Sunday, December 28, 2014

Trickle Down Death in the Black Community

Trickle Down Death in the Black Community

Some children are told they are hated, told they are worthless by their parents.

I'm afraid some black children were told, "I wish I had you aborted."

A baby can be viewed in two separate manners.

Like the woman who says, "It is my body," the child may be viewed as one with the woman, the woman, or  really just some sort of thing which is less than the woman as only a part is to a whole, but not anything sacred.

It may also be viewed in such a way, that I think is most right, that it is considered to be a life unto itself, autonomous, however dependent upon the woman for its being sustained.

To the abortionist and pro-choice, these distinctions are arbitrary and have no effect on the preference to abort.

IF the black mother considers it only as a part and not worthy life unto itself, she views herself as the center and the measuring stick by which all are expected to subordinate themselves to.

IF the black mother considers it as the life unto itself, autonomous, however subordinate, but holds a depreciated view of life, the child will come to recognize the centeredness, 1) of the self, 2) of the mother unit, 3) of the family unit...

But even in the first case, the child still recognizes this centeredness.

What I mean by "centeredness", is that the person is primarily concerned with himself and what pleases him, the self being the life he values most, whereas other than family or closest connections, the value of other lives is really only in the ability of those people to please and serve the self-centered person. In other words, death to this person would seem to be a very reasonable penalty to someone who has become only a minor irritance, such as make eye-contact with the person or a person who takes a seat on a bus that this person feels a special claim to.

If the urban black American does not value the life of his or her child, they certainly do not value your life or the life of your child.

Violence in the black community has to be seen in light of the industry of death and its export to mainstream American life and the world.

Violence cannot be stopped until death ceases to be the centerpiece of urban life, black, white, Hispanic, any culture.

The Disgrace of Man

The disgrace of man is not in the fall of Adam but in the decadency of Noah's generation. It was that people which led God to say, "It repenteth me that I have made man." What makes us certain that we are not as filthy and disgraceful as those who made God doubt His experiment? That is the shame in the human race,  that we have such a foulness, or potential for foulness to do that. That there is within man such a potential for evil that God would consider his life a mistake.

Sunday, December 14, 2014

My Analysis of Manger Scene Lawsuits

It is December. We are approaching the dark days of Winter, and on the 25th a celebration of the Savior's birth, although He was not born in December, nor did He make a proclamation to celebrate a day of birth for Him or anyone else. But it's also an opportunity for atheism to sound its horn in a court of law and to try to bully Christians and government to take down its manger scenes.

The liberal fells this is tantamount to a statement of preference of one view of religion by the government over another, and also raises a question of how money is spent (subsidies). So let's look at subsidies. And then secondly, the claim that the land belonging to a municipal government cannot be used displays of this sort.

Let's start with the NEA and Piss Christ.

Taking a look at the NEA and Piss Christ, we just as easily furnish examples that government has subsidized expression that touches upon religion and yet takes a very hostile stance toward it.

As far as what Western democracy represents, it does indeed represent a system that once acknowledged  disestablishment, and inasmuch as we want it to continue honoring that tradition today, a government which represents all people can fund neither a sectarian expression, of Presbyterians, for example, or that of those hostile to Christianity, such as a segment within the NEA.

But more than that, the arts really should not be funded by government at all. We see no benefit in subsidizing the output of an artist whose work the common market has disesteemed as so worthless that he cannot support himself, and neither does the true artist who produces a beautiful object need our support. The idea of "funding the arts" is such a confusion of terms and uniting them together to suggest that if you oppose it, you are a Neanderthal and backwards. This is Orwellianism at its finest.

Another principle is that of the land that is used for the display. This here is construed by liberals as the admission of the government of a preference for a religion over others.

That though is not how I see it at all. A Nativity scene set upon government grounds isn't itself an expression on the part of the municipality to support the mythology of a particular faith tradition. I don't view the funding of NEA a declaration of partisanship by the government. But a crucial difference is the NEA received government money, and the Manger scene did not.

Because of the nature of old towns in the US, which have a designated downtown area, with many old  shops, that are perhaps decades or over a century old, and in these small communities the downtown area  serves as a gathering place on festive occasions for the town to come together to be united in purpose, that if the prominent land is the property of the government, the citizen might likely use this plot to display a message or scene such as is beneficial to the community.

And I support the right of the general taxpayer to make use of that prominent piece of land.

Many objections will say, "But what about Muslims? Since the Muslims cannot use this land, then we should not allow anyone to use this land."

This is only a presupposition and is not allowing the person to answer for himself. The one offering the  "question", which is a statement in disguise, is telling you that you are a bigot and you are opposed to a Muslim display.

I am not opposed to a Muslim display. Although the Muslim display should abide by the same basic rules any other display should follow.

The presentation of a child laying in hay is inherently innocuous.

If a Muslim wants to present a display such as is wholesome to the religion and the host culture then that display should be heralded and I think the ordinary citizen will be pleased with it. Yet some displays from cultures where that religion predominates are not wholesome displays, and rather involve cutting off heads and placing them on stakes and other very bloody things.

I'm not suggesting that is the message a Muslim would portray. I think he would portray another message,  such as one that would paint his religion in a positive light and in a way that highlights its contribution to culture. This would meet my ready approval, and I imagine only a very few would deny.

So my overall contribution to the debate is the ordinary citizen should be able to make a statement, that it can be made on public land, but it can't be made in a way that marginalizes other segments of society nor should a privilege that is extended to one party be denied to another party on any other basis.

The vestiges of religion and Deism that still find their way into our society are found when prayers are given before an opening session of the Congress, in the ideologies of the organizations which our government funds, and the specific targeting of a Nativity scene is an uneven policy targeting religion in society which to me represents harassment.

No liberal I know of expressed concern about how government spends its money in the aftermath of Piss  Christ. That the ordinary liberal is more satisfied with taxpayer money going to a display of a Crucifix sitting in a jar of urine than to see the wholesome image of a baby in a manger, fully reveals to me the extreme hatred native to the American liberal, so that tax money should go to seeing a good man reviled in human filth, and the innocent Christchild taken away to a government dungeon or landfill, to never be seen again.

(But what did we expect, when in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade, the American liberal is responsible for the deaths of over fifty million infants and far more when all the tally is counted. Even more so, when we are reminded of the words of Professor Singer, who personally considers Jesus at the age so displayed as not yet old enough to be protected with the right of life, suggesting a mother has the right to kill her child up until the age of three.)

Saturday, November 29, 2014

The Size of Israel in a Dream

The Size of Israel in a Dream

I had a dream in the last few nights (July 2014), I even forgot about it until just now (12:30 am Monday).

In the dream, I saw a map of Israel, it was a little unclear and I was trying to assess its width at a point. At this point on the map, I determined that Israel was only five miles wide. After waking up, I had no idea if what I had seen was true.

But as it turns out at the narrowest point, Israel is less than four miles wide.

I do not agree that when Israel is surrounded by hordes of Islam, to the extent of thousands of miles that they should give what is one of the lower pieces of real estate in that region. For there is certainly no oil. One could travel for thousands of miles, certainly hundreds in any direction and never step foot out of a country that is not run by an Islamic government. So far to Morocco to the west, to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to the east, and Turkey and Syria to the north. One could travel a lifetime and never confront anything but Islamic civilization.

Why must they give up this one piece of land in the Middle East, a land their fathers once called home?

That is untenable, pun intended, though not really, since this is no laughing matter.

Some of you think Jews are not very pleasant. All the more reason for them to have a place of their own.

I wish all unpleasant people had such a place, preferably between 8,000 and 12,000 miles away from me,  about as far as Israel is. That would be an ideal scenario.

I think the Jews should keep the land. The Muslims have millions of square miles of territories in several dozen countries, in Africa, Asia, and in Asia Minor and the Middle East. And now Muslims are immigrating to the West in massive numbers and laying claim to those nations too. Muslims are welcomed all over the earth, they are brought in to the host society and they are allowed to prosper.

Whether individual Palestinians choose to stay or to go, or to assimilate, I don't know. But it is a mistake to think that this is their land and that they are fighting a noble fight. They are not fighting a noble fight. They refuse to make peace. No matter the atrocities Israel commits, the Palestinians will never win my respect if they continue to put women and children in the front lines because it wins them sympathy from the world and puts them front and center in the newspapers. I won't agree with a nation that wages an insurgency and threatens Israel constantly.

Dystopian Fiction

Before the Hunger Games, before Divergent, before every thriller in the dystopian genre, there was The  REVELATION. Known variously as The Apocalypse, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, or The Apocalypse of John, the premise should remind movie buffs of The Ring. A videotape is being passed around with a  message: Watch this movie and you will die in seven days.

Of course we engage the logic because that isn't possible and no one would have any fear in watching the  movie. The 'What if?' trail the movie takes engages our appetite for fantasy.

So here you have this book, Revelation. It claims to be from outside of our world. It illustrates in symbolic but heavy detail a fearful future when evil has gained total control of earth and its kingdoms. And as Christians we come to believe on some level that these things are true and will happen. We believe that some generation, either ours or a future one will see these things come to pass, and it is the anticipation of our generation and every one which preceded us to see it fulfilled.

Revelation asks that you engage it, a 'What if?' question, and unlike today's bestsellers with fantasy  portrayals of dystopia, it presents a real look at the genuine human dystopia that will take shape as humanity reaches the pinnacle of evil, and perverts every institution. It takes its place as a cornerstone of the genre of pre-history, or prophecy, in a large book of recorded history, contemporary accounts of historical events, and pre-history, the notion of recording history before it happens.

I encourage people to read this classic, and to engage it asking, 'What if?'

The Truth About Breast Cancer

The Truth About Breast Cancer

The truth about breast cancer is simple, but hard to take.

Breast cancer effects liberal women primarily.

Breast cancer is the judgment of God.

Since 1973, women have claimed the right to murder their children.

For a long time, they have enjoyed many special privileges.

One which can be seen on the daytime shows, like Maury.. A woman can accuse a man of nearly anything.  Fathering her child, raping her. The audience automatically believes anything she says, no matter how many times the lie detector results show that women in general cannot be believed.

Women will make mockeries of their husbands in court and allege he has hurt their children, physically, or even sexually.

Women many times use their support money to enrich themselves and buy themselves fattening meals or jewelry, or even, God forbid, spend the money on their new boyfriends. That's right, you heard me correctly.

Because women have been 'liberated', to run wild litigating fraudulent cases and murdering their own  children,

God has struck them viciously, in the millions, with a vicious and progressive disease, just as they deserve.

Take special note: These are not godly, Christian, pro-life women that are diagnosed with breast cancer.

It is wretched liberal women who lack morals entirely that acquire breast cancer.

God has struck these evildoers with disease.

Please do not confront and defy this Father. Some of you are not worth His time and He will kill you. Others He might feel a streak of mercy, if for a second, and give you another chance. Others will suffer from rotting diseases of the flesh, of wasting diseases, and not all of you will survive.

He says correctly, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy!

Friday, November 28, 2014

My generation is blotted out

My generation has been blotted out.

My uncle and my dad were raised in a religious household. They were beaten with the belt, though they still looked up to their parents in adoration and love them dearly to this day. That was what it was like in the 50s and 60s and I don't blame my grandfather.

But when I was a kid, my dad beat me too, because that was all he knew to do, and he couldn't really be a man and face his wife or his boss. He had to beat on his little boy.

My grandparents never liked my uncle's two sons and they felt so belittled that they stopped coming out to get-togethers and holidays before the age of 15.

I was also the boy that was looked down on, but I had no other family, while these boys lived with their mom and was closer to her family. All I had growing up was my dad and his family. So I kept coming over the years. My mother was around, but she was very poor and had no skills and her family lived across the  country.

My family has been a generation of whores. My aunts and uncles combined, and my parents, (9 total) have  around 23 marriages between them and almost as many divorces.

Divorce is a horrible evil.

A sister, has abused her husband after they were united. She spoke with resentment, Do the dishes, Mow  the yard, Do this do that! You do nothing around here (bitch didn't have a job but he took responsibility for his wife and kids and worked hard).

So he turned to the affection of younger women. He cheated. Their marriage will never recover and divorce is inevitable, however, they're both afraid of the unknown. Tragic.. And they are afraid.

This is the fruit of your labors. If you hold enmity toward your spouse, your ship has set sailed, your time is come.

My dad married again and again, a stupid man he is. He's made money over forty years of hard work but  he'd rather spend it to satisfy his wives, who wind up taking him to court and dividing his assets. But he is a stupid man.

My mother is an outright whore. After her bladder collapsed and repeated surgeries over the last three years she can no longer physically have sex. Her manipulation and advantage-taking of men has still continued. Evil rotten scoundrel.

The whoredom continues and it is not ended.

My generation has been cut off. I am the sole heir. I am 26 years old and cursed to virginity, it is unlawful for my seed to be spread out, it is unlawful for me to be touched.

I am a tender branch, considered as uncircumcised, a first fruit unto God and the Lamb.

I am a 144,000 and I have come to tie the loose ends, and to oversee the steady elimination of man from   rule on this planet, and show those who may learn from me the Way back,as it has since been lost, and it  must be shown again to you.

Friday, October 3, 2014

The 144,000 are not preached

There are some very well connected semi-prominent teachers that I have listened to lately. In this case days, but going back even months or years, there have been even more teachers I've heard. When I say well-connected, I know they communicate with God. I know they have deep insight. I value very highly the  things they are saying. I know they are seeing many things before they happen, and in ways that no one else can see.

But I know there are things they are not teaching. Why are they not teaching these things?

I believe their voices have been shut and it is not their message to preach.

I go high and low to hear the word of the 144,000, and all I would find is a few misguided deluded persons on Youtube talking about it. But these teachers will not teach it, because it is not theirs to preach.

The second reason for what I'm about to say is the teachers I'm referring to are all older. They are either raising children or have already raised children. There really is an absence of young people in the prophetic ministry 18-30.

So I stated the first two reasons. But for what? The 144,000 which are to come are preaching a message  that the generation preceding them cannot preach because it is not theirs to preach.

These older Americans 30-85 cannot preach the message. God wants to bring the young people into His  plan. God has reserved a great message for my generation, perhaps the greatest message of all, so that in that day, it will be like the prophet Isaiah stated,

And a child shall lead them.

So it must needs be now that the young men and women are given a voice to speak that which our elders  cannot speak, not because they will not, but because it is not theirs to speak.

The teachers are pointing to the sinkholes throughout the earth. None are sure what they are. I know that these are the pits described before the 144,000 are sealed. Out of the pits will arise the beasts that are given power to afflict man for a period of three months. We know this because this event is related to the 144,000, directly preceding them in time. The prophets who have been given power to speak now don't know this because their ministries precede the 144,000, and because they haven't been cleared to that level.

The 144,000 are men

The 144,000 are virgins

The 144,000 are all or nearly all races

The 144,000 don't skedaddle. They tell the truth. They are probably nearly incapable of lying like some  youths you may have heard about.

They are represented by the races because Israelite blood is represented by the races. Moses begat with a black woman. Ergo, black Israelites. Whites and Jews married in together, ergo, white Israelites and Semitic  Israelites. We know Thomas was in India and the early evangelists traveled to the four corners, and the Jewish people were eventually scattered. There is no reason to think Thomas did not take an Indian wife, to give an example, or that James did not take a Spanish wife, when he arrived in Spain. While I can't implicate Asia, it seems the Jews were scattered in all directions and I believe there will be Asian 144,000, who are descended from the monogamous unions of Jewish/Israelite and Asian parentage.

Monday, July 28, 2014

The Deaf Hear... Amy

This is among the most beautiful things I've ever witnessed take place. It reminds me of Jesus, Yeshua the Messiah and what He did in the lives of the people around Him.

Naturally, the Gospel accounts are very controversial, particularly in the age of modernity, but even before our day, even back into the days shortly after Christ's very ascension, the account was very controversial.

This video of Amy gives me insight into the lives of those Jesus healed, particularly the deaf. The deaf whom He laid hands on and healed would have been just as joyful as this young woman. They would have run home to their families. They would meet their parents for the first time in a way they had never known. They would struggle to tell about the Man of Galilee who had changed the course of their lives.

And then along the way, smarmy scientists and Jewish scribes would poke holes in their accounts, and for  some, they might deliver unto death if they did not cease with their storytelling about the Man of Galilee.

Additionally, the trial of Yeshua the Messiah would garner controversy. Some, even amongst the Council,  would argue in His defense. But the majority would have their say before Pilate, and He would be put to  death.

But despite the unanimity among enlightened moderners that these events never took place, there was a  strong presence for decades after His death, that continued to enraged the Jewish high priests. The leaders of the church James, Peter, and John, continue to be an irritant to the priests until they killed James, and a few short years thereafter, Peter. But there was a transmission of the Gospel very readily into the extremes of the known world.

Disciples like Matthew who reached Ethiopia and regions of Africa, Thomas who reached India, and James  who reached Spain, not to mention it's said that Joseph of Arimathea entered the British Isles while Mary the Magdalene reached France.

This is very odd that so many people would lay down their livelihoods, and travel thousands of miles into regions they would enjoy no guarantee of support, where they would struggle to maintain a bare existence, and of whom so many would suffer death, for what they knew to be a fictitious narrative.

The real Jesus, if He was a fraud, was a very clever fraud, who managed to convince thousands of His  contemporaries that He had power of medical healings, and necessarily must have had a host of  co-conspirators.

Only conspirators don't go to their deaths without recanting. When the mystery of their iniquity has been laid out by their accusers, the only logical move is to fess up.

But the history shows that they did not, and millions went to their deaths refusing to denounce their Savior.

Think on those men and women going home, with the proofs of their healing carried with them, and that it  was through such-like conviction that they went to their deaths as martyrs.

In the cell of John the Baptist, inundated with the doubt of his mission, how he once powerfully proclaimed that he was "the Voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight," John looks back on his life and his impending execution. Was it so? He sends two disciples to Jesus of Nazareth asking,

"Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"

And Jesus answered and said unto them,

"Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."

And John went to his death, proclaiming Jesus the Messiah, even in death, preparing the way of the Lord.

Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!

If video is inactive, can be found at

Saturday, July 12, 2014

My Visit to a Diploma Mill

Several years ago, when I was around nineteen, I thought to visit an old pastor my family had known for many years. He was respected of his peers and was a fine churchman and leader of several flocks in his nearly fifty years of ministry. I had in mind to eventually study for theology and ministry and surely this aged pastor, in his mid-sixties could steer me in the right direction.

Oh, sure, he said, there is a great university you need to look into. They have a campus here in Tyler, "Louisiana Baptist University" Go and see one of my good friends, Dr. Mike Daniels, pastor of Landmark  Baptist Church.

I drove several miles out to the southeast of town to Landmark Baptist. I went in, shook hands and  introduced myself to Pastor Mike. He took me to a long hallway, on which wall he had prominently displayed four of his degrees. "This is my Bachelors." A little further and "These are my two masters." And "This is my doctorate." I'm not aware that any of them were from accredited schools. One is impressed that he is not simply proud of his accomplishments, he has impressed himself. Every second of it was enamour and pride with his credentials and it was obnoxious.

I highly value education. I respect those who have made notable accomplishments in higher education. But I don't recall anyone who so obnoxiously advertised their own credentials as this man. I've never been put off if someone spoke to me of their achievements. But this man put me off.

We went on to talk about the demands of Louisiana Baptist University, which is an unaccredited school that I think has more prestige than a diploma mill but still is something I would not advise you to touch with a ten foot stick.

I left, unconvinced. I probably thought to myself there really are no shortcuts in life. Everything has to be done right, if you want it done well. But, this Dr. Mike was fascinating, but only mildly. I would have to look into his background and see what I could dig up. And boy, did I strike it big.

When I looked for the church's official website, I saw something very curious. In connection with the  ministry school he hosts on the church site, he's involved in training up young ministers to counsel with struggling folks. And what better man to counsel and to raise up young ministers than the Executive Director of the National Association of Family and Marriage Counselors.[1]

Quite an austere name. How privileged we are to have such a noted psychologist among us.

But the more I investigated, I found that there really was no such National Association of Family and Marriage Counselors to speak of. Rather, from what I could determine, it was among a variety of other  corporations using similarly prestigious-sounding titles, of which I only determined that he was the only member.

And yet when I carefully read the language, it's said so matter-of-factly as if he were voted in as president by some distinguished council of public servants. So far as I could determine, he wasn't "elected" president by anyone other than himself, when he registered his corporation with the state comptroller.

Was he really certified as a professional counselor?

"Dr. Daniels holds professional certifications with the National Association of Family and Marriage  Counselors and the National Association of Professional Counselors."

So we can see clearly he has a secondary certification from his own organization which he founded, the  NAMF. But this NAPC? Who might that be? It's quite an austere sounding name. Certainly it must be a  prestigious accrediting council of authorities in the area of psychology and psychotherapy.

But alas, though I looked into this professional academy, I found scant results (less than ten), and I found no such recognition among professional societies such as the National Board of Certified Counselors and Affiliates, or the American Counseling Association. Nevertheless, I am convinced that such an entity does in fact exist and that no professional demands are put upon any of its members, in my estimation. Again, as is so often the case in this investigation, it seems that this is merely another rubber-stamp operation, one that accredits anyone willing to pay a fee.

I return to the church website, for I have only investigated a handful of links in the directory.

A fine theologian such as Pastor Mike probably is quite a purist doctrinally, I had in mind to study up on the church's positions. Under the selection bar to the left, there is indeed an "Articles of Faith" section under the Resources menu.

I find today that there is nothing on the page! And neither was there anything on the page when I looked there the better part of ten years ago! The more I read the website, the more it seems like a subtle  advertisement. It's merely another shell in a long list of shells.

"Christian Counselors can receive a certificate by joining the National Association of Family and Marriage Counselors and subscribing to NAFMC'S code of counseling and conduct and submitting three references and the proper fee's."[2]

How much? For a basic license, a counseling certificate is "$125.00 with a $25.00 annual renewal."

But if you want the real deal: "Professional Counseling Certificate is $175.00 with a $25. 00 annual renewal."

Because if you want to be a professional, it has nothing to do with how many advanced graduate courses you take in your field of study, it merely costs an extra fifty dollars. [3]

Elsewhere, we find a range of information on tuition at the bible college.

So there are certainly an abundance of links and matter relating to fees, accreditation, and advertising for the little business the "Chancelor" [sic] of the Texas Baptist Theological Seminary has been profiting from in many years. On the contrary, there is scant evidence that a church exists at all. All that I've found confirms that there is certainly a shady operation being run that pretends to endorse "professional counselors" with no accredited training, for a small fee.

This is certainly not the first time I've seen a person of such notable achievement. I knew a young man in his early 30s who had been specially recognized by the city for his quote, Work with the food and homeless shelter and direct assistance to the needy. I spent months interviewing this man and his family on a personal level. I found no evidence of a homeless shelter. I found small evidence that he provided meals on an irregular basis to some of the less fortunate he was directly affiliated with. I saw him take plenty of donations for his personal gratification but I saw no such good works, to deserve a commendation from the mayor himself.

In the world of ministry, diploma mills, and fundamentalist Christianity, very few of the pastors have real credentials, and the only value of the credentials they have are not in its intrinsic worth but that others pretend with the minister that they have worth. Money is much the same way. At one point, it had a designated value with respect to either gold or silver. Now, it's value is by fiat, according to common convention, e.g. that we agree it has value and businesses are willing to accept it as a valid object for making transactions. If businesses on the border with Mexico agree that pesos are a legitimate value for exchange, then they will exchange pesos. If fundamentalists agree that paper credentials that in fact are worth less than the paper they are printed on are worth something, then it is by that convention that they are worth something.

If it is agreed that one can pretend to operate homeless shelters and orphanages, although no such facilities exist or have ever existed, then it makes sense how a city government, or worse, the White House (and yes, the individual I was speaking of received recognition from the White House - for nothing), can mail out such letters to single out and distinguish outstanding citizens in the community.

What happens, in my experience, is these letters become just another credential. When no food shelters are found, the formal letter of commendation is drawn out. "See, I did used to operate a food shelter, the mayor even commended me for it!"

Good old Mike.

Professor. Dean of Psychology. Chancelor [sic]. A bachelor, two masters, a Doctorate of Theology, a Ph.D., an honorary doctorate, Executive Director of the National Association of Family and Marriage Counselors.

"One is impressed that he is not simply proud of his accomplishments, he has impressed himself. Every  second of it was enamor and pride with his credentials and it was obnoxious."

And it finally all made sense.

Again, the counseling certificates.

"Each certificate comes with your name and qualifications with a beautiful gold seal signed by our director and executive secretary. These certificates are made for framing and to be placed where your counselee's are able to view." [sic] [bold mine]

[3]. ibid.

Of course, I look forward to hearing from some sycophants that I'm being mean and callous. So for you, I leave you this:

DISCLAIMER: If you pretend to be a doctor and to have accomplishments on your resume that you invented from whole cloth and thin air, then I reserve the right to speak badly about you in public and expose you as a fake.

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Casey Anthony


I have to confess my true belief about this case. I believe Casey was innocent.

I can go back to when I was six years old. The "Trial of the Century", OJ Simpson, on trial for murder.

There was something that bothered me, even when I was a kid about that whole thing. Everyone around me was 100% sure that he was guilty. It was like they were in a frenzy, a whipped up mob. Most six year olds have never heard of a 'mob mentality' or know what it means, and neither did I, but I knew that's what was
happening. Even then, I felt the urge to break ranks with the mob.

Mobs are not led by logic. They lose all sense of logic and reasoning. Nevertheless, they sometimes come to correct conclusions. I came to learn years later, the reason people were so outraged about the Simpson case was he was absolutely guilty, 100% guilty. It made me relook at my belief about mobs and how at six, I could come to sympathize with the man. Inwardly, perhaps reflecting the truth of the ages, that the guilty are sentenced, but the innocent are dissected methodically and finally killed by a frenzied public, it seemed to me the mob no longer had reason at its disposal, and simply wanted blood.

As an adult, I had to become more rigorous in my implementation of logical precepts, I could no longer see  things so simply as I did at six, which perhaps was even wiser than the opinions of almost any of the adults at the time. But I couldn't see things so simply any more. I had to grow.

But my desire to break ranks with the herd and with my peers has grown too. I've come to conclusions in  many well-known cases that put me in the minority.

I defended George Zimmerman.

I defend Amanda Knox. While I will never be sure if she killed Meredith Kercher, I know the court did not  find against her and in America, she would be protected from double jeopardy. I think it would be a mistake to send her back.

Jon-Benet Ramsey... I believe her parents are responsible. I don't know that they killed their daughter, that doesn't make any sense. But it's obvious they know who did kill her and they helped to cover it up.

Casey Anthony. For a long time I can't say I had an opinion one way or the other. But her body language  gave it away for me. Especially at the end of the trial. She seemed not as one suffering at the thought of a guilty verdict, she seemed to be suffering more at the loss of her daughter. I didn't see anything that indicated that she was selfishly concerned about winning her case. Her body language said to me that even if she wins, she's still lost. I saw deep humanity in her. And I think she may know what happened. But I don't find her responsible and I agree with her acquittal. The idea that her partying after... None of us would have reacted in that way, it's hard to imagine a reasonable non-guilty suspect acting in that way. But that we can't imagine something or that it doesn't fit with our experience is no grounds to convict a person.

And that's why our legal system was so much to be praised over that of other society's. I know it was never perfect, but in light of the times in which it practiced, it was to be hailed over all others.

From what I gather, there was no evidence on which to convict Casey Anthony or George Zimmerman. There probably isn't much in the way of evidence to convict Amanda Knox. My belief on the Simpson verdict, it was motivated by race. The black jurors covered for him and he should have been convicted. Nevertheless, Simpson was a fine actor. But his acting didn't merely stop at Hollywood, it continued to murder, and then continued through court proceedings that eventually saw him acquitted.

This is all what some may see as contrary to my conservative values. I tend to vote Republican. Republicans tend to be big promoters of the prison industry. But I take the Constitution of the United States very seriously. It provides protections for those under criminal indictment.. That they are not savagely punished or fined, they are not coerced, that they have adequate representation, and are not unnecessarily delayed, in a fair proceeding tried by their peers.

Those are protections the same way speech, religious liberty, and gun rights are protections.

For a long time liberals seemed to be against the first half of the Bill of Rights but all about the second half.

The conservatives were about the first half but not the second.

It probably seems now that I've made my job to defend murderers and criminals. No, not at all. Edward  Kennedy should have been nailed when he killed Mary Jo Kopechne then tried to cover it up, of and  meanwhile, went home and fell asleep.

I just realized, my opponents call me a legalist.

I defend the

right to use drugs
the right to suicide
the right to gamble
the right to prostitution.

My system gives more rights than any other system I'm aware of. I know of no one who would give people more rights than what I would give.

I do believe murderers should be nailed. But there has to be evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, and nothing less. That means that we can't convict them all, some manage to go free. But it is better than the systems that other nations have that provide no protections for anyone. That's something we have to live with.

Personally, I think Casey Anthony has been put in a terrible position. She's probably at imminent risk of  being killed for the rest of her life, or at least for many years down the road. And I think it's tragic.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Norman Geisler on Subordinationism

Systematic Theology, Volume Two

p. 297


    "This heresy held by Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165) and Origen (c. 185-c. 254) and condemned at the Council of Constantinople (381). It asserts that the Son is subordinate in nature to the Father. Subordinationism is not to be confused with the orthodox belief that the Son (Christ) is functionally subordinate to (i.e., subject to) the Father, though essentially equal with him."


Now this might be authentic and accord with history. One of my major contentions against trinitarianism is that trinitarians have forgot the aspect of functional subordination. They claim, ignorantly, that the Son is equal in authority to the Father, e.g. that He is not functionally subordinate but rather on an equal level in all respects.

Not all believers are called to be prophets and theologians. Nevertheless, many step into the foray of theology and assert essentially orthodox principles but do so imprecisely and without regard to the subtle distinctions that truly make theology a science. The absolute effect of this is that people like me are singled out and selected for abusive treatment by the 'orthodox'. They will bully and kick you out of their synagogues if you do not believe exactly what they say.

As we are on the topic of distinctions, let me add my own distinction: What Geisler records under this subheading may be the actual effect of the Council of Constantinople. However, its practical effect has been to confuse believers even more than they might have been otherwise. They are deeply afraid to assert the functional subordination that is a basic aspect of classical trinitarianism and are suspicious of the salvation of those who do. And even more so, they are openly hostile toward them.

"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." [Matthew 11:30]

Jesus didn't create a faith for intellectuals to lord over the more humble in intellect. He didn't create a faith for theologians to endlessly speculate on and rewrite, so we could have the pleasure of deciding who is and who is not saved and making life unbearable for those we think are not. Christianity should be and still is an accessible faith, as long as the Pharisees get out of the way, and many Christians simply are Pharisees.

"And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." [Matthew 23:12,13]

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

The Evil Voice Inside Us vs. The Prophetic Voice

It seems that when considering the prophetic voice and why some young men are led by it, me being one such young man, it seems that the voice which they are privy toward communicating with is there because another voice is absent.

As an Aspergian, I recall it being discussed that we lack a theory of mind, which I can at least interpret to mean a voice within that communes with you actively to shine light into your interactions. It is by this voice, that some call intuition, but that I want to distinguish from intuition which I esteem as a good thing, that one is led toward appraising the language of another as being truthful, untruthful, sincere, insincere, said with humorous intent, said nefariously, or any other such way a thing can be said.

I should say that this is from some sort of voice, the reasoning voice, even if such voice is unreasonable in itself, that is natural to man, if he does have theory of mind.

But while the Aspergian understands concepts of morality, justice, and nobility, because they lack a theory of mind, or are more naive than most, they are extremely challenged to weigh if the person to whom they are speaking is being truthful or even has their best interests at heart.

Now I want to universalize this observation and talk about the guileless person, who may or may not be  Aspergian. Shortly I will present a hypothetical dialogue that I'm not sure really takes place within anyone but is a subtle process, perhaps understood and with no need to be spoken. It is in the nature. As to what it is, I would say it is the voice of one reasoning with oneself within oneself. I say it is evil, because it is the natural self without any of the filter of civilization. A man cannot really be his natural self as an instrument in civilization, or the civilization would eliminate him as being bent purely on evil. How each man filters this aspect of himself is for him to decide. Some merely restrain themselves; some find religion and are changed from the inside. But certainly the discussion one has with oneself is a very different discussion from any that he has with others, particularly if he is not born again.

But as to these men, they are men who are guileless and are really themselves in civilization, not filtered. What this really means is that, if concerning a noble person, is someone who acts in civilization as one not constrained to act lawfully, he acts morally merely because he is a person whose morality comes naturally, rather than from being constrained to behave morally by society's mores. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have some who act as completely lawless, rebels who are not constrained by any law to filter that part of themselves. The guileless are the most intriguing of all. Their motives are questioned constantly, and are more likely to be suspected of wrongdoing than to be guilty of any wrongdoing.

It is by the mercy of God, that some of these, even prophets, are led by the voice of God rather than that of their own rotten human nature, which somehow they are less in touch with.

A hypothetical discussion of one with oneself as a preliminary to socialization may look like this:

a. Within myself, I know that in communication with others, I am often torn between telling the truth or evasion, or telling a lie.

b. At some times, at least, it seems as if by necessity I must lie.

c. From this, I extrapolate that it is certain that others are motivated by these same natural impulses, I am even certain that at some times I am being lied to, even if I cannot indubitably determine which persons in which cases are lying.

d. But I am certain that at any time, I may be being lied to.

e. And furthermore I am certain that I have been lied to at some time and that at least some of the time some people are lying to me.

f. I feel that I am a noble person motivated by moral considerations and noble qualities.

g. And although I don't esteem myself as really any more noble than anyone else, for I am far too modest to deduce that, I do feel that I am often more motivated by morality than other men, why, because I am a  rationalist.


As fake or unlikely as some of these scenarios may be, there is a transcendent truth to g. One juggles,  actually almost all of us juggle in some way, with feeling to be more intelligent than the next man, more moral than the next man, more ____ than the next man, however it's also maintained that we are more self-restrained, humble, and modest than the next man, less quick to rush to judgment, and every other sort of quality that in this second category seem to invalidate all in the first.

One really can't have it both ways. But because of the malignant inner voice, these seem to be quite reasonable principles. Some are most comfortable when they are behind the wheel. Some are most comfortable calling the shots; so one is also convinced of his own balance and pleasing qualities, and even if he is an urchin among Papuan New Guineans, he is still enamored by number one, even if no one else is.

The prophetic voice... This is a very different communication. It doesn't gather reasoning from the inside but from without. I think it's often with people who lack the first voice and can often be taken in with frauds or deceit. The prophets then are the men that God has the greatest mercy on because if it were not for the guidance of God, then they would not even have a malevolent inner voice to lead them. They would have no intuition, no theory of mind at all.

But for some reason they hear the reasoning of God stronger than they hear their own reason. I think it is a tremendous act of mercy. On one hand, you have people that are so innocent that they will believe anything a deceiver will tell them. On the other, you have people so enamored with themselves and consentaneously suspicious of others that they do not even believe the testimony of the saints. And then you have some among us, prophets who struggled with both, but somehow came to lean on God for their understanding.

I know this because I too am chosen for the prophetic task. I struggled with a rotten voice inside of me,  speaking threats and blasphemy. I struggled with my own naivete and innocence, and being taken by deceivers. But I try to rely on God for insights as much as I can. If I buy a winning lottery ticket, I thank God. When a tasty meal brings tears to my eyes, I thank God. When a breeze lets up on the brutal summer heat, so natural to East Texas, I thank God. And maybe sometimes I don't. I hardly ever say thanks at meals, for when I sit down, that is a moment for me to break from saying thanks. It is so often throughout the day I'm in awe of His work and giving thanks.

Awe itself is thanks. In awe over a new mathematical law you have learned, awe over the contrast of  oppressively hot weather and the sort of cold that leads you to sit by the fire with a hot cider, a musician who has struck angelic chords, a child enamored with a balloon, and all sorts of things that cause you to thank God for having created the world with such moments of perfection, even despite the other instances of unregenerate evil.

But the people have never really believed the God-led. The prophets from the beginning have been brought  to sit in judgment of the conventional wisdom, those truths society holds so dear. They are principles, like geocentrism or phrenology, that in one era are held sacrosanct, in another remembered bitterly and mocked. Think of how so many bitterly remember the legacy of the Church with respect to Galileo. But the prophets, to God's glory, and for strange reason, are commanded by God to go before the people and denounce their cherished notions, and what's more, to become bolder, more obnoxious, and more strident in denouncing them over time! Instead of rehabilitating their image, the prophet is continually brought toward making himself look worse, in the eyes of the political and religious establishment. These are men never censored by the filter of common convention, of law, or society, like the savages we discussed earlier who censor themselves merely to continue being tolerated by society.

They are people who say what they think. It couldn't be that they say what they don't think, or then they  would be telling a lie. But they say things that, at least some of the time, the hearers cannot believe any rational person would think at all. The crowd has to conclude, and with the appearance of seeming logical, that they are liars, connivers, rebels, and dissenters. I don't know why that is. I suppose it is the evil voice that has many convinced that men are liars.

The greatest medicine against lying is to allow a person to say what they feel and what they think, without judgment, without condemnation, without fear of reprisal. But it has also to be reckoned with that we will often be disgruntled by their opinions and that should be met with restraint, or rather than restrain free discourse we should restrain punishing those who speak freely.

The prophetic voice is when the person has conquered their own rotten counsel, or non-counsel, and  submitted with faith to the voice of God.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Religion Makes People 'Experts' and Should Be Viewed With Suspicion

Religion should be viewed with suspicion.

It is the clever venue for charlatans to take the appearance of credibility and honesty to further their swindling enterprise.

It also serves a unique function for the stupid. The stupid, who are not experts in anything, by being given this revelation, can now be experts in something. They now have authority, they have letters after their name (from a degree mill), and they have a shiny badge. Their authority now is so powerful, they can never be questioned. It is instead they are who the geniuses and now everyone else are the stupid ones.

You see that? Now, those same people who have struggled with doubt of their own inferiority and unintelligence, now feel validated! They too are intellectuals and Au contraire! It is those who made them to feel weak always that were the dumb ones! And they are the most clever of all!

So the man of the cloth isn't often the smartest man in the room.. although he may be the least capable.

Christians Are Worse Than Pharisees!

The Pharisees accused him of claiming to be God.

The Christians accuse him of this same blasphemy.

Only Christians are much worse than the Pharisees ever were.

They go even further and say this 'God' character told them to eat bacon.

Even the Pharisees could not dream of such a wicked blasphemy!

You as Christians assign even greater evil to Jesus Christ than the Pharisees ever did.

You say he pretended to be God and he also told us to eat bacon. That is worse than the Pharisees ever  could have imagined.

The Pharisees were not all bad you know. For instance, they believed in very clean dishes, so much so that they thought it would make them even closer to God. They made tithes of mint and cumin, and everyone knows how indispensable those good spices are. By the way, what is cumin?

You see, beyond the hard outer shell of pharisaical hatred, there was a soft gentle soul inside, with cream-filling!

Honestly, I can't say as much for some of you. I see all the trappings of Pharisaical hatred and your theology is just as weak. Like when you project your own fascination with larva-infested meat on to Jesus Christ himself.

That's cool and all, if eating worms is your thing, but don't bring the Messiah into it and tell me that He said it was okay.

Now that is sick.

"But if you cook it to 165.."

Get a clue moron. The larva don't just hop off the meat because it got too hot. They're still there, though  dead. Okay, you're eating worm larvae.

And these aren't the little critters that you pull out of the ground and go fishing with with your grandpa.

These are worms that will suck your blood from inside your body, will implant themselves in your brain, grow to several inches and pass on one of dozens of diseases, that will make your life nearly as miserable as you made that of all those around you, before you die in screeching agony in a hospital room all alone.

"But if you cook it to 165.."


America is Pagan-Christian, Not Judeo-Christian

We were founded by a religiously diverse group of men who believed in natural law. It's clear to me that we are pagan-Christian rather than Judeo-Christian.

It's my view after further study and reflection that there is nothing about this country or its founding that can be described as 'Judeo-Christian', a truly farcical term. This country never shared a heritage of  abstinence from pork or unclean meats, celbrating Passover or other holy days preferring instad to celebrate pagan feasts Ostara and Saturnalia calling it the birth and resurrection of Christ, followed in the tradition of anomian Paulinist faith, and a long-standing tradition of persecution against Jews who, for instance, at elite progressive-minded Northern colleges were discriminated against in admissions until the middle part of the last century.

If you want to be Judeo-Christian, you are going to need a little bit more Judeo in your Christian.

But we cannot have that! NO, the Christians will tell you the Law is a curse, and it is done away with, and that the Old Testament is only secondary in importance to the New Testament.

So stop with this Judeo-Christian lie. This country is more pagan than Judaic or Christian.

Science is a Caricature of Religion and a Hostile Force to Religion

Science has lost all grounding and direction and is merely a caricature of religion and itself.

False research with poor methodology, shrouded in technical language and under color of science is holy  writ,

    the scientists are moral intercessors seeking the 'advancement' of humanity,

    there is no God outside this world but it is certain that there are space aliens,

    and the eternal God manifesting to the world in the form of a man is an insurmountable
    conundrum, but in space there are wormholes by which we can bounce from one galaxy
    to another.

    Life and consciousness arising from an intelligent cause is preposterous! It is clear it
    arose from nothing, instead.

    Man is so insignificant and a little ant, however his gases jeopardize the stability of the
    whole planet.

    The Revelation is false, there is no Apocalypse! global warming, the world is ending!

It has a writ, it has a morality, it has a priestly class, it has an origins myth, it has a myth of intelligent, perhaps vastly intelligent life on another plane in another realm, and finally has an eschatology.

Can we seriously continue designating science what is nothing but a clever satire against religion? The best thing is for science to stick to the facts... of science, and not personal religious speculation.

Pastors... stop trying to sound scientific and 'beat' the scientists. You are not going to beat them at their own game and you're only going to stick your foot in your mouth and make us all look bad. Stick to your speculations... on religion.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

The Seven Spirits of God

Most Christians deny such a thing even exists.

They so deeply desire to prove the trinity of God that they openly revile and decry His seven spirits.

One apostate, Jeanine, and another impostor Mondale, both of whom are among the damned, if I were placing bets, suggest to me that I have misunderstood. They recall Isaiah's seven abiding qualities of God.

But John was the prophet who spoke of that which I speak. But I don't plan on explaining the meaning of  the mystery, mostly because I just don't want to... and you're probably not worthy.

Revelation 1:4

"John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which  was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne..."

Revelation 3:1

"And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead."

Revelation 4:5

"And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God."

Revelation 5:6

"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth."

What are they? Stay tuned for more...

Indecision in the Watchtower Society Over Cardinal Ordinances

Acts 15

The apostles establish four cardinal ordinances for new Gentile converts, "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication..."

One of the cardinal doctrines of the Jehovah's Witness religion comes from this 'blood' provision and they derive from this that one cannot receive blood transfusions.

Yet they also find in Paul's letters Paul's plain teaching of the permissibility of eating meats sacrificed to idols, which Paul outrageously defends, wherewith he undermines the of the ordinances, which he has no right to do.

How can they remain consistent by strongly emphasizing the 'blood' provision and yet denounce the first proposition? It seems that to maintain consistency they must abide by all four laws or dismiss them all.

And how does the Word remain infallible once it's recognized that Paul taught against apostolic counsel in Acts 15?

So clearly, where Paul's teachings are found, so also are errors.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

The Emptiness of Christianity's Folk Intellectuals

The Emptiness of Christianity's Folk Intellectuals, With a highlight on C.S. Lewis

Now, I am, by definition a 'heretic'. I teach doctrines that are a profound departure from historic Christianity, and I'm not changing and I'm not repenting either.

But what I tend to see, what I've experienced in my life, what I've experienced learning about others, is that heretics don't feel their beliefs are in error. They feel they are teaching the truth.

I find there are as many definitions of heresies as there are opinions.

I find there are a few basic points most or all Christians agree constitute heresy.

I find that when a Christan confronts what he finds heretical, he responds in varying degrees of discontent, and they go from coolly replying and critiquing your opinion to absolute violence, and I'm not kidding you. They will get extremely violent if they feel you are not rolling over and just accepting what they say.

Nevertheless, I find Christians collectively identify with the heretics, particularly heretics who resonate with them, and sometimes there is a true reverence for one heretic, held in common by Christians universally.

And while I could be talking about a good number of people, I want to bring especial attention to C.S.  Lewis.

Now of course, we've been inundated with a diversity teachings in our modern era and some have enjoyed wide acceptance.  Various teachers spew one view of prosperity, fairy-tale eschatologies, and hyper-grace election doctrines of salvation. But the one figure I think you all will know immediately to whom I'm referring is C.S. Lewis.

In elementary school and middle school, his epic, The Chronicles of Narnia, were one of the great fantasies that many of the children escaped to. I was also an aficionado of Redwall, though I never read all of them. Some other kids of course were about the Lord of the Rings. As for me, other fantasies I enjoyed were Hugh Lofting's Dr. Doolittle tales and The Secrets of NIMH. I was never a Star Wars or Star Trek geek. On TV, the great fantasy that captured me from 10-14 was Dragon Ball Z.

But enough of that.

C.S. Lewis.

I even picture now what a distinction he holds. Kids who read Tolkien or Jacques or the various other  authors read other authors as adults. That's because those authors wrote children's books.

But C.S. Lewis was different. He wrote a six volume series on the land of Narnia. But he also wrote a  number of adult reads, including several dialogues and allegories. I've known a number of young Christians who read these books voraciously and whose lives and intellects were shaped by his writing and genius.

However, when I looked at his theology, I found him wanting. He was, by all accounts, a radical.

Some of his controversial notions: A person does not have to know Christ to be saved. He appears to  acknowledge that the Communion or the Eucharist imparts salvation to communicants. He appears to advocate evolution. He endorses purgatory. He endorses prayers for the dead. He did not believe in a literal, fiery hell. He didn't consider the stories in the Bible as all literal events, but some contained value as symbols. He taught the ransom theory of salvation.

These are only a few.

Why does this matter to me?

My experience as a heretic showed the emptiness of Christian teaching. I have been asked to leave their  churches, I have been cast out of their churches, I've been banned in absentia, I've been physically assaulted, I've been stared at and mocked. My beliefs were continually put down. I've been lectured to by one after another who had no desire to know what I believed and openly belittled my beliefs when I expressed them. One pastor insulted me on Sunday morning before a church of hundreds. Pastors have lied straight to my face. They've told me to seek psychological counseling. I could go on but I'm appalled just at that much I've finished.

So it's all fake. This whole 'heresy' thing is a canard. It's like saying, "You're black," "You're gay," "You're a Communist." That's all it means, is 'you're bothering me. I don't want to talk to you. I hate you so much I hope you burn in hell. You're a heretic, heretics burn in hell.'

Yet again, the Christian experience is that they hold heretics among them in high esteem, they are enamored with heresy, and certain heretics like C.S. Lewis are held in high universal esteem.

Why do they affirm the wicked? Why do they uphold false teachings? Why are they schismatics and  dissenters?

And why do they crush the good-hearted among them? They chew them up and they spit them out. They rip out their hearts and stomp on them on the ground and then shove them back in. They marry, and they remarry, divorce, and divorce again. They're evildoers and sluts and manwhores, and filthy vultures.


Christians quote C.S. Lewis. But why shouldn't they? It's trendy, everyone does it, and he's made a significant impact on the culture.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

And if it breathes through its mouth, talks incessantly about contradictions like trinities, quotes C.S. Lewis, and blows hot air, it is the modern stupid, profane, and intolerant Christian.

When one actually contrasts Christians' claimed theological pretensions with their folk intellectuals and folk theologians, you see by a wide margin that they prefer heretics, schismatics, and treacherously immoral teachers.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Rain, Rain, Go Away

Droughts and the Judgments of Matthews 24

I want to make a short message for my readers. I want this letter to briefly detail how much times have  changed since I was a kid. And it has to do with the rain. The judgments Jesus predicted often times deal with rainfall to rain. Fires, pestilence, famine. That all could be connected to drought conditions.

So first, a rhyme, that I would hear as a boy, but no longer do children sing this song:

"Rain, rain, Go away, Just come back another day."

As a boy, I remember the Spring rains. Those rains that would ruin recess, which for some was a respite  from the day's lessons, while for others it was a lesson of another sort, a lesson in humility, in being belittled by the bigger and less conscientious children.

But these rains would come and inundate us all day in some cases. It was always calming to work while the  rain beat against the roof of the school.

But too often today, the rain blows out almost as quick as it blows in. We don't see those truly soaking  showers that I remember as a kid.

Nobody sings that rhyme any more.

I am a rare conservative that admits the truth of global climate change. Texas has seen the majority of its brutal summers between 1998-2012. A vivid memory of childhood was the Summer of '98, that was only finally eclipsed by the Summer of 2011. Texas has seen extensive periods of drought. We have 254 counties in our state, some such as Brewster bigger than whole states. In one period of drought in the last few years, I believe we had over 240 counties under burn bans. Lakes have suffered terribly. Small towns have been wiped out when the lake dried up. Texas is one of the prime victims of climate change. Do I think there is an unequivocal warming trend in all places on earth? I don't think so. But there are certainly regions that are bearing a huge burden due to climactic change.

Be it from global warming or not, this is a sign of the end of the age.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

California Shooting and Autism

This past weekend, there was a very wicked crime committed, a drive-by killing three, and an earlier execution of three individuals after them being lured into the home of the killer. Finally, the suspect kills himself.

Reports are indicating that he was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome.

What's particularly bothering to me about this story is how we've seen the media abstract a large group of people in a unidimensional way, that sustains an image of that group as being particularly depraved or violent. Gun owners are one popular bogeyman in the media. Others, the 'abortion clinic bombings' are supposed to make us afraid of the average Christian and small business owner.

I'm afraid that what the media wants to do is make people like me look like evil people. I have the Asperger syndrome. I don't want scrutiny focused on us because we are not malevolent and we are not killers. But I still must tell you what we are and it will make some of you uncomfortable.

This young man behind these six murders, complained bitterly that one catalyst to his fascination with mass murder, and an inspiration for his attack, was that women had not found him desirable, he was a 22-yr
old virgin.

That's probably difficult for most young people, answering the question of virginity. When to lose it, who to lose it with.. why you haven't lost it, whether you will lose it at all.

Do I fault this child, who I feel incapable of calling a man since his emotional level seems so immature, from feeling hurt? Not at all. I am 25-years old and I have never had sex, and from a biological standpoint that is a difficult thing to accomplish because every life has a basic need to propagate itself and it is deeply contrary to nature to not do so. Socially speaking, it bothers me but it does not bother me, because I eventually came to recognize the truth about society.

The truth is this young man shouldn't have been put in a position where he felt unwanted. The truth is when society embarked on its quest to legitimize and glorify promiscuity, loose sexual conduct, but even going beyond this, to belittle anyone who had an antithetical notion or who from either choice or physical disability did not have sex, and to make these children feel unequal and shunned by their peers, that was the true error.

The true error was that it ever became a question of singlehood and virginity. The error was that society tacked on such a high value to "the sexual revolution that wasn't", that it led this man to kill six people.

Somehow, I don't find him the monster that everyone else wants to make him. I resonate with his experience.

Years Ago

Years ago, I'd post at WrongPlanet, I'd talk to people there and it was very similar to salvia divinorum.  People would post their experiences smoking salvia and I myself had some wild trips, so wild they would  say, "Guffaw.. You haven't smoked salvia. You don't know what you're talking about." It was a lot like that. "You don't have Aspergers.. you probably just self-diagnosed(1), you probably just read a couple articles about it, blah blah."

(1) This is when you know you're deep in autistic territory, it being one of their catchwords. For instance, some people are nerds AND autistic, and a lot of their nerdiness emanates as a quality of their autism. On the other hand, some kids are just nerds and losers and could only hope to be autistic to explain away their obvious difficulties, and perhaps to give them something to talk about to make them seem clever, since obviously they are so boring most of the time no one wants to be around them. Therefore, it has become trendy among some to claim to have Asperger's syndrome.

I shared on a few internet forum about the autistics. In my estimation, they're some of the gentlest souls, and also the most dark and callous.

(If the truth be known, they are probably more than self-satisfied to eat a whole large pizza, while thinking about an African child eating a small bag of rice all week.)

The Aspergians are a judgment*. We are a judgment on our families and a judgment on society. We hate your society and we want it to burn. The reason we hate it is simple: It is not equitable, it is unjust, its complete disregard for life of all forms, it's a machine dedicated to crushing people. All we see is coldness. Our families are cold, as children growing up our schoolmates are cold, we're adults and the world gets colder.

*If you want to know why, please write.

Some of the Aspergians are prophets and some of them are anti-christs. Some are both but at different times while others don't know what they are, still deciding what they are.

Do I think they want blood? I think a lot of them really do. I think justice and punishment is something many of them think about regularly. I say this from my examination of history including one of its most notorious persons and what I've come to find from personal experience.

Why would they want blood? Listen to what the world says about them. They lack 'empathy'. Defective  'genes'. A strain on parents. 'Demon-possessed'. Lack a 'theory of mind'. 'Lone wolves'. 'Doesn't play well  with other kids'.

That's something very strange, I've never found us short on empathy. But we don't feel sorry in general for  humans. We identify with victims, particularly those victimized as innocents, the animals, and for a few of  us, who have known deep sadness from our journeys on this earth, we consider ourselves as victims, at the  hands of the society. What this young man suffered at the hands of the planet led him to do this evil work.


Some of you are going to be really disturbed by the connection being made. But Hitler had notable autistic  features, particularly on the order of what we now denote as Asperger syndrome (AS) but also may be thought of as high-functioning autism, which medically designates a level of impairment beyond that of AS but to the ordinary layman is apprehended more readily than the AS label.

What do we know about Hitler?

We know as a boy he was withdrawn. He suffered particular pain when he realized he couldn't be a  professional painter and felt belittled by people in his life. He suffered from some sort of stress that gave rise to a life-long bad excretory system, which may in itself be evidence of the so-called autistic enterocolitis. You even see in his speeches that he wasn't just speaking as a passionate orator, but as someone who came from another world, a fantasy he had fashioned for himself, and was moved to speak about.

Given an absence of an appropriate social interaction, stereotypy, "lack of social or emotional reciprocity," and the fantasy he had constructed for himself, these are prima facie indicators of developmental disorder, particularly Asperger syndrome.

It's commonly thought that the Aspergians are dramatically impaired in their communication skills and this  doesn't comport to the view of Hitler as a skilled public speaker. I would say that where we see with the  Auties that they are abnormally, prodigiously even, gifted in one or several, but usually one special skill, sometimes obscurantist and bizarre even, it seemed Hitler's great skill was with eloquence and communicating his mind. This should actually be understood as a facet of autism, rather than a discrepant factor.

The notable dedication to systems

Certainly there is an obsessive component to the autism spectrum. Many kids with the disorder need constant rehearsal of the day's agenda from one or either parent, so that he has a clear itinerary drawn up in his mind. If, at the spur of the moment, a plan is cancelled, additional plans are made, or an appointed time
is set back, the child becomes indignant and outraged. He can't contemplate a world without order, a world
without known variables.

For foods, he often will eat the same meals. He eats them repetitively and draws more or less the same  satisfaction from each one, certain foods never getting old. His family considers him the picky eater and  he probably suffers extreme anxiety by the shapes, colors, or proximity of certain foods, probably so much so that he won't even want others at his table to eat them, but because of his altruism and liberalism, he doesn't go so far in making THAT request.

In his school, he needs clearly defined goals. There's no project that can be open-ended and he probably  can't function to the level to where he can participate in a group project. Nevertheless, he works to the best of his ability when group projects are assigned and meanwhile struggles to complete work with the competition between work loads, demands for organization skills, and perceived ridicule from classmates.

And I should note that is sometimes being super-conscious of oneself and feeling looked at when you're really not, but in a lot of ways it is real. Autistics are known a lot of times to walk with an abnormal gait and much more regularly have a serious deficit in motor skills and hand eye coordination. I for instance have never excelled at sports and cannot use eating utensils well. Given that some of these children are aware that they walk differently, are naturally awkward and clumsy, and other features that make them stick out from other kids, their fear that they're being looked at and judged is not really a mistaken notion, in most cases.

But order...

The overriding theme in every sector of his life is he expects things done in a certain way, every day, without any variation. He doesn't just want things done on his terms; rather, if they are done on your terms, then it should still be the same way, every day.

His life is ordered by systems, rituals, rules, and obsessions.
And for many, and I think Aspergians are naturally among the most altruistic people on earth, they also  acquire their view of justice and morality in the same rigorous, organized, systematic way.

They cannot fathom immorality as a choice and there must be at least some moral capital in every decision  they make. They can't merely make a choice to do something because it serves an immediate pleasure  interest, but it must also be done within the constraints of their systems.

To them, morality is a system unto itself, and every system holds some things, in the first set, as absolute standards, while in the second set, it holds absolute penalties for a violation of those standards.

This is how the Autie sense of justice must be understood.

Many of them are going to sympathize with the Egyptian statute upholding the death penalty for someone who brings suffering on a cat. In this way, they simply appraise life, and varieties of life, in different ways. Causing suffering to an animal or to a human is not distinguished in a conventional way.

They also consider many other 'crimes' and 'sins' worthy of death. A drunk person who crashes their car and kills himself merely got 'what he deserved and even better that he did not kill anyone in the meanwhile.'

They see a story, 'Man kills girlfriend after she tells him she has HIV' and they appraise this as being a very fair action. For if someone has recklessly endangered the life of one, and by this very fact is shown to have the proclivity to disregard the health of others, then whether they're locked in solitary or murdered really makes no appreciable difference on the society. So long as the menace is contained.

Their systems further give rise to the need to topple entire industry, societies, and governments. Because the great deal of societies and industry are not justly and equitably administered, then they should be destroyed and replaced by systems that do uphold justice, those expectations held in common by society.

What the man did and what he didn't do and what he should have done

Because of the state of singlehood as a sexual distinction among men, and that it simply has never been  accepted and never will be accepted in the same way that heterosexuality, homosexuality, and transsexuality, are applauded, then it at least made sense to this boy at that time to commit the murders he did.

He lived in a much darker place (California) than I ever did. There was probably no way to reach him with  remedial faith-based help to show him the light of the Way.

Sadly, he was a circumstance who turned nine innocent people into victims. He was a circumstance to the  ridicule of society that says, "We will accept man-woman, we will accept man-man, we will accept man-horse! We will not accept virginity! You will never be equal to us!"

He was brought up in a society that defines satisfaction in life by relationships, marriage, starting a family, and most importantly, sex. Those are the essential things people want in life, other than a satisfying career. He didn't have those things and that is the lie of society I discussed. This is a Western concept. Globally this isn't how most people lived. He bought into the lie and, while I used to, I don't anymore.

I've seen people online try to belittle the 'virginity' even in his death. They say he was just a baby, he shouldn't have been so sensitive.. or in other words, he should have had a better reason for killing people.

Just go ahead and say what you mean, say what you really think. You think that is a terrible reason to kill people.

And I'm saying that's still a -phobic statement, and is phobic whether it's said towards gays, the different races, or toward the single.

And I have to ask, What is a good reason for killing people? I don't think this is a 'good' reason to kill someone. I don't think there is a 'good' reason for killing someone and I don't know how to begin saying whether this one was better or worse than others. I don't know. But I at least sympathize with him not in what he did, but in what was probably for him an incredibly difficult childhood. If he had to suffer what I suffered, then it probably made every bit of sense to him to do what he did at the time.

And finally, some of you will wonder what do I think of Hitler. I'm sickened at what they did to that man. Children are not born like that. They are made into sociopaths and killers. Anyone who could do a thing like Hitler probably knew profound suffering and the standard Hitler-was-a-monster myth doesn't cut it. And obviously he was a monster. History doesn't indicate for us what happened but someone did something to Hitler when he was young and all he could think to do after that was to KILL.

Monday, May 26, 2014

The Ineffable Interconnectedness of All Things

In all the law, we find over 600 commandments.

The Christians ponder about how so many laws can be held at the same time.

Yet God slowly, but timely, offered discipline and correction against me. He sent me spinning, He made me fear something like a sword of Damocles over my head. I held my head low for a very long time and even to  this day I have trouble looking up while praying. Sometimes I look high up to heaven to speak to God face  to face, but then I am overpowered and my head falls back down without the power to go up.

God showed me the wrongfulness of eating pork and unclean meats. One of the big ones here in East Texas is catfish. My grandfather cooks it good but otherwise I don't like it *so* much. But I quit eating ribs, and catfish, and breakfast biscuits, and pepperoni pizzas and all those things.

God showed me that to drink water is also a blessing to the body. To remove yourself from the energy drinks, sports drinks, and basically anything with sugar.

He basically showed there is a morality to good health. Moral people take care of their bodies. It's not what makes them moral, but it's an outgrowth of their moralness, that they take good care of their bodies.

I quit smoking and I quit drinking. I walked more. I felt better.

I continued studying this Law and I came to understand the fabric, the ineffable interconnectedness of all things.

This is a profound doctrine, and obvious that because it posits such an interconnectedness, this very theory itself applies to all things. I want to show in this letter just a few ways in which it applies.


This fabric, the thread that weaves between one dispensation of time to another, one dispensation of our lives to another, even down from one day to another, is so hidden and mysterious, many have failed to see it.

What I was witnessing as I gradually took on certain aspects of the Law to accord with, I was seeing that these are interconnected things.

Suppose we take a man, a man who for the sake of my letter is merely a fiction, but an illustration of the point.

The man finds himself famished. He has quite his fill of pork. He becomes indigested and has to take a puff off a cigarette. His various biles and humors become admixed and then has to solicit the services of a prostitute for relief. The following day the various offsets, distortions and scenarios of the previous day lead him to heavy drinking, to 'blow steam off'.

You see with this man, the various circumstances give rise to a set of future and concurrent circumstances that continually goad the man into deeper and deeper bondage and wickedness.

Whereas the holy man eats a robust diet, has healthy bowel movements, a good metabolism, enjoys what he has, never thinking that he has been shorted by not having more, but rather praising holy God, for that of which he does have.


We see the interconnectedness on various other levels.

The Bible suggests there are times of revival and outpouring, Joel 2, Acts 2, even behind John the Baptist revival was stirring.

Likewise there were times of darkness, where the love of many would wax cold, where there would be a great falling away, a time when all the priests and prophets in the land were disposed toward wickedness.


I have long thought there is even such a relationship in voting. You see, some say that 'every vote counts' while others take quite serious objection to this doctrine and say that 'none of your votes count. Diebold.  Derp.'

But I suppose that when I go to vote, there are a lot of people that are going to vote too, who like me often do not go. Am I making people go vote by psychic powers?                                               

                                                                 do do do do do do do do

Pssh. I wish. I wish I could make only libertarians go vote and everyone else just stay home.

But no. I think there is something rather simple at work here. I think in the election with really high voter turnout, where citizens who typically do not vote turn up at polls, they're probably being enticed to vote for deeply polarizing issues such as when a race becomes deeply personal to the voters and they're there for the same reason I am.

Certain issues capture the attention of the electorate, and whatever attribute or quality they all share, we see there are some things so controversial put up for a referendum that EVERYONE must have their say.

So even that I see this same thread operating in.


I believe this theory holds truth to some very serious matters as well.


What happens post-abortion?

Women who have had abortions are more likely to die within the first year afterward than those who have not had an abortion.

They are more likely to commit suicide.

They are more likely to develop breast cancer.

And they are more likely to suffer from mental illness.

These are the consequences that women have reaped on themselves. They aren't exactly those that the women choose; these are merely the hidden consequences of making a decision to kill your own child.

But there is the interrelatedness.

When you look at minority races.. I've heard many blacks who say "they've" destroyed the family, the government, the wolf, etc. And I agreed with them. Yes, the devil has come against the black family. But the black woman has come harder against the black family than the devil. In many cities across this nation, the womb is the most dangerous place for a black child to be. Black women nowadays are as likely to abort their fetuses as they are to keep them.

Is there an interconnectedness here? I believe so. The fruit of your womb is laid fallow, the seed in the time of harvest bears no fruit, a cycle of poverty, joblessness, and hate sets in. Endless slumps with only short interludes as respites become the norm for many black middle adults, troubled to find a career and a place where they can thrive and succeed.


And the orphans, the liberals say. No one is going to adopt these kids. Why not just abort them, have mercy on the children.

Is there mercy in that? Ask those around you who you know had a hard childhood. Ask them, ask yourself, from your mouth to your heart. Was there anything that made you suffer so much that like Job, you cursed the very day in which you were born? Did you ever think that you might have been as well to have been terminated? I know the answer is no.

But why will they not be adopted? I have to say the culture of abortion and depreciation of life has as much to do with it as anything else. I see a world where there are so many children that society embarks on a cooperative endeavor and says, "We are going to do right for these kids. We're going to give them a chance." In our day, I see men who not only feel no responsibility to another's man child, but even their own children they feel no responsibility toward, but I see a world to replace it, where like the lowland gorilla or the elephant, every man sees a communal stake in all children. Like St. Thomas, who one man thought he saw in vision ministering to the souls of the aborted in the next realm, all of whom were grown in full splendor, as young men and young women, and some saying that in heaven we are all about 30 years of age and in good shape, we will see these kids in full splendor, in need of love and care, like this symbolic St. Thomas offers the children.

Why do we not see that? One of the reasons is the culture of death, of abortion, and nihilism.

We don't see it because of this indubitable, ineffable interconnectedness of all things.

Paul is Irrelevant

Paul is irrelevant.

His own teachings bear out how irrelevant he is. He says everything was fulfilled in Christ. If that was the case, then why do we need Paul? He said he speaks as a fool. I'd suggest he shut his stupid mouth then and let Jesus do the talking, and incidentally for the second largest writer in the New Testament, I have only been able to find two places where he quotes Jesus. Is this the gospel of Jesus Christ or of Paul here? Paul does not falter even on this question. He says clearly, 

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,  according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began..." [Romans 16:25]

He makes the perfect case against himself.

I've never quite noticed... The common response says the 'my' here doesn't function as personally possessive with respect to Paul, but refers to the Gospel broadly. It gets a little creepty when you notice he refers to 'my gospel' but with respect to Christ, he only says Christ's 'preaching'. It almost seems that he's trying to minimalize Christ's role in redemption.

But I'm afraid the bad news does not stop there. What does he mean when he says 'kept secret since the  world began'? Is it a secret even today or has it already been revealed?

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen..." [Galatians 1:15,16]

In Paul's mind, the terminal point in God's redemption of man is not in the person of Christ, but rather, God "called [Paul] by his grace, to reveal the Son in [him]."

My, my. This is pretty deep stuff.

Seriously, the greatest apostle of a religion quotes the founder on two occasions in nearly a hundred pages of ramblings, saying he boasts of this and that, he boasts he's the greatest of the apostles and that the apostles Jesus selected were nothing to him and only thought they were something but weren't.

In Galatians 2, he pulls no punches. He makes clear that there is a false leadership in Jerusalem, led by Peter and James and he defies it.

"But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me... And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. [Galatians 2:6,9]

In Paul's books, the leader of the entire church is only a 'something', a 'somewhat', a pretended 'pillar'. They 'added nothing to me'. This is mutiny. At the least it's tacky and it's definitely gossip.

He's so great, they added nothing to him. You might say, Oh, the symbols, this is all metaphor, you must read so carefully! Okay, let's try that for a second. Let's see what else Sha'ul has to say.

"For I suppose that I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." [2 Corinthians 11:5]

MY GOD. Okay, so maybe I would go along with the whole, it's all a metaphor, don't take it so seriously.  But how clear do you have to get to see that he is a seditionist, a mutineer, an infiltrator? Did he ever offer approval to the apostolic ministry?

"But Peter... I withstood him to his face."

You see, he did not gently lay criticism upon the Apostle. He didn't take him into the side in quiet like Jesus said in Matthew 17.

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone..." [Matthew 18:15]

Rather what Paul does is to maliciously slander Peter and to go to the third recourse for selfish gain.

Jesus went on to say about the second recourse, "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." [Matthew 18:16]

And then and only then, "...if he shall neglect to hear [even] them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." [Matthew 18:17]

By going to the third recourse, he snipes at the authority of Peter to suggest that Peter is subject to Paul rather than the other way around.

It also very cleverly takes advantage of Peter's character weaknesses. Anyone who is familiar with Peter's history, as we as witnesses are, know that Peter had quite some crises to deal with in his character. For Paul to gin up a controversy when there is none actually tends to take in most witnesses, who see this as just another personal failing of Peter.

Paul is not merely a snake. He is an incredibly slick snake.

Here in this same chapter, he continues in this line of preposterous blasphemies:

"As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia." [2 Corinthians 11:10]

This is so bizarre, in that elsewhere he notes the 'Mediator, the man Christ Jesus'. Can even this holy man  Jesus stop Paul in his blasphemous crimes? It seems He did not stop Paul.

He says people must accept his revelation that God's revelation in the Torah is expired and is a curse to be done away with. He says on circumcision, he disagrees with circumcision and says his opponents should go
all the way and cut their whole penises off.

Let's play a little game. Who said the following:

"Cut your penis off!"

Charles Manson.. or.. the Apostle Paul?
 The correct answer is: Paul!
  ("Brothers and sisters, if I’m still preaching circumcision, why am I still being harassed? In that case, the offense of the cross would be canceled. I wish that the ones who are upsetting you would castrate themselves!" Galatians 5:11,12 CEB)

"I gave him over to Satan."

Charles Manson.. or.. the Apostle Paul? 

The correct answer is: Paul!
 (I have delivered [Hymeneaus and Alexander] over to Satan... 1 Timothy 1:20)

Who said the following?

"Do you feel blame? Are you mad? Uh, do you feel like wolf kabob Roth vantage? Gefrannis booj pooch boo jujube; bear-ramage. Jigiji geeji geeja geeble Google. Begep flagaggle vaggle veditch-waggle bagga?"

Ooh.. this is a tough one.

The correct answer is: Paul! oh wait, hold up a sec. I got my notes mixed up.

The correct answer is: Charles Manson!

This 'Paul' character, or should I say Sha'ul, speaks as one possessed and is guilty of what he says for everyone else. He only thinks he is something. He has added nothing but confusion to this "Christian" church. He says he teaches Christ? The man has taught against God and His laws and Paul will be damned to hell for his lies.