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.

Hitler

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.

Abortion.

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.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

The Redskins

In one era, the Trail of Tears dispossessed millions of Native Cherokee of their tribal land and many died the process.

Today, society's great sin is the conjunction of the words 'red' and 'skin'.

Noting the inverse relationship between racial disharmony and the importance of a civil rights industry to assert minority interests, what has happened is racial disharmony has mostly evaporated while the need for rabblerousers and the (un)civil rights organizations to continue appearing relevant has dramatically increased.

Therefore, without any hint of irony, the Trail of Tears and Washington NFL team are seriously entertaining together as comparable evidences of systemic racism in society.

When the Native Americans were asked themselves their position they were vastly in favor of keeping the  team name.

What we are really witnessing when we see a number of senators and racial agitators threatening the Redskins organzation is the same arrogant presumption evidenced by the White man through every colonial conquest and imposition on native peoples.

But when the Natives were apprized of the situation, they decided it was not worth their time.

Arrogantly, the White man has decided that the Native is incompetent to represent himself, so seeing his inability, the White man must intervene and assert his, the Native's, own interests, for he cannot do it himself.

Were these stupid white liberals asserting the interests of minorities when they were ruling on Plessy or when they were ruling on Brown?

Were these stupid white liberals asserting minorities interests when they said you can ride on your own bus or when they said you can ride on the back of the bus?

Every generation it is some scandal..

Northern Methodist.. United Methodist.. African Methodist

First Baptist.. Southern Baptist.. American Baptist.. Primitive Baptist

Progressive.. Dixiecrat.. Blue-dog Democrat

All it means is no matter how far we've come toward realizing Dr. King's dream, no matter how innocuous  the times, there is going to be an industry that feeds off scandal and actively stirring the pot rather than stilling it.

Oh and by the way.. If the Democrats really want to do something nice for the Indians, how about instead of  bitching about what some sports team chooses to call itself, why don't you just give their land back?

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Phil Robertson is a Douchebag

Media Generates New Anti-Gay Scandal Following Video of Phil Robertson Sermon

For the record, I am 100% opposed to homosexuality and the gay agenda, but in a most logical way, I have to point out that that question has no bearing on whether Phil Robertson is a douchebag because I think quite agreeably they are both true. Phil is a douchebag, but so are the homosexuals.

"Radar Online reports Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson said politically incorrect things about homosexuals during a sermon at his church in West Monroe, Louisiana on Easter Sunday. He compared gays to thieves and adulterers.

"During the sermon Robertson criticized the corporate media for misunderstanding biblical verse following an interview he made with GQ in December. During the interview Robertson paraphrased a passage from First Corinthians. He said homosexuals, adulterers, idolaters, and other sinners “won’t inherit the kingdom of God.” The interview resulted in A&E suspending Robertson from Duck Dynasty."

I guess he got off so much on the fags in the media ripping him a new one he came back for more. Did he really not learn his 'lesson'? Now he'll really be ripped a new one.

"You want the verse? The news media didn't even know it was a verse! They thought I was just mouthing off."

Oh, so I get it. You're just so fucking smart everyone misunderstood you. You're just a fucking Einstein and I'm sorry us peons are so beneath you Phil.

"Is homosexual behavior a sin? The guy asked me."

Here he doesn't even accept responsibility for what he said. "He asked me! I was just bein' nass' by  answerin' the question!"

LET'S BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT PHIL ROBERTSON'S TRUE BELIEFS

The Church of Christ explicitly teaches its members that YOU MUST BE A MEMBER OF THEIR CHURCH TO BE SAVED. Otherwise you are damned.

This is what is so stupid about the Christian cult mentality.

You all see it in black in white: 'Christian' makes politically unpopular statements (that happen to be popular with the Christian conservatives) --- Criticized in media --- Christians rush to defend him

Let's get one thing straight.

"___________ won't inherit the kingdom of God."

Was Phil's quote. I left the first part blank to illustrate the point.

How does Phil fill this in?

He names the obvious...

Idolaters.

Homosexuals.

Adulterers.

But the laws of subterfuge dictate that you never really say what you mean, you only acknowledge up to and  including the point your audience is willing to accept.

Look at some of Obama's lies he told leading up to being elected.

He derailed the Patriot Act and the general lessening of civil liberties post-9/11. Yet in 2012, he was  dissatisfied that NDAA did not contain a provision to allow for the indefinite detention of American  citizens. The national security aparatus has grown exponentially in Obama's tenure, but that didn't stop him from filibustering the PATRIOT Act.


Obama's Signing Statement on NDAA

"...it should first be remembered that the very bil President Obama threatened to veto was controversial due to the language the Obama White House itself pressured Congress to add to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin." Aaron Dykes, January, 1, 2012 Infowars.com

You see, he said what he had to say to get elected in 2007, because no Democrat was going to support a candidate who believed in the PATRIOT Act or indefinite detention, although despite his 'voting record', he shows in his leadership that he believes in all of these.

The weed vote.. He had to turn out the weed vote. So he says circa 2006 "I support decriminalization.." Did  that really happen though? No. The Feds just grew more bold in prosecutions of California dispensaries.

Gay marriage.. Very explicit.. does not support an individual right of gays to marry. What happened with that? He feminized and homosexualized the military, overturning the very sensible Don't Ask Don't Tell  doctrine, he refused to defend DOMA, presumably in violation of his duties as chief executive, he appoints a lesbian (?) to the Supreme Court, he pushes for gay marriage, he weaponizes his DoJ as an arm of the gay mafia and passes the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act.

My friends, if Bill Clinton was the first black president, then Obama is our first gay president. And he is not black either.

I read Niccolo Macchiavelli's The Prince some months back and if it was not 1:56 am on a Saturday morning I would be tempted to draw it out and make a few pertinent quotations. However, it's 1:57 am on a Saturday morning and I'm tired.

But what you'll find if you read him and just study the world around you, there is a thing called subterfuge. It's how a politician achieves a mandated for a stated vision and purpose, and as soon as he is elected, he goes much furtherto the left or right and implements his true vision.

Phil cleverly sought to court the Christian demographic by appealing to certain of the sensibilities among them, but he was careful not to clarify what the Church of Christ religion really teaches.

Now how do you fill in that box, Phil?

[Anyone who is not a member of the Church of Christ] including Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, pentecostals and ALL OTHER BELIEVERS

WILL BURN IN HELL

If you get to the bottom of Phil's true beliefs, he ultimately has to conclude, to be a good, upstanding member of the Church of Christ, that if you do not believe precisely as he and his church does, you are DAMNED.

My Position, Not Heretofore Stated

I will NEVER believe a doctrine that demands me to accept it. If you tell me I'll be damned, then I guess I'll just be damned.

I will never join a bigoted small-minded little cult like the Church of Christ because they think everyone else is damned.


And I especially will never accept your dumb, infantile, moronic Trinity doctrine and it is all your fault!

Because I had to listen to you Christians non-stop for years talking about this crap then I am never going to accept it. I'm going to keep teaching against it and denouncing it and mocking the Scutum and maybe I'm just a devil. Or maybe the Christians are the devils for constantly berating anyone with a non-established viewpoint and making them feel like worthless little diseases that world authorities try to eradicate because they can't accept anyone with a different viewpoint.

Jehovah's Witness addendum:

Let me tell you that I studied with the Witnesses for about six months. I did because I'm a liberal and I think everyone has a right to speak and be heard. I never had any desire to join them. But I feel sorry for them in some was how they get treated, nevertheless while they harass people.

But I should tell you, in all my studies with them, I NEVER ONCE HEARD this sort of bigotry espoused that I have heard from the Church of Christ. It is the most bigoted religion other than Catholicism I've ever seen.

Friday, May 23, 2014

The Strange State of the Blog (The Fabulous Centennial Post)

The Strange State of the Blog

When I think about how the internet mold was cracked by my authorings, and the pure charm of my blog, I  consider it in several ways.

My blog is charming much in the same way the Cryptkeeper is from Tales From the Crypt.


I consider how it has all the trappings and pizzazz of viral influenza and that it is actually the very thesis of Charm itself.





I had to ask myself why this was.

Why all the lofty rhetoric and theory and beauty of language..

What is so different about my words that makes them so potent, so desireable and bitter?

I conclude that I am merely presiding over a funeral which in many ways is sad. Here at PreCatholic, I preside over the funeral of all illogic, in fact I sentence it to death and slay it.

 
So many are embittered by my passionate critiques and railings but it is only because their own wimpy, false little reality is dying the more and more I post.

I preside over the funeral of illogic! I sentence it to the pit where it belongs and as so often throughout  history, people hate it. You squeam and you squirm in your little rickety chair wobbling under the weight of your fat ass and denounce my words and my teachings. And what ever do you offer the world? Oh, so I guess we're equal then.

Keep mocking my letters! Keep on and this will be you! 

But a few consider it for all the betterment to the world it offers and they take it and are transformed.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

My Childhood and Hell

The question of 'hell'... Very few Christians are willing to study it in an objective way. They grew up being taught it in church. It scared them. As adults, it still sort of terrifies them in that it is what they were awaiting, but it really does terrify them for the people who are going to go there.

It is a critical aspect of their theologies. And because most were inculcated with it at an early age, before they could objectively consider it, then they largely cannot be exposed as adults to the fact that it is not an eternal place, and that there is no coming out. They believe that the sinner is put there to suffer eternally. But the Bible clearly teaches from beginning to end that hell is not eternal.

I know very much what the experience was like. When I was a child, me and the other children were taught  about hell in church. We were told the rapture was going to come, Jesus would take the true believers away.  We were told we better get right with God! or we would be left behind and an antichrist figure would take  control and start killing everyone! And even worse, if we did not turn to Christ, we would all burn in hell!   

I was horrified. I had nightmares. I begged Jesus every night to not send me to hell. 'Please let me die before the rapture comes, I cannot make it in the tribulation!'

Some evenings, the night skies were colored red, ominous to a child. I fear we would not make it home, my  family would be taken and I would be left to die.

And even as a child I knew strange things were afoot. I knew, thanks to my East Texas conservative  upbringing that there was a weasel in the White House. In the fall of '96 at a hayride, just after the election Gore-Clinton campaign placards were burned in effigy on a fire.

I remember the haunting of TWA Flight 800.. so many souls downed off the coast of New York City, their  faces haunting from the tabloid magazines.

At church, I never had any friends there. I spent nearly ten years of my childhood in that church and there is no one from there I talk to today. I hated them. I reviled them. A Sunday school teacher said I spoke to them with venom on my tongue. I hated them because I saw them for what they were, an exclusive little clique that welcomes no outsiders. My family and I were never accepted by those people and I hated them and their fakeness.

And this was a large church too. One of the larger ones in town. Easily several hundreds.

There was nothing about my childhood that would conform me to a Christian experience. All I knew is they  were fakes and they lived to scare people.

))))))))))

As a boy in school, I was extremely autistic. I was practically insane because of my autism. But I was only  on the spectrum. In those days they didn't know what it was, the name Asperger syndrome only came about in 1994 and it took a decade before it started resonating as a major diagnosis.

The little world I created was an escape. It was the only thing I could do to respond to the events of the  world around me. At the school were bullies, who often didn't target me at once, but came and went in  episodes. When year I'd share a class with a boy like Kyle and he would target me. Other times Kevin would target me. And other boys. The teachers never made any effort to stop it. They were probably scheduling a teacher's rally or something for 'not getting paid enough' boo-fucking-hoo.

So I chose to withdraw as much as I could. But even then, they bullied me even stronger so I would withdraw even further.

Despite losing memories of much of my childhood, I remember a few brief moments of clarity when I started  beating the shit out of some of these kids for what they had done, and then getting sent to the principal's  office where I'd be put in a box for three days at a time or sent home and suspended. Funny, the only thing  the teachers had a problem with was self-defense.

))))))))))

At 18, I was a senior, and that in itself is tough, finishing your last year of high school at that age. If you're 17, you're probably living at home and can't afford to be stupid. I had an apartment at 18 and I began inviting over potheads. I started smoking weed. It was therapeutic. And I had friends. For the first time in my life. I had people I could really talk to and say I shared interests with.

So I was thrown out of school, lost my apartment, and after staying with a friend for a couple weeks I went  back home. I was after a few months thrown out. So I drove my Chevy Malibu into town to embark on a period of living in my car.

All things considered, it was great at first, but later it turned into living hell.

It was such a living hell, I faced imminent imprisonment or death toward the end, or at least I felt that way.

I gave my life to Jesus Christ. And I was delivered from that.

That was in November 2007.

What I had to do from there, was read the Bible. I had to pray over it and ask for the meaning. I had to seek counsel. I had to study the words.

And what I came to find out about this 'hell' thing.. It's not what you think. You think people go there to  suffer eternally for their sins. That's not it. They go there to die. It may take ages for them to die out, I don't know. But they know what's happened. They see the life, the one life they had to live on earth, and in contrast, they see the life they might have had, the 'Lazarus in Abraham's bosom', and they know they are dying. And then finally, at the last moment, they breathe their last and they're gone.

I have to tell you guys, that is more horrifying than anything I heard growing up as a child.

I eventually in my late teenage years started to come out of that world more and more. I gradually gained  healing from much I had endured.

But the church, what it did to me as a kid, the years it took from me I will never get back. I never had the chance at a normal childhood and the church has a lot of blame to accept for that.

So I can relate to the young people who experienced this sort of brainwashing and scare tactics. But to turn this on God, for what these stupid moron Christians have done, is wrong. God didn't do this to you. People with low education, low IQs, did it to you and they thought they could 'scare' you into being good. And some of them are just flat out rapists, let me say that.

God had nothing to do with that. I hope at some point you can see that God does love you and He hates them even more than you do.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Homophobia and Nigerian Girls

I was reading into this Nigerian girl scam and I fell in a feminist pit, a blog, a den of vipers with appeals to homophobia and anti-religion standard fare.

And I distinctly felt another level of exhaustion at the endless propaganda about the battered homosexuals and how dispossessed of their human rights they are because we as society have raped them.

I want to dismiss with this 'homophobia' word which is not accurate at all.

The correct word is

HOMONAUSEATED

Yes. We are nauseated at your endless subterfuge of the electoral and democratic process, stacking the judiciary with activist judges, your vile desecration of churches and religion, and your open war on young  boys.

You're boring. And you're nauseating. You feel if you can't be accepted on equal terms you will bully  everyone and accost them through electoral sabotage.

You thrive off thinking people are 'afraid' of you.

We're not afraid of you. We're not homophobic. We're homonauseated because you make us sick. We're sick looking at you. We're sick moving to the back of the bus for you. We're sick of your vandalism of our  churches and your endless rape of kids.

_________________-

Nigerian girls

I'm the only one who can see it for what it is?

How long has Africa had its hand out to the white societies in the Western world begging for a handout.

When I first heard the story, I thought it was a ploy. 'Bring attention to Nigeria' 'Starving children in Nigeria' 'The plight of schools in Nigeria' 'No medicine in Nigeria'

That's all it is. Or that's all I thought it was.

Then the video of the girls comes out reciting the Qu'ran and kowtowing to Islam.

First off, I purchased a modern edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs that talks about persecution in the 20th century.

I know for a fact that millions of Christians have suffered in dozens of countries throughout earth just in my  lifetime for their beliefs, and they don't simply acquiesce to the demands of their Muslim captors or  Communist governments. They stand for what they believe and they die for it if they have to.

This story is fake. It's about money. It's about making us feel sorry for little kids in Nigeria.

I don't feel sorry. You're not going to make me feel sorry.

I've seen this crap again and again.

Oklahoma City... false-flag

9/11... false-flag

Sandy Hook.. false-flag

I learned growing up in America to not believe something just because the 'news' reported it.

I have no reason to believe there is any such crisis going on, that there was a kidnapping, and if there was, they are dead to me. They're apostates. They bowed to Allah. Fuck them. Don't give them a dime. There was no kidnapping.

It is TAQQIYA, it is war.

That's all it is. TAQQIYA - look it up.

Christian Music Will Not Save You

I'm around so many of you Christians who all seem to listen to Christian music non-stop.

It is like you think it's going to save you or something.

Or it is merely a indulgence. "Eat a ham sandwich, do three hail marys and turn on Christian radio for ten  minutes."

If I called you fruit loops, I would be too nice. Fruit itself is nutritious and juicy. Many of you Christians don't even have this many redeeming features. I should just call you 'loops'. Or 'donuts', emphasis on the 'nut'.

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish.

Then I'm supposedly possessed by spirits in some of your minds because I listen to heavy metal. I'm sorry. I play guitar, I like the sound of heavily distorted stringed instruments, harmonizing in minor scales and jamming. That's just me.

But ask some of you, I have 'spirits'.

Well I guess the demons just LOVE Christian music then.

You're as likely to find me listening to Steven Curtis Chapman; Michael W. Smith; Mark Schultz; Rich  Mullins; or Phillips, Craig, and Dean, as you are to find me listening to Metallica, Killswitch Engage, At the Gates, All That Remains, or Abigail Williams <-- And no I don't mean a girl named Abigail.. I refer to heavy death metal.

In fact, I just played a little MercyMe and Third Day when I had in mind to write this powerful, uplifting  message.

If you are going around like some of you two-faced hypocrites that I unfortunately bump into so often doing  so many wicked things, rebelling against God, and living life on your terms rather than God's terms, you can and will have Christian radio on while you run off the cliff of life into the ditch.

Some among think I will arrive in hell one day for listening to heavy metal or some other heinous crime.

Then I hope you all have a honey-glazed ham ready for me when I arrive, because you vile, swine-eating  Christians are going to wind up there first.

How quickly you honor the prophet with your mouths then tarnish him when expedient.

"A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels; Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me: for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all day." [Isaiah 65:3-5]

I think many of you see my words and are struck about me having such little charm. I suggest you read the  Old Testament because God certainly was not concerned about presenting a charming image of Himself. I think what you find with my letters is much closer to the biblical style than even my supporters are willing to
admit.


The Devil's sticker! It's the mark of the Devil! Calleth Tipper Gore to exorciseth the menace!

What Is Said and What Is Meant

It's tedious to have to bring this issue up. I'm afraid many of you know this already and I will look like a fool for offering this seriously.

I'm also afraid that it is not me, but rather my readers who are fools for not having yet discovered this  principle.

I'm afraid the veracity in the second is greater than in the first.

_____________

This principle of which I speak, that,

"When a thing is written or spoken, there are two things therein contained: The thing which is said and the thing which is meant."

Often, but not always there is a unity in these two things.

_____________

A good communicator.. They may be good public speakers, good negotiators, or they might just be gifted at  interacting with the people around them.

What makes them such great communicators is the unity, the equality between what he says and what he means. When he speaks, everyone knows precisely what he means to convey and there is no doubt about what he is saying. That is because there is a very high affinity between what he says and what he means. In short, there is a union, or a conjunction in what he says and what he means to say.

A troubled communicator, by contrast, is someone who is often troubled as to how to best convey their meanings. They may use one word or term where another is more appropriate, they may use other words where they do not belong at all, or to the greatest extreme, those suffering from a primary thought disorder could have trouble forming thoughts which comport to even the most rudimentary mechanics of grammar or syntax at all, and their meanings are incredibly distorted. This is a person whose meanings do not line up consistently with what they say. Their meanings are confused, for not having spoken more clearly.

______________

In light of these most indubitable principles, I have to introduce Paul as the most disordered, confused and confusing writer in all the scriptures.


I hold that often in the Epistles, there are two things you will find: You will find what Paul actually said, but far more importantly is what he did not say, but rather meant.  This is card of a bad communicator, someone who has trouble conveying their meanings in plain speech.

The light of history shows the great lengths to which churches have divided themselves over Paul's language  and writings. It shows that nothing he said was for the convenience of the reader or for the sake of understanding, but all said lacking a theory of mind or any appreciation that no one would be sure of what
he was saying.

I go even further and say that his double-talk was so prolific that he could in fact say two opposite things at the same time so cleverly that no one would notice the difference!

Galatians 2:6-9,11

"6 But of those 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: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles;) 9 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... 11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

Of course there is not one thing here which is true. Elsewhere Paul says he is the least of the apostles, not worthy to even be an apostle.

"I go even further and say that his double-talk was so prolific that he could in fact say two opposite things at the same time so cleverly that no one would notice the difference!"

Therefore, Christians eat it up when he says he is the least and at the same time, he takes swipes at the apostles to bolster his image.

"those who seemed to be somewhat"... This evidently refers to Peter, James, and John.

That whatever, that somewhat, who only thought they were something, that was the Bishop of the universal church who was also the biological half-brother of Jesus, along with the chief evangelist and prophet, the three men that God sat in authority over the church globally, two of which were Yeshua's best friends on earth. How dare this bastard Paul to call them whatevers and somewhats.

Paul is literally saying, they only 'seemed to be pillars..' John, who was given the Revelation of Jesus  Christ, one of the most powerful evidences of divinity in the whole Bible, only 'seemed to be a pillar.. but whatsoever [he] was, it maketh no matter to me.'

The truth about this conference to which Paul here refers, is that Paul was reprimanded for alleged misconduct and he submitted to the sanctions. He actually DID NOT gain recognition in his perceived grace  toward the uncircumcision. That is a lie.

But there had been much disputing, "...Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how  that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe." [Acts 15:7]

So actually Paul is wrong because the 'minutes' of the meeting, or what record we have of the summit  indicates that it was understood amongst the apostolic leadership that Peter was the apostle to the Gentiles. But Paul wasn't just wrong, he was a liar.

Deconstructing Dogma

A Christian recalls: Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles

God called Peter the apostle to the Gentiles

So let us be clear. If you like Paul your apostle rather than Peter, then say that. Paul, the apostle whom I have chosen. The apostle whom I prefer. But do not say that is the apostle who God chose, because God chose Peter for that job. Peter is your apostle. Now like many arrogant men throw aside the judgments of  God you can do that, I won't interfere with you. But be clear once and for all, you prefer Paul to Peter.

But Paul was not chosen, he only built up himself.

________________________________

Aside from the many lies and inconsistencies Paul wrote, I also number many true and valuable things in his  letters also. But I still throw him out. Why?

Because there is a small conjunction between what he said and what he meant. If there was a high affinity,  then he certainly would have been a good communicator over whom only a few would fight over. But he was not a good communicator, evidenced by the profound number of debates arising from his confused writings.

________________________________

It should be noted as the most damning thing... When he attacks Peter, James, and John, he is attacking three authors who God gave tremendous place in the New Testament. I thought if you attacked authorship then you were doing something bad, which they attack me for when I attack Paul. I attack Paul because he casts into doubt the ministry of the twelve and manages to puzzle nearly all of his readers, and leaves very little to make up for the trouble.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Commentaries on Arithmetic and Mystery... Less importantly, Spinoza II

Commentaries on Arithmetic

[6] "...they dream that most profound mysteries lie hid in the Bible..." Baruch Spinoza

As to mysteries.. when we consider what Jefferson calls the Trinitarian arithmetic... one only needs read from some of the great thinkers to discern what history records about arithmetic.

Descartes wrote, "For whether I am awake or asleep, two and three added together are five, and a square has no more than four sides. It seems impossible that such transparent truths should incur any suspicion of being false. And yet firmly rooted in my mind is the long-standing opinion that there is an omnipotent God who made me the kind of creature that I am. How do I know that he has not brought it about that there is no earth, no sky, no extended thing, no shape, no size, no place, while at the same time ensuring that all  these things appear to me to exist just as they do now? What is more, just as I consider that others sometimes go astray in cases where they think they have the most perfect knowledge how do I know that God has not brought it about that I too go wrong every time I add two and three or count the sides of a square, or in some even simpler matter, if that is imaginable?" Meditations on First Philosophy, p. 14

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." George Orwell, 1984

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one . . . But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe."

Thomas Jefferson, a letter to John Adams, 1813

"The doctrines added by certain churches, such as that God took upon Himself human nature, I have expressly said that I do not understand. In fact, to speak the truth, they seem to me no less absurd than would a statement that a circle had taken upon itself the nature of a square." Baruch Spinoza, a letter to Henry Oldenburg, November 1675

Can history be any more clear? The great men of history were certain that there were fixed laws of mathematics, such as the associative or distributive property, that their were fixed physical laws, and that the concepts found in Aristotelian logic were sound. They subsequently when encountering the Trinity doctrine couldn't make heads or tails of it.

Then you will say, "Men of such great learning, but they are dead in their spirits." That's bullshit and you know it.

Don't blame the great men of history for not accepting this baffling doctrine when it is the error of those promulgating it in not explaining it correctly. If they had not been content for so long to say, "Accept on faith," "Accept uncritically," "Believe or burn!" there might have been some worthwhile arguments to defend it with.

Contrary to belief, you can't simply conjoin several contradictory theses that are bizarre and result in blatant contradictions and then simply call it a 'mystery'.

That is not what a mystery is. I should rather discuss with you what a 'paradox' is. Put simply, a paradox is an 'accident of language'. What you'll come to see is that a paradox is something that exists in language that does not really correspond to anything in fact. The Trinity is no mystery but a paradox, i.e., it exists in language as an accident, but reflects nothing in fact. The Triangle clearly highlights the paradox.



Scutum Fidei

Buridan's Bridge

"Socrates wants to cross a river and comes to a bridge guarded by Plato, who says, "Socrates, if in the first proposition which you utter, you speak the truth, I will permit you to cross. But surely, if you speak falsely, I shall throw you into the water. Socrates responds, saying, "You will throw me into the water."

We perceive it clearly in language, but note it corresponds to nothing real.

Therefore, 'fully God and fully man' is a mistake, an accident of language, and a paradox. For you cannot be 100% something plus 100% something else because then you would be 200%. And 'God and man' at once. Think of it like this, in terms a great mind once put it: "One principle of God is that God is non-man. Another principle of man is that man is non-god." It's very confusing to think of a person who is God and Man, and not-God and not-man, all at the same time.

If your formula contains truth, then it is not in the method in which you phrased it. But of course it's easier to speak in abbreviations and paradoxes, rather than developing your thoughts scientifically. Forgive me if often I don't take issue with your meanings, but often I take issue with the lazy way you portray it.

/end Arithmetic

Mystery

So much has been said of mysteries. The great men have spoken on the immutable properties of numbers, we have looked at paradox and contradiction and even highlighted a couple of the most notable mysteries of  Christianity, the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. But no discussion of mystery can be complete without what is wrong with the mysteries, why mysteries hold the sway they do and what the Messiah said about them.

What is wrong with mystery?

There is a lot wrong with mystery. It creates an initiated sect within the broader camp that attracts the ordinary neophyte, and consequently carries with it elitism, prejudice, and oppression. There never were any qualms about murdering dissidents because the adept class were considered the 'elect' or the 'chosen'. Anyone who interfered with that was necessarily a tool of the devil. They had to be killed.

Additionally, an overriding quality of man is his exclusiveness. His clubs, his parties, his interest groups, have always been concerned as much about who was not invited as to who was. Christianity abrogates that. It says "whosoever shall believe [on the Son] shall be saved." It says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." It says If you confess your sins with your mouth, He is faithful and just to forgive you. It says, Come you who are weary, and I will give you rest.

Man can't turn man from God. He is no middleman, For there is one Mediator between God and man... This consumes him constantly. He invents mysteries and dogmatic tests, pronouncing anathemas on whoever fails  them. He tars as worse than an unbeliever any who oppose him on any doctrinal front. He engineers a system of theological haves versus theological have nots, an inner circle of shepherds, who share the profits of the endeavor and its abuses amongst themselves, with a much larger group of neophytes beneath them, who are the sole financial backing of the society, believing they offer their monies to God, but really only to
manipulative con artists.

When mystery reared its head in and around the time of the Reformers, women's bellies were slit open and fetuses ripped out, men's heads were chopped off or were burned alive, or women had stones tied to them and thrown in the deep, and if they floated they were certainly witches.

What does it offer to the everyday person? It offers a deep solace and reassurance in one's faith. It's taught that a 'head knowledge is not enough, you must have faith in your heart'. So if a man can come to understand what is a paradox, an open contradiction, and he can belittle himself to accept it uncritically, then he must really be one of the chosen.

He can be apart of the group, he can reach his hand into the offering bucket, he can write a list of letters after his name! He is esteemed! He is heralded and welcomed into every party and rigamarole!

Who was despised and rejected of men? Who sat in pits, thrown there by their own brothers? Whose families forsook them, who floated at open sea who could only imagine death awaiting him, or stoned? If you look at the ministries of prophets, these were only a few of the travails they witnessed in their lives. They didn't teach mysteries. They taught a personal God, that you could know, without ever having taken a college course on logic or algebra, or theology! They taught a God Who was with them and would be with you too, not Who could only be known through the priest class or any arbiter. And that He sees faults through the lens of perspective, not the judgment and alienation so often felt from man.

The biggest mystery of all is how the truest and most perfect religion came to be such a chimera, an atrocious monster with a trail of blood going back thousands of years.

______________________________________

What did Yeshua ha Messhiac say about mystery while He was here with us? It's so simple, it will go over the heads of many.

"But woe unto, 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 23:13]

Mystery waxed great amongst the scribes. The enigmatic 'oral Torah' that they alone were the gatekeepers  of, their meticulous attention to the broadness of their phylacteries, the cleanness of cups, who strained gnats but swallowed camels. They were meticulous to the ultimate degree and they keenly used all the regulations to build up, but mostly to tear down men.

And most of all, they shut up the gates of heaven.

It was from the sword of mystery they wielded that they painted their enemies into a corner.

The abomination of 'mystery', I don't mean in the doctrines themselves but in this weapon of subterfuge and  alienation, whose vehicle oftentimes is in certain peculiar doctrines, this weapon of 'mystery' is abhorrent.

It is the basis for every schism, excommunication, and anathema. Its effect is to elicit hatred of man against his neighbor and has brought religious war and death to people in all history.

Most of all, it teaches us to fear the 'other', to view the 'other' in other-ly terms.

My final recommendation to any and all who will listen, do not any longer place emphasis on mystery if you would not place it on your phylacteries, kitchenware, or china.

Spinoza I

Baruch Spinoza
1632-1677

The following are thoughts on several lines of Spinoza to be followed by Commentaries on Arithmetic and Mystery in part II.

 "When people declare, as all are ready to do, that the Bible is the Word of God teaching men true blessedness and the way of salvation. they evidently do not mean what they say (1); for the masses take no pains at all to live according to Scripture, and we see most people endeavoring to hawk about their own commentaries as the word of God (2), and giving their best efforts, under the guise of religion, to compelling others to think as they do: we generally see, I say, theologians anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text (3), and to fortify them with Divine authority. Such persons never display less scruple and more zeal than when they are interpeting Scripture or the mind of  the Holy Ghost; if we ever see them perturbed, it is not that they fear to attribute some error to the Holy Spirit, and to stray from the right path, but that they are afraid to be convicted of error by others, and thus to overthrow and bring into contempt their own authority. But if men really believe what they verbally testify of Scripture, they would adopt quite a different plan of life: their minds would not be agitated by so many contentions, nor so many hatreds (4)..."

"Ambition and unscrupulousness have waxed so powerful, that religion is thought to consist, not so much in respecting the writings of the Holy Ghost, as in defending human commentaries (5)..."

"...they dream that most profound mysteries lie hid in the Bible (6), and weary themselves out in the investigation of these absurdities, to the neglect of what is useful."

"If we would separate ourselves from the crowd and escape from theological prejudices, instead of rashly accepting human commentaries for Divine documents (7), we must consider the true method of interpeting Scripture and dwell upon it at some length..."

~ Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Of the Interpretation of Scripture

Considering the seven notions completely (the numbers having been drawn in are mine),

I first gaze at notions one through four.

"When people declare, as all are ready to do, that the Bible is the Word of God teaching men true blessedness and the way of salvation. they evidently do not mean what they say (1); for the masses take no pains at all to live according to Scripture, and we see most people endeavoring to hawk about their own  commentaries as the word of God (2), and giving their best efforts, under the guise of religion, to compelling others to think as they do: we generally see, I say, theologians anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text (3)...But if men really believe what they verbally testify of Scripture, they would adopt quite a different plan of life: their minds would not be agitated by so many contentions, nor so many hatreds (4)..."

Significant to the integrity of the entire argument here is in point four. "...their minds would not be agitated..." We see very clearly from the principles outlined in the Old and New Testaments, that the religion claims to give peace to its adherents. It encourages through all plight and disadvantageous condition that there are greater principles than the transitory sort of suffering that affects people here episodically, at one time, to be relieved by joy in other times. It shows that there is a powerful Creator who identifies Himself to us as Our Father and who takes special interest in us when brought down by the cruelty of this world and age.

"...theologians anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text..."

But point three highlights a point of high importance to many moderners, but certainly in the time of Spinoza was much more grave. In a great deal of our world today, no one is threatened with ongoing religious conflict and death for contrarian positions. Of course, I refer to the Western world, and things are not quite this simple in the developing world where there is a great deal of turmoil due to religious differences, and others. But certainly in Spinoza's day, this threat was multipled, and even in the West there was great contention about which ideology was supreme, each with its corresponding force inflicting murder and violence on dissenters.

That so obviously contrasts with a religion thought to bring inner peace. For why is a person agitated into inquisitions and witchhunts unless he is not certain in his own understanding? Or even when he is convinced, he still cannot find peace without forcing others to come to the same belief. This contradicts the very idea of the peace of the Gospels, a steadfast peace that says to the world that tries to shake it, "I will not be moved." This sort of peace is not known to men who use tools of oppression and violence to further their ambitions.

Realm of ends

"...for the masses take no pains at all to live according to Scripture, and we see most people endeavoring to hawk about their own commentaries as the word of God (2)"

In Maslowian terms, the hierarchy of needs, I find among the highest of the spiritual needs of man is to be affirmed intellectually. "To be affirmed in the realm of ends" the way a gladiator's warmaking is affirmed in the cage. You see even among people who are not very bright, that nevertheless at times strike you with a clever idea from ingenuity, that they often are moved to convey intellectual ideas if they lack affirmation in those ideas. They are moved to pass on their thoughts because they personally esteem them very highly, even if no one else does. But they have to convey the thoughts, because nothing within them offers peace per se, of themselves, but they find especial peace in convincing others of their own ideas. But this is the same contradiction found in points three and four. The peace that God gives is contingent only on God giving it. It isn't contingent on you convincing others of it, of being given a special hat for discovering it, or any other thing that is commonly seen in men, though never by themselves, (or rather it's something we always witness in others and not ourselves). This peace is pure peace and it is not shaken by the world around it.

But more often than not, a person will not be corrected in any of their mistaken beliefs.

"...it is not that they fear to attribute some error to the Holy Spirit, and to stray from the right path, but that they are afraid to be convicted of error by others, and thus to overthrow and bring into contempt their own authority."

It is through the gift (?) of religion, that men who scarcely finished high school, will complete life with a long list of credentials after their names: Ph.D., Professor, M.A. You find these great distinguished men, who mostly only distinguish themselves, in the plethora of degree mills, often called seminaries, which make no pretension of accreditation, but still churn out 'students' with fake 'master's' and fake 'doctorates'. For the ignorant, who are experts in nothing, who have no authority in anything, whose knowledge for nothing is sought, religion has been a very useful maneuver. One should be suspicious of any institution that feeds the desire of men for recognition and esteem, such as seen within fundamentalist Christianity.

And Spinoza is very correct in saying that rather than accept that their own beliefs are in error, they would prefer to continue attributing 'error to the Holy Spirit.'

[4] "...religion is thought to consist, not so much in respecting the writings of the Holy Ghost, as in defending human commentaries."

Even in visiting the local Christian bookstore tonight, I was intrigued at the variety of authorings, many of which that shared very similar names, such as, 'Christian Theology', 'Systematic Theology', 'A Theology for the Church,' and so on. I saw they all had in common a few things: They were by different authors, they claimed to be derived wholly from writ, and were confused by their own authors to be the pure biblical  teachings rather than the authors' own opinions.

And finally, before the dissertation on arithmetic, point one...

"When people declare, as all are ready to do, that the Bible is the Word of God teaching men true blessedness and the way of salvation. they evidently do not mean what they say..."

Is the matter of men changed? Does religion have an effect on men? I recall in the past that many were  challenged by my unorthdox views of Paul and eternal hell, certainly. But some of the things that provoked  such great outrage in people were mostly innocuous. Some were threatened and greatly offended that I did  not eat pork. They used ambiguous terms to attack my integrity. And a few were even brought to sin because I did not speak as some from a poor upbringing but rather as one who had an education, as some blacks deride.

Spinoza is right. The matter of men is mostly unchanged. But his reasons were wrong, and that is another
story.

A Legacy of Spinoza

[7] "If we would separate ourselves from the crowd and escape from theological prejudices, instead of rashly accepting human commentaries for Divine documents (7), we must consider the true method of interpreting Scripture and dwell upon it at some length..."

"Revelation is predicated on the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, the autographs, the manuscripts, the  translations, the translating committees, finally the optic nerve, the co-operation of the neurological  structures, and lastly, the rational mind in comprehending it. Which of these stages is the Word (or is the  Word in its purest state), or at what stage does it cease to be the Word? Only in the primary stage could it be 'breathed' (the Word)..."

If it were possible for such a message to be relayed down the chain in a manner so that the meaning is not altered, even though it could be imagined how the words may deviate, but the meaning cannot, then it would  more or less be accurate to say that the pneuma is substantially the same at any point in the chain.

But that clearly cannot be. This is so obviously false that nothing could be more contrary to our reasoning. Even children understand this. Any communication predicated on this level of co-operation through this many parties is going to confront some degree of corruption.

But where is there a fault in the co-operation? It is in no way God's fault. It is the fault of abusive mistranslations by unqualified men who pretend they can render the meanings faithfully. And even if that is not right, then it is with the person who is simply reading his own opinion into the verses.

But men do not fathom how the words as they were first spoken can be different from the words that we have recorded today. They also misunderstand that their personal interpretation is different from the original  intent. What they dogmatically defend, and when given the opportunity have murdered to assert, is only a  personal opinion that the Bible does not fully support.

I understand this can be seen as a dissertation in itself, and notably draws attention away from the main  dissertation. I want to conclude here in saying that the word that you intuit is very low on that chain of  co-operation and therefore has the lowest value. Whether you rely on mistaken translations, a mistaken  understanding, or that you yourself are not so deficient in reading is so unclear, that your personal  interpretation has to take a back seat to tradition and the collective. Spinoza's attacks are mostly limited  to people who wrest meanings from scriptures that are not there and are used for selfish purposes.

The legacy of Spinoza for us to take should be that biblical interpretation should be endeavored upon cautiously, with all appreciation of our utter ability to arrive at clear conclusions in and of ourselves, to stray from dogmatism, and not rush to interpretive conclusions, as Spinoza says, not "rashly accepting human commentaries" as divine.

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Hymenaeus

"Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." I Timothy 1:20 *

" And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." 2 Timothy 2:17 *


What is this letter about?

It is to show...

I. Paul immorally attacks one of his opponents in his letters.

II. James' epistle is a critique of Pauline theology

III. To explain why James is not clearer that it addresses Paul

Many will say that James couldn't be about Paul, Paul is nowhere named in the letter. I want to show why he is not named and to contrast this with Paul's own practice.

...

Paul calling out Hymenaeus and Alexander was a very bold move. That will always appeal to a quality of  man's nature, as well as pseudo-qualities.

"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Romans 2:16




Personal injury.. When a person is insulted by someone, he naturally feels the need to warn others, for selfish and unselfish reasons. Selfishly, he wants to tarnish a person's image. The unselfish motivation is to warn others because you do not want them to be harmed in the like manner. Paul calling out Hymenaeus in this way seems legit to most people, who would take the same course of action under the same circumstances.

Pseudo-justice.. People mistake gossip for justice, e.g. a person should have their reputation slammed, if they are untrustworthy liars. Never mind that to do this the person has to resort to slander/gossip/ hearsay in the press or in speech. Never mind that under the circumstances the person can never get a fair hearing and that harm will inevitably occur to very noble people.

Most people see nothing wrong with what Paul has done here. It's because his move plays to qualities natural to man. Finally,

Deniability.. Why James' letter is ineffective as a critique of Pauline theology is he never mentions Paul by name. Anyone can deny that that is the theme of the letter, and Paul's gospel was able to flourish. Why didn't James just be clearer about who he was discussing? Because that would have been contrary to the policy Jesus established. To mention names, even if the damning evidence is true, is an injustice, because it colors the image that person has in the minds of others prejudicially, it is often done without the person ever having a chance to speak for themselves, and it borders on gossiping to drop the names of adversaries and many times for unjust reasons. For these reasons, it would never have been permissible to savage a person's name.

What this means? Paul can slander people at will and suffer very little downside. His opponents however can never be clear enough in opposing him, without violating their own faith. Win-win. But isn't this the way things have always gone? The innocent and just have suffered without cause while the wicked and crafty are hailedas the heroes of man, despite their persecutions of the good. The just suffer because there isn't justice in them levelling grievance or wantonly killing anyone who challenges him, that is not in the nature of the just. It is because of the just nature of James that he couldn't identify Paul by name but wrote very eloquently to refute the teaching.

I thank God for the confirmation.. I typed that last line without realizing.. The author is known as James the Just.


What of Hymenaeus? If you are a subscriber to the Pauline gospel, that that Paul refers to as 'my gospel', then you must agree with Paul that Hymenaeus was a wicked person.

My answer, how should I know? But I know there are two sides to every story and Paul fallaciously slammed him. Whether he was a saint or sinner, I don't know. But I know I'm not taking Paul's word for it and that has always been my policy when I've heard a bad report of a person. I know that that person is a talebearer for starters and may or may not have a reason to lie. In Paul's case, I have no reason to not believe that Hymenaeus was wronged by Paul himself and was actually the victim.

* It's really interesting the aggravating factors in the offense. Suppose I for one say that it is proper to drag one's name through the mud. Okay. I can do that. But that is not all... Paul says to hand these men over to Satan. Very peculiar language, and that I will not do.

* And not only is it only a slight error. It is tremendous error. Yeshua nowhere taught to wish the Satan comes to take our enemies or to attack or possess them/ But when he says Hymenaeus teaches the resurrection.. what's most odd about it is the Gospel clearly states that on the day Christ rose that other dead also came from their graves in the first resurrection. Paul to attack Hymenaeus for teaching this obvious fact proves even more clearly that Paul was in error and a johnny-come-lately.