Ten Indictments

Rough draft(?): OdeReply to the Beck of Popular Christendom

Constructive input and opinions on the ending (the original or standing version?), welcome, (for your poetry snobs, I'm aware it has hard rhymes),

Why would I want this fellowship
of blasphemy in Jesus' name?
(Pelagius's children marching on.)

"Look at us, our mighty deeds,
what God had done through us as means"
(Common causes any could up-drum.)

In hordes build they, up earthly dreams
convert so many, to man-wrought schemes
like mercy's wrought according to their laws.

These earthly voids, their dusty wells
ring not the Bridegroom's wedding bells,
bid they 'come and live', and not die,¹

Twice-Childes of Hell.²

¹ Strange as it is, many teach a dying for their cause or purpose as a sort of way to gain purpose in this life, rather than a constant mortifying of one's own will and desires foremost for Christ in obedience to Him, which seems always to work-out being incompatible with the schemes of those who so exploit people in the name of God--often they are deluding themselves, the exploiters, that they're doing His Work, which fog of delusion is quickly exposed by light of the word's testing.
²was, Children of Hell

unCreative Commons

I think it should be publicly stated that the ND CC license ("ND" means "No Derivatives"; whichever version of the license; 3.0 here) should not be called a "Creative" license; perhaps a "Commons" license, as something a person may distribute, but that's all. This especially since someone badges their work with a CC and gets brownie points, but it's not a CC.

A Day's Pearl

I boasted, though a little boast, of the happines in my sorrows wrought by some ill health mental and physical-unbearable hives that keep driving me to prayer for which I was hungering, to pray to God not only for others, not only for myself, but also for an act in relationship towards/with Him, to my mother who believes prosperity-gospel teaching, hoping it might dent her delusion, disabuse her of the falsehood that keeps her trapped; a message about how Jesus himself told us rejoice in our sufferings; she sent a nonsensical message back "When in scripture you see suffering it usually has to do with trials of dealing with people and their wackiness". She continues, "If God were to get glory out of people getting and being sick, then Jesus wouldn't have gone around and healed people. Sickess is of the curse not the blessing. You need to find out what is wrong and be healed of it. Please go see a doctor...........Please!!!!!!!! Thank you :)~"

How strange to find happiness in failure, in sickness. How elevating to one's eyes to be in gratitude for suffering, though the results produce now be imperfect. One wants to put to words what is behind the delusion of her, and that of others blinded by falsehood, to diagnose man's heart and relieve the error such that they might turn in actuality to Christ in truth, genuinely, but such is not man's place or in his power; I am reminded again that we are helpless, as once I realized in confronting Mormons that I was facing a spiritual, demonic, wall and that nothing was or had been or could get through them, so interrupting every false statement with a challenge from the word, and then showing it in context in that text without wresting, they began to shake as those unsocialized as children such that they looked damaged, and with their shaking repeated over and over the Mormon mantra (called by them "my", they say, "testimony").

How similar the grasping of error, whether unto death, or mere error, but how common among men to hold fast to what is untrue, what is do the detriment of their souls and robbing of true riches. But this is my pearl for now, that is, that again I am reminded we are but helpless watcher's of God's work, and that His word is the power, unto action, conviction, condemnation, hardening, softening, enlivening/quickening, correction, direction, even salvation: not anything we might devise by cunning or observation or our own experience. This is my pearl for the day, that is, we are helpless, and must remember it.

An Abuse of Copyright Claiming

From, http://www.marktwainproject.org/copyright.shtml,

In addition, texts edited by the Mark Twain Project and published by UC Press (such as, for example, the Project's 2003 edition of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn) are also protected, and may not be reproduced without permission.

I hope they know the mere slight editing, whether updating language, or punctuatorial, does not confer copyright on a work, but rather new substance must be added: a mere editorial reproduction of a work does not do this. If they've added annotations, for instance, these might be protected, but someone would need only strip them off.

And no, the justification for claims of copyright "well, it was costly for us", does not hold legal water. Thoughts? Corrections? Anyone?

Just a reminder post...

...to myself that I left a comment here.

This is one of my favorite quotes on global warming, by the way:

I am not saying that the warming does not cause problems. Obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it better. I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are more urgent and more important, such as poverty and infectious disease and public education and public health, and the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans, not to mention easy problems such as the timely construction of adequate dikes around the city of New Orleans.(http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html)

Truly Unifying, or Separation

We Christians separate over truth.

We deny, for instance, Mormons the label "Christian" because we do believe in propositional truths, that terms are defined, that meaning is sure: Thus by "Christ" we mean someone different from who they describe, for instance.

But something else is troubling me. What about defining "soteriology"? Now, I know many may not know that term, so I'll put its definition simply: "about how to be saved", or "about salvation". With such a large landscape of those eager to get the word out about "Jesus" (define it) and so the world may here "how you can be saved" (define salvation), that should be near and dear to the heart.

Obviously this simple essential should be easily defined from Scripture, and held as one truth, one meaning, among all Christians, right? It also involves other components of consideration:

Theology: about God.
Christology: about Christ.
Anthropology: about Man.
etc.

And these, in turn, have other components that go by other fancy, but very useful, facilitating terms. Now, however, we turn to the situation: in reality, there's a wide disparity of believe in regards all these areas: even among the group that calls itself "evangelical".

Normally, in the event of diversity of beliefs, we should all be able to approach scripture together, strive after the same mind as commanded, contend for the faith, and conform to God's word in all these matters, so that we may, as Paul commanded, "speak the same thing". Not by just adopting this or that position just because, to present a united front that really isn't there in the soul of those professing it, which would be dishonest, right? After all, Colossians tells us we're to learn and come to a true/right/accurate knowledge of God (see the NASB's marginal notes on "knowledge", and also you might cf. the notes from the commentary of Jamiesson-Fausset-Brown, available online).

Yet, this pretensious political front is exactly what has happened: "Statement of Belief" you will find at Church after Church, repeating practically the same terms, but all vague: leaving the definitions up for grabs to all who adopt them, like diplomatic documents forged not out of unity of the mind, but by avoiding particulars allowing anyone they want to sign it: a political front, but no true, essential, spiritual and doctrinal unity. (Yes, "doctrine" can be applied to the world's affairs: the declarations made by the world are also doctrines, that is, doctrines, dogmas, undergird and are implied by such docs, for example, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: there are ideas behind, imbued in, represented and expressed by such documents.)

What has become of the highly visible, preaching-itself, "Christianity"? It's motto is "Unity in Diversity": antithetical to biblical teaching; the same is the motto of the Bahai religion, for Indian Society (anything but united with its demeaning and wicked caste system), for practically every major socio-liberal organization on earth today. The old Christian application of that motto?

Unity despite various backgrounds.

A unity of origins, not beliefs, not opinions (the definition of "heresies"). It was once believed that the word dictated Christian belief/doctrine and practice, and was applicable and powerful for every area of life, inward and displayed (outward). Today these are speciously acknowledged, but implicitly and practically denied. It is not convenient: if we exegete Scripture accurately (draw teaching out of it, rather than using it at our own convenience, through sound hermeneutics) it is not so accomodating to modern liberal ideals of social justice and dogma; it is not so sentimental and fluffy: it neither castes humanity in the light of a poor victim of its own sin, nor God as one who is desperately awaiting the permission of those poor murders, adulterers, harlots, coveters, self-lovers, and so on, to come upon them with sweeping gushy love; it does not speak our "heart language"; nor fail to dare confronting almost every modern, well-beloved/dear, notion and pillar of the modern mind.

It does not present itself as to be desired in order to obtain intellectual and emotional fulfillment; a loving and wonderful, stronger, united family (actually Jesus warns He casts division into families); it does not promise anything but hardship, persecution, and suffering for Christ's sake ("tribulations"). It does not downplay any of its truths as non-essentials, as if the love of God which Jesus says is evidenced by obedience, involves only assent to what is deemed by the modern so-called Christian as "essentials" because they are seen as the bare minimums required for genuine salvation, though Scripture would contend the Christian will grow in the knowledge of the Lord and be brought into conformity, rather than stagnating and protesting further teaching when it comes to challenge what they hold dear, require what brings discomfort, ridicule, humiliation, and suffering.

Today wolves teach we must "make Christ attractive", and methods to "show how cool it is to be a Christian". Gone is the humble and unnoticed Christian who by virtue brings hatred upon him or herself despite being upstanding: being the stench of death so that without any prompting, the weight of damp heat the dislike is so intense, that even the unbeliever's smile and manners can't hide their seething dislike. Gone are the days that without trying to provoke anyone, the Christian yet brought upon himself persecution, merely by purity, in action, and profession: these days being provocative is seen as a virtue to "evangelize", while the biblical condemnation of needless offense of anyone is thrown under the bus (with Jesus) for not drawing and keeping large enough crowds. "Take this ordinary life", they sing to God, as if He is to be commanded, as dissatisfied and ungrateful as the world-in-general, evidencing their hatred for Paul's teaching to "remain in your present condition" (that of where one was found and saved), and to pray for the rulers "that we may lead a tranquil (or, peaceable) and quiet life in all godliness (or, piety) and gravity (or, dignity)" (1 Tim 2:2).

Rare is the humble and contrite spirit who serves the Lord with joy even when burdened with suffering, while common nowadays is the unending multitude that has no joy unless through another conference, another "Christian" concert (groups that avoid God's and Christ's name, and "Christianese" do to try to attract unbelieving audience...and evidence their shame, not proclamation, of Christ: often evidenced when they actually start talking about it, and preach other doctrines and gospels foreign to Scripture), or event, another "exciting" undertaking. :(

How awful to have millions upon millions of mouths crying "Jesus", and so few who know the one of which the Bible is talking about, at least, that is, from what we can see by comparing all this to Scripture.

I wish, that rather than trying to correct it all, that truly Christian believers would give-up their greeting of those who hold to other gospels and christs, and do as the word commands: separate, that they be not partakers, nor lend any legitimacy to the false prophets, goats, deceived, and so forth: let them hear our preaching of the truth from without, and if God so wills, be converted, and also therefore urged themselves to come out from among them.