Behold the Imagination of the Beast

If there's one certainty about our post- modern world which the recent and ongoing Covid- 19 scam-demic renders unavoidable, it's the fact that we live in 'The Land of Confusion.' We-- like Moses in the wilderness-- herald our confusion of face by covering our faces with it, and-- also like Moses-- we consider it a virtuous thing to do so. Today, the only thing more omnipresent than confusion is God, and he's relatively unknown to humanity-- in spite of ubiquitous omnipresence and churches on nearly every street corner proclaiming him-- compliments of worldwide confusion.

The most popular President in American history is made to work eighteen- hour days protecting himself from endless frivolous harangue, instead of doing the job we elected him to do: and this in spite of the fact that he-- unlike the money- and power- grubbing thieves harassing him-- works for free, motivated by love of country; not by the "love of money [1 Timothy 6:10a]" which obviously animates his foes and ours on both sides of the aisle: passive and aggressive. These same thieves-- passive and aggressive-- steal the largest landslide election victory in American history from America's Most- Popular- President- Ever for all to see, while crying out against bullies and bullying in a screaming, screeching wail that reaches to heaven: and even the courts of the land-- i.e. the perverse judges-- deny any semblance of fraud or wrongdoing in this charade of election more thinly- veiled than the pasty faces of 'The Swamp' defending it, passively and aggressively.

Even biblical theology-- a thing which should seemingly be relatively simple and straightforward, if the purpose of prophesy is revelation; and not obfuscation-- is fraught with confusion; and for good reason. Biblical theologians agree: there's one true God. The problem is, which one is the One? There are many Gods in the scriptural canon-- a fact most believers seem completely unaware of. For instance: there's the "most high God" of Melchizedek [Genesis 14:19] who possesses the heaven and earth God created; the "God of the dead," spoken of by Jesus of Nazareth [Matthew 22:32]; the "God of forces" written of in Daniel 11:37; the "that God" of Genesis 22:1, who lost count of Abraham's sons at two; and Aaron's God, Moses [Exodus 4:16]. That's five off the top of my head: neither of which is the One. And the list goes on. It's simply not possible that humanity could be so confused about worldly things if our understanding of God and his word were as clear as the pastors and their congregations presume it to be.

Indeed, thanks entirely to confusion, Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' was turned-- by scientists and believers alike-- into something the author never intended it to be, and would likely have declined to write had he known it would be: the presumed bellwether of all authoritative, scholarly refutation of God and the creation narrative of Genesis. This is one- hundred- eighty degrees out- of- phase with the author's intent in writing this volume of singular scientific curiosity. 'Origin of the Species' was, in fact, Darwin's attempt-- not to prove or disprove the creation narrative, but rather-- to describe the way in which God creates.

Ironically, the weakness believers perceive in 'Origin of the Species' is the amount of time the author declares these creative processes required. They contend that each "day" of Genesis 1 & 2-- even the ones antedating Earth's existence-- was an earthly twenty- four hours; and this in spite of the fact that the Doctrine clearly states God's clock is uniquely his own. As the apostle Peter writes: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day [2 Peter 3:8]." Talk about "science falsely so called [1 Timothy 6:20d]." This sort of thing begs the question: Do believers read the Doctrine they profess belief in-- ever-- even when they read it? Are all eyes wide- shut? Why are there more laws for a presumably 'free' man to live by than a man can count in a lifetime; much less be cognizant of? Something is fundamentally flawed.

In all this murky void of confusion, one thing is obvious, stark, and clear: the North Star by which our leaders on every front set their compasses is the proverb, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? [Psalms 11:3]" and this in the negative sense, inasmuch as their chiefest desire is to destroy the foundations; not to protect them. When, as now, the reservoirs of truth-- science, law, and the prophets-- are confusion and altogether confounding, we should know the water is bitter; the reservoir wormwood. The fact that, in the present scam-demic, everyone is losing their temporal souls (i.e. their possessions and the means by which they obtained them) protecting their temporal lives from a threat that doesn't exist is clear indication-- in light of the fact that we murder the unborn in the name of Convenience and Quality- Of- Life For All-- that we're lost- in- the- dark concerning all things: eternal and temporal; is it not? If we're not going to burn the house down and raze the foundations thereof right now: we should at least revisit them, shouldn't we?

The oldest book in the canon of scripture is Job-- not Genesis. Genesis was written by Moses long after the earliest events described therein were faded memories. Besides the things recorded in the book of Job, we know nothing of Job personally, that I'm aware of. Some say the book of Job is an allegorical work, written about fictitious events and individuals: a lesson book; not a historical record. Be that as it may, the 'Rule of First Mentions' applies to the book of Job, if it applies to the canon at all. As such, the book of Job could be referred to as 'the canonical cornerstone', even if it makes us a bit squeamish to do so. Therefore, if we revisit the foundations of our beliefs, we must take a look at the book of Job, inasmuch as it almost certainly sets the tone of prophesy throughout history.

The book of Job begins with a conversation between God and Satan, after 'setting the table' with a short description of Job and his lifestyle. In this conversation between God and Satan, we see that Satan's principle concern is playing 'God' for the benefit of God's children: that he might, through great tribulation, manipulate them into damning themselves by cursing God. [If we curse 'God,' do we curse God? do we not rather condemn Satan as a false witness against God?] Through the 'miserable comfort' afforded Job in his great tribulation by his three friends, and the utter devilishness of the ever- enigmatic 'Elihu', we see how, through envy, malice, and ignorance, man is manipulated into playing 'Devil's Advocate' so that Satan might play 'God.'

We see some other trends asserting themselves in the book of Job, among them: the fact that Satan is not a son of God, though he companies with them. Also, God calls Job, "a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil," twice [1:8 & 2:3, respectively], a judgement echoed by the author of the book in the first sentence thereof. So it is possible for a man to be perfect, even though the North Star which guides his would- be judges says otherwise; and God accordingly lies: in their would- be judgement of him.

We also note the presence of lies in 'the word of God', inasmuch as the LORD tells Job's miserable comforters, "ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath" once for each time he called Job perfect [42:7e,f & 8g,h, respectively], though their words make up nearly half of the book in question. Furthermore, we understand that the end which those devils who lie in the name of the LORD have in view is to damn God's children from partaking in the divine economy-- i.e. from God himself-- and likewise to disallow God any- but devils for company. We also see in the book of Job the holier- than- thou nature of those who so take the LORD's name in vain as to 'help' him by telling the lies he presumably "cannot [Titus 1:2]." In short: in the book of Job, we encounter a worthy allegory for the only portion of history we may know intimately-- the present.

In the book of Genesis, the beginnings of many things are described; among them: prophecy and organized religion. Unlike Job, we know much of Moses, who wrote Genesis. One thing we can't possibly know about Moses is: who he is, inasmuch as Moses' pedigree is one of those lies told by 'the word of God.'

Moses' and Aaron's (and, most likely Miriam's) pedigrees are more counterfeit than Barry Obama's birth certificate. Moses, according to the scriptural account, was of the line of Levi through Kohath, Levi's second of three sons. According to Genesis 46:11 ["And the sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari."], Kohath and his younger brother Merari were already born when Jacob packed the family on the carts sent to him by Joseph, and moved to Egypt.

Moses' presumed father, Amram, is recorded in Exodus 6:18 to have been Kohath's first son, which Kohath lived a total of 133 years. It may safely be assumed Kohath was at least two years old at the time of the move to Egypt, inasmuch as his younger brother was already born when they moved. This allows perhaps as many as 131 years for Kohath to have begotten his sons while in Egypt-- if he was still procreating in his one- hundred- thirty- third year. However, being as Amram was his firstborn of four sons, it's safe- enough to assume Amram would have been born at least six years before Kohath's youngest son was born. This, in turn, indicates the very latest date at which Moses' father could have been born would have been 125 years into the Egyptian sojourn.

According to Exodus 6:20, Amram lived a total of 137 years. This means that, if Amram was begotten six years before his father Kohath died, and in turn begat Moses the last year of his life, Moses would have been born 262 years into the sojourn in Egypt.

We know, from Exodus 12:41 ["And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt."], that the sojourn in Egypt was exactly 430 years in duration. And we know that, after wandering 40 years in the wilderness, Moses died at 120 years of age [Deuteronomy 34:7a].

This means Moses was eighty years old when the children of Israel departed from Egypt. But if you add 80 to 262, the sum is 342: meaning the pedigree given for Moses and Aaron is impossible by no less than 88 years, and most likely much more than this-- well over a hundred years, almost certainly.

Therefore, one does well to be skeptical of Moses, and liberal with the "salt of the covenant of thy God [Leviticus 2:13b]" when partaking of his 'word of God.' In fact, Moses' 'word of God' is so chock- full of lies that, if I were to hazard a scriptural guess as to Moses' identity, my answer would be that Moses is the "lying spirit in the mouth of all [the king of Israel's] prophets" spoken of by the prophet Micaiah [in 2 Chronicles 18:21] in reference to a vision he saw in 'eternity.' Moses may also be the second beast spoken of in Revelation 13 [verse 11].

One of the revelations in Genesis has to do with what professing Christians call 'the rapture.' In his account of beginnings, Moses makes it clear-- only by implication-- that those who await rapture as a calendar event (like Christmas or a birthday, for instance) don't know what time it is, and never did: inasmuch as the rapture is, was, and presumably always will be extant and ongoing: "world without end. Amen [Ephesians 3:21b & c]."

When we encounter Adam, he's in Eden; and it is from Eden that he is driven in the day he dies. Genesis 3:23 states clearly that Adam's beginning was literally "in the earth [Job 1:8c, et. al.]," in that, when he "as lightning [fell] from heaven [Luke 10:18b]," it was to return to "the ground from whence he was taken." This means Adam was raptured before being cast out: perhaps as soon as he was created.

This, in turn, implies that, though one may "sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven [Matthew 8:11c, d, & e]," one is not necessarily staying; and the same applies to the aforementioned 'patriarchs.' After all, Abe's boys like to get naked in the presence of the LORD, as is attested to so many times in scripture as to make a listing of the proofs thereof prohibitive; but the most troubling and recent evidence would be in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the eve of his murder by crucifixion, which can be found in Matthew 21 and Mark 11. Peter at least put his clothes on in the presence of the Lord, once [John 21:7].

Though this may be beside the point, it bears mentioning, here-- concerning Adam, and Abe, and sitting down and staying at the table in the kingdom-- that Adam should have been clothed in Eden (of all places) if he were, as Luke alleged, "the son of God [Luke 3:38d], "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints [Revelation 19:8c]." Also, in the parable of "the marriage supper of the Lamb [Revelation 19:9b]," the Word of God spoke of one who-- like Adam-- "had not on a wedding garment [Matthew 22:11b]": and the king whose son was 'getting hitched' addresses that one by Abraham's name, saying, "Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? [Matthew 22:12b & c]." My guess is that the reason that particular 'Abraham' was "speechless [ibid.]" is because it's his family tradition to 'honor' God as Davey, "who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself [2 Samuel 6:20d - f]!" before the ark of the covenant.

Speaking of Adam's fall raises the specter of what Moses refers to as 'the serpent' in Genesis 3. We know that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy [Revelation 19:10g]," and we know that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life [John 14:6b, c, & d]," and we know the 'serpent' in the garden told the liar Eve no lies, inasmuch as his prophecy of divine revelation in it's entirety was "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil [Genesis 3:4b - 5]," all of which is testified to as truth by the LORD God in Genesis 3:22: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" meaning that if Adam and 'his wife' [Genesis 4:17a, et. al.] had ever had a stomach for the fruit of the tree of life (instead of fig leaves for sewing, for instance): they would have lived and not died. In so scorning the fruit of the tree of life, they scorned the Word of God, for "In him was life [John 1:4a]."

In contrast to the so- called "serpent's" truth, we have the lies of Eve. God had not said, "neither shall ye touch [the tree or its fruit (Genesis 3:3d)]." In saying he had, she bore false witness against the word of God. Nor can it be truthfully said that one who, like the 'serpent,' tells "the truth-- the whole truth-- and nothing but the the truth: so help me God" beguiles the hearer thereof. So, it follows that she bore false witness against the Word of God, also, when she said, "The serpent beguiled me [Genesis 3:13d]." We see in Eve's 'beguiling' protest the power of the statement, uttered by the Word of God, that "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God [John 8:47]."

We know this to be more than mere conjecture in that "Moses' disciples [John 9:28c]" called the Word of God "that deceiver [Matthew 27:63c]" because of his words. Is this not how serpents are referred to, et. al., in scripture: as deceivers? and vice- versa? Notice how the 'serpent' killed Adam and Eve with the "sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God [Ephesians 6:b & c]:" "which sword proceeded out of his mouth [Revelation 19:21b]." As far as I can tell, Jesus is certainly "more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made [Genesis 3:1a]." "Never man spake like this man [John 7:46b]." Thus, according to the 'Law of First Mentions,' the precedent of calling the word of God lies and the Word of God a deceiver is set in the third chapter of Genesis: one chapter before the establishment of organized religion is recorded.

In Genesis 4:1, we read that "[Eve] conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD." Notice: Eve did not call Cain a child, or a man child, but rather "a man": when he was yet but an infant. Does this-- as it seems to-- indicate that the 'his wife' with whom Cain procreates in verse 17 (ibid.) is the only "his wife" mentioned in scripture before it: his own mother, Eve? Notice also, that Eve-- not Adam-- is the first and only original progenitor to mention 'the LORD.' If Adam ever spoke [that is to say, prophesied] of the LORD, his words are not recorded in scripture.

Thus, according to the precedent- based 'Law of First Mentions': seductress Eve, as Adam's "mother of all living [Genesis 3:20b]," is the 'Seat of Wisdom' in his family. It is in defense of himself that the Word of God says, "wisdom is justified of all her children [Luke 7:35]," thereby confessing wisdom to be his mother, after all; and it is wisdom who "[leads] in the way of righteousness [Proverbs 8:20a]." This raises the question: If not Eve, who was it that got her 'man from the LORD' and his brother- from- another- mother worked- up to offer sacrifices to the LORD (or the 'LORD,' as the case may be)?

In verse 3 of Genesis 4, Cain-- most likely motivated by the voice of his 'wisdom, mother of all living'-- brings a sacrifice to the 'LORD,' followed by Abel in the next verse. Cain sacrifices from his belly: "of the fruit of the ground." Abel, in verse 4, sacrifices from his soul: "of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof."

Every Protestant I've heard speak about this beginning of religious practice says Cain was a bad boy for bringing fruit, and Abel was likewise a good boy for shedding blood. Thus: God could not respect Cain's offering, because it had no blood; and it wasn't possible for God to not have respect for Abel's sacrifice, because it was 'bloody.' While I can agree-- with some reservation-- that Cain's sacrifice was itself unpleasant; I find their hermeneutic on Abel's sacrifice-- in a word-- sacrilegious.

One can certainly say Cain's sacrifice was-- perhaps itself-- undesirable: inasmuch as it likely "[served] not [God], but [his] own belly [Romans 16:18a & b]," but the postulation asserting God was displeased with the lack of blood on Cain's offering is intellectually dishonest as an explanation-- especially from those who subscribe to the 'Law of First Mentions,'-- for the obvious reason that the text of verse 5 mentions Cain before it mentions his offering, saying, "But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." And again, it is written, "the plowing of the wicked is sin [Proverbs 21:4c & d].

As for Abel's 'bloody' righteousness: the only blood explicitly offered in Genesis 4 is Abel's. Not only is no blood or killing mentioned in respect of Abel's sacrifice: there's no mention of any altar besides. Not to mention: mutton wasn't anything a man was allowed to eat, at this time. Why would a man offer the LORD a thing had in abomination to God and man alike? and why would it please the LORD if he did? My guess is that the sacrifice offered by Abel was the thing that, peculiarly, Adam found not meet to help him in his nudist colony in Eden, and the only part of a sheep a man could use at the time: the fleece. Wool, to this day, is more valuable than mutton, after all.

All the above notwithstanding: we know Cain-- in a pouting [verse 6, ibid.] rage-- murdered his brother- from- another- mother in the 'field that is the world [Matthew 13:38],' and-- inasmuch as he was his mother's "man from the LORD"-- I sense his mother's 'worldly wisdom [1 Corinthians 2:6 - 8]' in this decision. It is this murder which, after all, became the cornerstone of organized religious observances thereafter.

Proving that-- as Paul said-- "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [2 Thessalonians 2:11]:" the LORD says to Cain [verse 15, ibid.]: "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark [Revelation 13:16] upon Cain, [presumably,] lest any finding him [out, perhaps] should kill him." The 'delusion,' in verse 15, as I read, is the second "him," which is generally 'understood' to indicate Cain's killer -- not the murderer himself-- perhaps 'simply' because the great- great- great- grandson of the murderer so apprehended it: as recorded in verse 24 [ibid.].

In verses 23 & 24 of Genesis 4, Lamech-- the aforementioned great - great - great- grandson of the 'murderer from the foundation of the world [Revelation 13:8]'-- describes for the benefit of his wives a religious epiphany of his 'own,' thus: "[LORD] Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."

It probably bears mentioning, here, that the prophetess Eve was likely still alive and conversant with the wives of her sons' sons: thus the plea of Lamech to be heard of his wives. At any rate-- and after what seems to me to be the parenthetical inspiration of Davey's 'calling home [2 Samuel 11;11]' of Uriah the Hittite-- we read, in the last word of chapter 4, of the establishment of organ-eyes'd [Ezekiel 21:21] 'religion': "then began men to call upon the name of the LORD."

Skip ahead, to the twenty- second chapter of the same book of beginnings: and we discover Abraham's soft, beastly underbelly of envy- driven religious homicide, inherited from his ancestors and passed on -- through his descendants -- as 'faith [Hebrews 11:17]' and 'good works [James 2:21];' when-- having argued vehemently for Sodom-- he quietly aquiesces to 'that' God's injunction to murder the child who displaced him as the one 'holding the bag [John 12:6]' of promises.

This brings to attention the central dilemma of scripture: redemption versus repentance. Abraham-- like Cain and Lamech before him-- sought redemption. In particular: Abe desired the redemption of the promises made to him [recorded in Genesis 12:2 & 3; and 15:18]; which were removed from him and passed on to Isaac [Genesis 17:21] before Isaac was born; immediately before "[God] left off talking with [Abe], and... went up from [him -Genesis 17:22]. Abe's willingness to murder his own son out of a desire to regain the promises of the covenants is akin to the way some beasts eat their young because of the threat they represent to the progenitors' power and control of territory.

In Exodus, we encounter Pharaoh's false god [Exodus 7:1], Moses; and his prophet, Aaron; and the facelift they gave this modus operandi of murdering the young and innocent to redeem the 'mature' wicked from responsibility for their wickedness: in what is referred to as the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law replaces-- or, at least, attempts to-- child sacrifice with the sacrifice of beasts; but the principle is the same: reject repentance; and sacrifice for redemption. "Baptize your sins in a Jordan River of blood," essentially.

The error in the 'Redemption Way' is exposed by Ezekiel, when he writes: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son [Ezekiel 18:20a - c]." Likewise, Zeke exposes the lovely truth of the 'Repentance Way,' when he writes: "But If the wicked will turn from ['repent' is what this means] all his sins that he hath committed... All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness which he hath done he shall live [Ezekiel 18:21a & 22]." Enter Jesus of Nazareth.

The first word in Jesus' hermaneutic-- as recorded by Matthew-- is, "Repent [Matthew 4:17c]." At no time does the Kid from Nazareth say, "Murder me, or no one gets into the kingdom of heaven." Quite to the contrary, he says-- before going to Calvary-- "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me [John 14:6b - f]."

John Baptist perverts this word, "Repent," as recorded by Luke, by turning it into a ritual-- like sacrifice -- "for the remission of sins [Luke 3:3]." Repentance doesn't require ritual. Nor does repentance require prayer. Repentance is a commission of omission. Repentance requires only the death of ritual transgression. No announcement needs be made for "thy Father, which seeth in secret [Matthew 6:18d & e]" to notice the repentance, and "reward thee openly [e, ibid.]," with remission of your sins. Just stop sinning: that's all that's required to fulfill every requirement of repentance.

I say John Baptist perverted the doctrine of repentance with the addition of baptism, for two reasons: 1) The ritual itself was apprehended and espoused-- even by the apostles of Christ-- as the act of repentance; which it is not. Repentance is an omission of wickedness: not a commission of righteousness. 2) "Jesus himself baptized not [John 4:2a]," and if it were the necessity it's been perverted into being perceived as being: he would have. "Trust Jesus;" not Johnny Beelzebub. Trust repentance; not 'beastly' sacrifice.

Whose Church Is It?

There's been a lot said (in the news and elsewhere) for a number of years, now, about perverse Catholic priests and what they do with children behind semi- closed doors; as well as the ritualistic, satanic reasons they have for engaging in such devious mischief. While this is a distasteful subject and one I would rather not broach, "For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret [Ephesians 5:12]," still it is a compelling subject; especially to one raised Protestant.

To begin with, I feel compelled to point out that I am catholic-- not Catholic-- and, as such, I really only understand the finer points of the Roman faith from the outside- looking- in. Notwithstanding my Protestant upbringing, I've been compelled to worship and fellowship with Catholics for some years, now, owing to the completely depraved condition of all Protestantism. The exceptions, here -- if they do indeed exist -- prove the rule to be the 'hard- and- fast' "rock of offence" it surely is.

Eleven years ago, the Lutheran church split due to the largest synod in North America being so queer as to demand out- and- proud gays and lesbians [and-- by implication-- pedophiles, of course] in their pulpits. And Marty's babies aren't the only ones. They're only the very top of the tip of the iceberg. 'The Gazette' reported 10 December, 2010: "The Presbyterian Church (USA), United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church and the American Baptist Church USA have experienced tremendous internal discord over the [queers- in- pulpit] issue."

Having said this much, I'm likewise compelled to confess my personal doubt that these "Roman" priests are anything but Protestant infiltrators, sent into the Catholic fold to condemn them with the same limp- wristed, light- loafered by which they've already 'possessed [Genesis 22:17d]' the gates of Protestantism. It is, in my experience, all- but- impossible to find a Protestant minister who isn't queer- as- a- three- dollar- Billy. Even the Protestant preachers who are lauded and chastised in their local communities for their "outspoken and public anti- gay views," are all- too- often, in my existential opinion, closeted queers; which is to say 'controlled opposition.'

Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by 'controlled opposition.' Controlled opposition is a device by which a body of people (usually a political action committee) attempts to monopolize a conversation or argument (and, thus, its fallout) by planting 'bad actors' on the side opposing their own. This works especially well when the subject matter discussed in a given debate is as distasteful as all things queer are.

By 'championing' the opposing case: the bad actor has the opportunity to make the side he or she is pretending to support look weak and beggarly-- being the first and loudest to voice opinions which the more modest adherents to the opposition point of view don't even want to talk about-- because of the bad taste such conversation leaves in their mouth.

Meanwhile, everyone on the proposing side knows John Baptist is queer. They know John Baptist's boyfriend's name is Mario. They know Mario works at Romeo's Kitchen. And they know the reason John and Jane Baptist always go to Romeo's to eat, whenever they eat out (in spite of the fact that Romeo's serves "spirits" of which John Baptist is deathly afraid) is, ironically, not because (as John Baptist is ever so fond of exclaiming from the pulpit) "The food is just to die for!"

The real reason John and Jane always eat at Romeo's is because Mario is just to die for, and even if Jane has to prey on the young men attending John's School of Divinity-- because Mario can't stand to swing from both sides any more than Johnny can-- she can always get the most insightful makeup tips from beautiful young Mario when they stop in at Romeo's. This sort of 'hammy' bad acting comforts the queers and lulls the sheeple to sleep. Why wake up and shout from the rooftops when it's Johnny's 'Job' to do so?

At any rate, this type of shenanigan is par- for- course in Protestant circles-- in my experience-- and frankly may be the reason so many Protestants poo- poo the Pope for not turning the miscreant priests over to the secular authorities. After all, if these priests are (as I suspect) Protestant infiltrators, the last thing their supporters in Protestant denominations want is for the Jesuits to get them alone in subterranean inquisition chambers and 'hammer out of them' the intelligence of who they really work for. And it's precisely because of such nefarious shenanigans that I chose to remove myself from Protestant fellowship and observances.

Now, Catholics have their own problems, and I'm not the first to admit this; but the quality of fellowship is far more commendable in Catholic circles than in the exceeding wickedness of Protestantism. Catholics don't believe in sacrificing their children to please God, like Protestants and the Jews who proseletyzed us all do. Catholics are far more family- oriented than Protestants, as a rule. There's more love and less perversion to be found in Catholic parishes than in Protestant churches. In fact, in Protestant churches, the only thing that goes for love is perversion. But Catholics have their problems, and their problems begin as far back as Calvary, at least.

I don't have a firm grip on Catholic history, but from what little I've read and heard about it: it seems to me the Roman controversy really begins at Peter being 'chosen' as the chief apostle of Christ; by what seems to me to be inference. In his gospel, Matthew records an exchange between Jesus and the apostle Peter. Jesus asks the disciples: "whom say ye that I am [Matthew 16:15]?" Peter-- more- or- less echoing every unclean spirit heard from in Matthew's gospel, previous to this exchange-- responds, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God [verse16b & c, ibid.]."

To this 'spirited' ejaculation of Peter's, Jesus says, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood [meaning: John Baptist] hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter [meaning: a stone], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [verses 17a - 18, ibid.]." Some say the "rock" on which the Lord promised to build his church is therefore the stone, Peter; though this is inferred.

If Peter were the "rock" upon which the Lord built his house [which is to say his church]: Jesus would have told us to 'pile on Pete,' wouldn't he? when did he do so? When did Pete ever say so? In Matthew 7:24, Jesus shatters this illusion thusly: "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock..." Peter likewise rebuffs this notion that the "stone" is the "rock."

In his first epistle general, stone Peter writes: "Ye also [with Pete, that is], as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed [1 Peter 2:5 & 6]." Of this "corner stone," which is Jesus Christ, he proceeds to say: it is "a stone of stumbling, and a rock [!] of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed [verse 8, ibid.]." So, it is, according to Pete, disobedient to God to stumble upon Jesus and choose Pete as the rock to build on instead.

The thing about this controversy that baffles me is the-- seemingly, at least-- superstitious nature of the misunderstanding. If Our Lady is the mother of Christ; and she is the mother of the church: why is John the Divine not the apostle whose remains (or lack of remains, for that matter) are venerated under St. Peter's? Why is the basilica not called 'St. John's?' It was to the apostle John, after all, whom Jesus of Nazareth said, "Behold thy mother!" referring to the Blessed Virgin.

In attending Mass with Roman parishes; I have been exposed, a number of times, to the doctrine that our principal duty-- as the mystical Body of Christ-- is to fulfill the law and the prophets in like manner to the way Jesus did: in loving God with all we are and have; and in loving our neighbors as ourselves. This is a thing considered impossible by Protestants, and therefore dismissed as 'rubbish' by them; though scripture agrees with the Romans on this, as do I.

This, however, again leads us to the apostle John, who is the only one scripture records as ever saying: "God is love [1 John 4:8b, et. al.]." It is John, therefore, who properly identifies the currency and exchange of the sacred economy; thereby defining the proper role for the church to play in acting as the central house of banking on that exchange. At least the Romans haven't-- as Protestants have-- venerated the 'Sodom [Revelation 11:8]' that murdered our Lord: yet; and hopefully never will. This, however, is academic.

Jesus is the rock on which to build: and this because he is founded on the Rock [Deuteronomy 32:4, 18 & 31] that is love. All others are 'shifting sand [Matthew 7:26 & 27],' and will lead to perdition.

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me [Deuteronomy 5:7]: not even Jesus Christ."

The Most Disturbing Scripture

There are many deeply disturbing scriptures in the canon. The one I find most disturbing-- most Satanic-- is Genesis 2:18: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

The reason I find Genesis 2:18 more Satanic than, say, Genesis 1:26: is because we don't really behold the countenance of rebellion [1 Samuel 15:23] until Genesis 2:18-- and this because it's not until 2:18 that the first mention of "not good" occurs in the canon. "Not good" is, after all, the simplest definition of the term 'evil.'

This doesn't mean Genesis 1:26 isn't 'not good.' In fact, it means 1:26 is 'not good': not because man was made; but because his he half was made before her she half, inverting-- which is to say, perverting-- the manner in which God creates. And the Father is supposed to be 'the help meet for her': not the other way around. God has a Mother- half. There is a Mother God, even if there isn't a Father God.

Considering how many sons of God were extant in the beginning [Job 38:7], I'd guess Mother is a 'cougar' who prefers marrying a 'Son' more than some 'old- timey' Mudcat 'bottom- feeder' Daddy. "So... male and female created he them [Genesis 1:27]." If-- as Paul wrote -- "the love of money is the root of all evil [1Timothy 6:10a]": the axe must fall at "not good," in Genesis 2:18 for the 'tree of all evil' to be altogether banished from the garden. What Genesis 2:18 has to do with the 'love' of money, I can only guess, at present. It is what it is.

In Genesis 1:1, 'God' is the beginning, and there's water, there, in the beginning with God-- though nowhere in Genesis is the origin of water even mentioned; much less explained. In fact, one must flip 'ahead' all the way to the oldest book in the canon -- Job-- to find any attempt to explain where water comes from.

The context of Job 38 is the time of earth's founding, as per verse 4. Notice how the 'LORD [verse 1]' takes credit for everything: though this contradicts his own testimony. In verses 28 & 29, we read: "Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?" If we apply numbers to these four questions, it's the odd- numbered ones which are most germaine to the subject.

"Hath the rain a father?... Out of whose womb came the ice?" This is pretty obvious, isn't it? If the Father-- minus the Mother-- has a womb: Why did Adam call Eve "woman (womb- man; man with womb) [Genesis 2:22]?" A man with a womb of 'his' own is a woman (or a worm)-- not a man. Therefore, such a 'God' would be referred to as 'LADY,' or, like Jacob, as WORM, not as 'LORD.' Also: when-- as in Genesis 1-- a life begins, where-- if not from the womb-- does the water issue forth? Thus, when a man is "born of water [John 3:5d]," it is understood he is born of woman.

What does NASA look for in their attempts to discover life outside of our atmosphere: if not water? The obvious reason for their reasoning is that: without water, there is no life. Hath water a father? A man 'makes water;' but a woman is the water that makes a man. If it were not so: What is the significance of the Immaculate Conception? The truth is: a woman doesn't require the services of a man to procreate. Why would the LADY need the LORD to create?

Thus, we understand the 'Battle of the Sexes' began in heaven; and he 'took' the first 'shot' at "not good [Genesis 2:18]": according to Moses, at least. Making a woman from a man, as the LORD God did, in Genesis 2:22, was de facto divorce from the LADY God, inasmuch as-- in so doing-- he deviated from her way-- the way of life and the living-- scorning her and her way for that which is not good: waterless birth. What is the LORD God of Genesis, if not a "Fat (Muddy)- Cat?"

Perhaps it was because he is a 'Cat, that he expected the man to 'marry' the beasts, as recorded in Genesis 2:19 & 20. When the man had more sense than he: woman was made to distract the man from 'crying out to God': the LADY obviously doesn't abide 'idolatry.' What is man, after all, If not the LORD God's graven imagery? I think a John- Cena- style death rhyme would make more sense of all this than I can, but I'll give it a 'try.'

And the LORD God formed 'Man'
Of the 'mud' in which he 'swam,'
Unmindful he wasn't a turd.
He thought the man he so misformed
As to be 'like' he, would be --
Like his Maker--
A "her- manfro- dighty" worm;
And
That a turd- eating- turd
Like himself
Was all he'd ever need.
But-- much to his chagrin--
The 'smile' left his shit- eating grin,
When he discovered in the Mudcat-
Mirror- imagery of 'his man':
A 'manlier' worm than he.
So, 'wisely' fearing LADY God,
And lest 'his man' should tell that 'Jealous' broad:
He made of his tranny 'man'
A 'lively' witch named Eve,
And then, with feline 'Grace,'
He worm- turned --
His dog- about- vomit- face--
From the 'stinging' disgrace of 'simple' sex
To the 'simpler, cleaner pleasures'
Of eating shit
And savouring the sophistication
Of magical- sorcery- sex
With Worm- [Prince Jacob's] wood.
Thus he uncovered his latter 'End.'

Hypocritical Hippocrates

Why would anyone-- much less somebody-- adore a wound it was in their power to heal? If this is done out of 'love' for the afflicted: what is such 'love' but the tender mercies of cruelty a sane man can only expect from the wicked [Proverbs 12:10b]? Is cruelty born of envy [Matthew 27:18], perchance? Why does it seem the overwhelming majority of professing Christians would rather "bear in [their bodies] the [five] marks of the Lord Jesus [Galatians 6:17b]"-- as stigmata-- than see the King they call "Lord, Lord [Matthew 7:21- 23]" made whole? Are the overwhelming majority of professing Christians perverts without any trace of "faith which worketh by love [Galatians 5:6c]?" What kind of jackass prefers a half- ass 'Lord' over a whole One? his "Lord's" enemy?

Jesus, while witnessing to the religious of his day in his 'hometown' of Nazareth, "said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country [Luke 4:23]," foreshadowing the egocentric cruelty of his disciples. To clarify: the text of this passage in Luke's gospel says nothing of his disciples being in attendance when the Word of God uttered these gracious words; but who else could this 'gun' have been aimed at? Who among the temple leaders of his day were healing any one of any thing?

Matthew 10 and Luke 9 record the fact that Jesus' twelve apostles were granted diplomas from 'The Renaissance School of Medicine and Jesus Christ;' receiving from him power and authority to, "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils:" saying, "freely ye have received, freely give [Matthew 10:8]." Yet, instead of glorifying God in freely giving: it seems like the apostles jumped back on the 'Jesus leash' before lunch. Matthew doesn't record their return, in particular; though Luke basically says they were gone long enough for Herod to form one thought; and then they returned with five thousand men (not to mention women and children, of course) who, like the apostles, were 'just dying for something to eat.'

According to Luke 10, Jesus then sent seventy others under the commission to do what the twelve had purportedly already done [Luke 9:6] (not that the twelve left anything undone, you know), saying, "heal the sick... and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you [Luke 10:9]." When the seventy then returned, they rejoiced-- not for being allowed by the power and blessing of God to accomplish their commission, but rather-- that they 'really knocked themselves out' playing 'Devil's Advocate' (i.e. 'Lording' it over the unclean spirits) saying, "Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name [Luke 10:17]." As near as I can make out: none of these eighty- two messengers "freely gave" anyone anything-- of the instruction they received in 'The Renaissance School of Medicine and Jesus Christ'-- but a hard time, while their Rabbi- physician lived. And when he died, they kept it 'all [Mark 8:36]' to themselves; giving none of his own back to him who gave them his 'all'-- freely or otherwise: without the commission of "a dispensation of the gospel [1 Corinthians 9:17d]."

While Jesus was in the tomb the two nights and one day between sunset 'Good Friday' evening and Sunday morning (before sunrise), the disciples 'elected' for voluntary 'protective custody' "for fear of the Jews [John 20:19c]," rather than going to the tomb and "[raising] the dead [Matthew 10:8c]" Jesus, who had given them the power to be so 'helpful,' had they had a stomach for such work. Perhaps it's on account of my 'simplicity,' that I think in such 'terms of endearment;' but if I were a professor of medicine at an 'accredited' university-- even if it weren't 'named' for me-- I should think one very good reason for teaching a dozen- or- eighty- two student 'physicians' the proper method of performing a triple bypass operation would be so I wouldn't have to do them all myself-- especially not my own. In Jesus' case, however, perhaps the reason the professor 'fell on infirmity' was to uncover the contents of his students' hearts [2 Chronicles 32:31]; not to uncover the contents of his own heart to us, as such. Indeed, though at least ten of them 'handled' the Physician, post- renaissance (unless they were disobedient, even to his face) [Luke 24:39], Jesus' 'corpus' was apparently none the better for "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery [1 Timothy 4:14c]."

And it wasn't 'only Jesus' they were unwilling to raise- up or heal. Not once is it recorded that any one of the eighty- two disciples who were awarded 'lambskins' from 'The Renaissance School of Medicine and Jesus Christ' ever raised or healed one of the other eighty- one alumni thereof [though they did raise and heal many who had not (before or after their 'handy work') this power and authority]; in spite of the fact that they did not all die simultaneously. Even poor Paul of Tarsus-- himself an 'outsider,' was 'left hanging- out to dry' (and that in "that great city" [ Revelation 17:18a]); in spite of a number of ill- advised trips to the only city the Dirty Dozen apparently cared the slightest whit for. Perhaps the apostles and disciples 'simply couldn't stop' arguing about "which of them should be greatest [Luke 9:46b, et. al.]." In which case, the 'Death Watch of the Dirty Dozen and the Disciples of Jesus' must have ended with one 'survivor' who, in 'due' process of time, died without any to raise him, thanks to his meager esteem of charity and 'great, swelling heart' of "love [of] the brethren [1 John 3:14b]."

Speaking for myself, I would rather have a whole, holy King [please, God] than a half- ass holy One; and the same goes for family in general. As long as we're all whole and holy: what does it matter who's the 'greatest?' Isn't it 'enough' that we all be great 'collectively?' I love my family-- not myself. Loving me is my family's concern-- not mine. It amazes me how quickly we forget the first word Jesus said when he began to begin to preach: "Repent [Matthew 4:17c]!" and, likewise, how easily we forget the lake of fire is at "hands [Psalms 90:17]."

Who's Lying?

As there are discrepancies between the various Gospels of the apostles concerning the so- called 'life' and public ministry of Jesus and his Dirty Dozen: so there are discrepancies between the gospel accounts of these matters and the prevalent teachings about them, as promulgated by Christian scholarship generally. For instance: Christian scholarship states emphatically (and without any exception I'm aware of) that Jesus was in the tomb three days and three nights; though the gospels say no such thing. What the gospels do affirm is that Jesus of Nazareth said his 'life' in this world was to him death; and that his 'death' lasted a total of three days and three nights.

Is it scholarship, or rather conspiracy, which compels scholars to declare with one voice that Jesus was in the tomb three days and three nights: in contradiction to what the scriptures actually say? Their reasons for doing so certainly are biblical, at any rate; which is to say they may be defended (albeit impotently) and refuted by scripture.

But, as there are prophets many, and some true, some false: so to defend or refute the misunderstandings of the scholars is more- or less- right or wrong, according to the scriptures; and in the eyes of God, who is judge of all. As Eve was deceived by the truth she received of the "serpent" in the garden of Eden-- and that because of her heart of deceit-- so scholars 'defend' the integrity of the word of God by assaulting the integrity of the Word of God. Shall their reward be their benefit? or the stripes by which we are healed? God knows.

The crux of this contention is found in Matthew's Gospel, where Matthew claims Jesus said of himself, "as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" [Matthew 12:40]. Christian scholarship-- for one reason or another-- assumes "the heart of the earth" spoken of by Jesus is hell. Does this assumption betray the contents of their own hearts? Is the presumably 'inanimate' earth capable of holding hell in her heart the way a wicked man might? Does the earth-- as wicked Eve-- hold her dead in reverence? her living in revulsion? A cursory glance at a calendar should inform otherwise.

According to the timeline described by our observances of these events-- and the scriptural record of them-- Jesus was murdered on a Friday, and interred in the tomb at sunset the same day: which we ironically refer to as 'Good Friday.' Before sunrise the following Sunday (which scripture properly refers to as "the first day of the week"), the corpus Christi was peculiarly absent from the same tomb. Thus, the time Jesus spent in the tomb is described, by calendar and scripture alike, as: Friday night; Saturday; and Saturday night. That-- for those who obviously cannot count-- is two nights and one day; not three days and three nights.

Why does such an easily- refuted misunderstanding of the words of the Word of God so persist and abound? Why must some make Jesus out a liar in order that they might discover 'integrity' in the heart of God? If such were able to hear simple words, one might say to them, "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding [Proverbs 3:5]." There was a time when calling a liar a liar could lead to the legal, (shall we say?) timely demise of a true witness-- if the liar were quicker on the draw, or his aim truer. That's real, practical honor; not 'spiritualized' honor. God's honor is likewise an inescapable fact; not an idyllic concept. It's no light matter to assail the person or character of God, or any of his children, through false witness or any other means. All judges are jealous of their honor; and God is The Judge.

Jesus said, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven [Matthew 5:19a - c];" illustrating the importance of properly respecting him and his words. When contrasted with what he is recorded to have said about John Baptist elsewhere, the illustration thus provided speaks more clearly. While in prison, waiting to lose the head which was perhaps never squarely on his shoulders, JB-- through his own disciples-- sent a communication to Jesus: "Who are you [to paraphrase]?"

This is an ironical question, coming from the first Jew to say, "Crucify him!" Why would JB call for the crucifixion of a man who's identity he couldn't even discern? This is, after all, what JB's ejaculation, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world [John 1:29c & d]" meant to the Jews he so identified Jesus to. There isn't a Jew alive today-- thousands of years after the last temple sacrifice-- who doesn't make of this declaration exactly what the Jews of Jesus' day made of it. In response to Johnny B's question, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another [Matthew 11:3b & c]?" Jesus says of JB, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he [Matthew 11:11] ;" meaning [again, to paraphrase] "Backatcha, Johnny. I don't know you, either."

Now Johnny B is certainly one of those whom "all men shall speak well of [Luke 6:26b]," though in so doing they shall speak falsely of Christ, inasmuch as JB spoke falsely of Jesus. This word, "Lamb of God" was, after all, not the true witness Johnny received from heaven concerning Jesus. That witness said of Jesus, "Thou art my beloved Son [not Lamb], in whom I am well pleased [Mark 1:11c & d]." JB obviously thought he was the "Thou" so referred to by God, inasmuch as he said of himself, "this is the Son of God [John 1:34b]." For more on Johnny B and his baptism, see my post entitled 'Johnny B Not So Good To Me.' The point, here, is that two thousand years after Calvary: professing Christians still receive Johnny B's word about Jesus; and discard Jesus' word about Johnny B; though, of course, Jesus is the one they 'believe,' (whatever that must mean).

So it is with many things uttered by the Word of God: it is generally assumed that 'the children of the devil [John 8:44a]' know and understand more about God's words than his own children do; even when this requires the willful submission of God's children to the devil's torture imposed upon them by the cognitive dissonance necessary to so abuse God and the word he has "magnified... above all [his] name [Psalms 138:2c]." Speaking for myself, I can only say: Goddamn the devils. I believe God; and Jesus' prophecy is-- at the very least-- the surest word of God I've ever encountered. Devil take the Jews and their proselytes, "whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme [1 Timothy 1:20b & c]."

So, what does this "three days and three nights" business mean, anyway? The Word of God said, "No man taketh [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father [John 10:18]." If we trust Jesus, we know where he laid his life down from, inasmuch as he said, "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me [John 6:38]." As to why taking a journey would be likened to dying: It's rudimentary.

Concerning Adam's expulsion from the garden of Eden: the word of God does not refer to Adam's journey back to "the ground from whence he was taken [Genesis 3:23c]" as his birthday; but, rather, as his date of expiration-- inasmuch as the LORD God said, "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [Genesis 2:17c]." Why, then, would not the same journey-- when taken by the one who does God's will; not his own-- be referred to as suicide? His ascension-- not his resurrection-- would naturally then be referred to as 'rising again,' as in Matthew 20:19, et. al.

What this then indicates, concerning the subject at hand, is that the whole of Jesus' 'life' in the world-- from condescension to ascension-- was three days and three nights. When the Jews murdered him, Jesus was-- like the sacrifices murdered in the valley of the son of Hinnom-- still an infant, in the eyes of his Father; though he was a grown man in the eyes of those fathers who murdered him and their own infants. [Is the light this sheds on the 'Baby Jesus Cult' black-- or darkness altogether?]

Now scholars have always 'known' Jesus was thirty- to- thirty- three years old at Calvary; and for those who can't reconcile Darwin with Genesis in light of the discrepancies they perceive in Darwin's 'calendar' (which is to say, the fossil record), this is going to hurt. But the simple truth of the matter is: the world (not to mention the universe) does not revolve around the scholars or their rabbis; even if their 'clocks' do. God is not a man that he should reckon time by "the sun dial of Ahaz [Isaiah 38:8c]." According to the apostle Peter, those who think otherwise are 'ignorant': "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day [2 Peter 3:8]."

For some-- "faithful Abraham [Galatians 3:9]," for instance-- murdering babies has always been the key to salvation; and I know "salvation is of the Jews [John 4:22c]," because The Word of God said so, when he was a baby-- just before they murdered him 'to save the whole world.'