Nothing Private About Moses' Property

In the book of Numbers, Moses writes of himself that he "was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth [Numbers 12:3]," so bearing false witness of himself. Thanks to the convoluted nature of the Doctrine, we know Moses' self- witness is false-- according to  his own law-- inasmuch as Jesus of Nazareth said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true [John 5:31]." Therefore, perhaps it's no real surprise if Moses' presumption of your private property is that it's the prerogative of his law to dispose of as he sees fit.

In Deuteronomy, Moses says of estate inheritance: "15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: 16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: 17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his [Deuteronomy 21:15 - 17]." Prima facie, this seems innocent enough: but is it as innocent as it seems?

As historical context, Genesis informs of Jacob's decision to prefer Joseph above Reuben. "21 And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers. 22 Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow [Genesis 48:21 & 22]." Even Jesus of Nazareth, who unequivocally venerates Moses [Matthew 23:1 - 3, for instance], takes exception with Moses' doctrine concerning inheritances.

As recorded in Matthew 20, Jesus of Nazareth told a parable concerning inheritances in the kingdom of heaven. As he was often wont to, Jesus-- in this parable of inheritances-- likened the kingdom to a vineyard, saying the owner of the vineyard went out early in the morning and hired workers who agreed to a day's work at the rate of a penny.

Likewise, the owner of the vineyard goes out the 'third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours' of the day, and hires whomever will go to work. (Notice: those he speaks to in the third hour of the day may have turned his offer down inasmuch as the narrative reads of them, "they went their way [Matthew 20:4d].") When the day is ended, the owner of the vineyard starts an uproar among those he hired early in the morning by paying those hired in the last hour of the day the same as they receive. His response to them is "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? [Matthew 20:15a]?" No. According to Moses, it's not.

Reading the 'Holy Bible' to Discern

When reviewing the blogs I've posted, I often find myself wishing I had written things I didn't write and wishing I had written some things differently. This is unavoidable given the fact that, on the one hand, a blog post isn't supposed to be a tome. Nobody wants to read a blog post that takes days to read through. I don't know that anyone desires to read a post that takes more than one minute to read-- especially about something so boring as the 'Holy Bible'. Therefore a blog post is not a viable format to comprehensively expound any subject from a doctrine as convoluted and subtle as the 'Holy Bible'. 

On the other hand, one's understanding of the 'Holy Bible' changes as one reads it more and more; and this is nothing compared to how dramatically one's understanding of it changes as one writes about it. As such, I can't write anything about it entirely the way I want to, and I certainly can't write anything about it the way I will always want a thing I write about it to read. Such is the nature of the beast with which I so wrestle.

It's not really as annoying as it may seem, however. After all, the point of writing these blogs is not to solve all the riddles for the reader. Nor do I write to assuage my own vanity. The point of this exercise, as I see it, is to impress upon the reader the value of reading the Doctrine for oneself: so that the quality of the conversation surrounding the Doctrine might improve generally-- hopefully in this lifetime.

As much as I avoid it, I complain about charlatans more than enough, I think, for any notice afforded them to be ought but annoying here. Suffice to say: I find that those who have never been to church or Sunday school and yet, for whatever reason, read the Bible are less "blinded... in their minds [2 Corinthians 4:4]" than those who have the preconceived notions attendant thereupon. 

That is to say: the savant is less fearful, and thus more perceptive of the inconsistencies the fearful would be more prudent to fearlessly take notice of. It is best to cleanse one's mind of all such fear. "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love [1 John 4:18]." If you love the Bible, love it perfectly.

In loving the Bible perfectly, read it enough to notice all the subtle nuances. Don't let slothfulness or prevailing 'wisdom' talk you out of the revelations the spirit inside you is talking you into. To accomplish this, you must read it in it's entirety. You will most likely need to do this more times than you want to believe is possible in order to merely begin to find the subtler nuances, but often the less subtle nuances are the most salient. Remember: if the Bible were the word of God, 'obscure passages' would be a misnomer. Nothing about God-- except our understanding of God-- is obscure. 

Always do the math. Don't simply trust the numbers as you read them. There are numerical inconsistencies in the 'Holy Bible'. No one seems to enjoy math, but when looking for the integrity or lack thereof in the Bible, simple math will open your eyes more than you think possible.

If there is more than one account of a given event in the Bible, compare the various accounts with each other. This is sometimes arduous, but it's worth it to the mind which won't be satisfied without the knowledge necessary to discern. The differences in these various accounts will often surprise you.

Finally: always assume the Bible is the work of the devil. This may seem counter intuitive. Those who claim to believe it say it is the word of God, after all, and certainly it might, in some convoluted manner, be; but if the Bible is the word of God, don't forget it was written by 'the children of the devil [John 8:44].'

If you follow this advice-- part of which is to read the Bible in it's entirety many, many (this is to say, hundreds of) times-- you won't need to read things like my blogs to discern anything consequential about the Doctrine. And you will be shocked to find out how very little of it is consequential. Keep reading. Godspeed.

Brokeback Mount Zion

The woman my birth certificate credits with bearing yours truly was a good Christian. The family assures me she died some years ago, though, inasmuch as they all likewise assure me "she gave her body to science," some saintly part of her may remain. Audrey was such a good Christian, that she once admitted vehemently and repeatedly to me, in the presence of at least one witness, that she never made any mistakes raising my siblings and me: no not one.

I could spend seemingly limitless time and energy refuting Audrey's plea of spotless innocence, but what use would that be? Anyone who's ever been a parent or had a parent knows parents make mistakes. People make mistakes. Parents are people. Suffice to say, in Audrey's case, the mistakes made in raising her children are more numerous and more grievous than in most cases. The fact that she could plea infallibility with a straight face is clear- enough indication that such is the case.

One of Audrey's methods of bullying her children was the prayers she prayed concerning us. Not only did she pray offensive prayers "in secret [Matthew 6:6, et. al.]"; she openly admitted her praying of them to us.

When I was no less than twenty- three years old, she told me, "I've been praying for you, Tom. I'm praying God will break you to make you a tool fit for his service. And I shall continue to do so." Mind you: this from a cunt who never allowed me to be whole: no not for one moment.

In the thirty years since, I've wondered over and over again, "What could this word "break" mean, as Audrey so used it?" How could I be more broken? I've never been whole. To this day, I'm homeless, penniless, and my own family-- immediate and extended-- refuses to know me. How am I not broken? Furthermore, what use does one make of a broken tool? a paperweight? a doorstop? Since when does a broken tool do work? Suddenly, a day or two ago, it occurred to me what Audrey meant by 'broken to serve God.'

All my life I've been exposed to sodomites. This came about, in the beginning, as consequential to living a 'sheltered life.' My siblings and I attended only Christian academies, until I at last flunked a grade-- my seventh-- in protest. This I did in a year which was particularly painful for the family, financially.

The Old Man was, for the entirety of said year, working for a good Christian and fellow member of the church we attended, who therefore didn't find it necessary that we should eat and pay our bills by normal means; but only miraculously. The sting of my failure and the subsequent waste of our money was therefore especially accute. But it was the only way I could find to get out of the exceeding wickedness of Christian education.

At any rate, my exposure to queers began in kindergarten. There was a seven- year- old pupil who I was made to nap the entirety of every afternoon-- in a closed room-- with, because he was still trying to get passed kindergarten himself. His Christian father had taught him sodomite ways of expressing affection: which he attempted to further pass- on to yous truly. From there, it's a long story, and one my stomach would rather I didn't elaborate on. Suffice to say, I never observed anyone living morally until I attended public education. Even there, my Mother did all she could to poison the water.

It surprises me, in retrospect therefore, that it should have taken so long to understand what Audrey meant by 'broken to serve God.' To be fair to myself, however: 'Brokeback Mountain' was still some years in the future when Audrey shared her prayer for me with me; and the vernacular of queerdom has always been "all Greek" and unknown to me, in spite of my pious upbringing. But there's the rub.

Christians believe Lot was "righteous [2 Peter 2:7 & 8]" to save the sodomites of Zoar, and the children of Confusion (that is to say, Israel) were justified in saving the remnant of the sodomites of Benjamin [Judges 21]. I've witnessed Christian preachers loudly and proudly proclaiming from their pulpits, that: if you don't begin as a devil, you can't end as a born- again Christian; implying-- or, rather, admitting-- that their 'God' has no children he hasn't stolen from another. My own eldest sibling is exceeding proud of being "depraved; saved; and eternally great- full."

Existentially, it's clear to me: the God and Father of Jesus of Nazareth is the King of Sodom's kings; Jesus is his man- boy- loving Sonshine; and Mount Zion is Brokeback, en toto; and I could never serve such a broken God and family.

Prayer request denied, Mommy. I hope it's exceeding warm and dry where you're at, and that I never see you again, you Baal- dike cunt. In my own name I pray: Amen.