Sermon: Sunday, October 4, 2015
Just some thoughts I've been having about Francis lately.
I remember when he went to South America recently and one of the Communist leaders down there and gave him a small statue or image with Jesus and sickle, which the Pope did not accept. He even waved his hand, gesturing, saying, "No, no, this is not okay." It was one of those character moments where, when you think he have a guy nailed down, then he does something that you might not have guessed.
In fact, it left me wondering what we could really come to know about old Frank.
Then, after his recent visit to the Americas, another astonishing tale: He is reported to have met with the Kentucky clerk, who resisted the gay marriage ban. It's said that when he met her, he praised her courage and asked her to, "Pray for me."
And I began to wonder if maybe Francis is being manipulated, perhaps he is someone's puppet. I remember where I was even, thinking how he must be under the control of someone. This is several days ago this news has come out.
Now, a couple days ago, Vatican officials are coming out and saying either the story is untrue and never happened or that it is embellished. In a sense, it made me think this could be confirmation of that theory: The Vatican is in effect controlling what comes out of the Pope's mouth and if the Vatican says it didn't happen, it doesn't matter if it did because Pope Francis broke script the official word out of the See is, "It didn't happen."
Should we be worried about Francis? Have the homosexuals who control the Vatican positioned the Pope between a cock and a queer place? He certainly seems as if he's being manipulated. So then let us pray for Pope Francis.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Testament Against the United Methodist Church
I had recently (last 16 months) become a tithing member of the United Methodist Church.
Around six months ago, I withdrew my support for this reason:
The newsletters from the church became very aggressive in asking for money. The moment I drew the line is when they sent a letter saying, "In this issue we will tell you who your money belongs to."
No, you won't tell me who my money belongs to, because primarily, it belongs to me.
Secondarily, in the scheme of the Kingdom, my money belongs to God. But this argument of the church, "Your money belongs to God, we represent God, and so we have a right to a portion" does not bear. I'll tell you why it does not bear.
This is a church that unabashedly teaches against the Law of God. Unabashedly. If you're going to make a claim to tithes, which I will gladly hear, if it has founding, you will have to
a) Show that you are the lawful succession of the Aaronic priesthood
and
b) Explain which portions of the Law apply today and which do not and why
If you fail to do these both, then I conclude,
i) You are a church that makes a dubious and convenient claim that none of the laws today but the one that says give money to the church.
I can't conclude any thing else. I don't have a problem giving to a church that teaches error, if that error arises from a good faith claim, a good-hearted belief in the rightness of the way and it does not approach a level of infamous error.
In this case, this church approaches infamous error, by teaching a self-serving belief, and rejecting the Law of God for the commands of men.
Around six months ago, I withdrew my support for this reason:
The newsletters from the church became very aggressive in asking for money. The moment I drew the line is when they sent a letter saying, "In this issue we will tell you who your money belongs to."
No, you won't tell me who my money belongs to, because primarily, it belongs to me.
Secondarily, in the scheme of the Kingdom, my money belongs to God. But this argument of the church, "Your money belongs to God, we represent God, and so we have a right to a portion" does not bear. I'll tell you why it does not bear.
This is a church that unabashedly teaches against the Law of God. Unabashedly. If you're going to make a claim to tithes, which I will gladly hear, if it has founding, you will have to
a) Show that you are the lawful succession of the Aaronic priesthood
and
b) Explain which portions of the Law apply today and which do not and why
If you fail to do these both, then I conclude,
i) You are a church that makes a dubious and convenient claim that none of the laws today but the one that says give money to the church.
I can't conclude any thing else. I don't have a problem giving to a church that teaches error, if that error arises from a good faith claim, a good-hearted belief in the rightness of the way and it does not approach a level of infamous error.
In this case, this church approaches infamous error, by teaching a self-serving belief, and rejecting the Law of God for the commands of men.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Christians Don't Get Dementia
I don't feel that Christians will develop dementia.
I'll just come right out and say it: Christians do not get dementia.
Recently, I've come to acknowledge that both of my grandparents are suffering from some level of dementia and they are probably winding down in the latter stage of their lives. I've had to ask myself, why are they suffering this dementia? They have always been churchgoers, for decades, they raised their kids in church, they've read their Bibles.
So I had to answer an honest question when I was confronted with a possible conflict.
When I look at it, and I look back on the years I've known my grandparents, I don't see any evidence they were born again. That doesn't mean I believe their souls are lost. I believe they had saving knowledge, but I would not call them Christians. A Christian is what I would call someone who genuinely loves reading the Bible, Bible study, and holy living. I don't recall ever reading the Bible with my grandparents. Instead, the one time I do recall talking about it, they treated me like I was a freak, a religious nut. And as far as holy living, the extent of their religion said "gluttony", eating too much was a sin. Which basically meant quietly or privately passing judgment on anyone who in their judgment "ate too much". The Rock eats 9,000 calories a day, and some people consider him to be the epitome of a physique. And never mind my grandmother was pretty big back when I was a kid.
I think it was my uncle who said back in the day, the 1950s, my grandparents actually kept an ashtray lying around, they were liberal enough to respect any possible guests who came in and wanted to light up a cig. Although they themselves were neither drinkers nor smokers. That's pretty cool because most people are hardcore one way or the other.
Now socially, my grandparents were big into cultural Christianity, specifically the Christian gospel music scene. This isn't really a force today, but years ago, the Gaithers, Ivan Parker, and other groups were quite popular in mainstream Christian, but the music scene was considerably different as well. Country western music WAS "pop" music. Popular music charts were dominated by country and crossover artists. I doubt if anyone my age really knows who Guy Penrod, Ivan Parker, or David Phelps really are or what made them significant in the Christian gospel industry.
But did I ever see any true image of Christianity in my grandparents home, beyond the lowest level, prayer at bedtime, maybe a short reading of the Psalms before going to sleep, no.
And yet I think they are probably saved. I might use the term "Theological Quotient". Simply put, not everyone has a high theological quotient. I don't think that bars them from living decent lives, loving the Lord, being somewhat attuned to Christian living, and language, and community. I just think it means they're not going to be passionate about studying the Bible, searching for answers, day and night, praying intensely for revelation. That's something that a person with a high theological quotient would do. But perhaps, maybe, ordinary Christians are not called to that. Still I think most Christians are totally disengaged, but, this theological quotient will be a helpful instrument for us in the future to examine the body.
I'll just come right out and say it: Christians do not get dementia.
Recently, I've come to acknowledge that both of my grandparents are suffering from some level of dementia and they are probably winding down in the latter stage of their lives. I've had to ask myself, why are they suffering this dementia? They have always been churchgoers, for decades, they raised their kids in church, they've read their Bibles.
So I had to answer an honest question when I was confronted with a possible conflict.
When I look at it, and I look back on the years I've known my grandparents, I don't see any evidence they were born again. That doesn't mean I believe their souls are lost. I believe they had saving knowledge, but I would not call them Christians. A Christian is what I would call someone who genuinely loves reading the Bible, Bible study, and holy living. I don't recall ever reading the Bible with my grandparents. Instead, the one time I do recall talking about it, they treated me like I was a freak, a religious nut. And as far as holy living, the extent of their religion said "gluttony", eating too much was a sin. Which basically meant quietly or privately passing judgment on anyone who in their judgment "ate too much". The Rock eats 9,000 calories a day, and some people consider him to be the epitome of a physique. And never mind my grandmother was pretty big back when I was a kid.
I think it was my uncle who said back in the day, the 1950s, my grandparents actually kept an ashtray lying around, they were liberal enough to respect any possible guests who came in and wanted to light up a cig. Although they themselves were neither drinkers nor smokers. That's pretty cool because most people are hardcore one way or the other.
Now socially, my grandparents were big into cultural Christianity, specifically the Christian gospel music scene. This isn't really a force today, but years ago, the Gaithers, Ivan Parker, and other groups were quite popular in mainstream Christian, but the music scene was considerably different as well. Country western music WAS "pop" music. Popular music charts were dominated by country and crossover artists. I doubt if anyone my age really knows who Guy Penrod, Ivan Parker, or David Phelps really are or what made them significant in the Christian gospel industry.
But did I ever see any true image of Christianity in my grandparents home, beyond the lowest level, prayer at bedtime, maybe a short reading of the Psalms before going to sleep, no.
And yet I think they are probably saved. I might use the term "Theological Quotient". Simply put, not everyone has a high theological quotient. I don't think that bars them from living decent lives, loving the Lord, being somewhat attuned to Christian living, and language, and community. I just think it means they're not going to be passionate about studying the Bible, searching for answers, day and night, praying intensely for revelation. That's something that a person with a high theological quotient would do. But perhaps, maybe, ordinary Christians are not called to that. Still I think most Christians are totally disengaged, but, this theological quotient will be a helpful instrument for us in the future to examine the body.
How to take America Back (Although it will Never be Done
Liberty is exclusively an Anglo concept
Liberty has never existed except among Anglo people. This applies especially to England and the descendants of the English people. A very notable feature about the English is they are non-Catholic. Being a cultural Anglo means being a Protestant, opposed to the Catholic church culturally, doctrinally, and dogmatically.
The Catholic church is such an insidious force that when they solidified power in Italy, they began a persecution of the scientists, killing some, life imprisonment for others. Italy, the origin of the humanistic Renaissance, was sucked into a dark age from which, in my estimation, it has never recovered. When you purge the intellectual class of a people, you sabotage that nation indefinitely, unless and until they can acquire such intellectual capital as to produce future generations of academic merit.
Elsewhere, the Catholic church engaged in such conspiracies as to kill hundreds of thousands, from the most evil plot of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, even to the shores of England, when such Catholic monarchs as Mary brought the Inquisition to our land, and killed hundreds in the name of Rome.
If anyone is more paternalist than Rome, name it. This group thinks the Pope should determine policy matters in every country on earth, even that the other nations are not fit to decide for themselves. This results in such blatant absurdities as these orthodox disagreeing amongst themselves.
Then we arrive to the present day, when the Catholic/Jewish Supreme Court, makes several landmark decisions in a row, completing overturning every underpinning of democracy, the Constitution, and due process which they could massacre.
The media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Vatican. The Supreme Court is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Vatican. The federal government, the Congress, and the executive, are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Vatican.
In theory, my theory, the only way to set America back on the right path is to pass draconian treason and sedition laws depriving American Catholics of political privileges, stripping all Catholic politicians of political power as covert agents of the See, and depriving all Catholics of voting rights.
Many will think I say this with a hint of sarcasm or to be humorous. I can't think of a more effective way to take back the Constitution from its molesters than from the molesters who molest boys.
Catholics, be it noted, provide tacit approval to all clergy who molest children. When you give money to your bishop-prick, YOU ARE personally funding the wining and dining of the young boys, who are wooed with chocolates and flowers by the Catholic priests. You are responsible for this.
A Catholic on the left or the right makes no difference. You can't argue Peter King is any less deranged than Nancy Pelosi. Peter King never met a constitutional right he wouldn't shred in the name of fighting terrorism. He is the very definition of one who would trade liberty for security and wind up with neither. Peter King fills me with more terror than all the hordes of the Islamic State. Sonia Sotomayor is a greater standing threat to American's rights than the nation of Iran and Nancy Pelosi has distinguished herself with decades of service to making America a worse place to live.
And so the answer for Americans is to completely deprive Catholics of political privileges.
(Note: This has nothing to do with oppressing Catholics or allowing violence to take place against them. This simply means to protect the rights of all, Catholics must be severed from the political process. Catholics cannot be relied upon to vote proper material into office and will end up jeopardizing their own rights if they are allowed to vote. Catholics vote against their own interest and should be compared to a metnally incompetent person who is judged in a court as unable to manage his own affairs. So therefore, society needs to take special measures to prevent Catholics from jeopardizing their own rights and the rights of everyone else. At one point in England, Catholis were banned from owning arms because every country they went into, they wantonly killed the native peoples and took over the monarchies to serve the Pope. Therefore at one point, they demanded that no Catholic could own a firearm. This did not protect violent crimes against Catholics or deny the Catholics the right to self-defense but was a short order measure meant to protect democracy)
Liberty has never existed except among Anglo people. This applies especially to England and the descendants of the English people. A very notable feature about the English is they are non-Catholic. Being a cultural Anglo means being a Protestant, opposed to the Catholic church culturally, doctrinally, and dogmatically.
The Catholic church is such an insidious force that when they solidified power in Italy, they began a persecution of the scientists, killing some, life imprisonment for others. Italy, the origin of the humanistic Renaissance, was sucked into a dark age from which, in my estimation, it has never recovered. When you purge the intellectual class of a people, you sabotage that nation indefinitely, unless and until they can acquire such intellectual capital as to produce future generations of academic merit.
Elsewhere, the Catholic church engaged in such conspiracies as to kill hundreds of thousands, from the most evil plot of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, even to the shores of England, when such Catholic monarchs as Mary brought the Inquisition to our land, and killed hundreds in the name of Rome.
If anyone is more paternalist than Rome, name it. This group thinks the Pope should determine policy matters in every country on earth, even that the other nations are not fit to decide for themselves. This results in such blatant absurdities as these orthodox disagreeing amongst themselves.
Then we arrive to the present day, when the Catholic/Jewish Supreme Court, makes several landmark decisions in a row, completing overturning every underpinning of democracy, the Constitution, and due process which they could massacre.
The media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Vatican. The Supreme Court is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Vatican. The federal government, the Congress, and the executive, are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Vatican.
In theory, my theory, the only way to set America back on the right path is to pass draconian treason and sedition laws depriving American Catholics of political privileges, stripping all Catholic politicians of political power as covert agents of the See, and depriving all Catholics of voting rights.
Many will think I say this with a hint of sarcasm or to be humorous. I can't think of a more effective way to take back the Constitution from its molesters than from the molesters who molest boys.
Catholics, be it noted, provide tacit approval to all clergy who molest children. When you give money to your bishop-prick, YOU ARE personally funding the wining and dining of the young boys, who are wooed with chocolates and flowers by the Catholic priests. You are responsible for this.
A Catholic on the left or the right makes no difference. You can't argue Peter King is any less deranged than Nancy Pelosi. Peter King never met a constitutional right he wouldn't shred in the name of fighting terrorism. He is the very definition of one who would trade liberty for security and wind up with neither. Peter King fills me with more terror than all the hordes of the Islamic State. Sonia Sotomayor is a greater standing threat to American's rights than the nation of Iran and Nancy Pelosi has distinguished herself with decades of service to making America a worse place to live.
And so the answer for Americans is to completely deprive Catholics of political privileges.
(Note: This has nothing to do with oppressing Catholics or allowing violence to take place against them. This simply means to protect the rights of all, Catholics must be severed from the political process. Catholics cannot be relied upon to vote proper material into office and will end up jeopardizing their own rights if they are allowed to vote. Catholics vote against their own interest and should be compared to a metnally incompetent person who is judged in a court as unable to manage his own affairs. So therefore, society needs to take special measures to prevent Catholics from jeopardizing their own rights and the rights of everyone else. At one point in England, Catholis were banned from owning arms because every country they went into, they wantonly killed the native peoples and took over the monarchies to serve the Pope. Therefore at one point, they demanded that no Catholic could own a firearm. This did not protect violent crimes against Catholics or deny the Catholics the right to self-defense but was a short order measure meant to protect democracy)
Beware the Greeks
It was observed by the ancient poet Virgil to beware Greeks, even when they are bearing gifts. In the modern day, someone who I am sure history will be far less apt to remember opined, "Herpes is the gift that keeps on giving," and is perhaps an interesting microcosm for why modern society is falling.
But the history and evolution of popular aphorisms is a digression.
As to the Greeks, whose economy is on the verge of total collapse.
Why should the Greeks not suffer? They have an economy predicated on sloth. They retire at 61, they have entitled themselves to rich pensions, they've helped themselves to billions of other Europeans' wealth.
The Common Market calls for austerity and calls for debt to be paid.
Greece claims this is an outrage, resolute in announcing that it is unjust and they will make no such payment. So the banks have closed and they are shut out. Money is scarce, ATMs are empty. The Greeks complain the banks will let them withdraw "their" money. A retirement pension is the treasury's money, paid out to beneficiaries. It's not clear what the ordinary citizen's indebtedness is to the European bank either, but it's a stretch to claim money which has clearly been stolen from European nations is "their" money. So whether the citizen has money or not, they will get their money when the banks open back up, when the entire mess is sorted out. It's really indefensible to have that much money tied up in a Greek bank anyway, especially in the current state of things in that country.
For a nation which is one of the earliest, and most successful, promoters of homosexuality, it is a fitting end to that nation which they are now experiencing. They never should have taken money they had no intention of repaying and they should have adopted the proper measures to prevent the current crisis. But they did not.
In the category of snobs, you have the French. But far more refined in their snobbery than the French even are the Greeks. In Italy it was reported that immigrants were baking pizzas in the pizzerias. The Italians wouldn't make pizzas, or deliver the pizzas. It didn't pay enough and while unemployment was high, the young people would sooner live with their parents than work in a pizzeria. Well of course they would. Most young people would live at home until they are asked to leave. But the Italians were handing their own economy out from under them and the immigrants were moving in on the Italian economy. Greece is filled with even bigger babies than Italy. They have babies that look for every excuse to not work, vacation days, early retirements, pensions, borrowing money from Europe then snubbing their nose and refusing to pay it back.
I'm glad the Greeks got shut out. They need to answer for their wicked ways.
But the history and evolution of popular aphorisms is a digression.
As to the Greeks, whose economy is on the verge of total collapse.
Why should the Greeks not suffer? They have an economy predicated on sloth. They retire at 61, they have entitled themselves to rich pensions, they've helped themselves to billions of other Europeans' wealth.
The Common Market calls for austerity and calls for debt to be paid.
Greece claims this is an outrage, resolute in announcing that it is unjust and they will make no such payment. So the banks have closed and they are shut out. Money is scarce, ATMs are empty. The Greeks complain the banks will let them withdraw "their" money. A retirement pension is the treasury's money, paid out to beneficiaries. It's not clear what the ordinary citizen's indebtedness is to the European bank either, but it's a stretch to claim money which has clearly been stolen from European nations is "their" money. So whether the citizen has money or not, they will get their money when the banks open back up, when the entire mess is sorted out. It's really indefensible to have that much money tied up in a Greek bank anyway, especially in the current state of things in that country.
For a nation which is one of the earliest, and most successful, promoters of homosexuality, it is a fitting end to that nation which they are now experiencing. They never should have taken money they had no intention of repaying and they should have adopted the proper measures to prevent the current crisis. But they did not.
In the category of snobs, you have the French. But far more refined in their snobbery than the French even are the Greeks. In Italy it was reported that immigrants were baking pizzas in the pizzerias. The Italians wouldn't make pizzas, or deliver the pizzas. It didn't pay enough and while unemployment was high, the young people would sooner live with their parents than work in a pizzeria. Well of course they would. Most young people would live at home until they are asked to leave. But the Italians were handing their own economy out from under them and the immigrants were moving in on the Italian economy. Greece is filled with even bigger babies than Italy. They have babies that look for every excuse to not work, vacation days, early retirements, pensions, borrowing money from Europe then snubbing their nose and refusing to pay it back.
I'm glad the Greeks got shut out. They need to answer for their wicked ways.
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Wil the Church Lose Its Best Minds?
There are two conflicting trends at work in the church.
The church has a desire to be trendy, edgy, to present news ideas that are revolutionary and cool. It thinks this is necessary to stay relevant.
On the other hand, another trend taking place in the church is that the young people who have the most to offer, new teachings which are transformative and challenging, the church manages to drive out.
A big part of the church demands conformity, and not to a scriptural model but a man's model, usually the pastor at the head of a church. If you do not rock the boat, and you offer yourself as a lackey to the pastor you get to stay and be promoted. If your belief in scriptural sanctity demands that at times you do the uncomfortable thing and call out sin or the complacency that leads to boring teachings that lack the life that Christ gives, you're thrown out on your ass.
I've seen it repeatedly: The church is losing its best minds. Despite any assurance they've promised themselves that this rock is unmovable and unassailable and will be here to receive Christ and His angels at His Second Advent, they are wrong. They are terminal and they will lose the war and they will die out. The church will become like the Jewish temple and will be laid desolate. It will not function as an institution when Christ returns in glory. Christ's body is infinitely more rewarding than the church body and their commission will expire.
The church has a desire to be trendy, edgy, to present news ideas that are revolutionary and cool. It thinks this is necessary to stay relevant.
On the other hand, another trend taking place in the church is that the young people who have the most to offer, new teachings which are transformative and challenging, the church manages to drive out.
A big part of the church demands conformity, and not to a scriptural model but a man's model, usually the pastor at the head of a church. If you do not rock the boat, and you offer yourself as a lackey to the pastor you get to stay and be promoted. If your belief in scriptural sanctity demands that at times you do the uncomfortable thing and call out sin or the complacency that leads to boring teachings that lack the life that Christ gives, you're thrown out on your ass.
I've seen it repeatedly: The church is losing its best minds. Despite any assurance they've promised themselves that this rock is unmovable and unassailable and will be here to receive Christ and His angels at His Second Advent, they are wrong. They are terminal and they will lose the war and they will die out. The church will become like the Jewish temple and will be laid desolate. It will not function as an institution when Christ returns in glory. Christ's body is infinitely more rewarding than the church body and their commission will expire.
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Christians discovered a paradox and called it a mystery
Is God able to do anything?
Is anything possible with God?
The answer is basically built into the question. It's surprising to a lot of Christians who have never thought about it before and many invariably think of the rock analogy. "Can God create a rock so big that He could not lift it?" They ridicule my question and compare me to a heathen even though serious theologians like Norman Geisler have also considered this question and came to the same conclusion I did.
The question is a dumb one because it does not compare to the question which I asked which highlights, namely, the concept of a possible thing versus an impossible thing. For it's no wonder why some things are impossible. The ancients called it a paradox.
A paradox is a semantic construction which is no more than a conjunction of two dissimilar ideas which are basically opposites and cannot coexist. That's all it is. A paradox doesn't refer to a thing which exists in actuality, but can only be expressed in verbal constructions that can be intuited mentally, in the mind, but do not extend to a physical universe. It is a thing we can abstract and reason over, but which has no comparable thing which exists in actuality to which we can compare it.
Can God do anything? No, He can't, because there is one category of things which He can't do, and that is the category of impossible things.
What Christians think they're doing when they say "With God, all things are possible," they think they are being particularly pious, righteous, showing what strong faith they have, in believing that their Father has all power in His hands, who they trust in fully. In another sense, they're mocking us by pretentiously demonstrating a false faith, to contrast to ours which by extension they mean to imply we're godless atheists for mentioning paradox.
Of course, with God, all possible things are possible. But not all things are possible. We can think of hundreds of scenarios that can exist in literature or as a theoretical thing in the mind where nothing comparable exists physically.
Can God decide to give godness to another person, saying, "I believe you will make an even better God than I, and therefore I believe you should have this crown, for it will be better for the creation for you to take it from me."
This is not what Christians imply, but what they imply is not clear either. Perhaps many Christians don't think much, don't read much, and aren't even sure what it is they mean when they say something so stupid as, "With God, all things are possible." Another trite, meaningless comment only a non-thinker could possibly say. I can think of a lot of things God can't do. He can't lie, one. Neither is He corruptible.
There are a lot of things humans can do that God can't. And in man's severalty comes his deterioration, death, and destruction. God is one and is simple and Pure, and lacks severalty, and therefore has no parts and is not corruptible. This is also why we can say He's unchanging and will reliably be the same Person, yesterday, today, and forever.
________________________________________
Christians discovered a paradox and they called it a mystery.
Look at this doctrine called Trinity. Talk to them about it. Hear what they say about it.
"There is no way to logically explain it."
"There is no point in trying to understand it."
"It doesn't make human logical sense. It has a divine sort of sense to it."
My friends, what you're talking about is a contradiction. I realize how stupid that will make you feel, when you discover that what you're saying isn't clever and doesn't make heavenly sense, but is really nonsense because you're being evasive and intentionally conjoining contrary words.
Isn't that a thing does not make sense a great inspiration for young minds to try to delve deeper and find an explanation for something? Apparently with Christians it is not. In Christianity, if you ever questioned them about this particular "mystery", they would just kill you.
For Christians, there's a need for a market of contradictions, a market of mysteries. This is a good way to weed out the people who will be a problem for them later on. If you uncritically accept anything a Christian says, even when they know themselves that they are lying and creating logical contradictions, it is very rewarding for sorcerors or hypnotists when they find a subject that can be so mesmerized by their words.
It is rewarding for sorcerors and hypnotists when they find a gullible buyer of their snake oil, whose minds can be scattered with thoughts of paradox, who they can run interference on and scare with threats of hellfire and torment, as if they themselves are the Judge who can decide that, while they themselves do not live according to the code they espouse.
By contrast, if you do not believe every word of the sorceror-Christian, the hypnotist-witch, the Christian witch, their minds turn to all the fires of Inquisition which they cannot use today, but more frightfully, to how best to destroy your entire reputation, position in society, and life, for they think they are doing God a service, Prophet John.
Christians tinker and spin their webs of deceit, plotting how to destroy your entire life, every day they live and breathe. Because they hate you and your belief that much and that you will not believe their contradictions.
Because you are better, you are more highly trained. You see no mystery. You see a contradiction.
Christians have discovered a contradiction and have called it a mystery!
Why I must say, the greatest logicians before us are Christians for they have explained for us a contradiction. A mystery is something which is never found in the Bible, which logically contradicts itself, and which is so basic to the Christian faith, more basic than anything found in the entire Bible outright, that it is every Christian's duty to murder anyone who questions it!
Bravo, bravo!
Is anything possible with God?
The answer is basically built into the question. It's surprising to a lot of Christians who have never thought about it before and many invariably think of the rock analogy. "Can God create a rock so big that He could not lift it?" They ridicule my question and compare me to a heathen even though serious theologians like Norman Geisler have also considered this question and came to the same conclusion I did.
The question is a dumb one because it does not compare to the question which I asked which highlights, namely, the concept of a possible thing versus an impossible thing. For it's no wonder why some things are impossible. The ancients called it a paradox.
Zeno asked, if we moved from one point on the line to traverse one-half the line, then traversed another half (3/4), then another (7/8), and continued the process ad infinitum, how long would it take to traverse the line? Would it not take us an infinity to move across the line? Zeno explored the concepts of change and infinity and today we remember him for a number of paradoxes which bear his name.
A paradox is a semantic construction which is no more than a conjunction of two dissimilar ideas which are basically opposites and cannot coexist. That's all it is. A paradox doesn't refer to a thing which exists in actuality, but can only be expressed in verbal constructions that can be intuited mentally, in the mind, but do not extend to a physical universe. It is a thing we can abstract and reason over, but which has no comparable thing which exists in actuality to which we can compare it.
Can God do anything? No, He can't, because there is one category of things which He can't do, and that is the category of impossible things.
What Christians think they're doing when they say "With God, all things are possible," they think they are being particularly pious, righteous, showing what strong faith they have, in believing that their Father has all power in His hands, who they trust in fully. In another sense, they're mocking us by pretentiously demonstrating a false faith, to contrast to ours which by extension they mean to imply we're godless atheists for mentioning paradox.
Of course, with God, all possible things are possible. But not all things are possible. We can think of hundreds of scenarios that can exist in literature or as a theoretical thing in the mind where nothing comparable exists physically.
Can God decide to give godness to another person, saying, "I believe you will make an even better God than I, and therefore I believe you should have this crown, for it will be better for the creation for you to take it from me."
This is not what Christians imply, but what they imply is not clear either. Perhaps many Christians don't think much, don't read much, and aren't even sure what it is they mean when they say something so stupid as, "With God, all things are possible." Another trite, meaningless comment only a non-thinker could possibly say. I can think of a lot of things God can't do. He can't lie, one. Neither is He corruptible.
There are a lot of things humans can do that God can't. And in man's severalty comes his deterioration, death, and destruction. God is one and is simple and Pure, and lacks severalty, and therefore has no parts and is not corruptible. This is also why we can say He's unchanging and will reliably be the same Person, yesterday, today, and forever.
________________________________________
Christians discovered a paradox and they called it a mystery.
Look at this doctrine called Trinity. Talk to them about it. Hear what they say about it.
"There is no way to logically explain it."
"There is no point in trying to understand it."
"It doesn't make human logical sense. It has a divine sort of sense to it."
My friends, what you're talking about is a contradiction. I realize how stupid that will make you feel, when you discover that what you're saying isn't clever and doesn't make heavenly sense, but is really nonsense because you're being evasive and intentionally conjoining contrary words.
Isn't that a thing does not make sense a great inspiration for young minds to try to delve deeper and find an explanation for something? Apparently with Christians it is not. In Christianity, if you ever questioned them about this particular "mystery", they would just kill you.
For Christians, there's a need for a market of contradictions, a market of mysteries. This is a good way to weed out the people who will be a problem for them later on. If you uncritically accept anything a Christian says, even when they know themselves that they are lying and creating logical contradictions, it is very rewarding for sorcerors or hypnotists when they find a subject that can be so mesmerized by their words.
It is rewarding for sorcerors and hypnotists when they find a gullible buyer of their snake oil, whose minds can be scattered with thoughts of paradox, who they can run interference on and scare with threats of hellfire and torment, as if they themselves are the Judge who can decide that, while they themselves do not live according to the code they espouse.
By contrast, if you do not believe every word of the sorceror-Christian, the hypnotist-witch, the Christian witch, their minds turn to all the fires of Inquisition which they cannot use today, but more frightfully, to how best to destroy your entire reputation, position in society, and life, for they think they are doing God a service, Prophet John.
Christians tinker and spin their webs of deceit, plotting how to destroy your entire life, every day they live and breathe. Because they hate you and your belief that much and that you will not believe their contradictions.
Because you are better, you are more highly trained. You see no mystery. You see a contradiction.
Christians have discovered a contradiction and have called it a mystery!
Why I must say, the greatest logicians before us are Christians for they have explained for us a contradiction. A mystery is something which is never found in the Bible, which logically contradicts itself, and which is so basic to the Christian faith, more basic than anything found in the entire Bible outright, that it is every Christian's duty to murder anyone who questions it!
Bravo, bravo!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)