Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Biblical Meteorology

Biblical Meteorology

Meteorology as a science, what with computers and the high technology that mostly developed for us out of the last couple generations, is an advanced field that is valuable in informing us of changing weather patterns and helping us be prepared for the weather of the next many days. It might be easy to think that man hadn't made any observations as to weather and its effects in the ancient world. What I want to explore here is what the Bible tells us about meteorology. What does the Bible affirm about meteorology? Does it tell us about the weather of the time, the variety of weather, strange weather events, or does it even make prophecies for the weather in the future, perhaps in our day?

I would like to introduce to readers here something they are likely unfamiliar with. That the Bible does make many references to weather, describing God's manipulation of it, how weather can be used as a weapon against apostates, strange weather occurrences, and to conclude with a note drawing attention to what the Bible tells us we can expect in our own day in the changing climates.


Was there a rudimentary system, an awareness, an expectation, of certain weather patterns?

A. In Joel 2:23, the author makes note of the LORD, who hath "given you the former rain moderately, and [Who] will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the first month." The ancients had taken note for the benefit of the crops at what time of the year the rain was most prevalent. They understood from the weather patterns what to expect in terms of what to plant and when to plant it, and had an extensive system of crops which were planted at different points in the year. The reliance that the rain would come at the time that it was appointed was important to the entire system, more so than it is today. Today, surpluses make money, and shortfalls in harvest mean that more trade is done with farmers in other parts of the country, in neighboring nations or overseas. In the ancient times, famine was an unforgiving catastrophe that decimated populations. Today, in the developed world, we do not know hunger at all, except a small number at the very bottom. These are two major discrepancies of the world we live in today versus the world as it once was. So God made clear to His people Israel, that if they did not obey His commandments and ordinances, He would conspire through weather to bring judgment and death against them.

B. "But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out... The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed..." [Deuteronomy 28:15-19,24] God threatened the nation that if they did not hearken to His command, He would send drought and famine against them.

C. Meteorology, as a science, of course, is most helpful to us in terms of what it tells us not only about that that we have observed, but also that that we can expect. It is the predictive aspect that will tell us when to expect a hard freeze, a torrential downpour, a snow. So far as I know, there is one small discourse on the predictive component of meteorology and it was a facetious response Jesus made to the Pharisees and Sadducees. They said if He were a prophet, then He could show them a sign from heaven. Jesus, who was never challenged by their questions as much as He was irritated says,

"When it is evening ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas."

Whatever else was known about predicting weather patterns apparently was not discussed, likely because the Bible was never intended to be a scientific document or make scientifically precise pronouncements. We see often throughout history when the Bible was used by zealots as a manual of science, it had disastrous effects, resulting in persecution of true believers and scientists, and at some points withheld the advancement of science. I personally sympathize with the idea that the Bible is correct in its scientific observations, but I'm at odds with how to interpret it. The Bible is not designed to be a scientific explanation of anything, but only a recollection of the actions of God versus His creation and the history of the creation and His people. It is a theological document, a historical document, you might say a sociological document or an anthropological document. It has been useful to archeology, to cartography, and in terms of its cultural insights. But it is not a scientific document. It is folly to try to adapt a scientific model based on the short list of points it does raise.


Climate Change

Is it man-made?

Throughout the Bible we find descriptions of weather, and we see this in more places than I'm going to enumerate, and many of them have to do with rain and holding back the rain and so forth, but even a few peculiar instances are recorded in the Bible.

D. God is in control of not only the rain, but also the snow.

"For he saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth; likewise to the small rain, and to the great rain of his strength... Out of the south cometh the whirlwind: and cold out of the north. By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is strengthened." [Job 37:6,9,10]

This is a most unusual of circumstances. Snow is very rare in the Middle East, or so I have been taught. Nevertheless, Jerusalem and much of Israel have seen a couple occasions of snow just in the last couple years, one of them even being a substantial storm leaving nearly a foot of snow in places just this year. It might have been in those days it was much more common, or it may have been in the region of Uz, where Job lived.

Whatever may be said as to scientific veracity or the state of knowledge of meteorology at the time, God told us through His word that He was in full control. Whether or not 'global warming' or 'climate change' is an accurate assessment of weather patterns at this time, the Bible has one basic guiding principle: God is in total control. It is not man-made, unless you mean that because of our wickedness God has altered our climate.

E. The second strange scenario... Unheard of giant hail.

"And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great." [Revelation 16:21]

Science, I believe, has said emphatically that in theory, a hailstone of this size is not a physical possibility. I also believe I have read that the largest stones known until now were only a matter a couple dozen ounces, far short of even a stone (fourteen pounds). Whether John is forecasting a collision with a body of meteors, such as the Perseids or Leonids, or however it exactly plays out, but that something celestial impacts the earth in a particular region or regions, and are of such an enormous size that they hit the earth in a mass the size of a teenager, I think for all intents and purposes that will fulfill the prophecy. I generally am a literalist but this is a real case of a very unlikely literal application and a compelling demonstration of how a secondary understanding of 'hail' here could have a real fulfillment in a collision of a body of meteors.

F. The consummation... Jesus said that He should be baptized by John because it 'becometh us to fulfill all righteousness...' [Matthew 3:15] He taught us how the Law was fulfilled in Him. And one of the ways this was established was on the raging waters of the Sea of Galilee. The disciples came crying, "Master, carest not thou that we perish? And he arose and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased and there was a great calm. And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? And they feared exceedingly, and said to one another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" [from Mark 4:38-41]

In this moment, there was a consummation of the Law and Prophets and an affirmation of Jesus' ministry. Where the Law and Prophets had established God's ultimate supremacy over weather patterns, Jesus establishes the credibility of these provisions, and even of all of the Law. It was merely a reflection both back to the Law and to Him. Much of the Bible is set in terms of shadows, precursors, shades, foreshadowing, symbols, reflections, and prophesying. This story is no different.



We have discussed a variety of areas of meteorology, that the ancients had a rubric of prediction, plotted agricultural cycles based on weather predictions, that they recorded unusual weather phenomena, and yet to be discussed is what the Bible tells us about weather in our generation. The Bible makes several astonishing claims of what to expect in our time that are not popular with Christians, and obviously not with the science sect.

G. The terrific weather events prophesied to occur at the end of the age... "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." [Matthew 24:7] These are rooted in climate. When the sky shuts itself up and does not rain, this destroys all cycles. The earth withers and dries up, the land stops bearing fruit and grain, wildfires burn up the dry heap, people hunger, famines spread, disease occurs as a consequence of bad nutrition and polluted water.

Earthquakes... I am from East Texas and in the last couple years, we have oddly had a couple ~3 and ~4 magnitude earthquakes. We have had many small shocks although not exactly in the town I live. But in the broader region, it has happened in the recent past. This is something that is happening on a widespread level, earthquakes in DIVERSE places, places where they are not meant to occur. With great devastation, they have struck in our time, history-making quakes most recently in Japan, which have spilled untold amounts of radiation into the Pacific; in Haiti, killing perhaps as many as 300,000+; and in the Pacific region which on December 26, 2004, took, according to some estimates, as many as 280,000 lives. Earthquakes in just the last ten years have been responsible for a number of deaths that is simply unimaginable. When the radiation has realized its effects, the toll of Japan will be horrific. How many of these people did not know the Lord? And how many did not know the Lord because the Christians around them did not perform their duty to that people and tell them about the Lord?

H. Global warming... That pesky issue that the conservatives are possessed over disproving, the liberals are possessed with taking this as an excuse to supersede national governments and install a centrally-run system of taxation and global governance. The irreligious hound the Christians who they esteem as being anti-science and fundamentalists, the Christians esteeming them as being anti-religious and blind devotees to science, which publish false data to support an unlikely theory.

I for one am happy that they are both mistaken. The Bible warned us of climate change (global warming) taking place just before the time of the end. If there is global warming, then the Christians are incorrect because it is not a lie, although that doesn't mean scientists are not being dishonest about their findings. As to the science sect, they are mistaken as well, because the very hypothesis they are suggesting is in affirmation of a document that they are staunchly opposed to and that speaks for a religion they hate. It is a case of an absurd political demonstration, the liberals racing to embrace biblical doctrine yet saying how they hate it, the Christians rushing to distance themselves from the doctrine, while claiming they adore it. It's baffling to me how people can so blindly adopt whatever belief that their party leaders tell them to adopt.

Among the judgments meted out against the wicked inhabitants of the earth at the time of the end is the fourth vial.

"And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory." [Revelation 16:8,9]

Obviously, the global warming hypothesis has nothing to do with the sun reaching its terminal phase of life or some terrible solar system-destroying calamity, but where we can see the 'sun' here is being viewed as the heat source, the life-giving source, then it makes more sense in a first century writing to describe a period of unprecedented summer as being a judgment on the sun. It could not be intimated in any logical manner the relationship of ozone or of its depletion in the atmosphere. Again, this is a demonstration of why the Bible shouldn't be afforded a scientific legitimacy. However, it does make statements as to science, but not with a scientific rigor or any methodical way It simply reflects phenomena in the language of the common man, meant to be read and consumed by the common man, not as a scientific text but as a recording of God's word to His people, both of history and of timeless morals and teaching.

That global warming is a reality, or is tending that way, is given. The full way in which it plays out will uncover itself as time marches on.

If some regions are experiencing record winters, then I would offer this: Jesus warned, "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day..." [Matthew 24:20] I've always personally considered this statement odd given how the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern climates are not at all cold. Could this be a tacit prediction that the weather pattern in that day will be coupled with extreme heat and extreme cold? That is where I have been leaning. It is not without scientific merit. The extreme heat in the Southern hemisphere can now be explained to have responsibility in the record winters happening in the North. Likewise, the Northern hemisphere may be having a summer of extreme heat just months after record-shattering cold, and this may be inciting extreme cold in the Southern hemisphere. Ergo, extreme heat and extreme cold.


The preceding was a message on biblical meteorology.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Elijah the Tishbite and Ariel Sharon

Elijah the Tishbite

This is a man who in our modern era who has claimed he is one of the two witnesses. He's been around for a long time and he's probably pretty old by now. He used to "minister" in Israel up until he was kicked out of the country. So supposedly the tribulation can't start until he's able to return to Israel.

It was several years ago he claimed through his 'scribe' that Ariel Sharon would wake up from his coma and would overturn the ban against him from entering. Ariel just died a couple days ago. I personally never believed the guy but I had a friend who somehow years ago was able to get him on the phone and talked with him. He said he had problems with Elijah too but "God" "told" him to not speak against Elijah. But knowing some of the other crap this "God" character told this creep I don't know if I should believe it.

As for "Elijah" he's getting older and older and he's still not welcome in Israel. I'm not making fun.. maybe I'm wrong about all this. I just don't get how he said Ariel Sharon would wake up as a miracle to the Jews and now he's dead. Even when I first read this, and it's been as many as six years ago I saw it, I didn't believe it. We knew Ariel was toast a long time ago. I don't know how anyone could have reasonably believed he would wake up.

The above I could not link to online.. but here is what I found from 2010... not as old as the article I read. The story apparently changed since I last read about it.


"To everyone's surprise, more so his doctors, when Ariel Sharon awakens, he will witness a great noise of rockets hitting nearby and the screams of the people dying all around him. There will be so many bodies on the ground that there will not be enough ambulances to gather them up.

"He will remember what I had told him was the truth about what would happen if he allows the Gaza strip to be given up."

This seems really mean spirited. It has nothing to do with the righteous anger of the LORD we see in the Books of Jeremiah or Ezekiel. It seems like a guy who couldn't control himself ended up getting banned from the country, and is still pissed off about it. He pretends he can vicariously make threats in the name of the LORD and that the LORD will fulfil his evil threats.

He says he is "Yahweh's Servant Prophet" and "G-d's Servant". There's nothing wrong with serving God but these two phrasings suggest a peculiarity or possessiveness to the title. By referring to yourself as "God's Prophet," you are suggesting either you are the ONLY prophet of God, or else, out of the many prophets you are the most EXALTED. It sounds like you're saying you are God's only prophet, most important prophet, or favorite prophet. Of course, there are many prophets on the earth today and my guess is they don't use phrases that distinguish themselves in a way these designations do.

Aside from that, I can't profess to have read anything else from him. At www.godlikeproductions.com (please avoid unless you want spyware/adware downloaded without warning on your computer... aside from that it's one of the greatest sites I've ever enjoyed reading) a man identifying himself as the Scribe to the Prophet Elijah posted his messages there on his behalf. I suppose I read a couple but nothing I can remember. I'm sure he taught a lot of nice thoughtful things. I'm also sure he taught a lot of crap as well. But Voltaire said the same of Descartes, while thinkers concerned with logic look down on Aristotle as being outdated and unnecessary, and all I'm saying is this Tishbite character probably said some interesting things, but he also said a lot of crap.

My opinion is he's a complete fraud.

Friday, January 10, 2014

Less than ten years before total societal collapse

I said we have less than ten years as a society before we see total collapse. If I want to push the envelope a little farther, I'll say less than five years. Ten years is far too optimistic according to my projections and mathematical studies into the probabilities of the arrival of the Apocalypse. Let me give you two alternatives though so we can define what absurdness really appears as today in society.

Joe Biden is 'a leading statesman of his time'

This quote is more likely to be made on:

a) Saturday Night Live

b) An alternate reality

c) The unadulterated opinion of Vermin Supreme

d) a White House press release


The answer, shockingly is D. If you guessed any of the above, that's probably what I would have said too.

Second only to Hillary right?

Luckily, the Democratic party isn't filled with total racists like these two dolts.

They've got Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, David Duke, Bull Connor, and George Wallace to balance things out.


Part II

Hide your wife and kids... it's a terrorist... and he's armed with a... an arm.


"An Oklahoma State representative introduced a bill this week that would see protections put into place to prevent schools from punishing students who bring with them small toy guns, or objects resembling or depicting guns.

"A spate of incidents in the last year in schools across the country has led to children being suspended or expelled for such ludicrous things as biting food into the shape of a gun, or simply using their hands to make a gun gesture."

One of the things this law looks to ban is teachers punishing children for "Using a finger or hand to simulate a weapon."


I want everyone to take a moment to view an old video you're certain to remember. But it does a good job of showing where society is at.


With all this in mind, does it really seem that implausible that society will collapse completely in the next ten years as it did when you started this message? That these two stories should come out within days of each other just shows me that society is a complete circus and it is ran by clowns. IF WE MAKE IT ten more years, WHICH WE WON'T, then I will be shocked.

The Reconciliation of the Affirmation of Virginity

About the 144,000, some have been teaching that they will not be physical virgins, but only virgins in a 'spiritual' sense. I argue that it is necessary that they are virgins and in this letter I want to formulate some of my ideas on why that must be.

I Corinthians 7:1,8 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I."

Matthew 22:29,30 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

This is what I refer to in speaking of the biblical affirmation of virginity. There is a disparity however in that, while the Bible affirms virginity, there is never a reconciliation of making it evident in men's lives. Contrary to the state of virginity, we have polygamous plural marriage, traditional marriage, or fornication. At different times, the former two are reconciled in practice whereas fornication is banned from the very first giving of the Law. Plural marriage is affirmed by exclusion in the fifth book of the Law.

Deuteronomy 17:17 "Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."

The Law didn't prohibit the taking of multiple wives but in the case of the king, it was prohibited. In the patriarchal period, we see this affirmation with several men each of which had mistresses. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, several of the twelves fathers. Polygamy was confirmed in that dispensation.

As to the biblical affirmation of traditional marriage, that was confirmed in the New Testament with a special mreserved office. As we have seen previously, the men God used most instrumentally to bring about His purposes often had multiple wives. But in the New Testament, Paul referred to one additional class of men that, like the king, should not practice polygamy.

I Timothy 3:1,2 "This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..."

This is beginning to demonstrate that there are specific regulations with regard to office and that they are also affirmations. I Timothy 3 affirms traditional marriage for the bishop, Deuteronomy 17 for the king, the Old Testament affirms polygamy with regard to the patriarchs, and we have finally virginity, which the Bible praises, but some are quick to disconfirm. Why do they disconfirm this?

The Church Affirmed the Sexual Revolution

When the sexual revolution occurred, it affirmed not only the acceptability of premarital sex, but every sort of perversion as sacred. Christians thought about this, and they decided they agreed with the revolution! The only thing they departed from with the hedonists is the thought of premarital sex. Look at the state of sexual in the churches today:


a. The great deal of Christians who are not virgins when they are married.

b. The great deal who have children out of wedlock, some stats showing that among Christians this rate is higher than in other communities.

c. The great deal of churches who openly support abortion.

d. The great deal of Christian women who have had abortions.

e. The extreme rate of divorce in the Christian churches, followed by remarriages.

f. And now, some churches even want openly gay leaders, with a few already accepting this practice.


The churches accepted the revolution because of one errant verse in Hebrews.

Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

It's not that there's anything particularly wrong with the sentiment of the verse here except that it is worded in a very unideal way. I'd even suggest that the wording as it stands in the translations I've seen are mistaken.

Clearly, the way the verse should read is The marriage bed [should be kept] honourable in all... The reason this is clear is because the second clause of the verse is saying that 'whoremongering' and committing 'adultery' profane the marriage covenant. So it's misleading to say the marriage covenant is undefiled because that would mean nothing can defile it. So to read, "Nothing defiles the covenant but whoremongering and adultery defile the covenant," is inconsistent. The only meaning the Hebraic author might have meant is To keep marriage sanctified BY avoiding those immoral sexual behaviors that God has commanded you to abstain from, that if committed will defile the marriage covenant.

So Hebrews has been manipulated to affirm the sexual revolution within marriage. It is used to defend oral sex mostly. It shows that one man-one woman is okay but that everything between one man and one woman, is okay, if it is read the way Christians want you to read it. "What about camels?" "Shut up, Manoucher, I was not asking for your input!"

It is also stated that like in the days of Noe, when men were entering in marriage and giving in marriage, so will those days be which precede the coming of the Son of Man.

Aren't the orientations of many brought into question if they choose to remain single? Aren't there preferable tax and societal benefits if someone is married? Don't men have a different opinion of their married friends than they do of their single friends? Aren't the churches many times involved in bringing young adults together to foster opportunities to meet members of the opposite sex for the purposes of dating and ultimately marriage? Aren't there websites like Christian Mingle and the popularization of the idea that God has a perfect soul mate for every person?

Isn't the society at a state of higher sexualization than at any point since perhaps the ancient Greek civilization? Isn't there a greater readiness to bring sexually-themed and salacious programming to primetime and even earlier in the evening on broadcast networks?

Isn't this all just screaming to God for a confirmation of virginity?

And at this point in time, though virginity was so often in history prized as virtuous, it's now viewed with suspicion, and as if it is the abomination itself.

And we come to the 144,000. These young men the Bible calls 'virgins', having not been united 'with women'.

These are the men that are really coming to us from a future time. It is as if they have arrived from off a time machine. They are going to be the most influential souls in preparing the way for the Millennial era and some think will even be the judges of that era. If they are paving the way for the Lord's return, why do so many expect them to be married, when Jesus said in that time, there would be no marrying or giving in marriage?

The answer is very simple. The extreme sexualizing of society has so sunk in that people, even Christians, and some would say especially Christians, cannot even comprehend the state of celibacy. They can't comprehend how someone would willingly forego marriage in order to pursue devotion to God; they are spiritually crippled. This is a tragedy.

These men show a level of devotion the world is missing. They will show the way to Millennial life and the laws that God expects us to perform. They will be prophets in every sense that the Old Testament prophets were and after the order of Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 16:1,2 "The word of the Lord came also unto me, saying, Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons or daughters in this place."

Biblebrains.com* says, "Why did God give him this command? Jerusalem and Judah were about to see divine judgment for their sins. They would face diseases, famine, and war. God gave Jeremiah this command to free him to do God’s will in the midst of troubling times."

It is now the time when judgment is coming down on the people and nations of this world. The 144,000 are not pursuing marriage because they understand how short the time really is and that for their children, if they had children, would only await poverty and hunger and likely death at a very young age. It would be a life of incomprehensible suffering that no child should have to experience. Even if it was lawful for these men to marry, they would still remain single.

Why they must be virgins? Because never has virginity been reconciled with its affirmation. It has been shunned and hated by society and for this reason, it is necessary that God vindicate it as a virtue, and secondly that they are the forerunners to the Millennial era when there will be no marrying or giving in marriage, it is necessary they be single themselves.

* quote at http://www.biblebrains.com/2011/05/28/which-prophet-did-god-tell-not-to-marry/

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

The Enormity of Discrepancies in Paul's Writings versus what the Churches Teach

Some of us are more than aware of the spiritual sickness of the human soul. We are consumed by it, we are frankly afflicted by it and we are helpless to resist it. Thus it is God we seek to save us really from ourselves. Then we have another group that I think have a head knowledge of this sickness, might pay lip service to it but show no continuing conviction that they are helpless outside themselves without God to nourish them continually with the ability to resist temptation.

What I want to bring to the attention of people here is that one of the cornerstones of orthodoxy has always been that there were men of a particular generation, empowered with a grace from God to determine questions of canonicity, they were afforded an infallible status and that their decision on what should be considered "Scripture" was final. It never really was final though because there were continuing debates for much of the next 1300 years. It was only in the 1800s when there was finally a complete elimination of the Apocrypha from the King James Bible. Early in American history it was not abnormal for most family Bibles to include those books. So if religious men weren't even sure of what was the inspired writings belonging to a class of authoritative scriptures into even the last couple hundred years, it makes no sense to say that the debate is over today.

My suggestion here is that what was taking place was fallible men, who were as vulnerable to fault and error as anyone else. They were not empowered to make the decision on what to include.

What is God's word for us? His commandments? What is His revelation?

Many zealous men began ascribing to a selection of letters certain statuses or designations, identifying them as the Word of God.  The idea of orthodoxy, is that God first empowered certain men to write down injunctions and commentary, as well as historical narrative, on things He saw fit to describe. These writings were given an indestructible status. At some point in the future, a group of men were empowered to collect and assemble these words into one final publication and these were infallible decisions. If that succession of events fails in one of the transits from one point to the next, orthodoxy begins to unravel.

The primary views on inspiration/inerrancy:

I. A number of Christians who believe the Bible is perfect and inspired. They accept its claims uncritically, with no examination. That if they are told anything or read anything that seems to be contradicted by it the claim must be rejected

II. A number of unbelievers (really all of them) who believe it is not perfect, not inspired, and is more or less false. There is no more reason to believe it than believe Bozo the Clown is able to heal the blind, or that the TSA giving your grandmother a cavity search  makes us safer as a nation. Clearly, all of those things are absurd and the unbelievers consider the Bible just as absurd.

III. Christians in the middle who see that there is some sort of error somewhere but otherwise are less concerned with diagnosing theologically what it is. Those Christians who have a progressive view that there are greater principles outside the Bible that the Bible tries to channel, but that it does not channel perfectly, or channel without error, or channel consistently from cover to cover.


If it is going to be suggested that there is, in the preliminary, the possibility that there is something contained in the Bible that is inaccurate then it has to be proposed how to identify that information and specific instances where that has occurred.


"If the Bible is authentic, then it must be completely consistent with itself."

The nature of the book is that the claims surrounding it indicate that it contains words so true that nothing outside of it can disprove its claims. If it be true that there are instances of inaccurate claims to be found within the book, there is no way to identify that information except with a test for internal consistency. The true Word would expose the fiction that is packaged together with it. In other words, if it can be isolated where the contradictions exist, we can uncover from that which source is to be trusted, or in other words, what is authentically from God.

Beyond that, I suggest there are some fundamental questions that should be answered about the claims made within our faith:

If God cannot lie and God has preserved His word, then there are no lies found in it. But how can we be sure that what we have today is the authentic document, in its entirety and free from error after years of transcribing and translating?

"Is the Bible free from contradiction?" Generally Christians would answer yes. But this is not the only response a Christian might give.

Finally, my arguments are probably painful for fundamentalist Christians reading this and would be seen as only being destructive unless I were offering some alternative. I never thought it was sufficient for someone to point out flaws, decimate ideas and tear your dreams apart and offer you nothing in return, nothing of substance. I will offer you choices, A or B, but, and there's always a but, none of them you will like, you will refuse to accept any of  them and you will never recognize them as being valid dichotomies. But then there is this: Either what I am saying is true or what you say is true. Convenient though it may be to hold on to your beliefs, if you are incorrect, then it can only be that one of my two choices are true.

On we go...

Here I want to examine a class of teachings found in Paul's writings and how Christians actively subvert his message because they find it inconvenient. This is valuable because where the vast majority of the church finds itself at odds with Paul's teaching, that is more likely to be a false teaching than something the church largely agrees upon. The most contentious verses are going to show the greatest likelihood of error.

# 1. The falling away of 2 Thes 2 versus the Revival of Joel

Christians enjoy the feeling that Christianity offers and there is no greater feeling for us than when we feel closest to our Creator. Latter Rain was a teaching that gave Christians purpose, a raison d'etre. Their job was to usher in a final outpouring of the Holy Spirit, reclaim the earth for Christ and pave the way for His kingdom. So it simulated this effect, the feeling that Christians try to pursue. They would experience an onslaught of revival and holiness unrivaled since the days of Pentecost. Today, Latter Rain seems isolated to a few isolated groups; however, there is a teaching common to churches that does take a cue from Latter Rain; namely, that in the Last Days there will be a great outpouring of the Spirit and Christians will perform great signs and wonders like in apostolic times.

But what they do not tell you is the picture that Paul painted for the last days was very different. The faithful would sink to new levels of unbelief and despair, coming to accept false teachings and false teachers and that many would fall away from the faith altogether and pave way for a last days apostasy. These are not popular predictions and so are simply not given the air time that Joel's prophecy is given.

This becomes a serious problem when the traditional Christian confronts the anti-Paul crowd with judgment and condemnation yet they themselves willfully are ignoring critical Pauline teaching that simply does not sit well with them. These Christians of the Type I rather than Type III variety, which we've established as the unthinking crowd, many of whom advocate for the partially Latter Rain teaching and warn against spotting contradictions or going against the ideas of innerancy or inspiration are they themselves ignoring a biblical message because it doesn't square well with their fairy tale existence. Now, I am a critic of Paul's. But I want tobe clear: It is blatant favoritism and prejudicial to willfully pass over Paul's prophecy because Joel's words are more satisfying. The standard for a faith that identifies itself as the true faith and all others be damned should be higher than "I like what Joel said, I don't like what Paul said." If we are going to reject any part of the Scriptures, this is not the way to do it.


I propose a solution that does not fall into the trap that mainstream Christianity does and also integrates both into a harmonious composite. I argue that on the corporate level there will be a falling away (of the churches). However, what God initially revealed in the body at Pentecost will now be revealed spiritually within the hearts of His true followers, His children. People will prophesy and dream dreams, and see visions, but these are manifestations of a purification and rejuventation in the person's heart, not some change in the environment of the churches or the church body. It occurs purely in the heart of God's people. What does take place around them leaves them shocked and confused: It is the church body that, rather than experiencing revival, sinks into unbelief and immoral practices and it serves as conviction to those with eyes to see and ears to hear. This harmonizes the two and I haven't seen Christians make any attempt to harmonize it, but a willful neglect of the words of Paul. Take note, I am defending Paul here, the Christians are denying him. So far, I have not heard one Christian offer this as an explanation or a similar explanation that seeks to conjoin the ideas as harmonious but only rhetoric that emphasizes one prophecy and downplays or neglects the other.

# 2. Paul and the Darth Vader heresy versus Jesus

Because Christians are in the business of contradictions, which they call mysteries, such apparent discrepancies as this one mean very little to them. In their minds, they are spiritual and witty because they can make two contradictory things to agree. If you don't get it, it's because you're just an idiot and you have demons inside of you. Some just see this as being moronic. What we have here is what I refer to as the Darth Vader heresy.

Matthew 23:7 ""And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Yet Paul opens the way for Catholics to call their priests "Fathers" with the Darth Vader heresy... Corinthians... I am your father...


1 Corinthians 4:15 "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."

# 3. Paul and the Not-so-Eternal Torment

Then we have out-and-out deception in Christianity. Whenever Paul says something convenient to the Christian's case, he is hailed. Whenever he says something Christians dislike, they sweep it under the rug.

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

2 Thessalonians 1:9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power..."

Notice he doesn't suggest an ongoing state of torment in an eternal hell. He only refers to a final destruction and death. But we can't let that get in the way of a ruse like eternal hell, which we hope will scare people into going to church where we can shake them down with Malachian injunctions about if you don't give money to the pastors you're robbing from God and will burn in hell. I've got an idea: Why don't the pastors first show us through their genealogy that they are in fact Levites and the ones who rightfully can collect the tithes and then we'll talk.

# 4. Paul and the Non-Pretrib Rapture

How many Christians keep repeating the satanic pre-trib Rapture doctrine? And they profane the name of Paul by quoting him as its supporter.

2 Thessalonians 2:3,4 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Students of prophecy will recognize this event as occurring midway into the period of seven years. Sorry.. Paul gives us no more indication than that the rapture can only occur at the earliest at the midpoint and even possibly post-trib.


Some recognize me as being an opponent of Paul. Not at all. I'm calling out the church because they twist Paul's words to settle theological scores. I'm only advocating that Paul be taught for what he is and I'm publicizing what it is that he taught. Namely, he taught against a pre-trib rapture, eternal hell, taught open contradictions to Jesus' gospel, he slandered the apostles who Jesus appointed, he taught to drink alcohol, he tacitly approved of polygamy and openly supported chastity, he taught to curse one's enemies, he taught about proper family relationships, that women are not qualified to preach, and many other astonishing teachings.

Let's recap with what the church teaches...

- Pre-trib (-1 Paul)
+ Eternal hell (-2 Paul)
- No drinking alcohol (-3 Paul)
- Anti-polygamy (-4 Paul)
- Virginity should be discouraged, everyone should get married (-5 Paul)
- No cursing one's enemies (-6 Paul)
- Do not teach proper family relationships (-7 Paul)
+ Women can teach (-8 Paul)

You can see from this list that they only selectively teach Paul. It happens that they keep what is popular they find him saying and then they reject what is unpopular. This list shows anytime Paul said you can do something the church says you should not do it, anytime he teaches one thing, the churches teach the contrary, and if he teaches to not do something, that is what the church's tell you TO DO!

If he affirms virginity, then the elders of the church guess you are gay if you stay single and judge you prejudicially. (-)

If on the other hand, he says to ban women preachers, the church says no, we will allow women preachers. (+)

If he says that parents have an obligation their children to raise them according to a good parental philosophy, the church says no, children ought to do exactly as they're told and be beaten if they disagree. (-)

If on the other hand he teaches that hell is not eternal after all, the churches insist that it is. (+)


In conclusion, it should be noted that I presented a very short list of discrepancies. My final words are to indicate that if the church expects to see resolution with the anti-Paul crowd, then they will have to stop resorting to treachery and deceit to prove their points. If we are to accept Paul at all, it will be for who he is, and not who you want him to be.

Thursday, January 2, 2014

Registering Displeasure with the Affordable Health Care Act

Registering displeasure with the Affordable Health Care Act

I want to say a few words about a new bill that has come into effect in my country recently. It is falsely called a 'health care' bill. In reality, it tends toward a destruction of the general health and in the cases of some individuals will be responsible for their deaths. Additionally, it is falsely called an 'affordable' act, whereas in reality, that is, the realm in which this monstrosity was passed, as opposed to a fantasy or an illusion which some people believe they are living in, it has had quite the contrary effect, resulting in many people losing coverage for what the government deems to be an inadequate scope of coverage and for many others raising their costs exorbitantly.

I. My first article of dissent against this bill, which has quite cleverly entered our realm from the realm of fantasy which liberals dwell in, is that it has had the effect of, rather than bringing millions more into the market with affordable costs and enviable coverage, has within its first few months of enactment resulted in several millions losing their coverage. On that note, it shows that its primary effect is working against its stated purpose.

II. My second article against this deceitfully named destroyer of the American system, is that for those who have managed to continue receiving their benefit of medical coverage, an extraordinary number have seen their premiums rise astronomically.

III. The third article against this ingenious mechanism by which to destroy the last vestiges of capitalism breathing laboriously its dying breaths, is that it is a scheme to affect redistribution. This is manifest in several ways:

a. That historically the costs of insuring women has been higher than the cost of insuring men. Women have a more tricky reproductive system that in comparison to the relative simple hardware of a man's sexual anatomy, is given more frequently to disease and dysfunction; that in the prevention and treatment of feasible dysfunction, is offered routine visits to OBGYNs, and of course, one cost which men do not at all incur is the cost of maternity and labor. Additionally, we see that breast cancer, being financially costly and prevalent, and as time progresses, exceedingly more prevalent, is an illness almost exclusive to women which men do not have a disease of comparable prevalence and is sexually exclusive. Finally, women tend to live longer than men. For these reasons, it is an actuarial reality that women are more costly to insure than men. However, this bill intends to make it so that women are no longer being penalized, which is to say, that women will be charged less (that they will be subsidized), and that men will be charged more. This is not a fair policy for healthy men who will be subsidizing coverage for millions of unhealthy women.

b. That the bill does not make a difference between the healthy and those with pre-existing conditions. This is to say that young men, of my generation, who are not given to a frequent malady, will be called upon, by the increasing cost of their coverage, who by a misfortune either of genetics, or of their own causing, such as with the case of drug addicts and those who make way for heavy indulgence in fatty foods and delicacies contrary to good health, have been stricken with a disease, that now us men of good health will be required to pay! I assure you, our hearts go out to them, as they should! But now at the threat of force, the government has made our pocketbooks to go out to them as well! This is a further burden upon a young generation that sees its future, already so bleak and discouraging, to shrivel to an old rotten appearance, such that we are not certain if a future is ahead of us at all, rather than a total collapse of all civilization.

c. That in the furtherance of its malevolent redistributionary scheme, and on top of the burdens it has already laid upon our heads, it lays yet one more burden: It carries on the shifting of the capital and future capital of the younger generations to the middle-aged and older. It helps for an older generation more disposed to sickness to see a moderation in the cost of coverage, whereas now, to many of my generation, are not able to afford coverage at all. One has noted that children ask Santa for gifts, for which the parents get the bill. Government, on the other hand, is who parents ask for gifts and the kids get the bill. My fellow countrymen, millennials and youth, this is a bill to carry on to an even more unheard of extreme, the notorious practice of pushing costs further down the road to benefit those currently in power and who benefit from their policies, for which we will ultimately pay, AND of creating a leisure class of affluent retirees with every sort of benefit imaginable, for which we will ultimately pay. My friends, this ought not so to be.

And finally, in summation of these points, overall, it is redistributionary in its effect, that the young and in good health, are given to support those of any age who are indigent and in poor health. By all means let them receive treatment.. but we are a generation which is to inherit a society in much worse shape than the one our parents inherited. It was the common implicit notion of Americans to give to the children opportunities that we ourselves did not have. Every subsequent generation of Americans has received a more affluent and prosperous society than that of their parents until my generation. Now, even that which is left of what we are to inherit is being auctioned off again to the people who have caused it to atrophy already!

IV. The fourth article against this quagmire, this unprovoked onslaught against everything which is good in America, which men are to decent to call a bill at all rather than a death certificate, is that it is destructive against the ends of small business. It requires that employers having greater than fifty employees insure their workforce. Why, the very effect of this one provision alone stands to bankrupt the majority of small business in America! The only recourse many businessmen face is to sell off portions of their business or to fire their least productive workers. What mobility will be left when such a disastrous measure is implemented? There was always a permeability between the rich and the middle class, where men of ordinary means, who played their cards right, would see their wealth abound and would enter into affluence. Likewise, the rich who played the fool with their money would see their fortunes shrink, and they would slide back into an ordinary position, if not bankruptcy. Who among us has the clever ingenuity to become wealthy now, now that this plank, nothing less than a plank of socialism itself, has been placed into effect? As the saying goes, The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

A final word on the sheer nefariousness of this provision: It is being selectively enforced with dozens of government-friendly corporations being completely exempt from this provision. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

V. The fifth article, against this red-headed stepchild, this leper which no one but a saint like Father Damien would dare to touch, it applies a net investment tax on the sale of some homes, which will harm the profits of sellers.

VI. And the sixth and final article against this pee-brained, ill-fated, society-destroying measure, which I will not dignify and call a bill, is that it instructs everyone to do something, but offers nothing to aid in its doing. It says, Here, you there, go and get health insurance, which we will not offer for you, nor which we will make affordable. Here, we will stipulate every measure of cost increasing, wealth-destroying and small business-destroying measure and we will even engineer failed websites, at the cost of hundreds of millions to taxpayers, and then we will shut them down and still insist that you enroll and we will through regulation make it as costly and as difficult for you to enroll as we might. We will even make it so that if you have care, you will have it cancelled. We will see that if it is not cancelled, that it is raised in cost astronomically! We will see that you can no longer see the doctor you prefer, we will see that you are insured for things you will absolutely never use, we will even see that you have a part in paying for the care of others, and we will institute $10,000 deductibles so that you will never get one cent in coverage.

The true failure of this bill is that it provides nothing but regulation. It does not insure one individual. It has caused millions to lose the coverage they had. And tragically, people whose lives were being prolonged and saved through care provided for under their policies, have now seen their policies cut, with no way to continue their life-saving treatment, and they will die for 'Affordable Health Care', Orwellian newspeak for 'total government takeover'.