Less than ten years before total societal collapse

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

Joe Biden is 'a leading statesman of his time'

This quote is more likely to be made on:

a) Saturday Night Live

b) An alternate reality

c) The unadulterated opinion of Vermin Supreme

d) a White House press release

____

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

Second only to Hillary right?

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

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

_____________________________________________

Part II

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

http://www.infowars.com/oklahoma-lawmaker-pushes-bill-to-stop-ludicrous-gun-related-suspensions-in-schools/

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

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


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

_____________________________

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

______________________________

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

The Reconciliation of the Affirmation of Virginity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Church Affirmed the Sexual Revolution

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

_________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The primary views on inspiration/inerrancy:

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

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

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

***

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

***


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

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

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

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

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

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

On we go...

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

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

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

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

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

Solution

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

# 2. Paul and the Darth Vader heresy versus Jesus

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


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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

# 4. Paul and the Non-Pretrib Rapture

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

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

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Registering Displeasure with the Affordable Health Care Act

Registering displeasure with the Affordable Health Care Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Explorations in Obsolescence

In keeping with the mood that 'that part of Law which is applicable is the part which is does not fall under the rule of obsolescence' then I want to examine clothing.

A major critic of mine has recently countered me by asking if I did the dietary laws. In fact, I abstain from unclean meats. That isn't the same as keep[ing dietary law, one law also states to eat only unleavened bread during Passover, which I will have to start next year. So I'm trying. He follows up by asking what about clothing weaved from two different materials. I do not do that. But I have not done it because I rarely ever go shopping and I have a lot of clothes that I've warn for many years and don't mean to stop. So as I start replacing things gradually as materials get old and fall apart, I will very seriously consider buying only those sorts of clothing. He, because he is warped and demented, thinks he has won the argument and shown that I am clearly a buffoon. But he hasn't won at all and this will explain why.

___

The Law's Purpose

These laws actually had very clear purposes. The land of Israel as we know today is quite small. The land of Israel in those days was larger but how much larger I'm not informed of those numbers but we'll suppose according to the maps seen regularly at the back of bibles it wasn't substantially larger in those days than it is now. Israel in that time was a quite fertile land, really a jewel of the Mid-East. Why, it seems perfectly logical that when you're sitting on a continent made up almost strictly of desert and arid climate, that you would want to implement proper agricultural practice so as to maintain the richness and fertility of the terrain you live on. Quite clever, Jehovah! And quite stupid for the humans who come along and think this is something to laugh at and mock.

Was this law designed to benefit the people of that region and in that time? Absolutely. Does it present a moral weight to us today? I don't think so. Because this overlooks exactly what is the type of soil of North America (that is, if you live in North America) and what are the techniques that are going to best consider what type of soil, what type of crops will be sustained, and what techniques are going to yield a bountiful crop. Maybe agricultural practice of Judea from 3000 years ago isn't best suited to the climate and geography of North America.

Nevertheless, if it helps my witness, and it puts my money where my mouth is, I will wear the proper clothing. Because I cannot make myself vulnerable on such a minimal point so that my most petty, belligerent, dim-witted adversaries can mock my ministry and say, "Hehe, he wears a cotton-polyester fabric!" I will simply choose to wear cotton and it feels much nicer to the touch so stick that in your pipe and smoke it. And if you're not a smoker you can just stick it.

The Verdict

To me, this is apparently something that falls under the rule of obsolescence but that I'd say if you were a farmer in Israel I think the law has continuing regional applicability unless the Jews have discovered some agricultural technique which supersedes the command in the Bible. And that's one aspect of obsolescence. For instance with hygiene and sanitary regulations it makes most sense that those laws are made obsolete by advances in terms of water treatment, sewer facilities, anti-septics and anti-bacterials, and all the many advances of Western culture which are more effective at eliminating the spread of disease than Levitical law. Those laws had definite value in that day and age but in a lot of ways, if not all ways, has been set aside in favor of modern medicine and science. So the law, if it applies at all, only applies to people in the state of Israel and nowhere outside of Israel. The law had a specific applicability and value in that era for that people and for us today does not serve the same value, but I will not say serves no value because I am not an agriculturist and would have no way to know that. I know if you're living on the only piece of tenable land in a radius of literally hundreds of miles and in some directions thousands of miles, and the LORD has said I will make you a great nation but you need to do this, this, and this, in terms of your crops, I would listen to Him, lest my land go to rot like every other pile of sand in that area. Will God burn me if I do something else with my fields? I don't think so. But if I go to plow land in Israel, I have a different take there.

Addendum: "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children." The Law teaches a conservation of land, if not for the purpose of contemporaries who will benefit, but so as to be protected for future generations. That would be sad for one generation to leave a desolated earth to its children.

Britney Spears

I was about 11 years old when Britney Spears first became really famous. The 'Baby One More Time' was her big hit at that time. All the boys were in love with her and she had looks that were classic attractive features. Her sleaze started out on a juvenile level initially but the steam picked up and it gradually turned into a debauched charade. Many in the Christian community understandably reviled her and made it as if she was a methodical whore of Babylon whose effect was to mislead the youth toward immorality.

The pastors were wrong. I want to explain why that is, why Britney is innocent.

Britney Spears is a slave.

Disney is well-understood in some circles as being a huge promoter of the MK- industry. You might have heard of MK-Ultra. Disney is hugely behind it, and it is an incredibly nefarious program that is about brainwashing children to serve rich old men. Generally, kids become involved in the same way kids get involved with anything, through their parents. We can guess that sometime in Britney's pre-teen years, she became involved with Disney, where she first gained recognition in The New Mickey Mouse Club tv show. Over time, she likely had the attention of executives who saw they could profit massively from her talents. You see, Britney Spears was apart of the first generation of this type performer and she was the most successful of them all. She was designed to have massive appeal to young people, with catchy beats and her classic looks that everyone liked about her. She was also being used as a sex slave. She was probably conflicted in her sexuality, later singing, "I'm Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman". She was conflicted between
wanting to enjoy her childhood and teen years but being revered as a sex symbol by America and behind the scenes being passed around for sexual favors.

Now for the rest of the story, I will provide a few references that will be enough to introduce readers to this modern-day slavery.[1][2] I have already read enough on it and can't tolerate reading anymore on the topic. And because I am no expert, I willingly defer to people who have much more information than what I can offer. My primary message here is that the pastors who have preached against Britney Spears and slandered her as a whore, they have absolutely not a clue about what it is they are discussing. I also mean to make a few others points.

Britney Spears is NOT RICH. You hear on the yearly round ups of top performers' earnings. They will tell you that Spears has brought in so many tens of millions through tours, TV appearances, and album sales. Check your facts. She will never see a dime of that money, other than a stipend they set aside for her, that IS A FACT. She has already said in interviews that one of her favorite places to shop is the dollar store [3]. Do you want to know why? The slave owners, no matter how much their slaves actually make, submit their slaves routinely to torture, constant rape, and even starvation and thirst and meanwhile collect the check. Whatever she is purchasing, she is purchasing with money that has been set aside for small purchases only to maintain an appearance. The $200,000,000 it's estimated she has earned during her career [4] is going to her producers, handlers, and owner.

She has made comments in the last few days on a radio show about her coercion. She is trying to be careful and not say anything too overt about the crimes being committed against her and she is making a serious cry for help. What she has said in this statement confirms to people in the research community that she is being coerced, and that she is being sexually coerced. She is being exploited against her will, to perform for her producers and she is troubled between her obligation to her kids and that the exploitation that started in her childhood is still continuing.

Although it cannot be confirmed what access to communications devices she has, it was reported by several agencies in 2012 that she was not able to own her own cell phone, although the link provided suggests only that she has some monitored usage. Internet is also included. [5]

_________________________

Britney is not the person people thinks she is. She has been psychologically tortured throughout most of her life and if she has split personalities, how can anyone blame her for that? If you saw what she saw then you would dissociate to cope with the trauma. I think she started out as a very noble person who happened to have some of the sleaziest people around her growing up, who realized that she could be profitted off of enormously because she looks like an angel. And she's a great face for sleaze isn't she? The pastors over the years have dragged her name through the mud, they have made it out that she is a mastermind for a great enterprise to bring the youth to a state of depravity. The pastors and their wives, have kids. The kids in childhood watch all the old classics: The Wizard of Oz, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White, Robin Hood. They watch the Disney channel and listen to the Disney divas like Selena Gomez and Miley Cyrus. Maybe even some of the families went to Disney World growing up.

Do you know who are the whores, who are bringing depravity upon this nation? If I have to answer that for you it is far too late for anything to be done about it.

additional reading: www.vigilantcitizen.com
_______

1. TRANCEformation of America, Cathy O'Brien, http://archive.org/details/TranceformationOfAmerica

2. http://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/the-2009-vmas-the-occult-mega-ritual/
This article is valuable for introducing readers to the intersection of the occult and the music industry.

3. http://www.tmz.com/2013/08/13/britney-spears-conservatorship-accounting-2012-money-bargain/
You will say, 'Wait a minute, this also includes manicures, and other luxuries." Yeah, so what? She can't  make all those millions walking around with raggedy nails and looking like an old witch. Her owners are not stupid. It keeps her in a presentable condition and it allows her to feel better about herself. It's a win-win and costs chump change next to what she draws in.

4. http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/singer/britney-spears-net-worth/

5. http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/britney-spears-conservatorship-internet-cell-phone-monitored/