About the Author
Television: Revolution, The Blacklist, The Goldbergs, I grew up watching Frasier, Dragon Ball Z, The Practice
Authors
Fiction: anything by Dostoyevsky, Candide, Inherit the Wind
Non-Fiction: I don't really have a non-fiction author I have read extensively but these are a few books I've enjoyed:
Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur
Illiberal Education by Dinesh D'Souza
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill
The Bell Curve by Murray and Herrnstein
Intellectual Morons by Daniel Flynn
David Horowitz I agree with on the state of civil rights, organized oppression against whites, and the progressive-totalitarian state of college campuses but I don't care to read it much because my identity with the oppressed, which is the frustration at injustice is balanced with not being able to do anything about it. And I'm already well aware of what's happening and has been happening so extreme frustration + being powerless to stop it = I choose not to read it and be made negative over it.
Interests
Playing music, guitarist of 10 years
Contrarianism, which is simply a willingness to examine all sides of an issue and if facts point you that way, to adopt highly controversial positions on things that gravely jeopardize you being tolerated in society in institutional settings such as the churches.
I enjoy trivial facts/knowledge and am a fairly good player at www.funtrivia.com.
I used to be pretty obsessive about news but it seemed over the last couple years society has deteriorated to a condition we couldn't contemplate even five years ago, that is, terrible events started happening more often and even worse things happened and I got burned out and stopped following the news mostly.
At this point, I'm enjoying reading the classical canon: Macchiavelli, Kant, Epictetus, Plato, Aquinas. The Principia Discordia says all is flux or all is in flux and I also add it is pointless, meaningless, nothing. Read or don't read, but I suggest you read. But when that great and terrible once in a century flu or some such pandemic comes along, Epictetus or no Epictetus you will still die terribly. Epictetus doesn't make you crunch numbers, bang your wife, or flip burgers at your crappy minimum wage job any better but at least it is better than huffing paint thinner or glue. I think Ecclesiastes is profane and an abomination, an altar to nihilism and I personally eliminate the book from canon but it is not wrong on the substance of worthlessness and meaninglessness but only in degree AND that it fails to synthesize the two with the idea of a compassionate and personal God who can inspire those who are struggling with not having a voice, being misjudged, or find it hard to produce anything of merit, or the person who is in no way short of experiences but also never found anything that offered them more than a temporary high, a temporary relief from the emptiness they feel in their hearts. These people are the cogs in the wheel: wake up, clock in, clock out, turn in. They repeat these many routines daily and without any meaning it sometimes can seem all as one complex machine where you are merely a component. God, through Jesus Christ, answers that. I can wrap it all up by writing Horowitz, Eccesiastes, and the news provide all kinds of depressing facts on daily life but they don't offer any answers. The Bible for me answers most questions really well. The questions it doesn't answer well doesn't not because it offers a poor answer but that those are questions it does not answer at all, but leaves room for contemplation. So finally, the Bible, love it or hate it, absolutely offers insights into every aspect of life and people of all walks of life can appreciate its advice.
Quotes
"I think, therefore I drink."
"I don't care to be apart of an organization that accepts people like me as members."
"Either that wallpaper goes or I do."
"The English country gents galloping after a fox: the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."
"Thomas Jefferson lives!"
"Three generations of imbeciles is enough!"
"I don't want to achieve immortality by my work. I want to achieve it by not dying."
I HATE MOTHERS I HATE HORSES
I <3 CALCULUS I HATE CALVINISM
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
The Gay Lie
These are basic questions to be asked and juries ultimately want to answer if we can know to an extremely high rate of certainty if the defendant is in fact guilty of the crime.
What you had in this case was one lone accuser or witness which is just not correct because it was not yet determined if she had witnessed anything at all. We know when this has happened previously, a naive fool would set up a charity page for the 'victim' and people would mindlessly give money to the person. For some people this seems to be enough of a reason to weave such a tale.
The popular image, or the image that is popularly imagined of 'prejudice' against gays. Many gays are fine with this sort of 'pious' fraud, if it generates sympathy for their case.
The value of the event... Many people who may not be onboard with the gay agenda but nevertheless can value the story as highlighting the fact the prejudice, discrimination, and injustice is still prevalent in society and reminds all persons to keep in mind the humane values that have always made Western civilization great. Certainly we acknowledge that even though the story is a fraud that it still has the value of calling attention to bigotry.
The confusion... there is a conflation of Western values... because bigotry is prevalent, and because our civilization values men as men, or as ends as Kant would say rather than means in themselves, and that gays have been mistreated, THEN it stands to reason that this story as reported MUST be true. But then you have a problem because the much longer standing tradition of Western society is the 'presumption of innocence'.
BECAUSE it serves a political agenda, BECAUSE it makes readers feel good who think piously towards themselves "Thank God I am not like the bigots in the restaurants, thank God I am not like the sinners and the publicans", BECAUSE the trend in our nation is towards leftism and this story is good political capital for that cause, BECAUSE it makes people feel sorry for a 'minority'.
Then let us hurry, rush to print, and not ask some basic questions as to legitimacy, and the big ones are Consider the Source and Qui bono?, Who benefits?
Anyone who has not been totally brainwashed by the educational system or the media saw from square one that (A) this trick has been used in the past to get free money, (B) to segue a person from obscurity to notoriety, (C) that many peoples' enemies have been TARRED AND FEATHERED and CRUCIFIED in the court of public opinion, and (D) that this is a group in society that admittedly has used psychological tactics to propagandize society, generate pity, and elicit support... She had EVERY reason to lie. But you know what? Her lies did her in. She's done, everyone in her small town knows exactly who she is and sees her for the snake she is. Instead of donations or star status she has just made her future more uncertain than she could ever imagine. She had a job and I'll give it to her that she may have even been a good employee. Now, anyone who has heard this story who might have given her a job in the past will treat her as a leper because they would never know what accusation could be made against their business to bankrupt them or what sort of thievery would occur. She is finished.
AND YET the gays really do suffer, not from society but in the inner man. Many have been raped for so long by someone in their family, they have been belittled in so many ways, they struggle being disgusted with themselves and questioning the ethics of their lifestyle. This results in many cases with them becoming recklessly promiscuous, unabashedly overtly homosexual and flaunting themselves any provocative way that they can. They are like Pagliacci, the crying clown, the Phantom, from the Phantom of the Opera, who couldn't see his face in the mirror, or the body dysmorphic demanding, "Tell me I'm pretty!" They have suffered in such terrible ways. YET suffering as a child does not excuse them all responsibility. Having your childhood stolen from you does not give you the license to destroy Western civilization and turn American society upside down! I don't know how to help you and it turns out many of you do not want help. If you are ever to heal from this, you must confront what happened to you as a child and be healed from that.
For the great majority of us who realize what a petty, selfish rat could have the gall to feel discrimination for a note? You were not refused a job, you were not denied equal pay or a promotion, you were not spit upon, you were not traded between owners which happens in every country that deals with slavery, you were not a victim of malicious prosecution, unjustly fined or imprisoned. You got a note, and even that has been shown to be a lie. People have to get a hold of themselves and see a note is simply a note. You move on and say you're going to have a nice day, no matter what anyone else writes or thinks and that's it.
And also for the great majority of us, you should see that the media and government and certain infamous groups like the gay mafia and fusion centers are all engaged in a massive collusion as a cooperative behemoth apparatus organized for the purpose of social engineering and writing history. That such a story even gains such notoriety that it does, when we are in such a dismal depression that we are never coming out of and true injustice prevails in the halls of Congress EVERY DAY PROVES this point OUTRIGHT, end of discussion. Before they controlled everything, they had to go back and rewrite the history. Now that they do control everything, including the media and the government and the textbook industry, they write it as they go along. 'Those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it' and I submit to you that Western civilization is DEAD and we are DAMNED.
What you had in this case was one lone accuser or witness which is just not correct because it was not yet determined if she had witnessed anything at all. We know when this has happened previously, a naive fool would set up a charity page for the 'victim' and people would mindlessly give money to the person. For some people this seems to be enough of a reason to weave such a tale.
The popular image, or the image that is popularly imagined of 'prejudice' against gays. Many gays are fine with this sort of 'pious' fraud, if it generates sympathy for their case.
The value of the event... Many people who may not be onboard with the gay agenda but nevertheless can value the story as highlighting the fact the prejudice, discrimination, and injustice is still prevalent in society and reminds all persons to keep in mind the humane values that have always made Western civilization great. Certainly we acknowledge that even though the story is a fraud that it still has the value of calling attention to bigotry.
The confusion... there is a conflation of Western values... because bigotry is prevalent, and because our civilization values men as men, or as ends as Kant would say rather than means in themselves, and that gays have been mistreated, THEN it stands to reason that this story as reported MUST be true. But then you have a problem because the much longer standing tradition of Western society is the 'presumption of innocence'.
BECAUSE it serves a political agenda, BECAUSE it makes readers feel good who think piously towards themselves "Thank God I am not like the bigots in the restaurants, thank God I am not like the sinners and the publicans", BECAUSE the trend in our nation is towards leftism and this story is good political capital for that cause, BECAUSE it makes people feel sorry for a 'minority'.
Then let us hurry, rush to print, and not ask some basic questions as to legitimacy, and the big ones are Consider the Source and Qui bono?, Who benefits?
Anyone who has not been totally brainwashed by the educational system or the media saw from square one that (A) this trick has been used in the past to get free money, (B) to segue a person from obscurity to notoriety, (C) that many peoples' enemies have been TARRED AND FEATHERED and CRUCIFIED in the court of public opinion, and (D) that this is a group in society that admittedly has used psychological tactics to propagandize society, generate pity, and elicit support... She had EVERY reason to lie. But you know what? Her lies did her in. She's done, everyone in her small town knows exactly who she is and sees her for the snake she is. Instead of donations or star status she has just made her future more uncertain than she could ever imagine. She had a job and I'll give it to her that she may have even been a good employee. Now, anyone who has heard this story who might have given her a job in the past will treat her as a leper because they would never know what accusation could be made against their business to bankrupt them or what sort of thievery would occur. She is finished.
AND YET the gays really do suffer, not from society but in the inner man. Many have been raped for so long by someone in their family, they have been belittled in so many ways, they struggle being disgusted with themselves and questioning the ethics of their lifestyle. This results in many cases with them becoming recklessly promiscuous, unabashedly overtly homosexual and flaunting themselves any provocative way that they can. They are like Pagliacci, the crying clown, the Phantom, from the Phantom of the Opera, who couldn't see his face in the mirror, or the body dysmorphic demanding, "Tell me I'm pretty!" They have suffered in such terrible ways. YET suffering as a child does not excuse them all responsibility. Having your childhood stolen from you does not give you the license to destroy Western civilization and turn American society upside down! I don't know how to help you and it turns out many of you do not want help. If you are ever to heal from this, you must confront what happened to you as a child and be healed from that.
For the great majority of us who realize what a petty, selfish rat could have the gall to feel discrimination for a note? You were not refused a job, you were not denied equal pay or a promotion, you were not spit upon, you were not traded between owners which happens in every country that deals with slavery, you were not a victim of malicious prosecution, unjustly fined or imprisoned. You got a note, and even that has been shown to be a lie. People have to get a hold of themselves and see a note is simply a note. You move on and say you're going to have a nice day, no matter what anyone else writes or thinks and that's it.
And also for the great majority of us, you should see that the media and government and certain infamous groups like the gay mafia and fusion centers are all engaged in a massive collusion as a cooperative behemoth apparatus organized for the purpose of social engineering and writing history. That such a story even gains such notoriety that it does, when we are in such a dismal depression that we are never coming out of and true injustice prevails in the halls of Congress EVERY DAY PROVES this point OUTRIGHT, end of discussion. Before they controlled everything, they had to go back and rewrite the history. Now that they do control everything, including the media and the government and the textbook industry, they write it as they go along. 'Those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it' and I submit to you that Western civilization is DEAD and we are DAMNED.
Withholding A Prophetic Word
"I have a word for you, but you are not ready yet."
If a prophetic word is received, then it is incumbent upon the one receiving to reveal it. It is not for the recipient to debate within himself if the person is 'ready to receive it'. There are problems if the word is not brought forth.
A. A person may not receive guidance where they need it and possibly cannot receive healing until they receive a confirmation on their end.
B. The person who received it cannot be promoted. They demonstrate that they cannot be trusted because the word God gave them to give to someone they did not show wisdom in delivering to the person.
C. Neither the one the message is intended for or the one intended to deliver it can grow. The one who the message is intended for, if he receives it, may learn something about the person, is he reliable, honest, trustworthy. A respect between the two, learning more about each other, cannot be had.
D. If the two lose contact with one another, then the person cannot then receive the revelation.
As to who 'received' it.
1. If you are not confident enough to come forward with it, it is doubtful you have received a revelation at all or that you are simply demon possessed.
2. The statement is a unbelievably prideful. "I have a word (see, I am a spiritual person), but you are not ready (you are not a spiritual person).
3. It also is intended to make a statement about oneself. "I receive revelation from God".
_________
Overall, there seems to be a lot of holes in making a claim of this sort and absolutely no upside. If you receive something from God about someone, it's not really a good idea to hold it from the person because while you might expect the opportunity to discuss it later, often times there is never such an opportunity.
Another thing that must be asked is is the word truly for the person or could the word also be significant for you? Does the word confirm to you something about yourself, or does it cause you to ask questions about yourself and explore how God is using you or intends to use you. These words may not always be as meaningful for the person they apply to as it is to you.
Also, if you receive a word about someone but you are not convinced it is the time to discuss it, then it may not be the time and the best thing you can do is not mention it at all. When the time comes to discuss it, if it ever does, you will know.
If a prophetic word is received, then it is incumbent upon the one receiving to reveal it. It is not for the recipient to debate within himself if the person is 'ready to receive it'. There are problems if the word is not brought forth.
A. A person may not receive guidance where they need it and possibly cannot receive healing until they receive a confirmation on their end.
B. The person who received it cannot be promoted. They demonstrate that they cannot be trusted because the word God gave them to give to someone they did not show wisdom in delivering to the person.
C. Neither the one the message is intended for or the one intended to deliver it can grow. The one who the message is intended for, if he receives it, may learn something about the person, is he reliable, honest, trustworthy. A respect between the two, learning more about each other, cannot be had.
D. If the two lose contact with one another, then the person cannot then receive the revelation.
As to who 'received' it.
1. If you are not confident enough to come forward with it, it is doubtful you have received a revelation at all or that you are simply demon possessed.
2. The statement is a unbelievably prideful. "I have a word (see, I am a spiritual person), but you are not ready (you are not a spiritual person).
3. It also is intended to make a statement about oneself. "I receive revelation from God".
_________
Overall, there seems to be a lot of holes in making a claim of this sort and absolutely no upside. If you receive something from God about someone, it's not really a good idea to hold it from the person because while you might expect the opportunity to discuss it later, often times there is never such an opportunity.
Another thing that must be asked is is the word truly for the person or could the word also be significant for you? Does the word confirm to you something about yourself, or does it cause you to ask questions about yourself and explore how God is using you or intends to use you. These words may not always be as meaningful for the person they apply to as it is to you.
Also, if you receive a word about someone but you are not convinced it is the time to discuss it, then it may not be the time and the best thing you can do is not mention it at all. When the time comes to discuss it, if it ever does, you will know.
The Bible Is a Shadow, The Allegory of the Cave
Exaltation of the Word
The Word is not intended to be exalted. It is primarily an effect, e.g. the effect of what God has spoken. But no one exalts what God has spoken but only that that He spoke AND was written down. Indubitably, they even argue that there are no prophets today and God has gone silent. The idea of prophets being here today threatens the cult they follow, which decided that a few dignified sheets of paper with some special wording printed on it was unique. They are characters from the Allegory of the Caves.
The Bible is in fact only a shadow. What we perceive is not intrinsically synonymous with the way things really are. So Plato found it helpful to illustrate this by saying the common observer is likened to some one living in a cave, who sees shadows on the wall, and takes note of the shadows as if they are the living entities themselves, rather than a reflection of the beings whose outline they reflect.
If we consider the Bible as only a shadow, we can immediately understand why so many people become dogmatic in defending their version of doctrine as they insist quite dramatically that it is the shadows which are the beings! But we want to discourage them from idolizing the Bible in this way and have consider the following:
Revelation is predicated on the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, the autographs, the manuscripts, the translations, the translating committees, finally the optic nerve, the co-operation of the neurological structures, and lastly, the rational mind in comprehending it. Which of these stages is the Word (or is the Word in its purest state), or at what stage does it cease to be the Word? Only in the primary stage could it be 'breathed' (the Word). But then, everything which follows is merely a shadow. If this series of functions fail, then you have a resultant misunderstanding as to what the Bible says, or was intended to say, and the person arrives at a conclusion or interpretation at odds with the original intent.
Our most firm conclusion, everyone who is committed to the veracity of the preceding paragraphs, is to say that given the Bible in its role as the most effective and informative of the shadows must be investigated to discover precisely what it was that God told the prophets, in the event that what we have before us, in any or all translations, is not the most effective at representing those meanings.
If someone tells you something, it will often not be up for dispute as to the meaning or intention of what was said. If someone writes you, and more so if they tend toward complex and puzzling language, then it is quite the more ambiguous the intent of the author. Hence, original intent is harder to come by than the precise meaning of a speaker. But so frequently do men misunderstand speakers so all the more do they misunderstand the written word. Thus, the Word of God is most meaningful in its original condition.
If something is emitted, and is relayed, and transferred, and delayed, and lastly it arrives, it may come contaminated or in a less than perfect state, or something other than its original state. Therefore, when we rely necessarily on the word of authors, translators, committees, publishers, and printing presses, it's not uncommon that the ball will get dropped and it clearly has on certain notable occasions (the Adulterer's Bible). Very marginal errors years ago may even be imagined to result in more heinous errors today. What we see, is if the Bible is taken for only the shadow it is, and NOT an object deserving of our worship, then we can handle with greater care the interpreting of it, because a deeper investigation is required to determine the nature of the actual Forms rather than the shadows. Once we come to acknowledge that the Bible makes seriously contentious statements that were controversial not only in the time they were written, but continue to be among the prime controversies in our day, then we will consider more seriously before ascribing inspiration to our personal interpretations. So ultimately, our interpretations are only shadows that at times only reflect poorly the actual Revelation.
The Word is not intended to be exalted. It is primarily an effect, e.g. the effect of what God has spoken. But no one exalts what God has spoken but only that that He spoke AND was written down. Indubitably, they even argue that there are no prophets today and God has gone silent. The idea of prophets being here today threatens the cult they follow, which decided that a few dignified sheets of paper with some special wording printed on it was unique. They are characters from the Allegory of the Caves.
The Bible is in fact only a shadow. What we perceive is not intrinsically synonymous with the way things really are. So Plato found it helpful to illustrate this by saying the common observer is likened to some one living in a cave, who sees shadows on the wall, and takes note of the shadows as if they are the living entities themselves, rather than a reflection of the beings whose outline they reflect.
If we consider the Bible as only a shadow, we can immediately understand why so many people become dogmatic in defending their version of doctrine as they insist quite dramatically that it is the shadows which are the beings! But we want to discourage them from idolizing the Bible in this way and have consider the following:
Revelation is predicated on the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, the autographs, the manuscripts, the translations, the translating committees, finally the optic nerve, the co-operation of the neurological structures, and lastly, the rational mind in comprehending it. Which of these stages is the Word (or is the Word in its purest state), or at what stage does it cease to be the Word? Only in the primary stage could it be 'breathed' (the Word). But then, everything which follows is merely a shadow. If this series of functions fail, then you have a resultant misunderstanding as to what the Bible says, or was intended to say, and the person arrives at a conclusion or interpretation at odds with the original intent.
Our most firm conclusion, everyone who is committed to the veracity of the preceding paragraphs, is to say that given the Bible in its role as the most effective and informative of the shadows must be investigated to discover precisely what it was that God told the prophets, in the event that what we have before us, in any or all translations, is not the most effective at representing those meanings.
If someone tells you something, it will often not be up for dispute as to the meaning or intention of what was said. If someone writes you, and more so if they tend toward complex and puzzling language, then it is quite the more ambiguous the intent of the author. Hence, original intent is harder to come by than the precise meaning of a speaker. But so frequently do men misunderstand speakers so all the more do they misunderstand the written word. Thus, the Word of God is most meaningful in its original condition.
If something is emitted, and is relayed, and transferred, and delayed, and lastly it arrives, it may come contaminated or in a less than perfect state, or something other than its original state. Therefore, when we rely necessarily on the word of authors, translators, committees, publishers, and printing presses, it's not uncommon that the ball will get dropped and it clearly has on certain notable occasions (the Adulterer's Bible). Very marginal errors years ago may even be imagined to result in more heinous errors today. What we see, is if the Bible is taken for only the shadow it is, and NOT an object deserving of our worship, then we can handle with greater care the interpreting of it, because a deeper investigation is required to determine the nature of the actual Forms rather than the shadows. Once we come to acknowledge that the Bible makes seriously contentious statements that were controversial not only in the time they were written, but continue to be among the prime controversies in our day, then we will consider more seriously before ascribing inspiration to our personal interpretations. So ultimately, our interpretations are only shadows that at times only reflect poorly the actual Revelation.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
'Jesus' Is Not a Magic Word
There are people who have unknowingly made 'Jesus' a magic word. In the Bible, it discusses the value of words, that they have power, and one specific example of a powerful word is the name 'Jesus'.
the power in the name 'Jesus'
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." [Romans 10:13]
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." [Acts 4:12]
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." [1 Timothy 2:5,6]
"Jesus saith unto him, 'I am the way the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.'" [John 14:6]
"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." [Philippians 2:10,11]
To the CoC, Jesus has no power to save, outside the CoC institution. So for them, 'Jesus' is a spell that only those initiated into their coven can properly cast. This has made 'Jesus' a magic word.
But 'Jesus' is not a magic word. We know from the Bible that His name is the only name by which we can be saved. It is the name above all names, and Jesus said that to know the Father you must believe in Him and that if you believe in Him you will be saved. None of this suggests that there would be one group such as the CoC who have the power they claim for themselves. If the CoC is correct, then these verses are all lies and the only name by which we can be saved is Alexander Campbell.
the power in the name 'Jesus'
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." [Romans 10:13]
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." [Acts 4:12]
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." [1 Timothy 2:5,6]
"Jesus saith unto him, 'I am the way the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.'" [John 14:6]
"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." [Philippians 2:10,11]
To the CoC, Jesus has no power to save, outside the CoC institution. So for them, 'Jesus' is a spell that only those initiated into their coven can properly cast. This has made 'Jesus' a magic word.
But 'Jesus' is not a magic word. We know from the Bible that His name is the only name by which we can be saved. It is the name above all names, and Jesus said that to know the Father you must believe in Him and that if you believe in Him you will be saved. None of this suggests that there would be one group such as the CoC who have the power they claim for themselves. If the CoC is correct, then these verses are all lies and the only name by which we can be saved is Alexander Campbell.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Infant Baptism and the Church of Christ
I live in an apartment complex and one of my neighbors who I stay in touch with frequently is a member of the Church of Christ. She stated her belief that only members of her denomination could possibly be saved. I was stunned because the Bible to my knowledge stated only one rule of faith. It was late last week I talked with a woman online who also made this same claim and a member of the Church of Christ.
But what about secluded islands or places, maybe such as Madagascar or the Maldives, or whatever island it is that the Church of Christ has not reached. Do they all burn miserably in hell because 'the' true church did not reach their island paradise? Either the Church of Christ does not understand this or they do not care.
Rousseau asked, "Will they all go to hell because of their seclusion?" [Émile, 1762]
And I also recognized that the Church of Christ insists that baptism is necessary for salvation. So in their system, they have three necessary articles of faith, to contrast my one.
This enters us into the topic of infant baptism.
"There are those who at heart are unwilling to grant that infants who die without Baptism ought to be condemned simply on account of lack of justice, as I have said.... If you think it over, however, even this sentence of condemnation of infants is not very different from the verdict of human beings. Suppose, for example, some man and his wife were exalted to some great dignity and estate, by no merit of their own but by favor alone, then both together inexcusably commit a grave crime, and on account of it are justly dispossessed and reduced to slavery. Who will say that the children whom they generate after their condemnation should not be subjected to the same slavery, but rather should be gratuitously put in possession of the goods which their parents deservedly lost? Our first ancestors and their offspring are in such a condition: having been justly condemned to be cast from happiness to misery for their fault, they bring forth their offspring in the same banishment. When the cases are similar, therefore, there ought to be a similar verdict, but in the latter case it ought to be all the more severe, since there is less likelihood that their crime could be condoned...
"Therefore, if, as I said, original sin is some kind of sin, it is necessary that every human being born in it be condemned unless it is remitted." [Anselm, The Virgin Conception and Original Sin, XXVIII, c. 1099-1100 tran. by Joseph M. Colleran)
Baptism
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." [Mark 16:16]
This would be the initally offered proof-text for the CoC or some other deranged group. But this statement just can't be read to say those two are necessary sums to combine to result in salvation. That is because it isn't an affirmative demonstration that either of the two individually without the other is not sufficient to effect the result. Elsewhere we see that belief is crucial to salvation,
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." [John 3:18]
So from here it's just as valid to salvation to have belief without baptism as it is to believe and be baptized since they both result in the person being saved.
_____
For children
Anselm thinks that the child is made guilty through original sin and baptism is necessary for remission. I have a couple problems with this.
I don't expect God holds anyone accountable who is not capable of comprehending the basic circumstances of human origins, the subsequent introduction of sin, and our need to act and of a Savior. At some age, a child may still understand the basics of right and wrong but still not understand the basic points the Christian faith makes. If that's true, there are different stages of development when the child begins to gain an awareness of the reality of sin and their personal need to be saved. Prior to this, I don't expect children to be condemned. In many cases, of children, of isolated tribespeople, they may be judged according to what they did know but I can't see God justly requiring a person's acting in accordance with an agreement they have never made and are not cognizant of. That sounds monstrous. The Anselm quote where he refers to children born into slavery, it reminds me of the Calvinists who quietly tolerated slavery or practiced it while Arminians, in England and America, Methodists notably, fought for abolition. (http:///theologicalgraffiti.com/two-different-thabatis-the-calvinist-and-the-abolitionist)
The biblical teaching, that I do not want to read anything into or derive any extra teaching from, but I want only to stand for itself comes from Jesus... Jesus had the same problem much of His followers are now experiencing. They are surrounded by people of many different faiths and backgrounds and many of them well-meaning people. But because they have not received the revelation God has for them, they often times can only think the way the world does, with the same heartless, uncompassionate, impatient, self-centered thinking. Small children were hoping to get close to the Lord and have Him lay hands on them and pray for them. The disciples shooed them away. Yet Jesus rebuked them, saying,
"Suffer little children and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." [Mark 19:14]
"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." [Mark 9:42]
The little ones are afforded a special dignity from the Lord. This I want to neither add to nor take away from. The idea that this is the guy who wants millions of babies burning and skin melting, with worms crawling through them, and being impaled on spikes is really absurd. That's cool Anselm, that's cool CoC if you have secret fantasies of babies on spikes but do not dare say that that is what the Lord and His Father taught.
As to the problem we suffer today, that Jesus also knew, we are surrounded by religious people, zealots, who are troubled in their minds, they identify as being righteous, as being chosen of God. But this they find in themselves. They are self-righteous, self-pious, they are good in their mind's eye, self-religious, and they feel so convinced of this inherent goodness they find within themselves they assume it is the unction of God confirming it to them. Proverbs 21:2 says, "Every way of a man seems right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts."
One I noticed earlier, I stated 'the Lord'. I do not speak in the way the common man does who says 'Our Lord' or 'My Lord'. I'd not identify an 'Our Lord' because I do not know who your lord is. Your lord may or may not be the same as my Lord. And 'my Lord'. This one bothers me. If as many people did as their Lord said to say and do rather than only vocalize it, then I think this life would be a lot more bearable for many more people. Why vocalize when you can demonstrate through your actions? It makes no sense for any sinner to speak of an 'Our Lord' or 'My Lord' like a 'My couch' or a 'Your couch', or 'The guy who seemed pretty interesting so therefore I check a little box on applications to say I'm a Christian even though I live a depraved lifestyle."
_____
I have discussed a three-step salvation, a two-step, and finally I've referred to my one-step salvation process. Many think they already know what that is. But the more I visit churches, the more I see they have added to the words of the Lord. They each have different requirements, but they all share one thing in common: They fundamentally miss the mark. I hope to soon write to my three readers, or however many it is now, to shed light on the crucial question fundamental in all man's traditions, "What must I do to be saved?/What is the meaning of life?"
The Principle of Holocausality
The cause of the Holocaust was the crime of the Jews in fomenting Communist revolt.
A result of the Holocaust was the Jewish state.
The six million estimated kiled is likely too high of an estimate.
____________________________________
One thing that is disturbing about this tragedy is the popular lies that one will hear from time to time from the Jews.
"Christians were behind the Holocaust."
I have heard this same lie on the Savage Nation, Michael Savage's radio program. It's a very insensitive remark given that many Christians gave their lives to protect and hide the Jews to keep them from being apprehended. And it is known that several million or over ten million were killed by the Hiterlian regime. But exclusive attention is paid only to the "six million" Jews who died in the Holocaust. There is no mention made of the Germans, or Christians, or disabled or anyone else killed in the Hitlerian regime. Two things on the validity of the six million figure are clear:
A. Certain Jewish sources are steadfast in promoting the number, despite any evidence that is harmful to their position.
B. The Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites are steadfast in all of their claims as well.
Neither of these parties can, or should, be believed.
_____________________
Hitler was an anti-Communist. Because of the extensive Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the bringing in of Stalin to power, and of the Union's intent to invade Eastern Europe, it seemed logical for Hitler who imagine himself as the man who would save Europe, to oppress the Jewish minority and any who harbored them and pre-emptively strike against Russia. To do this, they needed the co-operation of Poland. Poland did not co-operate, and so therefore was crushed like the ants that they were. Because of our very own Communist president, Delano Roosevelt, when the Americans became involved, despite long-standing warnings from Generals Patton and MacArthur, we came to aid the Communist power, which was later to take over most of Eastern Europe, who would experience their own 'holocaust', the Holodomor, and the intentional sabotage of the Soviet farm plan, such that a vast number, tens of millions would die in the days of Stalinist regime. Yet we hear nothing of the millions of Ukrainians or native Russians who suffered during these years. And the lie that Christians were involved, when Christians gave their lives for the Jews make another thing apparent:
C. Jews have exploited the Holocaust for their personal gain and they refuse, even mock the suffering of other races and minorities as being a part of those who were responsible.
_____________________
Holocausality
I. The Holocaust was Hitler's rational response to the meddling and sedition of the Jewish people.
II. It was divinely appointed because the Jews continued in their rebellion by not returning to their native land.
III. Without the Holocaust, there would be no Jewish state.
The Jews were not persecuted as some helpless, peace-loving minority. They were taken in because, as the Bible amply demonstrated their intractable stubbornness and provocation, they had committed the national sins of working for Communist takeovers and conspiracies. As to whether there were six million to die or no, the Jewish racists are no more to be believed than the White racists. That they should help to suppress the true numbers of ALL who died, rather than just the Jews, shows a disconnect when they also try to oppress those who hope to air more reliable numbers of the Jews who died. They are both liars who say six million AND one million and I have no idea how many. But I disagree that the Jews have made it that the lives of Jews who were lost are of greater worth than the others who died because they are not. And of course Jews have pathetically attacked the Christian religion for millennia, even killing its founder, which they also lie and say they did not. And if they use the Holocaust to slander the Christians, the Christians who liberated them in their camps, the Christians in the American military, then they should not expect anyone to believe their silly, unfounded and ridiculous six million claim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)