Some months after the three women were discovered in the home of a man in Ohio, one of the women appeared in an hour-long special on ABC. In the promotion leading up to the airing, in the commercial, the background music was a triumphant Kelly Clarkson hit single "What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger". This is actually trying to juxtapose an image of triumph with the torment of being abducted for thirteen years, almost to imply that the women can be healed and move on, having conquered what happened to them.
But, I thought, how much more fitting Kelly Clarkson's "Because of You" would have been in this case.
Because of you I'll never stray too far from the sidewalk
Because of you I learned to play on the safe side so I don't get hurt
Because of you I find it hard to trust not only me but everyone around me
Because of you, I am afraid
It's unfortunate that evil exists. But it is okay to admit that there are things done to people that one can never really recover from and receive healing. We can't whitewash it with fleeting promises of a fix or a transformation. The trauma some suffered is too great to know healing in this life. And that's sad. But that's truth.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Sunday, November 1, 2015
All Across the Nation, Pastors Are Telling Lies from Their Pulpits this Morning
Why do I say that?
Because Christianity is a lie. It is a lying religion, based in lies.
Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah was not a Christian. He didn't revere a mostly invented New Testament, mostly the opinions of a man whose real name was Sha'ul, but who would not even tell the truth of his own name, and His Bible didn't have 66 books either.
Jesus didn't so callously mock the commandments of His Father, among which we would be commanded to abstain from bacon. What large percentage of Christians will head to church after a breakfast of this abominable meat.
Then when they get there, they will be regaled with tales of Paul, and Timothy, and Barsabbas, and so on and so forth.
Not Jesus. Not the disciples. Fuck those guys! the Christians will say. We're not under all the old laws and old ways.
When those guys were walking the earth, they'll say, the law was still in effect. All we need is taught to us by "Apustule" Paul.
So there you go. I have good reason to doubt there will be even one church that will teach the truth.
Because Christianity is a lie. It is a lying religion, based in lies.
Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah was not a Christian. He didn't revere a mostly invented New Testament, mostly the opinions of a man whose real name was Sha'ul, but who would not even tell the truth of his own name, and His Bible didn't have 66 books either.
Jesus didn't so callously mock the commandments of His Father, among which we would be commanded to abstain from bacon. What large percentage of Christians will head to church after a breakfast of this abominable meat.
Then when they get there, they will be regaled with tales of Paul, and Timothy, and Barsabbas, and so on and so forth.
Not Jesus. Not the disciples. Fuck those guys! the Christians will say. We're not under all the old laws and old ways.
When those guys were walking the earth, they'll say, the law was still in effect. All we need is taught to us by "Apustule" Paul.
So there you go. I have good reason to doubt there will be even one church that will teach the truth.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Some Revolutionary Thoughts on Christianity
I think about this Walter Martin figure, who while looking for books to buy on Amazon, his classic "The Kingdom of the Occult" was presented under the 'Recommended' menu. I always thought it a bit strange how distorted ordinary Christians' views of so-called "cult" movements really is. For, isn't Christianity itself a cult of Judaism.
#1 Christianity is a cult of Judaism
Now whether that's historically relevant, or whether it's germane to the topic at all, I think we're remiss when taking for granted that [b]Christianity is itself a cult of Judaism[/b].
I mean, a rabbi, learned in the traditions of Judaism, Torah, Torah-observance, to come on the scene and to shock the elite of his day proclaiming to be God. That's as aggressive a maneuver as nearly any you might point to today, such as Jim Jones. Even Jim Jones spent many years cultivating his flock before asking them to drink poisonous kool-aid. Even Morris Applewhite spent years cultivating his flock before he asked them to commit suicide to join with Jesus Christ on Comet Hale-Bopp as it made its historic trip around the earth in 1997.
Jesus just came right in and said to everyone, "You're doing it all wrong." It was gutsy, it was audacious.
But it was also something that a cult leader would do.
So basically, Christianity is indeed a cult of Judaism.
#2 Mainstream Christianity is descended from Greek and Egyptian mysteries.
If we abandon the analysis, we will only overlook more subtle, but more pressing revelations. That is, that even acknowledging that Christianity is a cult of Judaism, modern Christianity is the spin-off of ancient mysteries and therefore is itself a cult of earlier cults.
Christianity is a Pagan religion at its heart, with sparse Judaisms thrown in to make it seem authentic.
Much of the central tenets of Christianity are very much indifferent to what pagans, Greeks or Egyptians once believed. The three-personalitied God, the eternity of matter, the eternal condemnation in hellfire, the host, it's all rooted in pagan superstition and, therefore, Christianity is very little judaic but is actually a cult of Christianity and paganism. Christianity is enmeshed with pagan religion through and through.
#3 At best, all Christians are cultists, at worst, they're willing to do extremely awful things to promote their cult.
Sometimes it may be innocuous, they write endless books condemning different believers for holding a variety of views, mostly in good faith.
Is this not concerning to you? How easily a Christian can pick up a pen, someone like Walter Martin, sit down at his typewriter and author up volumes of condemnations, anathemas, damnations, cursings, blotting outs, against people that the orthodox Martin does not want to share heaven with, and then find a publisher to publish it?
I actually think Martin's text is very good, however, I only use him as an illustration here, since his book is one most have heard of.
I think Christians are too concerned with what other people believe than what they believe. Because too often, what they say they believe is exposed by what they do in actual life. In actual life, their engaging in such notorious behavior that it's well-known and would surprise no one if I presented it here.
These are some of my thoughts about the "cult industry" in the book industry, etc.
#1 Christianity is a cult of Judaism
Now whether that's historically relevant, or whether it's germane to the topic at all, I think we're remiss when taking for granted that [b]Christianity is itself a cult of Judaism[/b].
I mean, a rabbi, learned in the traditions of Judaism, Torah, Torah-observance, to come on the scene and to shock the elite of his day proclaiming to be God. That's as aggressive a maneuver as nearly any you might point to today, such as Jim Jones. Even Jim Jones spent many years cultivating his flock before asking them to drink poisonous kool-aid. Even Morris Applewhite spent years cultivating his flock before he asked them to commit suicide to join with Jesus Christ on Comet Hale-Bopp as it made its historic trip around the earth in 1997.
Jesus just came right in and said to everyone, "You're doing it all wrong." It was gutsy, it was audacious.
But it was also something that a cult leader would do.
So basically, Christianity is indeed a cult of Judaism.
#2 Mainstream Christianity is descended from Greek and Egyptian mysteries.
If we abandon the analysis, we will only overlook more subtle, but more pressing revelations. That is, that even acknowledging that Christianity is a cult of Judaism, modern Christianity is the spin-off of ancient mysteries and therefore is itself a cult of earlier cults.
Christianity is a Pagan religion at its heart, with sparse Judaisms thrown in to make it seem authentic.
Much of the central tenets of Christianity are very much indifferent to what pagans, Greeks or Egyptians once believed. The three-personalitied God, the eternity of matter, the eternal condemnation in hellfire, the host, it's all rooted in pagan superstition and, therefore, Christianity is very little judaic but is actually a cult of Christianity and paganism. Christianity is enmeshed with pagan religion through and through.
#3 At best, all Christians are cultists, at worst, they're willing to do extremely awful things to promote their cult.
Sometimes it may be innocuous, they write endless books condemning different believers for holding a variety of views, mostly in good faith.
Is this not concerning to you? How easily a Christian can pick up a pen, someone like Walter Martin, sit down at his typewriter and author up volumes of condemnations, anathemas, damnations, cursings, blotting outs, against people that the orthodox Martin does not want to share heaven with, and then find a publisher to publish it?
I actually think Martin's text is very good, however, I only use him as an illustration here, since his book is one most have heard of.
I think Christians are too concerned with what other people believe than what they believe. Because too often, what they say they believe is exposed by what they do in actual life. In actual life, their engaging in such notorious behavior that it's well-known and would surprise no one if I presented it here.
These are some of my thoughts about the "cult industry" in the book industry, etc.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Pope Francis: Caught Between a Cock and a Queer Place
Sermon: Sunday, October 4, 2015
Just some thoughts I've been having about Francis lately.
I remember when he went to South America recently and one of the Communist leaders down there and gave him a small statue or image with Jesus and sickle, which the Pope did not accept. He even waved his hand, gesturing, saying, "No, no, this is not okay." It was one of those character moments where, when you think he have a guy nailed down, then he does something that you might not have guessed.
In fact, it left me wondering what we could really come to know about old Frank.
Then, after his recent visit to the Americas, another astonishing tale: He is reported to have met with the Kentucky clerk, who resisted the gay marriage ban. It's said that when he met her, he praised her courage and asked her to, "Pray for me."
And I began to wonder if maybe Francis is being manipulated, perhaps he is someone's puppet. I remember where I was even, thinking how he must be under the control of someone. This is several days ago this news has come out.
Now, a couple days ago, Vatican officials are coming out and saying either the story is untrue and never happened or that it is embellished. In a sense, it made me think this could be confirmation of that theory: The Vatican is in effect controlling what comes out of the Pope's mouth and if the Vatican says it didn't happen, it doesn't matter if it did because Pope Francis broke script the official word out of the See is, "It didn't happen."
Should we be worried about Francis? Have the homosexuals who control the Vatican positioned the Pope between a cock and a queer place? He certainly seems as if he's being manipulated. So then let us pray for Pope Francis.
Just some thoughts I've been having about Francis lately.
I remember when he went to South America recently and one of the Communist leaders down there and gave him a small statue or image with Jesus and sickle, which the Pope did not accept. He even waved his hand, gesturing, saying, "No, no, this is not okay." It was one of those character moments where, when you think he have a guy nailed down, then he does something that you might not have guessed.
In fact, it left me wondering what we could really come to know about old Frank.
Then, after his recent visit to the Americas, another astonishing tale: He is reported to have met with the Kentucky clerk, who resisted the gay marriage ban. It's said that when he met her, he praised her courage and asked her to, "Pray for me."
And I began to wonder if maybe Francis is being manipulated, perhaps he is someone's puppet. I remember where I was even, thinking how he must be under the control of someone. This is several days ago this news has come out.
Now, a couple days ago, Vatican officials are coming out and saying either the story is untrue and never happened or that it is embellished. In a sense, it made me think this could be confirmation of that theory: The Vatican is in effect controlling what comes out of the Pope's mouth and if the Vatican says it didn't happen, it doesn't matter if it did because Pope Francis broke script the official word out of the See is, "It didn't happen."
Should we be worried about Francis? Have the homosexuals who control the Vatican positioned the Pope between a cock and a queer place? He certainly seems as if he's being manipulated. So then let us pray for Pope Francis.
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Testament Against the United Methodist Church
I had recently (last 16 months) become a tithing member of the United Methodist Church.
Around six months ago, I withdrew my support for this reason:
The newsletters from the church became very aggressive in asking for money. The moment I drew the line is when they sent a letter saying, "In this issue we will tell you who your money belongs to."
No, you won't tell me who my money belongs to, because primarily, it belongs to me.
Secondarily, in the scheme of the Kingdom, my money belongs to God. But this argument of the church, "Your money belongs to God, we represent God, and so we have a right to a portion" does not bear. I'll tell you why it does not bear.
This is a church that unabashedly teaches against the Law of God. Unabashedly. If you're going to make a claim to tithes, which I will gladly hear, if it has founding, you will have to
a) Show that you are the lawful succession of the Aaronic priesthood
and
b) Explain which portions of the Law apply today and which do not and why
If you fail to do these both, then I conclude,
i) You are a church that makes a dubious and convenient claim that none of the laws today but the one that says give money to the church.
I can't conclude any thing else. I don't have a problem giving to a church that teaches error, if that error arises from a good faith claim, a good-hearted belief in the rightness of the way and it does not approach a level of infamous error.
In this case, this church approaches infamous error, by teaching a self-serving belief, and rejecting the Law of God for the commands of men.
Around six months ago, I withdrew my support for this reason:
The newsletters from the church became very aggressive in asking for money. The moment I drew the line is when they sent a letter saying, "In this issue we will tell you who your money belongs to."
No, you won't tell me who my money belongs to, because primarily, it belongs to me.
Secondarily, in the scheme of the Kingdom, my money belongs to God. But this argument of the church, "Your money belongs to God, we represent God, and so we have a right to a portion" does not bear. I'll tell you why it does not bear.
This is a church that unabashedly teaches against the Law of God. Unabashedly. If you're going to make a claim to tithes, which I will gladly hear, if it has founding, you will have to
a) Show that you are the lawful succession of the Aaronic priesthood
and
b) Explain which portions of the Law apply today and which do not and why
If you fail to do these both, then I conclude,
i) You are a church that makes a dubious and convenient claim that none of the laws today but the one that says give money to the church.
I can't conclude any thing else. I don't have a problem giving to a church that teaches error, if that error arises from a good faith claim, a good-hearted belief in the rightness of the way and it does not approach a level of infamous error.
In this case, this church approaches infamous error, by teaching a self-serving belief, and rejecting the Law of God for the commands of men.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Christians Don't Get Dementia
I don't feel that Christians will develop dementia.
I'll just come right out and say it: Christians do not get dementia.
Recently, I've come to acknowledge that both of my grandparents are suffering from some level of dementia and they are probably winding down in the latter stage of their lives. I've had to ask myself, why are they suffering this dementia? They have always been churchgoers, for decades, they raised their kids in church, they've read their Bibles.
So I had to answer an honest question when I was confronted with a possible conflict.
When I look at it, and I look back on the years I've known my grandparents, I don't see any evidence they were born again. That doesn't mean I believe their souls are lost. I believe they had saving knowledge, but I would not call them Christians. A Christian is what I would call someone who genuinely loves reading the Bible, Bible study, and holy living. I don't recall ever reading the Bible with my grandparents. Instead, the one time I do recall talking about it, they treated me like I was a freak, a religious nut. And as far as holy living, the extent of their religion said "gluttony", eating too much was a sin. Which basically meant quietly or privately passing judgment on anyone who in their judgment "ate too much". The Rock eats 9,000 calories a day, and some people consider him to be the epitome of a physique. And never mind my grandmother was pretty big back when I was a kid.
I think it was my uncle who said back in the day, the 1950s, my grandparents actually kept an ashtray lying around, they were liberal enough to respect any possible guests who came in and wanted to light up a cig. Although they themselves were neither drinkers nor smokers. That's pretty cool because most people are hardcore one way or the other.
Now socially, my grandparents were big into cultural Christianity, specifically the Christian gospel music scene. This isn't really a force today, but years ago, the Gaithers, Ivan Parker, and other groups were quite popular in mainstream Christian, but the music scene was considerably different as well. Country western music WAS "pop" music. Popular music charts were dominated by country and crossover artists. I doubt if anyone my age really knows who Guy Penrod, Ivan Parker, or David Phelps really are or what made them significant in the Christian gospel industry.
But did I ever see any true image of Christianity in my grandparents home, beyond the lowest level, prayer at bedtime, maybe a short reading of the Psalms before going to sleep, no.
And yet I think they are probably saved. I might use the term "Theological Quotient". Simply put, not everyone has a high theological quotient. I don't think that bars them from living decent lives, loving the Lord, being somewhat attuned to Christian living, and language, and community. I just think it means they're not going to be passionate about studying the Bible, searching for answers, day and night, praying intensely for revelation. That's something that a person with a high theological quotient would do. But perhaps, maybe, ordinary Christians are not called to that. Still I think most Christians are totally disengaged, but, this theological quotient will be a helpful instrument for us in the future to examine the body.
I'll just come right out and say it: Christians do not get dementia.
Recently, I've come to acknowledge that both of my grandparents are suffering from some level of dementia and they are probably winding down in the latter stage of their lives. I've had to ask myself, why are they suffering this dementia? They have always been churchgoers, for decades, they raised their kids in church, they've read their Bibles.
So I had to answer an honest question when I was confronted with a possible conflict.
When I look at it, and I look back on the years I've known my grandparents, I don't see any evidence they were born again. That doesn't mean I believe their souls are lost. I believe they had saving knowledge, but I would not call them Christians. A Christian is what I would call someone who genuinely loves reading the Bible, Bible study, and holy living. I don't recall ever reading the Bible with my grandparents. Instead, the one time I do recall talking about it, they treated me like I was a freak, a religious nut. And as far as holy living, the extent of their religion said "gluttony", eating too much was a sin. Which basically meant quietly or privately passing judgment on anyone who in their judgment "ate too much". The Rock eats 9,000 calories a day, and some people consider him to be the epitome of a physique. And never mind my grandmother was pretty big back when I was a kid.
I think it was my uncle who said back in the day, the 1950s, my grandparents actually kept an ashtray lying around, they were liberal enough to respect any possible guests who came in and wanted to light up a cig. Although they themselves were neither drinkers nor smokers. That's pretty cool because most people are hardcore one way or the other.
Now socially, my grandparents were big into cultural Christianity, specifically the Christian gospel music scene. This isn't really a force today, but years ago, the Gaithers, Ivan Parker, and other groups were quite popular in mainstream Christian, but the music scene was considerably different as well. Country western music WAS "pop" music. Popular music charts were dominated by country and crossover artists. I doubt if anyone my age really knows who Guy Penrod, Ivan Parker, or David Phelps really are or what made them significant in the Christian gospel industry.
But did I ever see any true image of Christianity in my grandparents home, beyond the lowest level, prayer at bedtime, maybe a short reading of the Psalms before going to sleep, no.
And yet I think they are probably saved. I might use the term "Theological Quotient". Simply put, not everyone has a high theological quotient. I don't think that bars them from living decent lives, loving the Lord, being somewhat attuned to Christian living, and language, and community. I just think it means they're not going to be passionate about studying the Bible, searching for answers, day and night, praying intensely for revelation. That's something that a person with a high theological quotient would do. But perhaps, maybe, ordinary Christians are not called to that. Still I think most Christians are totally disengaged, but, this theological quotient will be a helpful instrument for us in the future to examine the body.
How to take America Back (Although it will Never be Done
Liberty is exclusively an Anglo concept
Liberty has never existed except among Anglo people. This applies especially to England and the descendants of the English people. A very notable feature about the English is they are non-Catholic. Being a cultural Anglo means being a Protestant, opposed to the Catholic church culturally, doctrinally, and dogmatically.
The Catholic church is such an insidious force that when they solidified power in Italy, they began a persecution of the scientists, killing some, life imprisonment for others. Italy, the origin of the humanistic Renaissance, was sucked into a dark age from which, in my estimation, it has never recovered. When you purge the intellectual class of a people, you sabotage that nation indefinitely, unless and until they can acquire such intellectual capital as to produce future generations of academic merit.
Elsewhere, the Catholic church engaged in such conspiracies as to kill hundreds of thousands, from the most evil plot of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, even to the shores of England, when such Catholic monarchs as Mary brought the Inquisition to our land, and killed hundreds in the name of Rome.
If anyone is more paternalist than Rome, name it. This group thinks the Pope should determine policy matters in every country on earth, even that the other nations are not fit to decide for themselves. This results in such blatant absurdities as these orthodox disagreeing amongst themselves.
Then we arrive to the present day, when the Catholic/Jewish Supreme Court, makes several landmark decisions in a row, completing overturning every underpinning of democracy, the Constitution, and due process which they could massacre.
The media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Vatican. The Supreme Court is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Vatican. The federal government, the Congress, and the executive, are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Vatican.
In theory, my theory, the only way to set America back on the right path is to pass draconian treason and sedition laws depriving American Catholics of political privileges, stripping all Catholic politicians of political power as covert agents of the See, and depriving all Catholics of voting rights.
Many will think I say this with a hint of sarcasm or to be humorous. I can't think of a more effective way to take back the Constitution from its molesters than from the molesters who molest boys.
Catholics, be it noted, provide tacit approval to all clergy who molest children. When you give money to your bishop-prick, YOU ARE personally funding the wining and dining of the young boys, who are wooed with chocolates and flowers by the Catholic priests. You are responsible for this.
A Catholic on the left or the right makes no difference. You can't argue Peter King is any less deranged than Nancy Pelosi. Peter King never met a constitutional right he wouldn't shred in the name of fighting terrorism. He is the very definition of one who would trade liberty for security and wind up with neither. Peter King fills me with more terror than all the hordes of the Islamic State. Sonia Sotomayor is a greater standing threat to American's rights than the nation of Iran and Nancy Pelosi has distinguished herself with decades of service to making America a worse place to live.
And so the answer for Americans is to completely deprive Catholics of political privileges.
(Note: This has nothing to do with oppressing Catholics or allowing violence to take place against them. This simply means to protect the rights of all, Catholics must be severed from the political process. Catholics cannot be relied upon to vote proper material into office and will end up jeopardizing their own rights if they are allowed to vote. Catholics vote against their own interest and should be compared to a metnally incompetent person who is judged in a court as unable to manage his own affairs. So therefore, society needs to take special measures to prevent Catholics from jeopardizing their own rights and the rights of everyone else. At one point in England, Catholis were banned from owning arms because every country they went into, they wantonly killed the native peoples and took over the monarchies to serve the Pope. Therefore at one point, they demanded that no Catholic could own a firearm. This did not protect violent crimes against Catholics or deny the Catholics the right to self-defense but was a short order measure meant to protect democracy)
Liberty has never existed except among Anglo people. This applies especially to England and the descendants of the English people. A very notable feature about the English is they are non-Catholic. Being a cultural Anglo means being a Protestant, opposed to the Catholic church culturally, doctrinally, and dogmatically.
The Catholic church is such an insidious force that when they solidified power in Italy, they began a persecution of the scientists, killing some, life imprisonment for others. Italy, the origin of the humanistic Renaissance, was sucked into a dark age from which, in my estimation, it has never recovered. When you purge the intellectual class of a people, you sabotage that nation indefinitely, unless and until they can acquire such intellectual capital as to produce future generations of academic merit.
Elsewhere, the Catholic church engaged in such conspiracies as to kill hundreds of thousands, from the most evil plot of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, even to the shores of England, when such Catholic monarchs as Mary brought the Inquisition to our land, and killed hundreds in the name of Rome.
If anyone is more paternalist than Rome, name it. This group thinks the Pope should determine policy matters in every country on earth, even that the other nations are not fit to decide for themselves. This results in such blatant absurdities as these orthodox disagreeing amongst themselves.
Then we arrive to the present day, when the Catholic/Jewish Supreme Court, makes several landmark decisions in a row, completing overturning every underpinning of democracy, the Constitution, and due process which they could massacre.
The media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Vatican. The Supreme Court is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Vatican. The federal government, the Congress, and the executive, are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Vatican.
In theory, my theory, the only way to set America back on the right path is to pass draconian treason and sedition laws depriving American Catholics of political privileges, stripping all Catholic politicians of political power as covert agents of the See, and depriving all Catholics of voting rights.
Many will think I say this with a hint of sarcasm or to be humorous. I can't think of a more effective way to take back the Constitution from its molesters than from the molesters who molest boys.
Catholics, be it noted, provide tacit approval to all clergy who molest children. When you give money to your bishop-prick, YOU ARE personally funding the wining and dining of the young boys, who are wooed with chocolates and flowers by the Catholic priests. You are responsible for this.
A Catholic on the left or the right makes no difference. You can't argue Peter King is any less deranged than Nancy Pelosi. Peter King never met a constitutional right he wouldn't shred in the name of fighting terrorism. He is the very definition of one who would trade liberty for security and wind up with neither. Peter King fills me with more terror than all the hordes of the Islamic State. Sonia Sotomayor is a greater standing threat to American's rights than the nation of Iran and Nancy Pelosi has distinguished herself with decades of service to making America a worse place to live.
And so the answer for Americans is to completely deprive Catholics of political privileges.
(Note: This has nothing to do with oppressing Catholics or allowing violence to take place against them. This simply means to protect the rights of all, Catholics must be severed from the political process. Catholics cannot be relied upon to vote proper material into office and will end up jeopardizing their own rights if they are allowed to vote. Catholics vote against their own interest and should be compared to a metnally incompetent person who is judged in a court as unable to manage his own affairs. So therefore, society needs to take special measures to prevent Catholics from jeopardizing their own rights and the rights of everyone else. At one point in England, Catholis were banned from owning arms because every country they went into, they wantonly killed the native peoples and took over the monarchies to serve the Pope. Therefore at one point, they demanded that no Catholic could own a firearm. This did not protect violent crimes against Catholics or deny the Catholics the right to self-defense but was a short order measure meant to protect democracy)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)