My family constantly puts me down and insinuates against me. I feel upon reflection that is probably because they judge my celibacy. I find them so disgusting because when they were young they were all disgusting fornicators who thought about nothing but sex and banging. Let's say, they have all been divorced, and the ones who have not ben divorced are either thinking about it, or did think about it and in the future will probably continue thinking about it. I think they are far too honorable to cheat against their spouses, because that's a different sort of sleaze and they are not sleazy in that way.
But it seems obviously they are so sex-obsessed that they cannot possibly imagine how someone could be happy without having a significant others.
So let me discuss what I hate about marriage and why it is so trash to me, and worthless.
___________________________________________
1) Bridezillas... They go crazy. They want to spend you into bankruptcy. Finances are, and don't ask me, I don't know from experience, but so the experts say, finances, are the number one cause of divorce.
So what people tend to do today, is naturally, by a ten-layer cake, spend an average of nearly $30,000 on the ceremony and a get-away to some fancy island out somewhere in the ocean. This could only mean one thing: From the day you get married, you are doomed to divorce.
2) Stupid and nauseating displays of affection. I'm sure you love each other. Just stop smooching on one another out in public and being disgusting. No one cares who you love, what sex they are, and whether or not you're a sodomite. Just please, take it inside. It's disgusting.
3) At the end of the vows, the minister says, "Now you may kiss the bride." That is such a patriarchal, chauvinist remark. Shouldn't I ask my spouse if she wants to be kissed, or should I just force it on her, Pastor? Surely a priest would never violate anyone sexually would they? Oh wait..
And publicly? If I'm going to kiss my wife, I will go inside to kiss her. And I may not even kiss her on the mouth. And frankly, that is none of your business. Why, why don't we just have sex in front of all the guests and they can make recommendations or explain how our preferences violate their religious mores. How about that?
4) Why would I want to have sex with someone, I've gotten to know so well? In the animal kingdom, they jump into bed with anyone and everyone, and probably do not even introduce themselves. That sounds about how I would like it. Sex almost precludes having sex with someone you know. Only geese and tortoises mate for life so why should humans be any different? Oh yeah, that man-made construct called "morality".
5) Rape. If I'm married to a woman who for the most part I do not care to have sex with because I have a very low sex drive, and she has a high need for sex, then I am going to have to agree to be raped, at least some of the time.
I recall Phyllis Schlafly once said, that there was no such thing as rape in marriage, For, "You consented when you said 'I do'." Ha, you dirty old bitch. I always loved Phyllis. I might have married her in another life.
Frankly, it's my body, and I don't want to have to be forced into sex with someone I do not want to have sex with, unless she is a total stranger, and I've been quietly wishing she attacks me and dominates me, like a grecian siren or a hebraic succubus. And then she should make me feel dirty and tell me to like it.
6) Marriage makes people do the stupidest things. Like those stupid women who marry men and bring them to live in a house with children who are not theirs. They will actively defend their husbands, even though he rapes her kids. Or husbands who defend their wives even though they are drug addicts and beat and torture their own children. Marriage causes retardation.
7) It's the most stupid thing. You marry a spendthrift who wants to spend your way into dozens of maxxed out credit cards, and thousands in debt, while you're trying to be responsible and save for a down payment on a house. Or your spouse can't get off speed, and she gets you hooked too. Either you are far too filthy to be married to who you are, or your spouse is too filthy. Either way, you both sink to the lowest one's level.
8) Kids. They are disgusting and annoy the hell out of everyone in public. Parents are afraid to teach their kids discipline, or they just think it's cute. Oh yeah, it's real cute when I'm trying to enjoy my meal, and your kid will not shut his damned mouth and stop screaming.
And that is not even the worst of it. The worst part is how special these bastards think they are, and how happy they pretend they are. And they pretend so strongly that they put down others who are not like them. They put down single people and judge them. They think there is something wrong with us. When I see people around me who marry people they do not love, they traumatize their own children, they live in debt and they marry men for their money, they divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry three, four or five times.
I have to say enough. I do not want any part of this disgusting institution. Let us think in terms of a cliff. I wish you a great marriage, while you both wander off a cliff. OR, I wish you well, as you push your spouse off a cliff. OR, I hope you find help before your wife drives you off a cliff.
Mariage always ends in a pit. And anyone who says it doesn't, is probably a born-again Christian family who I give mad props to because they managed to do something that society has made all but impossible for most people. God bless them.
Showing posts with label the 144000. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the 144000. Show all posts
Monday, March 17, 2014
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Characteristics of the 144,000
..that they would be undefiled with women...
Literal, or spiritual?
If it is literal, we expect them to be exclusively male.
In the modern age, many are not okay with that. Some want it to include women.
A metaphorical take which says 'women' means false religious systems allows that there may be women.
I think it does not have to be one or the other but that it may be both literal and metaphorical.
But I cannot accept that it includes women because that violates the literalness of the verse, although that isn't to say it doesn't have a metaphorical application.
I raise three points:
It says they are undefiled with women. This suggests they are male.
It says they are 'firstfruits'. I have explained how that means they are off limits, they will not marry, or that it is unlawful for someone to marry them. They are physical virgins.
As to it having ANY metaphorical implication, God has instructed me in the literal mode all over the Bible. So I have witnessed with those who spiritualize in great measure often will spiritualize things we have trouble imagining in a literal sense, i.e. things legendary. But I have also personally seen in some remarkable ways how the Bible is MUCH more literal than we give it credit for. Put simply, I firmly believe that absent any significant factors suggestive of it having a metaphorical intent, then the presumption should rest on the Bible intending a literal purpose, corresponding physically to the thing described. IF it has a METAPHORICAL purpose, then I still don't see why a literal interpretation is dispelled. Even if it is fulfilled metaphorically but is not fulfilled literally then it is literally an untrue statement. I don't think there are errors of this sort in the inspired scriptures. To dismiss any biblical claim as not being literally true seems to be done when the things described are most unbelievable or controversial. This is a dangerous tool to hand to any and every one, to decide for himself what he thinks is literal and what is not. If the Bible cannot be believed as a literal document, then it is not valid for drawing any conclusion from. If it is not literally true, then it is literally false.
If it is a metaphorical excerpt, then it HAS to be shown why the literal is precluded. Otherwise it is either both metaphorical and physical, or it is only physical. I see nothing in Revelation 14 that discounts a literal value.
_____________________
If the above is true, then this is true...
1) They are men.
2) They are virgins.
_____________________
I add one speculative characteristic I have never heard presented: That they may be musicians.
I suggest they are musicians, in one sense or another, because they learn the song that no one else can learn. This doesn't mean there aren't organists or guitarists, harpists, flautists, or piccoloists. There is no reason there can't be all of those. Some musicians today play a whole variety of instruments most have never heard of and we could guess those are represented as well. I think they are musicians or at some point they will learn. And it could be that this song is unlearnable because the song is arranged for 144,000 musicians to collaborate and perform. No one, except a God, could organize such a massive musical endeavor. The sheet music, composition, and arrangement would take centuries to compose I suspect and the angels would not be short of work. Legions of angels would be required for such a work.
_____________________
Some people after followers on Youtube and the need to be dramatic would put together a crappy video to say what I just said, and they'd add some easy listening music (piano and strings mostly) like from Titanic and then add the words "God told me in a dream" or some stupid crap. So basically, if you're looking for the 144,000, they aren't making dramatic videos in their free time. They're doing something much more boring, and that is probably why they never could marry a woman because they are hugely boring. That reminds me, making dramatic videos is boring also so maybe they are doing that, but I doubt it.
Literal, or spiritual?
If it is literal, we expect them to be exclusively male.
In the modern age, many are not okay with that. Some want it to include women.
A metaphorical take which says 'women' means false religious systems allows that there may be women.
I think it does not have to be one or the other but that it may be both literal and metaphorical.
But I cannot accept that it includes women because that violates the literalness of the verse, although that isn't to say it doesn't have a metaphorical application.
I raise three points:
It says they are undefiled with women. This suggests they are male.
It says they are 'firstfruits'. I have explained how that means they are off limits, they will not marry, or that it is unlawful for someone to marry them. They are physical virgins.
As to it having ANY metaphorical implication, God has instructed me in the literal mode all over the Bible. So I have witnessed with those who spiritualize in great measure often will spiritualize things we have trouble imagining in a literal sense, i.e. things legendary. But I have also personally seen in some remarkable ways how the Bible is MUCH more literal than we give it credit for. Put simply, I firmly believe that absent any significant factors suggestive of it having a metaphorical intent, then the presumption should rest on the Bible intending a literal purpose, corresponding physically to the thing described. IF it has a METAPHORICAL purpose, then I still don't see why a literal interpretation is dispelled. Even if it is fulfilled metaphorically but is not fulfilled literally then it is literally an untrue statement. I don't think there are errors of this sort in the inspired scriptures. To dismiss any biblical claim as not being literally true seems to be done when the things described are most unbelievable or controversial. This is a dangerous tool to hand to any and every one, to decide for himself what he thinks is literal and what is not. If the Bible cannot be believed as a literal document, then it is not valid for drawing any conclusion from. If it is not literally true, then it is literally false.
If it is a metaphorical excerpt, then it HAS to be shown why the literal is precluded. Otherwise it is either both metaphorical and physical, or it is only physical. I see nothing in Revelation 14 that discounts a literal value.
_____________________
If the above is true, then this is true...
1) They are men.
2) They are virgins.
_____________________
I add one speculative characteristic I have never heard presented: That they may be musicians.
I suggest they are musicians, in one sense or another, because they learn the song that no one else can learn. This doesn't mean there aren't organists or guitarists, harpists, flautists, or piccoloists. There is no reason there can't be all of those. Some musicians today play a whole variety of instruments most have never heard of and we could guess those are represented as well. I think they are musicians or at some point they will learn. And it could be that this song is unlearnable because the song is arranged for 144,000 musicians to collaborate and perform. No one, except a God, could organize such a massive musical endeavor. The sheet music, composition, and arrangement would take centuries to compose I suspect and the angels would not be short of work. Legions of angels would be required for such a work.
_____________________
Some people after followers on Youtube and the need to be dramatic would put together a crappy video to say what I just said, and they'd add some easy listening music (piano and strings mostly) like from Titanic and then add the words "God told me in a dream" or some stupid crap. So basically, if you're looking for the 144,000, they aren't making dramatic videos in their free time. They're doing something much more boring, and that is probably why they never could marry a woman because they are hugely boring. That reminds me, making dramatic videos is boring also so maybe they are doing that, but I doubt it.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Guile, Paul, and the 144,000
There is a man I am acquainted with that formerly I would refer to as a friend. I cannot affirm that now as when he discovered my anti-Trinitarian views he was pretty upset about that, if not feeling betrayed. I will say here and now that it is not my policy to turn my back on anyone, but for those who turn their back on me, I can only extend my hand of fellowship in the future and be open to continuing dialogue.
In one of the last several conversations he expressed his feeling that there would be a group in the last days who believed themselves to be prophets or among the 144,000, or some other legendary group, implying that he was starting to wonder about my authenticity, especially as he understands that I am "skeptical" of Paul. Well, skeptical is an understatement. I deny him as being scriptural altogether along with the rest of the New Testament. The only parts of the New Testament which are inspired are the words of the prophets in it. The apostles never had the authority to write infallible and inspired declarations like the prophets did, and Paul certainly wasn't an apostle. Only prophets spoke (and wrote) the words of God and that was how it always was. Yeshua was a prophet and so He had the power to speak the words of God. Revelation is the Revelation of Jesus Christ so that is inspired as the final book speaking of the end of days.
The reason I am writing this morning is to speak about us, the us of Revelation 14.
Revelation 14:5
"And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God."
Paul writes, in 2 Corinthians 12:16,
"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile."
______________________
What you have here is a dishonest, lying charlatan. We cannot in good conscience assign to him a status of being among the inspired authors of Scriptures but can indicate him only as being a liar. He is not inspired, instead he borrows from pagan "poets", as some sources put it, who were really Greek theologians of the Roman pantheon, and he clearly is under some impression from the encounter with "Christ" at the Damascene road, where this "Christ" borrows the words of Bacchus, in the Bacchae, that the father of Christ is identical to the chief Roman god. The spirit itself was not Christ, but one that was very effective in turning Paul out to serve as a deflection for future followers of Christ. That is, to turn them to a lawless faith consumed with the hate that empowered Paul to engage in his reign of murder against the Christians of his time. He only thought he was a pillar when he was really nothing.
As the 144,000 we will assign no status which cedes any special designation to this man. Those among us who teach so now, I speak with vision that they will not speak to this effect in the future.
In one of the last several conversations he expressed his feeling that there would be a group in the last days who believed themselves to be prophets or among the 144,000, or some other legendary group, implying that he was starting to wonder about my authenticity, especially as he understands that I am "skeptical" of Paul. Well, skeptical is an understatement. I deny him as being scriptural altogether along with the rest of the New Testament. The only parts of the New Testament which are inspired are the words of the prophets in it. The apostles never had the authority to write infallible and inspired declarations like the prophets did, and Paul certainly wasn't an apostle. Only prophets spoke (and wrote) the words of God and that was how it always was. Yeshua was a prophet and so He had the power to speak the words of God. Revelation is the Revelation of Jesus Christ so that is inspired as the final book speaking of the end of days.
The reason I am writing this morning is to speak about us, the us of Revelation 14.
Revelation 14:5
"And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God."
Paul writes, in 2 Corinthians 12:16,
"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile."
______________________
What you have here is a dishonest, lying charlatan. We cannot in good conscience assign to him a status of being among the inspired authors of Scriptures but can indicate him only as being a liar. He is not inspired, instead he borrows from pagan "poets", as some sources put it, who were really Greek theologians of the Roman pantheon, and he clearly is under some impression from the encounter with "Christ" at the Damascene road, where this "Christ" borrows the words of Bacchus, in the Bacchae, that the father of Christ is identical to the chief Roman god. The spirit itself was not Christ, but one that was very effective in turning Paul out to serve as a deflection for future followers of Christ. That is, to turn them to a lawless faith consumed with the hate that empowered Paul to engage in his reign of murder against the Christians of his time. He only thought he was a pillar when he was really nothing.
As the 144,000 we will assign no status which cedes any special designation to this man. Those among us who teach so now, I speak with vision that they will not speak to this effect in the future.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Identity of The 144,000
Firstfruits
a) It is now used today in the sense of offering a tithe. The firstfruits is the offering we make to the treasury from the product of our labor. Google provides a wealth of information here.
b) Firstfruits of the Lamb
Revelation14:4
"These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb."
c) The law speak to firstfruits as well
Leviticus 19:23-25And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of. But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the Lord withal. And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am the Lord your God.
_______________
Who are the firstfruits in Rev 14? Most all agree they are 144,000 Jewish men. They are actually virgin men. They are firstfruits, they are not to be touched, that is they "were not defiled with women" in intercourse.
They were not the spouse Paul spoke of in 1 Cor 7 who was more interested in pleasing their spouse and less occupied with the things of God, rather than virgins who are not concerned for the cares of their husbands but rather the things of God.
These 144,000 are virgins and not Jewish. What Jewish are they?
The tribe of Judah makes up 12,000 of the ranks of these men. The other tribes are presumably unknown but many have speculated that early Europeans were settlers emerging from the Middle East, thus making many whites biblical Jews. There are also Africans which are Jewish. Linguists understand Amharic, a language of Ethiopians, to be a Semitic language and so presumably there could be a Semitic heritage in Ethiopia and other African regions. I think the 144,000 will be a blend of races but will they be Jewish in the sense we understand in the case of someone being of the tribe of Judah, ethnically Jewish? No.
a) It is now used today in the sense of offering a tithe. The firstfruits is the offering we make to the treasury from the product of our labor. Google provides a wealth of information here.
b) Firstfruits of the Lamb
Revelation14:4
"These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb."
c) The law speak to firstfruits as well
Leviticus 19:23-25And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of. But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the Lord withal. And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am the Lord your God.
_______________
Who are the firstfruits in Rev 14? Most all agree they are 144,000 Jewish men. They are actually virgin men. They are firstfruits, they are not to be touched, that is they "were not defiled with women" in intercourse.
They were not the spouse Paul spoke of in 1 Cor 7 who was more interested in pleasing their spouse and less occupied with the things of God, rather than virgins who are not concerned for the cares of their husbands but rather the things of God.
These 144,000 are virgins and not Jewish. What Jewish are they?
The tribe of Judah makes up 12,000 of the ranks of these men. The other tribes are presumably unknown but many have speculated that early Europeans were settlers emerging from the Middle East, thus making many whites biblical Jews. There are also Africans which are Jewish. Linguists understand Amharic, a language of Ethiopians, to be a Semitic language and so presumably there could be a Semitic heritage in Ethiopia and other African regions. I think the 144,000 will be a blend of races but will they be Jewish in the sense we understand in the case of someone being of the tribe of Judah, ethnically Jewish? No.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)