Horizontal Menu Bar

A World of "Morons"

A World of “Morons” (Jer 1:5b, 10; 25:15-29ff; 46-51; 52 & Dan 11:41)

“Moronisms” That Shape Our Age.

            A recent comment in this blog post literally started to make my cup overflow in regards to the various ongoing temporal and spiritual dealings with various people, including this Theological Views blog and its related NJK Project. Reading the Scriptural context in which Jesus Christ rebukedly used the self-proscribed (Matt 5:22[1]) term “moron” (Greek moros [Strongs #3474]) in Matt 23:16-17, and also the way that it is used in the OT Septuagint (LXX), is quite determinative as to its true characterizing meaning, as seen here:

Deu 32:6 - People who are “senseless” (i.e., ‘not marked by the use of reason’; (cf. Matt 7:26) ‘Unresponsive to stimulation’; ‘serving no useful purpose’; ‘having no excuse for being’ (e.g., senseless violence); ‘lacking sense or understanding or judgment.’

Jer 5:21 -‘Foolish/senseless and heartless people who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear.’ (I.e. people who do not act, make decisions and/or form beliefs on “sensically” observable (e.g., sight, sound) parameters and facts.

Isa 32:6 - People inclined towards wickedness, who prefer to practice ungodliness, speak error and seek to maintain an ignoring indifference towards the needy though they could actually help.

2 Tim 2:23 - By implication, people who enjoy engaging in “foolish and ignorant speculations”

-From the related Greek term moraino (Strongs #3471): ‘those who have (mindlessly) lost their (intellectual) sharpness/function/“plot”’ (Matt 5:13|Luke 14:34; Rom 1:22; 1 Cor 1:20).

-Quite eschatologically-significant enough, five of the virgins in the parable of Matt 25:1-13 are characterized as being such “morons” (Matt 25:2, 3, 8). Cf. this blog post.

            So, quite appropriately enough, when Jesus addressed the popular view of the Scribes and Pharisees of His time who believed and thought that: ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated,’ (Mat 23:16), -and proceeded to denounce them as “morons”, He was making this statement from a factual basis and thus with blameless cause.[2], [3]

            Thus it can be seen that the Bible describes someone as being a “moron” who, when having to make a discretionary choice, will knee-jerkly opt for/advance the option which has the least, various self-affecting implications in it.[4]

“Moronisms” In Our World
            In looking at the Age in which we currently live in, it does not take much effort for the sane and honestly-minded person to readily observe that we live in a World/Age that is being literally ruined by a panoply of adamantly revered “moronic thinking” (= “Moronisms”).[5] From History, to Economics, Politics, Society, Culture, to Religions, Denomination and Beliefs, and even in our own Remnant Church, it is unavoidable to see that it is fundamental and persisted Moronisms that have come to skew the times in which we live and leave many resolvable problems and issues unresolved. It should be simple enough to resolve these problems and issues by solely debunking the moronic basis upon which they are formed, but the abandonment of moronic thinking involves in most cases, having to make a choice for the option that will require various “adversely” significant changes, which many in this, in itself, moronic pain-or-pleasure world, are simply not disposed, nor willing, to make. Nevertheless the main tenets of some of these various Moronisms will here be exposed and succinctly debunked. Yet, as it is “moronically” typical, one will do whatever they want to do with these stipulations.

“Audience”, Enjoining Participation
            One more key introductory point.... a fundamental part of advanced and sustained moronisms is the almost equally contributing development where many times, a generality of people at times come to know that something they had said in the past was erroneous, but then either themselves and/or also their audience, “moronically” think more harm would be done by explicitly admitting and correcting that error. And so the “sweep it under the rug” and even at times prefer to let others, i.e., their opponents, who will more than likely notice that error, do that correcting against them!?? That is repeatedly seen in situations of mass influential leadership, e.g., politics, but is also found in the Church in regards to claims made by a pastor in his/her sermons.

            (Recently encountered) Example: a pastor protractedly, expoundedly claiming upon reading Gen 16:1 that: ‘our common default thinking precludes the likely possibility that it was Abraham who was “infertile”’, but then, less than a minute later goes on to read the subsequent verses where it is obviously seen that Abraham had no such problem at all! It seemed manifest to me that the pastor did notice that subsequent trumping narrative, but decided not to correct his previous claims. And so it is the case with several preachers.

            All this common and typical ‘indifferent stance’ shows that something other than Facts and Truth is the actual prominent/main concern of such “leaders”...and worse of all...their audience typically, awarely/knowingly does not mind (inherently betraying an also valued “policy”)... as if the self -recognizing, -admitting & -correcting of that error will actually somehow forever ruin the reliability and credibility of that leader; whereas(??) not doing so intactly preserves it.

            This all is reflective of a quite carefully established, foundational ‘untruth and/or lying mentality’ through which the Devil can effectuate his various worldwide deceptions on all groups of people.

            Succinctly said here, the historical episodes of: Ancient Israel apostasies; the First Century A.D. Jewish rejection of Jesus Christ; Christian Persecutions; Catholic Inquisitions and Military Crusades; Natives People Abuses and Slaughtering; (Institutionalized) Racial Slavery; the U.S. Civil War; World Wars I & Nazism’s WWII; the Holocaust; (U.S.) Racial Segregation; Apartheid; the Cold War and its proxy wars; the Rwandan Genocide; the ongoing Iraq War; are just a small, but most indicative sampling of the many “moronic” occurrences in world history that have come to shape even our present age, even when ended or abandoned. The following is an elaboration on more contemporary and/or resultingly persisting ones.

Capitalism: As stated, explained and referenced pervasively throughout this blog, there is nothing “Biblical,” “good,” “logical,” or “sustainable” with a Capitalistic economic system. It is only through an adherence to the chosen moronic attitudes of: ‘only using oneself as a gauge’ and ‘selfishly and greedily caring about oneself’ that such a retarded and long ago failed (i.e, in the 1930's) system, (i.e., true Capitalism (Laissez Faire), which a “Mixed-Economy” is definitely not), that it continues to partly exist today, but even more moronically, it, in its present ca. 45%-60% Socialistically-diluted form is claimed as being ‘a thriving, whole economic system. But try explaining that to a Capitalist today, even an SDA Christian, as I have repeatedly experienced. ‘The love of money is indeed the greatest of all evils in the world.’ (1 Tim 6:10)

Poverty: Contrary to popular belief, the world is not running out of the various resources needed to fully sustain life at an adequately high quality level for all. The actual problem is that the above mentioned predominant global economic system of Capitalism, with its arbitrary and whimsical ways of determining the value of goods and services, is not allowing for the proper, scientific reckoning of various global resources, economies and production capabilities. Therefore in Capitalism, if something is said to be undoable, it is not because there are not the needed resources available to do this thing, but simply that ‘the subjective value that has been imposed on these resources by those who control this capital exceeds the money that some other dependent/needing people may have.’ And people are to live and die because of this widespread moronic, egoistical mentality!?? (See more here). Just as bad are SDAs who use this moronic thinking as part of signs of the times indicators. Further reasons why they are so against overturning this mentality.

The Religious Right: Many, especially in the United States, believe that the only solution to “making” a country a Christian Nation, is to break down a supposed false ‘wall between Church and State.’ Such moronic thinking does not realize that they live in a Democracy where 80% of the population claims to be Christians and where even the Constitution can be amended by a Super-majority vote (67%+). So then clearly, the only reason why America is not officially a Christian Nation, i.e., legislating even religiously moral laws, is that the vast majority of the population clearly do not want to live as Christians should, and prefer to have the “Freedom” to do whatever they may wish to do. America is a microcosm of the greater ongoing Great Controversy Between Good and Evil.

Smoking: It is quite heartening that, due to the disproportionately overwhelming “pain” caused by smoking, than any perceived or tangible “pleasure”, that society is more and more shunning and marginalizing smoking, as seen in recent ad campaigns, package warning labels and the restriction on public smoking to certain relatively secluded/remote areas, if not an outright ban, such as, in some jurisdictions, smoking in restaurants. Yet it is correspondingly just as perplexing and disheartening to see some people (ca. 25%-30% of people in Western societies) who persist in smoking. Given that it has been repeatedly shown that smoking can easily be, successfully, quitted “cold turkey”, it can be argued that the real issue with those who persist on smoking despite knowing for a fact that it is most detrimental to their health, that there is not an issue of “nicotine addiction” (or else all smokers would have to go through some form of clinicla disintoxication and/or rehad just to quite smoking as with most other drugs), but rather a psychological issue of “nicotine dependence”. The difference here is that people who are “psychologically dependent” deeply think that they need to smoke to “properly” function, while people who are addicted truly cannot return to a normative, physical state without a substantive or a rehabing offsetting substitute.
            So my advice to those who are actually “thinking” that they cannot quit smoking is to introspectly and honestly examine their lives and see what exactly is causing them to seek a smokescreening [pun intended] “diversion” in cigarettes. The craving for that “alternative feeling” brought about by cigarette smoking is clearly caused by a recurring, unwanted feeling (e.g., stress, fear, depression, sadness, despair, etc.)

Drinking: It is a scientific fact that alcohol, as a mind-altering substance that it is, is most technically a “drug.” Given all of the various health and societal problems that are caused by alcohol, it is surprising that it is not similarly increasingly marginalized as cigarettes are. Furthermore, despite not having ever (at least to my informed knowledge) consumed alcohol in my life, I cannot for the life of me see, even upon mere observation, why alcohol is so widely celebrated. Simple casual deductions from observing and listening to the rationales of drinkers, and those who celebrate alcohol show that this substance is only considered “worthwhile” for the “out of oneself” effect that it has on its consumer. In other words, it is when people want to ‘not be themselves,’ for whatever reason or circumstance, that they drink. Even the moderate drinking involves this ‘see-how-close-to-the-edge-that-I-can-get’ “cheap thrill” that someone experiences by this social drinking, that also make this form of consumption “exciting”. Clearly the whole issue here is not in drinking a, literally, fuel, but in the psychological and/or “drugging” effect produced by alcohol. People who need such a mind shifting/altering substance to feel better about themselves, a situation and/or life, (indeed to the point of being actually capable of ‘coming to not know their last name’ cf. ~Gen 19:31-36), have much deeper and distinct psychological problems and issues that distinctly need to be clinically dealt with.
            Needless to say that the Christian who condones and endorses drinking (as well as smoking) is actually not really converted as they do not understand what truly ‘being recreated to be in the image and likeness of God’ really is suppose to wholly and integrally be. Case in point, if anyone ever “needed a drink”, both psychologically and physically, it was Jesus Christ during His Cross ordeal, however when He became aware that it was an alcoholic mixture that was given to him to quench His thirst, He straightly rejected it. (Matt 27:34; -see much more on this issue at Claim #199 in here). If Christ believed that drinking, even in moderation was acceptable, as many Christians today do, (even serving it in Church as a symbolic emblem of Christ’s Sacrifice!), then He surely would have drank what was offered to him, especially for just quenching His physical thirst. Clearly He did not see that this substance had any temporal benefit, nor spiritual redemptive value.
Guns: (Cf. in here) It is literally nauseating and repugnant to see Christians proudly, as seen in America, toting around a gun as if it is some sort of Biblical emblem. Yet it is moronically comical to hear these Americans claim that this is a 2nd Amendment right; -(despite/contra. the quasi-plausible (but still spurious) argument made here [08:55ff] as it ignores key terms such as “well-regulated”, “militia”, “security” and “State” which technically imply a foreign-borne threat.). Succinctly said here, if the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was intended to ‘protect civilians from their government’ and not for the ‘general security of a country that then did not have an established, standing army for a National Defense’ and which was then susceptible to internal attacks from Native Americans defending their land, and/or an external attack from a country like England who may wish to reclaim its prior territorial claim at any time, then (particularly since the U.S. Government has since then, especially in recent years after 9/11, repeatedly shown that it is certainly not beneath them to ignore/circumvent/suspend Constitutional dictates, however, and whenever, it deems it necessary, -compoundedly even against U.S. Citizens, thus potentially even ignoring/circumventing/suspending Posse Comitatus, with perhaps also an Executive Branch “legal memo” (see, lately, here) then which e.g., ‘authorizes the P.C. Act-excluded National Guard and/or Coast Guard to “upgrade” their weaponry’ (as in the 1993 Waco Davidian Branch Davidians Government Massacre {alt. here} [See more here]; or claims that ‘the FBI or CIA is not an entity of the U.S. Military’; or even, a, not so far-fetched play-on-words which sees, or, as for the fancifully-fabricated 2003+ Iraq War, merely presumes/suspects/assumes, an actionable effectuation of the ‘“enemies at home” constitutional jurisdiction’ for U.S. Armed Forces), then one has the right to, if they have enough money, or can pool together enough money with like-minded people, purchase e.g., a stealth nuclear bomber or an attack, nuclear-armed, submarine, since the government has such a weapon in its arsenal!! (cf. here). Furthermore, any law or regulation that the government may pass to limit access to firearms in any way, and that to absolutely anyone, would (i.e., should then) be defaultly and unequivocally unconstitutional and immediately struck down. I mean, who knows... maybe a “populace” government will one day unanimously decide to, e.g., overreachingly, forcefully round up and intern into work camp, e.g., anyone with any mental health issue!! Now who is going to defend the freedom of these citizens with mental issues!??
            As it is typical with moronic thinking, the further implications are never taking into consideration. (See more here) .

Atheism|Agnosticism|Skepticism: Effectively these three views/groups are one and the same, pointedly in that they all: ‘don’t believe’, ‘are not sure of’, ‘disbelievingly doubt/question’ the claim of the God presented in the Bible. And what is “moronic” about their common stance is, -(as exposed in more detail here), that they all assuagingly choose to both (1) ignore the missing/unanswered fundamental element of their belief system: which can’t explain how ‘everything came from nothing’; and (2) do not live up to the natural/sequitur implication of their belief system: which is sacrificing part of their present life for the life that may, or (naturally or catastrophically) may not go on after they have died and completely/eternally ceased to exist. If you bother to factor in the incontrovertible sourcing/beginning element, you can’t help but cease to be an “atheist”.....and if you are not living out this life, -your “one and only life”, in order to (lawfully or healthily....or not necessarily so) get the absolute most out of this ‘one life’ as possible before its all completely and forever gone’, then you are not really an atheist...
            The psycho-analytic fact is that Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics all just want to, in any assuaging way, avoid the (actually fulfilled-prophecies-evidenced, -e.g. here & here) God of the Bible and His ownership claim on their existence. It is not at all a coincidence that these rebelling ones can’t help but go on to support the following “cultures of death”:

Abortion: Only a successfully seared conscience and inhumane mentality can lead someone to believe that having an abortion is not outrightly terminating a distinct Human Life, and thus unequivocally: MURDER!!! As stated in this blog post: ‘It may be ‘your body’, but it (clearly) is not your Life.’ The answer is of course not, the equally moronic act of ‘claiming imminent danger and murdering abortion doctors’, particularly, also as they are not even forcing people to come and have an abortion. Case in point, even a simple, would-otherwise-be-applicable, Citizen’s Arrest would not stand in the light of the existing abortion permitting laws. So the actual solution rather is to either democratically elect people who will pass laws that protect the life of the unborn infant and in the interim seek to establish a program that will indeed pay, if desired, for someone to give their would be aborted baby into adoption once they are born, as proposed and planned here.
            Relatedly some have “sanctimoniously”, pompously/incensedly argued that (as the SDA Church also “believes”): ‘a victim of rape or incest should not be forced to carry the child of the rapist if they have become pregnant’, however, and on purely a technical, “due process”, level: do cite a criminal prosecution for rape or even incest which has taken less than 6-9 months, i.e., from complaint to arrest (if the actual [alleged] perpetrator is even ever found) to conviction. I have not found any. -And that is before any possible defendant appeal to a higher court. And given the way that even criminal courts are usually back up where legislatively prescribed due process schedules cannot be kept, even a case involving a confession or plea bargain may not be resolved “in time”. And also quite possibly, anyone can “falsely/fraudulently” claim rape, or even incest, including, mistakenly, in terms of who was actually responsible for the pregnancy. The only “right” solution here is in having a profitably and compensatorily viable adoption alternative for any unwanted infants as suggest in the above referred to “Aborting Abortion” plans.

Homosexual Lifestyle: One has to literally check their brain at the door to accept the counter anatomical view propping up the Homosexual Culture that: ‘little boys grow up to be little girls’ and vice versa, or even that ‘people were born that way,’ as if there existed some sort of gay gene. (Rom 1:26-28). In fact, (I’ll thetically state that) there is not even a “straight gene”, -as in any “gene” which determines the sexual attraction of someone. It’s either/all post-birth, psychologically acquired/influenced, and thus (subliminally, then neglectingly and/or perhaps also misguidedly, deliberately, reinforced) learned behavior, -including with the cognate “trans-gendering” tangent/branch (e.g. here). And any of the later posited “epigenetic” affectations would really only influence how one would hormonally feel, but still not dictate their sexual preference. That is something which they either inceptively subliminally, and/or later volitionally decidedly, choose for themselves: E.g. as in either (even quite) feministic guys, or tom-boy girls, choosing/preferring heterosexual relations/-ships. [And, relatedly, homosexuality is indeed as “non-natural” as would be a (scientific) claim that: ‘eating is to be naturally done by stuffing food into your ear holes or nose [notwithstanding, for probable moronic reasoning, nasogatric (nose feeding) tubes],’ or ‘by splattering food all over one’s face.’] The choice of homosexual identity (for, think about it, -anything rooted in personal “preference” is inherently a “choice”) that one makes is factually the product of various social and psychological parameters, including how one physically looks. While genetics, and a mistaken reproduction of them may affect how one looks physically, I have yet to see a study that shows that the conscious (“neuro-plastic”) mind itself (i.e., not actually the physical brain)[6] involves (i.e., is determined through) genetics. E.g., is either stupidity or intelligence hereditary or aren’t these just intrinsically cultivatedly developed/affected “capabilities.”[7] Similarly, how one thinks and views things perceived is solely shaped by distinct and non-genetic mental processes operating in this conscious mind, which is responsible for one’s thoughts, perceptions, memories, emotions, will, and imaginations, including all unconscious cognitive processes. And in the advent of the now well-entrenched postmodern age/mentality, =the “Age of Unreason”, where various degrees of unbelief are pervasive and rampant, then it is not at all surprising that God’s renewing Spirit is “no longer striving with men” in this likewise decidedly “violent”, counter-natural, corrupting choicing (Gen 6:5-7, 11-13), and thus has duly/correspondingly “given up/over” these now many unbelievers to any chemical/hormonal imbalancement, defectiveness and degeneracy going on to, indeed within the “perfect-storm” context of an growing encouraging and enabling society, affect, and sear, their psyche towards “evil continually”. (Rom 1:22, 26, 28-32).
            So in summary one is ultimately, actually whatever they “think” they are or should be, and not what they “physically look” or “emotionally/psychologically feel” like, because these parameters of what they look or feel like has first been interpreted by their mind. Indeed the recent exponential rise of people who claim to be homosexuals is objectively, self-fulfillingly, directly due to the increasing open fostering and publicizing of this mentality, which many then come to use as a sort of psychological/emotional scapegoat. (cf. this Q&A article, as well as e.g., this sermon, this brief commenting, for more on this topic).[8]

            And this recent (Dec. 2012) study which, if valid, suggests that while there may not be a “gay gene”, one of the contributors to a homosexual mindset may be through epigenetics (see an overview explanation it here[27:46-34:36]) affectations during pregnancy (cf. here p.4 (video [20:49-22:36])). Such a study should, (as some may “moronically” think that this is a normal/natural development, i.e., for ‘creating a, third, gay gender’), also go deeper into trying to pinpoint just what is at the source of such an epigenetic affectation, whether it is from a non-natural internal (i.e., emotional, psychological, physiological) health/wellness issue with the mother and/or, as with, would-be similarly, epigenetically-passed on alcoholic dispositions and tendencies, through an action of the mother (e.g., hormonal disbalancing, psychological reactions to various life situations, repressions caused by birth control pills, etc.). And yet, even with epigenetics as a possible cause for some, the above stated issue of ‘how one, through mental processes, comes to “plastically” wholly feel about/perceive themselves’ is still at a foundational play here, because it will then affect the mindset of that person in psychological choosing/deciding what would be best for them for such a state of mind. Most people ideally seek what they think will be “complete them” in a relationship, and that all comes from an accrued log of processed personal feelings from various, pertinent life experiences. And so, the female who feels/looks more masculine will have come to think to be much more “emotionally” comfortable, acceptable|accepted, attractive/attracted, completed, etc, to/by other females, and would find that emotional-psychological-void-filling in (“like-minded” females; and vice versa for similar males. Relatedly claiming that Jesus’ statement in Matt 19:12a involves a contemporary, non-physical, but genetical/mental: “Born this Way” take (cf. e.g., in the 5-4-2013 sermon here (mp4) [17:46ff] by Jonathan Henderson), is eisegesis. Jesus was probably strictly referring to the tangibly/physically observed cases of “Penile and/or Testicular agenesis”. (Matt 19:11's - “those to whom it has been given” means: those in currently one of the 3 conditions/situations next stated in Matt 19:12. They indeed, versus non-eunuchs, would more readily understand this statement...And, also contra Henderson’s mindless claim, a (male) person who would have been ‘chemically born a eunuch’ would then “automatically” have same-sex attraction!).
            But whatever is the causal case here, and even if this epigenetic claim is proven to be scientific, the ultimate implication is still present for people who claim to believe in God and the Bible, and that is that, as with any other, even “epigenetically inherited” sinful tendencies, a person still has to make the choice as to whether or not they will subject it to the control, and will, of God, or just give in to it and sinfully (i.e., transgressing God’s Law, including His Law of/for Life), act it out. Indeed it is the height of pompous “Babylonian drunkenness/confusion” to hear people claim that their homosexual lifestyle is acceptable because “God created them that way” when that (supposedly) same ‘God of the Bible’ has most clearly and consistently directly and inspiringly stated and shown that He is categorically and most completely against this lifestyle. So either these claimants are (indifferently) just ignorant about what the Bible actually says/teaches (or they just don’t really believe it), and thus don’t really know their professedly claimed “God”, (who thus may just be the god that they have crafted according to their own heart idols), or they are indeed “Babylonianly drunk/confused”, and thus anything they like/prefer must be God’s own truth. (Eschatologically, all expandingly stemming from the Dan 7(:25)&8(:25) historical fulfillment.). Indeed it compoundedly is the height of either deluded/deceived or deliberate Babylonian arrogance (=Dan 3&4|Rev 13:11-14ff; 18:7) to slander (a.k.a. “blaspheme” = Rev 16:10-11) the Name (i.e., Character) of God by claiming that God will “ever bless” a course which increasingly seeks to, now officially, endorse homosexual relationships. God will certainly also not let this act of blaspheming His Name go unpunished. (Exod 20:7). Unlike devolving, fallen Man, who ever keeps on falling to lower stages of ungodliness, God’s Wisdom does not “evolve” and is always the best course to follow, particularly when He has already judged this matter, and that in person, and forever condemned it. (Gen 18; Luke 17:28-29; Jude 1:7). Better heed those who (W)rightly preach {w/vid}: “God Damn America” (cf. here), because He has (=Jer 50:29-30; see here),...the damning causing evidence is in! (1 Cor 14:1; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20; Isa 8:20; 2 Chr 20:20).
            It is relatedly also interesting to see that in Jude 1:7 one (cf. Ezek 16:48-50) of the capital/abominable sins of Sodom and Gomorrah is specified as ‘having gone after strange flesh’. The surfacely ironic thing here is that the underlying Greek work for “strange” here is “heteros”, thus some would “moronically” claim that God is actually opposed to ‘hetero-sexual’ relationships. But the exegetical (i.e., Bible-wide contextual) fact of the matter here is that, in regards to human sexuality, God has from the beginning, during the perfect and sinless times of Creation, stated that a male and a female coming together was the acceptable ‘one-fleshing’ (Gen 1:27; 2:23-24; cf. Matt 19:4-6). But with the homosexual culture contrarianly claiming that either male-male or female-female joining that could also constitute this “one-flesh”, they have indeed introduced ‘a “flesh” of another kind’ in the natural sexual equation. So, strictly spiritually speaking, it really should be people of the opposite sex who are said to be engaging in “homo-sexual” relations (i.e., flesh of the same kind), but of course, with the qualified term here being “sex/gender” and not the spiritual term “flesh”, scientifically terming these as “hetero-sexuals” is indeed accurate/proper.
            Relatedly, and most importantly here, people may surfacely assume that God is against sin, especially what He has categorized as “capital sins”, (-which in OT Israel required immediate capital punishment), because it merely “grosses” him out. But, as it was similarly stated here [see also this summarizing post], God is actually against sin, and especially capital sins, because they destroy and/or oppose life. Thus He sees that the fitting penalty for them is justly death. In other words, the inevitable only end of these capital sinful practices, i.e., if everybody did them, is only death, either naturally or by reactionary violence. E.g., given how emotionally charged adultery situations are, there would easily be an accompanying state of violence, whether as vengeful acts or forced relations. Then, as seen with people today who prefer to engage in casual (sexual) relationships, whether for mere instances, or for relatively longer term commitments, without the covenantal binding of a marriage, the desire to bring forth children into this non-permanent relationship drop drastically. Similarly, if everyone practiced a homosexual lifestyle, as one pastor pointedly put it, ‘human life on this planet would become extinct within one generation’. There of course, now is the option of non-sexually-natural conceptions, but as this involves complex medical procedures, which moreover are costly, and also are deemed more viable when the child will be born into a long-term committed (marriage) relationship, then that “option” would most likely not be frequent enough to continue the existence of mankind. And the whole mixed-conception necessity in order to provide homo-sexual couple with children who at best could only have one natural genetic linkage to either person in that couple, would create a who set of complex marital, parental and children rights issues. E.g., if Person A and/or Person B is actually not my biological parent, then why do I have to be their child. And also if the Donor/Carrier Person does not actually want me to be their child, then why should I be anyone’s child. So you surely, as actually legally rightful, have children who from an early age declare their complete emancipation from any claim of parenthood upon them, and really the courts would have not other choice but to grant this as it is a basic human right, as basic as was the non-humanness of people being subjected to others, indeed inherently as “purchased property”, in slavery.
            So God, in His Wisdom, saw that anything other than a male-female marital/family context would eventually surely result in the extinction of mankind. And also, as it typically is the case with the ‘pain-or-pleasure’ society today, as ominously looming in China today, the generational imbalance caused by their now ca. 30+ year “one-(preferably male)-child” policy, by the time the world realizes that the great drop in children, even properly raised up/educated children (for an emancipated child is more likely to not attend school or classes, -and what is the teacher going to do...write a letter to his/her parents?!!; or for that matter, what is the (democratic) State going to do: ‘force them to go to school for the superceding ultimate good of the State!??”), the skewing of things would have entrenched an inevitable future consequences, as is a partial or even total “generational void or gap” (contra. a “Baby Boom” generation), either physically and/or intellectually/economically-wise. So for such tangible death or even life-threatening detriment reasons, God chose to object-lessonly instill that any deviance in such sexual areas was “abominable” and to be immediately dealt its ultimate penalty of death.
            So God chose to deal this punishment to Sodom and Gomorrah because their conduct, particularly in those scientifically unenlightened, could only result in death, even through, possibly, deadly-mutated STD’s. And it is most interesting to see that God also considered the socio-economic sins of Sodom and Gomorrah (Ezek 16:48-50) to be deserving of death as their “capitalistic” survival of the richest/fittest/strongest ways would also end up, as seen in modern times with the reviving of such ways in Western Capitalism and its self-destructing failings in the 1930's, in social, economical and/or physical self-extinctness. (Parallely relatedly, cf. this comprehensively and pertinently indepth 2012 University of Texas study which reveals the intrinsically ‘passed-on’ psychological, sociological, and economical detrimentalities onto adults today who had been raised in same-sex households. As typical with all such selfishness-based sins, with selfishness being the “chief of sins” (4T 384.3; 7MR 232.4) and Satan cornerstone for his calculatedly ‘human-murderous’ (John 8:44) rebellion against God’s Wisdom, Truth and Rule/Law, only immediate aspects are considered and not long term, far reaching or wider, beyond oneself, ones.).
            So God considers the practice of homosexuality as “evil” and “abominable” (=most abhorrent) not merely because it ‘“cosmetically” revolts Him’, per se, but because He knows that it will only ends up in suffering, sickness, violence and death. And as everything He has done for man and His Creation is all conducive to life (cf. DA 20.1-21.3), and a more abundant Life (John 10:10), then He made it clear that such behavior will not be accepted or condoned by Him as they categorically oppose His “Abundant and Optimal Life Plans”. And that is all something that this now prominent “If it feels good, do it” and “If it makes you happy...It can’t be that bad” generation cannot, as they have not been conditioned to, understand/accept nor been thought to think beyond themselves. Yet the Biblical fact is that it, (“Freudianly” enough): ‘makes one feel so “hell”ishly sad’ because, [actually just here/now expounding on my, since 1996, (eventually knee-jerkedly), retorting quip when hearing this song over and over on the radio while at work then: “because it’s sin!!” (cf. Gen 3:15|1SM 254.1-2ff)], it indeed is ‘not “(very) good”’ (Gen 1:31). E.g., why do homosexual couple increasingly don’t feel happy/complete/satisfied unless they too can have exclusively consummated relationship (as in Gen 2:23-24); and even have those relationships sanctioned as dependably binding/respected covenantal marriages from which they can also build a life together (cf. Gen 1:18) and also have children of their “own” (as in Gen 1:28; cf. Psa 127:3-5 [however Psa 127:1-2])??! Because it ultimately is objectively just, variously, not the “right”/best course and is indeed part of Satan’s now long demonstrably debunked ill-conceived/thought plans to ordain God’s Creation (cf. Isa 14:12-20 & Ezek 28:12-19), and really now just his veiled/covert endeavors to, one way and with others, vexatiously and vengefully eternally doom people (Rev 12:7-12 -see more in this post).

Living Waters Movie on Homosexuality

Judaism: The main reason why Jesus was rejected as the Messiah by Jews in the first century and subsequent Jewish generations, was because He was teaching that the Mosaic Covenant that had been made up to then was about to be replaced by a New Covenant (=Jer 31:31-33), and one that will “make complete” what was being taught by the previous one. Furthermore, on top of undeniable mighty miracles (cf. e.g. John 11:45-53), the Jews had the advantage of a timely and precisely fulfilled prophecy in the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (Dan 9:24-27), when, when indeed rightly interpreted, unequivocally shows that Jesus of Nazareth was the long prophesied Messiah.
            It’s quite ironic to think that the first century Jews condemned Jesus because mainly He taught that the Temple would be destroyed (Matt 26:59-62); however following its prophesied destruction in 70 A.D. they voluntarily opted to amend the Mosaic Laws and Teachings to circumvent animal sacrifices and the Temple ministry instead of rebuilding it. The Temple indeed could have been rebuilt (e.g., between 70-125 A.D., because the last thing that Titus and the Romans had wanted to do was to destroy the Jewish Temple. As documented by Josephus, Titus even told the Jews: “"I will endeavor to preserve you your holy house, whether you will or not.[9]” (All that the Roman government really wanted from the Jews was to collect their withheld (poll) tax dues.) Clearly the Jewish leaders came to see for themselves that the Temple was merely a physical building, and not so indispensable to God (cf. Acts 7:44-50). They should also have known and understood that God was perfectly satisfied with a simple tent structure, especially when it would have been an “economical” burden (2 Sam 7:1-7), because it was solely the function of the Temple/Sanctuary that mattered, and not as they “moronically and blindly” (Matt 23:16-22) only ‘thought and saw’, the physical structure.[10](See much more on this ‘Judaism issue’ in this post.)

Islam: Muslim are making the equally “moronic”, though excusably, mistake of indiscriminately conflating what most Christians practices/do, which in many areas is clearly contrary to what the Bible teaches, for ‘what Christianity actually is.’ Muslims therefore need to examine the teachings of Jesus for themselves. Westerners/Christians for the most part also make this conflating mistake with the Muslim Religion however that is relatively inexcusably given the pertinent advancement of Western Societies in regards to obtain and ascertaining factual global knowledge.

Islamophobia: Much can be said here about the way in which, mainly Westerners, have a self-induced phobic view of Muslims however that would not do full justice to this touchy and complex issue. Nonetheless the following sound bite comments will be stated. They may be explained more fully later in another blog post as my time agenda allows for. (See my other comments on this topic in this other blog ("Am Patriot"); and this pointedly dedicated blog post).

- How typical it is of the West to be oblivious to and unaccountable for their actions. The widespread Western belief that ‘Muslims want to annihilate them simply because they are not also Muslims’ is nothing more than a self-induced, guilt-ridden, projected fear. Muslims who have vowed to literally “retaliate” and fight against what they have seen and felt to be Western overreaching actions and abuses in their countries and lives, may have said that ‘they will only cease this fighting back when these abusing Westerners convert to Islam’ however that is presciently, logically because that clearly is the only way that these Westerners will stop their also religiously-controlled, imperialistic, “crusading”, economic, cultural and militaristic incursions in the Arab and/or Muslim way of life. Of course, the West won’t admit to these base motivations for such actions, but the facts clearly speak against them. (See more on this on e.g., this research work written by Jews on the origin/history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict citing/quoting primary sources, on a website, pertinently enough, named “If Americans Knew”. -See also this BBC Documentary. [Cf. this presentation by a Jew -(Albeit, manifestly, a secular/atheistic, or perhaps simply skeptic, Jew as he (still?) believes (see at 04:05ff) that King David was a fictional/mythical character. However archeological findings have substantiated his historicity. -Still that historicity, being (objectively) actually inherently of ethnic and religious (= “Zionistic”) pertinence, would not trump/settle the international and political question/issue/conflict of Palestine, -as Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu indeed aims to do.)])

- The West is not “at war with Muslims,” but more pointedly with ‘Arabs who happen to be Muslims. (Case in point, Arabs only make up ca. 25% of the Muslim World!) And, as stated above, that is justifiably for the West’s indifferent, murderous, racial and smug historical foreign policy in the Middle East, and this History does not ‘only go back to the start of the last election in a Western country,’ nor has this History been magically reset and purged then, as it is obliviously presumed to occur in Western democracies every four years or so. Real and responsible life does not work in this enchanted and wishful-thinking this way.
            Also, overwhelming, indiscriminate and unjustified force (i.e., a western military campaign) is just as “terrorizing” as an undeclared, similarly indiscriminate surprise retaliating reply. If you can dish it out, then be honest and courageous enough to also “take it”. And... one person’s “collateral damage” was actually another person’s very life. Case in point, contrary to what Americans and Westerners want to think and self-justifyingly propagandize, 9/11 was not an attack by “Muslims” on America’s “Capitalism” (Word Trade Center Towers); “Military Power” (Pentagon); and (attempted) “Freedom and Democracy” (White House or Capitol). That was just pure thematical coincidence. As deliberately, and poignantly, explained by, the now dead|former, al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden [11] (in his pre-2004 U.S. Election video release cf. this news report; (video excerpt (not translated) & full transcript); which not-so-counterintuitively probably aided Bush’s reelection), the choice of the WTC towers was for a 1982 attack by US-backed Israel on apartment towers (i.e., where civilians reside) in Lebanon (=the background-intro of/for this related music video). The attacks on the Pentagon was self-evidently, clearly in retaliation for this U.S. militaristic backing of Zionisitic Israel, and the attempt on probably either the White House or the Capitol was not an attack on symbols of “Democracy” or “Freedom” but on the house/work office of the Chief Commanders and/or approving Ratifiers of such destructive and violent, contra Muslim-brotherhood Arabs, foreign policies. Deal with these truths Westerners and not guilt-alleviating, self-justifying wishful thinking! (Cf. a similar objective understanding of the facts by U.S. (Libertarian) Congressman Ron Paul (candidate in the 2012 Republican Party Presidential competition) in this 9/11 comment post on his website.)

- The West has generally denounced certain practices in the Muslim world as being unacceptable. E.g., when a Muslim Court, according to their own laws, which are similarly found in the Old Testament, condemns a person to death by stoning for having committed adultery, there is an outcry in the West of “barbarism.” Yet this same Western World/Society, among others, condone the slaughter of outrightly and wholly innocent unborn infants, by the tens of thousand per day!
            Another example: while some Muslims may be overdressed in certain cases, i.e., when it comes to face coverings for certain women (see here); some people in the West are clearly, variously, scandalously, publicly underdressed!
            Many more of such oblivious hypocritical denunciations can be cited here.

- What right does a foreign power have to force another country into adopting another “preferred” form of government. Democracy and a Separation of Church and State may be the preferred choice for a group of people, however it should be understood that other people would see this as a religious attack to seek to replace or oppose their Theocratic form of government. That indeed can easily, and even rightly be construed as a slightly attack on one’s government. In fact, this is the same way in which many Americans consider their ‘any-desired-freedoms’ Country and form of government, however unBiblical, to still be God’s ideal, and thus correspondingly, vehemently and even militaristically, oppose anyone who they assume is trying to make any change to this domestic “freedom”.

- Isn’t “Jihad”, with its, last resort, civilian-led, militia-based, just-sectarian defense against an ineffective and/or “traitorous” national government, actually in perfect harmony with how many fundamentalist American Christians understand their Constitutional Right to be under the 2nd Amendment, and that also against their own Federal government! Notwithstanding, attacking, especially one’s own civilian countrymen can, and should be, seen as outright evil and unjustifiable, however when a greater context of a separation of Church and State does not exist, as it freely may, in a country/people group, our view of what is evil vs. theirs are actually on two equally defensible, but opposite ideological ends. Indeed, given an entrenched existing Politically Religious context of most Muslim countries and societies, this can be seen as deserved judgement for ‘aiding and abetting the Great Satan’, (which substantively is indeed not far from the truth, because Satan’s greatest wish and vision for this world was that everyone would both know and have the facilitated freedom to do either good or evil as they saw fit vs. the prescient shielding and protectionist stance of God. (see Gen 3:1-6ff; 22a)*). Still children should painstakingly and outrightly be left out of these conflicts. In fact, such squabbles should only revolve around Muslim men since, if in that religiously patriarchal context, women act as “religiously liberated” Western women, it clearly is because their husbands or fathers are allowing it. {Even (child/youth activist, now also Nobel Peace Prize recipientMalala Yousafzai [e.g., here at 3:46ff], and her (already activist) father Ziauddin Yousafzai [e.g, here at 06:30ff], similarly, sequiturly/sustainedly, only assumed/thought the same.}. -(The same gross non-judging of the ultimately responsible man occurred in the snaring episode of the woman supposedly caught “in the very act” of adultery John 8:3-6ff; DA 460, 461).

            So in summary to these brief comments here, this Islamophobia that exists in Western Countries is mostly due to the smug and oblivious ways in which Westerner prefer to view and rationalize their actions towards mainly Arabs who happen to also be Muslims.

* And with modern day, Messiah- (Dan 9:24-27), New/Second Covenant- (Jer 31:31-34), and, mostly, even God (Matt 15:3ff; cf. John 19:15) rejecting Israel today thus effectively globally proclaiming that rejecting Jesus Christ, His Gospel and effectively, the Bible/Word of God is perfectly congruous with being God’s (Chosen) People today, it is, for more overt Religious reasons, perjoratively fulfilling the role of ‘the Little Satan’, i.e., ‘sons of the Devil’ who similarly ‘does not stand in the Truth,’ (John 8:37ff, 39-42ff, 44ff, 47ff; cf. 1 John 3:8; 4:6), and whose persistence in such religiously-entrenched, giddily mindless and indifferent obstinacy, with its militaristic backings, is lighted mesh in the powder keg and, despite spurious claims of “Peace-seeking”, (indeed, pertinently, just as maniacally spurious as a bully/thug claiming to seek peace by continuing to assault/mug people resisting his abuses/thievery) is rather at the insidious root of “Satan’s” grand and multi-partied instability, and desired destructions, plans for this world. (Cf. Rev 11:17-18; 9:11 see in this post).
            Thus, whether choosing, on one hand, to live according to Satan’s ideology and moreover while claiming to be a “Nation under God”, or, on the other hand, choosing to live in “stiffneck” indifference to God’s clear Truth, yet claiming to be “God’s (Chosen) People”, substantively are ‘two sides of the same “Satan” coin’, with both indeed joint-steply coalescing to set up the, last gasp, Sixth Era, Babylo-Egyptian Religion, Har-Mageddon, Overmastering Sustaining Delusion of Satan (GC 624.2ff; EW 263.1ff; see in here on Rev 16:13ff). In fact they are, in indeed this Prophetic Sixth Era, already well doing so: assuring Jews, complacenting nominal Christians, Atheists and Secularists, deluding Evangelicals, irritating Muslims, misguiding other World Religionists, and variously maintaining the world in a two-sided defacto tangible state of conflict. And both of these two spuriously false, sidekicked Religio-Economic ‘State/stately’ entities here (=EW 263.1's “conductor” and “engineer”) are pompously, and defiantly, banking on human/military power to be able to prevent God from judging them, however, respectively, Ancient Babylon and Ancient Egypt futilely tried such arrogant, blasphemous, self-assured, Divine defiance, and as seen here in Rev 18:8, God has the very same modus operandi in mind to also humble those who similarly are smugly standing against Him today.

Catholicism: On one hand it is commendable to hear a Religious system candidly admit that many of their teaching are not found in the Bible, but are based upon Church Tradition; but any “honesty credits” here are all lost when it is seen, on the other hand, that this Religious System paramountly believes that it has a God-given authority to add Traditions to Biblical Teachings. So to present the Truth to Catholics who practice such unbiblical theology&teachings (cf. e.g. here) as (contra vss.): infant baptism (Mar 16:16; Rom 10:9); worship of Mary (e.g., Luke 1:47); “Saints” (and their veneration at death) (e.g., 1 Cor 1:2; Rom 1:7; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2; Jud 1:3); Divine-Usurping/Substitution nomenclatures/appellations (Matt 23:8-10); priestly powers (Mar 2:5-11; Heb 4:15-16); Papal authority/(supremacy) (Matt 28:18); Apostolic Succession (versus: the, (and deliberately so (Acts 9:19-22, 26-30; 12:25-13:4), completely distinct and Divinely-direct (Gal 1:11-2:10): calling, anointing and commissioning of Paul through a prophetic vision (moreover, at the also vision-commissioned overseeing of the non-apostle, but merely ‘disciple in Damascus’ Ananias) (Acts 9:1-18) and his Church-Guiding/Correcting (e.g. Gal 2:11-21ff) Righteousness apart from the works of the Ceremonial Law’ New Covenant’s Full Theology) infallibility and Church inerrancy (Official Papal apology (cf. here) for the Church having persecuted/murdered tens of millions of ‘Evangelical’ Bible-Believers); adoration of idols (Exod 20:4-5); priestly celibacy (cf. Matt 8:14); Immortal Soul & Eternal Hell (see here); the doctrine of Limbo (e.g. Rev 20:14-15); the imposition of penances[12] (Matt 6:7-8ff); the collection of indulgences (Rom 6:23); Sunday Sacredness (e.g. Acts 15:21); (‘Living’) Sacraments & Transubstantiation (John 6:33-35, 46-58; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:23-25; -obviously Jesus was: figuratively speaking, and acting through ‘belief and faith’ in Him and His Sacrifice, and speaking of a “remembrance”, not a “(re-)creation of Himself” nor “a (literal) re-enactment of His Sacrifice”); and on and on, can be eye-opening for some of them who are truly honest in being solely Biblical Christians, however it is that presumed authority to add traditions to the Scripture that instead needs to be debunked in order to convict most of them. Since that cannot be done by using Scripture, since it is believed that this authority is extra-Biblical, it is the Power that is believed to be in the Offices of the clergy that needs to be deconstructed. That can easily be done by showing that in the New Covenant, it is taught, including by Peter Himself, probably making a direct allusion to the episode of Matt 16:13-20, that ‘all believers are expected to be ‘a nation of priests and saints upon their conversion (1 Pet 2:4-9) and that Jesus is our only High Priest, but really how do you actually cut into this self-effectuating, circular loop which is Church Tradition(?!) - i.e., effectively: ‘it is Church Tradition to establish and believe in Church Tradition.’ The Bible clearly teaches that any tradition is only valid if it does not invalidate or contradict the word of God (Matt 15:3, 6 cf. 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). Doing and teaching so is patently indeed the sly work of the prophetically-warned-of Anti-Christ Power. So Catholics who sincerely want to observe what is True will have to make a lucid, clear-cut choice between the Bible or the Church’s Traditions.

Protestantism: While Protestant, following the lead of Martin Luther and his 95 “objections” to the (Universal) Church then, have come a long way from the ascribing to traditions of the Mother Church, they still retain several teachings which are actually unbiblical, but are held on simply because they seem to be clearly taught in the Bible. This includes the teachings of Hell, and Eternal Soul, The Ten Commandments, Sunday Sacredness, Preteristic or Futuristic interpretation of Prophecies, eating of unhealthy foods and substances, etc. All of these teaching are actually easily debunked when Scripture is properly, i.e., exegetically studies (see e.g. in this blog post), however, here also, the “moronic choice” is, on the one hand, for the common lay person to avoid any such indepth and involved exegetical study of the Scriptures in order to properly understand it, but on the other hand, are knowing pastors who prefer to maintain the status quo rather than risk their pulpit and jobs and therefore either do not seek to do these exegetical studies that they can do or refuse to preach on what they have come to see are indeed Biblical Truths. So through mainly such moronic decisions, such popular Heretical Beliefs continue to be held as truth in the Christian Church.

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Why not simply admit that Jesus did not return in 1874 and the Millennium did not begin in 1914. I mean, among other things, is this present world the best way in which He can fulfill His promise of complete restoration and bliss. Of course, it hard to admit that one has made a mistake, especially when that mistake cannot be truly corrected with an actual Biblical Explanation and Truth as with some (future SDA) Millerites and 1844, however it is frankly a whole other depth of moronic thinking to preach that the Second Coming (even a Parousia “Glorious Appearing”) and the Millennium has already occurred. Indeed, as explained above, “moronisms” involves such dismissal sensically observable, factually parameters.

Mormonism: The same thing that has been said above in regards to Catholic Theology can also be said in regards to Mormonism and its extra-biblical and unbiblical teachings and practices also involving a Christ-substituting priesthood.

Evolution: It is quite interesting to see that Science, as it has advanced since the times when the theory of Evolution was first conceived by Charles Darwin starting in ca. 1844, has repeatedly, factually demonstrated that the theory of Evolution does not hold any water [tenet pun intended]. As someone has observed, if Darwin had a microscope in his day, he would never have believed in the ideologically foundational assumption of “spontaneous generation”. As the scientist Louis Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864 on this matter: "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[13]
            Many such observations have debunked the many moronic, non-scientific, fundamental tenets of Evolution including: ‘since monkeys primitively look(?)|act(?)|think(?) along the lines of humans, we must have descended from them.?!?’ Again it is moronically easy to make these surface arguments, however that is not solid basis for scientific thought. Indeed a smokescreen of “millions of evolving years” then need to be added to explain why Humans, in 6000 years of recorded history, have not seen this change for themselves. Faith-based Belief for faith-based belief, I personally prefer the Gen 1:26-27; 2:7 View which has been validated and anchored as Truth, at the very least, in a windfall way, by the objectively, historically verifiable development of fulfilled Bible prophecy (cf. Isa 44:6-8ff; 45:18-25; 48:5). 
            And also: Why wouldn’t have apes (which that supposed ‘ape common ancestor’ are, “Freudianly”, depicted to look/act, even nominatively be, just like them) ceased to “evolve”???. I.e. why are there still a species of apes around? Shouldn’t they have all evolved into humans if it was in their species necessity to do so? And also why have the various supposed “missing links” disappeared? Shouldn’t they be just a present today throughout our world as monkeys are!?? Indeed there is not only an unexplainable “missing link” in this view, but also one which is also a ‘missing logic’ (See more on this here|here).
            One of the best arguments, against the Evolutionary tenet of “billion of years” is the mathematically ascertainable fact of our present global population corroborated by recorded history. If man has been in its present existence for billions of years as taught, then on top of: ‘why is there nothing more than 6000 years of recalled, recorded and written history’; -why does a scientific population model only go back to an origin some 4250 years ago, when Biblical chronology precisely indicates that Noah’s flood occurred and only eight people survived! While it can relatively, plausibly be argued by Evolutionists, that our late explosion in scientific and technological knowledge and advances could be due to the fact that man’s brain was not yet fully developed back then, a belief that is easily refuted by the concrete fact that simply recent history (e.g., from the 18th century on) shows that it is solely scientific knowledge and research that has advanced, and that, exponentially, man’s conceptualizing and productive capabilities and not any “brain/cranial evolution”, it is easily observable in the unintellectual and “underdeveloped” animal world that: knowing to, and how to, reproduce their species does not take much ‘advanced intelligence’, if any at all beyond mere base instincts. So from the very first year that “anatomically modern humans originated some 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago,’ (see here) they should have been reproducing and even if moderately, trillions of people should be living today, or at the very least, we should be readily finding ample evidence of prior, abundant existence. I am sure that even the most hardened and devoted Humanist|Culturalist|Atheist|Hedonistic|Heathen|Pagan will readily recognize and admit that “this really makes no (...)* sense”!!). For much more on this topic/issue, and in depth, see the comprehensive Evolution Theory-debunking 6-part series: Have You Swallowed the [data-less] Hook?”  - “A 21st century challenge to the 19th century worldview” by Thomas Bentley. As well as the 6-part “Did Darwin Murder God?” series (with more info in his GYC 2016 presentations) by Chad Kreuzer. {Cf. this former atheist’s testimony}. And see a discussion on the famous (02-14-14) Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate (full video) here. 

Pentecostalism: Really!!?... Is that so??!...The Spirit of God Almighty is supposed to variously abase a believer to the level of a babbling, spasmodic manic, or worse, a dying cockroach!?? How about being elevated to become, at the very least, more like the incarnated Jesus?!!....Seriously....???!! What is it, [but an utter self-deception], about the ‘(truly) receiving the Holy Spirit’ issue/doctrine/event, which makes many Christians “moronically” think that they then have to (developmentally) become, and/or act like, (Spiritual) ‘infants-back-in-diapers (cf. 1SM 110.1), e.g., becoming undisciplined, unstructured, unorganized, ditsy and/or ignorant, etc, (contra. Eph 4:7, 11-16); -and where they now have to be re-told, and that: in “toddler talk” (Isa 28:5-13), -and pointedly in regards to Spiritual things, everything that they already know they should be doing, and also already know how to do!????? (=Heb 5:11-6:3ff)...The Biblical examples are consistently clear that: the Holy Spirit is given to complete one’s endeavored efforts/works, pointedly in regards to what one truly cannot do and/or know of themselves!!

            Speaking in Tongues: First of all...why do preachers/people who claim that they are speaking in tongues, patently utter expression which are demonstrably at their hearing non-coherent nor cogent????....Proof of which is that there also patently is never anyone present in that assembly which can interpret what has just been uttered, not even the speaker....Seems way too “convenient” to me....Perhaps such people think that the “mysteries” of 1 Cor 14:2...While, as presented in this Eric Metaxas “Miracle Monday” radio show, there may a practical manifestation today of the Biblical Spiritual Gift of speaking in tongues, like in Acts 2:1-13ff, it is for a practical purposes of: (a) actually expressing something to someone else in their understood language and (b) if genuinely necessary, thus warranted (cf. Matt 16:1-4), “as a sign to unbelievers” (1 Cor 14:22a) meaning/implying/involving that this unbeliever will be able to understand what is being miraculously said to recognize that it is a supernatural sign...But as with any Spiritual Gift/sign, they must all be tested for their intrinsic validity, i.e. that they are from God, because, while only God may (also reservingly) be able to do certain supernatural things (cf. Exod 8:19), as seen in Gen 3:1-6/2 Cor 11:3/Rev 12:9; 20:2; Exod 7:11-12, 22; 8:7; 2 Cor 11:14, Satan himself has the power to do certain miracles, -particularly as, as discussed here, most miracles are effectuated through the agency of (unseen) angel, and for those ‘God-reserved” or God-alone miracles, such as Faith Healings and Resurrection of the Dead, Satan can do like magicians do, and use illusions (1 Sam 28:10-25; LDE 161.2-4) and tricks (e.g. 2 Cor 11:14-15); it is therefore mandated that all manifestation of (seeming) Spiritual Gifts, signs, prophecies, miracles, and also teachings (cf. 1 Cor 14:26), be fully vetted and tested by the established Word of God to see if they concord and do not contradict. (See Deut 13:1-15). And the Sign of Tongues is one of the easiest Spiritual Gifts that Satan can counterfeit because, as seen in Matt 16:21-23, Satan can “whisperingly” suggest things in people’s ear which they then say out loud, and that could include a, even known/real, foreign language expression...Which is manifestly why tongues, along with fake-healings (+false/spiritualistic teachings (=“frogs” -see in here at Rev 16:13) and false righteousness (=Rev 16:15)), is a fundamental trace-element in the Final “Babylon-gathering” deception (Rev 16:13-14ff; 2 Cor 11:14-15/LDE 162.1-165.1ff).

Dispensationalism: It is literally mind-boggling how Christians cannot understand the simple and straightforward New Testament teaching that it is Believers in Jesus Christ who Quasi-literally and spiritually constitute God’s Israel today, and not any unbelieving people, including the ethnic Jewish nation. (See in/from here&here for much more). So there is now this popular, hypnotic teaching in the Christian world of Futuristic-Dispensationalism that has to change Biblical Theologies and Teachings such as the fullness of Christ’s Atoning Death, the Manner of His Return, the Greatest Messianic Prophecy, the just dealings of God with His People; the prophesied, actualized historical developments in Christian Church; etc, -all based upon, and derived from, a ploy by Jesuits to divert just attacks and denunciations that was being made upon the Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church by spirit-led “Protesting” Reformer. It is not surprising that there is an underlying “moronic” foundation that sustains this view which only adheres to some Scriptural Promises made to Ancient Israel vs. also incorporating statements of utter judgement if National Rebellion persisted. Ezekiel’s prophecies of National Restoration and Temple Building were made just before Judah was completely wiped out by Babylon by a Third and Final campaign in 586 B.C. ending a 20-year effort to subdue Judah. So these prophecies of Restoration were literally fulfilled starting with the Return of the Exiles in ca. 536 years following the end of Jeremiah’s 70 years judgement. If the Ezekiel temple was never built according to its mentioned specifications during these 500+ years, it was simply because his ministry was not fully acknowledged even by these Returning Exiles. Indeed the entire OT Canon, and all of its prophesies were fully stipulated some 400+ years before the advent of Christ. So, similarly, if not all of them were fulfilled by ethnic Israel, including the many prophecies of National, Messianic greatness, it was entirely because of their rejection of the Messiah, Jesus Christ when God’s decision time arrived and Jesus came along and sought to fulfill these promises through them, starting in their day. (e.g., Mar 1:15; Matt 10:23; 23:37, 38). So seeing these prophecies and other similar ones to be speaking of sometime in the future is Biblical irresponsible.
            A most comical occurrence of the “moronicity” of this Futuristic-Dispensational view revolves around the “Secret Rapture” premise. It is adamantly believed that billions of people will continue to reject Jesus Christ after this supposed Secret Rapture event has occurred and ultimately will suffer the Great Tribulation and perish. Now why in the world would anyone still reject Christ after an event like the Secret Rapture, in which hundreds of million of people who had been widely preaching and publicizing that this would occur, suddenly, simultaneously and most noticeably (i.e., abandoned, crashing cars, airplane pilots, clothes and wedding bands “left behind” etc.) did ‘vanish with a trace!??’ That grossly makes absolutely no logical, nor rational, sense, indeed as with any unbiblical and moronic teaching.

Zionism: It can mindlessly and moronically be understood why some ethnic Jews may feel the “land of Israel” is to be the unalienable, exclusive homeland of the Jews, and thus they may see a justification to reclaim it by any means possible, including treachery and violence, backed by the direct and indirect (“blind eye”) support of Western Powers, (however don’t be shocked by any defending back lash); however World and Biblical history themselves shows that there is neither a valid temporal nor spiritual basis for such a geo-political claim. So to see and hear Western governments and Christian churches/groups/organizations defend and support Zionism as some sort of paramount Right is literally horrifying due to the global instability and insecurity that this fosters. (Cf. e.g., the documentary “Waiting for Armageddon” [40:17-41:02ff; cf. 41:56-43:24] (= here [04:33-05:17ff; cf. 06:11-07:39])). Nothing like seeing a pompous, wild-eyed (prophetically) “fundamentalist” Western Christian (i.e., a Futurist-Dispensationalist) touring Israel and wishing out loud for the utter destruction of the Dome of the Rock, “Temple Mount”, Mosque -which was built starting in 689 A.D. (i.e., when Jerusalem and its temple was still indifferently abandoned by the Jewish people for then ca. 600 years), and, of course, by a ‘God-ordained, misguided Iranian missile! First get your theology and biblical teachings right on who is God’s Israel now before wandering into the most consequential global political arena!!

            And, relatedly, since God never dictated where the (Old Covenant) Temple should be, what is preventing the Jewish people today from building another Temple somewhere else in Israel, or even in Jerusalem!?? (And with a GDP/capita of $31,000, it certainly is a national expense that Israel can easily, and of itself, afford... if of course, that was/is a (religious) priority of Israel today ~Hag 1:2-4's “house”). As typical, it is the ‘doing anything else but/short of what God has actually said/required’ that is at the typical/typological root of the demise of every people of God: from the Jews (the object of the Law, -Mic 6:6-8); to Catholics (tradition, -Mar 7:8-9, 13); to Protestants (Capitalism and its fundamental, anti-Gospel, base traits of greed, selfishness, covetousness, love of money, social/neighborly/brother indifference, etc.); to SDA’s (no practical and exhaustive benevolence, -Isa 58; Matt 25:45-46; LDE 218.3). Not surprisingly, all of these chief demising faults in these subsequent forms of God’s Chosen People in the History of God’s Israel all focus on how others in various socio-economic need are treated, which indeed is the practical, and necessarily so, end purpose of God’s Law.

Seventh-day Adventist Church
            Most interesting in all of this discussion of “World Moronisms” is that all of these moronic “thinkings” cited above in this blog post are still persistently upheld by various groups of people mainly due to the distinct, yet pertinently-related, in-turn, “moronic” failings of the SDA Church, during the first (quasi-trial) phase of the Remnant Church (=the Church Militant), has not stepped up up to be all that it has been Divinely Instructed and Blessed to be for such a crucial Age as detailed in the other posts in this blog!!). It undeniably is time to ‘“shake out” the stale salt in this salt shaker.’ (Matt 5:13; Heb 12:26, 27=Hag 2:6, 7; Amos 9:8-15).

*[Matt 3:7-8|9-10|12; Luke 3:10, 11ff|15,16ff|18; John 1:19-27; DA 105.1-108.2]

-Texting, “Tweeting” & thumb-typing... just the rationalized, justifying/“green-lighting”  excuse that this moronic generation/era needed!!

[1] The use of a Vocative Case here may be syntactically emphasizing the mere (baseless) “name-calling” of someone as a “moron” vs. ‘applicably describing their action/mentality/attitude/character.’ (Also more indepth studies may show that there may be a slight lexical distinction in the Greek form of “lego” between “speaking (something)” and “(a) saying” with the second form indicating a more pensive ‘though-out declaration’; while the first merely indicates a ‘spoken-out expression.” I.e., Jesus could have instead said here in Matt 5:22: “whoever calls someone a “Moron” vs. ‘whoever says (i.e., rightly pronounces) someone to factually be a moron’. It can be seen that the first phrase could be seen as merely involving (baseless) and solely emotional, “name-calling,” whereas the second involves thought and an adjudged basis.
[2] It may be quite significant that for another similar vain belief in Matt 23:18 between ‘the Temple’s altar and the offering being made upon it’ Christ only calls the subscribers to this view “blind men” and not also “morons” -which he also could have easily repeated. The fact may be that this belief, though spurious, had a relatively more valid basis than the previous one involving the gold, as the altar was indeed a God-instituted, sacred entity in itself in the Jewish religious economy, however, it still was not superior to the offerings made on it. Thus these men were indeed solely “blind” for not seeing this, but not necessarily also “fools/morons”. In other words, it is understandable why they would have attributed a great significance to the Temple’s altar which was vitally used for the proper functions of the Temple, however not so for the gold that had been used to solely to externally beautify/decorate the Temple.
[3] Indeed in a similar way on this aforementioned submitted blog post comment it was being “blindly and “moronically”” objected by that Anonymous submitter that he thought I was merely posting EGW passages on my blog. As I said there: ‘even if I was, what would be the problem??’. To borrow the reasoning of Jesus here: ‘What is more important: the copying and posting of a [public domain] text, or the actual content of that posted Inspired passage???’

[4] It is also significant to stress that this Greek word moros (Strongs #3474) is distinct from the Greek word anoetos (Strongs #453 -see e.g., Luke 24:25; Gal 3:1, 3), which is the combination of the Greek negating particle a- (= “not”) with the Greek word for ‘duly mentally and perceptively thinking something through in order to grasp its understanding’ = noetos (Strongs #3539 - see e.g., Matt 16:9, 11, 24:15; Mar 8:17; John 12:40; Eph 3:4, 20; 1 Tim 1:7; Heb 11:3).
            So moros is indeed a stronger term than anoetos, as it addresses ‘one’s innate, or innately conditioned, default disposition to not do what is variously more demanding/challenging’, while anoetos instead faults ‘a lack of first duly and thoroughly considering something through, as indeed able to, before coming to a decision/position on it.’ Indeed in the case of moros, not “thinking” is preferentially not even involved at all, but rather, striaghtly just ‘a base acting on what superficially pleases/pleasures someone.’ So anoetos is commonly used to get one who can/should be thinking things through to do so (cf. Mark 7:18) while in cases involving moros there is not even a basis upon which to reprimandingly appeal to such “due thinking”, as “thinking” clearly is not even cared to be factored in by, e.g., that individual, which can be for clinic reasons of mental deficiency, which Jesus condemns faulting (see above in Note #1), or for self-permissively willful reason, which Jesus showed in Matt 23 was then most “fair game” to rebuke; indeed particularly in regards to entrusted leaders who should know and be doing much better!
            Also cognate, but distinct from these above understandings, is the Greek word aphrosune & aphron (Strongs #877 & #878) which involves: ‘someone who has come to a wrong choice/conclusion by having, in some degree, been fooled/tricked’, and usually, something that is trusted. Thus this can be in regards to, e.g., one’s own pondered reason (Luke 11:40); common/popular thinking/teaching (Luke 12:20; 1 Cor 15:35-37); deferentially, the view of an audience (2 Cor 12:11); the stance of the non-righteous (1 Pet 2:15) or the unwise (2 Cor 11:19). Paul also uses this word in relation to himself and the Gospel Faith/Truth that he has wholeheartedly “foolishly” given himself over to (2 Cor 12:6); and also in order to make a point, by deliberately “playing dumb” in regards to something else he knows to be the actual truth. (2 Cor 11:1, 17, 21).
[5] Since our world is actually what we have made, and continue to make it to be, it is actually erroneous to divorce these pervasive “Moronisms” from the people who allow them to thus reign supreme. Hence the main title of this blog post as: “A World of Morons”. Even amending this title to say: ‘An Age of Morons,’ would not be precise, because the various moronic developments in our present world/age, also have a basis is a distant and also not so distant World History that indeed extend into this “resulting” age (a.k.a. the “Age of Unreason”).
[6] For more on this key distinction, see the science-based sermon by David Asscherick entitled “The Idol Brain” [video].

[7] An excellent example of how external influences can come to greatly intrinsically shape and affect what is seen as ‘something that one seems to have been born with’ is speech accents. It has concretely be shown (and I’ve witnessed this myself) that you can take a set of twins, and place one, from birth/early childhood in a social environment where a particular and pronounced accent is spoken and place the other sibling in another accent environment and they will not only come to perfectly speak with the accent of this environment, but can/will defaulty, naturally do so for life. This indeed is readily also seen in children of immigrants born in e.g., France, England, Australia which indeed pick up and maintain these distinct accents. This is also achievable by older subjects, especially if these people psychologically desire to, as seamlessly as possible, “fit in” their new environments. Clearly pertinent speech “wires” in these people brains have been rewired by such internalization of these external influences to a most natural level. Nonetheless, just as effortlessly, native people with accents can lose their foreign accents (or actually, adopt another accent) if necessary (e.g., an Australian actor playing the part of an American character in a film), yet naturally switch back to their natural accent when not “in character”. So to say that external influences cannot great rewire one’s mental/thought processes is to not understand the scientific overmastering, usually imperceptible, ‘mind-over-body’ power of one’s brain over all and any bodily functions, ie., the conscious mind.

[8] Probably the most textbook, Biblically “moronic” case from those who want to justify a homosexual lifestyle comes from those who engage in this lifestyle and also, as e.g. here, claim the name/Lordship of Jesus Christ (Matt 7:21-23). Whereas the unbeliever does not really have to deal with the Biblical statements made against this practice, these “professed” Christians, (nominal at best), do. And so a string of defensively, deliberately oblivious and/or “air-headed”, blind, irrational, eisegetical, isolational, and “knee-jerk” arguments are attempted against what the Bible clearly says against this. (See e.g. the Harvard “Christian” philosophying by Peter J. Gomes here|clip; -summarily objected to here). Simply for the sake of establishing what the Biblical truth is on this issue, these main arguments, which are made against passages like Gen 19:4-11; Lev 18:22 (cf. 20:13); 1 Cor 6:9-10 & 1 Tim 1:9-10 are succinctly debunked here. (Relatedly here, also see this GYC 2013 Seminar and this 13-part White Horse Media TV series).
            Gen 19:4-11 - To say (see here) that the “men of Sodom” did not want to have “sexual relations” with the visiting men (angels) in Lot’s home, but ‘only wanted to meet with them’ is exegetically, completely non-sensical, bordering on the irrational. The Bible is clear that the Hebrew word “to know” (= “yada” #3045) is the term for sexual intimacy. This was the unequivocal case between e.g., Adam & Eve (Gen 4:1, 25) who mentally knew Eve long before their post-fall child-bearing; Mary, the child-bearer of Jesus (Luke 1:34, 35) who already ‘mentally knew of’ Joseph to whom she was engaged (Matt 1:18ff); see this clear understanding in Num 31:17, 35; Jdg 11:39; 21:11; 1Kgs 1:4; 1 Sam 1:19; etc. So (a) since Lot had been living in Sodom for over 13 years (Gen 13; 16:15; 17:24, 25); (b) since Lot immediately understood the intended action of these Sodomites was to ‘do something inherently evil/wicked’ (Gen 19:7-9ff); and ( c) since, logically, simply ‘mentally knowing’ Lot’s daughters would not give these men a ‘mental knowledge’ of the two newly arrived strangers, it is exegetically clear that it was ‘perverse sexual relations’ that was intended by ‘all of these Sodomites, both old and young’ (19:4). An almost identical situation as this one occurs in Jud 19:16-26, and it is apparently because of Lot’s precedential dealing with other such perverse men that the same “alternative” is there proposed and accepted, also showing in its development what this “knowing” indeed entailed. This understanding extends fully through the NT as Peter, of all evil cities in the OT world, cites Sodom and Gomorrah as the example of hell-deserving acts (2 Pet 2:6-14ff; cf. Jude 7), inclusively speaks of this pervasive immorality and sexual corruption when explicitly and implicitly using terms such as: ‘unrighteous’ “ungodly”, ‘oppressive’, “unprincipled”, “lawless”, “temptation”, “flesh indulging”, “corrupt desires”, “authority despising”, “daring”, “self-willed”, “reviling”, “animalistic”, “base instinct”, ‘having no knowledge’, ‘hell-bound’, ‘‘unabashedly’ and “openly” “prideful”’, ‘deceived’, ‘stained’, ‘blemished’, ‘‘gayful’ “carousers”’ etc.
            Lev 18:22 (cf. 20:13) - To say (see here) that the instructions in Leviticus, and thus the clear ban against same-sex relations, ‘only refers to the conduct that Levites, and that merely for the Temple worship conduct’ is being deliberately, selectively isolational. Lev 18 starts with the clear instruction for Moses to speak pointedly “to the sons of Israel”, and not solely to ‘the men from the priestly tribe of Levi.’ While the argument can be made that these instructions were made to solely men (cf. Lev 19:1), vss. 24-30 shows that the penalty for not observing these statutes would lead to total dispossession, and so by logical implication, the women were not here being given a green light to engage in all of these forbidden capital practices themselves, in the same way that, e.g., the forbidden acts of adultery in Lev 20:10-21ff did not apply to solely to men (and that because of gender specification in 20:16). The patriarchal status of the ancient world, and especially, for theological reasons (cf. Gen 3:16c), OT Israel, is most probably the reason for this gender-pointed, yet still inclusive “head-of-the-household”, instruction. Indeed this is an address that occurs repeatedly throughout the book of Leviticus (54x), starting with 1:2, whenever the general population is addressed.
            [An attempt is made here to try to obfuscate/dilute Paul’s most pointed comments in Rom 1:26-27 into merely referring to idolatry/cultic practices, however that is exegetically futile and soundly disproven. The immediate context of that statement being actually vss 18-32 is a listing of the depraved, non-natural and non-human/animalistic practices of men who have chosen to increasingly live ungodly and unrighteous lives. Clearly vss. 28-32 are not limited to idolatry cults.]
            1 Cor 6:9 & 1 Tim 1:9-10 - The popular objection (see here) to the Pauline condemnatory statements in these passages is that two key terms are mistranslated, namely malakos (= “effeminate” #3120) and arsenokoites (=”homosexual” #733a). While it can be defended that the first term is generally speaking of ‘a sickly weakness’ i.e., where ‘strength is naturally expected,’ thus. e.g., softness/gentleness vs. coarseness/roughness, and thus, theologically, more accurately speaking of ‘people with (sickly) weak/pliable wills/morals’, the second term is actually, exegetically rightly rendered as “homosexual”.
            Arsenokoites is made up of two terms: arsen = “male” and koites = “bed”. The first term is not merely generically referring to “Man/mankind” (=Greek “anthropos”) but to the distinct sexual gender “male” (cf. Gen 5:1-2; Rev 12:5). The second term also can have a clearly understood, “sexual” implication depending on the context in which it is found. (Cf. Heb 13:4 which literally, only says in the Greek “the bed” and not ‘the marriage bed’). So the combination of arsen and koites which, due to a total absence of it in preceding (extant) Greek literature, appears to be a term that was coined by Paul (evidently derived from his Biblical knowledge of the joint use of these two key Greek terms in the condemnation made in the LXX for Lev 18:22 [Eng. 23] & 20:13), is literally speaking of, in its “nominative” form, a “male-bedder”. As it will be shown later, the notion here is clearly sexual. The only issue then is, ‘is this referring to a ‘“female prostitute” who thus promiscuously sleeps with males as a “profession”’ or to ‘people of either gender who engage in same-sex relations?’
            First of all it must be noticed that all of the other 10 terms that Paul cites in this list of condemned acts are also in the masculine gender (and plural), namely “unrighteous”, “fornicators”, “idolaters”, “adulterers”, “weak-willed”, “thieves”, “covetous/greedy” “drunkards”, “revilers”, “swindlers”. It should be logically clear that woman are not being exempt from these reprehensible acts. So this default masculine usage was thus done merely for grammatical purposes (cf. Exod 20:17), thus maing this an all-inclusive masculine labelling. This therefore also fully includes the term arsenokoites despite its gender specific “male” term in its compound composition. Now since only a few verses later, when Paul clearly is speaking of ‘a female fornicatress/prostitute,’ he uses the feminine term pornes, it thus because exegetically/contextually clear that if he wanted to speak of a ‘female fornicatress/prostitute’ in vs. 9, he would have used that term instead of coining the term arsenokoites. In fact Paul does use the term porne in vs. 9, and in the grammatically-general masculine form pornos, to speak of (male and female) “fornicators”. So using arsenokoites to refer to the identical behavior later would be unnecessarily redundant. The term pornos already fully includes the “profession” of prostitution, for both male and females. So the coined term arsenokoites must be distinctly, and specifically, referring to something of a different nature than this common practice.
            The exegetically correct interpretation and understanding of arsenokoites here, since it grammatically, literally speaks of ‘males [masculine gender] engaging in ‘sexually sleeping [koites] with males [arsen]’ therefore clearly, is only referring to the practice of, at the very least male homosexual relations. If this was merely, and specifically, solely speaking of ‘females sexually sleeping with males,’ surely a feminine gender would have been deliberately used for that pointed term. Furthermore, as the grammatically-general masculine form is also used with this term, it is to be understood of being inclusive of all same-sex relations, indeed as explicitly and unequivocally condemned by Paul in Rom 1:26-27. This understanding is also to be seen with the use of arsenokoites in 1 Tim 1:9-10. Thus Paul, in keeping with the unequivocal stance of the entire Bible on this issue, also condemned homosexuality as an act that God will punish with hell fire. Therefore the professed Christian also has no Biblical justification for this perverse practice.
            It is interesting to note that all but 3 of the 10 terms listed by Paul in 1 Cor 6:9-10 are in the Greek nominative case, thus indicating an entrenched practice/lifestyle. Only three, namely “unrighteous”, “weak-willed” and “swindlers” are cited in the adjectival form. This deliberate distinction can be understood in the fact that being “unrighteous”, “weak-willed” and a “swindler” involves situational choices given certain circumstances. I.e., one comes to a situation where they will, respectively, opt to: ‘not do the right thing’, ‘not take a strong stance against something’, and ‘be fraudulent/deceptive’ whereas the other 7 situations involve more entrenched, learned and preferred habitual behaviors. So as Paul strongly cautions the Christians who ‘once practised’ these “lawless deeds” (1 Cor 6:11; 1 Tim 1:8-9): ‘“Do not be led astray”... ‘those who practise the things will not inherit the kingdom of God.’ (1 Cor 6:10; Gal 5:19-21; cf. Rev 22:14-15|Deut 23:17-18). Indeed the truly converted (i.e., “washed/justified and sanctified”) Christian, renewedly, spiritually “born from above”, thus led by the Spirit of God, and thus living according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, (e.g. Matt 19:4-5 = Gen 1:27-28; 2:24), -which was perfectly furthered by the inspired Paul (cf. Gal 1:11-12 = John 16:12-14), will not practice these sinful and ungodly acts, especially as a “normative/acceptable”, entrenched lifestyle (John 3:3; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Tim 1:11; 2 Pet 2:9; cf. 1 John 2:1-6). And a monogamous, marital relationship does not “sanctify” what the Bible has defaultly categorized as an abomination.
            (To argue (see here) that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality because he did not mention it in Matt 15:18, 19 (cf. Mar 7:21-23), is also “obliviously moronic”, because... look He did not also mention e.g., “drunkards”, “revilers”, “swindlers” (contra e.g., 1 Cor 5:9-11; 6:9-10; Gal 5:20-21). Clearly this selectively, tunnel-visioned isolationist approach to Biblical study can lead to all sorts of false beliefs and justifications.) (Cf. this discussion for more. And also see the excellent Sept. 23, 2012 sermon by John MacArthur of the Grace to You ministry, which is preached in the light of the then recent decision by the U.S. Democrat Party to, during their 2012 Election Convention, make various changes to its party platform which, in valued practices, go against/deny God, including the supporting of the homosexual lifestyle. [For the related ‘State of the Dead’ Biblical/Doctrinal reasons explained here which show that: a “soul” is not eternal, (or, for that matter: man do not, per se, “have (vs. “are”) a soul”), I only do not agree with the explicit or implied statements made by MacArthur which claim that God’s Hell judgement will be “eternal”. (cf. the actual purpose for God’s variable and finite Hell judgement here.)])

[9] Josephus, War of the Jews, 6:2.4 [#128b] & Ibid., 6:4.3 [#241].

[10] In many of his topically pertinent sermons, Amazing Facts Speaker and Director, Doug Batchelor repeatedly states his belief that: ‘the re-establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 was a fulfillment of Bible Prophecy’, -“a tremendously significant event” (see e.g,. this sermon [video] [audio] at 12:00). The main problem with this profession is that, on top of actually having no Theological/Biblical support, what Batchelor (himself, and probably biasedly contributive here, a half-Jew) usually cites as “proof” for this belief is, effectively, circularly, the fact that ‘the Jewish people were able to return to their former land in Israel and form the State of Israel’, tunnel-visionly doing as the Dispensationalists in claiming that this current/recent event establishes what the, even Theological, understanding of passages/prophecies should be. I guess the unlawful and criminal facts and acts that were committed, by Israel and other Western, militaristically-backing, powers to forcefully expropriate the Palestinian people from a land that these people had rightfully occupatedly possesed for over ca. 1800 since the Jewish people had ultimately chosen to abandon it, irrelevantly do not begin to factor, in any way, with Batchelor. (And just because the United Nations approvingly (i.e., here 33-13 (14 abs)) votes on something, and then, even forcefully, implements it, that does not defaulty make it the right decision and action.) Not surprisingly enough, his, provedly unbiblical and quasi (a-little-pregnant!?!)-Dispensational views were seamlessly, supportingly fitted and aired in a National Geographics documentary entitled “God On My Side” (see in that video at [45:10-46:45ff & 51:16-51:53]), which actually was a presentation of the popular American Evangelical Christian (i.e, Dispensationalists) view of the end times. Unfortunately for Doug Batchelor, contrary to his self-conviction, just adamantly believing in something, or having had it aired on Television, even “evangelistically” through secular media, does not come to establish it as either Truth or a Reality. If that was all that was required, it would be acceptable to believe that a Tooth Fairy (or Santa Claus) exists, especially since Disney had made many movies about this fantasy!
            For all intents and purpose, though the only theologically/prophetically possible passage in the Bible where it can be argued from that God has some sort of endtime plan with a literal Israel is in Christ’s statement in Luke 21:24 which says that: “Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (NASB); with its key term achri (“until”), it is exegetically, (i.e., in its greater contextual Theological/Biblical/Doctrinal understanding of God’s Enduring Israel), rather rightly translated as: “Jerusalem will be trampled upon by the Gentiles as far as [it is needed] (i.e., ‘to the extent that it is necessary’ or even “before...” in the sense of: “so that...”) the appointed time of the Gentiles may be fulfilled.” In other words, “so that” God’s always intended, “time” to have His Israel pervasively spread throughout the rest of the (Gentile) world can be fulfilled, He was going to allow for the commonly misconstruedly, restrictively centralizing holy/capital city of His Israel then, to be, with complete disdain, “trampled upon”. (Cf. Rom 11:25 where the same “so that” Theological/Operational understanding exists. While a “hardening” (actually ‘an inability to understand what could be understood’ (porosis) vs. ‘an unyeilding and stubborn refusal’ (skleryno) ) is spoken of there, no special enlightening or even “de-hardening” is actually suggested (just as God did not “de-harden the heart of Pharaoh when applicable ( = All plagues except #6 (Exod 9:12); #8-#10 (10:20, 27; 11:9-10; 13:15 (14:4, 8, 17); cf. 4:21))).
            Nonetheless, once this “global Israel propagation” is achieved, it can be expected to see God’s Jerusalem be re-established, however, as the New Covenant fully allows for, this is not necessarily, actually, most probably not, to be done in an ethnically literal way, (as Dispensationalists unbiblically believe, even if it is to be done physically), all in order to accomplish God’s plans for His “nationally-testifying” (Matt 24:14) Mount Zion (e.g, Isa 60), to demonstrate to the world that God’s ways are the best Order for this world.
            So in the same way that shoddy (i.e., selective and partial) exegesis has led millions of Christians to have this Dispensationalist view, this same shoddy approach has led Doug Batchelor to, deservingly, fittingly endorse a key tenet of Dispensationalism. Indeed it is for this same (‘God-has-no-other-option,’ unbiblical fundamental tenet that Dispensationalists adamantly believe that all mentions of Israel in the Bible can, and must, only refer to a literal, ethnic people.
            And just to disillusionedly dispel the foundational “awed impression” that has (see also in this March 19, 2011 sermon [10:18-13:12] [video] [audio]; with his later ‘Replacement Theology indifferent obstinacy’* during this August 13, 2011 Sabbath School presentation [41:45-43:40] [video] [audio]),) evidently led Doug Batchelor to espouse this view that ‘God must still be, and that prophetically, working with Israel,’ their comparatively “impressive” achievement to, for the most, consciously willing, part, maintain their innate religious, cultural and ethnic identity/distinction despite many major dispossessions and conquerings, all naturally stems from having had, in their Bible History, been God’s Chosen People and having had Him tangibly work and manifest Himself in their midst. This is a ‘residual belief’ that these “intactly surviving Jews” continue to more than less believe, (however unBiblical as it actually is), indeed as seen in (Western powers, strongarmedly enabled) Zionism. So it is more a “mind over matter” issue here than any “active favor and guidance of God”.

            Yet, as seen in this October 8, 2011 [37:39-41:10], obstinately furthering statement, duplicitously enough while chidingly condemning (North American) Christians for their Zionistic beliefs, (which fundamentally necessitates a Jewish Homeland in Israel), Batchelor clearly believes that a decision by the United Nation (which “conveniently” helped most of those approving countries not have to take WWII-displaced Jews back in their own; or even, opened the way for the Jews still living in their countries to emigrate) to have ‘only been, a self-manifest Miraculous Divine Intervention’?!?? The Bible is clear, as also explained above, that such national ‘Divine Intervention’ in regards to the Jewish People ended in 31 A.D., and that by them refusing to enter into the New Covenant that God had then established. (cf. Matt 23:37-24:2|Luke 21:20-24; Rom 11:20-23; see EW 212.2-213.1**) They were then nationally wholly left to the will of ruling, and more powerful, temporals powers, which includes the Romans in 70 and ca 125 A.D. and the inceptively “Zionistically-biased” favor of those in ca. 1948. God would only ‘directly intervene’ to, inherently forcefully give them a sovereign territory, (as He had forcefully done to give them Canaan in the first place, justly dispossessing the inhabitants of that land for them, and that through the force of arms), if, and only if, the Jews today were working out His Grand and End Time plans/purposes, which, (theologically, categorically contrary to Batchelor’s vacuous claim that: ‘there is still a place for Ethnic Israel in prophecy’), is not only, not the case, but is indeed, far from the case given their persisted unbelief of Jesus as the/their Messiah. However, like the prophetically allowed creation and powerful rise of the U.S., because of similar unbelieving and perverted ways, any “purpose” here with Israel is actually only for the setting up of the “other side” in this GC (see in this post on Rev 17:17), and in the case of Israel, this is most manifestly to ‘come to eventually, “delusionally”, grant Dispensationalist Christians the grossly unbiblical prophetic fulfillments that they want to believe in (= 2 Thess 2:7-12). And woe also to those who indifferently give any supporting credence to such false beliefs!!
            And as Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad forthrightly said: if those countries so wanted to give a homeland to the Jewish People, they should have voted to give them Alaska instead of imposing their acceptance on the historically rightfully, now occupying Palestinians.’ Indeed let e.g., Native American Indians make UN claims to a right to all of the current North American continent and its resources as they freely enjoyed before, and have this claim approved in a UN vote, and see if either the United States or Canada (with the U.K. implicated), agree to cede their land as resolved!! But of course, other peoples must accept the imposed, land-grabbing will of others.
            ...And, most likely related, and thus, most pertinently, how is the ‘Institutional’ targeted murdering of nuclear scientists inside the territory of another country, and that moreover, by public car bombings, (ala. the notorious modus operandi of this operation), instead of by formal/open, and declared, military confrontation, not the Internationally-proscribed Crime of “State-sponsored Terrorism”?!!

* In order to not actually be duplicitous, Doug Batchelor should really be transparently saying that: ‘God is not prophetically working with Israel anymore except for the the promises/prophecies concerning their territorial restoration!’?? (Then why not the other ones also???) He also claims that this understanding would be ‘a most convincing evidence for atheists’. So apparently he also believes that God’s Truth needs to be substantively altered to cater to the “wants” of people.

** Those SOP revelations are indeed unequivocal and incontrovertible, and they further actually imply that it was God’s will that the Ethnic Israel be forever dispersed amongst the world’s nations, thus (doubly) ensuring that ‘“Old Jerusalem” (i.e. the Jewish-exclusive city that existed prior to the 70 A.D. judgement), never be built up’ (EW 75.2), -which it still, as ‘of old’, isn't built up as such today; and thus forever testifying of their guilt of having rejected and crucified their Messiah, but the forceful actions of 20th Century world powers undid this. However, as stated above, this is being allowed by God, but only for the set up of the Final Overmastering Delusion, to judge those who are insistent on rejecting the Truth. Indeed the re-establishment of the Jewish people in the former land of Israel has by now cemented hundred of million of Christians today in the Catholic-originated, Futurist-Dispensationalists deception, which, most crucially, causes million to misunderstand who the real Antichrist/Beast Power and also the Mark of the Beast, is. In fact, it can be further argued that if the Jewish People had not been reestablished in Palestine, there would not only not be the current Western vs. Arab/Muslim tensions and strife today, but, without this great vitriolic distraction, and instead a ‘rejection/curse of God’, many Arabs/Muslims today may have come to accept, at least Protestant Christianity as a passable/viable Biblical faith. So the reestablishment of the State/Nation of Israel is actually quite contrary to God’s ideal.
            And if it is disassociatingly, circularly said here that ‘such Religious/Christian/New Testament claims against them, do not apply to them, then, since these are all derived from what was stated in the Old Testament, including with precise time as in the 70 Weeks Prophecy, that would inherently be saying that even (OT) Biblical statements, (which really are selectively limited to adverse ones), (but which actually could indeed apply to Ethnic Israel after their merciful and quasi-forced, Babylonian Captivity Restoration in 536 B.C. (see Ezek 11:21)), also do not apply to them. And that simultaneously also sinks the common, OT-based claim that “Israel has a right to exist”. As a commentator has said: ‘like any other nation on Earth, Israel merely has a right to defend the (presently, deliberately encroachingly, tacitly unapproved, growing!) territory it claims as its own. Indeed even when it was actually a nation under the Creator God, Israel, by God’s own direct indications and actions, merely had a right to defend itself against its ever present foes, and, as several OT episodes show, when they were found worthy, God Himself did this defending. And when they were not, He did not, all ending in their 70 A.D. routing at the hands of the Romans.
            So, furthermore, Israel really has no claim to insist that other nations must accept that ‘it believes that it has an unchallengeable right to exist.’ Frankly, and factually so, a claim of such a right, without a valid appeal to an, actually commonly accepted “supreme” approval, in this case the Creator God, (and actually then, only if it really is possible, which is not the case with a nation, as Israel today, that perhaps majoritarily does not even believe in God), can then only be merely be a claim made on a subjectively unacceptable, (as many genocidal/racial horrors in World History, including what was done by Hitler’s Germany against principally the Jews), by then being on a purely ethnic/racial basis; -and even if that claim is considered to be ‘most “trumping” for being an appeal to being the “sons of Abraham”’ (see John 8:39-47). And that is indeed really what is the “powder keg” basis of the volatile Middle East differences and conflicts. I.e., This quite tangibly all results in one group of people, with the backing of other powers who similarly believe so, claiming to have a right to do oppressive and even murderous things to another group of people, merely because of their claimed “superior” ethnicity/race and heritage. That in itself substantively has the inherent actionable elements of what legislatively constitute War Crimes in the Global Community. But, as usual, since powerful Western Powers don’t want to recognize this (cf. e.g., the 2001 Durban Conference), gross injustices are permitted to be done. And you wonder why those being so, and that formally, strong-armedly oppressed, repressed, and inherently abused (cf. here) can’t stand you and your backers?!!
            In God’s inherent fairness, the fact that He had to forcefully dispossess, in Righteous Self-inflicted Judgements (i.e., it was not because those nations had done something to Israel then, but because of their own sins), the initial inhabitants of Canaan in order to provide a territory for Israel, inherently and defaultly made Israel’s “right” to possess this land correspondingly dependent on whether or not they themselves were lived according to God’s ways. (e.g., Deut 30:15-20).
            In fact it can Theologically be also seen in this Biblical context, in answer to the common question of Jewish People and others of: “Why did God permit the Holocaust?” Well it manifestly was so that, a then still rebellious Jewish people would never be able to make a claim that they had a “God-given right” to a homeland. And not surprisingly, that “right” was only granted by lesser powers in the world considered to be Supreme, and mainly derived from the unbiblical beliefs in regards to God’s True Israel then by the (pointedly Protestant) leaders in office then. And so is the unfathomable detriment of Babylon as it pursues its “anything but the Truth” course, taking along anyone who wants to go along. ‘Doing the right thing’ is never to be in the disregard of Truth and the two will never be in conflict.

            And, interestingly enough, and in relation to this commenting from EW 212.2-213.1, and from the observation I came to while working on this 9/11+ (music) video which, (see details above in here), showed that: the 9/11 attacks were directly related to what Israel’s military, tacitly/indifferently backed by the U.S. military, had done in Lebanon back in 1982; that, (as I had earlier that week mentioned in a conversation with someone), the forceful/unlawful/discriminatory restoration of the nation of Israel factually is the “curse of the Earth”, indeed with most of this world geo-political issues and military conflicts being directly or indirectly related to that single (initiating) strong-arming action and all of the abuses which permissively ensued from this, well it was indeed quite interesting to read in Jer 26:6 that God had stated that if/when he would reject the (remnant) Kingdom of Judah and Jerusalem, that it would become “a curse to all the nations of the earth.” Well that not only was the case in the time of Jeremiah, resulting in the Babylonian armies coming to quash that rebellious kingdom, but then also later after Jesus had declared the re-effectuation of this rejection (Matt 23:37-38; cf. Matt 23:34-36 = Jer 26:4-5) which similarly resulted in the neo-Babylonian power, the Roman Empire, coming to militarily deal with that rebellious Judah/Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and then ‘once for all’ (i.e., during the reign of the Roman Empire) in ca. 125 A.D.. So it is therefore no surprise, indeed Spiritually-speaking, most natural, that when that kingdom of Judah and its capital city of Jerusalem were reestablished and re-empowered, more than less, as before, that it would, according to God’s ordaining, “resume” being “a curse to all the nations of the earth”!!

            Continuing with his indifferently “mindless” heretical obstinacy here, in this October 21, 2011 evangelistic presentation [40:54] Batchelor restates, again after duplicitously having chided Christian for believing, as he then goes on to claim himself, that: ‘God still has a special work for the ethnic Jewish people; and that they still have a special place in history’!?? Of course he (vacuously) sees his view as different because he does not believe that it will not only be ethnic Jews involved in the final work. The fundamental Theological filter that must be applied to this is: “does God have any obligation to any people on earth who, like the Jews, are not in a Covenant relationship with Him. The unequivocal answer is No. Moreover, as what was cited by Batchelor in this GYC 2011 seminar [53:05-53:39], most Jews in recent history have largely been “secular”, indeed 42% of Jews living in Israel today (including 15%-37% being agnostics or atheists, therefore not even believing in God, -and these numbers are probably higher with Jews living outside of Israel. So that is indeed the reason for God concretely establishing a Covenant with an Earthly, believing people, so that He may then specially, favorably and even miraculously work with them if they keep their side of the agreement. (Heb 8:7-8ff). Indeed would God “specially work” with ethnic Jews while they are rejectors of Christ and His New Covenant??! ‘Solemnly NO!!!’ (Gal 1:6-10). Surely He will also not be using them to Evangelize others while they themselves are not believing nor practicing the Gospel. As Paul said, they first will have to be converted, and be re-grafted into God’s distinct, enduring Israel Tree. (Rom 11:23). And whenever they, and that individually, do so, then they will not actually be religiously considered as Jews, but true Spiritual Israelites, like all converts for any ethnicity is (Rom 10:8-13; Gal 3:28-29; Col 3:11). God indeed will not in any way force then to convert to/accept the Gospel Truth. That will indeed (potentially) instead be the Overmastering Work of the Satan appearing as Christ! So a second woe to those who are Theologically and quasi-prophetically helping to set up this Ultimate Deception. You surely won’t be able to take back your supporting statements then, and they will only serve to fasten those subject to this deception (Matt 24:24-26) in that Grand Delusion.
            As Paul states in Rom 11:25-36, the only purpose, special work and plan that God had with Ancient/Ethnic Israel after the Cross in the New Covenant, was to harden their inceptive choice to not believe the Gospel (Matt 13:10-17) so that He could then have an excuse to accept and pardon any believing Gentile, if He is ever going to individually pardon and accept a repenting Jew. And as history has shown, beyond what Paul could ever think would happen, the Jews persisted in this unbelief to the point that Gentiles have gone on to outnumber Jewish Gospel believers by now, a guestimatedly speaking, 4,600:1 ratio (i.e., ca. 500,000 Messianic Jews.)
            God indeed does not have ‘a special work for the Jews’ but for any individual person who comes to accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour. In fact God, rather inclusively has a special evangelizing work towards, also, ethnic Jews!! (Rom 10:14-15)! Furthermore, even to this day, Jewish People still have the most prominent opportunity, amongst all other peoples of the earth, to know the Gospel Truth, because it, and the many fulfilled prophecy concerning its Advent and the consequences for its rejection, as well as their factual knowledge and belief about the Historical, even miracle working Christ, indeed as documented in the Gospels, have most strikingly and enduringly been fulfilled right in their midst. (Rom 10:18-21). So all that they are really doing is continuing the clear-light rejecting as did those first century Jews. Indeed speak to any, (at least religious) Jew today about Jesus Christ and they would not argue with you that He did not exist, but rather that He was a false prophets/Messiah who suffered the due penalty. So this popular effective, Evangelistic “pitying party” for the Jews is just Christian-fanciful condoning. They are indeed just knowingly continuing in that Spirit of Gospel Truth opposition, and that, against light, which is much worse that the vilest, God-cursing atheist sinner on earth. God has repeatedly shown that He will never honor an attitude that is willfully rejecting known, and/or readily obtainable, light. That is indeed not how this ongoing Great Controversy “freely” works!!

            And yet once again, in this 02-11-2012 Sabbath School study (mp4) [40:15-48:50], Doug Batchelor resolutely, obliviously, rehashes his non-exegetical and non-theological, spurious, vacuous, peripheral and deflated arguments to claim that the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 was by God’s doing in keeping with ‘unalienable Ethnic Israel’ Bible prophecies, positing explicitly Jer 16:14-15 and Isa 43:5-6, and the already exegetically debunked Luke 21:24 as Biblical proofs. Succinctly said here as it is really a waste of time to try to factually/theologically reason with someone who “moronically” prefers to remain ignorant (indeed, despite his many diversionary disclaimers, he moronically believes in Ethnic Israel today for the exact same surface/glib reasons as Futurist-Dispensationalist... and so will either share in their same fate and/or pay the penalty for having fastened them in this Satan-orchestrated delusion): -(1) Jer 16:14-15 only refers to the Babylonian restoration and (2) Isa 43:5-6 more widely refers to both the Jews deported to Babylon as well as the ones who had been part of the 10 lost tribes who went on to indeed be scattered all over the then-known world. Also Paul statement in Rom 11:23-24 is not defaultly involving a national regrafting, as it is being applied today by Batchelor with his 1948 claims. For this to occur, the entire unbelieving Jewish nation would have to become Christians and thus avert Christ prophecy of utter destruction. And the term “Israel” never referred to literal Jews (Rom 2:28; Gal 3:28-29)) Also the Isa 43 prophecy was actually fulfilled in part in the Pentecost gathering and subsequent NT Apostolic Church Evangelism prior to 70 A.D. (See Acts 2:5ff). Isa 43:7's “being called by God’s name” (i.e., His character) is not referring to an ‘ethnic appellation’ but solely to a Spiritual one. (See Amos 9:12; Acts 15:17; James 1:1|2:7). So only those who had the ‘actual character of God’ (=His name), and that, in/of whatever nation/ethnicity they were, would (even) respond to this call, and the only eschatological application of Isa 43:5-7 will also only be along this NT spiritual one and will transpiring in the gathering of the 144,000 and great multitude from all of Spiritual Israel today (Rev 7:4-8) along with righteous ones in the rest of the non-Christian world (which include Jews) (Rev 7:9ff, 13-14ff; cf. DA 688.2). No one can be regathered by actually not heeding the voice of God and rejecting Jesus Christ as the Messiah. (John 5:37-40; 6:28-29; 12:44, 46). Indeed only those who are then living according to God’s/Christ’s character will heed that call (=Rev 3:12a; John 10:16).

            Well, yet once again, as seen during this (actually) 06-30-12 (mp4) [27:52-33:20] Sabbath School presentation, Doug Batchelor tries to prop up his, actually quite heretical claim that God still has a prophetic purpose for the Jewish nation. And so he tries to do this through vacuous, tangential, straw-men, irrelevant, self-disproving/condemning recycled arguments already debunked, as well as quoted or alluded to passages in a preface which only serves to show that what he will next claim is indeed unbiblical, and merely his wishful thinking. I really do not see, beyond the pride of Batchelor, why he cannot understand that God will only be working through people who actually believe in Him and accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah. Then would those Jews become (Jewish) Christians and be again grafted into God’s Israel.
            God did not make a mistake in the 70 A.D. judgement and it would actually be in a case of granted mercy, as he did for King Manasseh when he genuinely repented that God would act to overturn his prior judgement, but thus far the Jewish people by the majority, have not repented of rejecting Jesus Christ as their Messiah, indeed despite the prophetic understandings that they could have had, and a global testimony in the 2.3+ Billion people Church that was founded by Christ. (cf. Acts 5:38-39) So God moreover has no “opportunity” to help those who are sinning against light. In fact, as many even SDA testimonies have been stating (e.g., in Stephen Dickie’s ministry to Muslims; and this testimony report [36:46-37:57]; see also here (from here; -freely/publicly viewable hereorhere [48:41-50:03ff]) in the testimony of former (Iranian)-“hajji”-Muslim Shabahz B. who (1) states that: ‘ca. 80% of Muslims who convert to Christianity did so because of visions and dreams they had before they meet with a Christian missionary’, as he (2) relates his own, request-granted, ‘guiding/deciding/confirming’ dream for becoming an SDA (vs. a Sundaykeeping-Pentecostal). Cf. the parallel: testimony and corroborations of Shabahz’s twin brother, -(who converted 6 years after him). See also the testimony and theological explanation of now Christian Apologist Nabeel Qureshi -{pray for his healing}: of 50%-70%|80% here[36:54-39:25ff] & here[24:38-26:11] -his second dream); -see some other Muslim-convert testimonies here & here, God is much more likely to supernaturally work with sincere Muslims and guide them to the Light of Christ’s Gospel. (Cf. here[44:34-48:02ff]). Particularly as, inherently by God’s prophetically purposeful allowance, He had allowed Satan to supernaturally (i.e.: Satan impersonating Gabriel to appear to Muhammed) raise up the Religio-Militant Muslim people (=Rev 9:1-12 -discussed (twice) in detail within here; See also this post), and all in order to have a temporal force which could contain, hinder, stand up against, and execute His judgements upon, the then apostate ‘“Universal” Christian Church’ and in this age, its Religio-Economic “Second Beast Power” imitator. So a fair God, does indeed owe it to Muslim people to help undo what He had allowed to be supernaturally done to them, yet only in a emergency scenario would He most powerfully act to overturn this. God actually expects that the missionary efforts and preaching of those who know His Truth today to do that work of overturning, and those occurred small supernatural manifestations amongst the Muslim people as “witnessed” by several SDA’s are just ways in which God is showing that such efforts are according to His will, and therefore will be pointedly overseen by Him. As far as I know, I have not heard of such supernatural assistance and guidance amongst the Jewish people, and that clearly is because they are (still) acting against known and/or readily knowable Light! (Cf. this post).

            And effectively yet again, though now, (sub- and/or semi- consciously), slyly, i.e., through a backdoor/half-pregnant approach, in this March 2013 presentation [36:35-37:35] Doug Batchelor echoingly expresses the eisegetical cornerstone line of thought of Futurist-Dispensationalist by injecting/insinuating the false claim that the fig tree illustration mentioned by Christ in Matt 24:32 had something prophetic to do with the territorial/national restoration Israel in 1948, even also suggesting that it may be related to a “dual” application of the tree in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Dan 3. Well, despite Batchelor’s ‘disclaimer” that he would not make a case for such a view, he should have done a more pointed/responsible job (i.e., as per the (“tree/fruit”) counsel in Matt 12:36; cf. 18:6) of categorically and nonambivalently discrediting such a view, (if he actually believes that it is totally false, which manifestly, as documented above, he does not) which is fastening millions of Christians in errors and false teaching which will only end up sweeping them in Satan’s final grand delusion (2 Thess 2:8-12).

            ...And more “blissfully”, biasedly ignoramus, indifferent claims and pseudo-proofs from Doug Batchelor: in this 09-08-2013 BALanswering [48:21-51:22], Batchelor again makes his unbiblical claims as to his dispensationalist half-pregnant belief that ‘God has a future, prophetic plan with ethnic Jews. He even makes the added heretical claim that it is only Gentiles who need to be “grafted in” and not Jews, since they already are. I guess he has not read Rom 11:23-24...or would it actually make a difference since “he is Jewish”....as if that was determinative of anything here. Get the Biblically Factual clue: God’s Israel is that (Olive) tree and it is not any ethnic people but, from the OT, is composed of anyone who Spiritual joins and adheres to God’s Religion. Ethnic Jews are merely, albeit, natural, BRANCHES, that also can be ungrafted if the case warrants it, as it occurred with most of them by 34 A.D.

            So the truth of this matter does not depend on what Doug Batchelor ‘wants to see’ but what God’s will actually is, and He has left us enough direct testimony and examples to know for sure what his decision is here. No need to, as Batchelor obliviously and mindlessly is, ‘await the verdict of a base/human-thinking jury’. (More and more, I see why Jesus was so irritated by (non-clinical) ‘morons’! They egoistically just don’t care to be Biblical or Truthful!!

[11] Succinctly, summarily, said in regards to the out-of-law “killing”, if not (vindictive) assassination, of Bin Laden by the United States following the extraordinarily rendered, if not actually pried out, information from apparently a, now, ca. 10-year detainee at their blacked, no-man’s-land, Guantanamo Bay gulag, which was stealthily, acted upon through the months-long violation of another country’s sovereign territory, culminating in who knows what-ever actually, and trialessly, happened on the night of May 1st 2011,* -as it has been lyrically quipped: “It’s not Justice,... it’s Just Us, or, more pointedly in this case, ‘Just the U.S.’ Indeed “American Justice” is whatever is economically/financially less costly and/or more expedient!

* Indeed notwithstanding this heralded article, which was, self-admittingly, actually written by the reporter without an actual interview with the 23 on-site military personnel who executed the raid (?!??), thus an entirely third-party/hearsay article. (Cf. here 39:35ff - {Indeed, for all that is actually  factually/objectively/evidentiarily known bin Laden may have actually been drugged but captured alive, and taken to, and still held & interrogated in, a secret CIA (even domestic [or permanently sea-going ship]) “black site” prison!!}).

[12] Of course, the Confessions of, and Penances for, Sins is a ‘sacramental cornerstone’ of/in Catholic Theology/Tradition & Practice where a sinner goes to a priest, confesses their sins....whichever one they can remember or want to confess, and then the priest tells them some paganistic thing like climb up a stair case on your knees and/or/(while) ‘say(ing) some repetitively meaningless/vain thing’ (contra. Matt 6:7-8ff), and moreover in “hailing prayer” to Jesus’s mother Mary,* but when the full revelation of the Bible/NT on this topic of the forgiveness of sins is duly taken into consideration, it is easy to see that the Catholic Church here has nothing more than a long tradition of eisegetical understanding and circularly self-reinforced heresy. Which is why it, and its (exploitative) monetary capitalization of it, pointedly was the flashpoint of the Protestant Reformation.
* ...Quite debunkingly telling that Jesus knew that ‘He was sinless’ (John 8:46; 14:30b); while [the Catholic-supposed: ‘Immaculately Conceived#) Mary knew ‘she needed a Savior’ (Luke 1:47), which is exactly what her Child the Messiah would, and ever-alone (Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 4:12; 1 Tim 2:5), do (Matt 1:21|Luke 1:31; 5:24)....If the Bible is your prime authority and final arbitrator in regards to what constitutes Truth, then this issue that Mary was neither sinless, nor is not now to be prayed to, is not even a close call.

# LOL, if, according to Catholic Theo-logic, ‘Mary had to be free of original sin, so that Jesus Himself would be born without it, then wouldn’t that “requirement” also have to apply to every single genealogical ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38|Matt 1:1-17) going all the way back to Adam and Eve....But then, Adam and Eve only began having children (Gen 4:1ff) after they had fallen (Gen 3)....What then?!!!!!! If God could perform a miracle so that, according to Catholic Theology, Mary wouldn’t have original sin, despite her parents being sinful, then why could He straightly do the same with Jesus Himself....i.e. despite Mary being sinful??? And it would Biblically seem to me that doubting Jesus Christ, -something Mary variously did prior to Christ’s Resurrection (Mar 3:21ff, 31-35) was sinful (Mar 3:28-30), particularly for her (1 John 5:10) given the clear revelation of the Truth about her son that God had given her. (Luke 1:26-30ff)

            The Full teaching of the Bible/NT on the Forgiveness of Sins reveals that there are 3 step categories/levels of sins, which are to be dealt with in accordance/correspondence to the wrong that they have done. There is Personal/Private Sins which is to be personally/privately “boldly”, directly, confessed to God, through our Great Heavenly High Priest Jesus Christ (Heb 4:14-16). As/When this category of does not involve the wronging of someone else, but remain a grievance towards God alone, then there is no Biblical mandate to confess it to any other. Then there is Interpersonal/Public(ized) Sins where one’s transgression of God’s Law (=sin -1 John 3:4 KJV) also violates someone(s) else. (E.g. lying, stealing, adultery, etc). Such a sins is actually known by someone else, hence why it is no longer private, and also why another person may admonishingly confront the sinning person about it. (Matt 5:23-24; 18:15). This of course is Christ instructing his followers to initiatingly do so when they are the aggrieved party, as He Himself has done (=Matt 18:12-14; Rom 5:6, 8), so how much more if the confronted party is the one which is fault. (This is also what is (actually) involved in: ‘all/any believer [i.e. not just laypeople towards the clergy*] confessing theirs sins with one another’ (Jam 5:16 -so that their prayer of faith (including for healing) would not be hindered (Jam 5:13-15)).

* And if it is to be maintained that Jam 5:14-16 only applies to the “elders”, then it would be that only them are supposed to “confess their sins one to another”, but James was generally writing these instructions to the Church as a whole, ‘his brethren’. (e.g. Jam 1:2; 2:1; 3:1; 5:7, 9, 10, 12, 19)

            But notice also here that the “Church” does not even have to be involved here as, if that offending brother/sister has accepted the confrontation for his sins, or even had refused so, but later did when 2 or more other brethren were brought in for the confrontation, then the matter would not have been brought to the Church. (Matt 18:15-17a). It is only when he/she has refused those two first steps, which naturally includes the preceding one of personally repenting and confessing that sin to God, then is the Church involved for these now (effectively) Publicized/Corporate Sins to try to, -through discussion and admonishment, (and not through corporal sadistic torture as the Catholic Church ruthlessly practiced, against tens of millions, including True Christians/Bible Believersfor centuries; cf. here, and here)), get him/her to admit/recognize their wrong (and which others already know of). Then if they don’t, then the Church is to consider them as an unbeliever (i.e. no longer a member of the Church) (Matt 18:18). It is then that God’s Spirit will have guided the assembled body of the Church to indeed take this disfellowshipping decision which ‘will be binding in Heaven’ (=Greek future + perfect passive participle verbal form), all merely due to the offending member having refused all attempts to recognize their wrong, and not the Church arbitrarily deciding if it will forgive the sin of a confession person or not. If the person actually (genuinely) confesses/admits/recognizes their sin a decision by the Church to not forgive them would, as Jesus indicated: ‘(most detrimentally) not be valid, thus not binding, in Heaven.’ (Matt 6:12, 14-15).
            In Matt 18, Jesus was from the start speaking to not only the disciples (Matt 18:1), but all those who were also present then (Matt 18:2; 12; cf. Luke 15:1-3ff) for surely his teachings in Matt 18:3-10ff, did not only apply to the Twelve. And even if he by then was, His statement clearly, as just seen above, did not involve the “Church-corporate” until two prior self-contained steps in themselves would have failed to bring a reconciling resolution.
            Now it is after His Resurrection, in John 20:21-23 the Jesus began ‘sending His own disciples just as God the Father had sent Him’ and thus began to fill them up with the gifting of the Holy Spirit so that they would also accurately/properly do this work (John 16:7-11, 12-15). They then both as individuals, a group (of 2 or 3), or as a Church would then be discerningly capable of executing the Church disciplining which Christ’s stipulated in Matt 18:15-18...And moreover, also like Jesus on the Cross (Luke 23:34), and like-wise the Holy Spirit filled Stephen (Acts 7:55, 57, 60), they may instead pray for more probation on unconfessing/unrepenting sinners, -then committing (Outrightly) Corporate Sins (i.e. acting sinfully against the Church collectively), rather than just/due judgement, and God would grant it to/for them. (Matt 5:43-48; John 3:16-18). That is the authority for “loosing/forgiving” that Christ has imparted to His individual followers and collective Church. Again not, as claimed and practiced by the Catholic Priesthood, ‘to decide if a confessing person should be granted forgiveness or not’, but, in an intercessory capacity, for God to mercifully forgive an unconfessing/unrepenting person.
            So, in summary, in Biblical/New Covenant/Christian Theology, the Believer, nor unbeliever, does not go to another/a believer nor the Church in order to “obtain” the forgiveness of their sins, but rather the Believer/Church goes out to someone who is in sin and evangelizingly tries to either “win them over”, intercedingly pray for the extension of God’s purposeful probational mercy on them, or (merely) disfellowship them (in hope that even this will be of help to them, e.g. 1 Cor 5)). There indeed is no mandate, instruction nor example in the NT from Jesus (or the Apostles) for His followers themselves to torture, or capitally kill/murder, non-believers or (true or not true) apostates (e.g. Matt 18:11ff; Luke 9:56; John 3:17; Matt 26:52), but rather to leave that judgement entirely up to God (Matt 10:21-31; 26:53; e.g. Acts 5:1-11). So, most impeachingly, the Catholic Church was not ‘hearing from God’ when they did this to millions for centuries, but were instead carrying out the direct will of their actual and ongoing (True Faith-Apostasy) leader Satan (Dan 7:25; 8:23-25; 12:7; Rev 12:14-17; Rev 13:1-10 -see here) who does/has done his most destructive work through “moronic”/incompetent interpreters of God’s Word. (2 Pet 1:20-2:3ff; 3:16-17; Matt 23:1-36).

            Relatedly, in Matt 16:13-19, Jesus took a statement which Simon Bar-Jonah (a.k.a. Peter -Greek: Petros (masc.) Strongs #4073) had just stated from through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, -which was probably a sign to Jesus, that: ‘He was the Son of God’ to indicate that He will be building His (own) Church (of people “called out” from Israel; and then also through Paul (Acts 9:15), also the Gentile World) on that distinct solid/foundational “Rock” (Greek def. article+petra (fem.) Strongs #4074 -e.g. Matt 7:24-25|Luke 6:48; Matt 27:51, 60; Rev 6:15-16) of a statement. That specific “(spiritual) rock” was Christ (Matt 21:42-44|Luke 20:17-18; 1 Cor 10:4), as Peter himself recognized (Acts 4:11-12; 1 Pet 2:4-8; Rom 9:33). The Greek ‘proximate demonstrative pronoun’ rule (see Wallace, GGBTB pp.325-326, 330ff) for “this” would ‘exceptionally’ not apply here. And if Jesus had meant that He was building His Church on Peter, He would more likely have simply said: ‘...and upon you...’. And as Satan did “prevail” in getting: Peter to fail (Luke 22:31-32) and later the Universal/Catholic Christian Church to apostasies (1 Tim 4:1; 2 Thess 2:3-4; Rev 6:7-8), then this promised enduring success of His Church was indeed not founded on either one of those entities, but indeed on that Divine Truth and all that Jesus went on to teach (1 Cor 3:11; Eph 4:20b; cf. Matt 28:18-20). But Jesus may have ambiguously left this statement to be synonymous with Peter as Peter, by his sheer character as well as his manifest great and sincere, but flawed, devotion to Him and His Cause, would be spearheading that Church/Kingdom of Heaven upbuilding work (John 21:15-19; Acts 2:14ff). Still neither Peter, nor the other Apostles ever considered Peter to be the official Head of the Apostolic Church as it was James the brother of Jesus (Matt 13:55|Mar 6:3) who was also/first recognized as an Apostle (Gal 1:19), and then as the Head of the Jerusalem Church. (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal 2:9, 12; cf. 1 Cor 15:7; Acts 21:17-18). It was not until about the year 445 A.D. that the claim of the primacy of the bishop of Rome and Peter being the first Pope was made by Leo I (400/10-461). Furthermore, from just a cursory overview of the feminine petra vs. masculine petros uses in just the Greek Old Testament (LXX), the exegetical thesis can be made that the feminine form is used to refers to ‘the whole form of a rock’, whereas the masculine form is used to refer to any form of a rock that is derived from that whole rock, including e.g. partial/sheered off rocks producing cliffs.
            Now the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” here which Jesus said He was giving to this “spearheading” Peter (= “you” singular), were distinctly the “keys” for this establishing/upbuilding work for that Church. This is a work that not only Peter, but all the disciples and future followers of Christ were likewise charged to carry out. (Eph 2:20-22). And their ‘consequential binding and loosing authority’ here is in this context. It would be specifically manifested in/during the evangelization of people (cf. Matt 10:12-15ff) and the establishing of new congregations of the Church and administering them and would also be according to how Jesus had indicated it applied to both individuals and the collective Church in Matt 18:15-18.
            Peter himself may have, at that instant, been the first, if not only, to Spiritually perceive, at least in some generic/foundational part, what distinct thing Jesus was now engaging in doing in the creation of His own Church/(Spiritual) Nation, hence why Christ could first pronoun this in context/allusion to him, but it would indeed go on to apply to any other, including with those disciples who would likewise have such a Spiritual awakening and believe. Indeed Christ only sends out those who are converted/“born from above” in God’s Spirit (Luke 22:33; John 3:3ff) to do such crucial kingdom establishing and expanding work. (cf. Acts 1:8).
            Contrary to John 15:5-7 the Catholic Church clearly has longed proved that is has not been abiding in Christ nor His Truth and has gone on to produce much ‘non-fruit’ (=Matt 12:31-35) as made manifest by its corpus of unbiblical Theology and Doctrines, -foundationally starting with an incapably of truly discerning during its Canon formation era, as to what is actually Scripture, resulting in the corrupting practice of blasphemous, paganistic and sadistic things, not to mention is duly ‘Spiritually blinded’ incapability of interpreting and understanding God’s prophecies which expose it as the Bible’s pivotal Anti-Christ Power, the seat of Satan’s own Universe Sin&Rebellion kingdom, -a.k.a. “(Spiritual) Babylon”.
[13] This then led Darwin advance an alternative “warm little pond” theory in 1871 which claimed that ‘all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity[?!?], etc. were present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes.’ See more here).


  1. wooowwww,, this is very surprising,,,, what is right about this,,,? I just found out about this,,,,

    1. Seriously??? Re-“read” the post, including the substantiating and precedential Biblical references and you “should” (1 Cor 2:14-16) see what is “right” about this ‘truthful speaking/cautioning/warning’.

      You may go by the “political correct” philosophy of: 'not denouncing error for what it is', and what it will surely lead to...that’s certainly not my mandate!!

      -And this post has been published since Nov 14, 2010....’where have you been’??


This blog aims to be factual and, at the very least, implicitly documented. Therefore if applicable, any comment which contains unsubstantiated/unsupportable ideas will not be allowed to be published on this blog. Therefore make the effort to be Biblical, truthful and factual.

-It typically takes 1-2 days for an accepted submitted comment to be posted and/or responded to.

[If you leave an "anonymous" comment and, if applicable, would like to know why it may not have been published, resend the comment via email (see profile) to receive the response.]