueduct.

         In short, this great generation we have before us that hates the elder generation and religion, that mocks prior generations as flat-earthers and fundamentalists, except for the discoveries of but less than one hundred men throughout the last 500 years, most of whom were Christians, would reveal a pervasive incompetence at maintaining even the most basic aspects critical to managing a society. Were we left to rely on the men we have running our society today, civilization would no longer be possible.

Friday, November 8, 2013

The Light of the Moon, cont. from Bill Nye

         I will also tell a pathetic story. It is pathetic for a couple reasons such as how easy it is and two, I wrote it. Why is that pathetic? Because I never heard anyone tell the story before, and it's a very believable scenario and given all the great intellectuals society is thought to have, it was a socially retarded Aspergian with only one year of college and maybe three readers to have written it.

         "In a few thousand years, long after the human race obliterates itself from the planet, an alien race will arrive. They explore the cities, or the ruins of what were citie4s, they begin excavations and they marvel at the technology, much inferior to their own but interesting nonetheless. They study our sciences, such as the geology, zoology, and chemistry particular to the planet. They witness great moments of television history: a toilet on Leave it to Beaver, Ellen coming out, Tom Cruise jumping on a couch and screaming like a moron. They learn of our cultures and history, the assassinations of JFK, MLK, Benazir Bhutto, Yitzhak Rabin, the spread of AIDS, penicillin, the discovery of the Bigfoot.

         "And then they ponder at the news reels. Meteorologists say, 'The Sun sets tonight at 7:20 pm," and, "The Sun rises tomorrow morning at 6:58 am."

         "This great civilization," they will marvel, "had mastered rocketry and placed men on the moon yet did not understand Earth's place in the solar system!"

Bill Nye's Disparaging Remarks

         Several years ago, Bill Nye was giving a lecture in Waco, Texas. He comments early on that the Bible is not a reliable document because it refers to the Sun as the 'greater light' while it refers to the moon as the 'lesser light'. But the part that garnered the most attention was many of the members of the audience got up and left. Atheist groups called this evidence of the audience believing that the moon really does generate light rather than act as a reflector of it. Actually, they left because he made an insensitive remark on a religion that the audience largely identifies with. That should be clear from the reporting on the subject is that they took issue not with his point about the moon and light but that it appeared to them he was being rude about it.

         Whether the moon reflects light or it generates its own light is immaterial to the text, and is immaterial to his lecture. That the text does not overtly state the precise orbits of the celestial bodies can't be viewed as an affirmative proof that the peoples discussed in Moses' era had a misunderstanding on it because it makes no case as to what their orbits are. Neither could it be viewed as an inconsistency if it was already common knowledge at the time. If the ancients understood more about the heavens than what is commonly thought, then a caveat was not necessary because it would already be common knowledge the function of the moon. So the language would be understood by readers as a figurative statement. More importantly the verse isn't making a point of science at all but about God's role.

          For instance, we have reports at the lunar perigee about the apparent size or luminosity of the moon and it's not understood that the moon has grown, or that it may shrink and grow at different times, or that it is growing with any greater brightness. There is no caveat because the basic realities of the moon are already understood. If readers i9n early biblical times already understood basic facts of cosmology it would have been unnecessary for Genesis to be clear to that extreme degree. When we say 'the sun rises' or 'the sun sets', it is understood not as a statement from the perspective of geocentrism. So it is redundant to provide a disclaimer in every single case figurative remarks are made of Sun or moon in every news report, newspaper article and conversation because everyone is already aware.

          The broader point in the verse is to say that God is the Creator of both lights and of all things. Bill Nye I'm sure understands this already but because he is an anti-Christian bigot he wanted to be distasteful to a crowd of people who wanted to hear him speak about science, not his hatred of religion and religious values. Atheists don't have a lot of sympathy with most people because they bully their opponents through the court system, are consistently belligerent and hostile on college campuses and nasty, disrespectful bigots in every sort of way. They have to promote the idea that there is a conspiracy by religion, particularly Christianity, to violently seize the reins of government, ban teaching of evolution and institute a theocracy. This wins them support from society who is taken in by the belief that such a conspiracy exists when it doesn't. They believe nothing and are organized on nothing. They offer no beliefs of their own and they mock others for theirs. And most of all they are cowards and promote sedition.