IT IS ILLEGAL. THAT IS THE POINT ABOUT ALIENS. IT IS ILLEGAL. It DOES NOT MATTER that they are “only seeking a better life for themselves”.... IS THAT NOT WHAT CRIMINALS DO BY MURDERING AND ROBBING OTHER PEOPLE? It is no surprise that 40% of the over 2 million prisoners in the US are ILLEGALS....
The new Amazon-like store called Jet had advertised on a home page:
"Many parents can't afford diapers: Learn how you can help."
My answer to this:
THEN THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BABIES. People on welfare have no right to reproduce. That is a luxury of people who actually work and earn a living. If they were not immoral thieves, they could afford diapers, if they did not selfishly spend their money on new cars, computers, flat screen t.v.s, cable, going out to movies, restaurants, buying food other than the necessities (beans, rice, potatoes, etc., that you cook yourself; not tv dinners, box meals, chips, candy, cereal, soda, etc.), cell phones, ipads, tablets, mp3 players, game-boys, stereos, riding mowers, air conditioners, going on vacations, playing the lottery, beer, tobacco, etc. All those things are not God-given, Constitutional rights--they are luxuries rightfully enjoyed solely by those who earn a living. They shouldn't have babies if they rely on robbing tax-payers to pay for their pre-natal, birthing, and post-birthing medical expenses and to then have the taxpayers pay for those babies through adulthood. It is GRAND THEFT and subversion, the giving of our wealth and nation to another people, so that they can reproduce, outnumber, and then unconstitutionally outvote us in our own land. Clearly, they are irresponsible, and have no right to have children and should be deported to their nation of origin and they can go back to living in mud huts and then they will learn that they can easily afford a cloth diaper and they will have plenty of time to wash the diaper by hand in a local mud hole without a computer or tv or cell phone to take up so much of their time.
If they weren't lazy, they would buy cloth diapers and soak them in bleach and wash them in soap and water like civilized people did for 2 centuries (and for millennia before that, before bleach was invented), until the modern irresponsible age of buying plastic diapers and throwing them in a landfill because they the majority of people are too lazy and irresponsible to be good stewards before God.
Do you buy a car if you can't afford gasoline? do you buy a dog or cat if you can't afford to feed it? It really is amazing that people who believe in evolution violate left and right the foundational principle of their religion: "survival of the fittest". Likewise, hating God, they help those not fit to survive, to survive in violation of God's Law of the harvest ("you reap what you sow"; those who sow nothing by God's Law, will reap nothing, and die out).
The rules for helping those in need, according to Scripture, are not indiscriminate. Only those BELIEVERS who live godly lives, who have been faithful in church, are deserving of help. This is the "Divine insurance policy" practiced traditionally for centuries by the Amish, Mennonites, Dutch Boers of South Africa, and other God-fearing folk. The "down payment" and "monthly premiums" are paid by faithfully chipping in and helping all other godly kinsmen in the community when they are in need. If the down payment and premiums are never paid, then when tragedy strikes, he is not to be helped. You reap what you sow--GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED. In such a situation God is seeing to it that such a base individual reaps what he has sown (nothing good). To help him (without any signs of his true repentance, and an appropriate amount of time for him to demonstrate real fruit) is a sin against God.
Those who live godlessly, who not only have not been faithful in the church-community and who have not been faithful in helping other kinsmen-believers who may be in need (who qualify for help)... do NOT qualify for help. Such persons probably never go to church (or if they do, it is to a "feel-good" church and they sleep through the aura-fluffing sermonette-lite, plunk a tiny token of a donation in the plate, sing a hymn, and think that they are spiritual and God is delighted in them)... such are not worthy of help and it is a violation of God's Word to help them. How will they ever learn without hardship, if they neglect to learn in the midst of blessings?
Not only are kinsmen-believers who live godlessly disqualified from receiving help from the church and brethren, but so are all aliens from whom God commanded us to be separate and to not seek their peace or prosperity FOREVER. God NEVER commanded us to "build our enemies up" so that they could then destroy us. He commanded the very opposite. They have their gods—let their gods deliver them from their troubles (whether flood, famine, tribal warfare, or not being able to afford diapers). Let the world take care of its own. It is COMMUNISM to tax everyone to pay for those unfit to live so that they can continue to breed more of the themselves. There are plenty of communist nations, let those who like that form of government PICK ONE AND MOVE TO IT. I refuse to participate in communism and I never will give my consent to be so ruled or to support such evil.
Furthermore, if the corrupt government elite did not rob the people of their hard-earned money--which is theirs and no one elses--then the poorest of our kinsmen could afford diapers; especially if they did not frivolously waste their money on luxuries, foolishly thinking those things are necessities. Here's a hint: If our ancestors lived without certain things for centuries, milliennia, THEY ARE NOT NECESSITIES. While life is CERTAINLY a lot more pleasant, and easy, and comfortable with many of the inventions of modern society, they are not necessities, but luxuries and if someone wants either necessities or luxuries it is his responsibility to WORK HIS BUTT OFF so that he and his family can have them. I've put in 80 to 90 hour weeks for the past 28 years (while also observing the Sabbath, but still serving God by writing and research and preaching and teaching). Most anyone who is a success has done the same thing or close to it. Those who become successful in bettering themselves don't work a mere 40-hour week and watch tv and play the rest of the time--and those who work only 40 hours a week or who don't work at all have no excuse and deserve no sympathy.
The Welfare State has one purpose: to destroy Christendom and steal it and give it to our enemies.
Finally, if some of the antichrist aliens unlawfully among us would take the diapers off their heads and put them on their babies, then indeed they could afford diapers and if they would have fewer babies, there would be more diapers to go around.
"We ought always pray to God to give us discerning eyes to see reality, no matter how unpleasant it may be; to look for the best in others and for a way to help draw it out, if there; to have a heart that forgives the worst (though requiring repentance and responsibility); to have a mind that forgets the offense, while remembering the lesson; to have a spirit free of bitterness and full of compassion; to have integrity that hates evil and loves righteousness; and to have a soul that never loses faith in God and thirsts after Him like the deer for the cool forest brooks—even when it seems that they have all run dry.”
"Each day that I do not make a conscious effort to become more like Christ—to by God's Grace be more conformed into the Image of His Son—has been a wasted day of my life."
Robert Alan Balaicius
my thoughts concerning the video link at the end. Robert
Fairly good presentation, but the thinking is off.
it is not the myth of authority... it is the myth that government servants are that authority. The authority and all rights are inherent in the people (not just any people, the lawful inhabitants; and a fraud is void ab initio; for instance, if a spurious king was put on the throne of England and no one realized it for 150 years, that illegitimate king's descendents would never be lawful kings and it immoral, according to natural and Divine law, to merely turn a blind eye and say, "oh well, they've been our kings for 150 years, what difference does it make?" IT DOES make a difference in terms of TRUTH and MORALITY and HOLINESS; such an immoral, anti-intellectual attitude CONDONES IMMORALITY, FRAUD, DECEIT, CONSPIRACY; there is no statue of limitations on illegitimacy).
All rights are inherent in the true, legitimate people, and all government exists solely to serve those people and protect their God-given rights. The pathology of the problem is man's sinfulness, delusion, and irrational immorality in thinking that he is free and not in subjection to God. Since man has rejected God as his head, the Law of the harvest comes into play and therefore our public servants, likewise, throw off the yoke of their true masters and consider themselves to be the boss. The only remedy is for the people to repent before God, and then judge their public servants for High Treason.
Another gaping flaw is that since this person is presumably nonChristian, she points out that morality is derived from knowing the difference between right and wrong and doing what is right, but she does not declare WHAT the SOURCE of morality is; and all morality is derived from the WORD OF GOD and those who do not recognize the Bible as the Standard of Morality are IMMORAL, regardless of how deludedly they flatter themselves.
Ye are not your own, ye are a bought with a price. Murder / assault is not wrong because it violates the self-ownership of the victim (which also overlooks/ignores/contradicts Scripture concerning the ownership of wives, children, slaves) but because Adam was created in God's Image and murder of humans is an assault against the Image of God, and it is also disobedience to God in that He forbade murder, theft, injuring another, etc.
Sadly, this is where the secular humanists spin their wheels in the mud and are but one step from the immoral people whom they oppose. All "social(ist)" programs are derived from the same "fuzzy morality" which changes every day. Now the homo-pervert issue. Do those perverts have the right to be perverse? If each person is his own god, yes. However, if each person is his own god, then there is no need to respect other gods, and thus raping or murdering someone else is fine and the law of the jungle applies to those deluded with self-godhood. There will always be some self-proclaimed gods stronger than others, and there of course will be good gods and bad gods. Shakespeare said, "A rose called by any other name still smells as sweet". However, it seems a corollary to that is "Just because you call a rose by another name does not make it non-rose or that other thing". Calling individual humans "gods" does not change reality, it only skews the twisted misperception of those who deludedly believe that they are gods. To claim each is a god, then one must determine where each god's territory / jurisdiction begins and ends. Why do some Donald-Trump-gods have billions of dollars and vast real estate, while others can barely keep the rented one-room apartment under their feet? Are such gods equal? What is the proof of it? If a small percentage of the gods eventually own all the property, where are the majority of the other gods to live? Do they then not live at the mercy of those other gods? If they do, how are they equal? Morality does not originate with man; it ends with man irrationally believing that it begins with man... like 5-year olds PLAYING "house" or "doctor"... it truly is laughable to an adult watching, but in their minds, those 5-year olds really think it is real. So it is with those who delude themselves with thinking they are gods. Therefore, the only utopia they will ever enjoy is the fantasy in their own minds, and then they hypocritically get mad and are intolerant with other gods who will not abandon reality and enjoy their fantasy with them.
She also does not realize that observing an illegitimate "law" is NOT obedience; it is immoral cowardly compliance. To therefore speak in terms of obedience or obeying it to give undue legitimacy in the minds of some, to that which is illegitimate.
The notion of resisting illegitimate authority/power is indeed true, the notion of not obeying them again, is a mine-field of double-talk because it assumes a nexus in which someone is duti-bound to obey. It is an illusion and a fraud. When do masters (legitimate people, not imported aliens to supplant the true heirs) have to obey their servants (government)...? Why do servants (elected officials) LIVE BETTER than and at the expense of their masters? It is no wonder that the corrupt illegitimate government is wanting to raise minimum wage to an unheard of $15/hour... because the roles have been reversed and the slaves are acting like the masters and forcing the masters to act as slaves... even as God prophesied if we forsook HIS LAW. Raising minimum wage to $15 an hour will further destroy the middle class, which, once destroyed, all will be declared slaves on the Federal Plantation and there will be no minimum wage or welfare (which are socialist tools to destroy society), each will be forced to work and the masters will out of the kindness of their heart allow their slaves to keep maybe 5-10%. That's another reason aliens have been imported... to dumb down, reduce morals, destroy the host blood, and produce an easy to control drone slave labor class for whom socialism is appealing since it is based on anti-intellectual lies, promises heaven (though it delivers hell), caters to irresponsible people, makes all "equal" so they feel better about their own worthlessness, and such masses are easy to control, since any individual who arises to stir them up is rounded up and carted away for "reprogramming" and rarely ever returns. Many businesses will fold, being unable to pay workers $15 an hour AND HEALTH INSURANCE. The only loophole may be to hire someone as "day labor" or as an independent contractor". Regardless, the price of all goods and services will sky-rocket, robbing the middle class of the little they have left, and then there will be only the superrich and the abject poor who will be happy for any crust of bread thrown to them, after those who object are allowed to starve to death or be SWATTED.
Again, the major flaw is recognizing a Source of Morality in man himself. Tolerance, then, is not a virtue, but immorality itself, when that tolerance is of evil and perversion that God has forbidden. This is a concept alien to people who are blinded by their own self-godhood, while deludedly complementing themselves on their liberalism by being tolerant of others based upon their own skewed notions of what constitutes morality and what constitutes individual rights. According to legitimate natural law, in order for there to be a crime there must be a corpus delecti (injured party--TRULY injured, not imaginary) and mens rhea (criminal intent to so injure). However, secular humanists leave God out of the picture entirely, and thus they do not realize that all sin is first, foremost, and ultimately against God and He is the injured party because He commanded THOU SHALT NOT and THUS SHALT THOU DO. Thus, much of what secular humanists believe to be perfectly acceptable behavior by consenting adults who do not injure anyone else, and that such should be tolerated because it is their right since they own their persons, is IMMORAL because it ignores God. Thus, a woman thinks she owns her body and has the right to murder a fetus, if enough women get together and enough lame-brain men join with them in voting to "give" women ownership of their own bodies and if they vote to determine exactly what constitutes life, and if they strip the husband father of all his God-ordained right in the matter. And they deludedly fancy themselves with being so progressively moral.
The thinking and study of such persons (though their intentions admirable for trying to stand up for what they misguidedly believe is right) is woefully deficient, like blind spots in the driver's seat of a car, like someone who has sustained a brain injury, there are "dead spots" and they are completely unaware of this reality, thinking they understand something when they do not; and therefore, it is the blind leading the blind. It is admirable that the blind want to lead the blind out of slavery, but when they are leading them toward the grand canyon, it will not end well, though they may in fact die free.
It again is mis-speaking to call it "so-called authority" as if authority itself is a bad word or concept. The issue is ILLEGITIMATE, FRAUDULENT INORDINATE POWER MASQUERADING AS AUTHORITY. The authority of a self-manufactured badge and title and a fully loaded gun, is what the majority of Illegitimate authority/government is.
I only watched half-way, with dial up, though there is some good thought, it is like a blind grab bag in which one thing is valid and other things are useless. I stopped where she shows her ignorance concerning the Nuremberg trials, which respected persons from all sides declared to be a kangaroo court filled with fraud and lies to "prove" what they wanted the world to believe was reality.
Quotes from A Greater Miracle than the Lost Ten Tribes Discovered....
Of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, Veale quipped that “the most serious war crime is to be on the losing side.” He explained,
“The Tribunal claimed in theory the right—it certainly had the power—to declare any act a war-crime. But it interpreted Article 6 of the Charter creating it, as excluding from its consideration any act committed by the victorious powers. As a consequence any act proved to have been committed by the victorious powers could not be declared by the Tribunal a war-crime. For this reason, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians which had indisputably been initiated by Great Britain was excluded from consideration as a war crime by the Tribunal.”
Miscellaneous Quotes on the Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal
“[The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles and procedures. The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged. Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience.” —Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D.
“No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle.” —U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (1898-1980)
“I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world... I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty... This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein.” —Edgar N. Eisenhower (1889-1971; Attorney and brother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower)
“I was from the beginning very unhappy about the Nuremberg trials... the weak points of such trials are obvious: they are trials of the vanquished by the victors instead of by an impartial tribunal; futhermore the trials are only of the crimes committed by the vanquished, and the fact that the Katyn massacre of Polish officers was never properly investigated casts doubt on the conduct of such trials.” —T.S. Eliot (1888-1965; American author and poet)
“I shall always have doubts about the whole ‘War Crimes Trials,’ both in Germany and in Japan. I am unable to understand how one can try an officer for obeying orders or for doing his duty. It makes no difference what flag he fights under. To me, the War Crimes Trials of Nuremberg and elsewhere are one illustration of the greatest danger of our times: mass pressure based largely on little information and perilously close to mass hysteria.” —George B. Fowler, Ph.D. (Professor of History, University of Pittsburgh)
“My opinion always has been that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were acts of vengeance. War is a political and not a legal act, and if at the termination of a war, should it be considered that certain of the enemy’s leaders are politically too dangerous to be left at large, then, as Napoleon was, they should be banished to some island. To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug.” —Major General John Frederick Charles Fuller, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O. (1878-1966; British)
“This kangaroo court at Nuremburg was officially known as the ‘International Military Tribunal.’ That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians.... At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges’ seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it.” —Rear Admiral, Daniel Vincent Gallery (United States)
“It was clear from the outset that a death sentence would be pronounced against me, as I have always regarded the trial as a purely political act by the victors, but I wanted to see this trial through for my people’s sake and I did at least expect that I should not be denied a soldier’s death. Before God, my country, and my conscience I feel myself free of the blame that an enemy tribunal has attached to me.” —Reichsmarschall Hermann Wilhelm Göring (1893-1946)
“The designation and definition by the London Charter of the so-called crimes with which the defendants were charged, after such so-called offenses were committed, clearly violated the well-established rule against ex post facto legislation in criminal matters. The generally accepted doctrine is expressed in the [Latin] adage: “Nullum Crimen Sine Lege”—a person cannot be sentenced to punishment for a crime unless he had infringed a law in force at the time he committed the offense and unless that law prescribed the penalty. Courts in passing on this proposition had declared that: “It is to be observed that this maxim is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is a general principle of justice adhered to by all civilized nations. In my opinion, there was no legal justification for the trial, conviction, or sentence of the so-called “war criminals” by the Nuremberg Tribunal. We have set a bad precedent. It should not be followed in the future. —William L. Hart, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio [Brackets mine.]
“The Nuremberg Trials... had been popular throughout the world and particularly in the United States. Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high tribunal: death. But what kind of trial was this?... The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice and [Robert] Taft was repelled by the picture of his country discarding those Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy.” —President, John F. Kennedy
“It is not right to bring to trial officers or men who have acted under orders from higher authority... The most brutal act of the War was the dropping of the Atom Bombs on Japan... I consider it wrong to try Admirals, Generals, and Air Marshals for carrying out definite orders from the highest authority... the Allies were far from guiltless and should have taken that into fuller consideration.” —Admiral of the Fleet, Alfred Ernle Montacute, Lord Chatfield, P.C., G.C.B. (1873-1967)
[I disagree that military men should not be punished for following orders. I do believe that such punishment should be consistently enforced on all. The principles of the Common Law and the U.S. Constitution clearly defend the supposition that an illegal, wrong, immoral “law” or any such order from a superior, is, in essence, nonexistant and need not be obeyed. This does open the door for disobeying of orders, but that is the same principle upon which all American jurisprudence was initially based: What is right. If there were more Michael News, there would be fewer wars.]
“I could never accept the Nuremberg Trials as representing a fair and just procedure.” —Dr. Igor I. Sikorsky (1889-1972; Ukrainian-born Polish aviation pioneer)
“About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we shall long regret.” —Senator Robert A. Taft
“To me the Nuremberg trials have always been totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty on justice. This is especially true when such trials are used to punish the men of the military services who were directing those services in time of war, and thus giving nothing more than an expression of the basic purposes of their whole adult life. In the execution of their wartime duties, these officers naturally carried out, to the letter, the orders and directions which they received from the head of their government. If an officer... should ever, for one instant, consider disregard or disobedience to his government’s orders, all cohesion in the military services would fail, from that moment, and the military sevices would fail in the one reason for their existence—the waging of successful war in the interests of their country.” —Rear Admiral Robert Alfred Theobald (1884-1957; United States)
“My conclusion is that the entire program of War Crimes Trials, either by International Courts, the members of which comprise those of the victorious nations, or by Military Courts of a single victor nation is basically without legal or moral authority... The fact remains that the victor nations in World War II, while still at fever heat of hatred for an enemy nation, found patriots of the enemy nation guilty for doing their patriotic duty. This is patently unlawful and immoral. One of the most shameful incidents connected with the War Crimes Trials prosecutions has to do with the investigations and the preparation of the cases for trial. The records of trials which our Commission examined disclosed that a great majority of the official investigators, employed by the United States Government to secure evidence and to locate defendants, were persons with a preconceived dislike for these enemy aliens, and their conduct was such that they resorted to a number of illegal, unfair, and cruel methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt and to secure accusations by defendants against other defendants. In fact, in the Malmedy case, the only evidence before the court, upon which the convictions and sentences were based, consisted of the statements and testimony of the defendants themselves. The testimony of one defendant against another was secured by subterfuge, false promises of immunity, and by mock trials and threats.” —Colonel, Honorable Edward Leroy Van Roden (President Judge from Pennsylvania; Chief of Military Justice, Division of European Theatre)
[Van Roden reported that interrogation “techniques” used by American officials during the Nuremberg trials were: beatings, brutal kickings, knocking out of teeth, breaking of jaws, and withholding of food.]
------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k4pXwmis7A
[Please note: my use of FULL CAPS is not to be considered shouting; it is simply easier to use in email (at least, with my email program) than italics; even if I write the email in another medium and dump it into an email, all the boldface, underlining, italics, etc. is lost; so FULL CAPS are merely for emphasis, not shouting.]
Someone is reading my booklet, So, You Call Yourself A Christian... (80pp., 5.50 + P&H), which shows that God’s Law was not abolished, and primarily thereafter shows that Peter’s Vision had nothing to do with abolishing the dietary laws. He emailed with some questions concerning how the average Christian thinks, and my replies are interspersed among his questions / comments.
----------------------
Other person:
For years I have wondered about the meaning of the vision of the sheet coming down from Heaven, full of unclean animals. What puzzles me is this—and please understand that I am playing a sort of “Devil’s advocate” role here. I do not have any fixed opinions on the meaning of the vision. The work of the potter, as described in Jeremiah 18:1-6, was started when the northern tribes went into captivity. Perhaps 750 years later, a major turning point was reached. God had sifted the House of Israel through the nations, and had allowed the corrupted family lines in each tribe to die out, or become hopelessly mixed with the pagans. But the vessels of honor had been preserved, along with SOME of the “bad guys”, and now they were being positioned to receive the promised Messiah... or, in some cases, to join with the Edomites, etc., in rejecting Him. Prior to this time, it would have been unacceptable for the Judah/Benjamin remnant to mingle with them. It is not clear whether they knew that these people were Israelites; but, whether or not they did, it was now time for these Judah and Benjamite peoples to learn to broaden their horizons and accept that which had been unacceptable. GOD did not change, but his work as a potter had changed His people, Israel, and now His task was to get the “elder son” (of the parable) to change his attitudes and ideas.
----------------------
My reply/comment:
This all is utterly irrelevant as concerning the perpetuity of God’s Law and God’s Immutability. Morality does not change. That is the entire problem with true Israel (the true peoples of Christendom, literally descended from Biblical Israel) in blindness, modernly thinking that God changes. If He changes or changes morality in one area, what is to cause anyone to think He won’t change another also? and thus race mixing is now considered “wonderful” by the entire Apostate church and homo-perversion is now considered “wonderful” by a large percentage of the Apostate church. It is hard to categorize or define the “Christian Church” since the majority of it is utterly Apostate and not of God and not Christian, and the tiny percentage of that which is Christian, is not much better, as they have embraced the way of the heathen, and embraced the heathen, and in blindness, reject God by rejecting His Standard of Holiness: His Law for His people. If God changes in one area He is not Immutable. God declared, “I am Yahweh and I change not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed”. God’s Immutability is our hope! He commanded “Be holy as I am Holy”—and therefore, our Standard of Morality cannot change because His does not change (and we cannot be holy as He is Holy if the “standard” for us changed, but the Standard for Him did not change). A Standard does not change. True Law does not change. Standards are corrupted and true Law is departed from. That which is dark, evil, immoral, sinful, abominable never becomes light, good, moral, righteous, or wholesome.
As an example, here is an excerpt from an unbelievable email that someone sent to me, from someone who had sent it to him... incomprehensibly coming from a PASTOR; if he is a pastor (he should be put out to pasture, or sent directly to the glue factory—or cast to the wolves, since that’s what he appears to be), he clearly is a Baal priest or an apostate pagan idol priest like Micah.
“I was talking to a pastor the other day ... He told me that morality was subjective and open to interpretation. Example: years ago woman wore long dresses now barely covers their bottoms. Woman used to be ashamed of being pregnant without a husband—today we give them daycare in high school and baby showers. A man can cheat on his wives write about it in a book and we are now going to elect him president; whereas in the past he at least did not flaunt it. A person can lie to your face and the next day deny it and be elected for president. He told me that I was trying to live in a modern world with outdated values. And that I will continue to be depressed if I can’t find a way to be accepting of today’s “morals”. I question his use of the word "morality" as there seems to be none and it is now an obsolete word and should be removed from the dictionary.”
This is the APOSTATE Church. This is a “pastor” (or rather, “sheep-shearer who is in league with the wolves and the slaughterhouse!) who has never done any true Bible study on his own and who does not understand simple logic—and who is unregenerate, unconverted, and evil. This is a pastor who was merely produced off the seminary assembly line (if he ever even took a Bible course in college or through mail order, or was merely a plumber and realized that there has to be an easier way to make a living without working so hard) and he cannot think outside the Apostate seminarial trough (or he does not want to—he likes the steady stream of rotten slop).
True believers SHOULD BE depressed and offended. RIGHTEOUS LOT WAS VEXED with the evil of "his day". God did not expect Lot to "roll with the punches" and "go with the flow" and "interface" with modern notions of (im)morality and loosen his tie and let his hair down. THIS IS AN APOSTATE PASTOR, a FALSE PROPHET.
----------------------
Other person:
What I don’t understand is this: God gave Peter the vision of the sheet, not to deal with food, but, rather, to deal with the need to experience an attitude adjustment. Thus, most people seem to think that Peter had to be given a parallel experience in regard to food—since, after all (SUPPOSEDLY!), Jesus had (Mark 7:19) “purged all meats”, making all “foods” clean. Now, He also said that previously forbidden people were “clean”. (I DO understand that the NIV translation of Mark 7:19, which adds to the KJV rendition of this verse, has caused terrible misunderstanding, as Jesus was merely referring to the digestive processes, and NOT to any change in the nature of pigs, etc.! But the usual understanding is that the dietary laws were abolished.)
----------------------
My reply/comment:
The “usual” understanding is completely erroneous and unbiblical! And no, it has nothing to do with “digestion”. Christ’s teaching had nothing to do with its manifest content, but its latent content—even as “beware of the leaven of the pharisees” had nothing to do with not having procured bread, as the confused disciples imagined. Likewise, Christ would have called the majority of the mainstream Christian Church today, “Fools and slow of heart (mind) to understand the Scriptures”. Peter’s Vision had nothing to do with food. Christ’s discourse had nothing to do with food. He wasn’t giving an Ann Landers or Martha Stewart column on dining etiquette.
As I explain in my S. T. E. Commentary on Romans (800pp., pb., 40.00 + P&H), Paul says to those with understanding “ALL THINGS THAT ARE LAWFUL are lawful to me”. God’s Word will not contradict Itself. Only a fool thinks that this is referring to things that God forbade us to eat. Christ was not talking about specific forbidden unclean animals, but talking about the pharisees obsessive-compulsive handwashing, which they attempted to interject into the Law of God. If the sheet that God had let down in Peter’s Vision had been full of naked women who were other men’s wives and God said, “Live it up!” only the most-depraved minded “Christian” would think that is really what God was telling Peter to do, rather than teaching by a lesson; like when the Prophet Nathan told David about the Israelite with one sheep, who was his best friend and his wealthy neighbor with thousands of sheep stole and killed and ate that neighbor’s one little beloved lamb. The story had shock value—but it was not the story itself, but had a deeper meaning! Children can’t see the deeper meaning; they only see the lights and the puppet show and think the puppets are real! So it is with most “Christians” who have never matured and still have childish minds. Paul said that when he became a man he put away childish things and stopped babbling like an infant. “Christians” would do well to do the same.
Paul did NOT imply that eating a ham sandwich, murder, a homo relationship, or worshipping a false god would have been lawful for him. Those who think so reveal that they are yet UNREGENERATE. The problem is the modern Christian is lobotomized and cannot comprehend simple logic and he cannot understand the Scriptures because the Scriptures must be spiritually discerned and he is CARNAL and SOLD UNDER SIN and UNCONVERTED. Christ was not talking about food in general. He was not talking about food. He was talking about unwashed hands but only to the extent to expose the pharisees fraud!
[I remember an Ann Landers column from the newspaper years ago, that someone read to me, as I have never read a newspaper in my life... I believe the rough feel and the dirty ink that comes off on your hands as you read in indicative of the value of the content. Regardless, someone asked her, “Is it proper etiquette to eat fried chicken with my fingers?” She replied, “No, eat the chicken first, and your fingers afterwards”. Thus, humorously by comparative logic, Christ was not saying that you could eat unclean animals, but that you could eat your hands even if you had not washed them.]
Christ was referring to the Pharisees’ neurotic obsessive-compulsive disorder (due to their guilty consciences and unconfessed sin) that caused them to go through endless rituals of hand washing, especially before eating. Christ’s comments had NOTHING to do with meat, or food. On the surface, it had to do with what you eat (which would only be clean animals) WITH UNWASHED hands. If your hands were clean to begin with they do not need another washing out of neurotic ritual being imposed upon you. Christ similarly had told Peter at the footwashing before the Last Supper that he who is clean does not need his whole body washed, just his feet. So Christ was NOT talking about eating with unwashed hands if you had just been cleaning out your sceptic tank, or mucking out the cattle stall, or if you had just cleaned up vomit. He was talking about people whose hands were actually clean because they had not done anything to defile them. Clearly, those whose hands are truly filthy don’t need an invitation or reminder to wash their hand before they eat. But if someone’s hands are clean, he does not need to wash his hands due to some pharisaic ritual and the little bacteria that is on them is no different than the bacteria in the air, and that little amount is easily neutralized by the gastro-intestinal fluids. But, as we shall see, this was not really the main teaching.
[Of course, in today's society full of aliens, third-world (and CDC laboratory-created) diseases, and homo-perverts washing ones hands before one eats anytime that one has been in public is a good idea... (as is washing and sterilizing ones hands once one gets into his car, where he can keep such sterilizing handwipes; because you don’t want to stick a finger in your mouth or nose after touching something that had been touched by some filthy person. Everyone should be an “amateur” germaphobe if you want to be healthy in today’s polluted society, anytime after having been in public around people whom you don’t know. Parents don’t raise their children properly; the savages just ignore them live wolves or swine do, and let their snotty nosed offspring touch or slobber over everything in a store. Washing your hands before eating and after any contact with people, grocery carts, doors, passing money, shaking hands, etc., is a good idea—not in an obsessive-compulsive way, but simply as good preventative. However, they did not have these issues in Christ’s day (or even in our nations 100 years ago). In fact, even when I was in my early teens, and knew nothing, when I saw undesireable people 20 feet ahead of me, walking toward me on the sidewalk in the city, I would take a deep breath a few feet before they came close, and I would then hold it while walking until I could not hold it any longer. Sadly, in society as it is now 40 years after that time, there would be no time to take a breath!]
BUT Christ’s actual—not the superficial “container” [service tray] of the conversation, but the contents of the container—the real teaching was NOT about washing dirty hands. That was merely the “springboard to the true lesson”, which was moral-spiritual cleansing (clean the inside of the platter—the heart—not merely the outside) and the utter corruption of the Pharisees. Even as Christ, when He warned of the Pharisee’s leaven, was not talking about bread (though the disciples—having not heard the story from their childhood into adulthood—did not understand that Christ was speaking figuratively).
Christ kept the Law perfectly in all things—to show us how to keep it, so only a brain-dead Christian (the most-common kind) would think that Christ abolished ANY part of the Law—especially since Christ Himself declared NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE would pass from the Law, and that He did NOT come to destroy the Law.
The Law is perfect. Man’s sinfulness is the problem (which Hebrews 8:8 tells us, “finding fault with THEM”—God’s people who are all born with a sin nature; the problem was not the Law).
That which is immoral NEVER BECOMES “Moral”... once a person FINALLY REALIZES THIS simple truth he will realize that many other “questions” (or false interpretations) concerning such Scriptures are SMOKESCREENS and indicative of spiritual delusion.
Sinful Christians (even those who delude themselves into thinking that they are not sinful, but that they are “spiritual”*) eagerly choose the LEAST-LIKELY and MOST-ABSURD possible interpretation of such passages, because they are carnal and they are eager to jump at the opportunity to declare their God to be mutable and imperfect while at the same time indulging in the sin that they so love, because they have no concept of holiness and have no desire to be holy. Rather than seeing how close to God they can get, they see how close to the line of sin they can get without technically stepping over it (all the while, moving the line farther and farther away from God when they think that He is not looking).
[* —like the phone conversation that I once had with a “Christian” who has some popular youtubes on natural gardening. He was an over-emotionally voiced person who spoke every word as if it was deluxe milk chocolate with caramel. I mentioned something about God’s Law and agriculture and the dietary laws and he replied, “You know what, I once wondered about that and I asked God about it and you know what He told me...?” I closed my eyes and sighed, “oh no”. He continued, “You don’t have to worry about any of that any more; that was only for those other people way back then.” I did not pursue the conversation any further because the guy was clearly pentecostal or holiness or something, who did not understand even the basics of the Bible or logic or the nature of God—and he did not even have a clue that his simple statement violated it all and reduced the Word of God to nonsense. He also thought that God spoke to him, even though God said that He would never do so to anyone—not even His chosen prophets—after Moses himself.]
----------------------
Other person:
My question, then, is: Why give Peter a vision which SEEMS to tell him to accept new ideas and practices about food, when in fact it does not really mean this?
----------------------
My reply/comment:
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT “seem” to say that, except to a person who does not understand the most basic truths of Scripture, and thus he should not even be reading the Bible, but be sitting on someone’s lap having Bible “stories” read to him to “entertain” him, until hopefully, one day he matures to the point that he can actually understand truth, rather than children’s stories: once he has progressed from baby food, to adult food. It is also possible that God purposely obscured the Scriptures because the truth is only meant for His elect to know. But this is not rocket science. The problem is minds polluted with false notions. No one reading these chapters of the Book of Acts would come to the conclusion that God abolished the dietary laws—and especially not if they had read the Old Testament and the Gospels! Only a fool would read one random chapter of a book, or rent a movie and start the movie in the middle and watch 10 minutes, and then close the book or turn the movie off and conclude, “well, there it is: That is how the book / movie ends”. But that is the stupidity that the average Christian employs in his “understanding” of the Scriptures—something that he does not even understand. The average Christian’s understanding of the Scriptures can be likened to being familiar with certain cartoons on t.v. When he sees one, he declares, “Oh, this is a good one; I’ve seen it before”. But if he has only seen 12 cartoons out of an integrated (that it, intimately connected in their meaning) series of 2,000 cartoons, how well does he really understand the intent of the entire collection? —not at all!
[The Bible is not to be interpreted in light of modern delusion and sinful practices and polluted ideas, but in light of exactly what it meant when God gave it. Our churches (“ecclesiastical day-cares”) and Christians are as handicapped in this area, as the state and all citizens are with the Constitution. They interpret the Constitution as a fluid document, a blasphemous lie of a “living, breathing, changing” document. Jefferson said that the Constitution was NOT to be interpreted in light of modern ideas, but according to the SPIRIT OF THE DEBATES WHEN IT WAS ESTABLISHED! Our church and state are corrupt and on the verge of extinction for the the same reason: perverting the Standard in light of modern sinfulness and polluted ideas—the main purpose of which is to destroy both the true Christian Church and our Christian Republic and enslave everyone.]
God does not change. Morality does not change. That which is an abomination never becomes wholesome. This is beyond simplistic once one realizes the simple truth of Scripture. Maybe someone who has only read the Bible once in his entire life may make such an infantile false association (that is, that “morality changes”), but if someone (like ministers and Bible “experts” who have read the Bible HUNDREDS of times—or should have) cannot see such simple logic, then God has blinded his eyes and those who follow him will fall headlong into the same pit.
NO ONE in Peter’s day would have thought that God was suggesting that He was giving Peter “new ideas and practices”—especially ones that violated and contradicted God’s established, unchanging Law—NO ONE. The reason “Christians” do today, is because their minds are polluted by the world, they are in blindness, and their darkened hearts actually WANT to believe the opposite of the true interpretation because they love their sin. Rather than asking God to remove their blindness, they demand that darkness be called “light”.
The eating of unclean animals is an ABOMINATION and we make ourselves ABOMINABLE when we do so. God COULD NOT change that into something wholesome any more than He could make HOMO-PERVERSION wholesome, normal, or holy.* The issue again is the same in both church and state. The method is dumbing down the populace and lowering the bar on the high jump, to the point that the bar is flat on the ground and even a cripple can belly crawl across it. God said WOE unto those who call evil ‘good’ and good ‘evil’, who substitute darkness for light and bitterness for sweetness—and that applies to dietary laws, race-mixing, homo-perversion and EVERY SINGLE OTHER LAW that God commanded, “THOU SHALT NOT” or “THIS THOU SHALT DO”.
[* Understand: This is not to infer that God has limitations. Again, that is a defective perspective. I am sure you have heard the age-old skeptic’s question, “Can God make a rock so big that He can’t lift it?” Do you know what the answer is? —God is not obligated to enter man’s delusions with him. That is, God cannot do anything that is outside or in contradiction with His Own Nature, because He is Perfect and Immutable. God is not as He is because He was “born that way” and had no control over it. God is Master of His Universe—including Himself and He is as He is because He has so determined that is the only Way to be—Perfect. To not be able to do something contrary to His Nature (or to the reality that He established based upon the Laws of Logic) is not a fault or failure or limitation on God’s part. It is His being True to His Nature and the failure is in the mind of the human who thinks he is so clever that he can think up something that God cannot do. God will not violate the Law of Contradiction. Something cannot be “something specific” and “something not specific” at the same time. A cat cannot be a cat and “non-cat” at the same time in the same way. A cat can’t be a cat and a dog at the same time. Those who blow spiritual milk bubbles (while making a spiritual stinker in their diaper) and think it is clever would do better to study the Philosophy of Logic and learn how to think correctly.]
Peter realized that God was not asking Peter to violate His Dietary Law. As I explain in my booklet, that is why Peter was confused. Notice also that Peter did not awake from the dream and go out and have a pork roast! Peter was perplexed and later THE MEANING of the vision came to him—and Peter knew the meaning was not the abolishment of the dietary laws!
----------------------
Other person:
Since God wanted to get Peter to adopt some new ideas, why did he provide him a vision which, despite appearances to the contrary, focused on something which did NOT change?
----------------------
My reply/comment:
Again, God did not want Peter to “adopt new ideas”. That is like carrying someone else’s luggage into God’s room at a hotel and saying, “Here are Your bags, God”. Those are not Biblical ideas; they are not in the text; those are polluted notions that you have been taught and you approach the passage with spurious preconceived ideas and that of course results in confusion. That’s like someone being taught his whole life that 1 + 2 = 2. Then, years later when he goes to actually work the problem out on paper and he adds 1 and 2 together, he is utterly perplexed, wondering why on earth, no matter how many times he adds 1 and 2 together does he wind up with “1 extra digit”...!
They are only “new ideas” to those who never learned the ideas when God first taught them 4,000 years ago! I think that you have not actually read my entire, brief, 70-page booklet and if you would have held off asking questions until actually having read it, you would not need to be asking the questions because you would actually understand the passage correctly. Your speaking of God wanting Peter to “adopt new ideas” demonstrates this. It was not to get Peter to adopt new ideas, but to correct his faulty ideas that were not Biblical; that were carnal; that were hypocritical. As I am sure we will discuss (and as my booklet explains) the so-called “Gentiles” were not alien peoples being brought into the family—that itself is an abomination. They were the Israelites of the diaspora that would be brought back in upon their repentance. That is also what Christ’s parables taught (as we shall see). This is not adopting new ideas, it is properly understanding Scripture that Peter should have known all along; but carnal nature got in the way, so God was correcting Peter’s mindset.
The point was that since the analogy was something that it COULD NOT MEAN on its surface or manifest level, then the only possibly interpretation was that the meaning was on the lower or latent (hidden) level. That is the purpose of an analogy. It is not the superficial appearance of the analogy that is the point, but the subtle, hidden meaning. If a person said that he was hungry enough to eat a horse, he doesn’t go out and eat a horse. If I am driving and someone blows by me and I said, “He passed me like I was standing still”, everyone listening clearly know that I was not standing still. Why those with confused minds give in to their confusion and believe in the FOG and SMOKE and MIRRORS rather than the simple truth that they should know is a mystery to me; yet they choose to believe some “mystery”—a fictional tale—rather than the simple truth that the passage is meant to convey. This is why (as I shall discuss later) many people stopped following Christ: because they erroneously believed that the analogy was literal instead of figurative; but no analogy in Scripture can be literal if what it suggests IS SIN.
God used the analogy that would GET PETER’S ATTENTION at to thus mirror HOW REVOLTING TO GOD was Peter’s attitude toward his own brethren of the diaspora (that’s who these so-called “Gentiles” were).
WHAT PERSON IN HIS RIGHT MIND—had God told Peter to make a POOP SANDWICH or put VOMIT or DIARRHEA on his spaghetti noodles and eat it—would have though that was what God actually wanted Peter to do...?
[Excuse the crudeness, but that is the revulsion that God intended with this analogy... as I will explain. The problem is that those who have thoughtlessly violated God’s Commandments their entire lives have their minds innoculated against truth. They don’t realize the utter disgust of it. They don’t think from God’s Perspective—because they are utterly ignorant of His Nature. They think of such things as merely “different customs”—when they are NOT “customs”—but MORALITY. Just because they don’t think of it as a moral issue does not change reality.]
What person in his right mind would think that was what God really wanted Peter to do?—the same God who established so many laws of cleanliness and declared that someone who was rendered unclean had to remain outside the camp for a certain until sundown, or in some cases longer?
[—which minor inconvenience taught people to do their best to AVOID defiling themselves; when Miriam tried to usurp Moses' authority and got in his face, God struck her with leprosy. Moses prayed for her and the leprosy was removed BUT SHE WAS STILL required to go through a period of 7 days cleansing in which she was technically defiled and had to remain outside the camp for the allotted period of time until the priests inspected her and declared her to be clean—and the ENTIRE CONGREGATION had to wait for one (hopefully humbled) arrogant woman, because they could not travel again until she was declared clean, because it seems due to her age and her being a woman, she would not have been safe all alone outside the camp travelling at a distance behind everyone else. Why was Aaron not struck with leprosy? 1. He was generally weak and usually a follower in sin, not a leader; and 2. He was not a woman. While he sinned in questioning the Lord’s annointed, his sin was not also compounded by being a woman attempting to usurp authority over a man; which bumped the sin up significantly.]
NO ISRAELITE in Peter’s day would have thought that God actually wanted Peter to eat unclean animals and NO ISRAELITE would have thought that God was changing the dietary laws—WHICH WERE PART OF THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT THAT WE ARE HIS PEOPLE... and because unclean animals, when eaten DEFILE US and MAKE US ABOMINABLE and since God declared BE HOLY FOR I AM HOLY and due to the fact that God’s Holiness DOES NOT CHANGE and He commanded that we be holy AS HE is Holy, therefore, our standard of holiness cannot change. Scripture clearly tells us in the New Testament—quite after Acts chapter 10:
“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” (I Corinthians 3)
God had clearly commanded in the Old Testament:
“43Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. 44For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Leviticus 11)
Christ said not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law and that He did not come to abolish the Law. Why can Christians not connect the dots? —because their minds are darkened. Darkness never becomes light—LIGHT DISPELS and BANISHES DARKNESS. Evil never becomes good. Sin / abominations never become righteousness / wholesome behaviour. Immorality never becomes morality. Violations of the Law never become obedience to the Law. Evil never becomes good. Sin is to be PUT AWAY / OUT of the congregation, not “embraced” and called “nonsin”. What part of “woe unto them that call evil good and good evil” don’t Christians understand? Can’t they remember other verses of the Bible while reading the current verse? How do they function in the real world if their minds are so small, scatter-brained, and illogical?
And PETER himself DID NOT THINK that GOD ACTUALLY WANTED HIM TO KILL AND EAT AND PETER NEVER DID.
As I explain in my booklet that you are reading, So, You Call Yourself A Christian..., (I guess you have not read that far yet?) Acts clearly shows that 3 days later Peter REALIZED the MEANING of the vision—WHICH CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE MEANING WAS NOT that God had “abolished” the dietary Laws.
HOW can Christians be so stupid? Peter never killed and ate and Scripture declares that the vision was NOT about food; by God’s Very Nature and according to the Nature of the Law that He established, the Law cannot be abolished and Christ said that He did not abolish it and that no one else would either!* Therefore, God did NOT “abolish” the dietary Laws; and Christ said that He did not come to destroy and not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law. Christ even said that those who violated the least of the Commandments and taught others to do the same would be called LEAST in the Kingdom—if they even make it across the threshold!
[* Who else would have the authority to abolish it if Christ did not and since God said that it was forever...? Christ said that not one jot or tittle would pass—and the dietary laws were NOT part of any so-called “ceremonial Law” and the dietary laws had nothing to do with atonement for sin. Blood sacrifices for temporary atonement were the only part of the Law that was replaced (not “abolished”) by Christ’s Eternal Sacrifice of Himself! The Word of God is Masterpiece of a novel but the average Christian (including the average Bible “expert”) turns it into a Schizophrenic, disjointed flurry of unstable, shifting confusion; they turn a Peter Paul Rubens or Raphael into a Picasso or Salvador Dali!]
It is truly amazing, a series of law so important that if violated that God said that He would cut that soul off from among His people—that professed Bible “experts” would so casually violate God’s Law and teach others* to also violate God’s Law based upon not only something as flimsy as a “dream”—and a narrative in which Peter never, upon waking, violated that law of God—but in complete contradiction to what Christ Himself actually told us! It is one thing to commit suicide. However, when blind shepherds lead a flock toward the pit, it is mass murder. They are evil and false prophets who say, “Thus saith the Lord”—when the Lord has NOT thus said.
[* —which Christ said will establish them as the “least” in the Kingdom—if they are even converted: for John wrote that if a man does not keep God’s Commandments then he does not even know God; tell me: Can a person be a “Christian”, that is “converted”, “regenerated” if he does not even know God?]
Christ said that His sheep know His Voice and follow [obey] Him; and the voice of a stranger they will not follow. So why are the majority of “Christians” following a stranger’s voice? Well, the answer is either that they are not God’s sheep, or they are pretty stupid and not yet truly converted (and we can only hope the latter): for if truly converted the Holy Spirit will lead into understanding and obedience; not ignorance and rebellion.
God commanded that we obey these laws throughout all our generations forever and that it was a sign that we are His people. WHAT is so “confusing” about this...?
Yet the majority of Christians (including the “experts” who are the blind leading the blind) believe THE VERY OPPOSITE in the face of ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. In essence, God says, “NO EATING UNCLEAN ANIMALS, FAT, or BLOOD—forever!” and yet the majority of Christians, Bible “experts” included, reply, “Okay, I hear what you are saying, God. You are saying that it is perfectly fine for us to eat unclean animals and whatever we want; I understand you loud and clear. Thanks for clearing that up in my mind.” BRAIN DEAD. SPIRITUALLY DEAD. HOW SAD. Every tree is known by its fruit. That is a dead tree! Satanically deluded. God said to Adam and Eve, “NO eating from THIS ONE Tree”. The Serpent (not a “snake”, but Satan himself) then said, “NO... God didn’t mean that...!” Where then do you think that the majority of “Christians”—Bible “experts” included—get their ideas? Hint: It is not from God!
FURTHERMORE, God said that He separated us from all other peoples even as He separated clean from unclean animals (Leviticus 20:24-26: READ IT. It is perfectly clear). God told Peter in the vision: Call not that which I have cleansed, “unclean”. It was not unclean animals (whose natures were not changed) that were declared “clean”. Christ said to His disciples before His arrest: “Now ye are clean through the Word [Doctrine] which I have spoken unto you” (John 15:3); Judas had already left the upper room 2 chapters earlier. Christ declared, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel” and “as the Father hath sent Me so send I you”. God said that He scattered His people true Israel throughout the world as a man sows wheat—and that He will regather whom He scattered! Maybe you are not a farmer, but when you sow / scatter wheat, you don’t later harvest poison ivy. You harvest the wheat and throw away all that is not wheat. That’s what the parable of the fishes (that follows the parable of the tares) means. The good were kept and the bad (putrid) were cast into a furnace!
Therefore, Peter realized that he was not to call any man (that is, he was not to call any ISRAELITE OF THE DISPERSION—which was the topic of discussion, when due to pressure from the Pharisees, Peter stopped eating with the Israelites of the dispersion who had been converted to Christ), Peter was not to call or consider or treat his literal kinsmen, “brethren” [aldephos, “from the same womb”] of the dispersion who came to Christ “unclean or common”.
And since God commanded separation and even compared the separation of other peoples to the separation clean animals from unclean abominable animals for use as food, only someone who is spiritually brain dead or who has no knowledge of the Scriptures, or who has a dark heart who loves sin, COULD EVER think that God was saying that all races were the same and we should mix it up and hybridize. God is Immutable. His Holiness cannot change. Our holiness (standard of morality) cannot change. God commanded “everything after its own kind” and commanded separation and holiness and forbade intermarriage with aliens and even forbade seeking their peace or prosperity forever! God did not change the biology of the pig (or shrimp, crab, lobster, eel, rabbit, etc.) and God did not change the biology or soul-spirit of alien peoples. God does not kow-tow to sinful man’s ever-changing politically correct perverse delusions.
Those who believe the very opposite of what God commanded are responsible for the destruction of Christendom and the attempted pollution of Christ’s body and rape of His bride. Even as those who violate the dietary laws pollute themselves and make themselves abominable in God’s Sight, they also incur serious health problems (even if the problems don’t arise immediately, the Law of the Harvest says that “whatsoever a man soeth that shall he also reap” and “the curse causeless shall not come” and “be sure your sin will find you out”).
If you go to a cancer, heart, or allergy doctor, the first thing he will do is hand you a list of foods to STOP EATING and pork and shellfish top the list. They are known to cause inflammation (a deadly killer underlying dozens of degenerative disease). Pork contains parasites that cannot be killed at any temperature and cannot be made “safe”, let alone “healthy” to eat. Pork and shellfish also contain toxins that destroy the cells of the body and the organs. Those who violate God’s Commands expressed in the dietary laws show that their god is their belly. Your god or master is the one that you yield to, serve, and obey.
Even if some unclean animal was “shown by medical research” to cure disease—it would still be a sin to ingest it in any way (whether eating, pill form, a drink, an injection, or a transdermal cream). The end does not justify the means. Utilitarianism and pragmatism do not replace obedience. Furthermore, the “experts” in medical science are not only corrupt and deceitful, but they are proven year after year to not even be “experts” and are wrong much of the time; and often do more harm than good. Over 1 million people in the U.S. die each year because of doctors and their drugs. Drugs are frequently taken off the market; and new studies are continually being found to prove what the experts used to think was true was completely false! Abominations are abominations and “seeking other gods” (doctors) will not engender the favor of the one true God Whom you “claim” to believe, trust, obey, serve, and worship.
Furthermore, do a word study and look up each verse in the Bible that uses the words abomination(s) and abominable. Homoperversion and eating unclean animals are both called an abomination. Do you think the Law against homoperversion was merely a “ceremonial law”...? —neither was race mixing or eating what God forbade.
Similarly, those who violate God’s law and marry outside the race, and bring aliens into the community and congregation are responsible for the destruction of Christendom (those who think otherwise, if you remember what the U.S. was like 50 years ago, you have to be in delusion to believe things are better; far from being better, we are swirling in the toilet about to go down the drain). Really, how can people not see this? —because to those whose minds and consciences are defiled, everything that they see and think about is defiled by the perspective of their minds. Even as I discussed that those who have no concept of God’s Holiness merely think the dietary laws were a “different custom”—but not eating unclean animals was no more a “different custom” than not engaging in homoperversion!
The mainstream “Christian” church and the governments of Christendom are EVIL TO THE CORE and they PROMOTE everything that God FORBADE and they DENOUNCE everything that God COMMANDED. “Racism” is the most-heinous sin in the eyes of the world and the Apostate (Antichrist) “Church”. WHY do you think that is? Satan’s plan is to mongrelize the bride of Christ. If Christ’s bride is mongrelized, He has no bride to which to return! According to the Law of the Kinsman Redeemer (and Christ was in all areas tempted even as we are, yet without sin) an Israelite could only redeem another lawful Israelite—not an alien!* Christ will not have a mongrel bride thrust upon Him—for he that is joined to a whore is polluted by her and because it would be a violation of the Law of God and Christ came to redeem His people—the angel who announced His Conception even declared that.
[* Again, God forbade marrying aliens. Ruth was not a Moabite. She is called a Moabite because she was an Israelite who was born in the land of Moab whence her parents had fled to escape famine. See my, S.T.E.C. on Ruth: The Truth About Ruth—Ruth the Israelite! Many who have read it, before reading it, had expressed, “I don’t know how you are going to prove this...”; and by the time they had finished the book they contacted me and replied, “—but I am amazed and you did!”]
The Antichrist Plan to mongrelize or exterminate the peoples of Christendom (Caucasians) out of existence has been kicked into overdrive because Satan realizes that he does not have much time left (he knows the signs of the times and the Bible better than most Bible “experts”—because he actually knows God’s Power and believes God’s Word is not a mere fairy tale!). God commanded SEPARATION and the governments and Pope and apostate Lutherans and Baptists and all other demon-inations are declaring that NO COMMUNITY WILL REMAIN HOMOGENOUS BUT WILL BECOME INTEGRATED.
And yet stupid Christians think this is a “good” thing. Stupid leaders, wolves in sheep’s clothing...? like David Jeremiah, reportedly claim this is a wonderful chance for us to witness to the Third World and God is sending them to us for that purpose because we failed to obey Him and go to them and evangelize them. This is a repulsive lie and false doctrine. Nowhere does God say that the remnant are to “evangelize” the flood that the Dragon spews forth to drown them! God commanded His people to go into all the world—not to evangelize the world, but to seek out the lost sheep! Charlatans don’t know the Word of God and their minds are polluted and they preach abominations.
The very notion is not only in violation of the Word of God—it is STUPID AND SUICIDAL. Is Dr. David Jeremiah BLIND? He is not worthy of his last name (or his first). He is old enough to remember what life was like in the U.S. in the 1950s...! For him to think multiculturalism is a “good thing” is as polluted and brain-damaged a notion that a person can imagine. Only those under the age of 50, who have never known anything other than a multicultural, polluted, homo-pervert, inter-faith society are unable to realize it is a bad thing—because they don’t remember how wonderful it was before our nation was turned into a Third World Hell Hole! —and before our very eyes every nation of Europe that received aliens is falling like dominoes—like rotting teeth falling out of someone’s mouth!
If we have learned ANYTHING in the past 50 years it is that aliens that come into Christendom destroy our faith and our form of government, our society, our way of life from within. Denominational boards of churches “vote” to change what they believe the Word of God says—as their minds become polluted by the world, they tailor their “doctrine” to fit the world, rather than conforming their minds to the Word of God and bringing every thought into captivity and obedience—(often to make the aliens feel more comfortable; and their own sinful families to feel better about themselves for their sin of intermarriage; and homoperversion is following the very same trail that interracialism blazed for it). Aliens coming into our nation also increase crime, rob us through welfare (and increase the so-called “National” Debt), prison population, taxes, disease, vandalism, robbery, assault, rape, murder, integration and mongrel offspring—and an atomic explosion of millions perpetually on welfare robbing the nation. Our treasonous public servants illegally give aliens “equal rights”, the right to vote and even be elected, and it results in the change of our laws, our form of government, and the loss of freedom and civilization itself as our entire nation degenerates into a socialist, godless Police State.
YET STUPID, immoral Christians, despite all the evidence, still think integration and the alien invasion is a “wonderful thing”—because they stupidly don’t understand the Bible, that God does not change; His Standard of Morality does not change... and God commanded separation. And just for those who are clueless, God calls race mixing an abomination, commanded all alien wives and mongrel offspring to be sent away, the returning remnant from Babylon righteously REFUSED to allow the aliens in the land to have ANYTHING to do with worshiping God with them (so much for “converting the heathen” and the “integrated worship service” and “interfaith cooperation and dialogue”). God calls HOMOSEXUALITY an ABOMINATION and He calls eating unclean animals AN ABOMINATION. The only options are that either ALL ABOMINATIONS are now perfectly wholesome, OR NONE ARE. In actuality, there is no “alternative”. If one thinks that God abolished His Law then anything goes! If one thinks that God made abominations now to be wholesome, then he has a polluted mind and worships a false god: for the god that he worships is not the God of the Bible—Who is Holy and Perfect and True and Immutable.
Those who don’t understand God and His Nature CANNOT understand the Bible. Theology CENTERS AROUND GOD, not around man (that is called “humanism”, which is antichrist). However, if man understands God, then he will understand the perpetuity of God’s Law as an extension of His Nature because God is Immutable and Holy and morality CANNOT change.
Most Christians will only consider the truth if it leads in a direction that they want to go. They are not of God. That is not worship. True worship is bowing down in obedience and submission. What most “Christians” do is let God tag along if He behaves. That is not obedience. That is not submission. It is merely a “coincidence”* that God happens to be going in the same direction, from time to time, briefly, that they want to go: so there is a false appearance of the average Christian endeavoring to please or obey God, but it is a delusion. NO ONE can EVER “obey by mistake”. One can without intending it, NOT “violate” a given law, but he cannot “obey” it by mistake. Obedience is an active choice. Furthermore, one cannot choose “which laws to obey”—it is all or none. Choosing “which” you will obey is not obedience—it is doing what you want to do.
[* —that is, from a human perspective, in regard to man actually endeavoring to obey, please, serve, and worship God. It is not that man plans it. It is not that it happens as random chance. It is that sinful “Christians”, deluding themselves with the thought that they are “spiritual”, superstitiously throw God a bone every now and then—if and when it does not interfere with what they want to do.]
----------------------
Other person:
I hope I have expressed my confusion adequately. Please know that I do not accept the usual view concerning how the vision was meant to change the food laws. Still, I cannot figure out why God, who is NOT the author of confusion, would present a vision He KNEW would be misunderstood.
----------------------
My reply/comment:
I don’t know if it is actually possible for a person to express his confusion properly. If a person was not confused, he would have no confusion to try to express; and if he is confused, that is all that he can express, and it takes no forethought... so mission accomplished! :)
God does not present confusion. God presents truth. However, He has closed the minds, ears, eyes, and hearts, and stiffened the necks of all, so they cannot see, hear, understand, and so they even resist it—and He opens the eyes, ears, minds, hearts, of the elect so that they can, and softens their necks and hearts so they will.
Understand also, that the English language has changed, some from the 1611 King James Bible. It is the best translation and the resolution is not to dumb down the Bible, but properly educate yourself and your children to understand the language that our ancestors understood. Again, even as the issue is not God’s Law, but sinful man, so also the issue is not God’s Word being confusing, but man’s mind being confused. That is the proper perspective. God resisteth the proud, but giveth more grace to the humble. More grace in this context means more light / understanding. The Scriptures are spiritual and must be spiritually discerned and the Holy Spirit of Truth leads into the Truth by the measure that God has determined for each. However, it should be realized that God has also determined how long and how dedicated each will search. If a person goes out looking for treasure for 15 minutes, once a week, a few months out of the year, while daydreaming and texting incessantly on his cell phone the whole time, while drinking a slurpy, it is quite certain, aside from a miracle, that he will not find the treasure that someone who, with undivided attention, who looks fervently for several hours every day of the year, even keeping sophisticated notes and charts.
GOD did not merely “know” that Peter would initially misunderstand—no, not misunderstand, Peter did not for a moment think that the vision meant he was to defile himself and eat what God had forbidden (and shame on any Christian or minister who thinks so)—God planned for Peter to not comprehend the meaning of the vision at first. That is the very nature of visions and parables: to HIDE the truth. This serves two purposes: 1. to keep the knowledge of the truth from those who are not supposed to know it, who don’t deserve it, to whom it was not given; and 2. it makes it that much more profound and dymanic in the heart and mind of the person for whom it is meant, when the meaning is finally understood. This is what challenges are for: whether climbing Mount Everest, setting any other record, proving to yourself that you can do something, or strengthening your own mind and confidence and character; even in doing things like a rubic’s cube, crossword puzzles, jigsaw puzzles. Those who think that they are mere “entertainment” have never actually plugged their brain in to use it and it serves only to weight their head down.
God is not passive. His Knowledge is not passive. God determines all—and for a reason, not whimsically.
To the contrary of what you think, God KNEW that the vision would NOT be “misunderstood” by either Peter or the Israelites of his day. “Fuzzy logic”, “fluid moral boundaries”, “confusion”, and “compromise” (i.e., heresy leading to apostacy) are hallmarks of the modern age; and the modern reader needs to purge his mind of all corrupt modern notions and read the pure Word of God with a renewed mind, in order to understand what it meant at the time that God gave it to His people. God sent blindness upon the majority of His people scattered throughout the world for a reason; it is part of Judgment. Now we must “make bricks without straw being provided for us” and it is “hard to kick against the pricks”. We must, as it were, struggle uphill, with a heavy load, with the sun and wind in our face. Those who think it is not worth the effor were not called.
God knew that the vision would NOT be misunderstood by those who actually READ His Word and BELIEVE Him and understand HIS UNCHANGING NATURE. If someone is going to read the Bible and imagine that God is like sinful man, like the sinful gods of Norse, Greek, Roman, Brythonic mythology, carried about by their passions, with our same faults and weaknesses, fickle and impulsive and unprincipled and untrue, subject to change, double-minded, without the moral character to hold fast to what is declared to be the standard and the plan—then they might as well not even read the Bible and just read mythology!
God does NOT CHANGE and therefore, neither can morality. Those who cannot grasp those two simple concepts will never be able to understand the Bible other than a handful of “stories” on a children’s Sunday school level (which means half of what they think they understand is not even true, but a humanistic imbecillic embellishment or misperception).
The only reason that Peter’s Vision (or any one of a hundred other things) is misunderstood today is because the masses in Christendom are not God’s people and the majority of “Christians” are not of the elect,* are not worthy of knowing the truth (because even if they knew it they would not obey it); so God has blinded their minds and sent a spirit of delusion so that they will be confused or believe a lie—even the most-transparent, juvenile, anti-intellectual lie—because they are not of His sheep (or, at least, hopefully, the Good Shepherd has not YET brought them back into the fold).
[* They are not converted, not regenerated, not saved, not truly Christians; they were not invited to the Marriage Feast of the Lamb, they were not drawn by the Holy Spirit—they are curiosity seekers and party crashers. They are members of a “pseudo-spiritual country club” because that is how they were raised, because of tradition, because at one time to be accepted by society or business one had to be a church member, because their friends attend, or a pretty girl they might be interested in, or because they feel something is missing from their lives and they have come, not seeking God, but seeking self-fulfillment in some humanistic way. While a percentage, it is possible, God may draw to “eventually” come to the truth, the majority God uses Satan to draw such persons to corrupt from within. As I have expressed in other writings, barriers are no test of faithfulness—boundaries are. Without temptations there would be nothing to test the faithfulness of the elect to remain true—hold fast to sound doctrine without compromising—and it would not build their character or faith or wisdom. Without pressure coal is not transformed into a diamond. Without the constant pressure of our earth’s atmosphere, for instance, if we were born and raised on the moon, our bodies would be like jellyfish (and so are most “Christians” morally); the bones would not grow hard and dense, nor the muscles develop. Even after a few months in space, astronaughts come back and can’t even walk in earth’s atmosphere. Those athletes who are used to living near and practicing at Mile High Stadium have an advantage over athletes from most all other regions. When they play at lower altitudes, they are more fit; when other athletes play at mile high stadium, they have trouble breathing, and that effects muscle oxygenation and stamina as well as speed and agility. People raised in the mountains have larger and stronger hearts.]
----------------------
Other person:
Was it to trap those who accept the established teachings of many centuries?
----------------------
My reply/comment:
It would help both you and me if you would speak more precisely and not vaguely. To exactly what “established teaching” do you refer? If you are speaking concerning those who are deceived by polluted mainstream humanism passing itself off as Bible Doctrine, then please use more words to express your thoughts so that you understand them better youself, and so I understand them.
It was no “trap”. Peter wasn’t “fooled”. God’s intent is not to “play tricks” on His elect, though He may lay pitfalls for the non-elect. No other Israelite in Peter’s day was “fooled” into thinking their Omnipotent, Immutable, Perfect, Holy God “changed” and was now contradicting Himself and “changing” morality and “abolishing” His Law. Such thoughts are as alien to planet earth as are space aliens (in the minds of those who believe in UFOs). Likewise, none of the disciples in the Upper Room at the Last Supper, celebrating Passover and Unleavened Bread thought for a minute that Jesus was giving them His real flesh and blood to eat and drink (which notion Christ purposely expressed earlier, to turn away from following Him many who were not of His sheep; John 6:53-66). Cannibalism and eating any manner of blood was strictly forbidden in the Law of God and morality does not change.
The early Church Fathers / Councils were not fooled. Christ said that His sheep know His Voice, and follow (obey) Him and that the voice of another they will not follow. Therefore, those “Christians” who do not know Christ’s Voice, who do not obey Him, who follow someone elses voice—thinking that Christ “abolished” the Law*... such “Christians” clearly are not Christ’s sheep (or at least, they have not ceased to be wild / lawless and the Holy Spirit has not yet led them back to the fold to true conversion, which will result in obedience because of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling which will lead a true Christian to obey God; not casually live in sin, with the delusion that sin is no longer sin.
[* —even though Christ said that He did NOT come to abolish** the Law; and even though Christ said that NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE would pass from the Law; and even though Paul himself said that the Law was not abolished, but Holy and Just and Good (Romans 3:31; 7:12); and even though David said that the Law of the Lord is Perfect (Psalm 19:7); and even though Christ that His Words (Doctrine) would never pass away; and even though David and Peter said that God’s Word shall endure / abide forever).
** —and neither did Christ abolish the Law “by mistake"; accidentally kicking it over and breaking it, like Catherine O’Leary’s cow allegedly kicked over an oil lamp in the barn and started the Great Chicago fire. That sounds like good political disinformation and in reality, it would be an improvement if Mrs. O’Leary’s cow was still here to kick over another lamp in Chicago (and NYC, LA, Miami, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Dallas, Washington D.C., etc.]
The only true Christians that are fooled are those modern true Israelites (the true peoples of Christendom) who are in BLINDNESS.
There is no trap. If someone can comprehend simple logic in any other area of life, then the issue is not intellectual, but spiritual. Men prefer darkness over light because their deeds are evil; they love their sin. However, most “Christians” are like a person in a pig stye, who stumbles and falls face down in the mire—and thinks that it is as delicious as chocolate pudding and has no desire to arise! If the person was like this in every area of life, we would conclude that the person has serious mental problems. But when he is perfectly functional in all other areas of life, it is not intellectual, it is moral—and that is spiritual. Thus, the problem is not with the logic of Scripture, or any vision or parable; the problem is the person who is in blindness whose eyes God has not opened. The problem is a person’s darkened heart and mind who deludes himself into thinking that he is a Christian. As the evangelist and former head of the Sword of the Lord Foundation, the late Curtis Hutson (who was a friend of mine) used to preach, “getting people saved is the easy part; getting them lost is the hard part”. The average person, including the average person who thinks that he is a Christian, imagines himself to be good (and not really in need of “saving”) based upon the notion that because he does not commit murder, adultery, lie, cheat or steal, that he is good. Such persons need to realize that goodness is not measured by comparing yourself to someone more sinful than yourself—but to God’s Perfect Standard. If you want an honest appraisal of your own health, you compare yourself to a drug free athlete—not to a corpse rotting in the ground.
----------------------
Other person:
That is a frightening thought [i.e., that it could be a “trap”]—but I cannot see any other reason why He would have chosen this strange method of teaching Peter to accept something new.
----------------------
My reply/comment:
The frightening thought is that you do not understand God. Perfect love (which is demonstrated through obedience) casts out fear. This is not a strange method and the issue was not to teach something “new”. It is a simple dranconian method that gets the message across.
I remember reading that Corrie Ten Boom when she was an 8 year old or so, at one time heard the word “sex-pot”, in public, or read it on a billboard or magazine in the liberal Netherlands, and asked her father what it meant. Her father had a heavy briefcase of books and asked her to pick it up and carry it for him, as they were on a train and ready to depart. She tried and replied that she could not, that it was too heavy for her. He replied, something to the effect, “so it is with some words, so leave them be until you are older”. This is similar to God’s method in Peter’s Vision. Christ earlier had made a similar analogy, unless a man drink my blood and eat my flesh he has no part in me and cannot be my disciple... and many stopped following him because they did not understand (John 6:53-66). Why then did Christ not use an analogy that they could understand? —because they were not meant to know; they were meant to stop following Him; they were not of Christ’s sheep. Christ foreknew and foreordained those who would not believe and it was His Will that He stop following Him and as we are told elsewhere, Christ is the Rock of Offense and Stone of Stumbling to those who cannot believe because they were not ordained to believe. But this has nothing to do with being a “trap” for the elect.
One time a guy who worked where I worked, decades ago, was trying to get me to go out with the whole group dancing at a bar. I explained I did not dance; I am an athlete, I dance with a soccer ball or any other ball, but see no sense in making useless gyrations, looking like a fool, and getting good clothes all sweaty. He asked if I ever tried dancing before. I said no. He asked how do you know you don’t like it if you’ve never tried it? I could see he simply wanted to try to control me, for whatever reason (possibly debauch me with him so we could all have a good time on the same perverse level) and I could see that he was not about to relent, wanting to prove himself right—unless I gave him a “wake up call” so that he would (figuratively) “get off the train at the next stop”. I waited a therapeutic moment to let the previous conversation pass a little, so he would not suspect my course of thinking, then casually asked him if he ever had sex with a man (and he was strongly hetero and mesermerized with what he thought was his own handsomeness—which he was not—and his reason for dancing was probably to meet women to further defile). He was shocked at my question and said with disgust, “NO!”, with a revolted look on his face. Then, when he recovered, he asked “WHY?” I then parroted his own words, “—how do you know you would not like it if you never tried it?” The light dawned in his mind and he realized my point, crude as it was, and never brought up the topic of me dancing again.
That’s little different than God’s analogy. The point in both was to cause abhorrent disgust and revulsion.
PETER WAS REVOLTED.
He responded, “Not so,* Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean”.
[* “by no means” or loosely, “never!”]
Peter wasn’t “confused”. He didn’t say, “GREAT, I’ve been wanting to try this new bacon, ham, double-cheeseburger with clam sauce and french fries with shrimp sauce!”
He was revolted.
Any other godly Israelite with whom he shared God’s vision WAS REVOLTED. NONE of them were so ignorant or dead hearted that they thought for a moment that God was changing the UNCHANGABLE MORAL LAW.
The dietary laws are a MORAL issue, even as race mixing is a MORAL issue. EVERY law of God is a moral issue—whether “THIS shalt thou do!” or “Thou shalt NOT!” God declared BE HOLY AS I AM HOLY. Every law of God is A MORAL ISSUE. What do you think morality is? —it is the difference between “right” and “wrong”; “good” and “evil”. Those who think morality is just of a “sexual” nature are wallowing in ignorance. God no more changed the dietary laws than He changed who His people are—yet blind Christians believe that He changed both! —even though both were given by perpetual unconditional Covenant!
There was not anything “new” that God was trying to get Peter to try. The issue was that GOD WAS REVOLTED at Peter shunning the Israelites of the dispersion who had been convert to Christ, but who had not yet learned God’s Moral Rules in all areas... and God was as revolted at Peter’s attitude as Peter was revolted at the notion of eating unclean animals.
Christians today have had their minds POLLUTED by the world, and they do NOT REALIZE HOW ABOMINABLE AND PERVERSE AND IMMORAL AND REVOLTING their sin is. Because their whole lives they have eaten unclean animals... they think that it is a mere menu choice. They think sin is normal and natural and not even sin (yet hypocritically, are morally indignant and offended when someone else sins greater than they do, committing acts that are still generally considered sinful, rather than merely committing acts that are sinful that the Apostate church has given its seal of approval upon). God called homoperversion an abomination also. It is now being considered a “menu choice” too.
IT WAS NOT a mere “menu choice” FOR PETER and IT IS NOT FOR ME (having not knowingly eaten anything abominable for 31 years*) and IT IS NOT a matter of a mere “menu choice” in God’s Mind and it SHOULD NOT BE considered a mere “menu choice” in the minds of any of God’s children. If it is—they do not have the mind of their Father! John wrote that if a man says that he knows God and does not keep God’s Commandments that he is a liar—that he does not even know God and the Truth is not in him.
[* now 33 in 2018. However, many Christians have looked at me with a strange look over the years when I would not defile myself... They don’t understand that you can’t just pick the pepperoni off the pizza or pull the sausage out of the spaghetti sauce; it is not a matter of not liking it... it has polluted the entire pie or pot, even as if a dog poop fell into it. If dog poop dropped onto your pizza would you just brush it off and keep eating or if dog poop fell or was thrown into your pot of spaghetti sauce would you just ladle it out and serve the sauce? THIS is the revulsion that God elicited from Peter by His use of the vision and this is the revulsion we SHOULD have because that is what an abomination is. If someone was deathly allergic to peanuts and a bunch of peanuts were in the Teriyaki stir fry that you were serving, would you just tell him to pick the peanuts out? Defilement or death (two very-closely related concepts**) seems so “unimportant” when it applies to someone elses body.
** Defilement, pollution, corruption. Christ’s Body in the grave God prevented from decomposition: “For Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell***; neither wilt thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption” (Psalm 16:10).
*** Here the word translated here as hell clearly means “grave”; but just because the word here means grave does not mean that elsewhere it does not mean Hell. That is a false inference and a denial of the facts. See my, What the Devil? — What the Hell? Likewise, the words translated “heaven(s)” can also mean Heaven; context determines which. However, just because we have a sky and atmosphere and space does not mean that Heaven Proper does not exist.
I once worked with a Christian friend in carpentry, some 30 years ago. One day as we were building a deck we discussed the dietary laws. He could see partial glimpses of what I said in all areas of doctrine, but peer pressure of his family I believe kept him from doing what is right. Regardless, the next day he told me that last night he had a pepperoni pizza and got as sick as a dog and thought to himself, “maybe Bob’s right”, and he swore off pork. I know it did not last long because unless one realizes that anything is a Command of God, and not merely a “good idea”, resolutions will not last long and even if he had good intentions, others in his life will sway him to abandon such “nonsense”. We ought to obey and please God rather than man (family included... overbearing, controlling, manipulative, hostile wives included).
The average Christian’s mind is polluted with selfish humanism and he views everything from the perspective of what sinful self likes, or what his experience has always been, whether that experience is moral or not. Sinful Christians downgrade the perversity of sin by their common experience with it—and that is why they are not of God. It has nothing to do with man’s perspective and everything to do with God’s and if man feels no shame or remorse or desire to repent, then he is not of God and is unconverted. “Christians” have had their minds POLLUTED their whole lives in regard to what God declared to be ABOMINATIONS, all they humanistically think of is “their experience” and they think that it is wonderful and therefore, that establishes it as good.
Eve saw that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was “good for food” and “pleasant to the eyes” but that did not mean that it was morally proper for her to partake of it. The average Christian does not live by faith (which is based upon theology), but by situation ethics, which is humanism. Yes, robbing a bank is wonderful when you get away with it because it enriches you, would be the same type of logic. Well, those who still want to justify their sin (who really have not thought very deeply about anything, ever) will claim that no, that would be a sin, because other people suffer. Others of course (with equally fallen minds, merely fallen in a different direction) will claim that no one is hurt (as long as nothing goes wrong—and if it does, it is the other person’s fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and making the wrong decision) because the bank is insured and the people don’t lose their money.
Similarly if a person has no morals or conscience, mass whoredom is “wonderful” because it feels good. Most “Christians” would immediately object. The whoremonger would counter: But how can it be wrong? No one gets hurt. Those women want to do it. Ahhhh. Now the situation-ethic “Christian” has a quandary and he must pursue another course of “logic” or it will expose his own sin. The carnal mind can justify anything when acts are considered from man’s perspective. But that is humanism, not Christianity. Christianity is Revelationally based (based upon what God decreed and commanded and revealed); pseudo-Christianity (humanism) is experientially based. That is how you spot humanism. The sin should be considered from God’s Perspective because God is the Lawgiver and HE is the injured party, first and foremost, in every sin. God’s Perspective is the only reality.
God’s Law is not “pick and choose” or “mix and match”. It is “all or none”.** If you violate one point you are guilty of all. If you think any laws don't matter, you will either be the least in the Kingdom or shut out of it. It is not the keeping of the Law that saves. It is the Holy Spirit, Who, if truly present as the result of TRUE conversion, will change the heart and mind and desires so that the Christian DOES NOT WANT TO SIN; this does not mean that a Christian will not slip and fall, but that when he does he is grieved in his soul and will repent and get back up! The response should not be, “Well, if you violate one law you are guilty of all and I am already guilty so why the hell should I even try?” That is not the mindset of a Christian. That is the mindset of an unregenerate person who liked the idea of Eternal Life, but like the rich young ruler, was unwilling to pay the price for the Pearl of Great Price. I knew a guy in town who worked for the post office and said he wanted some side work. I had some yardwork and such to do. I soon learned that he liked the idea of a side job, that is, the money it brought in, but he did not like the idea of actually doing work to earn that money. The only TRUE response indicative of TRUE conversion is to repent. Those who don't are not of God.
** See my, Ten Commandments for Youth.
Those who don’t consider the words written here concerning the dietary laws (or any other law) do not worship God, but themselves, their belly. Those who move on from this point and continue to eat unclean food before ordering my So, You Call Yourself A Christian... and Ten Commandments for Youth, and actually pray and study before they sin against God so casually, are quite possibly unregenerate:
“22But be ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 23For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 25But whoso looketh into the Perfect Law of Liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” (James 1)
Deceiving your own selves infers that the person is not converted. Whatsoever is not of faith (that is, established by the doctrine / commands of the Word of God) is sin. He that sinneth [habitually, casually, indifferently] is not of God. Obedience and not sinning against someone is demonstration of love. If you love your parent or spouse, if someone told you that doing a certain thing really hurts them (maybe you don’t realize that they had an accident and are in excruciating pain, and you, being clumsy, often bump into them by mistake) would you continue to thoughtlessly hurt them? If you loved them, you would not. So it is with God. Those who don’t obey Him, those who do not care that their sin is an offense, don’t love Him. They don’t even know Him. If they knew Him they would fear Him knowing that He is Just. Why do they live as if they are their own if they are supposedly bought with a price...? —most likely because they were not bought with a price. As I explain in other writings of mine, again, the carnal mind interprets the Word of God completely backwards. The average Christian (Bible “experts” included) think that the Perfect Law of Liberty is the freedom to disobey God. How abhorrent! Why can they not see that it is “the freedom to not sin”...! Scripture says, “Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh [the violation of all that God commanded]”. It does not say, “walk in the Spirit and live as you please”. The Holy Spirit (if truly in a “Christian”) will empower the believer to understand the Word of God and to not sin. As I have oft written, “Where no fruit is evident the Holy Spirit is not Resident”. Obedience, keeping the Law of God, walking as Christ walked, walking in the Spirit, bearing fruit, being in Christ, doing good works—are all synonymns! We don’t invent our own fruit or our own concept of “good works”—God defined them and the definition does not change!
Choosing which laws you will obey is not obedience; its doing what you want to do and putting a pseudo-spiritual spin on it to make it sound holy. It is tokenism and a fraud and God is not fooled. Why do you think that God is judging His people? He is judging us for our sin. He is PURGING His chosen vessel of the dross. He is winnowing away the chaff from His wheat. Christ will not return for a DEFILED BRIDE and God said that we defile ourselves and make ourselves abominable when we eat unclean animals and when we join together with aliens or become homoperverts.]
What God declared to Peter “Kill and eat” with the vision of the sheet of unclean abominations, in order to put it into revolting perspective to the Christian today (who has no clue about holiness and the morality of God’s entire law) would be as if God was walking with him along the road and came upon a nice ripe roadkill, a skunk or an opossum—and told him to peel it up off the asphalt and eat it... or if they walked past a hospital and there was an aborted baby in the “medical waste” and God said to him to eat it... or if a dog had dropped a fresh steamy pile on the sidewalk and God said to eat it. The carnal mind likes to have a “refined” notion of sin, and not think of it as being as evil as it is it. This doublemindedness is epitomized in the notion of a “white witch” versus a “black witch” (which has nothing to do with race, because the occult is one of the first segments of society to violate racial and gender boundaries). A witch is a witch and God said suffer not a witch to live.
THAT is the REVULSION that Peter experienced and THAT IS WHAT GOD INTENDED. The reason that modern “Christians” can’t comprehend the vision is because THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT SIN IS, they DON’T KNOW WHAT ABOMINATIONS ARE—they don’t love or fear God: They don’t know God. I remember a missionary telling us 4 decades ago that when he was serving as a missionary in England, he was speaking one time and told a joke about a bossy woman, and then said, “I guess you know who wears the pants in that family”. No one laughed. He later asked someone why. The reason, it seems, was because in England, pants are called “trousers”. The joke would have produced the desired effect if he used the word trousers. However, the word pants in England (at least, at that time) meant “underwear” (“underpants”). Thus, to the English listeners in their minds, there was nothing humorous, for everyone wears underpants. SO IT IS WITH SIN. The average “Christian” does not have a clue what God is talking about (because of the “communication barrier” called “the carnal mind”), so naturally they do not understand Peter's Vision or many other passages of Scripture.
Abominations NEVER become wholesome. Those who think that the dietary laws and racial laws have been “made wholesome” HAVE NO moral or spiritual ground to claim that gender-perversion laws have likewise not been superseded and “made holy”—and thus, they shall be revealed to be the first apostates to cave in and side with the world over God on that issue too.
Christians don’t realize the perversity of their sin because they think it is “natural” and “normal” and a matter of “personal choice”—and they love it. Thus, nothing is sacred and it is merely a matter of time before every single abomination and taboo (even pedophilia and cannibalism and more-noticeable forms of bestiality*) become legally sanctions, protected, and glorified.
[* Understand, even as desecrating or tearing down our national monuments is the first step toward genocide (if our dead don’t matter, we don’t matter), so also “fuzzy logic” and blurried boundaries serve as a moral fog to blind people to morality. As I expressed in an earlier Rumination, the mindlessness of evolutionists is astounding. One person who wrote for a major regional magazine, expressed in a “professional” article: gorillas are human too! No. They are not. However, this mind fart is possible because the way was paved by generations of professionals who have for over a century declared that man is an animal (which he is not; man is a living creature, yes, but He was made in the Image of God and God is not an animal). Therefore, the ultimate conclusion to the internal logic of this perverted thinking, clearly, is: 1. Since man is an animal and we eat some forms of animals then it is okay to eat humans; and 2. Since man is an animal and other animals are animals then there is nothing wrong in sex between the species. Again, this was paved by thinking that all races descend from a common ancestor (whether a monkey or Adam or Noah’s sons)—which they do not. Sexual relations and intermarriage with alien races was originally a CRIME and a TABOO and ANATHEMA! Breaking down that moral barrier paves the way for gender perversion as well as bestality.]
Abominations are forever abominations, regardless of modern political correctness, regardless of the humanism of the Apostate Antichrist “Church”—sinful man or polluted denominations cannot, “take a vote” and “overrule God”.
We are seeing the results of their perverse, hedonistic humanism: multiculturalism (which also paved the way for the blasphemy and polluted legal thinking that the builders of a nation have no right to their nation—it belongs to all races, cultures, and religions) and homoperversion are the “left-right” knockout punch that is destroying Christendom: and the destructin is irreversible. No nation—NO NATION has ever survived both of these abominations once publically accepted. The graveyard of nations is bestrewn with once powerful, successful empires, that are now little more than temples to rats or monkeys.
The old adage is true, “Sometimes you don’t appreciate what you had until you lose it”. That is why Christ said that the Zeitgeist before His Return will be as in the days of Noah—they were engaged in hedonistic revelry violating all the boundaries that God established (while even denying the true God and worshipping gods they made with their own hands, or the planets, or wind, or the river, or a mountain, because God sent upon them Strong Delusion to believe a lie, even the most foolish things imagineable; just like modern-day liberals). Again, as in the days of Noah, they were engaged in all their perversion—and the floods came and took them all away and they knew it not! SUDDEN shall be destruction. It takes a long time to come, because God is Longsuffering—but when it comes it is devastating and irreversible.
Not until the tyranny and crime and evil DESTROYS THEIR OWN HOUSE will the average “Christian” or “liberal” or “pagan” will they then begin to “consider their ways”—but then it will be too late. The time to repent is BEFORE the point of no return is passed. Partying on the deck of the “Love Boat” as it drifts in the fog toward Niagara Falls does not present a good outcome scenario—especially if the owners and the crew have been lying to the people, telling them that “we’re doing great” despite the fact that the engines are broken down, the company is bankrupt, and they have just enough fuel left for a final burst of speed over the precipice. However, the minds of the majority are so polluted and so dumbed down, when tragedy strikes they will simply be like a bird that has flown into a platen glass window and sits dazed, in bewilderment on the ground, where it remains easy prey for any predator.
Also, understand what Peter’s Vision DOES NOT say. So many Christians believe ANTI-theology instead of theology. God told Peter, “call not unclean or common that which I have cleansed”. And yet, the average Christian thinks that the inverse of this is true (which it is not)—that we are to call clean and holy THAT WHICH GOD HAS NOT CLEANSED. God did not cleanse all. He had no plans to cleanse all. Did Christ not say “give NOT that which is holy to the dogs and cast NOT pearls before swine, lest they turn and trample and rend you”....? THAT is what we are seeing in the alien invasion (the flood that the Dragon / Serpent / Satan has spewed out of his mouth)—because of our violation of what God commanded (separation) and what Christ Himself re-iterated. Yet, Holy Spirit-devoid Christians, for centuries have misinterpreted the Great Commission and cast pearls before swine and given that which is holy to the dogs and invited the swine and dogs and wolves into the sheepfold—and the result has been the destruction of Christendom (and spiritually dead Christians, even hearing that pronouncement, don’t think of it as any loss—they were probably more distraught when the owner of the Chicago Bulls decided to break up the undefeatable team and build a new one). True to God’s Promise, “the curse causeless shall not come”.
----------------------
Other person:
I have to wonder how many other so-called “orthodox” teachings are really false! Thank you!
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I need to re-read it several times, as I am sure that I am missing some points. But this is an excellent response to many questions—not only to questions about the food laws.
I inadvertently keep the dietary laws myself, because pork products aggravate my gastrointestinal problems, and also because the high-fat content messes up my blood sugar control. As I found out about ten years ago, excessive fat in meat dishes, soups, etc. slows down metabolism—at least so far as control of diabetes is concerned. I used to wonder why EVERY TIME, after eating kielbasa, I would have high blood sugar readings the following morning. I have not eaten kielbasa for about ten years now. As for shellfish and other related seafood products, I simply have never liked them.
----------------------
My reply/comment:
Well, understand NO ONE inadvertently “keeps" the dietary laws or any other law. You cannot “keep” a law “by mistake or serendipitously”. Obedience is a conscious, cognitive, positive decision, not a random passive absence of action. While indeed you may be able to “not violate” a law inadvertently, you CANNOT “keep” a law inadvertently if you do not intend to obey it, but it merely “works out” that way. Obedience is a choice. A decision. An action based upon knowledge of the order; not a “default”. If your father had given orders for you to mow the lawn today, and you nevergot the message because you refused to present yourself to learn his will and read the “job assignment” for the day, if you went out and mowed the lawn because it was a nice day and you felt like getting a little sun and exercise, that would not be obedience; though indeed, the lawn got mowed.
A man and woman who are merely shacked up living together are NOT man and wife UNLESS they vowed to each other TO BE man and wife, accepting that responsibility and offering that dedication. A piece of paper from a corrupt state or an apostate church does not make a marriage. What is called “Common Law Marriage” is not a marriage in God’s Eyes, unless the man and woman actually vowed to each other to be man and wife, and were so dedicated to each other (and the woman submitting to the God-ordained structure of a Biblical marriage), regardless of whether they chose to go before a corrupt state or church and bow down to them and ask for the state / church’s permission, recognition, or blessing. Nothing that the wicked do is honorable or acceptable or pleasing in God’s Sight. Actions alone are meaningless. The act itself has to be an ordained act and the actor has to have the intent to commit the act for the right reason—His heart motive is required for God to honor it. No Israelite who had a blood sacrifice offered for his sins had his sins temporarily atoned for—unless he had actually repented of his sins, confessed them, and asked God to forgive him in addition to the offering of the required blood sacrifice.
Thus, if a person has a food allergy, or a health issue (or the restaurant just happened to be out of pork roast that night when he planned on ordering it) that is NOT “keeping” God’s dietary laws. It is simply not violating them—but not by choice but by circumstances imposed upon him; it is not obeying God but merely pragmatically preventing unpleasant health problems. That is humanism and self-serving, not obedience to God.
Obedience is worship. It is offering our lives as a living sacrifice and a denial of self. No one can inadvertantly or mistakenly obey God or keep God’s Law any more than he could mistakenly or inadvertantly “worship” God. Worship (and hence obedience) must be in spirit and in truth (with a clean heart); not mere default or accident. As I have written in various books of mine: The true test of obedience is not doing something that one wants to do anyway (such as being ordered, “Eat that hot-fudge Sundae and I want to see a smile on your face!”); the true test of obedience is doing what one was commanded when it is something that he does not want to do, but doing it with the attitude as if it was something that he wanted to do. Going through the motions with a cold, hateful, bitter attitude is not obedience; it is mere compliance—it is sin in and of itself. It would be greater sin not to do what was ordered at all; but it is still sin to do it with the wrong attitude. God declares that stubbornness is as the sin of idolatry and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft (I Samuel 15:23). This is no light matter, despite the carnal mind’s instinct to “blow off” this adomition and just go back into the pig stye of rebellion. God declared that women who don’t obey their husbands blaspheme the Word of God (Titus 2:5). Again, that is not a “menu choice” nor a light offense.
By the way, you can get all-beef or all-turkey kielbasa in the grocery store; the beef will have higher fat than the turkey, the turkey will be essentially fat free, but the beef should be lower in fat than pork, and of course, not be a defiled meat. However, you do have to read the ingredients carefully, and even call the 800 number, because many companies will use pork casings—and some may even add bacon fat for flavoring!—and not list clearly that they contain pork! God will certainly honor our desire to obey, even if in ignorance someone fools us. However, non-vigilant intentions only go so far. If you drink a jigger of Draino instead of Ni-Quill you will probably go to sleep a little longer than you expected, and not as peacefully.
Addendum
[I’ve seen “Ezekiel Bread” for sale in the health food stores, but they always leave out one main ingredient: I wonder why? read on...]
Ezekiel 4
1Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it the city, even Jerusalem:
2And lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about.
3Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the House of Israel.
4Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the House of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity.
5For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.
6And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the House of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
7Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it.
8And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege.
9Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches [spelt or rye], and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof. [that is, enough bread to last him as his only food for 390 days]
10And thy meat [meal, that is, his bread] which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. [about 10 ounces]
11Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.
[A hin was a gallon, so about 21 1/3 ounces.]
[Here comes the good part...]
12And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
13And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles [nations], whither I will drive them.
14Then said I, “Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth”.
15Then He said unto me, “Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith”.
16Moreover he said unto me, “Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment:
17That they may want bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity”.
[It should be understood that the “application line” to apply to be a prophet of God was very short; especially after this prophecy.]
It is uncertain whether God intended the dung to actually be an ingredient in the bread, or whether the dried dung was to be used as a fuel to bake (fry) the bread... as is common in Africa and other places. Dried cow dung is like dried peat because it is mostly digested grass, hay, and straw (cellulose), and when dried, is a slow burning fuel in places in which wood is scarce.
However, dung that cometh out of a man would not have fuel value (I don’t think) because it would be missing all that dried grass and hay (wood fiber / cellulose). However, if the diets of people back then had a WHOLE lot more fiber and FAR LESS meat, eggs, cheese, than our diets do, it is possible that the human dung could be used as fuel, but it seems doubtful. It indeed would burn in a fire; but it by itself would not serve as a fuel to light and sustain that fire. Furthermore, the issue seems to be that both the human dung and the cow dung were fresh—otherwise, the revulsion effect would have been a bit lost. If Ezekiel, in the presence of the people, was kneading bread and then added the special ingredient, if he had to tell them it was dried out human dung, while it would be revolting, they might have doubted it, and it would have lost a little of the shock value of disgust. If the human dung was fresh, no one would have to ask what it was, and they could also smell it. There was no doubt in anyone’s mind what is was; and just imagine their utter revulsion when they saw him kneed it into his bread dough.
EITHER WAY (fresh or dried, added to the dough itself) the notion is ABOMINABLE... and the lesson again was that Israel would eat UNCLEAN, ABOMINABLE things in their captivity.* They would eat such vile things because of their SINFULNESS and in their eventual BLINDNESS—not because of any antichrist fairy tale that God had “abolished” His Holy Standard and Moral Code—but because they would be SINFUL!
[* This had even happened around a century earlier; while under enemy siege and shut up in the city. II Kings 6:25 records, those who were able to paid for and ate pigeon dung! At least two ate an infant; others ate an ass’ head. This turned the stomach of even the wicked King Jehoram of Israel and he rent his clothes and wore sackcloth—but he did not rend his heart; but true to a sinful nature, he blamed the Prophet of God and was even so wicked as to order (unsuccessfully) Elisha to be captured and beheaded! But of course, the godless king did not blame his own sinfulness, or that of the people.]
Those who so sin against God EMBRACE BLINDNESS and EMBRACE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT.
Regardless, God in His Kindness informed Ezekiel that the use of human dung was only for “show value” before the people, and that the bread that Ezekiel would later actually eat would be made with cow dung.
[Sort of like those food cooking shows on tv where the host shows you how to prepare a certain meal from start to finish, but then pulls out of the oven the fully cooked, completed meal that he had actually started many hours earlier, and the meal that he just prepared before your very eyes that he just stuck in the oven, would not be ready for many more hours (and hopefully they actually cooked it and did not just throw it out). Thus, Jeremiah prepared for visual effect the human-dung bread dough, but later only ate the bread that was made with cow dung; and each subsequent batch that he made for over a full year, he made with cow dung... as I will explain below.]
Substituting cow dung for human dung in ones bread recipe is not really that great a substitution if the ingredient was actually added to the bread dough (rather than being the fuel; but note that it DOES seem that the dung was added to the dough, not used as fuel, for Ezekiel did not say that he had never used anything unclean for fuel to cook a meal, but that no unclean thing had ever touched his lips)... So maybe the amount of dung was very, very small and the issue was one of revulsion, not overpowering flavor or actual health. But notice that God did not have Ezekiel substitute PIG dung. While dung is still dung, since an unclean animal is unclean of itself, its dung is even “uncleaner”. Human dung is “uncleaner” too, than cow dung, because diseases can be transmitted from human to human from it. That is why God commands humans to carry a paddle or shovel into the woods or wilderness when camping or travelling when they need to relieve themselves AND BURY IT (not just tokenly, like a cat does, but truly give it a good and proper burial). However, nowhere in Scripture does God command us to follow along behind our cows and sheep and collect and bury their dung. However, cow and sheep and goat dung is unhealthy for those animals, for they do infect themselves with parasites from eating grass that has touched their own feces (or even scratching their knee with their lower jaw teeth, where they have bedded down in their own feces). The worms are usually on a 3-week cycle, so it is important to rotate the animals among 3 or 4 fields continually. However, their dung can be used as fertilizer, even as their blood. While not expressedly forbidden, it would probably be wise not to use the dung of unclean animals in gardening where food is raised for humans. Some diseases are transferrable to humans, horses carry tetanus, and swine urine and feces are so toxic it kills everything in the field they are raised in (the muck they wallow in is a combination of soil, their own urine and feces, and pus that oozes from a hollow canal running down their legs and emanating from an opening in their hooves.
However, the key point is that, as with my illustrations above concerning eating feces or aborted babies or vomit... GOD HIMSELF draws that very analogy of DUNG as being JUST AS ABOMINABLE as eating UNCLEAN ABOMINABLE ANIMALS. This is no mistake. The dietary laws are a MORAL issue. They are an issue of HOLINESS. Their violation is a SIN. Their violation is an ABOMINATION and those who violate them make themselves ABOMINABLE and DEFILE themselves and that is how God sees them.
Finally, while Ezekiel ate the cow-dung biscuits, Peter did not kill and eat any unclean animals and God revealed to him that the issue was never about eating unclean animals, which will ever and always be an abomination and forbidden.
Someone emailed and asked:
I know someone who does not use a social security number or driver’s license; he thinks that he is building Christ’s kingdom by establishing a new name, an identity separate from and outside of the current system. I fail to see how the legal ramifications that he has is being persecuted in any fashion like the apostles were. We are under bondage and in captivity and have to submit to the current system up to the point where we are not breaking Yaweh’s laws. I fail to see how he is bringing the kingdom of God by not having a state issued driver’s license and no social security numbers for any of his family. He has only drawn unneeded attention to himself. Often those without social security numbers and drivers licenses are always dependent upon someone else who currently is in the system. Some I know are quite enraged about having to have or get a number and or driver’s license.
----------------------
My reply/comment:
You don’t understand the ramifications and implications of the SS# and driver’s license if you don’t see the importance of such patriots. The only language the antichrist and traitorous, subversive politicians understand is “lawsuit”. If you violate someone’s rights for freely exercising his Constitutional rights, you are liable for criminal and civil lawsuits. If enough people stood up for what is right the enemy would back down and the criminal politicians would go to jail. Social Security number, birth certificate, and marriage license are the legal traps that corrupt, renegade public servants use to claim ownership of your body and that of your children. The driver’s license is what they use to control your movement and tax and fine you for it; and continually regulate you more and more.
The late George Gordon of Isabella, Missouri (who passed away September 2014) and Bob Halstrom of Barrister’s Inn School of Common Law (founded 1979), in Boise, Idaho, and also a separate person, “Pastor Paul Revere” (an invented name, I believe) of Embassy of Heaven, Sublimity, Oregon, with varied success drove on the highway without state license or plates, rescinded SS#, didn’t pay income taxes, etc. (and the late Howard Freeman of Montana was successful in the latter category)—but it requires knowing the law and not giving in to scare tactics, persecution, intimidation, etc. (and also being willing to be arrested, spend time in jail, be harrassed, have your car impounded, etc.). In most cases you cannot hire a lawyer, because most lawyers are ignorant of Constitutional and Common (like most doctors know nothing about health, herbs, or vitamins; they only know about drugs and surgery and AMA “approved” methods). Furthermore, when you hire a lawyer, you are declaring yourself to be incompetent and giving your power of attorney to a lawyer—and the Juris Corupus Secundum reveals that a lawyer’s loyalty is to the court first and secondly to the client.
[See also: Secret Oath of Lawyers, 32pp., booklet, 3.00 + P&H.]
Obviously, those who plan to make an escape from Alcatraz or Stalag 13 who actually competently study a valid plan will be more successful than those who just make a run for it and never think it through, being completely ignorant. Pharaoh does not like those whom he thinks are “his slaves” running off “his plantation” as if they were free.
The SS# is an unconstitutional slave identification number, as is marriage license, drivers license, etc. Each of these identifications makes you a ward of the state, without constitutitonal rights, only privileges that they grant to you (requiring you to jump through any hoop they put before you), which can be ammended or stripped from you completely at their whim.
The corrupt politicians say that we need all these identifiers—which would not be needed if they did not flood the nation with aliens and if criminals were swiftly and constitutionally sentenced for their crimes. However, criminals are very important to the “government”—they are a tool that they use to herd the law abiding citizens into the containment area and then through the cattle chute onto the cattle trucks to send to market to make money off.
More and more each year, these “identifiers” and restrictive documents and licenses become greater and greater—fingerprinting, retinal eye scan, DNA sample, microchip implants, spy satellites, traffic cameras, security cameras on every street corner, TVs that spy on you, cell phones and computers that spy on you, phone taps and computerized surveilance of phone conversations or conversations in public like in test sites in Donut shops, etc.), sale of all social media communications to the “government” by social media companies, etc. ...
[The easiest way to catch wild hogs or turkeys or horses or whatever is to fence in the size containment area that you want, and leave the wide gates open... generously supply dried corn and apples or whatever “bait” (government hand-out) that you can. Eventually, they will appear like clockwork in morning and evening, or even hang out all day long, milling about the area. Eventually, once the entire herd or flock is inside, you simply close the gates. Curiosity may kill the cat, but greed is a far-more-powerful motivater. This is what they have done to the people—lavishing all sorts of “benefits” on the less moral, less honorable segment of the population (which will soon multiply quickly), despite the simple logic that there is no “free lunch”, SOMEONE has to pay for it. While fruit grows on trees, fully cooked cafeteria meals do not (and though fruit grows on trees, someone must cultivate the land, plant the trees, water, fertilize, weed, control insects and thieving birds and rodents, etc., pick the fruit, hall to market—the story of the Little Red Hen comes to mind). Once the majority of the population has run after the dangling carrot, or reached for the brass ring, or daily come for the free corn and water, then they are informed that it is not free and they are read the riot act in the fine print of the unspoken contract. God declares, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge”. If the people even did a tiny bit of study they would realize that fraud invalidates any scheme. However, even if the majority knew of the fraud, they would still embrace it (even as the Israelites wanted to go back to Egypt once they realized that being on their own in the wilderness required work).]
NONE of these totalitarian surveillances were needed for centuries, and again, they would not be needed if they did not import criminal alien refuse into our nation and put them on a taxpayer-funded breeding program. Over 2 million prisoners in the US, 90+% of them are not our people (and the majority of those who are our people would not have become criminals had our education system not been de-Christianized and if Hollywood and other smut purveyors not been given free rein. At $65,000 / year average incarceration cost per prisoner that is $130 BILLION per year (not counting cost of police, courts, surveilence, parole officers, security guards, etc.—or loss of life and property of the true victims). And yet the same political traitorous bastards pass laws to allow deranged homoperverts and freaks to use any bathroom they choose (the only thing that will change these immoral laws is once children or women start getting raped in bathrooms, like the homopervert predators do in rest area bathrooms along the nation’s highways; see story at the end of a homopervert predator in England).
Judge-prostitutes fine Christian bakers for not celebrating someone else’s perversion; politician-prostitutes are trying to pass laws that will impose a fine of a quarter of a million dollars for referring to someone by some gender prefix other than his current “gender of the day” by which he demands to be known, demanding everyone to enter his perverse mental delusion with him. Isn’t that a bit DRACONIAN? Half a million dollars for using the wrong pronoun? Is this nation INSANE...? What then should be the fine for rape or murder...? $100 KABLILLION...?
What about someone who thinks he is a horse? and wants to be called “Stud ____” or “Mare ___” ...? or someone who thinks she is a female dog and wants to be called “Bitch _____” ...? Where does it end...? It is madness to cater to those who are mentally deranged. Freaks and perverts come out of the woodwork during “pride parades” dance naked and commit sex acts in public, and Christians won’t stand up for anything. They let more and more aliens in and pay them to breed and breed and breed, so they can tax us more to open more prisons, put more surveilance into effect, hire more cops, start new policing and spying agencies, etc. It is a non-stop not-so-merry-go-round. It is job perpetuity called treason whose goal is totalitarian takeover.
Q. Why does your government give your hard-earned money to your enemies?
A. To have someone to protect you from.
The SS# is a fraudulent contract—based on lies and coersion—(and it is unconstitutional, violating the freedom to contract / not contract, as are all insurance policies that are forced upon people; and the SS# is a double-indemnity insurance policy, but one “sold to you” with a gun to your head and a hand in your wallet—and a “contract” in which you have no say in whether you ever collect any of it back again (they even give Social Security payments to people who have never paid into it). They are also trying to pass a law in which they will tax you on the already devalued money once you start to get it years from now—they want to tax you on money that they already taxed you on, money which they then stole from you, which, by the time they begin to “pay it back to you” (which they now call a “benefit”—that is, something that you don’t deserve) is worth only a fraction of it was worth when it was stolen from you. It is claimed that they are doing this for you (with friends like that who needs enemies), but the real reason is so everyone is dependent on the corrupt government which stingily doles out a scanty check to those who earned it, while paying godless sums of money to all those who never paid a penny into the program and hardly ever worked a day in their lives (so that the nonproducers reproduce faster than the producers). In reality, it is a massive ponzi scheme that is already bankrupt because of mismanagement, fraud, and embezzlement; and therefore, they must keep the charade going because if those dependent on the checks realized there is no money, there would be a geriatric revolution overnight (once the Metamucil and Centrum Silver kicked in, in the morning).
The SS# is also fraudulent (and fraudulent contracts are void ab initio and the law is on the side protecting the person defrauded, not the one doing the defrauding) because when it was first passed it was promised that it would never be used for identification or taxation purposes. To be legal, the Social Security Administration Act would have to be repealed; then, a new Act passed and those who agree to it would participate in it. However, contracts cannot be changed without the consent of both parties. If one party violates their end, the contract is void and the other party is free of any obligation.
Further, after having paid into it your whole life, if you are part of it, you find what they give you is not enough. Additionally, they take that money and give it to Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, etc., who come here and have never paid into it. They were also giving it to homosexuals with AIDS because no one would hire them. It is fraud; it is theft. They also, in bad faith, don’t tell you that if you simply bought gold or silver with that portion of your paycheck each week, you would have 20 times more money than what you get with the social security check. The reason is, they want to be in control of the money—and no one has a right to take your money from you and no one can be entrusted with that much money; have people not learned enough from ENRON and other ponzi schemes?
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Taxation without TRUE, HONEST representation, is TYRANNY and TREASON. It is communism and immoral and unconstitutional and unbiblical to give a vote to those on welfare, those in government service, those receiving government contracts, aliens, etc. It is conflict of interests, and those who are not bonafide freemen have no right to vote on how other peoples’ money will be taken from them and given to those on welfare, in government “service”, alien invaders, foreign nations, special interest groups, etc.
Corporations have no rights (but those with the highest-paid lawyers can usually “buy justice”). Corporations only have privileges and exist at the whim of the government. Corporations can be regulated and taxed out of existence. The SS# makes each individual a “corporation sole” (a corporation comprised of one individual) and in court that corporation sole is represented by your NAME BEING IN FULL CAPS, which is not you, but the corporation sole that the pseudo-government thinks is you, which corporation they own. Likewise, the STATE or the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in a lawsuit will have the name of THEIR FICTITIOUS ENTITY (CORPORATION) IN FULL CAPS and that refers not to the true government of the State or the United government of those individual States, it refers to the STATE or FEDERAL CORPORATION.... and as long as you play by their rules you will lose, because like the rules in a Casino, they were not made to be “fair” but they were made to make the House rich and you poor. Stop playing the game.
The SS# is not “the” Mark of the Beast, but it is “a” Mark of the Beast (because the SS# is unique to the US; though other nations have their equivalent of it). God declares damnation not merely on those who have the Mark of the Beast on their forehead or their right hand, but those who WORSHIP THE BEAST AND HIS IMAGE. What exactly is worship? It is obedience and it is work. “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work”... that Hebrew word translated labour can also mean “worshipper”. It might possibly be rendered obeisance, which better preserves the elements of subjection, service, worship, and obedience. Can a person truly rest if he has not worked 6 days as commanded? Can a person truly worship God if he is not in subjection? —of course not; even as a person cannot repent without actually turning from sin. A person can certainly go through the motions of asking forgiveness, even as an Israelite in the Old Testament could have sacrifices offered for sin—but if either does not first repent of the sin, God does not hear the prayers. Likewise, God does not receive the worship of those in sin (sin of omission or sin of commision; ignorant or wilfull).
We worship God not merely by dressing up, singing hymns, and listening to a sermon—but by fearing and obeying God every single day in all that He commanded. If we fear and obey men rather than God, then indeed, we worship those men and not God.
It is a constitutional right to travel freely even as it is a constitutional right to own and bear arms. Rights are taken away because few care to be inconvenienced to stand up for them. Standing up for freedom is not always easy; but the alternative is slavery. If enough stood up the enemy would have to back down. Like when people take down a croc or a gaitor... 8 or 9 men have to jump on the creature to weigh it down so it can then be tied up. Those men are all trusting the other to do the right thing or they are all dead.
Drivers licenses, registration, inspection, license plates, insurance, “wheel tax”, seat belt laws, random traffic stops, checkpoints, unlawful search and seizures, etc. are just continued totalitarian socialism that will only grow more costly and more restrictive and more abusive. Yet illegal aliens, without licenses or insurance—who are here illegally—who violate the traffic laws and cause an accident, are simply set free; but an American citizen would be arrested. What’s wrong with this picture?
Once people get in line and do what they are told, more and more restrictions / fines (extortion by the Law Enforcement Growth Industry: the police and the court system) are raised. A speeding ticket used to be $10. Now it is $150 dollars plus $150 court costs in many places. Talk about Draconian “laws” littering incurs a $3,000 fine here in my small town, even though they have prisoners picking up trash for .10 cents an hour each. And all would take is for a cop to “say” that he “saw” you litter; or even “plant” a candy wrapper in the back of your pickup and follow you just waiting for it to blow out. Then hundreds of dollars of court costs even if all you want to do is plead guilty and get it over with. 10 prisoners working for .10 an hour if they work an 8 hour day picking up garbage costs all of $8 and they can reasonably cover 15 miles. ONE PIECE of litter, if a person is caught and fined, will pay for OVER A YEAR of 10 prisoners working every day 8 hours a day. WHAT are they doing with the money? It is a dictatorship! It is unconstitutional! It is violation of their oath of office to preserve the Constitution and maintain law and order (keeping men from truly injuring one another)—not raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars per small town and padding the retirement of the local judge and politicians and cops who serve as their prostitutes to drum up business. It is socialism and if people don’t stand up it will only get worse.
No, we are not under bondage. God has not raised up a prophet and told us to “go quietly into that good night”... so until then, we are commanded, “Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ has made you free and become not again entangled with the yoke of bondage”. While that verse has spiritual application in reference to not being hoodwinked by the Talmudists into following their regulations in addition to the Law of God and thinking that anything that we do earns salvation—it cannot be separated from other areas of bondage and entanglement. We are to walk even as Christ walked and Christ exposed corruption. It is a sin to steal, and therefore, it is a sin to let other people steal from you and it is sin to watch passively as others are robbed. Kidnapping is a sin and that’s what false arrest and imprisonment is. Scripture also tells us, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rebuke them”. If Christians actually lived the Bible instead of acting as if it is merely a random collection of inspiring thoughts, we would not be in the state of corruption and oppression that we are in.
I am not saying that everyone should stop paying taxes, rescind SS# and drivers paraphernalia. All societies need slaves and if people are more content to be slaves than free, why should anyone try to convince them otherwise? Let them all bow down when the music starts to play. But for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Those attempting to rule over us are not our masters—but our servants! That is immoral in and of itself. If a fool wants to let his servant make him the slave while the servant assumes the role of master, if the fool is content with that, there is no sense trying to change his mind. People suffer because not enough will stand up and do what is right. Had enough people stood up and done what is right, Finicum would not be dead—and a million other similar abuses and crimes by illegals would never have happened.
If anyone gets “angry” or upset or enraged over this topic... that shows that he is functioning in the flesh and are is carnal and is not being led by the Holy Spirit—and it also shows that he is reacting emotionally and not intellectually and that he is a communist and does not even realize it. Similarly, if someone knows what is right and does it and others refuse to do what is right, becoming enraged is the wrong response for him also. being grieved in ones soul is the proper response. “Be angry and sin not.” “Be not overcome with evil but overcome evil with good.” That does not mean do nice things for evil people; it means demonstrate a godly hatred, if it be called for, not a carnal hatred. “The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” Also, those who will not stand up will have on their hands the blood of those who did stand up, and were slapped down (like Lavoy Finicum). In this life God says such will reap what they sowed and when they are being oppressed, God will make certain that no one comes to their rescue—and God Himself will shut His Ears to their cries; and God will judge them in the next life also, for their cowardice, disobedience, irresponsibility, and for all those who suffered because they did not stand up when they very well could have.
Let each be persuaded in his own mind. Let each pray, study the issue, seek God’s Counsel, the counsel of godly, intelligent, informed men, and do what is right. Is it ever the wrong time to do the right thing? Is it ever the right time to do the wrong thing? Those who decide to stand up and do what is right should then never blame someone else (who suggested that he stand up) if it doesn’t immediately turn out to be peaches and cream. All those who will live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. So if the average Christian is not suffering persecution while evil is all around him, what does that say? It says to me that he is not living godly, but that he is a friend of the world—and friends don’t always have to agree with what the other does; sometimes they just keep their mouths shut and look the other way—and that describes 95% of all “Christians” who are friends with the world (which God calls “adultery”) and therefore, the enemies of God.
Don’t be irresponsible and dishonest and ignorant and blame someone else because when you stood up to do what is right the result was not immediate utopia. Because you and others TOOK SO LONG TO STAND UP, THAT is why the consequences may not be tutti-fruitti... not because you stood up. If you let anything go on far longer than you should (termites in a house, rust on a car, cancer in your body, taking care of a hornet’s nest), when you finally do something to address the problem and you find out how costly and painful it is, only a fool would blame the person who finally convinced him to do something. The alternative is shut up and die!
Each person has the DUTY before God to do what is right, and that entails actually studying (instead of watching tv, movies, sports) to learn what is right. “Study to shew thyself approved...” “Be ye doers of the Word, not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” You reap what you sow. Do they want their children and grandchildren to be slaves (sex or otherwise), if Christ should tarry another century? (a scary thought) Exactly when should people stand up? 30 seconds before the guillotine? The American Revolution and the Protestant Reformation would NEVER have happened had the US and Europe been full of the IRRESPONSIBLE COWARDS that they are filled with today. Such don’t deserve freedom.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” —Benjamin Franklin
“And how we burned in the labor camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive, and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if people had not simply sat there, palling with terror, but had understood that they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up an ambush of a half-dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The cursed machine would have ground to a halt. If, if, if! We didn't love freedom enough. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” —Aleksandr Solzhenitzen
“What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a price on its goods, and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.” — Thomas Paine, 1776
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” —Samuel Adams (speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776)
[—Philadelphia, founded by my kinsmen and ancestors, which has now spuriously and abominably been declared a “Sanctuary City”. The Birthplace of Freedom is now a den of thieves and vipers.]
It matters not, in terms of right or wrong, whether a man “gets the support” of the people to fight the system. The majority will usually be wrong. Most are followers and they follow only due to fear, not moral conviction. The majority are lazy and cowards—until they are in a group dynamic, then they have a false sense of security, a false sense of “right” and the collective moral conscience of a sociopath.
It matters not if anyone “can see” whether what he does is furthering God’s Kingdom on earth.
How did the majority of people view John the Baptist, Moses, Elijah, or Jeremiah? You don’t have to be a bonafide prophet for the world (or even “Christians”) to think that you are odd or even wrong.
However, it does need to be understood that just because someone endeavors to detatch himself from unconstitutional bureaucratic corruption does not mean that he is godly and does not mean that he is working toward the Kingdom. Acts alone are meaningless. The act has to be accompanied by the right nature and the right motive. God commands, ye that love the Lord hate evil. However, just because someone loves evil does not mean that he loves the Lord. Someone can hate evil for other reasons (maybe only personal reasons, because it wronged him or his family). However, you can only love God one way and that is obedience (and one of those commands is to hate evil—and that does not refer to a passive thought).
“We ought to obey God rather than men.”
If enough people stood up (like the “good start” with 1 million people signing the Target pledge boycott), the socialist USSA system would grind to a halt. The machines of totalitarian regimes need fuel, and that is provided by money—and that is procured from flesh and blood (and it sheds the blood if the flesh resists). However, each contribution funds the machine to run over everyone else. If people stopped paying taxes so that politicians could no longer live like kings, start foreign wars, engage in espionage and assassinations, flood our nation with antichrist hostile aliens, give the aliens greater rights in our country, while passing laws telling us how much water we can have in our toilet bowl and what type of shower faucet we can have in the bathroom, etc., etc., etc., etc., the evil system would grind to a halt; it would run out of gas. The very fact that USELESS politicians vote to declare a certain day “Dill Pickle Day” or vote to tell us how much water we can have in the back of our toilet per flush—is firm evidence that they have nothing valid to do, and like Congress was supposed to be, they should only work for a few months of the year (at a moderate salary) and then go home and work a real job. The less they are convened in Congress, the less opportunity they have to commit Treason and do irreversible damage.
People weave their own nooses (and the nooses of their kinsmen) by paying into a fraudulent, unconstitutional criminal immoral system, and therefore, they are accomplices in the domestic and international crimes (including foreign wars and persecution of moral christians) that are funded by that blood money.
People do nothing because they are immoral and they think that their “reasons” justify their immoral apathy and passiveness. If someone kidnapped your wife and children and said that unless you robbed a bank for them (shooting and killing everyone in the bank), then they were going to kill your wife and children—what would you do? It’s a tough decision—but there is only one moral decision and that is not to murder innocent people and steal other people’s money, even if it costs you everyone you hold dear. Life is not fair. It would be immoral of you to sacrifice others’ lives for your own family’s lives, and according to God’s Law of the Harvest, He would see to it that you lost your own in the end too. You reap what you so. In such situations you have to trust in God and do what is right and pray that He opens a way out.
Regardless, if you commit evil to save your own skin, you are evil... just as evil as the ones who put the gun to your head. The only difference is for what price you will submit to evil. George Bernard Shaw once met a woman at a party whom he could tell was overcome by his larger-than-life persona. He asked her if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She said that she would. He then bargained her down and down until he asked if she would do it for $10,000. She replied, “No, what kind of woman do you think I am?” He replied, “I already know what kind of woman you are, I am just trying to find out what your cheapest price is.” A crude story but it also serves to illustrate my point in other areas of morality.
Those who do nothing while seeing evil all around them share in its guilt and they commit whatever evil they have to in order to save their own skin. The problem is, you reap what you sow—and once you get on that immoral not-so-merry-go-round, it becomes a “vicious circle” and it is impossible to “get off” without injury. If you allow your neighbor’s wife and daughter to be raped, and do nothing... and it happens to all your neighbors, it will eventually happen to you. We are to love our kinsman as ourselves. If you don’t want your wife and daughters raped, you SHOULD NOT TOLERATE ANY of your kinsmen’s wives or daughters being raped. To do nothing is an accomplice and guarantees you will eventually suffer the same—because God is Just and because he commanded that evil be put out from among us, not tolerated or ignored..
“Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.”
The criminal-traitor-renegade politicians are selling our nation(s) out from under us; they have amassed an astronomically staggering so-called “National” Debt and raise taxes and devalue the money through government counterfeiting causing inflation (and they have also stolen the millions of tons of silver, copper, nickle, etc., from our coinage so that it is basically lead). Even if the debt were actually the debt of the U.S.* HOW could it be paid off when they have stolen all the value from the money? There is no gold in Ft. Knox to back the paper... why else would they refuse to allow it to be audited? What makes them think that they have the authority to refuse an audit? Since when do employees tell the boss that he has no right to check up on them to make sure they are not robbing the company blind? Why else do they refuse to give back the gold of those states of the U.S. or nations that are demanding it? —because it is not there and then need time to rob someone else to pay the others off. There is some gold there as a decoy, like a real $100 on top and bottom of a stack of plain paper or counterfeits. They have robbed Peter to pay themselves and Paul for so long, in a giant heist / ponzi scheme that once enough people demand an audit, thousands of bankers and politicians will be jumping off roofs; by their own will, or having a helping hand at being “suicided” to prevent them telling what they know. Then the law of the jungle will prevail among the criminals, and no honor among thieves will result in those who are guilty realizing that they need to “kill their collaborators before their collaborators kill them” and because loose lips sink ships. The first canary to sing gets the “deal” (token fine and light prison sentence), so it will then be open season on canaries!
[* —which it is not: It is the debt of the corrupt politicians who voted to misspend taxpayer money and it is the debt of every person receiving welfare and every person / company / nation / special interest group / “charity” that somehow receives any public funds: any person or business that files for bankruptcy, receives bailout money, subsidies, aid, grants, etc.; all government employees who receive benefits of any type beyond a reasonable salary. It is their collective debt in proportion to what they received and it is also the politicians’ individual personal debt in proportion to how they voted on all such misappropriations of taxpayer funds. A law ought to be passed that if Congress does not stay within the bare-bones budget, that any excess expenditures do not become U.S. debt, but comes out of their salaries or bank accounts. BOY, the budget would be balanced fast and religiously followed if that law were passed, would it not? Then pass it! See also: Congress Is Not Authorized To Misappropriate Even $1 of Your Tax Money For Charitable Causes, (also called “Not Yours To Give...” “Sockdolager” and “Tale of Davy Crockett”) Congressman Davey Crockett, 12pp., booklet, 1.25 + P&H.]
The entire illusion of the con, the entire house of cards is perpetuated by everyone continuing to play along, and “ooh” and “ahh” at the Emperor’s Magnificent Suit of Invisible Clothes... and just keep paying taxes and giving up their guns while they watch the barbarians with machetes flooding through the gates.... “Duhhhh....! uh... say, what are all those machetes for...?” “Oh, those, don’t worry about them; we just plan on... uh... doing... hmmm... gardening, we plan on doing a lot of gardening”. “Oh, that’s nice... —oh look! a football game is coming on...! Yipee...!”
Despite her secular philosophy devoid of God, Ayn Rand was right in her superb, gripping novel, Atlas Shrugged* concerning the remedy to at least stop the evil machine.
[* Inquire concerning current editions and prices. Highly recommended. It is really passé, since our nations have been invaded and overrun with aliens and there is no chance that we can take it back, and our problem is no longer merely economic or dealing with corrupt politicians. It is surviving “Planet of the Apes” until God in His Mercy delivers us (which He will not do until we repent—which requires turning from sin: which is impossible since “Christians” think that God abolished His Law).]
The conclusion: Stop playing an unfair, rigged, immoral game that you are under no obligation to play.
Our nation—all of our nations, Christendom—was founded in the principle of freedom. A free man is who he says he is and he has the freedom to do whatever he wants except to the point that he would violate the Law of God and damage a kinsman. A man has the right to work and own property and no government has the right to tax him on it or tell him how or how he cannot work or use his property or spend his money. That is socialism. Those who are fine with that deserve nothing but our scorn. When is enough enough? What if Martin Luther never stood up? What if Jefferson and Madison and Adams and Franklin never stood up?
Franklin, in a wry play on words (“hang” also means, “stick together”, as the expression, “hang out together” reveals) expressed:
“We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately.” —Benjamin Franklin (remark made at the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776)
French-speaking Savoyard philosopher, writer, lawyer, and diplomat Joseph-Marie, Comte de Maistre (1753-1821) expressed,
“Every nation has the government that it deserves.”
This, of course, mirrors the Law of the Harvest, in that you reap what you sow, and Scripture also declares,
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” (Proverbs 29:2)
However, rulers are merely a reflection of the moral/spiritual fibre of the people whom they represent. Looking at our “rulers” (public servants), THIS NATION and ALL OF CHRISTENDOM DESERVES JUDGMENT! —and God said that Judgment begins at the House of God, because God’s children know better and because they are supposed to be a moralizing influence on society—not cowering, neutered in the corner watching sitcoms, movies, or sports. Like Jack Nichols said in Batman as the Joker, speaking of Gotham City (New York), “What this town needs is an enema!” INDEED IT DOES—a Niagara Falls-sized enema!
Edmund Burke, the great Christian statesman said,
“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph, is that good men do nothing.”
[The reason that good men do nothing is because they are not actually good; it is mere delusion with which they amuse and placate themselves. Every tree is known by its fruit.]
James 4:17 says,
“To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
As I explain in many of my books and Ruminations, God commands those who love Him to HATE EVIL—that which HE has declared to be evil; not what an evil government and apostate church call evil (they call evil what God calls good; and vice versa). If we do not hate evil, then God will give us more of it until either it kills us or we learn to hate it as He commanded.
Why should God deliver us from what we are willing to tolerate? He won’t. Until God’s people HATE EVIL (which necessitates reading His Word to learn what HE calls evil), then He will only give us more evil. It is such a simple lesson. Is it not time that simple minds actually learned it?
As Lee Iococca said, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way”. God has sought for Him righteous men to stand in the gap. Who will stand up?
“Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.” (Proverbs 21:13)
“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7)
“33But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in Heaven. 34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10)
Those who don’t stand up for what Christ taught and commanded—for what Christ would have stood up for—deny Christ. Denying Christ is not merely saying, “I don’t know Him” — it is remaining silent when what He taught and commanded is trampled on. In such situations, silence is denial: for when the wicked stand up and flaunt their evil and oppress the vulnerable and the righteous, the wicked throw down the gauntlet and in essence declare, “Who is a Christian? Stand up now!” Confessing Christ is not merely having a bumper sticker or t-shirt or singing a hymn on Sunday. It is confessing Him when it counts—daily—in the face of evil. Those who don’t will on the outside hear Christ reply from behind closed doors within, “I know thee not”. “Even a child is known by his doings.” (Proverbs 20:11) Talk is meaningless unless backed by actions on a regular basis. Christ said that He desires that we are either hot or cold, but those who are lukewarm He will vomit out of His mouth and they shall have no part in Him. He shall deny them before the Father, for they have denied Him before men each time they tolerate and ignore evil. Such shall hear, “Depart from Me ye that work iniquity [lawlessness; the opposite of what God commanded] I never knew you”.
“the curse causeless shall not come.” (Proverbs 26:2)
----------------------
See also:
http://freedomoutpost.com/homosexual-in-england-takes-sixty-three-year-…
6-years at taxpayer expense... that is a crime too! That’s probably about £300,000 ($500,000) ... I think he should just be pounded 300,000 times... stoned by the entire populace after a criminal trial has convicted him of being guilty. The sodomites in prison will simply allow themselves to gratify their perverse urges every time they are overcome with perverto-lust, and when they get out, they will simply see every weaker person as fresh meat. God commanded evil to be put out from among us and cut off; not incubated.
Someone emailed and asked:
The seed / sons of Esau of were dukes. Why are they called dukes?
----------------------
My reply/comment:
If people don't stand up now while they can, while we still have the numbers, they will never be able to stand up. Once a boat takes on a certain amount of water, going to the bottom of the abyss is INEVITABLE. Christendom has stopped bailing. and yet the majority who read this will delete it and casually go back to watching tv. Well, you will not be taking your tv with you to the bottom of the ocean, the graveyard of nations, oblivion... and what will you have to say to God when you awake in judgment... did you really think watching all those movies and sports was going to save Christendom, freedom, advance the kingdom of God, help our people who are being raped, robbed, and murdered...?
-------- Forwarded Message ------
Last week, I did a story about a gang of Muslim teenagers that severely beat up a nine-year-old German boy for fun. When the boy’s father confronted the Muslim teen’s parents and called the police, not only did the police do nothing, but the next day, the German government sent federal police to the German family’s house, beat up the father, and he is now awaiting trial for “intimidating refugees.” In the meantime, the police have denied that the boy was actually beaten up and are saying it was a fake.
This trend in Merkel’s Germany, where non-Muslims are prosecuted for saying or doing anything to oppose the “refugee” invasion, and while the Muslims are allowed to run wild and kill, attack, and destroy whatever pleases them, it only getting worse. Now, Germany is looking to prosecute several people under terrorism statutes for opposing a “refugee” center.
And the best part of it all is which branch of the German Government is “investigating” and prosecuting these people: The “Anti-Extremism Unit” and the “Politically Motivated Crimes Unit.”
someone emailed me this (actually, someone who himself is Jewish, yet recognizes the truth, who has read more of my books than 95% of those who claim to believe and care about the truth)... my reply is at the end of the email.
Hello, Robert,
This morning our daily Bible reading "just happened" to include Numbers 21:21-31. These verses deal with the background to Israel's acquisition of the lands in which the trans-Jordanian tribes eventually settled. It is fairly easy to understand. Sihon, king of the Amorites, had taken these lands from the Moabites, and then Israel took these same lands from him. The expulsion of the racial Moabites simply did not result in the name of the country being changed....just as the expulsion of the Cherokees from Cherokee County, North Carolina, did not result in the county being renamed "Anglo Saxon County"!
Why is this significant?
Well, about an hour earlier, I had been listening to David Jeremiah's exposition of Ruth on the radio. He said that Ruth's being accepted as a "proselyte Jew" was against the law, but that "grace triumphed over law", and thus Ruth was accepted. Of course David Jeremiah has never read your book / commentary on the entire book of Ruth.
He then went on to read the names of the other women in Christ's genealogy who were, supposedly, non-Israelites (and neither has he read your book showing Rahab was not a Canaanite, or your commentary on Genesis showing Tamar was not a Canaanite).
He sounded SOOOOO convincing! He is an excellent speaker, and is quite forceful in his delivery. Yet I find it hard to understand why the "scholars" have not seen through this! The history in Numbers 21 is quite clear. If what David Jeremiah said was true, then why do we find no other examples of "Jews" (sic) "evangelizing"
the heathen nations? Why would Ezra and Nehemiah, some 600 or 700 years later, have been so "legalistic", and so
devoid of "grace", in their enforcement of these "rigid" laws? And why would Naomi have told both of her daughters-in-law
to go back to Moab, if indeed they could have been absorbed into Israel? (That is, if one assumes--falsely!--that these women were racial Moabitesses! What a horrible thing to say! Why did Naomi not want them to become "proselyte Jews"? (if there is such a thing in terms of the modern misconception of that term). Why would Naomi want Ruth and Orpah to resume the practice of soul-damning idol worship? (which you point out in your book). Of course, David Jeremiah said that Orpah did just that...and went to Hell! If "absorption" into Israel had been open to those cursed by God, such as racial Moabites (rather than the reality of Ruth and Orpah being Israelites born and raised in the land of Moab, whither their parents had fled to escape famine), then wouldn't Naomi share in the guilt for telling Orpah to go back to heathenism rather than "witnessing" to her?)
I do understand the issues involved here. But I AM puzzled as to why almost no one (other than those few like you, in our times) has ever thought about the inherent contradictions of the "usual" understanding!
Sincerely,
-----
Mmy comments:
HOW ASININE. I GUESS THE NEW HOMO-FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT IS "GRACE TRIUMPHING OVER LAW" TOO...? And the invasion of Christendom by savages; and the more-then equal footing of all religions to the detriment of Christianity... how wonderful that we are not even bound by the restrictive boundaries of what is considered "the Gospel", now either... what "freedom"...! What "triumph"...! Yes, for the anti-christ, which appears to be whose agenda David Jeremiah preaches, blaspheming the Word of God.
email that thought to him.
"Scholars" and most ministers (who are not scholars either) don't see through it because they have swallowed the lie that God's Law is bad, but somehow man's evil law is good... and since they are in blindness and they reject the reality that we are Israel, then... to not allow the breakdown of racial barriers would EXCLUDE anglo-saxons from Christ (due to blindness and false theology claiming that we are descended from other than God's very Israel)... and then due to the modern perverse notion of fairness (and subconscious neuroticism of survivor guilt), they think it would not be fair if God chose us an no one else; hence the destruction of Christendom... suicide.
THERE's your problem... you are quoting from Numbers; you are hung up on the Old Testament; that old covenant was abolished.
--see...? I too know how to load the "silver bullet" into my "Bible revolver" which (to a fool) shoots down all truth.
FURTHERMORE... Ezra and Nehemiah were not perfect; that was the mindset in those days... God overlooked their racism for the overall good. Jesus was a little racist Himself, he had to be to appeal to his own people or they would have rejected him... he was just pretending to be a racist to show them all just how silly racism is.
--see how perverse and predictable their lies are? (just like politicians; so transparent--yet the majority of "good people" say and do nothing; which shows they are not really good)... and those who have been brainwashed from youth, whose minds have been saturated with false doctrine like a French duck leg is saturated and preserved in confit (duck fat)... it seems natural to them because they interpret reality based upon their skewed notion of reality: to the pure all things are pure; but to the defiled, all things are defiled--even their conscience. This verse does not mean that via denial of reality all things are pure or impure, for that would violate call not that which is good evil, etc. This verse means, those who are of God accept the truth of God's word even if it goes against current perverse humanistic notions to the contrary; and those who are not of God, swallow every bit of vile refuse passed off as truth, without even grimacing as they swallow the filth. Those raised eating dog crap think it tastes pretty good; and if you give them something wholesome and real to eat, they would probably spit it out thinking it was vile (like someone raised from infancy as a vegetarian reacting to eating a hamburger or a piece of steak... they would react violently as if you had just fed them human flesh!).
yes, my book on Ruth clearly shows Ruth was not a Moabite, with research and detail that casual Bible readers or casual Bible "students" like David Jeremiah will never know because they don't really want to know the truth, because they are making quite a comfortable living off their modernist, watered down version of Christianity full of paganism and error. Sadly, they don't even understand the concept of truth or logic, and therefore, eagerly swallow the most-absurd notions which contradict God's Eternal decrees, simply because it is what the masses want to hear. As I mention in my new book on the 10 Commandments/entire law of God—
"Homer Lea (1876-1912), American author (Day of the Saxon and Valor of Ignorance), military
and geo-political strategist, adventurer, and philosopher who overcame profound disability, wrote (borrowing
and altering, concepts of a phrase from Shakespeare’s "The Merchant of Venice")—
“The Judgements of men are formed, not from facts as they are, but as they wish them to be. They root
through tons of good wheat to find three pieces of chaff, if the chaff lends weight to their belief and
argument. It is not that they want others to know the truth, but to have them believe as they do. Beyond
this they do not care. The conceit of man ordinarily forms his criterion of truth.”
[Chaff is the dead, inedible outer layer or shell of each kernal of wheat. It is useless as far as food for the human body. You could compare it to a peanut shell. All the good stuff is inside (the wheat or the peanut). The shell, hull, or chaff is basically wood.]"
They are "preachers for hire" and they like their hire.. so they continue to "scratch the ears" of those who hold their purse strings... if they preached the truth, book deals would end; current books would go out of print; tv and radio programs would be cancelled; big doaners would drop them. They are Balaam... and they don't even realize they are preaching the same message that will destroy God's people: mix it up, intermarry, grace triumphs over law! No, God's Grace is not lawless. Christ Himself will triumph over them when He declares, "depart from Me ye that work iniquity, I never knew you".
This Greek word translated iniquity is "anomos" literally, "no law"; thus, in this verse, "lawlessness"... where is the "triumph grace over law" in Christ's final denunciation? Sadly, Someone named "David Jeremiah" is a disgrace to both David and Jeremiah. What a shame, to have such an audience and use the platform to preach as the blind leading the blind... and to preach an Antichrist message that is destroying Christendom... (clearly evident in that last email in which you said he was preaching that since Christendom has not taken the message to the Third world--which is a lie, to the extent we have we have suffered corruption and pollution and we have been paganized rather than they being Christianized--which is the result of violating Christ's command, "give NOT that which is holy to the dogs and cast NOT pearls before swine, lest they turn and rend you." But Anti-David Anti-Jeremiah claims, from what you told me, that God is now bringing the Third World to Christendom to "be evangelized" WHICH IS NOT WHY THE DRAGON OPENS HIS MOUTH AND SPEWS OUT THE FLOOD...! and God does not respond by "evangelizing" the flood, but opening the earth to receive it DESTROYING THE FLOOD! God deliver such BLIND GUIDES from themselves and deliver all those foolish enough to follow them; open their eyes and have them follow TRUE Bible teachers and embrace the TRUTH not blasphemous and self-destructive lies.
Yes forceful delivery + dogmatic error is all that they can rely upon when their theology is naked and their soul spiritually bankrupt (which "theology" [which in reality is HUMANISM] they "make up" to please their own seared conscience, which they pad thick with their best-seller book deals, radio syndication, like a teenager stuffing toilet paper into his pants so he doesn't feel his father's spanking that much; etc.); when they have no truth to sell, a "HARD" sell technique is required (a con-artist scam, FRAUD)... also some people are fooled by a speaker's own self-confidence or eloquence of delivery, and so most people don't even listen to the words*... much like poor Eve with the Serpent in the garden.
[* like people who sing hymns or popular Christian songs even though the theology is in error, because the songs are so "pretty" they think the theology does not matter—WHO then are they singing the songs too? Certainly not God; therefore, they sing them to themselves, to please self, and therefore they are guilty of idolatry: through worshipping self. If they are worshipping God, then it is tantamount to offering a pig on the altar--albeit, a pig with lipstick and a pretty dress.]
Most Bible "experts" completely ignore inherent contradictions because they are utterly illogical, do not know how to think (and DON'T WANT to know; because their current irrational, unbiblical way of thinking is quite profitable), and because they are not led by the Spirit of Truth, but lean unto their own (carnal) understanding and (humanistic) ways that "seem right" (to those devoid of the Spirit of Truth) and thus they "serve up death" from the Word of God, in just a bit more refined fashion than Jim Jones did. Surely they will suffer the greater damnation (condemnation).