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.