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.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

John 3:16 and Response to Chpt 2 of 'How Not to Interpret the Bible'

(This entry is related to a writing of a prominent anti-Paul scholar. He addresses the pious view of some that 'those who are led by the Holy Spirit do not need Greek-Hebrew lexicons because God will give you the answer.)

The author writes six or so chapters on how to properly interpret the Bible. He refers in each of these chapters to points Torrey offers and why Torrey is incorrect. He offers several alternatives which I see eye-to-eye with him on.;

One view of Torrey's he refers to is that the Greek and Hebrew translations are less valuable than being led by the 'Holy Spirit' into proper interpretation. The author views this as do I as likely to lead to misunderstandings due tot eh greek/Hebrew offering deeper meanings to what in English can only be read one way. It might also be observed that many times people claim to have been shown something by the Spirit they were things contrary to reason or even things contrary between themselves with many readers reaching all sorts of conflicting conclusions.

He refers to John 3:16 as being one that from Tyndale's day has not been translated with perfect fidelity toward the original meaning.
"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."

He says the Greek is clearer as to what Jesus is meaning by 'believe'. The English is not as clear as the original language. It has always been interpreted then as a support for faith alone, when it is not. By ignoring the Greek here, it leads to a misunderstanding.

I say, if it is read in context of the entire counsel of the Word (minus Paul) what it shows is not 'believe in' but 'obey, follow' or works.

"If you love me (then) you will obey my commandments."

Here is the "if...then" statement that elaborates on John 3:16.

"If you believe in him" applied to this verse, if you could imagine what it would look like if they were combined would be, Whosoever believes in him, demonstrated by their obeying his commandments, shall not perish but have everlasting life." Whosoever believes in him by obeying his law that he came to fulfill will be saved.

Belief should be considered in two types: Inert and active.

The faith that Christianity teaches is inert. But Jesus simply tells us in Luke 18 to the rich young ruler that inert faith will not save you. "If you love me" your faith will not be inert but it will be active and "you will obey my commandments". James refers to the inert faith, refuting Paul:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" lists as synonyms for 'inert': asleep, dead, down. I offer the words inert and active as direct antonyms to one another and inert being easier to visualize than 'dead' is.

So Jesus is saying 'whosoever believes in him (with an active rather than inert faith) will be saved. "If you love [him]," your faith will not be inert, but instead it will be active and "you will obey [his] commandments."

I was happy to see the author confirm by reference to the Greek that my original understanding was correct. My final remark is that the Greek/Hebrew are valuable aids in proper interpretation but one must read TOPICALLY all related provisions and discover how best they align. This eliminates a lot of the problem the author has discovered.