Esposing an Existentialist
Many are the Roads That Lead to Destruction
When people walk away from the truth they come up with all kinds of sophisticated garbage and open themselves up to deception of many stripes. A lot of people are having supernatural experiences, most of them contradictory, and there is only one way to know the truth for sure: by returning to the Creator and His Son Yah'shua through His Word, the Bible. The reasons that people turn away from God may be many, but usually it is connected with some deep, unresolved hurt. Because we care about everybody and want them to be restored to truth, life and love, we ought to be prepared to reach out to them no matter what. The response in this article is one such attempt. May it also bless others who are similarly trapped in falsehood.
The following article (in italics) was written by a former Christian who believes he has exposed Christianity. It deserves serious study not only because the writer is clearly a sincere thinker but because it is a potent illustration of how easy it is to be tricked by Satan through false visions and an appeal to a subjective judgment of truth. There are also some faulty logical constructs.
A servant of God, formerly an agnostic, and before that an atheist. My message is faith in God alone, rather than faith in what men have said of God.
At face value this sounds a very noble sentiment but it is flawed by several problems: (1) He does not name God nor describe His characteristics, though he is implying that he has some sort of inside knowledge of this which others desperately need to hear, hence his "mission" of sharing this knowledge with Christians; (2) If he really believes that men should listen to God alone and not other men, why is he writing in the first place? For in sharing this message, he is getting others to listen to a man.
He is not the first person who has said "listen to me but not to anyone else" or "you don't need teachers, only personal revelation from God". The trouble is that this kind of philosophy, noble though it may sound, has in practice led to more confusion than it was intended because of what people pretend or suppose they have heard from God. If listening to God was so easy, then why did Joseph Smith of the Mormons, Ellen White of the Seventh Day Adventists, Tillich of the New Age Catholic Christians, Papal Bulls, and a thnousand-and- one Gurus - all of whom claimed to hear God - all lead to different perceptions of 'God'. All had their experiences, visions and dreams -like this author's - which led them to such conflicting views.
As a "Messenger" he presents himself as a Muhammed, Joseph Smith, and all the others, and therefore cancells out his own right to bring a "message" since he is saying (as you will see) that all messengers corrupt the message of God, even admitting in this article that he may be wrong about a number of things. He contradicts himself further by presenting Moses and John the Baptist as two godly messengers who can be trusted, yet he attacks much of the Law of Moses, blaming corrupt priests for mutilating the original Law. This article, and the other materials he supplies, are full, therefore, of internal contradictions.
For dung is dung regardless of where it is found, for those who have said that God commanded the slaughter of men, women and children, is dung!
The writer is here referring to the destruction of the Amalekites under the Samuel the prophet. I would say that it is principally this single event that has unhinged him, and he is not the first. I have seen many Christian friends unhinged by it and have even wrestled with it myself. I don't deny that it still bothers me emotionally. We will analyse this a little later as it warrants careful study to be properly understood.
Long ago, as I stood on the deck of a vessel, I saw a vision in the clouds of a heavenly multitude of witnesses. And I recognized the two great ones of the heavenly witnesses, they were Moses and John the Baptist.
As I pointed out above, how does he "know" that these messengers were untainted? I ask that because they subscribed to, and sustained, the Mosaic Law whose blood sacrifices the writer so disdains. To believe that these men are untained, we must subscribe to the theory that they originally taught a pure Old Covenant "Gospel" which over the centuries was altered and corrupted by false priests, the same accusation levelled by the Mormons about the Bible though over different issues. Neither can prove historically such such tampering took place. In his other articles, the writer sustains the theories of the liberal scholars who say that the Pentateuch was assembled from different sources - Yahwish, Elohist, Priestly, etc. - though this is purely speculation.
I have noticed consistently that those who reject biblical authority always refer to liberal theologians, most of whom are atheists, as though the work of fundamentalists was somehow tainted, forgetting his own postulate that all men are corrupt. This is one of the inconsistencies of his arguments.
They pointed and I turned and looked in the direction they pointed and saw a dark purplish cloud and in it stood Satan. It is not humanly possible to accurately describe the awesomeness of Satan's appearance. And although I was awestruck by his stature, I was not frightened of him; for the two great ones of the heavenly multitudes had power over him, and they caused him to reveal himself to me in human form.
There is much theology implied in these statements. By what means did Moses, John the Baptist and the heavenly multitutes have power over Satan? Was it that they were simply 'good'? How is goodness defined - by good works - acts of kindness - charity? How do we define these? Even murderers do works of charity. The London gangsters, the Kray Brothers, had a code of conduct that involved speaking respectfully to mothers, taking care of your family and your friends' families, and generally being nice to people - except those they killed, of course. What are the parameters of righteousness? Who is to define them? Moses? John the Baptist? How can we be sure we have those parameters correctly defined since the writer throws doubt on the accuracy of Scripture?
In a human form, Satan was revealed wearing the mask of a man. And he ripped the mask from his face, letting it fall away to reveal another mask, and he ripped that one away and then another and another, faster and faster until the masks became unrecognizable. In the beginning I saw the mask of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Ze Dong, and other masks, which I did not recognize, some with crowns upon them. Then Satan began furiously ripping away the masks from his face, so that as they fell away they became an unrecognizable blur, for the servants of Satan are a multitude.
If this is a false vision - as I believe it is - and Satan is trying to perpetrate a clever deception as he has been doing for millennia - then you would expect to find much truth in the revelations. Who can argue against this? It is obviously true. Satan is not adverse to being negative about himself in visions and revelations if it will take men and women from the true and only source of their salvation.
In the vision not a word was spoken in the way that men speak to one another.
In the clouds I was shown things that were personal, things I knew nothing about, which did occur later.
If the vision contained prophecy that was later fulfilled, why doesn't the writer share it to vindicate his position? Are we expected to exercise blind faith in him and his experience?
I was also shown things that I still do not understand.
Couldn't he share these in the hope that others, who have the Spirit of God, might be able to help him? Or might these things be contradictory? Might they reveal the true source of the vision? Or aren't others allowed to interpret? Are we, in the author's system of righteousness, not allowed to feed one another spiritually? Or is this limited only to bread and water?
And the sun in the sky was transformed into being the perverse personage of the Romanized Christ. Bejeweled and wearing royal robes that hideous one whom I thought was Jesus sought my death as a sacrifice to him.
These two sentences are pregnant with possible meanings. What was "hideous" about this "Romanized Christ"? - what he saw in the vision or the conclusions he subsequently came to about him? For if I have not mistaken the writer, his view of Christ at this time was the classical "Roman" one. If this is so, how could he appear "hideous"? Was he looking back at his vision, and tainting it with conclusions he arrived at later? Or was the hideousness simply the royal robes? Is one normally revolved by seeing someone dressed as a monarch?
And although I was willing and tried to sacrifice myself for him, God would not allow it!
What does he mean "sacrifice himself" to Him? What is his view of "sacrifice"? This is such an important concept that it must be defined precisely for there are many people who have perverse views about their relationship to Christ, including those who self-mutilate themselves.
And then I was tempted by terrifying things to not trust in God.
What terrifying things?
And something that was most holy-holy occurred around me, yet I was not allowed to see, for I was commanded to not open my eyes.
Since when has God ever commanded a seer to close his eyes in a vision?! He told Moses not to look at God Himself, and many things are sealed up which God deliberately withholds from man, but would He go to the trouble of showing something and then command His messenger not to look? What for? Unless it was Satan who, because of what he is, is always compelled to lie and add something false in any manifestation he gives to the children of men? If this is so, perhaps the writer was commanded to suddenly become blind by whatever 'god' was talking to him so that he could not see the deception that was being perpetrated on him!
I was an agnostic when the vision occurred.
At least Paul believed in the Lord God of Israel, however perversely, when on the road to Damascus he was shown the resurrected Christ! And what sort of a mental/faith condition would an agnostic - a doubter - be in when shown something supernatural? He did not even know by his own admission that God existed!
And later, when I was thirty, I was baptized in a Southern Baptist church and became a Bible thumping "born-again" Fundamentalist.
What happened in the interim? What were the thought-processes that led him specifically to be a Baptist? Did he assume the vision was from God and just throw himself into Christianity? If this was a false vision - and I believe it was - then he would have entered into Christianity having faith in a false spirit which so clearly has tainted everything else he says about Christianity. His conversion experience was born in a mindframe of DOUBT and UNBELIEF. The message of the vision was entirely - the part he has shared with us - NEGATIVE.
I was naturally drawn to Fundamentalism because I considered and still consider most main line denominations to be little more than a social club masquerading as a church.
I would have to agree with him here.
I was involved in the Charismatic movement as well.
Was this the same time he was a Baptist or did he abandon the Baptists? And if so, why?
And through I had jumped through all the hoops that were set before me, I did not experience what was claimed as proof of one's salvation, the baptism of the "Holy Spirit."
What hoops? He mentions only baptism of the Holy Spirit. What about the Baptist position of the proof of Baptism of the Spirit? Was he not bringing Christian fruits in his life? There is much that needs to be told here but the author is so anxious to get into his attack on Christianity (thus showing the spirit which drives him) that the more important details of his discipleship are ommitted. Did he not taste the spirit of the resurrection, of pardoned sin, of the joy of service whilst a Baptist? What were his thoughts whilst there? What consumed his thinking? Was he measuring his experience in terms of the vision he had or was the vision, in fact, the matrix into which he forced all his experiences? What was he looking for? Did he never find peace?
The speaking in tongues that I had observed in the Charismatic movement appeared to me to be nothing more than the product of peer pressure.
Whatever you may think about the Pentecostals - and the fact that I happen to agree with his conclusions about speaking in tongues is really besides the point since there are some wonderful Pentecostals who are saved and Spirit-filled inspite of their tongues - has the author no positive experiences about these people? Or are their defects (rightly or wrongly) merely grist for his anti-Christian mill generally?
Causing the sincerely simple and insincere to conjure up some kind of silly babbling in order to convince themselves or others that they were approved of God.
Again, whilst I do not agree with tongue-speaking, to accuse all charismatics of deliberately "conjuring up" tongues is dishonest. How many charismatics did the writer know? How many churches did he visit? And how long did he stay around in order to really get to know the people?
Nevertheless, I decided that if looking foolish pleased God, then I too would seek to speak in tongues. However, I was determined to be honest before God in all things, if babbling was to come from within me it would not be conjured up; and thus, God spared me the blessing of that foolishness.
Fair enough - about being honest. But what was his spiritual frame-of-mind at that time? Was his conviction that tongues were wrong based on the Scriptures or on his inner feelings? Indeed, what was the measure of truth for him whilst he was a Baptist and Charismatic? Did he actually ever join any of these churches - committ himself to membership and serving with the people - or was he just an observer? How much was he "in" these churches, and how much as an "observer"? For our religious experience is shaped by our degree of involvement. It is easy to judge from the outside, not to mention misjudge.
At no time while I was in the churches, or among religious gatherings, was I ever truly comfortable. Their paddy-cake nature and ritualistic environment may appeal to the effeminate and childish, but it never appealed to me.
These sentences are loaded with accusation and ridicule. Are all Baptists and Pentecostals effeminate and childish?? What does he mean by "effeminate"? Did all Baptist and Pentecostal men display womanly traits? What were these traits? Is he saying that he is not effeminate? Mightn't some argue that his subjective, feeling-based religion is "effeminate"? And what does he mean by "childish"? These are all invectives - I would even say, childish attacks, that lump everyone together as if they were all in the same pot without differences in character, maturity and temprement. Does the writer really expect anyone who argues in this way seriously? Because it betrays a singular lack of maturity. It reveals something of the cultic spirit which classifies everyone as "either/or" - you're either "one of us" or "the enemy". Is he not doing what he accuses Christians of doing - lumping them all together in order to make himself feel better?
His end conclusion (see end of this article) is that we must all basically be "nice" - even the followers of Aleister Crowley - the Satanists who belong to the Thelmic Group who advance a doctrine similar to the author's! The words have a nice-sounding ring to them but they can be made to be whatever you want of them. If he thinks the Pentecostals were effeminate and wishy-washy, what of his own doctrine? You could peg almost any set of colours to his mast!
Being bored beyond my capacity to endure long in any one church, I went from one denomination to another, finding no satisfaction wherever I went.
Did he experience nothing good in them? None of them? I too have been in many boring churches but I had always found something admirable and praiseworthy. What about the people in them? Did he feel no love for them? Am I wrong to suspect a cultic spirit in this man?
But I continued to sincerely believe that the Bible was the infallible "Word of God," and I intensely defended that belief on many occasions.
What I would like to know is what sort of a belief he had in the Bible? Did he worship it idolatrously, putting it before God? Was his relationship to God intellectual only? What effect did the vision he saw have on his heart? Was there anything that could be termed a spiritual-transforming experience in his vision that led him to genuinely love God and man more as a result? Or was the experience - as I believe to have been - purely in the realm of the PSYCHIC - of the flesh - and disconnected from the SPIRIT? For it seems to me that the author never met the Holy Spirit at all but judged only out of his flesh. I may be wrong. Only he can illuminate us on that as it was at this time (not his later experiences).
During that time I became convinced that the fault within the churches were due to faulty interpretations of the Scriptures, rather than the Scriptures themselves being the fault.
A reasonable postulate - but all the churches? How many did he infact visit? By his own admission America is covered with them and there are thousands of denominations. Which denominations did he visit, and where?
And although I desired to be a preacher, I did not attempt to preach, for I believed that no man takes this honor upon himself, least he is called of God.
This is a half-truth. Yes, to be a pastor or an evangelist requires a call, but to be a witness of Christ does not. Someone born-again does that spontaneously and with joy. Did he ever do that?
Knowing that I was not being called of God to preach, in frustration, I drifted away from the churches, but not from God.
We must be careful with words here. If by "church" he means buildings or denominations, fair enough. Biblically-speaking, a church is any gathering of believers. There are plenty of non-denominational House Churches, for instance. Did he find no-one in the whole of Christendom with whom he could identify, even before he started questioning the Scriptures? Does not his total isolation from others of like faith betray that he was, after all, in some other "spirit"? Does it not point to the fact that the "spirit" behind his vision was of an entirely, personal, inner fleshy origin? How did he connect with other Christians? Did he feel completely isolated and cut off from them? Did he regard all of them as "faking it"?
After many years of trying to understand the perplexing problems of my stance regarding the churches, God intervened.
I have met many "Christians" who decided to go it alone and the majority of them came to all sorts of kookey doctrinal positions, none of which agreed. You would think that those throwing themselves into the hands of God alone would all arrive at the same conclusions as the author did, but none did. One went and lived in a cave for over a year eating nothing but jam, another went completely mad. As soon as you isolate yourself for any length of time you loose a grip of reality. It is not spiritually safe.
For I had a Spiritual encounter with Paul through his letter to the Galatians.
Were there any other spiritual encounters during these intervening years? Or was it all thinking?
On the day of that revelation, I was lying in my bed, and the Spirit came upon me
This needs to be described - what did the author experience?
and compelled me to rise up and look at the Bible,
What was the nature of the "compulsion"?
which was on my dresser. I do not know if I opened the Bible to Galatians, or if it was done spiritually, for I was in a trance-like state.
I'm always suspicious of trance-like states because these remind me of New Age experiences. Did he lose consciousness of his environment? This is vitally important. The Scriptures teach that those who see visions and receive prophecy are in complete control of their faculties. Time and time again it has been easy to detect a false manifestation by using this key. I know of people compelled to speak in tongues and unable to stop, of those compelled to prophesy, and so on, and the source has always been false. I am reminded of the false angel manifestation of Joseph Smith which forced him to practice Mormonism's brand of polygamy by threatening him with a sword, and so on. Paul teaches that the spirit of the prophets is under the control of the prophets - always - and whenever I have had supernatural manifestations I have always been able to end them at will BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NON- COMPULSIVE.
As I looked upon the words in Galatians, they began to breathe and move to and fro, as if they were alive. They began to shift, rearranging themselves into a new order, and thus did Paul speak to me through his words.
I have heard of similar experiences by others swept away by a deceptive spirit. Indeed, the author's own description are almost identical to those a man once shared with me about a year ago. He described how the scriptures began to "move" and "come alive" and claimed he was transported back into the very events themselves. He claims he heard the voice of Paul speaking to him, as though he were there when the epistle was written, and that the "voice" told him many other things too - things entirely disjunctive with scripture giving him the "correct" meaning which all Christians had "misunderstood". It is an occult spirit that gives such manifestations and it is false.
And while the Spirit was upon me, I perfectly understood all that was said; but when the Spirit was lifted, my understanding became only in part.
Why? Why did he lose the understanding? Whenever I have had a spiritual manifestation I have always clearly understood afterwards. I may forget but when I think back on what I experienced, the Spirit always brings it back to my remembrance. The writer is describing symptoms which I have come across in my ministry to those caught up in the occult time and time again. Satan has been eating him for breakfast!
But of this I'm certain, three times that day this was said:
"This is the House of Bondage." "This is the Land of Egypt."
You could interpret this (and indeed any false vision) in any number of ways. If it were the true Holy Spirit talking to him, "this" could have been the "spirit" that was showing him the vision. Or, more likely, it was simply Satan trying to undermine his faith in the Gospel (which he did pretty well).
"Feed my sheep!" "Praise God!" "Trust God!"
Yes, but which sheep? And which God? ANYone from ANY religious persuasion could say these words in good conscience - a Hindu, Moslem, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Sikh - all contain enough basic ethics to maintain such a general teaching.
The terms "This is the House of Bondage - This is the Land of Egypt" were mysterious to me. Would God call one in spiritual bondage himself to feed His sheep and thus lead them into bondage as well?
Not if the vision was from Satan!
Heaven forbid! But if the terms were referring to this nation, how could that be? Isn't this nation the most Christian of them all?
Who has claimed that? It may once have been, but how "Christian" a nation is is not defined by the number of churches or preachers it has, but whether the true Gospel is being taught and lived.
For what nation has more churches or preachers?
How about Italy?
Yet why would God call another preacher to preach what all has heard? For who in this land of the religious has not heard the preaching of the preachers? One would need to live beneath the rocks to avoid them, for they are like a plague upon the land. And where in this most religious of nations does one suffer in need of a church? For they as common to this land as are the stars in the night sky.
Since when has religion had anything to do with true Christianity?
Many years passed before I began to understand the Spiritual meaning of the terms "house of bondage and land of Egypt."
The "House of Bondage" and "Land of Egypt" are quite simply references to physical slavery where a soul has no freedom. And they are terms used within a specific context, the context of which the writer rejects, e.g. the instructions to destroy the Amalekites in whose heart was the destruction of Israelite independence (even before it had begun) by enslaving them and possibly even their extermination.
The writer demeans Yahweh by calling Him an "Israelite war-god". However repugnant war may be (and who amongst true Christians does not think so?), yet the fact remains that throughout history war was, and is, required in order to preserve righteousness. That is not to say that there aren't unrighteous wars, even those in dark times past waged in the name of the Catholic "Christ". Satan has always sought to use wars to (a) increase anarchy and therefore immorality; and (b) to exterminate God's people. In recent times we had to fight wars against nazi (Germany and Italy) and communist (Korea) aggression to prevent freedom being swallowed up because no other method could prevail. It is the contradiction of this demonic world we live in.
It is all too easy to confuse an ideal world with an evil one like ours. Had Western Europe and America not gone to war in 1939/41, the USA and Europe would today either be entirely fascist or communist and their citizens found themselves in a LITERAL "House of Bondage" and in a spiritual "Land of Egypt". Certainly this would have happened if the pacifists had had their way and we would not be freely discoursing now.
The "Amalekite Decision", if I can call it that, would certainly have been an attrocity if it had been done in the name of man. Had God not commanded it, it might have resulted in the extermination of Israel and therefore of future Christianity (which the author might perhaps like - though we would be living in a grotesquely pagan world today had that happened ... had such a world survived the discovery of the atom bomb). That God knew with foresight what would have happened if the Amalekites had been left alone must be accepted.
The issue, though, is the gut reaction of seeing, or even partaking in, the slaughter of children, infants and babes. I have discussed this in detail elsewhere. Would I have joyfully participated in such a slaughter? Of course not. If I were commanded to do it today, would I do it? No. Why not? Because I am a product of a higher ethic. Was the slaughter necessary then? I believe so. Did the Israelites do it with undefiled consciences? Probably, because that first generation was pagan in its heart anyway, having come fresh out of Egyptian bondage themselves. They followed Yahweh only because of the miracles they saw. That generation died out in the wilderness. The next was purer and probably could not have been used to do what their fathers had done.
It began when my wife and I were playing a game called "Bible Trivia" and she asked me to name the prophet who cursed some small boys in the name of God, causing them to be mauled by a bear. I said to her that I didn't think the Bible would say such an absurd thing; having forgotten that I had read that absurdity in the Bible long ago, but had refused to think about it.
You must always read the cultural and religious context into any event like this. Does the writer know what the boys were jeering about? Why did they mock the servant of God? Does he know how old they were? He as acted deceptively in calling those that died "small boys" - they weren't - they were YOUTHS, possibly as old as 19 or 20. In other words, they were young men. Why did they jeer? This was Bethel, the centre of the royal Baal cult. The youths, obviously aware of the reputation of Elijah and Elisha, likely concluded that Elisha was going up to Samaria again to continue the struggle against royal apostacy. Some believe the youths were mocking Elisha to go up to heaven as Elijah did. The word "baldhead" does not have the same sense as it does today. Calling someone that today would not be considered a great crime. But at that time, to use this term, when baldness was practically unknown in Israel (the Israelites always had a luxuriant crop of hair, as Elisha almost certainly did). was equivalent to totally disdaining Yahweh's representative, whom they believed had no power. Their fate was entirely justified.
The author has reacted emotionally to "small boys" probably because that is what he wanted to read to justify his feelings. Or else he didn't bother to check up his Hebrew carefully enough. In any case, the author's vision of "God" is some human charity-worker and not as the Sovereign Creator of the Universe. He not does he seem to have a sense of the larger picture of the eternities and of the transience of things terrestrial. Rejecting the God of the Bible, he has created one in his own image of goodness.
For I, like any good Fundamentalists when confronted with ridiculous things the Bible has said of God, sought comfort in trying to convince myself that surely these things must have a deeper spiritual meaning, which were not meant for my understanding.
"Any"..."good"? How many fundamentalists does he know? And do they all have a uniform pattern of thinking?
And I convinced myself that those who claim to be divinely appointed over us to guard our faith could explain these things.
I consulted no-one in showing that the "small boys" were in fact "youths". Perhaps it wasn't his fault entirely, since the King James Version writes "little children" (2 Ki.2:23), and if you belong to the KJV-Only Cult, which thinks that the KJV is 100% accurate as a translation, and that all others are at fault, then coming to a false conclusion is understandable. The New International Version (NIV) corrects the blunder and writes "youths". The Hebrew word is naar meaning "young man" or "youth". The KJV makes this mistake several times, even in the famous prophecy of Isaiah 3:4 where "little children" will become "their princes". These "youth" could be anywhere between about 18 and 30 since at one time an Israelite was not considered a "man" until he was 30.
We have, once again, careless Bible study - though it's not entirely the lay person's fault if translators get it wrong, we are nowhere told that a Bible translation is "infallible". If the writer's Baptist Church was KJV-Only, then there may well the lie the source of his problem. Since the writer is clearly in error, and since he is clearly being guided by his emotions, should this not be a warning sign that he may be being led in his religious convictions by something which cannot be the Spirit of God? Is this not evidence that he Bible View is distorted?
For do they not claim that if the Bible says it - believe it, or else be damned to the fires of hell?
Some may, but not all fundamentalists say this. I do not, for one, for I advise caution. I am not a "hell-and-damnation" type and there are tens of thousands of others who aren't as well. Isn't the author trying to lump everyone together to justify his conclusions? Isn't he trying to over-simplify everything?
Saying that no man may question what is said, God said!
I agree, we have no right to question what God has said. But we have every right to carefully check up our Bible translations which are often influenced by the translators' own pre-conceived ideas. The fault is not God's in this case, is it, any more than if I translated the writer's article into Polish and rendered it completely differently?
Claiming that faith in God is observed through an unquestioning obedience to Biblical doctrines. But nonetheless, 2 Kings 2:22-24 now seemed primitively crude and it began to sorely trouble me that my faith required me to believe such stupid and ridiculous things said of God.
In a few year's time it will probably be considered "primitively crude" is criticise legalised paedophilia. What is "primitive" and what is "crude"? Who decides the meanings of these words? Cannot sophisticated sin also be considered as "primitive" and "crude"? And what does the writer actually mean by these words? My dictionary defines the word in several different ways, including "of or belonging to the beginning". Doesn't that make "God" and "love" primitive? If so, praise God! For I worship a primitive God and live by primitive Love! Of course, he means "uncivilized", doesn't he? But then who defines what civility is? Are our weak liberal laws which let criminals get off with almost no punishment, ewncouraging them to repeat their crimes with indifference, a sign of civilization? And what is "crude"? A murderer like O.Simpson who employs sophisticated lawyers to defend himself or an innocent person who fumbles for words? The author is using these words to whip up feelings and not deal with the issues concerned. And he does it because his own are so whipped up. As one commentator said to me, she has never seen so much 'argument by outrage' before!
It was not long after that incident that I happened upon a contradiction in the book of Acts. In one account it says the men traveling with Saul heard a voice, but in another account it says they didn't hear a voice. To others this may not seem to be a big deal, but it really shook me, for I truly believed that the Bible was infallible, without fault or flaw.
That, again, depends upon what you mean by "infallible". There are those who believe it is letter-perfect, those who believe it is "word-perfect", those who believe it is "concept-perfect". My own view has varied, and without troubling my conscience too much. If an autistic child says "I liv yoo" because he can't say "I love you", then I frankly couldn't care less, because what's important is that I know he loves me. All I am concerned about is knowing the heavenly doctrines. Whether the human pen describes it word-perfect isn't important to me. There are small scribal errors in the Bible - all honest scholars acknowledge that - but none changes any important doctrine of salvation.
I love my son not because he writes letters perfectly to me but because I discern through his written words what he is saying. The Holy Spirit allows you to discern the meaning of the human writers of the Bible. Their speech may not be perfect but their meaning is. It would be ridiculous, would it not, if I believed that my son could write 100% perfectly - to then discover he could not - and then believe he didn't love me because he couldn't spell "love"? The problem the author has is not with the Bible but his perception of it influenced by the teachings of those men he subsequently came to despise. By using a little common sense he could prevented himself from deviating onto an existentialist dead-end spiritual path.
And although my faith in the Bible's infallibility was being shaken, I continued to be in awe of it and to study it, as if all revealed truths resided within it.
At least he doesn't reject everything. However, he must now play God in deciding what is inspired and what is not. And how many people have tried to do that over the centuries? And what has been the result? A hundred-and-one contradictory teachings. I know one group in Canada who only accept the writings of John, another who accept only Paul, another who reject this and that.
It was around this time that I began attending the University of Washburn in Topeka, Ks. My major was not in Religion, for like all good Fundamentalist I believed that religious studies in secular institutions were the devil's workshop.
That must make me a bad fundamentalist. I listen to everyone (including this author) but I keep my mind and heart firmly fixed on the One who saves.
But I allowed my curiosity to get the best of me and took several courses in religion to serve as my electives.
Wasn't a cat killed by that (curiosity)?
In those courses, I was made aware of some profound and disturbing things about the Bible. But being determined to be faithful to what I believed God required of me, in that faith in the Bible and faith in God were one and the same, I clung precariously to my confidence in the Bible's inerrancy.
Dangerous - there were other paths open to him, but he was too dogmatic.
What ultimately put me on the path of understanding what had been revealed Spiritually to me through Galatians was a statement made by a professor who was questioning Paul's credibility. For he said that Paul had compromised his gospel of faith by requiring the Gentiles to observe dietary laws that were required by the synagogues. And that stunned me, for I knew that Paul had not done that! For I remembered that the revelation of Galatians had revolved around that very subject!
It is astonishing that the writer, in one of his articles where he admits that truth evolves, somehow cannot accept that the same could be true in the Christian context. The Gospel wasn't all revealed in a blinding flash of light. The most essential elements were but the details naturally accreted later. I don't think he has studied much early Christian history. The Old Covenant had become so legalistic that the Talmudic Jews had virtually inverted its spiritual core. The Geniles were not raised in a Jewish setting and had no knowledge of God at all. And as every elementary school teacher will tell you, when you teach infants, you start with the essentials and build up from there.
That is exactly what Paul did. Faith in the risen Christ was the first and most important saving principle and everything else - including dietry restructions - became secondary, but not redundant. The Council of Jerusalem did not wish to burden the first Gentile Christians with more than they could chew. We learn gradually. So the ethical and moral law wasn't rammed down their throats because it was important that they gravitate to these naturally by virtue of the Spirit of Christ within them, so that the Law came naturally - written by the pen of the Spirit on their hearts - from within and was not imposed from without. There was nothing wrong with the dietry laws of Moses - they were given for man's health - the problem lay in the way the synagogue wanted to impose from without by making them a condition of salvation.
I went home and immediately began searching for an account saying Paul had done what the professor said of him. I found it in Acts. And thus, I began to write in one column what Paul has said concerning certain issues and events that are recorded in Galatians, and in another column I placed what Acts has said about these very same things. When I compared these two accounts together, it became self-evident that someone was a liar and I knew it wasn't Paul. That truth loosed the chains of my bondage to priestly imposed self-hatred, passive ignorance, and an unrighteous fear of God; and it was thus that I began to understand the Spiritual meaning of these terms:
If the author wants myself or anyone else to comment on this observation of his he must supply the list so that we can evaluate it. If he has been as careless with this as he has with "small boys", then straightening this out for him should not be too difficult.
"THIS is the House of Bondage." "THIS is the Land of Egypt."
This is my understanding of their Spiritual meaning:
This is the House of Bondage: Symbolically refers to those who were made blind to the truth of God by priestly encouragement of one's own self-hatred through the need of a savior.
I do not hate myself. This is a lie. I see my deficiency, but I do not hate myself. I love myself because Christ loved me. I don't think the author has a clue what salvation or having a relationship with Christ is.
This is the Land of Egypt: Symbolizes the two false gods that are worshipped by the captives of the house of bondage through their belief that the two false ones they fearfully worship is God!
That is not the biblical meaning. Any false worship is, of course, bondage, and places the devotee in spiritual Egypt. But who are the "two false ones" the author thinks Christians worship - Yahweh and Yah'shua (Jesus), or the false images of them? Or maybe they were the false 'Moses' and 'John the Bapist' who came to him, undermining the True Law and True Repentance?
For through fear they are caused to worship a mythical war god of ancient Israel and that one whom I thought was Jesus;
It sounds to me as the writer doesn't know either the God of the Old Testament or "Jesus".
that perverse hideous one who was bejeweled and wearing royal robes and had sought my death.
What else would Satan want? Does he not want men to reject the only hope of salvation they have? Satan has set up a straw man and the writer has swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
A counterfeit of Jesus whom the myth-makers did cause to be born of a virgin and to tippy-toe upon the water that he might be elevated to a demigod and even to be God himself.
Does he not believe that virgin birth or walking on water is possible? There are cases of human virgin births and I know of one group of Christian Indonesians who walked across water to escape their enemies who were trying to kill him. The fact of the matter is that the writer is a liberal who does not believe much in the supernatural ... though he is willing to stake his life on a counterfeit vision and a trance-like experience with the Epistle of Ephesians. Are these not his true base of faith? Two untestable supernatural experiences that contradict the Bible but which find confirmation in the psychic, occult phenomena of the Satanists?
For that one, who reigns over Christendom's houses of bondage, is the perverse invention of a self-serving priesthood and a murderous Roman Emperor.
Granted, the Catholic Church has distorted the true Christ.
For rather than continuing the Roman policy of lending legitimacy to the many religions of the empire, the Emperor of Rome, Constantine, and that priesthood sought to mutually benefit by the Emperor's official recognition of one religion alone as the only legitimate religion of the empire. For by Rome's recognition of a single official religion the religiously divided empire could be united, which would allow Constantine to consolidate his power and maintain control over an empire that was being threatened from within and without. And the priests of the only officially recognized religion could acquire the legal authority it needed to crush its less zealous competitors.
Quite correct. But one dishonest used car dealer doesn't make all the rest crooked.
It was neither through gentle persuasion, nor by sound arguments that the official religion of Rome became the religion of the empire. For the coinage that was used in establishing Christendom's houses of bondage was terror. The Christ of imperial Rome became lord of Christendom by coercion, persecutions, and the torturing and murdering of anyone who would dare question the doctrines of Rome's great house of bondage.
The little rebellious offspring of that perverse house would also continue the worship of the Romanized Christ as well. For Luther's argument was not against worshipping the Roman Christ, but against the Pope's infallibility in interpreting the Scriptures. Luther was claiming that every man was his own priest in the matter of Scriptural interpretation, providing they agreed with his interpretations, of course!
There is indeed much truth in this assertion.
The evils of Martin Luther and Calvin in establishing their houses of bondage would match the evil of any Pope. For the mortar mix that the little popes used in laying the foundation of their houses of bondage were no different than that of the Roman popes - The innocent blood of multitudes!
Certainly much truth in this though it is not the whole truth. And remember, it was the armed might of the Catholic Counter-Reformation that started the blood-letting in the Protestant Era. It was the Catholics that raised armies to crush the Reformation - the latter merely defended themselves. Wouldn't you if your wife and children were attacked?
Who, but the self-called, would have men to be so foolish as to think that God would establish His house upon such dung? For who, except a priest, would claim that God, all knowing, foreknew that evil would be done in establishing the House of God, but tolerated it so that His house could be established?
He has not defined the "House of God", has he?
It was those who served the spirit of that house of bondage, who inspired this nation to do evil by the claims of Manifest Destiny. Surely they shall be called before God and held accountable in the presence of Chief Joseph and his brethren. And likewise, it is those of the spirit of that house of bondage who have afflicted the poor in preaching gain is Godliness. They, too, shall surely be called upon to defend their preaching of false doctrines, which exalts and glorifies those of worldly wealth and lofty positions, claiming that such things reveal the chosen of God. For it is by the perversions of Calvinism that many have justified the exploitation of the meek and humble. Even to this day the perverse doctrines of Calvin allows merchants of misery to think that the exploitation of their brethren with the bitter wages of poverty are excused through their tithing. Yet can God be bribed?
There is some truth in this, to be sure.
It is by bribery and fear that the Christian House of Bondage is upheld. Its pillar of bribery is in promising heavenly rewards for faith in doctrines alone.
As we have seen, this is not a true representation of all Christian teaching.
Its pillar of fear is in preaching eternal damnation in a fiery hell for all that do not confess its Romanized Christ as Lord and Savior; claiming salvation is not obtained by righteousness, but is attained only through an unquestioning faith in what men have said of Jesus.
But what if hell is real? Would he consider me to be a terrorist-preacher if I told my son of the ghastly effect of jumping out of a 10 storey building if he refused to believe in the doctrine of gravity? Is he saying that there is no counterpart to heaven? If so, how can he believe in a Satan whom he saw in his first vision?
Yet it is not by belief in God, or a Romanized Christ, that one is deemed righteous before God, for there are many who don't believe in either; but nevertheless, they will be deemed righteous before God in that they were righteous towards others.
Who told him that? Is this something that God has revealed to him face-to-face as He spoke with Moses? Or is this a conclusion he has come to using his intellect and feelings based on some true and some false observations about the Bible and the Church?
For who, but priests, would promote such utter foolishness in claiming that it is not what one does, but is what one believes that pleases God?
This man does not know Bible doctrine. The Word teaches that we are saved by the faith that leads to good works, not by passive faith. True, far too many Christians teach passive faith, but their false interpretation does not invalidate the Bible, Christ or Yahweh, does it?
For it is through that priestly perversion that many were and are encouraged to believe that the wickedness they do and have done unto others will be excused by having confessed faith in a Roman god as their Lord and Savior.
I do not believe in this "savior" to be sure. But I believe in the Saviour who saves those who trust in Him and who demonstrate that trust by acts of goodness. And I believe that Saviour to be God, that He does not demand my death, but to the contrary died in my place.
It would be better to worship stones in the name of Elvis, and yet be righteous unto others, than to foolishly think that it is by one's belief that God is pleased.
This is a completely illogical statement. Someone who worships stones in the name of Elvis is completely mad and anything he did would be tainted by that madness. Would you want someone like that to babysit your child?
For one could dance naked in the moonlight, worshipping the moon with a bone in their nose and bells on their toes and not offend God if they are righteous unto others.
Would you have him babysit your child?
For there is but one command that is required of men: DO UNTO OTHERS, AS YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERS DO UNTO YOU!
Who said? And where? Elsewhere the writer says we should love God! Has that been dropped? He betrays his true, hidden agenda which is basically HUMANISM which lies at the heart of SATANISM. His creed is almost identical to the Wiccans and the Thelmic Crowly-ite Satanists!! His is an existentialist religion though he perhaps does not see it. Everyone will, following his doctrine, end up worshipping their own god and doing their own thing. Some people like being hit (they're called masochists) - the writer's creed allows him to hit others. What foolishness! Some like homosexual rape (and enjoy being raped themselves) ...
Yah'shua's (Jesus') Two Great Commandments included loving God above everything and everyone else, and were a summary of the Ten Commandments which explained how you did that. The rest of the ethical and moral law is an amplification of the Ten Commandments.
The Talmudic Jews, and those counterfeit Christians influenced by its false spirit, worked from the bottom up - starting with the minutae of the Law (including the abolished circumcision), working their way up to the Ten Commandments, and then teaching Christ's Two Great Commandments. Christ said: NO! Start with love - love of God and then love of man - and then let the rest naturally accrete to these two major truths. Our author wants not only to chop off the First Great Commandment (though maybe he is double-minded about this) but to chop off the Ten and the rest too. What is left? An individual's own personal subjective truth which will be coloured by his own personality, sin, rebellion against God, etc. His is a recipe for spiritual DISASTER. Yet he hides behind genuine abuses of the truth and uses these as his self-justification. He is deluding himself terribly.
For there are many that have not called Him Lord, but are his sheep, and although they have not called Him Lord, they will nevertheless enter the kingdom of Heaven in the same manner as will those who were righteous towards others and have called Him Lord.
This is partly true. Paul acknowledges that those who live the Law in their consciences without knowing the written code are justified. And I would accept that those who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel of Christ preached in this life, but who would have received it had they had the opportunity, will likewise be saved. However, who is to define 'righteousness'? What does it mean to be 'right'? Liberal righteousness? Communist righteousness? Muslim Sharia Law righteousness? Evolutionary Darwinist righteousness? Humanist righteousness? The author's righteousness? The fact of the matter that righteousness can only be defined in terms of the WHOLE revelation of Yahweh.
For the children of God are not recognized by a religion or by rituals, but by righteousness towards others.
True, but that righteousness towards others can only stem from true faith, since all we do is by faith. If our motivation for goodness is our own goodness (real or imagined) then we are, in fact, worshipping ourselves. Rituals are only aids to understanding (though they must be followed if God has commanded them ... like baptism) and religion is trying to get right with God in one's own strength, which is false.
For there are many whom the self-righteous claim are lost sinners, yet many of those who are said to be lost sinners will out of the goodness of their Spiritual heart feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and give water to those that thirst. And should one praise them for doing such righteous things they are amazed!
Is this supposed to be a new discovery?
For they are not moved to do these things because of a desire of heavenly gain or the flattery of men, but are moved by the righteousness of their Spiritual heart to have compassion and pity upon those who suffer.
Isn't this what true Christians do? They are motivated by the love that Christ gives them. Though they may know there is heavenly reward for them, that is not what impells them to do it.
Whereas, many of the self-righteous that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and give water to those that thirst are religious goats. For they do these things not out of compassion and pity upon those who suffer, but for their love of boasting of good works, the praises of men, and a desire of heavenly rewards.
True, but does that invalidate the true Christian message? No, not at all. And better to feed the hungry from impure motives than not feed them at all.
Righteous towards others is not an invention of the Church or religion, but is and always has been the fruits of righteousness that proceeds from within the Spiritual heart, and it is thereby that one both serves and pleases God.
Of course. That is the message of spiritual rebirth in Christ.
It is time for the children of God to wake-up!
Perhaps the writer has never met those who are awake, or has been too blind to see them?
From the beginning of time until this present age an alliance has existed between the lords of earthly dominions and religious authorities to suppress anything that would threatened their lofty status and earthly powers, but that unholy alliance will no longer serve them. This is the age of information and no longer shall priestly hocus-pocus serve to uphold these earthly lords of the lands.
To the first part, I agree. That information technology will end that alliance, I dispute. If anything, the control that has been exerted on man is getting considerably worse.
Was it God or priests who said to you that Jesus is God himself? If it was not God, wake-up!
God has told me this - indeed, I heard His own voice tell me on more than two occasions. The first time got me out of Buddhism and the second was what to preach about in an evangelistic meeting. I've heard "priests" tell me that He is God too, and that just confirmed both the Bible and my own experience.
In an age when only priest and prince could read or write placing the words "I am" or anything else in the mouth of Jesus, God, or any other Biblical personage was no great feat. What God is made subject to death and is born of a woman except a demigod?
The writer would not appear to understand what the incarnation is.
For such things were common to the demigods of the other primitive religions that were being worshipped in Rome.
Similar, yes, but not the same. You have swallowed the liberal bait hook, line and sinker.
Was it God or priests who said to you that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God?
If it was not God, wake-up! Though Jesus may be the first-born, he is not the only begotten of God, for the sons and daughters of God are many.
And now the writer wants me to listen to him as a PRIEST and not my own conversation with God!! Is this not utter hypocrisy?
And thus Jesus said to pray in this manner, "OUR Father, in heaven...", if Jesus thought he was God's only begotten Son, he would have said to pray to HIS Father, in heaven...!
I think the writer knows the answer to this only too well. Christ was not an egotistical existentialist but was incarnate, being a man like his brethren. His Name - Emmanuel - means "God with us". His is a ministry of identity, not of individuality. The writer is the product of the hedonistic society around him.
Was it God or priests who said to you that Jesus was sacrificed for your sins?
God. I once believed in the false doctrine advocated by the Moonies that claims we are join-atoners. He revealed to me personally that Christ was sacrificed for my sins. I know it for sure.
If it was not God, wake-up! For what god is appeased by bloody sacrifices, except the false gods of superstitious pagans?
The word "appease" does not appear in the Bible except in Genesis 32:20 where Jacob seeks to appease his brother in the "primitive" sense that you talk about. The writer is setting up straw men again.
Would those whose power was threaten by the teaching of Jesus have had him crucified for the sake of their convenience? Absolutely! For the existing priestly establishment was threatened by his message. And again, for the sake of convenience another priestly sect would claim that his murder was a sacrifice for the sins of the world, so that they, too, could attain power over others.
Does the writer have written sourse material to confirm his assertion? If not, he must accept what Christ said of Himself, namely, that He came to the world to die. Perhaps the writer needs to read Dickens' "Tale of Two Cities" to try and understand what Christ did for him, or see the equally good movie version.
It is more than a little astonishing, in my opinion, that the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, so highly esteemed by the writer earlier on, is now conveniently pushed aside, along with all of Paul's other which preach the orthodox doctrine of salvation. He has taken one letter and ripped it apart from Paul's overall teachings of the doctrine of atonement.
Was it God or priests who said to you that the penalty for questioning what is said of God in the Bible is damnation? If it was not God, wake-up!
It was God who told me in His Word that His word does not return to Him void. If it did, I would know He wasn't a true God.
For that priestly prohibition compels hypocrisy, self-deceit, and dishonesty towards others. Are men more just than God is? For if the fathers of our flesh, who love us, did not punish us when truthful questions were asked of them, would the Father of our Spirit do otherwise? Certainly not!
No, and there are plenty of Christians like myself who believe in free and open enquiry about any subject that weighs on men's hearts. However, we would not tolerate all the writer's invective and mockery. For how can you have a discussion without mutual respect? The whole tone of his writings is sarcastic. Yet he claims to have moral authority to ask the kinds of questions he has been asking above! Wouldn't people question that as rather hypocrtical? But perhaps he is only behaving in the way his god wants him to - speaking in the way that he expects others to speak back at him. If he gets rude and sarcastic responses and doesn't like it, then it will be his own fault. As it is, those of us who love Christ and try to walk with Him will not stoop to such "primitivism".
Was it God or priests who said to you that you are to despise your flesh?
Does he understand what the biblical word "flesh" means? True, many priests have mistaken it for the physical body but closer inspection of the Scriptures reveals this to be human nature. The Greeks poisoned the true meaning of that word.
If it was not God, wake-up! Would God have us hate what He has created?
No, not at all. But then not all Christians believe in the way you accuse them of believing!
Certainly not! How can one believe "Amazing Grace" is an appropriate hymn for a child's funeral, without first being caused to believe the insanity of those who claim that in the eyes of God children are born wretched lost sinners?
Many Christians do not believe that, of which I am one. Again, the author as usual over-simplifies by lumping all Christians together to make his task easier.
Was it God or priests who said to you that the seed of the righteous are not seen begging bread?
Psalm 37:25, I presume? Within the Davidic theocratic society of Israel (in which this was given), when the commandments were being lived, this was perfectly true. This passage must be read in context . This was King David's witness of his day.
If it was not God, wake-up! Are you blind, have you not seen the starving children of this world?
Yes, and where do they live? What do their parents believe, teach and do? Have their partents given Satan legal grounds to do these things? You will find that every effect has a cause, and in the spiritual realm, the Bible explains all of them. The writer advances the old argument of unbelief, rejecting free agency and collective responsibility. He wants God to intervene and take the blame for everything man has done wrong. But to do that would be to make men robots. His vision of the whole purpose of life is lacking sorely.
Are they not righteous in God's eyes? Are not the prayers of these children offered without doubt; and yet, what mountains have they caused to be cast into the sea?
Faith without works is dead, is it not? Is it God's fault that an innocent child dies of AIDS if the parents indulge in impure sex? Do parents and others in important positions of leadership have no responsibility? The writer is arguing out of total unreality, because this world is not a heavenly realm. There are two powers at work here, and the dark power does not yield out of compassion. The Universe is governed by Law. Without it, it would collapse. Satan, whom the author saw in vision, caused millions of children to suffer through Hitler. Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Whose fault was that? It is a fact of life that when you transgress commandments then the laws that provide protective covering are removed. If the Law was not enacted, it would give Satan legal ground to topple God. Does the author have any conception of the laws that operate in the spiritual realm? Of the rights and privileges of those who obey them, and of the rights of Satan and demons over those who do not? And does he see life as beginning and ending here in this physical realm, or continuing into the distant eternities? Does he agree that life here is temporary? Does He agree that God is sovereign and in complete control? Or does his teaching in fact imply that Satan is in control? He does not seem to have weighed the larger issues of life, and if he has, he has chosen not to include them in his essay. His appeal is to the emotions only, and that is not enough. He is oversimplifying and coming to conclusions based on an incomplete equation.
Was it God or priests who said to you the kingdom of God is here and now?
I have written an essay on this subject. It is clear the writer does not underdstand what the Kingdom is. There are two compents: (a) It is Christ Himself; and (b) It is His rule in the hearts of believers. The outer Kingdom - the Theocratic State - must await the Millennium, according to the Bible.
If it was not God, wake-up! Is the kingdom of God divided between the holy and unholy?
Of course not. Those who are not truly in Christ do not have the Kingdom in them.
Heaven forbid! For in the kingdom of God evil is neither seen nor thought. To sincerely believe those who claim the Kingdom of God exists here and now, upon this earth, one would surely need to crucify their mind.
This is a minority Christian view called Preterism.
For what kingdom knows wars, pestilence, and famines except the kingdom of Satan?
Was it God or priests who said to you to scurry from house to house seeking to save the lost and in this you shall be sealed with a heavenly reward?
It was Christ, but again the motivation is love, not reward. The author is an outright cynic.
If it was not God, wake-up! One cannot save what was not lost. Those who love righteousness were born the children of God. And what is evil can't be saved, for evil loves its ways.
This is the most ironical teaching of the writer because it is pure CALVINISM! What he is saying is that whether you are good or bad is fixed and immutable and cannot be changed. This is a lie. I have seen plenty of evil men transformed by the resurrected Christ into good people.
Was it God or priests who said to you that through magical stones truth was revealed? If it was not God, wake-up!
No doubt a reference to the early use of Urim and Thummim. Is the writer saying that God is incapable to revealing His will in more than one way? Or must we all have visions of Satan or trance-like motions in the Galatian Epistle?
The truth of God was never hidden, it doesn't need the aid of magic spectacles, nor is it found under a rock, but is found and understood through sound thinking.
Then why is the author so contradictory and confused? Now he betrays that he is not only an existentialist but a Gnostic. If knowledge saves, why isn't our knowledge-crammed world a veritable paradise? And how does the writer establish what is "sound thinking"? Is his "sound"? Haven't we shown that his thinking is skewed in many areas? How does he know that his thinking is more sound than mine if he does not have some reference that can arbitrate thinking? What method of thinking does he use? The dialectical? The Platonic? How does he know that his thinking hasn't been conditioned by the way he was brought up, or by the liberal Religion Professors? Is his thinking so pure?
Not seeing that lofty sayings are but lofty sayings, the captives of the houses of bondage are made blind to what others clearly see: Those claiming to be worthy of God's revelations, while others are not, seek personal gain through those claims.
"They're all out of step except me", eh? How does the writer know that he has not been tricked and blinded by a clever satanic counterfeit? What consititutes "worthiness"? The number of orphans he has fed, the number of naked people he has clothed, the number of thirsty people he has brought water to? Is he saying that he is more worthy than Christians? How can he be sure he can see "clearly" when elsewhere he confesses that he may be wrong? Doesn't he know? If you can see clearly, there cannot be any doubt!
The Children of God
In spite of their religions, the children of God are scattered among all the nations of the world. They are male and female, of every race,
within and without every religion.
Even child-sacrificing Satanists? Even Hindus who practice sati (burning their wives alive when they die)? Is a righteous person one who believes that God looks like an elephant or has six dagger-carrying arms wearing a necklace of human skulls? Does the writer even know what every religion stands for, or the spirit that drives it? I will grant him this, though: that the unmanifest children of God are scattered in everfy religion. I was once scattered in those religions.
They are believers and non-believers. They are numbered among the high and the low and are among the outcasts, in prisons and out of prisons, being drunkards, prostitutes, and of different sexual persuasions;
Righteous pedophiles? Righteous wife-batterers?
for not all have freely chosen the path of faults that was set before them.
The pseudo-Calvinist speaks.
And although many were caused to stumble upon the path of faults that was set before them, they nevertheless despised their faults and took no pleasure in the harming of others, for only evil will love evil.
Yes, there is some truth in this. But they are still in the house of bondage - the house of undelivered sin. They are still in Egypt.
For not everyone who calls Him Lord is the Lord's sheep.
True. But by the same token, those who don't aren't necessarily either.
And likewise, not all of His sheep know that He is their Lord.
Among the Lord's sheep there are those who are blind to His existence;
True. There is a time when many Christians are blind and unsaved before the Lord interevenes in their lives.
yet, they are unknowingly the children of God.
We are all orphans before we become His children. That orphan status ends only upon a change in allegiance.
The author employs double-speak. He is playing with words, twisting their meanings. That is like saying that Clinton was unknowingly the President of the United States when he was still a boy, or that he unknowingly raped Monica Lewinski when he was at College in England. Come on!
And although in this life they may not come to believe that God is, they shall nevertheless enter the kingdom of Heaven in the same manner, as will believers who were righteous towards others. For the keys by which one enters the kingdom of God is not by belief, religion, or rituals; but by righteousness towards others.
Salvation by righteousness is paganism. The writer is a Hindu as well though he does not know it. Perhaps he should go and wash himself in the Ganges - the stars are auspicious right now, I am told. By bathing in that mucky dung-filled water he will guarantee himself a place in heaven, so their sooth-sayers tell us.
The truth is thast we are saved by faith in Christ which then manifests itself spontaneously as good deeds without thought of reward.
Without thought of heavenly reward or praises of men, some who are claimed to be lost will out of the goodness of their heart feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and give water to those that thirst. And should one praise them for doing such things, they are amazed to be praised for doing what is good.
Why not? All goodness is worthy of praise. But life consists of more than good deeds. What of the cripple in his wheel-chair? Shall he not be praised for his good intentions even though he cannot physically serve?
While there are those haughty ones that claim to be the saved, who in the presents of others, will also feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and give water to those that thirst. For these religious goats do not do these things out of compassion for others, but for their love of boasting of good works, for the praises of men, and in seeking heavenly rewards.
Christ identified these hypocrites well enough in the Gospels, but He did not alter his Gospel message of salvation by faith.
A faith born of Liberty and one of bondage
Fear does not glorify God, but love does!
Quite right, but who will define love? An existentialist? A Gnostic? A Hindu?
That which does not sow love of God is not of God.
For whatsoever is said truthfully of God gives glory to God.
Faith that is pleasing to God is one of truthful agreement, rather than an imposed faith that is upheld through fear.
Quite right. But somehow the author seemes to have missed the teaming numbers of Christians who come to faith not by fear or by imposed faith. What of these? Or are they an embrassment to his paradigm of anti-Christian rage?
Liberty of faith sows love of God, for it insures that one's faith in God is of their own freewill; and thus, it can't be shaken, for it is upheld by truthful agreement with what is said of God.
Whereas, an imposed faith sows fear of God, and is like a house of cards, easily shaken, for it is not based upon truthful agreement with what is said of God, but is upheld by fear through threats of damnation if not believed.
Quite right. But that doesn't mean we shall deny the reality of negative things that are. I can beat a man senseless so that he doesn't jump out of a high window, or I can persude him. Mind you, if the author's own "small boy" was about to jump out of a window because he thought he could fly like Superman, would the writer reason with him and let him try or grab him against his will? Something to think about. Not everything has neat solutions, does it? It's then that lofty words disintegrate before our eyes.
Submitting one's faith unto the approval of men leads one into bondage to the religions of men.
True, but what if those men are of like-mind to you, but are gifted to help and bless others in areas where they are lacking, like pastors? Are they then tyrants because they lead? Perhaps we should abolish parenthood? The fact is that there are righteous priests and evil ones; but the fact there are evil ones doesn't make all of them evil, does it?
One is not to submit their faith unto the approval of men, but unto God's approval alone! For any religion that requires one to accept the spiritual authority of others over one's faith in God is spiritually a house of bondage.
I have experienced the anarchy, licentiousness and family divisions that such a doctrine results in. In theory it sounds wonderful but it presupposes that every man has an open channel to God. Of course, some matters are entirely between man and God, but others are not. It is the same between parents and children. How shall a family be goverened if there is not a head - not a tyrant, but one who rules according to a universal truth over which there is no dispute? Salvation is both an individual as well as a family affair. How can one as an individual love others if love is not clearly defined? And who is going to define it so that those of like faith may have a concensus?
The author says many things against the Bible in his other articles, accusing it, for example, of being anti-semitic. It isn't. But it is certainly anti-Judaean - that is, it is anti-Talmudic Judaism, because such was, and is, a false antichrist religion, the one that put Christ on a cross, with the assent of the people, and which still blasphemes Him by calling Him the bastard son of an adulterous relationship between Mary and a Roman legionary. It is written in their Talmud. The Bible translators have obscured this difference, making the issue a racial one, which it isn't. Yet the writer accuses the Bible of being racial.
And any religion requiring one to worship one, whom they fear, is spiritually the land of Egypt.
That depends how you define "fear", doesn't? The biblical sense is one of "deep respect" as opposed to "absolute terror", though it is always the latter that those who attack the Bible try to imply is the intended meaning. I do not live in terror of my God, but I deeply respect and therefore 'fear' Him.
FOR NO MAN WAS GIVEN OR WILL BE GIVEN SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY OVER ANOTHER. EACH IS THEIR OWN PRIEST BEFORE GOD IN ALL THINGS!
Who said that? It is a blant lie. Who will define "all things"? It is not in the Bible. Everyone in life, in the secular or spiritual, is under authority of some sort in order for there to be a social order. Without it there would be anarchy. The interaction of humans has to be regulated unless you become a hermit. Getting the right balance - not too much, and not too little - is the art. What sensible person would not choose a benevolent dictator who respected individuals and upheld their God-defined rights?
Some will take pleasure in believing that hell is my destiny.
Perhaps, but no true born-again Christian would - he would sorrow for the writer.
I believe that there shall be a judgment, yet if hell exists, I do not know.
The author claims to have seen Satan and to know of his existence - does he believe Satan's realm is Heaven?
But of this I'm certain: Except for promoting priestly religions by terrorizing the innocent, the doctrines of hell have done little, if anything, in preventing evil in this world; for evil loves its ways.
There is a certain amount of truth in this to be sure.
Only God knows one's Spiritual heart; and thus, we are not to judge one another - Spiritually!
In terms of making an ultimate judgment, I quite agree. But if I see someone living adulterously or battering his wife yet claiming to be a Christian then I have good cause for concern and should admonish him strictly and in love. The Scripture says we are to judge the way we would like to be judged (a bit different from doing what you want others to do to you) but also to "judge righteous judgment", to "expose darkness", etc. The ultimate destiny of a soul is certainly in God's hands, and any pronouncements should be left to Him. But to warn and admonish a lapsing Christian is every Christian's duty, for love's sake.
For we do not know who among us wears a mask of deception.
Some will accuse me of threatening the good works of the Church.
Why should they?
For the church would have one believe that good works were the invention of the church.
I've never heard a born-again Christian say that. The only thing I have heard is the correct assertion that nobody can be delivered from sin because of their good works ... but clearly the writer does not believe in sin, or otherwise believes he has found a personal remedy.
Good works is not the invention of religion; good works is the fruit of righteousness, which proceeds from within one's Spiritual heart.
True, but ultimately all goodness in man is derived.
For those that do good works, would do them regardless of any religion.
For it was not the Church that civilized man; but rather, it was men who forced the church to be civilized.
Silly statement. It depends what is meant by "civilized"? And which "church" is he talking about? All churches collectively? "The Church" - at least the idea of a visible one - is just a straw man. Since the biblical Church is an assembly of men (and women), how can men civilize it?
For that perverse institution claiming to be God's representative on earth has always had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from its superstitious and damnable ways.
Presumably he is talking about those who claim exclusive authority (like Catholics and Mormons) though I suspect he means all churches. Which "superstitious" and "damnable" ways? How can someone be "damned" if there is no hell? Indeed, how can they be "judged" (as he claims) if there is only one reward - heaven?
Am I so vain, or so foolish, as to think that all I may say or believe is faultless? Certainly not! For man's knowledge of God is evolving according to the divine plan of God.
Then why does he speak as one who has the authority of one who is right by condemning so many?
But before God I swear to this, I have not knowingly lied in trying to communicate truth, as I understand it.
At last, the subjective confession. It's an opinion, finally, and not something communicated by God. Well, since he has no definite Bible canon, it has to be subjective and therefore lacks authority. Do his words carry the weight of authority that Christ carried when He spoke to the masses? That is up to each and every individual reader to decide, for he is coming in the capacity of a messenger or a prophet.
For no man can speak for God, but rather they are inspired of God, and the truth of what they have to say is to be determined within the Spiritual heart of each one.
If a man is speaking the truth, and if God is Truth, is not a man who speaks the truth speaking for God? If a man is inspired of God, is he not also in that respect speaking for God? If he were not, why does he not keep these things to himself? But he announces them everywhere - he is coming like a Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Guru, etc. is he not?
For one is not held accountable to the prophets or the apostles, but are accountable to God alone.
Half truth. We are held accountable to God alone in some things and to God in the rest in accordance with the way we treat others and the positions of authority that he has given them. Why else would the writer claim a vision of Moses and John the Baptist? If these were obviously to be distinguished from the rest of the "heavenly host", then surely they have a place of pre-eminance, claiming the respect and obedience of men? If the system of "every one his own priest", prophet, seer and revelator is true, would not God have showed him a vision of the heavenly host without Moses and John the Baptist? Why these two? Indeed, what I would like to know is, why John? Did not John claim to be preparing the way of the Messiah? If so, where was that Messiah in his vision? There was none. But there was a "counterfeit Jesus" - odd, if you think about it, for what thought will the one hearing this vision be left with? That on the heavenly side, Moses and John the Baptist have the pre-eminance alone, and that any "Jesus'" is not to be trusted.
And it is better to appear as a fool than to believe foolish things said of God.
Then the writer knows what he must do literally.
Surely, if God has caused this drunkard to pass through "The test of fire" the hope of the downtrodden will not be in vain. To the best of my ability I seek to be faithful to the commands that were spoken to this servant through the Spirit, saying:
"This is the House of Bondage." "This is the Land of Egypt."
"Feed my sheep!" "Praise God!" "Trust God!"
If that is the canon of scripture I am to follow, God help me, for I shall surely wander as a lost and blind man following the impure feelings of my heart and the imperfect thoughts of my mind. Shall I be my own prophet, pastor, guide, father, friend ... and foe?
Our writer-friend needs his Bible more than he knows. His own "gospel" is an utter perversion, almost as dangerous as those invented by the false priests he so despises. He wishes us to come up to his mountain of God, but not to the God of Jacob, but to an existentialist Gnostic god who relies on reason and logic alone. He will teaches us his ways, consisting of five short sentences which every man, as his own priest, may interpret any way he wants to, since he has not other references with which to interpret the meaning of these five modern logions. Some will go out on the field and feed literal sheep, others will praise themselves because they believe they are God (at least one person writes to me every month claiming to be God), others will trust Allah, Kali, Satan, or their own stomachs. Some will say that bondage is to be in prison, others to be a prison warder.
This man has only himself to follow. His comfort and assurance of better things in the eternities is in what he does for others. He is the first Calvinist Existentialist-Gnostic I have ever met, and probably the last. I feel so very, very sorry for him. But mostly I fear for the innocents who may be waylayed by his thinking.
This page was created on 12 May 2001
Last updated on 12 May 2001
Copyright © 1987-2007 NCCG - All Rights Reserved