The Succession of Prophets
Why We Reject Paul
Supposing his words are almost without error. This does not make them scripture. Scripture was only breathed through the prophets.
Furthermore, there are prophets throughout history and into the present.
Nevertheless, these prophets since the time of Christ have no authority to alter canon by either addition or negation. The most power they have is to aid in making its true and ancient meaning obvious for the average reader. In this sense, they have an extreme gift for interpretation and one of their tasks is to make Scripture known.
But on the question of the succession several points should be made.
I. Several hundred years after the time of Christ, a man came along, preaching in the name of the prophets and that he was a valid succession and he came preaching a final revelation. His name was Muhammad and his book is called the Qu'ran.
II. Sometime after Muhammad came and went, another came saying he was a valid succession from the line of Muhammad. He had one additional revelation. The Muslims were split down the middle into Sunni and Shi'a camps.
III. Even further down the road came a man named Ba'ha'ullah. He said that he too was in the tradition of the former prophets and a continuation even of Muhammad. He vastly revolutionized the Islamic faith, and today, we call it the Ba'hai faith, and we laugh at its adherents who shun any visual representation of Ba'ha'ullah, except the more sensitive and politically correct among us, of course.
IV. Still we have other self-proclaimed prophets. Among them was one by the name Mary Baker Eddy, professing a new doctrine, but still in the succession of Christ and the prophets. She bestowed on her generation and posterity the nutty Christian Science.
V. As things always were, and still today, we had characters such as Charles Taze Russell and his ilk, who rewrote the entire Bible to their own liking. We have doctrines novel to the modern era even, including theosophy pioneered by Blavatsky, L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, and still we have an endless plethora of teachings, new ones for every people in every generation. And a lot of them conspicuously claim the authority granted in succession, who, while they may not use this language, they pay due respect to the prophets of old and to the Messiah, whose system their new theories pretend to be a continuation of, though they do lie.
_________________________
And we are convinced at every juncture of history, at every opportunity that it has had to either invalidate or to confirm this teaching, it has provided more and more corroboration since the beginning that the final revelations of canonical stature, that is, deserving to be admired on the level of purely God-breathed, prophetically inspired teaching, was finished at the time of Christ.
Any subsequent revelation, no matter how true, must unquestionably take a back seat to the Law and the Prophets and Christ. There is nothing beyond the words of Christ in the which a man might be saved. No Peter, no Paul, no Pope, can effect upon us a greater or more perfect salvation than that found in Christ. And this does not mean that their writings are not of substantial value, but that they are not necessary to salvation.
We of the anti-Paul sect, in our deliberate investigations of history, conclude that Paul is a usurper and a progenitor of novel doctrines foreign to the teachings of Christ, that in the Church age, his teachings have overshadowed and have been lauded to a greater height than those of Christ, and that he is merely another, yet at the beginning, of a long line of pretenders, claiming themselves to be a continuation in the sense of succession, with every affirmation in their words to the ministry of the Prophets and the Christ, but who in deed have overthrown the ministries of the Prophets and the Christ.
Our firm resolution is to regard anything attributed to the pen of the pretended Apostle Paul as wholly subject to error, as already containing a disastrous number of errors, and if esteemed as being worthy of consideration at all, to be esteemed as such only in a secondary sense of being the fifth wheel to all portions of Scripture, and whose plain meaning can never be accepted to invalidate portions of the prolegomena but must be read entirely in light of prolegomena. Insofar as it negates it, the epistles should be dismissed. Insofar as it confirms or illuminates, it should be heralded as a valuable insight but never to sit beside Holy and God-breathed Scripture.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
The 700 Club and the upcoming Noah movie
I was watching the March 28, 2014 broadcast of The 700 Club, the second hour of which airs at noon. They have a morning broadcast hosed Pat Robertson and then a second hour that is hosted another one of their anchors, usually, although Robertson sometimes fills in.
Let us say they did a report on a new movie, Noah, starring Russell Crowe and Emma Watson. They weren't about tarnishing the movie, although their report did note many Christians, who I would describe as fundamentalists (my word, not theirs), are up in arms over it. I think The 700 Club shared their concerns over it. Which is strange because the movie had not opened yet, so it's not really clear what they're so
upset about.
These morons are complaining about the Noah movie. It sounds like sour grapes. There have been several attempts, if attempts are what you would call them, at making a professional theatric production that also appeals to a biblical faith. But what you see is cheesy, boring screenplays that demonstrate that Christians do not have even one director capable of producing a compelling work of cinema. These are not merely B-movies, they are closer to not being on a list at all. What is so threatening to Christians is not the creative license Aronofsky took for himself, it is that a worthy adaptation of a biblical epic, of blockbuster proportions with A-lit stars has been created, and by an atheist, Jewish director.
Is it true that their have been surmisals into the story? Absolutely. But when one studies the sixth to seventh or so chapter of Noah, they find that very little about Noah the man is made mention of at all. What it does relate is quite an epic tale. Any attempt such as Aronofsky's is going necessitate a lot editorializing because we simply do not have enough to fashion an entire script about.
The Ignorance of the Narrow View of Interpretation
When Christians read the account of the Creation, they are quick to admit that Adam and Eve were the only humans on earth. Almost titillated, they tell how with the divine mission to populate the world, Cain and Seth and all the boys had sex with their sisters and populated the earth.
In this strange Christian infatuation with incest, they wax gleeful when just a few chapters later, the earth is destroyed except just eight individuals, Noah and his family, and this strange union of brothers and sisters marrying one another resumes again.
This mind you comes from the very sensible perception that nothing should be added to the Bible that isn't there.
Yet somehow they aren't careful enough to notice that there is nothing there reported that brothers and sisters were shacking up with each other.
Beginning in chapter 4 of Genesis, Cain's birth and young life is recounted. Without dwelling on the specifics, most of you being familiar with the story, Cain has a falling out with his brother and brings him into the field and murders him. A dialogue ensues between him and God where he is cast out of the area of Eden and goes to dwell in the east, in the land of Nod.
Genesis 4:25,26 And Adam knew his again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seedinstead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.
Now, I studied these chapters dealing with the first family last night to find evidence of where the ensuing human population descended from.
These are my findings:
a. Cain and Abel are the first two of the children borne to Adam and Eve.
b. Cain killed Abel and THEN went into the land of Nod, after God cast him out.
c. It was when going to dwell in Nod, he unites with his wife and they give birth.
d. After Cain is cast out, God gives to Eve another son. Her beloved on is killed, her other son is dispossessed and flees, and now to restore what has been lost, she conceives a son through Adam, and calls him Seth.
e. The mystery is clear: Cain comes to find a willing bride in a distant land. There is nothing anywhere that suggests he had any siblings meaning this could not have been a sister, which Christians grossly with great fantasy proclaim.
My Very Careful Conclusion
It is not even narrowly possible, but purely impossible, for Cain to have taken up with his sister.
Yet this elicits many objections.
___________
1. What is this settlement in the land of Nod?
2. Why does the Bible not mention such a settlement?
3. Despite how we might feel about incest today, in the pre-Mosaic times, it was not morally wrong.
____________
This is all rather easily dispersed with when it is acknowledged a most central principle of all the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is a tale of the Hebraic and Israelitish peoples!
This entails several things:
I. It is very heavily devoted to lineages.
II. It is concerned with origins of the Hebraic ancestral lands, and later its division into two kingdoms, Israel and Judah.
III. It is deeply concerned with its history versus its neighbors, the neighboring peoples, their wars against them, along with their customs and their eventual disposition, some of which were utterly destroyed and blotted out, others of which were subsumed.
____________
And especially, because it is presumably on a nation of peoples who can trace their descent from several common ancestors, extensive records of the origins and patriarchs of neighboring countries is almost entirely irrelevant.
____________
Peculiarity in Cain's and Seth's lineage
Cain --> (false ) Enoch --> Irad --> Mehujael --> Methusael --> Lamech -x-
Seth --> Enos --> Cainan --> Mahalaleel --> Jared --> (true) Enoch --> Methusaleh -->
(true) Lamech --> Noah
The Lineage of Cain was Devoted to Evil,
while
The Lineage of Seth was Devoted to the Lord
When I studied this original family and eventual disposition I found
the lineage of Cain was stained with murder and the genealogy ends with Lamech. I believe that Cain's line may have been blotted out because of the sin of murder.
Further, these names in the early names all had very deep meaning and were referential and self-referential.
When Cain's son is called Enoch, and Enoch pursues the way of wickedness taught him by his father, Enoch is walking falsely in Enochness, "Enoch" meaning dedication, implying he is walking against dedication. He is not dedicated to God. He is falsely called Enoch, as his nature does not embody Enochness.
God blots this lineage of Cain and restores true 'dedication' through the great-great-great-grandson of the righteous Seth.
Cain's great-great-grandson Methusael is likewise an impostor of Methusaleh, though I'm not sure why the name is twisted or how precisely it affects the meaning. -El is an angelic meaning referring back to Divinity and might be regarded as presumptuous titling, whereas Methusaleh invokes the psaltery Saleh which may be understood as an invocation for the serenity of God to prevail. Methusaleh, then, is a humble man who calls upon the Lord. Methusael is another one of the rotten bunch of Cain.
When Cain's great-great-grandson is named Lamech, it similarly carries a negative connotation.
For it is in the line of Seth, in the person of Lamech, who through righteous rearing of his son Noah, humanity is given a second chance at life.
Contrarily, it is in the tainted line of Cain, Lamech becomes the first practicing polygamist, he murders a man for striking him, to pick up after the murdering heritage of his father Cain, and it is in this same line, that man is destroyed.
Even at the time of Noah, Seth's lineage had departed from the LORD as well, except in the narrow patrilineal descent.
Therefore, true Lamech is the man who would father the earth again, after Adam, or the rebirth of man. False Lamech in contrast to true Lamech, representing rebirth of man, false Lamech represents complete death of man.
In False Lamech, humanity is destroyed. But through true Lamech, man is restored (in Noah).
This early biography of a blessed family, one branch of which relies on the LORD, the other branch of which falls into depravity, is one of how the firstborn of man is often not the chosen of God. It is in the young one, the young Jacob, the young Joseph, or the young Moses who God calls more deeply to Himself.
Likewise, it is the only child who God also takes a tender care for, such as Samuel, Samson, and John the Baptist.
Likewise, it is the runt, the one the others despise that God chooses. One forgets that for a longtime there was enmity between Christ and His brothers, for even we would dispute with one among us who challenges us in the way that Christ did everyone He connected with. It was Joseph whose brothers sought for his death, and it was Jeremiah, who knowing the torment of isolation in dark pits and unjust custody in prison, God reminded that even his brothers had turned against him.
God never had need for the popular one, the noted one, or the favored. God throughout time has always turned man's institutions upside down.
___________________
Is there, in fact, any evidence that the brothers and sisters were screwing around with each other?
I simply return to the original supposition that I agree to be sensible, yet feel is misused here.
The sensibility is that nothing should be added to the Bible that the Bible does not clearly report.
It's application here is obvious: There is nothing in the narrative that suggests an incestuous union, there is however circumstantial evidence to suggest that there were other settlers in Mesopotamia, particularly in the region of Nod, through whom the seed of Cain arises. Further, we find that there are transcendent absolute moral laws that, as we agree with the natural and classical philosophers and economists including Locke and Bastiat, transcend the written law, which law seeks only to reveal and codify. That the law, known both by light of natural revelation, natural reason, and special revelation shows that it is a grotesque abuse of the body to unite it with blood of a degree so close as that which shares parentage, and that Mosaic law notwithstanding, is as grotesque for those in Adamic times as it is for us in times modern.
__________________
Hereby be it acknowledged that the most notorious and suspect doctrine by which fundamentalist Christian apply to origins, is damnable and damned, and is a lawless belief in the permanence of Law, which God continually expounds as eternal and timeless.
Hereby be it acknowledged that sympathies against artistic representations of biblical accounts are the disgraceful beckonings among some back to an earlier time of censorship and capital punishment against dissent and is a sentiment not in keeping with the times, and which should be quickly dispersed, before all of Christianity is falsely disregarded, and eventually violently squashed, by those who would regard it in its entirety as a system of censorship and hatred.
Let it further be acknowledged, that if Christians have heretofore not committed within themselves to never return to a Hollywood theater again, despite its reputation preceding it that it is a demonstration of a) a leftist political agenda, b) a normalization of every cowardly act of sexual, physical, and pharmaceutical abuse, and c) as an effective implement which has heretofore been used as a weapon to ridicule Christianity, It is the idea that a Hollywood epic devoted to telling a BIBLICAL story that should be boycotted, rather than ALL of Hollywood as a vile and abominable industry, that the good people of the Christian faith find the MOST RIDICULOUS of ALL. For it is in your very naive attempt to cast aspersions and ridicule on Hollywood, that it is actually on Christianity itself that you bring ridicule on.
If you mean to be a moral crusader and take a stand against the evil in Hollywood, you seem to be a genuine nutcase since you chose to make a stand on the story of Noah, rather than the story of a whore, a drug dealer, or a gangster,of which Hollywood tells in nearly all of its adaptations.
I restrict myself to around one movie a year or less. If you really want to take a stand for morality, then do what I did and stop going altogether and if you must, make it as rarely as possible. For instance, I'll go for a blockbuster like American Hustle. In fact, I won't even go to Christian films because it's from the same sick Hollywood beast. To come full circle, the reason I stopped going to theaters nearly totally was after seeing a movie where a father raped his own daughter. It was finally revealed in the last few seconds of the movie. It was the worst because if it had been shown any earlier in the movie I would have walked out. I resolved at that time to never go back. Since then, I've been only a handful of times and that was not quite ten years ago, so I probably make a movie every 12-18 months, if not two years. So please, if there is any shred of decency in you left, just stop going altogether. Stop being a hypocrite, stop whining about filth in Hollywood and just stop going.
Let us say they did a report on a new movie, Noah, starring Russell Crowe and Emma Watson. They weren't about tarnishing the movie, although their report did note many Christians, who I would describe as fundamentalists (my word, not theirs), are up in arms over it. I think The 700 Club shared their concerns over it. Which is strange because the movie had not opened yet, so it's not really clear what they're so
upset about.
These morons are complaining about the Noah movie. It sounds like sour grapes. There have been several attempts, if attempts are what you would call them, at making a professional theatric production that also appeals to a biblical faith. But what you see is cheesy, boring screenplays that demonstrate that Christians do not have even one director capable of producing a compelling work of cinema. These are not merely B-movies, they are closer to not being on a list at all. What is so threatening to Christians is not the creative license Aronofsky took for himself, it is that a worthy adaptation of a biblical epic, of blockbuster proportions with A-lit stars has been created, and by an atheist, Jewish director.
Is it true that their have been surmisals into the story? Absolutely. But when one studies the sixth to seventh or so chapter of Noah, they find that very little about Noah the man is made mention of at all. What it does relate is quite an epic tale. Any attempt such as Aronofsky's is going necessitate a lot editorializing because we simply do not have enough to fashion an entire script about.
The Ignorance of the Narrow View of Interpretation
When Christians read the account of the Creation, they are quick to admit that Adam and Eve were the only humans on earth. Almost titillated, they tell how with the divine mission to populate the world, Cain and Seth and all the boys had sex with their sisters and populated the earth.
In this strange Christian infatuation with incest, they wax gleeful when just a few chapters later, the earth is destroyed except just eight individuals, Noah and his family, and this strange union of brothers and sisters marrying one another resumes again.
This mind you comes from the very sensible perception that nothing should be added to the Bible that isn't there.
Yet somehow they aren't careful enough to notice that there is nothing there reported that brothers and sisters were shacking up with each other.
Beginning in chapter 4 of Genesis, Cain's birth and young life is recounted. Without dwelling on the specifics, most of you being familiar with the story, Cain has a falling out with his brother and brings him into the field and murders him. A dialogue ensues between him and God where he is cast out of the area of Eden and goes to dwell in the east, in the land of Nod.
Genesis 4:25,26 And Adam knew his again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seedinstead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.
Now, I studied these chapters dealing with the first family last night to find evidence of where the ensuing human population descended from.
These are my findings:
a. Cain and Abel are the first two of the children borne to Adam and Eve.
b. Cain killed Abel and THEN went into the land of Nod, after God cast him out.
c. It was when going to dwell in Nod, he unites with his wife and they give birth.
d. After Cain is cast out, God gives to Eve another son. Her beloved on is killed, her other son is dispossessed and flees, and now to restore what has been lost, she conceives a son through Adam, and calls him Seth.
e. The mystery is clear: Cain comes to find a willing bride in a distant land. There is nothing anywhere that suggests he had any siblings meaning this could not have been a sister, which Christians grossly with great fantasy proclaim.
My Very Careful Conclusion
It is not even narrowly possible, but purely impossible, for Cain to have taken up with his sister.
Yet this elicits many objections.
___________
1. What is this settlement in the land of Nod?
2. Why does the Bible not mention such a settlement?
3. Despite how we might feel about incest today, in the pre-Mosaic times, it was not morally wrong.
____________
This is all rather easily dispersed with when it is acknowledged a most central principle of all the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is a tale of the Hebraic and Israelitish peoples!
This entails several things:
I. It is very heavily devoted to lineages.
II. It is concerned with origins of the Hebraic ancestral lands, and later its division into two kingdoms, Israel and Judah.
III. It is deeply concerned with its history versus its neighbors, the neighboring peoples, their wars against them, along with their customs and their eventual disposition, some of which were utterly destroyed and blotted out, others of which were subsumed.
____________
And especially, because it is presumably on a nation of peoples who can trace their descent from several common ancestors, extensive records of the origins and patriarchs of neighboring countries is almost entirely irrelevant.
____________
Peculiarity in Cain's and Seth's lineage
Cain --> (false ) Enoch --> Irad --> Mehujael --> Methusael --> Lamech -x-
Seth --> Enos --> Cainan --> Mahalaleel --> Jared --> (true) Enoch --> Methusaleh -->
(true) Lamech --> Noah
The Lineage of Cain was Devoted to Evil,
while
The Lineage of Seth was Devoted to the Lord
When I studied this original family and eventual disposition I found
the lineage of Cain was stained with murder and the genealogy ends with Lamech. I believe that Cain's line may have been blotted out because of the sin of murder.
Further, these names in the early names all had very deep meaning and were referential and self-referential.
When Cain's son is called Enoch, and Enoch pursues the way of wickedness taught him by his father, Enoch is walking falsely in Enochness, "Enoch" meaning dedication, implying he is walking against dedication. He is not dedicated to God. He is falsely called Enoch, as his nature does not embody Enochness.
God blots this lineage of Cain and restores true 'dedication' through the great-great-great-grandson of the righteous Seth.
Cain's great-great-grandson Methusael is likewise an impostor of Methusaleh, though I'm not sure why the name is twisted or how precisely it affects the meaning. -El is an angelic meaning referring back to Divinity and might be regarded as presumptuous titling, whereas Methusaleh invokes the psaltery Saleh which may be understood as an invocation for the serenity of God to prevail. Methusaleh, then, is a humble man who calls upon the Lord. Methusael is another one of the rotten bunch of Cain.
When Cain's great-great-grandson is named Lamech, it similarly carries a negative connotation.
For it is in the line of Seth, in the person of Lamech, who through righteous rearing of his son Noah, humanity is given a second chance at life.
Contrarily, it is in the tainted line of Cain, Lamech becomes the first practicing polygamist, he murders a man for striking him, to pick up after the murdering heritage of his father Cain, and it is in this same line, that man is destroyed.
Even at the time of Noah, Seth's lineage had departed from the LORD as well, except in the narrow patrilineal descent.
Therefore, true Lamech is the man who would father the earth again, after Adam, or the rebirth of man. False Lamech in contrast to true Lamech, representing rebirth of man, false Lamech represents complete death of man.
In False Lamech, humanity is destroyed. But through true Lamech, man is restored (in Noah).
This early biography of a blessed family, one branch of which relies on the LORD, the other branch of which falls into depravity, is one of how the firstborn of man is often not the chosen of God. It is in the young one, the young Jacob, the young Joseph, or the young Moses who God calls more deeply to Himself.
Likewise, it is the only child who God also takes a tender care for, such as Samuel, Samson, and John the Baptist.
Likewise, it is the runt, the one the others despise that God chooses. One forgets that for a longtime there was enmity between Christ and His brothers, for even we would dispute with one among us who challenges us in the way that Christ did everyone He connected with. It was Joseph whose brothers sought for his death, and it was Jeremiah, who knowing the torment of isolation in dark pits and unjust custody in prison, God reminded that even his brothers had turned against him.
God never had need for the popular one, the noted one, or the favored. God throughout time has always turned man's institutions upside down.
___________________
Is there, in fact, any evidence that the brothers and sisters were screwing around with each other?
I simply return to the original supposition that I agree to be sensible, yet feel is misused here.
The sensibility is that nothing should be added to the Bible that the Bible does not clearly report.
It's application here is obvious: There is nothing in the narrative that suggests an incestuous union, there is however circumstantial evidence to suggest that there were other settlers in Mesopotamia, particularly in the region of Nod, through whom the seed of Cain arises. Further, we find that there are transcendent absolute moral laws that, as we agree with the natural and classical philosophers and economists including Locke and Bastiat, transcend the written law, which law seeks only to reveal and codify. That the law, known both by light of natural revelation, natural reason, and special revelation shows that it is a grotesque abuse of the body to unite it with blood of a degree so close as that which shares parentage, and that Mosaic law notwithstanding, is as grotesque for those in Adamic times as it is for us in times modern.
__________________
Hereby be it acknowledged that the most notorious and suspect doctrine by which fundamentalist Christian apply to origins, is damnable and damned, and is a lawless belief in the permanence of Law, which God continually expounds as eternal and timeless.
Hereby be it acknowledged that sympathies against artistic representations of biblical accounts are the disgraceful beckonings among some back to an earlier time of censorship and capital punishment against dissent and is a sentiment not in keeping with the times, and which should be quickly dispersed, before all of Christianity is falsely disregarded, and eventually violently squashed, by those who would regard it in its entirety as a system of censorship and hatred.
Let it further be acknowledged, that if Christians have heretofore not committed within themselves to never return to a Hollywood theater again, despite its reputation preceding it that it is a demonstration of a) a leftist political agenda, b) a normalization of every cowardly act of sexual, physical, and pharmaceutical abuse, and c) as an effective implement which has heretofore been used as a weapon to ridicule Christianity, It is the idea that a Hollywood epic devoted to telling a BIBLICAL story that should be boycotted, rather than ALL of Hollywood as a vile and abominable industry, that the good people of the Christian faith find the MOST RIDICULOUS of ALL. For it is in your very naive attempt to cast aspersions and ridicule on Hollywood, that it is actually on Christianity itself that you bring ridicule on.
If you mean to be a moral crusader and take a stand against the evil in Hollywood, you seem to be a genuine nutcase since you chose to make a stand on the story of Noah, rather than the story of a whore, a drug dealer, or a gangster,of which Hollywood tells in nearly all of its adaptations.
I restrict myself to around one movie a year or less. If you really want to take a stand for morality, then do what I did and stop going altogether and if you must, make it as rarely as possible. For instance, I'll go for a blockbuster like American Hustle. In fact, I won't even go to Christian films because it's from the same sick Hollywood beast. To come full circle, the reason I stopped going to theaters nearly totally was after seeing a movie where a father raped his own daughter. It was finally revealed in the last few seconds of the movie. It was the worst because if it had been shown any earlier in the movie I would have walked out. I resolved at that time to never go back. Since then, I've been only a handful of times and that was not quite ten years ago, so I probably make a movie every 12-18 months, if not two years. So please, if there is any shred of decency in you left, just stop going altogether. Stop being a hypocrite, stop whining about filth in Hollywood and just stop going.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Functional and Structural Disease: Why Does God Not Heal Amputees?
Why Does God Not Heal Amputees?
This question is so stupid and obvious, only the most petty atheist could ask it, who simply grasps at the most unworthy snipe against Christian faith his moronic mind can think up. Either that or it was asked by a child, which, at least it is sincere.
How Does Science Divide Disease?
On the most basic level, the level on which disease can be no further generalized, science recognizes two forms of disorder:
___________________
The difference is straightforward.
A structural disorder is one in which the disease originates from the absence of a structure, malformation of a structure, atrophy of a structure... etc. This is something that is noted by examining the structure itself for evidence of deformation or disease.
A functional disorder is disease of a structure that is not the effect of the the absence of a part or dysfunction of a part. It is a subtle disease of a chemical or cellular variety, an occasion where the transfer of cells or cell bodies, the metabolism or elimination of materials, or any such process is hampered within the structure itself. This is a form of disease that microbiology, genetics, hematology and all other such sciences are required to identify. For most of history, these illnesses were not directly diagnosable or treatable. People who were responsible scientists in their era doubted the existence of particular syndromes now known to be functional in type and they left merely to fate and the outcome of time to eliminate (the disease or the one suffering from it). The advanced minds of the day also reflected on what little science could reveal about these problems and fretted that the state of contemporary scholarship would not allow them to correct the problem, but looked forward to an era where future scientists with future tools could begin to identify and treat.
___________________
Supernatural Healing... Of What Sort?
We have established the nature of illness, such as how it might result from malformation or deformation of structures, or how it might happen on a subtle, chemical level. We should now ask straightforwardly, What did the prophets work to heal?
Or a like question, Did the prophets ever heal structural disease?
My answer is that the prophets did not heal diseases of the variety of missing limbs or like structural disorders.
___________________________
If they healed blindness, it was by the working, not on a deficient structure, but rather the deficient operation of the ophthalmic structure.
Where they healed a disease of the lung, it was not by a restoration of an absent lung, but rather the restoration of the lung's function.
Where issues of blood were treated, it was to restore the function of the structure, but not adding a structure or regenerating a structure or operating on the constitution of the structure, but restoring the function.
Similarly, muscles were not healed on the structural level, but where muscles were not functional, their function was restored.
___________________________
The biblical variety of healing was never an alteration of a structure, but only affected restoration of the function. Psychiatrists are not dissecting or reconstituting brains. They are not gods obviously and we don't even fault them as physicians, much less as gods, for not having omnipotence in reconstituting the brain and its properties, but very similarly, though less obviously, we fault God for not performing mind-blowing restorations of structural variety, and fail to acknowledge the great wonders He has shown the world through the prophets.
So if God does not restore limbs, the blind who recovered sight were no less overjoyed. Restoration of sight, of the ability to walk, to be free of psychotic interferences, or devastating sleep disorders, are not somehow unimpressive because God fails to restore in a highly-publicized visible way obvious structural disease. Doctors often see restoration of function and have no way to explain it. The restorations in the Bible days one could be skeptical of, they could dispute for lack of a firm chemical or biological explanation and presumably if healings occur today, they are happening with very few witnesses and some of the witnesses unsure if they have seen the body restore itself or something more. But the people who feel the warm touch of God and see restoration are powerfully moved, and enormously thankful to see the restoration. They don't fret their time away asking moronic questions like, "Why didn't God stop 9/11... Why does God not make people grow arms back?"
It is only very sad people who have almost no meaning left that ask for naive signs, like the regeneration of limbs.
God's Complete Authority Over Life and Death
For if now medical science has the power to restore life after death, then several implications follow:
Of all crackpot, thankless, Godless theories the atheists in medicine have posited, one of the absurd ones floating around for us today is of those who have died, and then been restored to life. Yet the atheists violently insinuate that biblical reports of resurrection are preposterous! Yet if medical science proves resurrection is possible, what does that mean?
It would imply two things,
Jesus' miracles were nothing extraordinary and the long-standing scientific criticism against their possibility is negated. Now the atheistic materialist has no basis to reject Jesus' miracles as they can be explained naturally.
If science has power to restore life, say, within seconds of death, or within a few minutes of death, we are only a few extrapolations away from extending life indefinitely, perhaps raising people from the death days
afterward.
No Christian, Jew, atheist, or scientist is happy with either of these and certainly not both. And then atheists have no reason to reject Christ as a Messiah... because He was not a miracle-worker; He was only a very gifted scientist.
This idea of being dead on the operating table and then reviving, is only in the poetic or as-it-were sense.
Conclusion
Let it be noted now, that this very naiv objection, once thought clever, is not even founded in the science it is pretended to be based upon. For it pretends to posit a scientific notion, and thereby refute God; when, on the contrary, on the basis of science itself it as shown as a pretension, a smarmy, naive attack on God and an appeal to the ignorance of the fellow atheists. I can liken it to an old parable..
Take an old broken down car.. perhaps an 80s Oldsmobile... Now take the shell of a Lamborghini and fix up the broken down old jalopy so that outwardly it has the frame of a Lamborghini. It has all the flash and pizzazz of an expensive Italian sports car.. but examined closely, it is a broken down smokestack.
Careful examination of the atheist arguments shows every indication that they are clever, fast, and expensive. But upon a closer look, you find that they are only pretentious, showy, and cheap.
JS
This question is so stupid and obvious, only the most petty atheist could ask it, who simply grasps at the most unworthy snipe against Christian faith his moronic mind can think up. Either that or it was asked by a child, which, at least it is sincere.
How Does Science Divide Disease?
On the most basic level, the level on which disease can be no further generalized, science recognizes two forms of disorder:
___________________
- Structural disorder, and
- Functional Disorder
The difference is straightforward.
A structural disorder is one in which the disease originates from the absence of a structure, malformation of a structure, atrophy of a structure... etc. This is something that is noted by examining the structure itself for evidence of deformation or disease.
A functional disorder is disease of a structure that is not the effect of the the absence of a part or dysfunction of a part. It is a subtle disease of a chemical or cellular variety, an occasion where the transfer of cells or cell bodies, the metabolism or elimination of materials, or any such process is hampered within the structure itself. This is a form of disease that microbiology, genetics, hematology and all other such sciences are required to identify. For most of history, these illnesses were not directly diagnosable or treatable. People who were responsible scientists in their era doubted the existence of particular syndromes now known to be functional in type and they left merely to fate and the outcome of time to eliminate (the disease or the one suffering from it). The advanced minds of the day also reflected on what little science could reveal about these problems and fretted that the state of contemporary scholarship would not allow them to correct the problem, but looked forward to an era where future scientists with future tools could begin to identify and treat.
___________________
Supernatural Healing... Of What Sort?
We have established the nature of illness, such as how it might result from malformation or deformation of structures, or how it might happen on a subtle, chemical level. We should now ask straightforwardly, What did the prophets work to heal?
Or a like question, Did the prophets ever heal structural disease?
My answer is that the prophets did not heal diseases of the variety of missing limbs or like structural disorders.
___________________________
If they healed blindness, it was by the working, not on a deficient structure, but rather the deficient operation of the ophthalmic structure.
Where they healed a disease of the lung, it was not by a restoration of an absent lung, but rather the restoration of the lung's function.
Where issues of blood were treated, it was to restore the function of the structure, but not adding a structure or regenerating a structure or operating on the constitution of the structure, but restoring the function.
Similarly, muscles were not healed on the structural level, but where muscles were not functional, their function was restored.
___________________________
The biblical variety of healing was never an alteration of a structure, but only affected restoration of the function. Psychiatrists are not dissecting or reconstituting brains. They are not gods obviously and we don't even fault them as physicians, much less as gods, for not having omnipotence in reconstituting the brain and its properties, but very similarly, though less obviously, we fault God for not performing mind-blowing restorations of structural variety, and fail to acknowledge the great wonders He has shown the world through the prophets.
So if God does not restore limbs, the blind who recovered sight were no less overjoyed. Restoration of sight, of the ability to walk, to be free of psychotic interferences, or devastating sleep disorders, are not somehow unimpressive because God fails to restore in a highly-publicized visible way obvious structural disease. Doctors often see restoration of function and have no way to explain it. The restorations in the Bible days one could be skeptical of, they could dispute for lack of a firm chemical or biological explanation and presumably if healings occur today, they are happening with very few witnesses and some of the witnesses unsure if they have seen the body restore itself or something more. But the people who feel the warm touch of God and see restoration are powerfully moved, and enormously thankful to see the restoration. They don't fret their time away asking moronic questions like, "Why didn't God stop 9/11... Why does God not make people grow arms back?"
It is only very sad people who have almost no meaning left that ask for naive signs, like the regeneration of limbs.
God's Complete Authority Over Life and Death
For if now medical science has the power to restore life after death, then several implications follow:
Of all crackpot, thankless, Godless theories the atheists in medicine have posited, one of the absurd ones floating around for us today is of those who have died, and then been restored to life. Yet the atheists violently insinuate that biblical reports of resurrection are preposterous! Yet if medical science proves resurrection is possible, what does that mean?
It would imply two things,
Jesus' miracles were nothing extraordinary and the long-standing scientific criticism against their possibility is negated. Now the atheistic materialist has no basis to reject Jesus' miracles as they can be explained naturally.
If science has power to restore life, say, within seconds of death, or within a few minutes of death, we are only a few extrapolations away from extending life indefinitely, perhaps raising people from the death days
afterward.
No Christian, Jew, atheist, or scientist is happy with either of these and certainly not both. And then atheists have no reason to reject Christ as a Messiah... because He was not a miracle-worker; He was only a very gifted scientist.
This idea of being dead on the operating table and then reviving, is only in the poetic or as-it-were sense.
Conclusion
Let it be noted now, that this very naiv objection, once thought clever, is not even founded in the science it is pretended to be based upon. For it pretends to posit a scientific notion, and thereby refute God; when, on the contrary, on the basis of science itself it as shown as a pretension, a smarmy, naive attack on God and an appeal to the ignorance of the fellow atheists. I can liken it to an old parable..
Take an old broken down car.. perhaps an 80s Oldsmobile... Now take the shell of a Lamborghini and fix up the broken down old jalopy so that outwardly it has the frame of a Lamborghini. It has all the flash and pizzazz of an expensive Italian sports car.. but examined closely, it is a broken down smokestack.
Careful examination of the atheist arguments shows every indication that they are clever, fast, and expensive. But upon a closer look, you find that they are only pretentious, showy, and cheap.
JS
Jeremiah 29:11 is Slaughtered For the Christian Agenda
"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." [Jeremiah 29:11]
Everyone has heard this one. This is a bland, generic uplifting phrase that Christians contort and distort to further their sorry, lying agenda.
What they mean to tell you about this is that, "God has a big plan for your life, a special calling and a bright future."
But that is a complete lie against Jeremiah because this verse applies only to Jeremiah.
God is not hear saying a general exhortative... He is speaking only to Jeremiah.
So Christians lie to say this means God has a plan for everyone.
Jeremiah Commanded to Remain Single and a Virgin
Christians Are Selective in What Parts of the Bible They Do or Do Not Believe
"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." [Jeremiah 16:1,2]
Christians say that "God has a special someone just for you. God wants you to be fruitful and multiply."
Honestly, Christian, you have no way of knowing that.
So tell me, why do you go about lying against the LORD Almighty to put words in His mouth, saying He has a special plan for everyone, and for a smoking hot wife, and great boats and mansions and all material wealth. For if you listen to many of the televangelists, what they will tell you is God is waiting to give you millions of dollars but hasn't done it yet because you haven't paid your tithes.
I've Got One For You Christians
God Wants You Sitting in a Pit
Throughout the Bible, God has prepared deep, dark places for His people.
________________________
Therefore, if I use the same retarded logic that Christians use, then we can conclude namely
That God has no plan for you but to see you rot...
And He thinks you should be sitting in a hole in the ground or with the fishes
________________________
This is what I propose..
A comprehensive, universal hermeneutics, ethics, and theology.
That certain rules are established to best determine the meaning of each verse and to mitigate each point on which it fails.
And finally, that we stick with it.
You cannot use a personal prophecy to Jeremiah to apply to the people of earth broadly unless you are willing to accept every broad implication of that.
You must stop telling people charming and uplifting LIES to get them to believe your message. Tell them the truth, adding nothing and taking away nothing. You cannot make someone believe in God by lying to them about His true nature, because then it is not God they believe but only the fairy tale you have created.
Stop misrepresenting the truth, found in the true and holy words of the Prophets and Messiah, and Moses!
They are the truest and most perfect words that the Apostles have mostly only polluted, particularly Sha'ul of Tarsus, who reinvented himself with the alias Paul, like any common criminal seeking to evade detection.
Stop believing New Testament, sectarian psychoticisms and cling only to the words of the Lord and His prophets!
(Addendum: If some of you cannot detect the sarcasm in this post, I will word it this way... If you are going to twist the Book of Jeremiah, then you have to twist all of it! not just the parts that you like!)
Everyone has heard this one. This is a bland, generic uplifting phrase that Christians contort and distort to further their sorry, lying agenda.
What they mean to tell you about this is that, "God has a big plan for your life, a special calling and a bright future."
But that is a complete lie against Jeremiah because this verse applies only to Jeremiah.
God is not hear saying a general exhortative... He is speaking only to Jeremiah.
So Christians lie to say this means God has a plan for everyone.
Jeremiah Commanded to Remain Single and a Virgin
Christians Are Selective in What Parts of the Bible They Do or Do Not Believe
"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." [Jeremiah 16:1,2]
Christians say that "God has a special someone just for you. God wants you to be fruitful and multiply."
Honestly, Christian, you have no way of knowing that.
- God ordains virginity for some of his priests and prophets
- ordains virginity for an unnamed and anonymous multitude
- and ordains virginity for the 144,000
So tell me, why do you go about lying against the LORD Almighty to put words in His mouth, saying He has a special plan for everyone, and for a smoking hot wife, and great boats and mansions and all material wealth. For if you listen to many of the televangelists, what they will tell you is God is waiting to give you millions of dollars but hasn't done it yet because you haven't paid your tithes.
I've Got One For You Christians
God Wants You Sitting in a Pit
Throughout the Bible, God has prepared deep, dark places for His people.
- The Sons of Korah were swallowed by the earth (Numbers 26:10)
- Jeremiah was thrown in a pit (Jeremiah 38)
- Jonah was swallowed by a whale (Jonah 1:17)
- God has a very warm toasty place for those who defy His orders (Hell)
________________________
Therefore, if I use the same retarded logic that Christians use, then we can conclude namely
That God has no plan for you but to see you rot...
And He thinks you should be sitting in a hole in the ground or with the fishes
________________________
This is what I propose..
A comprehensive, universal hermeneutics, ethics, and theology.
That certain rules are established to best determine the meaning of each verse and to mitigate each point on which it fails.
And finally, that we stick with it.
You cannot use a personal prophecy to Jeremiah to apply to the people of earth broadly unless you are willing to accept every broad implication of that.
You must stop telling people charming and uplifting LIES to get them to believe your message. Tell them the truth, adding nothing and taking away nothing. You cannot make someone believe in God by lying to them about His true nature, because then it is not God they believe but only the fairy tale you have created.
Stop misrepresenting the truth, found in the true and holy words of the Prophets and Messiah, and Moses!
They are the truest and most perfect words that the Apostles have mostly only polluted, particularly Sha'ul of Tarsus, who reinvented himself with the alias Paul, like any common criminal seeking to evade detection.
Stop believing New Testament, sectarian psychoticisms and cling only to the words of the Lord and His prophets!
(Addendum: If some of you cannot detect the sarcasm in this post, I will word it this way... If you are going to twist the Book of Jeremiah, then you have to twist all of it! not just the parts that you like!)
Monday, March 17, 2014
A 144,000's Take on Marriage
My family constantly puts me down and insinuates against me. I feel upon reflection that is probably because they judge my celibacy. I find them so disgusting because when they were young they were all disgusting fornicators who thought about nothing but sex and banging. Let's say, they have all been divorced, and the ones who have not ben divorced are either thinking about it, or did think about it and in the future will probably continue thinking about it. I think they are far too honorable to cheat against their spouses, because that's a different sort of sleaze and they are not sleazy in that way.
But it seems obviously they are so sex-obsessed that they cannot possibly imagine how someone could be happy without having a significant others.
So let me discuss what I hate about marriage and why it is so trash to me, and worthless.
___________________________________________
1) Bridezillas... They go crazy. They want to spend you into bankruptcy. Finances are, and don't ask me, I don't know from experience, but so the experts say, finances, are the number one cause of divorce.
So what people tend to do today, is naturally, by a ten-layer cake, spend an average of nearly $30,000 on the ceremony and a get-away to some fancy island out somewhere in the ocean. This could only mean one thing: From the day you get married, you are doomed to divorce.
2) Stupid and nauseating displays of affection. I'm sure you love each other. Just stop smooching on one another out in public and being disgusting. No one cares who you love, what sex they are, and whether or not you're a sodomite. Just please, take it inside. It's disgusting.
3) At the end of the vows, the minister says, "Now you may kiss the bride." That is such a patriarchal, chauvinist remark. Shouldn't I ask my spouse if she wants to be kissed, or should I just force it on her, Pastor? Surely a priest would never violate anyone sexually would they? Oh wait..
And publicly? If I'm going to kiss my wife, I will go inside to kiss her. And I may not even kiss her on the mouth. And frankly, that is none of your business. Why, why don't we just have sex in front of all the guests and they can make recommendations or explain how our preferences violate their religious mores. How about that?
4) Why would I want to have sex with someone, I've gotten to know so well? In the animal kingdom, they jump into bed with anyone and everyone, and probably do not even introduce themselves. That sounds about how I would like it. Sex almost precludes having sex with someone you know. Only geese and tortoises mate for life so why should humans be any different? Oh yeah, that man-made construct called "morality".
5) Rape. If I'm married to a woman who for the most part I do not care to have sex with because I have a very low sex drive, and she has a high need for sex, then I am going to have to agree to be raped, at least some of the time.
I recall Phyllis Schlafly once said, that there was no such thing as rape in marriage, For, "You consented when you said 'I do'." Ha, you dirty old bitch. I always loved Phyllis. I might have married her in another life.
Frankly, it's my body, and I don't want to have to be forced into sex with someone I do not want to have sex with, unless she is a total stranger, and I've been quietly wishing she attacks me and dominates me, like a grecian siren or a hebraic succubus. And then she should make me feel dirty and tell me to like it.
6) Marriage makes people do the stupidest things. Like those stupid women who marry men and bring them to live in a house with children who are not theirs. They will actively defend their husbands, even though he rapes her kids. Or husbands who defend their wives even though they are drug addicts and beat and torture their own children. Marriage causes retardation.
7) It's the most stupid thing. You marry a spendthrift who wants to spend your way into dozens of maxxed out credit cards, and thousands in debt, while you're trying to be responsible and save for a down payment on a house. Or your spouse can't get off speed, and she gets you hooked too. Either you are far too filthy to be married to who you are, or your spouse is too filthy. Either way, you both sink to the lowest one's level.
8) Kids. They are disgusting and annoy the hell out of everyone in public. Parents are afraid to teach their kids discipline, or they just think it's cute. Oh yeah, it's real cute when I'm trying to enjoy my meal, and your kid will not shut his damned mouth and stop screaming.
And that is not even the worst of it. The worst part is how special these bastards think they are, and how happy they pretend they are. And they pretend so strongly that they put down others who are not like them. They put down single people and judge them. They think there is something wrong with us. When I see people around me who marry people they do not love, they traumatize their own children, they live in debt and they marry men for their money, they divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry three, four or five times.
I have to say enough. I do not want any part of this disgusting institution. Let us think in terms of a cliff. I wish you a great marriage, while you both wander off a cliff. OR, I wish you well, as you push your spouse off a cliff. OR, I hope you find help before your wife drives you off a cliff.
Mariage always ends in a pit. And anyone who says it doesn't, is probably a born-again Christian family who I give mad props to because they managed to do something that society has made all but impossible for most people. God bless them.
But it seems obviously they are so sex-obsessed that they cannot possibly imagine how someone could be happy without having a significant others.
So let me discuss what I hate about marriage and why it is so trash to me, and worthless.
___________________________________________
1) Bridezillas... They go crazy. They want to spend you into bankruptcy. Finances are, and don't ask me, I don't know from experience, but so the experts say, finances, are the number one cause of divorce.
So what people tend to do today, is naturally, by a ten-layer cake, spend an average of nearly $30,000 on the ceremony and a get-away to some fancy island out somewhere in the ocean. This could only mean one thing: From the day you get married, you are doomed to divorce.
2) Stupid and nauseating displays of affection. I'm sure you love each other. Just stop smooching on one another out in public and being disgusting. No one cares who you love, what sex they are, and whether or not you're a sodomite. Just please, take it inside. It's disgusting.
3) At the end of the vows, the minister says, "Now you may kiss the bride." That is such a patriarchal, chauvinist remark. Shouldn't I ask my spouse if she wants to be kissed, or should I just force it on her, Pastor? Surely a priest would never violate anyone sexually would they? Oh wait..
And publicly? If I'm going to kiss my wife, I will go inside to kiss her. And I may not even kiss her on the mouth. And frankly, that is none of your business. Why, why don't we just have sex in front of all the guests and they can make recommendations or explain how our preferences violate their religious mores. How about that?
4) Why would I want to have sex with someone, I've gotten to know so well? In the animal kingdom, they jump into bed with anyone and everyone, and probably do not even introduce themselves. That sounds about how I would like it. Sex almost precludes having sex with someone you know. Only geese and tortoises mate for life so why should humans be any different? Oh yeah, that man-made construct called "morality".
5) Rape. If I'm married to a woman who for the most part I do not care to have sex with because I have a very low sex drive, and she has a high need for sex, then I am going to have to agree to be raped, at least some of the time.
I recall Phyllis Schlafly once said, that there was no such thing as rape in marriage, For, "You consented when you said 'I do'." Ha, you dirty old bitch. I always loved Phyllis. I might have married her in another life.
Frankly, it's my body, and I don't want to have to be forced into sex with someone I do not want to have sex with, unless she is a total stranger, and I've been quietly wishing she attacks me and dominates me, like a grecian siren or a hebraic succubus. And then she should make me feel dirty and tell me to like it.
6) Marriage makes people do the stupidest things. Like those stupid women who marry men and bring them to live in a house with children who are not theirs. They will actively defend their husbands, even though he rapes her kids. Or husbands who defend their wives even though they are drug addicts and beat and torture their own children. Marriage causes retardation.
7) It's the most stupid thing. You marry a spendthrift who wants to spend your way into dozens of maxxed out credit cards, and thousands in debt, while you're trying to be responsible and save for a down payment on a house. Or your spouse can't get off speed, and she gets you hooked too. Either you are far too filthy to be married to who you are, or your spouse is too filthy. Either way, you both sink to the lowest one's level.
8) Kids. They are disgusting and annoy the hell out of everyone in public. Parents are afraid to teach their kids discipline, or they just think it's cute. Oh yeah, it's real cute when I'm trying to enjoy my meal, and your kid will not shut his damned mouth and stop screaming.
And that is not even the worst of it. The worst part is how special these bastards think they are, and how happy they pretend they are. And they pretend so strongly that they put down others who are not like them. They put down single people and judge them. They think there is something wrong with us. When I see people around me who marry people they do not love, they traumatize their own children, they live in debt and they marry men for their money, they divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry three, four or five times.
I have to say enough. I do not want any part of this disgusting institution. Let us think in terms of a cliff. I wish you a great marriage, while you both wander off a cliff. OR, I wish you well, as you push your spouse off a cliff. OR, I hope you find help before your wife drives you off a cliff.
Mariage always ends in a pit. And anyone who says it doesn't, is probably a born-again Christian family who I give mad props to because they managed to do something that society has made all but impossible for most people. God bless them.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
The Eternal Deceit of Trinitarians
Trinitarians are immensely fascinating people. I give them this: They are very cunning. The ingenuity with which one can deceive himself that three is one and one is three shows an incredibly high level of cunning.
But their real difficulty in getting people to accept their stupid and laughable doctrine is that they do not know the first thing about logic.
Among the most stupid thing I have ever heard them say is, after I have made a claim to the nature of God and to explain the God of the universe to the simpletons, is they say, "But God is eternal and infinite and so therefore we cannot understand everything about Him. So I reject your argument."
Yet then, when I say I do not accept the Trinity, they mock and ridicule me and make incredibly dogmatic assertions about how the Bible absolutely teaches that and that you are damned if you do not accept it.
Why, if we cannot understand even very straightforward teachings about God on logical terms, how can we understand purely absurd delusions that He really is a multifaceted, multiple personality Unity?
I have never heard something so stupid ever.
And the way they are so pushy and never accept no for an answer.
I have been physically accosted by Christian people simply because they disagreed with my personal opinion.
I have been thrown out of their synagogues and publicly assaulted and scourged.
And yet I hardly ever try to open a discussion about this stupid fable with them because they are so stupid and they do not even listen to what I say. They interrupt and they lodge insults and persona attacks.
This is how it goes:
"Tell me all of your doctrines one by one."
Me, "Well, I'd rather not go into a lot of detail because it is fraught with potential for disagreements and many people feel very passionately about their concerns and it can be difficult to have a fruitful conversation like that."
"Tell me what you believe. I will not try to persuade you against and I will respect your beliefs."
"Ok fine. I do not believe in the Trinity. I do not believe in eternal hellfire."
"Heretic!!! Burn him!!! He speaks with a forked-tongue, the devil!!!"
________________________________
And I'm thinking to myself god-damn it. These people are so fucking stupid.
________________________________
Why is it I have to accept EVERYTHING it is you say about God but you just insult whatever I say and suggest I am pretending to understand eternal things not meant for us to comprehend.
It is because you trinity-fags are all liars and horses-asses.
But their real difficulty in getting people to accept their stupid and laughable doctrine is that they do not know the first thing about logic.
Among the most stupid thing I have ever heard them say is, after I have made a claim to the nature of God and to explain the God of the universe to the simpletons, is they say, "But God is eternal and infinite and so therefore we cannot understand everything about Him. So I reject your argument."
Yet then, when I say I do not accept the Trinity, they mock and ridicule me and make incredibly dogmatic assertions about how the Bible absolutely teaches that and that you are damned if you do not accept it.
Why, if we cannot understand even very straightforward teachings about God on logical terms, how can we understand purely absurd delusions that He really is a multifaceted, multiple personality Unity?
I have never heard something so stupid ever.
And the way they are so pushy and never accept no for an answer.
I have been physically accosted by Christian people simply because they disagreed with my personal opinion.
I have been thrown out of their synagogues and publicly assaulted and scourged.
And yet I hardly ever try to open a discussion about this stupid fable with them because they are so stupid and they do not even listen to what I say. They interrupt and they lodge insults and persona attacks.
This is how it goes:
"Tell me all of your doctrines one by one."
Me, "Well, I'd rather not go into a lot of detail because it is fraught with potential for disagreements and many people feel very passionately about their concerns and it can be difficult to have a fruitful conversation like that."
"Tell me what you believe. I will not try to persuade you against and I will respect your beliefs."
"Ok fine. I do not believe in the Trinity. I do not believe in eternal hellfire."
"Heretic!!! Burn him!!! He speaks with a forked-tongue, the devil!!!"
________________________________
And I'm thinking to myself god-damn it. These people are so fucking stupid.
________________________________
Why is it I have to accept EVERYTHING it is you say about God but you just insult whatever I say and suggest I am pretending to understand eternal things not meant for us to comprehend.
It is because you trinity-fags are all liars and horses-asses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)