<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14792577\x26blogName\x3dPLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d8382812700944261936', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

3.31.2008

Two comments from the blogosphere worth reading


Here's one of the wisest things written at the PuritanBoard recently that just appeared to go over the heads of all the man-fearing, seminary types over there (which is not all of them, but unfortunately most of them):

"When I read what you and others write about the once-stalwart turning traitor (seeing it happen to the seeming best!), I betake myself to the Lord and ask, “Please don’t let it happen to me, Lord!”

I too think there is a danger in the “spiritual academies,” the danger of intellectual headiness departing from the restraints of suffering and humility among the rank and file believers. To be among the elite is an unsafe place. Those who maintain genuine godliness and doctrinal soundness in such an atmosphere are becoming uncommon, and must depend on God’s grace to a great degree." - Steve Rafalsky


Note the line that is not easy to see unless you've experienced it: "...the danger of intellectual headiness departing from the restraints of suffering and humility among the rank and file believers."

This is part of separation that follows regeneration. You begin to see your own nothingness. Humility is not a virtue you practice, it is hammered into you against your will. A gift you don't ask for, but is infinitely valuable nevertheless.

Here also is a comment from GreenBaggins that is excellent. It hits on a point I often use when going up against atheists and Critical Text master scholars, the fact that they take over institutions that were founded by Christians, and the fact that they do it solely to defile the truth. They see that the truth exists in some institution (or in the Authorized Version) so they target it and set out to defile it. Critical Text master scholars never make their own translations of the Word of God because they couldn't. It would have exposed their shallowness (and I suppose some of them have made their own translations, and we see how it's exposed their shallowness). So they based their corrupt versions on the Authorized Version, forcing their corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts into God's pure and whole received traditional text Reformation era translation Word of God. The same with liberal theologians. They don't found any great institutions of learning, they can only infiltrate and take over already existing institutions.

When you follow the devil you are exposed as not only being deadly losers but human mediocrity.

3.30.2008

The Dr. is not amused (their Peter Enns problem)


On various Reformed internet sites they are discussing a professor at a 'major' Reformed seminary named Peter Enns who has written a book attempting a downgrade of the Reformed doctrine on Scripture (i.e. he's a typical liberal theologian you find in all seminaries, so-called conservative seminaries or admittedly liberal seminaries).

In it all the Reformed Christians who still can see how Peter Enns is wrong on Scripture have now had the uncomfortable thought placed in the backs of their minds that they can't get rid of that what produces a Peter Enns and all his legion of young followers is refusing to humble yourself to the received, traditional text Word of God to begin with and adopting the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and the versions of the 'bible' based on them hence getting rid of the uncomfortable feeling of being in the presence of God's authority and switching that for the much more comfortable and easy to deal with feeling of being in the presence of man's (in this case scholar's, academia's) authority.

Also what is revealed in all this is another reason why these Reformed types refuse to humble themselves to the received traditional text Word of God: it's because that is what those lowly unwashed Christians do. Those people who actually believe all this stuff.

It is common for unregenerate self-identified Christians to not have love for the followers of Jesus Christ. They love academia, and acquiring letters after (and before) their names, and being part of worldly organizations, and writing endless books and articles (not a totally vain enterprise, but for Christians it *usually* is). They are not artists or inspired novelists either, so their books tend to be endless rehashes of things written better in the past and so on.

And those lowly Christian strangers often, not always because it's not always necessary, but often have been up the mountain and back regarding influences 'scholars' pride themselves on being the sole arbiters of, yet the lowly Christians tended to actually, like, climb the mountain and get understanding of and from those influences.

Anyway, look at this recent exchange on this subject on the PuritanBoard between a 'lowly' Christian and a well-known seminary professor who all on that board are quick to call 'Dr.' whenever he appears (if any of them ever has a broken arm I'll bet they won't be seeking out his knowledge and skill at that point, but I digress; I just wanted to make the point that sometimes 'Dr.' has a practical reason to be placed before a person's name):

I got a WTS graduate (a pastor) upset once when I said I was not a product of a "theological cemetery", but there is much truth to it. Is there a sound seminary these days? MARS? Reformed Baptist Seminary? (apart from the baptistic stuff -- sorry credos!) Any that can be recommended?

So much apostatizing begins over issues of Scripture, both OT and NT. And this seems -- to me, with my peculiar point of view -- to be intrinsic to Critical and Eclectic Text assumptions (I would have to include Majority Text too, to some extent, I'm afraid), where what we have is a provisional Scripture dependent on ongoing studies and research. Pandora's Box has been opened in this discipline and there is no getting what came out back in. The "best minds" in Evangelical (and Reformed) scholarship are taken with the notion of progress in determining the text of Scripture. Within this paradigm anything is fair game.

Does the future of P & R churches depend on graduates from seminaries? Theological education used to be a great blessing; now it is increasingly becoming a bane. And we are locked into drawing our fish from these pools, which are more and more polluted with poisons.

I remember when the Lord and the apostles picked unlearned men (for the most part) and trained them.

Steve Rafalsky


Well, the seminary professor saw this and couldn't allow it to stand without a sound thwack of a response:

Steve,

When those untrained men can raise people from the dead, speak natural foreign languages without learning them, shake off serpents, survive stoning, beatings, drownings, be transported by the Spirit from place to place, and even pronounce a death sentence.

Until then seminaries are still a good idea.

Yes there are solid confessional seminaries. I can think of one or two.

R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology


It would seem, not surprisingly, that the good Dr. Clark has a mocking attitude towards the work of the Holy Spirit within born again believers. When one fears and reveres man and man's authority more than God and God's authority it would follow one would have this abiding attitude and need to mock lowly born again believers, not to mention, again, the received traditional text Word of God that God preserves for His own and that His own have defended through time and history, persecution and martyrdom.

If I've been able to play just a little role in putting such uncomfortable thoughts in the backs of your minds, seminary people and other Village of Morality types, all I can say is: you're welcome.

3.25.2008

Acts 12:4 and Critical Text master scholars


It used to be that scholars knew something of language and literature. Not today of course. Ebonics and comic books are more the fare in modern day institutions of higher learning.

Whenever a Critical Text scholar would triumphantly bring up the use of the word Easter in Acts 12:4 as 'proof' that God does not preserve his Words and further that we must all resort to the authority and word of man (scholars, Pope, whatever) rather than God I would direct them to a page such as this, but in the back of my mind I knew I was conceding some ground to the devil's waterboys (sorry if that is strong phrase, but we are talking about the Word of God itself) by doing that (which is difficult to not do at times, their onslaught against God's people is never-ending and attrition sneaks in until God's own, at intervals, have to step back to re-survey the environment and get things back on keel, and this will happen until the return of the King).

Here is a much better page to instruct the 'scholars' and Jesuits and anybody else out there (not that the brandplucked page linked above is not good, it is excellent as usual). And here is an article that apparantly the others drew from that hits all the necessary points.

You see that Easter, or ester, is an old Anglo-Saxon word which actually means passover (to use Tyndale's coinage), and the one place it is used in the New Testament is the one place (of 29) where the passover reference is not to the Old Testament but to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Surprise, surprise, in the refining process the AV 1611 got it exactly right.

Leaving the 'scholars' to mock and rage... They've, though, always got their comic books that their professors have told them are the equal of the Homeric epics and the 19th century novel, and they've, of course, still got their liberal reference sources for their language studies... Not to mention See It and Say It in Biblical Greek! which earns them, once through, a Ph.D. nowadays, and gives them standing to mock the translators of the Authorized Version who...were actual scholars...and believers...

ps- To make it simple: there are two English words for 'pascha', 1) Easter, and 2) passover. The former was adopted from the Anglo-Saxon (and was used for 'pascha' in the earliest English translations of the Word of God; the latter was a coinage by William Tyndale. Modern scholars don't understand that both English words mean 'pascha'. Easter doesn't mean anything other than 'pascha'. It doesn't mean "fertile love goddess with bunny attendants and fertility egg paraphanalia who appears in the spring all naked and shameless." Easter is an English word borrowed from the old Anglo-Saxon to mean 'pascha.' Just as passover is in its case a coined English word (by Tyndale) to mean the same thing. The translators of the AV 1611 had two English words with which to render 'pascha' in the New Testament. They chose Easter in Acts 12:4 solely because Jesus had already died and resurrected in Acts 12:4, unlike in all the other 28 references to 'pascha' in the New Testament. (It's OK, modern scholars, you can trust the received traditional text Word of God and the great Reformation era translations made from it. It's OK. Unless you are being consciously mischievous in which case have fun...while your so-called fun lasts...)

3.22.2008

Village of Morality civil war


Some people may be surprised that the PuritanBoard has taken the same lukewarm stance towards Doug Wilson and Federal Vision as Lane Keister. It's because, as I said long ago, the debate between Christians such as Lane Keister and the people who survive banning on the PuritanBoard on the one hand and the Federal Visionists like Doug Wilson on the other is a debate within what John Bunyan called the Village of Morality. It's a Village of Morality civil war. This is why Christians who are seriously critical of Federal Vision but who aren't Village of Morality types get banned by those types. When I criticize Federal Vision it has meaning. I'm not playing around. And this frightens the Lane Keisters and PuritanBoard types. Because they sense a Christian is in their presence who is actually regenerated and who actually values the Word of God. I.e., somebody who actually believes all this stuff they just gab about in between talking about television shows and going to conferences and defending prominent Village of Morality idols and being respecters of persons.

3.21.2008

The power and history of the received traditional text Word of God


The living Word of God is not something scholars 'discover' and construct. The Reformation didn't pull the received traditional text out of thin air. It's the text God preserved and God's own shepherded through time and history, persecution and martyrdom. It is the light that endured and defeated the darkness of Romanist, anti-Christ tyranny. It is the authority of God that shames the authority of man. It is what fallen man most does not want to engage. It is the foundation of all the great Reformation era translations of the Word of God, and to this day the Authorized, King James, Version is the only English translation based on it which is telling in and of itself.

3.20.2008

Interview with Critical Text Proponent Maestroh (Bill Brown)


ME: So you really don't like not only the Authorized Version of the Word of God but the manuscripts underlying the AV?

MAESTROH: To say I don't like them is quite false and very nonacademic. We don't speak in such terms in the academy. However you of course couldn't be expected to know that. You see, in the academy these matters are spoken of very differently than at the level of the general lay person. But let's set that aside and allow me to articulate the subject in a way you may be more able to understand...

ME: Are you wearing a hair piece?

MAESTROH: If I were you wouldn't be able to tell.

ME: It's an academia hair piece?

MAESTROH: Hm, so, allow me to articulate the subject at hand in a way you will have more of a possibility to grasp so that you nor I will chance on wasting our precious time, though I suspect my current doctrinal work surpasses a bit in importance your need to get to your favorite television program, hm, yes?

ME: Yes, continue, Maestroh.

MAESTROH: OK, first of all-

ME: Oh, no. Could you summarize everything in one point? I have a very short attention span.

MAESTROH: You're absolutely correct, and I doon't knew why I didn't think of it myself! Bravo. Here it is: you're an idiot, and you must accept what your betters say. Concise enough, young Alcibiades?

ME: Yes, perfect, except my brain exploded at the Alcibiades reference.

MAESTROH: So sorry, should have kept that one to myself. I'll think better of it next time.

ME: Very good. So, when Erasmus rejected the very readings you champion he wasn't listening to his betters?

MAESTROH: Oh, dear. You mean Erasmus the pig-buggering, clinically insane opponent of Luther regarding the will of man?

ME: Is that ad hominem?

MAESTROH: That's a Latin term, and you've misspelled it.

ME: I said it out loud.

MAESTROH: It's still a Latin term, and you should be shot for uttering it.

ME: Forgive me, Maestroh, for using a Latin term.

MAESTROH: It's not that you've used it, it's that you don't understand it. Ad hominem is a form of argument that rests on prejudice rather than on proof, designed to influence emotion rather than intellect.

ME: Pig-buggering, clinically insane...

MAESTROH: Now back to the facts. Westcott and Hort-

ME: Madame Blavatsky's dog walkers...

MAESTROH: Now see what you've engaged in just now is called ad hominem. Learn something. You haven't made an argument, you've attacked the reputation of two of the greatest Christian scholars not only of the 19th century but since Christ.

ME: The 19th century was a golden age of Christian scholarship. Charles Finney, Scofield, Joseph Smith...

MAESTROH: Guilt by association. More fallacious delinquency.

ME: Back to Erasmus...

MAESTROH: Yes, Erasmus, a man who dined on blood with the Pope of his day...

ME: Ad homnibus and guilty asocialization, sir! Here, here!

(Suffice to say Maestroh didn't come around to my way of seeing things. It just isn't taught in the academy. I did get out of him though the title of his work-in-progress doctoral thesis: "Reasons the Shepherd of Hermas should not be presented as canonical to the general lay audience until such time as they are educated and prepared sufficiently for the truth." It should be available to Christian scholars, he said, within a couple of years...)

3.17.2008

What churchianity Christians fear


What do churchianity Christians fear? Regeneration. Why? Because it entails separation. Real separation. The kind of separation that makes one a target in the Kingdom of Satan.

With regeneration comes friction. Friction with the world. Friction with the devil. Friction with one's inner 'Old Man' nature. And even friction with God, who will test His own.

How is regeneration effected? Regeneration is effected, when it is effected, by the Word and the Spirit.

So how do churchianity Christians avoid regeneration? They exalt ritual and man above the Word and the Spirit. And even the ones who don't go as far as Romanists with their ritual safeguard themselves from potential regeneration by substituting 'bibles' that have the authority of man in them rather than the received Word of God that has the authority of God within it.

One doesn't have to humble oneself to a man-constructed and approved 'bible.' One does have to humble oneself to recognize and accept the pure and whole received Word of God, because the pure and whole received Word of God is above one.

You aren't regenerate until you can discern the voice of the Shepherd and not desire to run from it, and you are not regenerate until you can fear God solely and not man. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. When you cling to the authority of scholars - man - regarding the Word of God, and reject, and even mock, the pure and whole received Word of God you are one who fears and reveres man more than you fear and revere God.

Notice how critical text scholars mirror exactly Darwinian evolutionists in their demands and assertions and their emotional reactions when confronted. It's the same in both cases: these are people who refuse to give up their vanity, worldly pride, and rebellious self-will at all cost and refuse to recognize anything higher than them. They consider God and His Word the enemy to their 'freedom' (their Satanically induced illusion of freedom).

When a churchianity Christian justifies their state by describing how they have helped people I ask: what kind of help is more meaningful than giving a person the pure Word of God boldly and without fear of man so that the seed of the living Word of God is implanted in them so as to potentially grow (regenerate, quicken, them) by the grace of God? Churchianity Christians don't do this. They give 'sermons.' They talk of 'family.' They engage in ritual. If they do ever get around to actually proclaiming the Word of God minus their asinine sermonizing they read from the devil's manuscripts (approved by man) and do anything with it other than proclaim it as if it is inspired truth.

Yes, church Christians, when you begin to awaken the world gets real depressing, perhaps scary! It's a prison. It's the Kingdom of Satan. And you find yourself in spiritual warfare! Who needs that? Just pretend to be Christians and live smug in your Village of Morality pretending you aren't dead asleep tame slaves of the devil in the bondage and darkness of his kingdom of death. No. Pick up your Sword and shield and start fearing God alone. This is real faith talking: when you fear God alone and not man you become a dangerous figure on the landscape of the world; expect war - rejoice in it - and fight like a king.

3.16.2008

This is a fair observation


Todd Bordow proved himself to be an interesting, non-lukewarm voice over at GreenBaggins awhile back. This quote from him today is a fair observation I think too:

That would be sad indeed if that blog was Robert T’s [he meant Robert K's]. But then again, sometimes the emotionally and psychologically unstable, who find self-justification for their unpleasant personalities by separating from “evil” people and seeing black and white in everything, have been spot on historically in some of their critiques. Anne Hutchinson did rightly discern the legalism in the New England churches, though she was somewhat nutty herself.

Todd B.

I mean, I wouldn't describe myself as unstable (though I can see how others would), and I have a classical understanding of biblical doctrine unlike, perhaps, an Anne Hutchinson type, yet nevertheless the above is a fair observation.

There's always been a tension between what I call church Christians and order Christians. Order Christians are Christians who have found the school knowledge within the Bible, perhaps aided by extra-biblical language, but not necessarily so. School knowledge is practical level knowledge. It tends towards being on the Way and the spiritual warfare that entails as opposed to being within a worldly group and the worldly demands and values that entails. The Bible is on the side of the former.

Another seminary guy doesn't approve of me


Lane
Went over to Robert K’s blog. Good grief, and to think I though Robert actually made some worth while comments every now and then. But then, I remember he made some off-the-wall comment about Warfield and textual criticism via Theodore Letis and my radar picked up goofness. Gee whiz-the things he says about James White are beyond the pale of sanity. - GLW Johnson

I use 'bad' language at times for good purpose. Language is relative, not all bad words are useless. They can be useful to shock certain types, such as sleeping, smug, holier-than-thou Village of Morality types.

I write on this blog from the perspective of the practical level of the faith as well.

Regarding the strong language exposing the Alexandrian manuscripts: that is the most foundational issue. Look at the person's quote above. That person is a seminary bred Christian author (perhaps professor, I'm not sure), and more dead asleep than a girl screaming at a Hannah Montana concert. These are Christians who are more interested in being intellectuals and who have yet to see the terror of their situation. They adopt the atheists/new-agers bibles because those bibles don't come with the authority of God. They come with the authority of scholars. I.e., of man. They avoid the Traditional Text and the Authorized Version for the sole and simple reason that it convicts them. It is painful for them to even approach it. This is why they mock it and lapse into all manner of sophistry and fallacious rhetoric when denouncing it or championing their full-of-holes and corrupted man-authority versions. These are Christians that if you asked them to write down ten books they'd take with them if they were going to be stranded on an island the Word of God itself would be grudgingly slotted into the tenth spot. Afterall, isn't the latest, most up-to-date commentary just as good? Oh, well, they say to themselves, just to keep up appearances I'd better include the actual Bible. The latest, most up-to-date Critical Text version though. None of that real thing that Christians actually died for. That Christians actually defended through time and history, persecution and martyrdom. None of that real thing that actually convicts. None of that real thing that actually forces me to humble myself to something higher than me (forces me to recognize something higher than me) like that which created me. No, they say, I'll stick with the Westcott and Hort Blavatsky version[s] thank you.

To conservative Roman Catholics


There is anti-Christ evil, and then there is just plain left-wing stupidity. Often they overlap, but I suspect this statement by the person Roman Catholics call 'Pope' is solely in the latter category:

The pope also denounced the 5-year-long Iraq war, saying it had provoked the complete breakup of Iraqi civilian life.

OK, he's also upset that the devil lost a big province when his man Saddam and his regime went down.

To all conservative Roman Catholics who are able to discern tyranny...how can you follow this person? Enough with justifying your position, just cut loose. You have the Word of God? You have faith? You have the sole Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ? You will be OK.

3.15.2008

Lane Keister exposed


Lane Keister is a 'pastor' of a supposedly Reformed (i.e. doctrinally orthodox and non-liberal) church in a Reformed denomination who likes for people to think he is orthodox and all that. No, he's a liberal theologian just like all the rest of the seminary boys. He's recently been exposed by his inability (or refusal) to call a spade a spade regarding pot-head Doug Wilson (who is a classical counter-Reformation Beast-worshipping and Beast-serving Jesuit currently pretending to be a Protestant). Lane Keister bans hardcore Christians from his blog, and back-slaps with the likes of Doug Wilson and other liberal theologians.

That Lane Keister is petulant in pushing and defending the devil's Alexandrian manuscripts and the academic shit they call 'bibles' made from those manuscripts (NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT, et al) shouldn't surprise anyone; and that Lane Keister is a respecter of persons (so common to his class of seminary-bred morons) also shouldn't surprise. The big reason he is unable to condemn Doug Wilson is because Doug Wilson is a "pastor in good standing." So is the Roman Pope, one could point out.

God's elect have lost all patience for these church Christians. They're all liberals. They're all pushing the devil's 'bibles.' They all demand that man have authority. They can't fear God, they can't discern God's Word (or they refuse to because it convicts whereas their man-authority 'bibles' are very comfortable to their man-fearing demands they live by in their Village of Morality). We're in the end times and anti-Christ is fully in the temple.

3.14.2008

James White yet again...


It's confirmed now, James White is actually blocking critics from commenting on his YouTube videos. James 'the Debater' White. James the fearful Jesuit who lives under his desk White.

This is what the Bible tells us: confront the devil, and he will run from you.

3.12.2008

James White again...


James White posted some videos on YouTube regarding his 'debate' with Gail Riplinger. I posted in the comments section as uk67 exposing the corrupt manuscripts and those there who were pushing them. White has now blocked me from commenting, and suddenly, by mere coincidence, some James White followers are showing up knowing the ground is safe and posting comments to me challenging me and so on. I can't respond. James White is a comical fellow. He lies like a Muslem and has the objectives of a Jesuit, all the while calling himself a Calvinist. Those who know the history of reprobates dressing themselves in Protestant clothing are not surprised by any of this. That he has so many followers probably shouldn't surprise anyone either.

3.08.2008

To all juveniles in Christ sucking on the devil's teat


To all juveniles in Christ who are sucking on the devil's teat (the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and the perversions - ESV, NASB, NIV, etc. - you ignorantly and petulantly call the Word of God:

Someday may you be able by God's grace to value the voice of the Shepherd, the pure and whole Traditional Text Word of God. The very thing your Adamic nature currently refuses to humble itself to. May you someday refuse to accept the authority of man over the authority of God. May you learn to fear God and God alone. When Scripture is one's lifeblood one doesn't stand for corruption or man as authority.

When Scripture is one's lifeblood one doesn't stand for corruption or man as authority.

Read that sentence above again, current followers of satan. Until you value the Word of God to the point where it is your lifeblood you are not a follower of Christ. You are a follower of man, and hence a follower of the devil. Until you find in you the will and ability to fear God more than you currently fear and revere man; until you find it in you to rebel against the authority and opinion of your seminary professors and your colleagues; until you recognize the fact that one's dinky academic intellect is as cardboard to the Sword of the Spirit and the faith that possesses that Sword you will be forever in a nursery, petulant, and ignorant of your condition and state.

The Criticial Text position has become the laughingstock position among Christians. It is currently a flat Earth society. It is the equivalent of Darwinian evolution and all teachers of it are as desperate and witch-crazy as Richard Dawkins. If you continue to push the corrupt version after Christians have disabused you of your false notions you have no excuse before the judgment seat.

3.05.2008

Thomas Weddle schooling the man-centered Reformed establishment


Look at Thomas Weddle at once baffle and anger (and mostly draw hamstrung silence from) pseudo-Reformed and indeed because it's the foundational issue pseudo-Christians over at the PuritanBoard on the subject of the received Word of God.

Hillary and the Democrat Party establishment introducing African-Americans to their place


In this campaign African-Americans are finally having to face the truth that the Democrat Party is the party of the plantation. They have house negroes and they have field negroes; but there are no plantation owner negroes allowed in the Democrat Party.

Personally I'm voting for the war hero, not having much to do with the plantation culture myself...

3.03.2008

True, or half-true? Sort of true?


I heard a Roman Catholic apologist say that the Protestant Work Ethic was stolen from Roman Catholicism. This is why, he concluded, Roman Catholic countries tend to languish in low hygiene and backwardness.

The same apologist stated that all of J. S. Bach's compositions were actually composed by a Cardinal of the 16th century. He said the music then was so revolutionary it wasn't known what to make of it, and the Cardinal's advisers feared the strange works would affect his reputation, so the works were set aside until, it is believed, a German individual found them in the Vatican, and then they mysteriously started appearing in the 18th century and later as being composed by a J. S. Bach.

Another Roman Catholic apologist stated that John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress was plagiarized from a Dutch Roman Catholic work, then changed some to make it seem like a Protestant wrote it. This R. C. apologist recently committed suicide, not that that means anything.

Another Roman Catholic apologist who was recently found crying and saying everything is meaningless said that Rembrandt was not really a Calvinist, but was actually a Jesuit posing as a Calvinist.

And all RC apologists say John Calvin was a homosexual who cried on his death bed for the Pope and screamed that all Bibles must be burned so man would only follow the Pope. That was before all the Roman Catholic apologists took poison to meet the spaceship that was traveling behind the comet.

3.02.2008

I love sites like this


I love sites like this. Read the Evolution Cruncher linked in the right-hand margin of the site.

3.01.2008

The use of language


The first thing Village of Morality 'Christians' (i.e. your average church christians) do is police language. No 'bad language'! they warn. This is because they can't do their satanic thing if there are Christians around using language to expose them.

On the Village of Morality Christian blog 'GreenBaggins' they had a thread going of over 750 comments interacting endlessly with Federal Vision types. So I posted this:

"God damn you fools like dancing with Jesuit devil-sucks, don't you?"

Of course it was deleted, but I posted it again. And again, and again. Each time it was deleted, but more and more of the participants in that thread were seeing it. Guess what? It stopped that inane thread in its tracks. Sharp language, to the point, and honest. This is how soldiers talk. Christians are soldiers in Christ's army. On the Way. Not in any Village of Morality.

In another thread the folks at GreenBaggins were talking about some book a scholar had written about the Bible and they were worried what it would do to their and other people's faith. I posted:

"Since when do Christians give a fuck about what the fuck some scholar says?"

Crude? Not really. Because, you know, since when do Christians give a fuck about what the fuck some scholar says?

That thread mysteriously got quiet.

Good use of language. The Village of Morality can only survive by policing the influence of Christians who can and will expose them.