Commentaries on Arithmetic and Mystery... Less importantly, Spinoza II

Commentaries on Arithmetic

[6] "...they dream that most profound mysteries lie hid in the Bible..." Baruch Spinoza

As to mysteries.. when we consider what Jefferson calls the Trinitarian arithmetic... one only needs read from some of the great thinkers to discern what history records about arithmetic.

Descartes wrote, "For whether I am awake or asleep, two and three added together are five, and a square has no more than four sides. It seems impossible that such transparent truths should incur any suspicion of being false. And yet firmly rooted in my mind is the long-standing opinion that there is an omnipotent God who made me the kind of creature that I am. How do I know that he has not brought it about that there is no earth, no sky, no extended thing, no shape, no size, no place, while at the same time ensuring that all  these things appear to me to exist just as they do now? What is more, just as I consider that others sometimes go astray in cases where they think they have the most perfect knowledge how do I know that God has not brought it about that I too go wrong every time I add two and three or count the sides of a square, or in some even simpler matter, if that is imaginable?" Meditations on First Philosophy, p. 14

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." George Orwell, 1984

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one . . . But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe."

Thomas Jefferson, a letter to John Adams, 1813

"The doctrines added by certain churches, such as that God took upon Himself human nature, I have expressly said that I do not understand. In fact, to speak the truth, they seem to me no less absurd than would a statement that a circle had taken upon itself the nature of a square." Baruch Spinoza, a letter to Henry Oldenburg, November 1675

Can history be any more clear? The great men of history were certain that there were fixed laws of mathematics, such as the associative or distributive property, that their were fixed physical laws, and that the concepts found in Aristotelian logic were sound. They subsequently when encountering the Trinity doctrine couldn't make heads or tails of it.

Then you will say, "Men of such great learning, but they are dead in their spirits." That's bullshit and you know it.

Don't blame the great men of history for not accepting this baffling doctrine when it is the error of those promulgating it in not explaining it correctly. If they had not been content for so long to say, "Accept on faith," "Accept uncritically," "Believe or burn!" there might have been some worthwhile arguments to defend it with.

Contrary to belief, you can't simply conjoin several contradictory theses that are bizarre and result in blatant contradictions and then simply call it a 'mystery'.

That is not what a mystery is. I should rather discuss with you what a 'paradox' is. Put simply, a paradox is an 'accident of language'. What you'll come to see is that a paradox is something that exists in language that does not really correspond to anything in fact. The Trinity is no mystery but a paradox, i.e., it exists in language as an accident, but reflects nothing in fact. The Triangle clearly highlights the paradox.

 

Scutum Fidei

Buridan's Bridge

"Socrates wants to cross a river and comes to a bridge guarded by Plato, who says, "Socrates, if in the first proposition which you utter, you speak the truth, I will permit you to cross. But surely, if you speak falsely, I shall throw you into the water. Socrates responds, saying, "You will throw me into the water."

We perceive it clearly in language, but note it corresponds to nothing real.

Therefore, 'fully God and fully man' is a mistake, an accident of language, and a paradox. For you cannot be 100% something plus 100% something else because then you would be 200%. And 'God and man' at once. Think of it like this, in terms a great mind once put it: "One principle of God is that God is non-man. Another principle of man is that man is non-god." It's very confusing to think of a person who is God and Man, and not-God and not-man, all at the same time.

If your formula contains truth, then it is not in the method in which you phrased it. But of course it's easier to speak in abbreviations and paradoxes, rather than developing your thoughts scientifically. Forgive me if often I don't take issue with your meanings, but often I take issue with the lazy way you portray it.

/end Arithmetic

Mystery

So much has been said of mysteries. The great men have spoken on the immutable properties of numbers, we have looked at paradox and contradiction and even highlighted a couple of the most notable mysteries of  Christianity, the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. But no discussion of mystery can be complete without what is wrong with the mysteries, why mysteries hold the sway they do and what the Messiah said about them.

What is wrong with mystery?

There is a lot wrong with mystery. It creates an initiated sect within the broader camp that attracts the ordinary neophyte, and consequently carries with it elitism, prejudice, and oppression. There never were any qualms about murdering dissidents because the adept class were considered the 'elect' or the 'chosen'. Anyone who interfered with that was necessarily a tool of the devil. They had to be killed.

Additionally, an overriding quality of man is his exclusiveness. His clubs, his parties, his interest groups, have always been concerned as much about who was not invited as to who was. Christianity abrogates that. It says "whosoever shall believe [on the Son] shall be saved." It says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." It says If you confess your sins with your mouth, He is faithful and just to forgive you. It says, Come you who are weary, and I will give you rest.

Man can't turn man from God. He is no middleman, For there is one Mediator between God and man... This consumes him constantly. He invents mysteries and dogmatic tests, pronouncing anathemas on whoever fails  them. He tars as worse than an unbeliever any who oppose him on any doctrinal front. He engineers a system of theological haves versus theological have nots, an inner circle of shepherds, who share the profits of the endeavor and its abuses amongst themselves, with a much larger group of neophytes beneath them, who are the sole financial backing of the society, believing they offer their monies to God, but really only to
manipulative con artists.

When mystery reared its head in and around the time of the Reformers, women's bellies were slit open and fetuses ripped out, men's heads were chopped off or were burned alive, or women had stones tied to them and thrown in the deep, and if they floated they were certainly witches.

What does it offer to the everyday person? It offers a deep solace and reassurance in one's faith. It's taught that a 'head knowledge is not enough, you must have faith in your heart'. So if a man can come to understand what is a paradox, an open contradiction, and he can belittle himself to accept it uncritically, then he must really be one of the chosen.

He can be apart of the group, he can reach his hand into the offering bucket, he can write a list of letters after his name! He is esteemed! He is heralded and welcomed into every party and rigamarole!

Who was despised and rejected of men? Who sat in pits, thrown there by their own brothers? Whose families forsook them, who floated at open sea who could only imagine death awaiting him, or stoned? If you look at the ministries of prophets, these were only a few of the travails they witnessed in their lives. They didn't teach mysteries. They taught a personal God, that you could know, without ever having taken a college course on logic or algebra, or theology! They taught a God Who was with them and would be with you too, not Who could only be known through the priest class or any arbiter. And that He sees faults through the lens of perspective, not the judgment and alienation so often felt from man.

The biggest mystery of all is how the truest and most perfect religion came to be such a chimera, an atrocious monster with a trail of blood going back thousands of years.

______________________________________

What did Yeshua ha Messhiac say about mystery while He was here with us? It's so simple, it will go over the heads of many.

"But woe unto, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye  neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." [Matthew 23:13]

Mystery waxed great amongst the scribes. The enigmatic 'oral Torah' that they alone were the gatekeepers  of, their meticulous attention to the broadness of their phylacteries, the cleanness of cups, who strained gnats but swallowed camels. They were meticulous to the ultimate degree and they keenly used all the regulations to build up, but mostly to tear down men.

And most of all, they shut up the gates of heaven.

It was from the sword of mystery they wielded that they painted their enemies into a corner.

The abomination of 'mystery', I don't mean in the doctrines themselves but in this weapon of subterfuge and  alienation, whose vehicle oftentimes is in certain peculiar doctrines, this weapon of 'mystery' is abhorrent.

It is the basis for every schism, excommunication, and anathema. Its effect is to elicit hatred of man against his neighbor and has brought religious war and death to people in all history.

Most of all, it teaches us to fear the 'other', to view the 'other' in other-ly terms.

My final recommendation to any and all who will listen, do not any longer place emphasis on mystery if you would not place it on your phylacteries, kitchenware, or china.

Spinoza I

Baruch Spinoza

1632-1677

The following are thoughts on several lines of Spinoza to be followed by Commentaries on Arithmetic and Mystery in part II.

 "When people declare, as all are ready to do, that the Bible is the Word of God teaching men true blessedness and the way of salvation. they evidently do not mean what they say (1); for the masses take no pains at all to live according to Scripture, and we see most people endeavoring to hawk about their own commentaries as the word of God (2), and giving their best efforts, under the guise of religion, to compelling others to think as they do: we generally see, I say, theologians anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text (3), and to fortify them with Divine authority. Such persons never display less scruple and more zeal than when they are interpeting Scripture or the mind of  the Holy Ghost; if we ever see them perturbed, it is not that they fear to attribute some error to the Holy Spirit, and to stray from the right path, but that they are afraid to be convicted of error by others, and thus to overthrow and bring into contempt their own authority. But if men really believe what they verbally testify of Scripture, they would adopt quite a different plan of life: their minds would not be agitated by so many contentions, nor so many hatreds (4)..."

"Ambition and unscrupulousness have waxed so powerful, that religion is thought to consist, not so much in respecting the writings of the Holy Ghost, as in defending human commentaries (5)..."

"...they dream that most profound mysteries lie hid in the Bible (6), and weary themselves out in the investigation of these absurdities, to the neglect of what is useful."

"If we would separate ourselves from the crowd and escape from theological prejudices, instead of rashly accepting human commentaries for Divine documents (7), we must consider the true method of interpeting Scripture and dwell upon it at some length..."
~ Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Of the Interpretation of Scripture

Considering the seven notions completely (the numbers having been drawn in are mine),

I first gaze at notions one through four.

"When people declare, as all are ready to do, that the Bible is the Word of God teaching men true blessedness and the way of salvation. they evidently do not mean what they say (1); for the masses take no pains at all to live according to Scripture, and we see most people endeavoring to hawk about their own  commentaries as the word of God (2), and giving their best efforts, under the guise of religion, to compelling others to think as they do: we generally see, I say, theologians anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text (3)...But if men really believe what they verbally testify of Scripture, they would adopt quite a different plan of life: their minds would not be agitated by so many contentions, nor so many hatreds (4)..."

Significant to the integrity of the entire argument here is in point four. "...their minds would not be agitated..." We see very clearly from the principles outlined in the Old and New Testaments, that the religion claims to give peace to its adherents. It encourages through all plight and disadvantageous condition that there are greater principles than the transitory sort of suffering that affects people here episodically, at one time, to be relieved by joy in other times. It shows that there is a powerful Creator who identifies Himself to us as Our Father and who takes special interest in us when brought down by the cruelty of this world and age.

"...theologians anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text..."

But point three highlights a point of high importance to many moderners, but certainly in the time of Spinoza was much more grave. In a great deal of our world today, no one is threatened with ongoing religious conflict and death for contrarian positions. Of course, I refer to the Western world, and things are not quite this simple in the developing world where there is a great deal of turmoil due to religious differences, and others. But certainly in Spinoza's day, this threat was multipled, and even in the West there was great contention about which ideology was supreme, each with its corresponding force inflicting murder and violence on dissenters.

That so obviously contrasts with a religion thought to bring inner peace. For why is a person agitated into inquisitions and witchhunts unless he is not certain in his own understanding? Or even when he is convinced, he still cannot find peace without forcing others to come to the same belief. This contradicts the very idea of the peace of the Gospels, a steadfast peace that says to the world that tries to shake it, "I will not be moved." This sort of peace is not known to men who use tools of oppression and violence to further their ambitions.

Realm of ends

"...for the masses take no pains at all to live according to Scripture, and we see most people endeavoring to hawk about their own commentaries as the word of God (2)"

In Maslowian terms, the hierarchy of needs, I find among the highest of the spiritual needs of man is to be affirmed intellectually. "To be affirmed in the realm of ends" the way a gladiator's warmaking is affirmed in the cage. You see even among people who are not very bright, that nevertheless at times strike you with a clever idea from ingenuity, that they often are moved to convey intellectual ideas if they lack affirmation in those ideas. They are moved to pass on their thoughts because they personally esteem them very highly, even if no one else does. But they have to convey the thoughts, because nothing within them offers peace per se, of themselves, but they find especial peace in convincing others of their own ideas. But this is the same contradiction found in points three and four. The peace that God gives is contingent only on God giving it. It isn't contingent on you convincing others of it, of being given a special hat for discovering it, or any other thing that is commonly seen in men, though never by themselves, (or rather it's something we always witness in others and not ourselves). This peace is pure peace and it is not shaken by the world around it.

But more often than not, a person will not be corrected in any of their mistaken beliefs.

"...it is not that they fear to attribute some error to the Holy Spirit, and to stray from the right path, but that they are afraid to be convicted of error by others, and thus to overthrow and bring into contempt their own authority."

It is through the gift (?) of religion, that men who scarcely finished high school, will complete life with a long list of credentials after their names: Ph.D., Professor, M.A. You find these great distinguished men, who mostly only distinguish themselves, in the plethora of degree mills, often called seminaries, which make no pretension of accreditation, but still churn out 'students' with fake 'master's' and fake 'doctorates'. For the ignorant, who are experts in nothing, who have no authority in anything, whose knowledge for nothing is sought, religion has been a very useful maneuver. One should be suspicious of any institution that feeds the desire of men for recognition and esteem, such as seen within fundamentalist Christianity.

And Spinoza is very correct in saying that rather than accept that their own beliefs are in error, they would prefer to continue attributing 'error to the Holy Spirit.'

[4] "...religion is thought to consist, not so much in respecting the writings of the Holy Ghost, as in defending human commentaries."

Even in visiting the local Christian bookstore tonight, I was intrigued at the variety of authorings, many of which that shared very similar names, such as, 'Christian Theology', 'Systematic Theology', 'A Theology for the Church,' and so on. I saw they all had in common a few things: They were by different authors, they claimed to be derived wholly from writ, and were confused by their own authors to be the pure biblical  teachings rather than the authors' own opinions.

And finally, before the dissertation on arithmetic, point one...

"When people declare, as all are ready to do, that the Bible is the Word of God teaching men true blessedness and the way of salvation. they evidently do not mean what they say..."

Is the matter of men changed? Does religion have an effect on men? I recall in the past that many were  challenged by my unorthdox views of Paul and eternal hell, certainly. But some of the things that provoked  such great outrage in people were mostly innocuous. Some were threatened and greatly offended that I did  not eat pork. They used ambiguous terms to attack my integrity. And a few were even brought to sin because I did not speak as some from a poor upbringing but rather as one who had an education, as some blacks deride.

Spinoza is right. The matter of men is mostly unchanged. But his reasons were wrong, and that is another
story.

A Legacy of Spinoza

[7] "If we would separate ourselves from the crowd and escape from theological prejudices, instead of rashly accepting human commentaries for Divine documents (7), we must consider the true method of interpreting Scripture and dwell upon it at some length..."

"Revelation is predicated on the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, the autographs, the manuscripts, the  translations, the translating committees, finally the optic nerve, the co-operation of the neurological  structures, and lastly, the rational mind in comprehending it. Which of these stages is the Word (or is the  Word in its purest state), or at what stage does it cease to be the Word? Only in the primary stage could it be 'breathed' (the Word)..."

If it were possible for such a message to be relayed down the chain in a manner so that the meaning is not altered, even though it could be imagined how the words may deviate, but the meaning cannot, then it would  more or less be accurate to say that the pneuma is substantially the same at any point in the chain.

But that clearly cannot be. This is so obviously false that nothing could be more contrary to our reasoning. Even children understand this. Any communication predicated on this level of co-operation through this many parties is going to confront some degree of corruption.

But where is there a fault in the co-operation? It is in no way God's fault. It is the fault of abusive mistranslations by unqualified men who pretend they can render the meanings faithfully. And even if that is not right, then it is with the person who is simply reading his own opinion into the verses.

But men do not fathom how the words as they were first spoken can be different from the words that we have recorded today. They also misunderstand that their personal interpretation is different from the original  intent. What they dogmatically defend, and when given the opportunity have murdered to assert, is only a  personal opinion that the Bible does not fully support.

I understand this can be seen as a dissertation in itself, and notably draws attention away from the main  dissertation. I want to conclude here in saying that the word that you intuit is very low on that chain of  co-operation and therefore has the lowest value. Whether you rely on mistaken translations, a mistaken  understanding, or that you yourself are not so deficient in reading is so unclear, that your personal  interpretation has to take a back seat to tradition and the collective. Spinoza's attacks are mostly limited  to people who wrest meanings from scriptures that are not there and are used for selfish purposes.

The legacy of Spinoza for us to take should be that biblical interpretation should be endeavored upon cautiously, with all appreciation of our utter ability to arrive at clear conclusions in and of ourselves, to stray from dogmatism, and not rush to interpretive conclusions, as Spinoza says, not "rashly accepting human commentaries" as divine.

Hymenaeus

"Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." I Timothy 1:20 *

" And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." 2 Timothy 2:17 *


What is this letter about?

It is to show...

I. Paul immorally attacks one of his opponents in his letters.

II. James' epistle is a critique of Pauline theology

III. To explain why James is not clearer that it addresses Paul

Many will say that James couldn't be about Paul, Paul is nowhere named in the letter. I want to show why he is not named and to contrast this with Paul's own practice.

...

Paul calling out Hymenaeus and Alexander was a very bold move. That will always appeal to a quality of  man's nature, as well as pseudo-qualities.

"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Romans 2:16




Personal injury.. When a person is insulted by someone, he naturally feels the need to warn others, for selfish and unselfish reasons. Selfishly, he wants to tarnish a person's image. The unselfish motivation is to warn others because you do not want them to be harmed in the like manner. Paul calling out Hymenaeus in this way seems legit to most people, who would take the same course of action under the same circumstances.

Pseudo-justice.. People mistake gossip for justice, e.g. a person should have their reputation slammed, if they are untrustworthy liars. Never mind that to do this the person has to resort to slander/gossip/ hearsay in the press or in speech. Never mind that under the circumstances the person can never get a fair hearing and that harm will inevitably occur to very noble people.

Most people see nothing wrong with what Paul has done here. It's because his move plays to qualities natural to man. Finally,

Deniability.. Why James' letter is ineffective as a critique of Pauline theology is he never mentions Paul by name. Anyone can deny that that is the theme of the letter, and Paul's gospel was able to flourish. Why didn't James just be clearer about who he was discussing? Because that would have been contrary to the policy Jesus established. To mention names, even if the damning evidence is true, is an injustice, because it colors the image that person has in the minds of others prejudicially, it is often done without the person ever having a chance to speak for themselves, and it borders on gossiping to drop the names of adversaries and many times for unjust reasons. For these reasons, it would never have been permissible to savage a person's name.

What this means? Paul can slander people at will and suffer very little downside. His opponents however can never be clear enough in opposing him, without violating their own faith. Win-win. But isn't this the way things have always gone? The innocent and just have suffered without cause while the wicked and crafty are hailedas the heroes of man, despite their persecutions of the good. The just suffer because there isn't justice in them levelling grievance or wantonly killing anyone who challenges him, that is not in the nature of the just. It is because of the just nature of James that he couldn't identify Paul by name but wrote very eloquently to refute the teaching.

I thank God for the confirmation.. I typed that last line without realizing.. The author is known as James the Just.


What of Hymenaeus? If you are a subscriber to the Pauline gospel, that that Paul refers to as 'my gospel', then you must agree with Paul that Hymenaeus was a wicked person.

My answer, how should I know? But I know there are two sides to every story and Paul fallaciously slammed him. Whether he was a saint or sinner, I don't know. But I know I'm not taking Paul's word for it and that has always been my policy when I've heard a bad report of a person. I know that that person is a talebearer for starters and may or may not have a reason to lie. In Paul's case, I have no reason to not believe that Hymenaeus was wronged by Paul himself and was actually the victim.

* It's really interesting the aggravating factors in the offense. Suppose I for one say that it is proper to drag one's name through the mud. Okay. I can do that. But that is not all... Paul says to hand these men over to Satan. Very peculiar language, and that I will not do.

* And not only is it only a slight error. It is tremendous error. Yeshua nowhere taught to wish the Satan comes to take our enemies or to attack or possess them/ But when he says Hymenaeus teaches the resurrection.. what's most odd about it is the Gospel clearly states that on the day Christ rose that other dead also came from their graves in the first resurrection. Paul to attack Hymenaeus for teaching this obvious fact proves even more clearly that Paul was in error and a johnny-come-lately.

Is the Law for the Jews Only?

The Jewish people try to denounce this. They try to hide it and especially from Gentiles.

They say they have a special relationship to God. The laws are only for them.

I cannot more highly disagree with this racist view.

I say the Law is good. AND furthermore, it is good for all people at all times.

Like I explained earlier, the Christians say God wants you to eat sausage and bacon.

I say that is repugnant because then obviously this "god" character wants everyone to have worms inside of them.

Obviously, I believe AND I teach that God tells people to NOT eat pork (among other things).

The Jews are not really any better than the pagan Christians.

Because even the Jews would say God does not want them to have worms, but He doesn't care if anyone else has worms.

I think that is tasteless and reprehensible.

The GOD I know does not want ANYONE to have worms, unless you are a wicked Jezebel who hates His children. Then He wants you to have lots and lots of worms, and to be eaten by dogs.

Is the Law good?

For I believe in absolute good, and absolute right and wrong.

The Torah has lots of sanitary and hygienic measures.

For instance, it's not a good idea to put a pot to shit in next to the oven in the kitchen.

Oh, but the Jews don't care if you have the toilet in the kitchen. They will tell you all that "sanitation" and "hygiene" applies only to Jews.

They also would imply very many other tacky things.

Like we should laugh at the disabled. You see, because the "Law" only applies to the "Jews", then we as Gentiles can trip over the blind or even curse at the deaf.

But that is all dumb.

You see on the face of it these commandments are to curb very dangerous and wicked sorts of behavior, such as picking on the disabled.

I don't think God really cares if it is a Jew or an American or a Spaniard or whatnot who mocks the disabled. I feel that God will be irritated at ANYONE who mistreats the disabled, or ANYONE ELSE for that matter.

Because in the big scheme of things, we are all severely mentally handicapped before God.. and if we make fun of others, then God will make fun of us. Then if you do not repent, He might cause the earth to swallow you up or some other epic demise, such as a God could imagine.

Now, about this Law.

It contains very many good and positive things. I don't know why the Jews try to tell people that no one is supposed to obey it but them.

But I see why. Because the Jews are the 'chosen' people.

That's when God chose them because they are, shh!, genetically superior!

Let me ask you something then, brilliant ones.

Why were the Jews the last group God came to inquire of?

For up until this time, He went to ask all the other nations to worship Him, and they declined.

He went to them at the end because they were under yonder tree playing the harlot and doing other tasteless things.

Don't you remember how the first few books are all lovey-dovey and then the rest of the Testament is prophets coming to say God is going to kill you, He is going to destroy your country, you are spiritual whores..

That is because from the beginning they were harlotting under that same wicked tree.

Sure, they are the chosen people. Chosen for what?

They have been made an example out of. They were chosen to be an example.

Now aside from that there fact, they are nevertheless wonderful people. They were the people through whom the Messiah and the prophets but most importantly the Messiah were brought forth.

They also have a special relationship with God because of a covenant they made. And God is an honorable husband and He will honor that covenant, although some Jews have broken out of it.

The Jewish people should be loved and supported. Israel has a right to exist and has a right to defend itself. That doesn't mean we defend every trashy thing any Jew does.

And when they say these evil things about the Law, they should be fought.

God's Murder and Love

God's Murder and Love

I believed strongly once that God used death to His benefit, to advance His purposes.

We see murder used often throughout the Bible.

I. Assassination of leaders of enemy nations (Og of Bashan, et al.)

II. Killing a person's child for the sin of the father (David's son was taken)

III. A whole family could be erased (Achan and his family in Ai)

I reminded people to do right by God or He could kill them or kill their families. I went even further and said God was going to kill us all.

In a sense that's right. I don't know how I will die, although some common reasons are heart disease, cancer, stroke, virulent influenza, among others.

But I know that when I die, it is because God GAVE me over to disease and allowed my body to be eaten away by the virus.

So in a sense, God eventually is going to kill me and everyone else.

But there is nothing charming about that.

And then I ask myself, knowing that God is all-good, why would He do something like kill the child of David?

I discovered the reason.

David was motivated by passion in this stage of his life. He was led to kill. He could never have been a good father to this child.

God in his perfect wisdom, knew that this child needed a great father, and in this case, David was not a good father. He could not have been a good father.

God took the child because He loved the child, and brought the child to heaven.

It is in God's terrible judgments that His love is made known.

Like bacon. People seem to think only a despotic out-of-control dictator would demand His subjects to not eat bacon.

Au contraire! I think it is a much worse ruler who wants his followers to have worms crawling inside of them!

You do realize at one time, people were guaranteed if they ate pork that they would get worms?

So in other words, the Gentile pagan "Christian" god wants everyone to have worms!

But obviously that is non-sensical and bizarre.

GOD does not want you to have worms.

THEREFORE, He gives you dieting stipulations to warn you what has worms, such foods as humans have specific allergies to, what foods are healthy and what foods are not.

In all of these laws and doings and commandments, He is showing His perfect love.

And sometimes, He will kill you BECAUSE He loves you.

God Hardened Pharaoh's Heart: Divine Responsibility

Divine Responsibility

God Hardened Pharaoh's Heart

I told a Baptist yesterday that my theology is influenced largely by Genesis and Exodus. I have managed to pick up again on Exodus, a book I've read several times the first third and actually have never completed entirely. I get a feeling of redundancy when it does the, "The LORD said Go to Pharaoh and say _____. Moses goes to Pharaoh and says ____. Pharaoh challenges Moses. Plagues fall. Pharaoh apologizes. Then Pharaoh takes it back."

Repeat ten times.

Then I get to the point where they cross the sea and I just can never go any further.

So among the things that Exodus says that cause trouble for some folks is how God hardened Pharaoh's heart. If you're like me, you find this to be a really mean thing to do. To force someone to do something they do not want to do and then to punish them for doing it. That just seems really mean and I know that even though God is higher than our ways, I know He has to agree. So the verses that read this way are really indicative of something else. I will write here what these verses really mean.

What it means in one phrase is: It implies divine responsibility.

Now Pharaoh, as per Roman 1, is enticed of his own volition. God hands him over to his depraved volition. God isn't in any way forcing Pharaoh to do anything. But because God makes the case that He is the creator behind all things, that He has set the world in motion, and that everything following is contingent, then He is responsible for everything. I do not mean He is criminally responsible, because that would be like saying He is responsible for child molestation. But that's not what is meant here. What is meant, is that as the Precipitating Precipitator, He acknowledges that all future events that He either causes or neglects to prevent, He has precipitated. Because if He has neglected to exert a more persuasive role on Pharaoh, then it is that He has allowed the king to be enticed of his own volition.

Responsibility, though not Culpable

So if He does not prevent a thing, then as the Motionless Motioner, as the Unmoved Mover, the Uncaused Cause and the eternally existing I AM, it is even in his non-motion that motion arises. How is He not culpable? He is not culpable because suits are brought namely by parties with standing. Do we have standing to question God? That is a very good question and the answer though straightforward is No, many people every day forget this simple truth.

God is not responsible for the active occasion that Pharaoh's heart is hardened, but He is accepting the responsibility of being an all-powerful Creator, Who has endless means at His disposal and nevertheless He seeks this one mysterious way. And I continually read it and am always confused.

Why didn't He just kill Pharaoh and have him replaced by a puppet government? That's what the American nation does. Seems very straightforward. Or why instead of sending what was it, nine or ten plagues, why didn't He send two or three? It seems He could have been far more efficient.

Yet He said, "That they will know there is none like me in all the earth."

Very good point.

But like I said, if we are to take Exodus at its word, it is completely awesome, but also just really
mean-spirited.

Emergence of a Highly Integrated Beast System

We are now seeing the implementation and introduction of a highly integrated beast system.

Years ago, the internet was a massive network of many corporations vying for status and share. Dot coms such as Yahoo, Hotmail, Altavista, and many others were a few of the represented entities that users went to for basic services such as email, web searches, and news.

Yet in the last few years, we've seen a consolidation of these entities to a few giant masses. Google went the way of Kleenex; it finally became synonynous with 'web search'.

Youtube became a premiere video and video upload website where people from around the globe could share content and follow each other.

Gmail revolutionized email service when it was released seven years ago.

Facebook ascended after winning the hearts of netizens from the monolithic Myspace and to this day attracts over one billion visitors.

And for those of us who have used the internet and these particular services in the last few years, we have noticed the continued integration of the services.

Now, Facebook and Youtube, Google and Gmail, and other services are being integrated. Youtube has asked for the phone numbers of its users. The internet now is becoming a gateway for profiles of its users. Your account that the controllers of the internet are compiling will include web searches, preferences, unique content, and any personal identifying and contact information.

This is the slow construction of a highly integrated beast system.

EDIT: May 15th... Users are now seeing Yahoo! request phone numbers as well as Facebook.