Monday, July 22, 2013

The Forty-Five* Inspired Books of the Old and New Testament

*or 43 or 44, I haven't decided yet...

The Word of God

I believe in the Word of God. Many of you think that is what is also referred to as the Bible. But I believe the Word of God it contains and the rest is the words of men. The words of God traditionally WERE ONLY GIVEN THROUGH PROPHETS. Those books in the Bible that are not written by prophets are absolutely NOT THE WORD OF GOD. Several books apply here:

Song of Solomon: A book of porn and smut, written by a worshipper of false gods such as Molech and clearly has a sexual disorder, what we would call in women nymphomania. He has the gall to lecture us on self-control yet indulged his passions with sex with hundreds, perhaps thousands of sexual partners and likely children, and possibly drunkeness. His crap ought to be published by Harlequin Romance publishers, not Bible publishers.

Ecclesiastes: Ecclesiastes stands out to me as a book that is easily debunked as being the authentic word of God. Following the train of thought of the author is as easy as interpreting the average scribblings in the journal of a disorganized schizophrenic. He makes the mistake, one to be expected from a novice, in saying that there could be no fulfillment in work or friendships or anything one sets one's hands to, that it all has been done before and is meaningless. While that may be true for someone like Solomon who indulged his appetite in drunkeness and extreme sexual perversion, Solomon's mistake is extending his experience and making it normative for all persons. It's the normal attitude of someone conceited with the view of their own intellectual superiority. It indulges the passions of a petty nihilist with its devaluation of life, its proper application and the pleasure that can be derived from it. It was always held that God was between the lines, that Solomon intends to say life without God is not worth living. It's magical thinking on the Christians' part; however, since no such thing is clearly taught, only the complete desecration of the sanctity of life.

Esther: It's a good book, but it fails the test of propheticity. It's has a worthwhile point and is something that is worth quiet reflection and study. But I cannot consider this as high as the Word of God.

Ezra/Nehemiah: The Apostles and Yeshua never quotes from these books and otherwise I am not able to comment from lack of reading them but to offer the same pattern of thought as the previous one: Without presence of the prophetic word then I'd say it's worth study, but is not equal to God's Word.

Psalms: Much of Psalms being inspired, I also keep in mind that some aspects of it may merely be edifying, consoling, and for these and other reasons, useful.

Proverbs: Typical Confucian* and helpful insights but it starts off in an incredibly boastful manner and I can't say is inspired, but words to live by.

*I don't know anything about Confucius except he said, "Foolish man give wife grand piano. Wise man give wife upright organ!" Okay, not really. But it's clear in the world of proverbs we have the lower tier, thoughtless lazy proverbs found in a fortune cookie, and then we have proverbs that are quotable, wise, and that you'd expect to hear from a wise man fortunate to have seen a long life and learned much wisdom in his years. When I identify Solomon's proverbs as Confucian,. all I mean is they are of the more profound variety rather than the fortune cookie type.

All of Paul's Epistles: Paul was not a prophet and has no authority to offer Scripture. I exclude Peter, James, and Jude as they are directly intellectually connected to the greatest prophet Yeshua as His students and are connected to the Prophet John, also called John the Revelator or the Apostle John and of equal stature to John, except for John being trusted with the highest of all revelations, The Revelation, and also that John was the Beloved. Otherwise, they are John's equal.

I am now identifying 19 books (not counting Psalms as this was heavily quoted by Christ and the apostles and has established propheticity) as being on a second tier of authority and not binding in the degree in which the prophetic word is.

Where we find the prophetic word:

The Torah
Six books of Kings, Chronicles, Samuel
The Psalms
The Three Major Prophets
and Lamentations and Daniel
The Twelve Minor Prophets
The Four Gospels
The Epistle of James
The Two Epistles of Peter
The Three Epistles of John
The Epistle of Jude
The Revelation of Yeshua ha'Mashiac

Joshua and Ruth I have not read and have not established propheticity yet. It's clear to me propheticity is established in Judges but I have never read the book.

Job: There is a dilemma in Job is that it purports to record the words of God to Job but does not have a demonstrated pattern of propheticity. That is to say, in regarding it as 'God-breathed' we unintentionally cede inspired status to Eliphaz and his two friends, which we clearly cannot do. God towards the end of the book makes very clear His disaproval of the words of Job's friends. It is a dialogue between several men and for that reason I dispute its propheticity.

Hebrews: Demonstrates an unreliability by including facts as to the genealogy of Christ that is inaccurate, uses this false information as a central component in its analysis of the Law as obsolete, and through this demonstrates that it is a report not from a first-hand witness or anyone involved but a work of second-hand or third-hand sources or even worse and is clearly not of apostolic origin and on account of its inaccuracies, clearly lacks propheticity.

Acts: The presupposition is that the Epistles of Paul cannot be rejected and simultaneously accept the authenticity of Acts. I disagree. Luke was clearly an accomplished historian, who is said to have been the greatest scholar of his time. The work of archaelogy and all science has proved many of Luke's claims and by no means disproved even one. It has been standard practice that the extensive geographical, cultural, and historical observations within Acts have been used as parameters, a guiding source in modern day excavations because of its established track record of accuracy. Luke was absolutely a witness of many events of apostolic times, widely traveled, highly educated, fluent in a variety of languages it can be suspected, a scholar of the highest caliber. It was because of his great learning that his criticism against Paul was covert, veiled in language on an esoteric level that would not be apparent to the casual observer, and certainly not apparent to anyone today except the very few who complete the most thorough and unbiased investigation. Yet at the same time, his conclusions would be much more apparent to the readers in his day. He records in one instance a quote that the blinding light was seen yet not heard, and at another point that it was heard but not seen. So his dedication to accurate reporting takes him in some cases to present holes and at times, seems to shrewdly expose his skepticism of the stories of Paul and his company. I can guarantee that absolutely wanted us to have this book today, in that it is a report not of what truly happened, but of what was reported to have happened and Luke's skepticism of it. I give this a semi-inspired status in that it was divinely guided, God inspired it to perfect accuracy yet it was penned by Luke and not what I would call God-breathed.

42 authentic, 21 books disputed, 2 unclassified, 1 semi-inspired or of top-tier authority but not 'God-breathed'.

God speaks only through prophets. No self-appointed smart-ass like Solomon or some self-promoted self-promoter like Paul gets to pen words and pretend they are from God. Only prophets are given authority to speak on God's behalf. Other writings may get a few things right but are susceptible to error, whereas God's word is not. It is why you will find contradictions in Paul's epistles or in other books, because they are not from the Final Source.

And if a prophet speaks today, I'll say, to you. You must listen and obey his words and you will answer for that, but not if he's speaking of himself, but only if he gives you a word from God. God still speaks today so we must be careful not to accept anyone who claims to speak for Him but do not, and also be careful NOT TO REJECT THOSE WHO DO SPEAK FOR HIM because of a general fear of false teachers. We should test carefully. If it is not of prophetic origin, it is not the Word of God.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

American Christians are Ignoramuses

To many Christians, America is their God

American Christians have dual-mouths. Out of one side they preach that obeying the Law is in vain and that Christians are not under the Law anymore. Then out of the other side of their mouths, they teach us how America is the government God established on earth to bring freedom and the gospel to people. They add how Romans 13 teaches us we have to obey the laws of America.

Christians are so stupid, they say that the 613 laws of God are too burdensome, too extensive, impossible to follow, they're only there to prove how messed up we are as a people.

According to, In 2009, America January "saw 40,627 new laws on the books in the USA and its overseas territories and protectorates." That was just in one year. It's not clear however if this is to say on the federal lawbooks or federal and state... But let's say it's safe to say there are WAY more laws than this overall. Hundreds of thousands I'd suppose.

Those are the laws that govern this nation.

You could practically spend the rest of your life reading, and not even understanding, what is contained in these books. It is 50 sections and 23,000 pages.

America is a damned nation, but Christians here come very well close to saying that we have to obey everything contained in these books of law but the law of God isn't worth the paper it's written, it's toilet paper.

Well I've got news for you: It is you Christians who are worthless toilet paper.

img from:

Yeshua rings revolutionary with these timely observations:

Luke 11:46

"And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers."

Matthew 23:4

"For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."

What did God say about how long His law was valid?

Exodus 12:14

Speaking of the Passover, He says, "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever."

Matthew 5:18

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Obviously not all has been fulfilled yet.

On those who rebel against Him by eating swine and mouse

Isaiah 66:17

"They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord."

What were we promised if we followed God and His ways?

John 15:10

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

How do we demonstrate our belief, our faith?

John 14:15

"If ye love me, keep my commandments."

Christians defend themselves by saying Jesus taught us to eat pork. But Jesus tells a different story.

Matthew 5:19

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

You Christians blaspheme when you say Jesus taught us to violate the commandments. If this is true, then Jesus is the least in the kingdom of heaven and He shall serve us! Of course that is absurd, but what is just as absurd is when Christians make this implication.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

A doctrinal-test view of salvation

A view we will look at here is whether or not there is a test for determining if a person is saved. A test could either show that a person is saved or they are not saved. It may not be limited to one issue but could be a composite test of issues.

I know a person, I can't really say a friend because he doesn't behave toward me as a friend would be expected to, and I won't call him an acquaintance either because we have spent enough time talking and hanging out to be only acquainted with each other. But he was very angry that I did not believe in the idea of an eternal hell and he tried very hard to get me to change my mind. I told him I didn't want to talk about it. For one, I'm not interested in having my mind changed, he isn't either, and this conversation at this time was only pursued out of his hope of me changing my mind, and like I said, that wasn't going to happen. It's a discussion that was rife with potential for an argument, and I'm acquainted well enough with churchfolks to know it gets a lot of people riled up this issue, and I know because I've had the conversation before. Sometimes you only lead a horse to water though and he insisted on talking about it. He left that night with his feelings hurt, or if he's too masculine to admit to that, I'll just say he stomped off on home pouting about it. This could be a particular issue, among others, that may cause him to question my salvation which for one isn't for him to decide, but at least if he does try to decide it, then there is a system to do that. I want to share what is the system and what is not the system.

I want to start off with one of my great objections to Calvinism. Calvinism is an idea that comprises a range of thought flowing from humans having very little choice and mostly being a product of predestination to having no choice at all and essentially just being puppets with God, angels, and demons, tugging away making us do whatever they want. If we're lucky, God pulls our strings and we go to Heaven. If God just hates our stinking guts, for no reason at all (just because He can!!) He gives us to the devil to be tormented and tortured (for no reason at all but just because He felt like it!!). So no one gives their life to Christ, no one chooses to sin or not sin. It's only what God wants. If God wants Hitler in Heaven, he gets to go. If he wants someone like Mother Teresa burning and being tortured in Hell, then he gets to do that too. God is supersovereign in their view. It would even be pointless to ask someone you just met if they are Christians. In its most basic sense, no one gets to decide if they're Christians or not, only some cosmic lottery decides who's of the elect.

But God is not supersovereign. Only an insecure little man desperately trying to retain his hold on power would try to micromanage his government on that level. You would only hold that tight a grip fearing if you let up ever so slightly you would lose all control over it. The Calvinists see a vulnerable and reactionary God who willy-nilly chooses to send people to hell for little more than a momentary inclination to do so. Jefferson rightly called this bigot a demon who has no relationship at all to the God of the Bible. The demon Calvin worshipped makes Hitler look like an Eagle Scout.

Supersovereignty is dangerous because it leads to a question that is not the purview of man to even consider. Men are reduced to physical effects of supernatural causes. A person does not choose to get saved. God chooses that for him. A Calvinist does not so much consider whether you are a Christian, or initially whether you identify as one. His question is if the preordinate actions of God the Father predestined you as one of the elect, whether in His supersovereignty He saw fit to choose you.

So the thing on the Calvinist's mind is not to ask you if you are a Christian because he esteems your opinion as valid. His job is to divine from the cosmic lottery if you are a Christian or not. It is his job to see if he may esteem you as a Christian, not if it is something you truly believe in or identify as.

If you ask if a person is a Christian, you should be content with receiving a yes or no answer. We should generally suspect the inherent honesty of all persons, unless and until it can be demonstrated that they are lying snakes. So if a person identifies as a Christian and you suspect that is not the case, there has to be a substantial indication that they are not living as Christians would be expected to live, or some bar/disqualifier to their integrity that supercedes any other criterion.

And it happens that one of the things people consider as a valid indicator of a person's authentic orientation is a doctrinal test. This has all the problems of the Calvinist supersovereignty view. It distorts the question to start off with. We start with an idea that 'no man can judge another's salvation. Then we go and extend it to say, 'Many believed themselves to be Christians and it was proven that they really were not but they were deceived". And then absurdly we arrive at, "So therefore it is my place to judge if he is a Christian or not". In some sort of logic, we see how the progression is carried but it's logically profane to go from 'we should not judge' to 'we should judge'. So the question is not a 'let your yes be yes and your nay be nay' [Matthew 5:37] 'are you a Christian?'. When it comes to a doctrinal test, it's the question of 'do you subscribe to my brand of orthodoxy or not?'

Christians are not called to be proficient as mathematicians, geologists, botanists, welders, or underwater basket weavers. How did anyone decide (and from what verse did they gather) that all Christians are to be gifted and educated theologians. If your test for whether a person has genuine faith is whether they can explain correctly the Trinity, hypostatic union, the eternal nature of Hell, the pure and unadulterated view of Calvinism, along with conformity totraditional orthodox views and church teaching... I have to tell you, you have no biblical support for that anywhere and it's presumptuous to think you have the knowledge to construct such a test, a sort of test the Bible doesn't offer.

One clear fact presented in every such test is the answers always conform to the prejudices of the test taker.

Paul Crouch used a term, 'heresy head hunters' and he probably borrowed it from someone else but let me roughly borrow it from him. Those who are zealous to hunt for heresies... I advise against that, lest in your zeal you take out proponents for many true beliefs as well as those who promote false beliefs. This happened on occasion and Gamaliel warns of this in Acts, saying if the message is not of God, it will die. But don't fight against it, because if it is of God, you will be fighting against God in doing so (Acts 5).

One forum had made many policies against "false teachings". One of them was not to teach against the pre-tribulation Rapture or you would be banned. Others were just as laughable... I'll quote some of it.

"hyper Dispensationalism, Arminianism, hyper-Calvinism, adding good works of Lordship Salvation, Ecumenical Interfaith, KJV Onlyism, nor other ideologies of religious legalism. Do not play 'devil's advocate' for the sake of argument."

"Do not promote insurrection propaganda or fear based threads on FEMA camps and other government conspiracies false prophets, heretical movements, paganism, ritualism, Two House, Ten Lost Tribes, Old Earth, Third Wave Latter Rain, Words of Faith (WOF), Words of Knowledge (WOK), extra biblical teachings from tele-preachers, John Wimber's Vineyard teachings, Dominion theology, Soul Sleep, Signs & Wonders, Gospel to the Stars, the Mazzaroth, Toronto Blessings, Mike Bickle's I.H.O.Prayer, 7th Day (Sabbath) keeping, liturgy of works and practices for obtaining and maintaining salvation, Eucharist, Lordship Salvation, Annihilationism, Universalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, predestination, catechisms (RCC and their offshoots), Ecumenism, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, false scriptures such as the Pseudepigrapha , Apocrypha, Book of Mormon, Bible codes, Ufology, Inccubi, Succubi, Angelic procreation and cloning, demon seeds, or any other extra biblical preoccupations with demonic and extrasensory beliefs.Do not post from tele-teachers entangled in any of the above such as TBN, Perry Stone, Jesse Duplantis, Alex Jones, Todd Bentley, J. R. Church, Rick Warren, Don Piper - "90 Minutes in Heaven", FiveDoves, Coo Thomas, Sid Roth, etc..."

Woo! And trust me, that's not all... There's probably another 75 to 100 or more to go, and that might be a low ball estimate. It could be closer to 200.

The interesting part is when they say to not talk about legalism, which is just another way for saying we don't have to obey God's law (in their mindset obeying God is legalistic) but nevertheless here's only about 450 rules of ours that we expect you to obey............???? I wish I had a smiley face to show jaw dropping disbelief at it. To even have an entire site dedicated to an event in some Christians' eschatological forecast THAT WILL NEVER EVEN HAPPEN. And if you even ask a question about it, you're banned.


You may not be as extreme as these complete nutjobs at but if you are advocating some sort of doctrinal test, resting on the idea that all truly saved people automatically become gifted theologians at conversion, by nature you are deranged while in degree you're just not as deranged as the people at Rapture Forums.

Do you have good intentions in banning what you see as inadmissible? Don't do it. This is an example, you ban too much and then somewhere along the lines, say Jesus showed up at your site and I can guarantee you you would be banning Him.

And keep in mind larger ideas, such as inerrancy. My problem with this David was he couldn't determine how someone believing the Bible as an infallible document could come to the conclusion that hell is not eternal. But it's too black and white to say if someone doesn't fit a theological mold that they are now opposing the inerrant Word of God. 'The person denies plain teaching, it could only be an attack against the integrity of the Bible,' it could be reasoned. The question should be, within an inerrant system, how does the person defend an idea that so seemingly contradicts the plain language). For the system to fit into the mainstream of Christian thought, one idea saying we can take the Bible at its word, it has to rise to the challenge of showing how the current understanding is predicated on a fault of interpretation, incompetency in understanding the culture of the time... in other words, it has to preserve the Bible as the Word of God.

Finally, if right doctrine does not a saved person make, and a cosmic lottery doesn't either, then what is a 'test' for considering a person's salvation? Incidentally, I can only refer to what the Bible says is a valid test.

God's true people are described throughout the entire book.

They are said to be honest, they are people of faith, they love their neighbors, they help people, they go out on limbs and are usually laughed at for it but they do it because of their faith despite the consequences, they speak the truth even when it hurts or jeopardizes themselves, and they will lay their lives down for their friends.

They will sit in cisterns (Jeremiah), lion's dens (Daniel), prisons (Peter), fiery furnaces (Shadrach, et al.), old wooden ships in the midst of total deluge (Noah), marooned on an island (John), or awaiting their execution (John the Baptist) all for the sake of the gospel. They quietly reflect in the wilderness or in a garden, they revere life and they are gracious and thankful for their blessings, if not troubled at injustice in the world.

Paul made several comments about these people, and I shortly quote him here.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." [Galatians 5:22,23]

John 10, Jesus speaks a lot about the true sheep, saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice." [John 10:1-4]

John said in his first epistle, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." [1 John 4:2,3]

But there are also the faults they suffer from in their weakness. FOr some it's smoking or drugs, others pornography, cussing, bad business practices and many other things as well. But these go with the territory. They are fallen because our nauseam-granddaddy Adam made a poor choice one day in the garden. But they are on a path of seeking God and coming closer to God. As God gives them greater awareness of the harms they cause, they make adjustments and improve upon their former ways. They receive more and better information and God speaks to them through. His word. He chastens them and corrects them, and they listen and obey.


This is biblically what can be determined about God's people. None of it anywhere advocates a theological test for a Trinity, Hell, speaking in tongues, five fold ministry, premilliennialism, or any other system. He isn't searching for theological professors but men and women who like David, are after God's own heart, willing to give up families and properties and every possession for the gospel. That is what makes a Christian. Not some man made test. Some of you I can already hear are starting to say this is all sentimental. I wish it was. Not only would it be easier for you to write me off as a whackjob, it'd be easier for me to write myself off. I could stop taking anything seriously and let myself go altogether. But that is not really the truth.

As to the sin of David

David in his anti-Catholic ministry has had the stirrings for some time now as a false minister. If he continues to work from a man-made system such as doctrinal-test, or some other way that reduces men to Calvinistic robots and sees them as products of circumstance or supersovereignty, that is, a politic of division, of trying to divide people out of the camp, I can speak from my own personal observations and my conviction in the faith that you will only succeed in driving yourself out. You will expose yourself as a false prophet. Let me be clear: If your ministry involves sifting the wheat and separating out the chaff, which you're not qualified to do and is not your calling to decide which is chaff or if it is wheat, you will only sift out yourself. It is that way because it is not for man to divide men out of the camp.

Let us all be clear as to what the sin is:

To rebuke someone as not being a Christian, who are believed to identify themselves falsely, under a condition which is not a biblical position, is the work of the adversary.

If I say to this man here, that he does not conform to my opinion of the Trinity, and is therefore unsaved, that is my opinion, and a judgment on something I am not qualified to be judging.

If I say he does not conform to my prejudice of hell and is therefore unsaved, I have no support for that either.

That is a doctrinal test. One thing about bias: if someone were to design a test to measure a person's understanding on certain facts, the answers being sought out would only be answers that conform to the prejudice of the test writer. That is why little of that our faith teaches is salvific.

When a man like David, who holds to a superior and haughty view of right and wrong and true doctrine, supposing that he has the benefit of having many correct answers on many quesions,such that he finds it necessary for him to become a detractor from anyone who disagrees with his theological views, (in other words he cannot accept that others are entitled to their beliefs as well within the context of a healthy Christian life) then he is a wolf, and if he gives in fully to this false system of division, a false prophet.

You do not get to put forth a doctrinal test for the same reason the Jehovah's Witnesses don't, the Baptists, the Church of Christ, or anyone else. Christians should be accepted if that is what they are. In any dispute, fight the idea, not the person. If you choose to fight the person, then know that you are operating under the spirit of those who killed Christ, you are a false prophet, and guilty of murder (Matthew 23:35, Revelation 18:24).

Monday, July 8, 2013

Social Issues II: Racism and black America

On January 20th, 2005, Leann Holden is getting off work at the Wal-Mart she works at. She is just about to get in her truck, the video shows, but then a man comes up behind her, drags her to his vehicle, and drives several hundred miles before dumping her body, driving several hundred more miles then being shot by a clerk after an attempted robbery and arrested in Arizona.

Leann came to my mind tonight and I thought about looking into the case again, since it had been several years since hearing about it. I discovered the perpetrator was black.


The family of this young woman forgave the man. I can be open to the idea that maybe a person can change. It may only be after being taken to the extreme of crime and taken to prison for the rest of their lives or placed on death row before they find God, and while I don't think it's likely, I think it is possible.

But this man committed several sins. One is he killed a young woman. He is forgiven for that. But there is someone else he wronged. He wronged his entire race. You see, he went the way of millions of black men before him. A life of crime over a life dedicated to work. A life stealing rather than giving. Fathering children rather than raising children. Taking lives rather than saving lives. What he has done is that he has perpetuated the racist notions levied against blacks and has also ceded the point over to every white person who says that blacks are an inferior race. Many of you are trained here to say I'm generalizing by singling out one person and generalizing from that. No I'm not. I'm referencing one story out of thousands, or really millions, of people of African descent who have committed heinous crimes as well. It's a shame not only in that it destroys the integrity of an entire race, it lends credibility to racist theories itself. Inasmuch as racism is an injustice, I think it is a grave injustice itself that racial doctrines ARE TRUE, that it is clear from the actions of millions of blacks in America and every other country as well that they are a race committed to violence and murder and bloodshed everywhere on the planet. This man hasn't only killed a woman and destroyed a family, he took part in the murder of the integrity of his entire race.

It is becoming tenuous to suggest, and even more difficult to maintain, that whites should continue to read articles like this of the lives black people have taken from this earth, and to pretend race is not a factor or that 'they are not all like that'. How many stories of their incompetence and violence do we read? It's some sort of fuzzy notion that for every degenerate black in the papers, there are 5 good ones we never heard anything about. It's a legitimate point, up until a certain extent. But blacks, you have financially broken this entire country, you have scared whites out of their neighborhoods and then have the gall to call it "white flight", you mercilessly kill people in the streets and then when one of your own such as Trayvon Martin is killed you threaten civil war, no matter what he did to get shot. Racism is no longer something whites believe in, it's something history sits as testimony too, as to its being a fact. And that is more shameful than any individual racist white, any criminal and indigent black, and a bigger tragedy than any possible victim of crime or the victims left in its wake.  It goes against every democratic idea in showing that all decency and honor is lost upon an entire race of people.

What you do is prove that America was founded on a total pretense, that "All men are created equal." You steal from America precisely what it was founded upon and show it to be a lie and destroy all of America in the process.

Friday, July 5, 2013

Christians in Heavy Metal?

I was a teenager who started playing guitar at 15. I listened to a lot of Metallica and heavy metal and aspired to one day learn those riffs and techniques. Also considering myself nominally Christian before really coming to fully receive the faith, I had a burning question a lot from my age group and of similar musical taste did as to which of my favorite heavy metal artists were Christians themselves. Of course our parents would tell us they all worship the devil, and while I'm still not fully convinced of that, I am convinced that those who claim many of them are Christians are guilty of wishful thinking and tribalism, hoping that some of their own musical heroes are apart of the same tribe they are.

I can give a few examples of those who are said to be Christians:

Killswitch Engage (It's said Jesse the original and current singer is, the others, I've never heard)

All That Remains (Although Oli is openly agnostic, it's been said singer Phil is a committed Christian)

As I Lay Dying (not really sure, but generally are said to be Christian)

^^^ these are the main ones.

Supposedly, this makes it okay to listen to their music. I'd say it's okay to listen to their music but not for these reasons...

I discovered recently Phil Labonte from AtR posted on his Twitter account that he is ABSOLUTELY NOT a Christian. I imagine that pisses someone off after a while having deranged people from this or that religion claiming you're one of them.

As I Lay Dying, their singer Tim Lambesis was arrested on an attempted murder for hire on his wife. Sure, Christians sin and maybe even some of them try to have their wives offed. I mean, if I was married and my wife teed me off, I don't know I'd hire someone to do it.. I might think of easy at home methods...

But his defense is he was high on steroids (he's buff, a bodybuilder). And then you could say Christians do steroids too. But do Christians do steroids and order hits on their family?

Whatever the case is... it might be he's backslid or fallen or he was never right to begin with (more likely). Again I'm not convinced they all worship the devil but I'm more open to the idea that very, very few of them are actually believers. And it doesn't seem like a culture that would attract them.

Jesse David Leach (KsE). I saw them in Houston June 1st. If I had come across Jesse, I might have asked him if he was a Christian and it probably would have pissed him off the same way the deranged Christians have been pissing Phil off all these years claiming he's a Christian when he's not. Some of Jesse's lyrics make me think he actually could be religious, and his father supposedly being a Presbyterian minister does lend credence to the idea... but still, it's heavy metal and they're well known in this genre for selling their souls.

Christians also talk about how Einstein was a Christian and how Darwin recanted on his death bed.

Christians, please STFU. If you don't know what that acronym means and it's dark out, go to bed... You're either too young or too old to be up this late. If it's afternoon or late morning... you're on the wrong website.

Secondly, God told us not to lie. If you want to win people to your cause, maybe lying about Darwin, Einstein, or one of your favorite musical artists being Christian (a total lie) is a major turnoff to people and doesn't actually win anyone to the faith.

It shows them that you're willing to lie and stoop to deceit to accomplish your goals.

You don't get to lie to further a religion that teaches against lying.

You're no better than a guy shooting steroids and ordering hits on his family.
Either get right or get lost..