One of the things that the cultists who stalk me are most proud of is that they "know everything about me." This was told to me by one of the head cultists in 2003. This is how I first realized that far from being just nosy neighbors of the ordinary sort, they actually have wiretapped my home for many years, being fascinated with every detail of my life including, puzzlingly, bathroom habits. That fascination continues to even today, and if only I had realized it sooner I could have started a potty blog for them and saved them the effort. It just isn't all that mysterious.
Back to my case study, though, to illustrate my main point. The past two generations believe that "knowledge is power" and they glorify spies in popular culture and so forth. That is great when done in a sane context. Yes, in armed conflict (or suspicious times), nations have great incentive to spy on each other about military capabilities and plans. And yes, knowledge is power, because a dummy should not pretend to be an expert on a subject without gaining knowledge through study, practice, apprenticeship, life experience, etc.
But here is the problem. The more "details" of activities and even thoughts that a stalker collects about a person, such as me, the more they lose sight of what is actually holistically going on. Worse, they start to draw opposite conclusions to the truth. For our case study, let's use some specific examples from my life.
Scenario one: Cultists never observe me reading the Bible.
Wrong conclusion: They conclude that I am either irreligious or that the Bible is irrelevant.
Factual truth: I read the entire Bible around the age of thirteen and retain perfect recall. Additionally, I was born with the ability to witness to the truth of what is in the Bible and the Qur'an.
So here is a stark example of how statistical and "knowledge" building data collection is totally bogus. Far from measuring my devotion to the Bible, attempting to measure my devotion by the number of times I read the Bible has drawn cultists to a conclusion opposite to the truth. I am living devotion to the Bible and it is engraved, spiritually, in my heart. I only turn to the Bible when I am blogging or when I wish to lose myself in the comfort of what is there. I was doing neither when cultists attempted to demonize me via "counting" my supposed usage of the Bible.
I could give other examples but this is the key, the heart of the problem of stalking, and I'll leave this one to my readers to meditate upon.
This, by the way, is why gossip, stalking and spying is a violation of the Eighth Commandment about false witnessing against one's neighbor. One collects judgmental and often false or gravely misunderstood information against someone who is the victim of gossip, spying and stalking, and thus comes to believe and communicate calumny, lies and distortions, ALL of which is false witness in God's eyes (remember, the Bible explains that even thoughts are sins; it is not necessary to act upon those thoughts).
Gossip, stalking and spying for "tech" reasons are also a violation, in addition to the Eighth Commandment, to the First Commandment against false gods and idolatry. Collecting power enhancing information against another person is putting that "tech" and activity ahead of God in determining the purpose and direction to that person's life. One cannot "tech" and serve God; God will not tolerate other masters.
For example, one has no way of knowing that an adulterous affair that results in a baby is not ultimately the will of God. God is not saying that adultery is no longer a sin. However, only God knows all the paths of all people who ever lived, and it is often his will that humans cannot understand how their own actions (say nothing of their "neighbors") fit into his plan. A woman who is gossiped about and demonized for having an adulterous baby is thus treated in an extremely ungodly way by the stalkers. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that people should take justice into their own hands based on evil gossip. Rather, Jesus explicitly comdemns hypocriscy and turns into disciples many who were accused by the hypocrites of "sin."
God has a plan for everyone. Why do hypocrite Christians stalk others and thus gossip, oppress and put their feet on the necks of those they spy on, harming them with their sinful thoughts and deeds, when they should confess that they know that God has a plan-known only to him-for everyone?
I blogged before that thank God the "righteous" early Christians did not decide to slay Saul, their chief persecutor, out of "self defense." If gossipers and stalkers had their way, they would have killed Saul before he became Paul.
God will not tolerate having his will hampered by spies, gossipers and stalkers.
So ponder how the "counting how many times I read or do not read the Bible" led to a complete misunderstanding and hampering of God's plan and will for my life, and think about how those deeds are in direct conflict and offense to the First and Eighth Commandments (not a good place to be in if one hopes to be saved upon death).
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Continuing to reach out to cultists
Even though stalking cultists have ruined my life (and those of countless others, either deliberately or through neglect, since the error of their beliefs cause them to neglect people and activities who are essential to good life and ultimately salvation), I continue to sincerely reach out to them through this blog. I blog less than I have because I pretty much have said everything that I can say in this format, and only repeat myself.
However, I mention this today to share with you an example of wrong "Christian thinking." Since my life has been ruined and I'm on the brink of bankruptcy, I've become a housekeeper for a Christian man who has a rental facility in his home. In return for housekeeping I have a free room and food and utilities to meet my needs. He's a good guy and tries to do the right thing.
However, as many Christians I have met, he has a serious error in his logic. He knows about the stalking but rather than this knowledge providing more insight into my service on behalf of God (my witnessing) he actually is confounded why I continue to "spend so much time on the computer" and why I blog and hence communicate with the cultists. He basically said that I am provoking cultists by communicating with them, (thus the old "asking for it" argument that men used to use against women who are sexually assaulted).
The vast majority of the stalking, and damage to me, was done before I was blogging, before I understood that many people have skewed and even insane views of God, the Bible, the Qur'an, etc. Far from blogging being me "engaging with" those who have harmed me in a bad way, I continue to believe that my blogging is helping some people somewhere to regain their sanity and to better understand God.
Too many Christians do not understand that in addition to confessing Jesus Christ, they are also OBLIGATED to correct error (there are Biblical citations on that, of course). I do not do it for obligatory reasons, and especially not because I am in some demented way "asking for it." I continue to blog because I pray that each time that I do at least one person (yes, even the worst of stalkers) asks the right questions, receives comfort, and starts to regain their sanity and ultimately find their true belief and be saved from being judged and expelled from God's presence for all eternity.
Time's a wasting. Every day I read obituaries and while no one can speak for God, believe you me I continue to be alarmed at seeing how many people died unrepentant and unsaved.
Many Christians worry more about who is cheating on who (adultery in particular fascinates them) and even worry about gay marriages (which I am not in favor of however I believe in commitment acknowledgements and I spend zero amount of my time worrying about gay marriage or not) but do not worry at all about having erroneous beliefs about God, many of which border on cultist and pagan beliefs and idolatry.
An example would be a so called Christian who secretly engages in occult practices, such as Scientology "tech." That is a great error and I am alarmed at how many of those Christians think they are "covered" regarding being saved because they "believe in Jesus Christ," yet who participate in anti-Godly activities.
I continue to URGENTLY reach out to those people to keep reading my blog, go back and reread with new eyes what I have written in the past (I tire of repeating myself). "Believing in Jesus" is not coverage from continuing in occult, idolatrous or other obsessive compulsive tech type activities that are a way of trying to have sinful control over others.
However, I mention this today to share with you an example of wrong "Christian thinking." Since my life has been ruined and I'm on the brink of bankruptcy, I've become a housekeeper for a Christian man who has a rental facility in his home. In return for housekeeping I have a free room and food and utilities to meet my needs. He's a good guy and tries to do the right thing.
However, as many Christians I have met, he has a serious error in his logic. He knows about the stalking but rather than this knowledge providing more insight into my service on behalf of God (my witnessing) he actually is confounded why I continue to "spend so much time on the computer" and why I blog and hence communicate with the cultists. He basically said that I am provoking cultists by communicating with them, (thus the old "asking for it" argument that men used to use against women who are sexually assaulted).
The vast majority of the stalking, and damage to me, was done before I was blogging, before I understood that many people have skewed and even insane views of God, the Bible, the Qur'an, etc. Far from blogging being me "engaging with" those who have harmed me in a bad way, I continue to believe that my blogging is helping some people somewhere to regain their sanity and to better understand God.
Too many Christians do not understand that in addition to confessing Jesus Christ, they are also OBLIGATED to correct error (there are Biblical citations on that, of course). I do not do it for obligatory reasons, and especially not because I am in some demented way "asking for it." I continue to blog because I pray that each time that I do at least one person (yes, even the worst of stalkers) asks the right questions, receives comfort, and starts to regain their sanity and ultimately find their true belief and be saved from being judged and expelled from God's presence for all eternity.
Time's a wasting. Every day I read obituaries and while no one can speak for God, believe you me I continue to be alarmed at seeing how many people died unrepentant and unsaved.
Many Christians worry more about who is cheating on who (adultery in particular fascinates them) and even worry about gay marriages (which I am not in favor of however I believe in commitment acknowledgements and I spend zero amount of my time worrying about gay marriage or not) but do not worry at all about having erroneous beliefs about God, many of which border on cultist and pagan beliefs and idolatry.
An example would be a so called Christian who secretly engages in occult practices, such as Scientology "tech." That is a great error and I am alarmed at how many of those Christians think they are "covered" regarding being saved because they "believe in Jesus Christ," yet who participate in anti-Godly activities.
I continue to URGENTLY reach out to those people to keep reading my blog, go back and reread with new eyes what I have written in the past (I tire of repeating myself). "Believing in Jesus" is not coverage from continuing in occult, idolatrous or other obsessive compulsive tech type activities that are a way of trying to have sinful control over others.
Larry King mangles the Bible
I have a lot to blog about today. Sometimes there is a confluence of both ordinary secular events and cultist “antireligious” events that are reason to repeat ONCE AGAIN what I have taught previously, and today is one of those days.
Now, I don’t mind someone asking even the “dumbest” question (and remember, the only dumb question is the one that is not asked) over and over. In fact, that is a good sign because it indicates a mind and heart that is trying to understand and to change. I am annoyed, since it is based on alarm, when I have to repeat over and over what is IN THE BIBLE and plain for anyone to understand and see. I’m alarmed because never have I seen so many human beings have a willful refusal to understand even the facts of which they supposedly speak AND their doing so in a public forum in order to mislead others into error, sin, and ultimately damnation.
TV personality Larry King works my last nerve but I do watch him on occasion because I want to see specific people or topics that his show covers. The specific thing that annoys me about Mr. King is that even though he is a secular Jew (not a believer of God or his own faith) he feels informed enough to throw a damper on anyone else’s faith, should he be in a mood to do so. He, like most modern media false prophets, present an argument that sounds logical and erodes faith in his listeners, but is totally simplistic, ignorant, fallacious, and, frankly, in service of the prince of darkness. So this is why I MUST finally address in my blog this simultaneously whining and hostile “argument” that he makes regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality. By the way, I am not going to attack what he says about homosexuality (he thinks it’s great) because my views of tolerance are well known and articulated, even if people choose to ignore what I really feel. I have cited what Jesus himself has said on the matter, which many miss because he uses the term “eunuch” rather than homosexual. It is what Mr. King says about the nature of the Bible that infuriates me.
In a nutshell, Mr. King characterizes the Bible as an outdated book of “dos and don’ts.” He, with his usual self satisfied smugness, cites other Biblical law, such as prohibition from eating shellfish, as an example of an “out of date” Biblical law that no one pays attention to anymore, and argues that God’s prohibition against active homosexuality is likewise a law that is just out of date. If you haven’t watched him at work, let me describe how he thinks he has such a “killer argument.” Whenever he has a guest who is Christian and against homosexuality for Biblical reasons, he sneers at them, “Well, don’t you eat shellfish?” He thinks he has then done a slam dunk regarding 1) the person’s hypocrisy in their own faith and 2) the “fact” that the Bible is just a list of laws that no longer “apply” to modern people. Thus he thinks if a person eats shellfish they have demonstrated that the old Law of the Bible-ALL of it-no longer applies.
This is so arrogant and pig ignorant that I find myself clenching my teeth as I key this blogging.
Let me start with the first obvious point. The Bible is not “only” a list of dos and don’ts that are given at one point in time. The Bible was written by different authors over a period of many years and EACH author records what encounters Israel, and later both Jews and Gentiles, have had with God. In other words, the Bible records the ongoing conversation that God has with humans over hundreds, indeed thousands, of years. So it’s not like some old smelly guy wrote down the Bible in one sitting at one point in time and then as years go on the Bible “no longer applies.” Here’s a newsflash for people who mouth off about the Bible but don’t actually read it. Um, God actually NOTICES how people change and what they are doing and UPDATES what he tells them accordingly. Some law is absolute and fixed as being obligatory FOREVER and God confirms that periodically through his prophets. Other laws God RELEASES people from and CHANGES and that is recorded in the scripture.
Liberal secular unbelieving Jews are particularly frustrating to debate because they not only do not believe in God, or the divinity of the Bible’s word, as given by God through the Holy Spirit, but they “doubly” do not believe in Jesus and thus do not read and absolutely discard all that is in the Gospel, the New Testament. So here is how I’d like to wipe the smile off of Mr. King’s smug face.
Acts 11
Now the apostles and the brethren all over Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. But when Peter went up to Jerusalem, they of the circumcision found fault with him, saying “Why didst thou visit men uncircumcised and eat with them?”
[For readers who don’t understand what was going on, here is a quick summary. Jesus preached only to the Jews, and stated that he himself was sent only to preach to the Jews. However, many Gentiles listened to him in the crowds that followed him, so by his role modeling we know that while his personal ministry was to the Jews that God intended that all should hear. Now, understand that the way Jews had self identification as Jews was that males were circumcised and all observed the food law as given by God to Moses. Thus “they of the circumcision” means “Jews,” while uncircumcised means “not Jews” hence “Gentiles.” Also “eating with them” means that Gentiles, not being Jews, do not follow God’s dietary laws. This is the snickering Mr. King’s question, about why Gentiles eat shellfish yet follow the rest of the Bible. I bet you can see where the scripture is going more clearly now, huh? “The Gentiles also had received the word of God.” So it’s not like only Jews converted to Christianity and then decided to stop following the dietary law (and thus eat shellfish). God allowed the word to be heard and believed by those who were not circumcised or following dietary laws and indeed, those who never even HEARD of the one true God of the Israelites, to hear and believe. ]
Then Peter began to explain the matter to them in order, saying, “I was praying in the city of Joppa and while in ecstasy I had a vision, a certain vessel coming down something like a great sheet, let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came right down to me. And gazing upon it, I began to observe, and I saw the four-footed creatures of the earth, and the wild beasts and the creeping things, and the birds of the air. And I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Arise, Peter, kill and eat.’ And I said, ‘By no means, Lord, for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’
[See, even as the Apostle of Jesus Peter hears God himself ordering Peter to eat food that is forbidden to them under dietary law and hence “unclean,” Peter replies to the Lord that he has never eaten anything unclean, and refuses to obey God to eat the unclean in his vision! Peter was sticking to the dietary law of the Jews, even as he had become the head Apostle, what Catholics call the Pope today, of Jesus Christ. Peter was sticking to the dietary law and even when God first tells him to eat the unclean in a vision, Peter refused, no doubt suspecting it was a temptation or a test by God of his fidelity to the Law.]
But the voice answered a second time, ‘What God has cleansed, do not thou call common.’ This happened three times, and then it was all drawn up back into heaven. And behold, immediately three men came to the house where I was, having been sent from Caesarea to me; and the Spirit bade me not to hesitate to go with them. And these six brethren also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen the angel in his house stand and say to him, ‘Send to Joppa and fetch Simon, surnamed Peter; he will speak to thee words by which thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy household.’
[See, Peter is traveling among the Gentiles, where people are hearing the word, both from Peter and other disciples, but also directly from God, and believing. So these are adult non-Jews who thus are not circumcised nor follow dietary law, nor who have even heard of, necessarily, the one God. Peter is thus relating to these Jewish Christians how Gentiles are flocking to him in belief.]
But when I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as it did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore, if God gave to them the same grace as he gave to us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should be able to interfere with God?” On hearing this they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, “Therefore to the Gentiles also God has given repentance unto life.”
OK, now do you see how ridiculous Mr. King is when he uses his favorite gay argument? If anyone actually reads the Bible before expounding on it, much worse, stating how inapplicable it is “today,” that would be a good thing. Mr. King would be able to read that God explicitly releases Christians from the dietary law so that they can belong and believe. Jews are FREE TO CONTINUE TO OBSERVE THE DIETARY LAW, SHOULD THEY CHOOSE. Thus many early Christians who were Jews, such as the original Apostles and disciples, continued to observe dietary law. However, they understood that they did not need to because God had explicitly opened the tent to allow in the Gentiles who never knew about God or his Law as given to the Israelites. So yes, duh, Mr. King, Christians eat shellfish, but they do so because God said it was OK to do so in the scriptures, not because they “felt like it” because they are “modern” and don’t need that old moth eaten “out of date” word of God (but oh wait, Mr. King does not believe the Bible is the word of God anyway).
I hope that this has helped those who are studying the Bible and hoping to better understand God to see this case study of how to actually cite the Bible and have a prayer of being accurate. God had continual dialogue throughout the time of the Bible’s historic events and he reaffirms Law and releases from Law according to his Will and what is the best for humans. God is mysterious but not in his interactions with humans. When it is his will that the Gospel be taken outside of the circle of observant Jews to now bring the Good Word to pagans and Gentiles, God released his people from required observance of law that would have excluded the Gentiles. Thus, blessed are Jews who continue to observe dietary law for love of God, but with the arrival of Jesus Christ, God released Jews from the dietary law in order to allow Gentiles, who had no God given Law, into the tent. However, through Jesus Christ God reaffirms the Commandments and other laws that continue to apply to all human beings, regardless of affiliation.
By the way, for brevity I just keyed in how Peter summarizes to the other Apostles and disciples what happened to him. His summary is Acts 11. You should read the whole events as they happened in Acts 10 for further understanding of what actually happened as they happened. It’s a chance to look over Saint Peter’s shoulder, all these years later, to see how God through the Holy Spirit guides him in reaching out to the Gentiles and discerning matters such as release from certain of the Law by God.
Now, I don’t mind someone asking even the “dumbest” question (and remember, the only dumb question is the one that is not asked) over and over. In fact, that is a good sign because it indicates a mind and heart that is trying to understand and to change. I am annoyed, since it is based on alarm, when I have to repeat over and over what is IN THE BIBLE and plain for anyone to understand and see. I’m alarmed because never have I seen so many human beings have a willful refusal to understand even the facts of which they supposedly speak AND their doing so in a public forum in order to mislead others into error, sin, and ultimately damnation.
TV personality Larry King works my last nerve but I do watch him on occasion because I want to see specific people or topics that his show covers. The specific thing that annoys me about Mr. King is that even though he is a secular Jew (not a believer of God or his own faith) he feels informed enough to throw a damper on anyone else’s faith, should he be in a mood to do so. He, like most modern media false prophets, present an argument that sounds logical and erodes faith in his listeners, but is totally simplistic, ignorant, fallacious, and, frankly, in service of the prince of darkness. So this is why I MUST finally address in my blog this simultaneously whining and hostile “argument” that he makes regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality. By the way, I am not going to attack what he says about homosexuality (he thinks it’s great) because my views of tolerance are well known and articulated, even if people choose to ignore what I really feel. I have cited what Jesus himself has said on the matter, which many miss because he uses the term “eunuch” rather than homosexual. It is what Mr. King says about the nature of the Bible that infuriates me.
In a nutshell, Mr. King characterizes the Bible as an outdated book of “dos and don’ts.” He, with his usual self satisfied smugness, cites other Biblical law, such as prohibition from eating shellfish, as an example of an “out of date” Biblical law that no one pays attention to anymore, and argues that God’s prohibition against active homosexuality is likewise a law that is just out of date. If you haven’t watched him at work, let me describe how he thinks he has such a “killer argument.” Whenever he has a guest who is Christian and against homosexuality for Biblical reasons, he sneers at them, “Well, don’t you eat shellfish?” He thinks he has then done a slam dunk regarding 1) the person’s hypocrisy in their own faith and 2) the “fact” that the Bible is just a list of laws that no longer “apply” to modern people. Thus he thinks if a person eats shellfish they have demonstrated that the old Law of the Bible-ALL of it-no longer applies.
This is so arrogant and pig ignorant that I find myself clenching my teeth as I key this blogging.
Let me start with the first obvious point. The Bible is not “only” a list of dos and don’ts that are given at one point in time. The Bible was written by different authors over a period of many years and EACH author records what encounters Israel, and later both Jews and Gentiles, have had with God. In other words, the Bible records the ongoing conversation that God has with humans over hundreds, indeed thousands, of years. So it’s not like some old smelly guy wrote down the Bible in one sitting at one point in time and then as years go on the Bible “no longer applies.” Here’s a newsflash for people who mouth off about the Bible but don’t actually read it. Um, God actually NOTICES how people change and what they are doing and UPDATES what he tells them accordingly. Some law is absolute and fixed as being obligatory FOREVER and God confirms that periodically through his prophets. Other laws God RELEASES people from and CHANGES and that is recorded in the scripture.
Liberal secular unbelieving Jews are particularly frustrating to debate because they not only do not believe in God, or the divinity of the Bible’s word, as given by God through the Holy Spirit, but they “doubly” do not believe in Jesus and thus do not read and absolutely discard all that is in the Gospel, the New Testament. So here is how I’d like to wipe the smile off of Mr. King’s smug face.
Acts 11
Now the apostles and the brethren all over Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. But when Peter went up to Jerusalem, they of the circumcision found fault with him, saying “Why didst thou visit men uncircumcised and eat with them?”
[For readers who don’t understand what was going on, here is a quick summary. Jesus preached only to the Jews, and stated that he himself was sent only to preach to the Jews. However, many Gentiles listened to him in the crowds that followed him, so by his role modeling we know that while his personal ministry was to the Jews that God intended that all should hear. Now, understand that the way Jews had self identification as Jews was that males were circumcised and all observed the food law as given by God to Moses. Thus “they of the circumcision” means “Jews,” while uncircumcised means “not Jews” hence “Gentiles.” Also “eating with them” means that Gentiles, not being Jews, do not follow God’s dietary laws. This is the snickering Mr. King’s question, about why Gentiles eat shellfish yet follow the rest of the Bible. I bet you can see where the scripture is going more clearly now, huh? “The Gentiles also had received the word of God.” So it’s not like only Jews converted to Christianity and then decided to stop following the dietary law (and thus eat shellfish). God allowed the word to be heard and believed by those who were not circumcised or following dietary laws and indeed, those who never even HEARD of the one true God of the Israelites, to hear and believe. ]
Then Peter began to explain the matter to them in order, saying, “I was praying in the city of Joppa and while in ecstasy I had a vision, a certain vessel coming down something like a great sheet, let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came right down to me. And gazing upon it, I began to observe, and I saw the four-footed creatures of the earth, and the wild beasts and the creeping things, and the birds of the air. And I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Arise, Peter, kill and eat.’ And I said, ‘By no means, Lord, for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’
[See, even as the Apostle of Jesus Peter hears God himself ordering Peter to eat food that is forbidden to them under dietary law and hence “unclean,” Peter replies to the Lord that he has never eaten anything unclean, and refuses to obey God to eat the unclean in his vision! Peter was sticking to the dietary law of the Jews, even as he had become the head Apostle, what Catholics call the Pope today, of Jesus Christ. Peter was sticking to the dietary law and even when God first tells him to eat the unclean in a vision, Peter refused, no doubt suspecting it was a temptation or a test by God of his fidelity to the Law.]
But the voice answered a second time, ‘What God has cleansed, do not thou call common.’ This happened three times, and then it was all drawn up back into heaven. And behold, immediately three men came to the house where I was, having been sent from Caesarea to me; and the Spirit bade me not to hesitate to go with them. And these six brethren also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen the angel in his house stand and say to him, ‘Send to Joppa and fetch Simon, surnamed Peter; he will speak to thee words by which thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy household.’
[See, Peter is traveling among the Gentiles, where people are hearing the word, both from Peter and other disciples, but also directly from God, and believing. So these are adult non-Jews who thus are not circumcised nor follow dietary law, nor who have even heard of, necessarily, the one God. Peter is thus relating to these Jewish Christians how Gentiles are flocking to him in belief.]
But when I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as it did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore, if God gave to them the same grace as he gave to us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should be able to interfere with God?” On hearing this they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, “Therefore to the Gentiles also God has given repentance unto life.”
OK, now do you see how ridiculous Mr. King is when he uses his favorite gay argument? If anyone actually reads the Bible before expounding on it, much worse, stating how inapplicable it is “today,” that would be a good thing. Mr. King would be able to read that God explicitly releases Christians from the dietary law so that they can belong and believe. Jews are FREE TO CONTINUE TO OBSERVE THE DIETARY LAW, SHOULD THEY CHOOSE. Thus many early Christians who were Jews, such as the original Apostles and disciples, continued to observe dietary law. However, they understood that they did not need to because God had explicitly opened the tent to allow in the Gentiles who never knew about God or his Law as given to the Israelites. So yes, duh, Mr. King, Christians eat shellfish, but they do so because God said it was OK to do so in the scriptures, not because they “felt like it” because they are “modern” and don’t need that old moth eaten “out of date” word of God (but oh wait, Mr. King does not believe the Bible is the word of God anyway).
I hope that this has helped those who are studying the Bible and hoping to better understand God to see this case study of how to actually cite the Bible and have a prayer of being accurate. God had continual dialogue throughout the time of the Bible’s historic events and he reaffirms Law and releases from Law according to his Will and what is the best for humans. God is mysterious but not in his interactions with humans. When it is his will that the Gospel be taken outside of the circle of observant Jews to now bring the Good Word to pagans and Gentiles, God released his people from required observance of law that would have excluded the Gentiles. Thus, blessed are Jews who continue to observe dietary law for love of God, but with the arrival of Jesus Christ, God released Jews from the dietary law in order to allow Gentiles, who had no God given Law, into the tent. However, through Jesus Christ God reaffirms the Commandments and other laws that continue to apply to all human beings, regardless of affiliation.
By the way, for brevity I just keyed in how Peter summarizes to the other Apostles and disciples what happened to him. His summary is Acts 11. You should read the whole events as they happened in Acts 10 for further understanding of what actually happened as they happened. It’s a chance to look over Saint Peter’s shoulder, all these years later, to see how God through the Holy Spirit guides him in reaching out to the Gentiles and discerning matters such as release from certain of the Law by God.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
God's curse still a real threat to disobedients
I was going to write a blog entry on the subject, citing scripture, that the prophets warned of the danger of God's cursing both individuals and humanity as a whole, when I found a scriptural writing that expressed it in a very clear to understand way. Read the page at this link.
http://www.scripturestudies.com/Vol9/I7/ot.html
As the author writes, it must remain very sobering that the last word of the last of the Old Testament prophets is "curse."
God can and does curse individuals for their disobedience to him. The curse may be revealed as punishment during life or upon the individual's death and arrival for final judgment.
Do not be presumptuous.
http://www.scripturestudies.com/Vol9/I7/ot.html
As the author writes, it must remain very sobering that the last word of the last of the Old Testament prophets is "curse."
God can and does curse individuals for their disobedience to him. The curse may be revealed as punishment during life or upon the individual's death and arrival for final judgment.
Do not be presumptuous.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Memorial Day thoughts
Memorial Day, a national holiday since 1971, celebrated today, is the day when the USA honors its war dead, and has been observed since the Civil War. (Veterans Day, celebrated in the autumn, honors all living veterans).
I'm fortunate that all of my loved ones were veterans, and not lost in war. My father, stepfather, brother in law, and former uncle in law, all served during World War II (except for bro who was in Vietnam) and returned home safely, though both my father and my stepfather were wounded Purple Heart veterans. But of course many of their buddies did not make it home, and I grieve alongside all who grieve their war dead today.
I'm fortunate that all of my loved ones were veterans, and not lost in war. My father, stepfather, brother in law, and former uncle in law, all served during World War II (except for bro who was in Vietnam) and returned home safely, though both my father and my stepfather were wounded Purple Heart veterans. But of course many of their buddies did not make it home, and I grieve alongside all who grieve their war dead today.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Peace
Genesis 13:8
And Abram said to Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen, for we be brethren.
Proverbs 12:20
Deceit is in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the counsellors of peace is joy.
Mark 9:50
Salt is good, but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
1 Timothy 2:1-2
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men:
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and honesty.
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.
And Abram said to Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen, for we be brethren.
Proverbs 12:20
Deceit is in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the counsellors of peace is joy.
Mark 9:50
Salt is good, but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
1 Timothy 2:1-2
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men:
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and honesty.
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
An analogy to understand God's view toward evil
I've written before in this blog explaining that God simply will not personally intervene to stop humans from performing evil against each other, whether it is individual "person on person" evil, or the most vile acts, such as the Shoah of World War II. Whenever one tries to understand God and his ways, and tries, from the perspective of an imperfect and flawed human being, to understand God, who is perfection himself, one has to approach such understanding both in layers and also from a number of perspectives. Whenever I think of a good one I have blogged it here. For example, I explained that God will not reach down and save every person who drives drunk and hurts someone because if God interferes with the natural law that he established (natural law being that if something big, heavy or pointed strikes a weaker object, such as a human in a car crash, that matter and energy may result in death or injury), humans will very quickly be unable to survive in the world. They will lose their ability to reason their way through things such as building safe autos, teaching good and safe driving, developing addictions programs, weighing punishment alternatives, and being able to better treat such injuries. If God reached down every time a drunk driver killed someone, and God brought the victim back to life, how in the world would humans function in a world that still operates according to the reality of physics, chemistry, biology and mechanics? So I have blogged that one perspective about why God "allows" evil.
Tonight I have thought of another helpful analogy.
Whenever one is tempted to think "Why did God allow a certain bad thing to happen to another person" (and here, since we are speaking of evil, I mean a bad thing where someone bad harms someone else, not a natural calamity, for example), before one can answer that question, first one must have more of a perspective that reflects God as he really is.
Think of a person's entire life, such as your own, from birth to death as being a single drop of water. Now, visualize that drop of water compared to all of the water that fills the oceans and other bodies of free flowing, frozen, or atmospheric water on earth. It is mind boggling to think of a drop of water "next to" all of the water that exists on earth.
That, brethren, is a suitable analogy, even though it is not grand enough, to describe the difference between a person's time in mortal life (being alive in their material body) and the time that a person spends in eternity after death (either heaven or hell, both of which are absolutely real).
Thus, the drop of water is like one's time while one is alive, and the rest of the water on earth is like one's time as the soul continuing on after death in either God's presence (heaven) or not (which is hell).
God's "priority" then, if you think of God as having priorities, is the saving of souls, since the soul lives on for all eternity, which is immense beyond human understanding, and the soul is either in saved, rewarded bliss in heaven, or in the unbearable pain, torment and total exile from God, which is hell.
Thus, no matter how vile someone is toward another person, either individually or collectively, any vile action is still only a part of that single droplet of water.
Humans MUST learn to manage their own ability to find goodness, under God's direction, within that drop of water. It's not that God does not care or feel the pain and sting of injustice for each and every one of his human children because, as scripture, most particularly the Gospel of Jesus Christ shows, God most certainly does love the person who is suffering, knows their pain, and feels huge wrath toward the evil doer.
But God wants humans to understand what they must understand, which is how to keep perspective and proportionality of how small a life span really is compared to eternity. People need to understand that what they do on earth, during that tiny droplet of water of time, results in either eternal reward and comfort, or eternal chastisement and damnation.
So it is not a matter of an innocent person suffering when something evil is done to them by someone else, for those events occur within the droplet of water. However, the sufferer, if he or she continues to hold close to God, knows that eternity in his presence will be theirs one day. And the evil doer, likewise, must understand that no matter how small or large the evil, that deed is a most certain risk that they will spend eternity in the total torment of hell.
That is how one must understand the Beatitudes, spoken by Jesus as he preached. Think about specifically:
Matthew 5:10
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnesses' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Many people make the easy mistake of thinking that Jesus mean persecution for the faith, in other words, those who are persecuted and harmed for being Christians. Thus people sometimes gloss over this beatitude thinking that it refers to martyrs and persecuted faithful. Yes, Jesus refers often to those who are reviled who belief in him (and in 5:11 he compares those who are persecuted for their faith with the prophets, most of whom were persecuted, who went before). But do not miss a key phrase "for righteousness' sake."
If Jesus meant only martyrs, he would not have said "for righteousnesses' sake," since being "persecuted" is quite clear in its meaning that the persecuted are those who suffer at the hands of evil-doers because of their faith.
No, Jesus is actually extending the meaning of the persecuted to mean not just those who are persecuted for their faith, but those who have wrongness inflicted on them, unrighteousness meted out to them. Righteous people are not just those of the greatest piety and faith. Righteous people are those who do the right thing, who treat people correctly and kindly, and who obey secular and moral laws. Thus, who persecutes the righteous? Those who are unrighteous, which means evil wrong-doers. Thus this Beatitude means that those who suffer as others inflict wrongs upon them, are given "the kingdom of heaven." It is not only the martyrs and those persecuted for the faith who can, according to Jesus, consider the kingdom of heaven "theirs," but all who suffer for the sake of righteousness: of those who continue to be righteous when unrighteousness and wrongs are poured down upon them.
This Beatitude, therefore, must be understood as not only comforting but also specifically referring to the kingdom of heaven as "theirs," to those who suffer through perhaps a really bad event done to them by a criminal or cruel person, to those who suffer martyrdom for the faith, to those who suffer on a grand scale, such as in a genocide. This Beatitude comforts the person who is deliberately impoverished by a robber baron and oppressor, for example, as much as it comforted a saint who went to his or her martyrdom, to those who went to their death in the Shoah. This Beatitude explains that all who cling to righteousness, as they suffer life events, whether the routine sufferings of life when one is afflicted by a wrongdoing, or the extraordinary evil that erupts periodically, can be assured that "theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
This, then, is one way you can better understand God's bigger "picture" and his bigger "plan." Individual human-on-human acts of wrongdoing and evil are of the greatest concern to him, but not in the way that a human, who is by definition living within the droplet of water time frame, may think God is focusing. God has established an unchanging ordering to the matters of heaven and earth whereby unrepentant evil doers (great and small) are not saved and wind up in hell for all eternity, while those who clung to righteousness even as they suffered are given as "theirs" the kingdom of heaven.
This is not to say that one is helpless in all circumstances of being the victim of evil, and that God will never intervene or that the Holy Spirit does not move to try to aid the victim and convert the heart of the tormentor. But I thought that this analogy of the water droplet, combined with a commentary and explanation of the Beatitude to enlighten the reader of God's "viewpoint" would be an important foundation as to why God does not seem to be as totally in the moment of an innocent person's suffering at the hands of evil doers as one might expect or hope. The real tragedy is that humans have stopped a large part of their own evil behavior regulation as they stopped understanding that hell and eternity are very real and inevitable consequences of continual and unrepentant evil doing.
Paul describes well the two types of righteousness. There is the righteousness of the faith (which is what most people think of when they read that word in the scriptures) but there is also the righteousness of doing the right thing versus wrong doing, including in secular matters. Remember that much of the Law given by God through Moses to the Israelites dealt with secular matters, such as how to treat people justly, settle disputes, provide wages and so forth. So read this and understand how Paul is referring to the righteousness of faith, but also the righteousness of routine deeds in life (which was given to the Jews under the law).
Romans 10:5-6
For Moses described the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which does those things shall live by them.
But the righteousness which is of faith speaks on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above).
Here Paul is not trying to explain the distinction that I point out here, since this passage of his concerns the difference between obeying what God has said to do (both in religious rites and in righteous living, including secular matters) and having righteousness of faith which, for these early Christians that he is addressing, focuses on belief in Jesus Christ and that he was raised by God from the dead.
So I include this so you can see scriptural foundation for what I am explaining, which is when Jesus Christ used the phrase "for righteousnesses' sake," he would say so knowing that the audience would understand that righteousness meant not just righteous faith before God but also righteous living, in both a faith based and a secular way.
I hope that this has given you another aspect of how to view with better perspective God's insistence that humans regulate within what he has given to them their own good behavior (being righteous and avoiding wrongdoing and evil), and that God's emphasis, for lack of a better word, is to remember that life is such an infinitesimally small portion of the eternal life, in either bliss or punishment, that each soul exists throughout and beyond the end of time. God simply will not intervene in 99 percent of the human-on-human evil doing, but God most certainly renders perfect and inevitable judgment and dispensation to either heaven or hell as a result of those deeds.
Tonight I have thought of another helpful analogy.
Whenever one is tempted to think "Why did God allow a certain bad thing to happen to another person" (and here, since we are speaking of evil, I mean a bad thing where someone bad harms someone else, not a natural calamity, for example), before one can answer that question, first one must have more of a perspective that reflects God as he really is.
Think of a person's entire life, such as your own, from birth to death as being a single drop of water. Now, visualize that drop of water compared to all of the water that fills the oceans and other bodies of free flowing, frozen, or atmospheric water on earth. It is mind boggling to think of a drop of water "next to" all of the water that exists on earth.
That, brethren, is a suitable analogy, even though it is not grand enough, to describe the difference between a person's time in mortal life (being alive in their material body) and the time that a person spends in eternity after death (either heaven or hell, both of which are absolutely real).
Thus, the drop of water is like one's time while one is alive, and the rest of the water on earth is like one's time as the soul continuing on after death in either God's presence (heaven) or not (which is hell).
God's "priority" then, if you think of God as having priorities, is the saving of souls, since the soul lives on for all eternity, which is immense beyond human understanding, and the soul is either in saved, rewarded bliss in heaven, or in the unbearable pain, torment and total exile from God, which is hell.
Thus, no matter how vile someone is toward another person, either individually or collectively, any vile action is still only a part of that single droplet of water.
Humans MUST learn to manage their own ability to find goodness, under God's direction, within that drop of water. It's not that God does not care or feel the pain and sting of injustice for each and every one of his human children because, as scripture, most particularly the Gospel of Jesus Christ shows, God most certainly does love the person who is suffering, knows their pain, and feels huge wrath toward the evil doer.
But God wants humans to understand what they must understand, which is how to keep perspective and proportionality of how small a life span really is compared to eternity. People need to understand that what they do on earth, during that tiny droplet of water of time, results in either eternal reward and comfort, or eternal chastisement and damnation.
So it is not a matter of an innocent person suffering when something evil is done to them by someone else, for those events occur within the droplet of water. However, the sufferer, if he or she continues to hold close to God, knows that eternity in his presence will be theirs one day. And the evil doer, likewise, must understand that no matter how small or large the evil, that deed is a most certain risk that they will spend eternity in the total torment of hell.
That is how one must understand the Beatitudes, spoken by Jesus as he preached. Think about specifically:
Matthew 5:10
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnesses' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Many people make the easy mistake of thinking that Jesus mean persecution for the faith, in other words, those who are persecuted and harmed for being Christians. Thus people sometimes gloss over this beatitude thinking that it refers to martyrs and persecuted faithful. Yes, Jesus refers often to those who are reviled who belief in him (and in 5:11 he compares those who are persecuted for their faith with the prophets, most of whom were persecuted, who went before). But do not miss a key phrase "for righteousness' sake."
If Jesus meant only martyrs, he would not have said "for righteousnesses' sake," since being "persecuted" is quite clear in its meaning that the persecuted are those who suffer at the hands of evil-doers because of their faith.
No, Jesus is actually extending the meaning of the persecuted to mean not just those who are persecuted for their faith, but those who have wrongness inflicted on them, unrighteousness meted out to them. Righteous people are not just those of the greatest piety and faith. Righteous people are those who do the right thing, who treat people correctly and kindly, and who obey secular and moral laws. Thus, who persecutes the righteous? Those who are unrighteous, which means evil wrong-doers. Thus this Beatitude means that those who suffer as others inflict wrongs upon them, are given "the kingdom of heaven." It is not only the martyrs and those persecuted for the faith who can, according to Jesus, consider the kingdom of heaven "theirs," but all who suffer for the sake of righteousness: of those who continue to be righteous when unrighteousness and wrongs are poured down upon them.
This Beatitude, therefore, must be understood as not only comforting but also specifically referring to the kingdom of heaven as "theirs," to those who suffer through perhaps a really bad event done to them by a criminal or cruel person, to those who suffer martyrdom for the faith, to those who suffer on a grand scale, such as in a genocide. This Beatitude comforts the person who is deliberately impoverished by a robber baron and oppressor, for example, as much as it comforted a saint who went to his or her martyrdom, to those who went to their death in the Shoah. This Beatitude explains that all who cling to righteousness, as they suffer life events, whether the routine sufferings of life when one is afflicted by a wrongdoing, or the extraordinary evil that erupts periodically, can be assured that "theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
This, then, is one way you can better understand God's bigger "picture" and his bigger "plan." Individual human-on-human acts of wrongdoing and evil are of the greatest concern to him, but not in the way that a human, who is by definition living within the droplet of water time frame, may think God is focusing. God has established an unchanging ordering to the matters of heaven and earth whereby unrepentant evil doers (great and small) are not saved and wind up in hell for all eternity, while those who clung to righteousness even as they suffered are given as "theirs" the kingdom of heaven.
This is not to say that one is helpless in all circumstances of being the victim of evil, and that God will never intervene or that the Holy Spirit does not move to try to aid the victim and convert the heart of the tormentor. But I thought that this analogy of the water droplet, combined with a commentary and explanation of the Beatitude to enlighten the reader of God's "viewpoint" would be an important foundation as to why God does not seem to be as totally in the moment of an innocent person's suffering at the hands of evil doers as one might expect or hope. The real tragedy is that humans have stopped a large part of their own evil behavior regulation as they stopped understanding that hell and eternity are very real and inevitable consequences of continual and unrepentant evil doing.
Paul describes well the two types of righteousness. There is the righteousness of the faith (which is what most people think of when they read that word in the scriptures) but there is also the righteousness of doing the right thing versus wrong doing, including in secular matters. Remember that much of the Law given by God through Moses to the Israelites dealt with secular matters, such as how to treat people justly, settle disputes, provide wages and so forth. So read this and understand how Paul is referring to the righteousness of faith, but also the righteousness of routine deeds in life (which was given to the Jews under the law).
Romans 10:5-6
For Moses described the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which does those things shall live by them.
But the righteousness which is of faith speaks on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above).
Here Paul is not trying to explain the distinction that I point out here, since this passage of his concerns the difference between obeying what God has said to do (both in religious rites and in righteous living, including secular matters) and having righteousness of faith which, for these early Christians that he is addressing, focuses on belief in Jesus Christ and that he was raised by God from the dead.
So I include this so you can see scriptural foundation for what I am explaining, which is when Jesus Christ used the phrase "for righteousnesses' sake," he would say so knowing that the audience would understand that righteousness meant not just righteous faith before God but also righteous living, in both a faith based and a secular way.
I hope that this has given you another aspect of how to view with better perspective God's insistence that humans regulate within what he has given to them their own good behavior (being righteous and avoiding wrongdoing and evil), and that God's emphasis, for lack of a better word, is to remember that life is such an infinitesimally small portion of the eternal life, in either bliss or punishment, that each soul exists throughout and beyond the end of time. God simply will not intervene in 99 percent of the human-on-human evil doing, but God most certainly renders perfect and inevitable judgment and dispensation to either heaven or hell as a result of those deeds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
