Charming woman (and 55 in this clip)

Irene Dunne on What's My Line in 1953. If you scored charm on a scale of 1 to a 100 she scores a 100 in this video. (Notice her tongue; it was always too big for her mouth, which was part of her charm as well; she controlled it in her film performances, but you can see it more here.) Oh, and, of course, the charming atheists and left-wing liberals had to leave comments calling her a Nazi and so on. This is why they can't be in heaven: they see something charming and throw dung at it.

List of the greatest most representative ten iconic, canonic 500-plus page single-volume novels that exist

1. Don Quixote - Cervantes
   
2. Tom Jones - Fielding
   
3. War and Peace - Tolstoy
   
4. Anna Karenina - Tolstoy
   
5. Brothers Karamazov - Dostoevsky
   
6. Moby Dick - Melville
   
7. Vanity Fair - Thackeray
   
8. Middlemarch - Eliot
   
9. Magic Mountain - Mann
   
10. Ulysses - Joyce

Caveats: 1. Since it's an objective list I include possibly overrated great works such as Ulysses. 2. The title of the post says 'single-volume' to explain why Proust or Man Without Qualities or other multi-volume novels aren't included (one has to define the boundaries of a list, but nothing is lost anyway since Proust is truly overrated). 3. These obviously aren't the only great novels worth reading, but they do represent a non-arguable list of the summit works of the literary form called the novel.

What you need to be doing as a Christian

What you need to be doing as a Christian is to be truly developing, now, in real time, as a spiritual warrior.

You need to be increasing in level of being, in consciousness (self-awareness), understanding, and ability to act from God's will.

You need to be getting the Word of God into you in the only way that makes it bedrock in your being, or in your soul: dedicated complete readings. All other kinds of Bible reading and study becomes profitable *only* in the wake of dedicated, ditch-digging, complete - cover-to-cover readings.

Understanding is seeing the parts in relation to the whole. Most people, for their entire lives, carry a disparate agglomeration of parts with no connection to the whole, hence they never achieve understanding. On the mark systematic doctrine helps (is indispensable) yet without having the whole of the Word of God in you understanding still won't appear. I leave regeneration issues aside, to be something that goes without saying.

Notice nothing trumps developing as a spiritual warrior. No family events or issues, no survival issues, death itself doesn't trump it. Not even evangelization, because we evangelize most effectively by our presence and our actions in life and in time itself. When we truly develop in our level of being we effect people - even people who are no longer present in this life - connected with us in time, and we influence them in ways it is not worth defending to shallow people. And it is only positive influence when true development of being is accomplished by degree.

We all face forces antagonistic to our development and our faith once we become regenerated by the Word and the Spirit. You are on the battlefield against the world, the flesh, and the Devil whether you like it or not. Then the battlefield that exists beyond the veil. It is on these battlefields that we need more than just surface knowledge. We need actual spiritual armor of God. We need the Sword of the Spirit and the shield of faith to a real, effective degree. We need prayer as higher will. We need real understanding of ourselves and the world around us; real understanding of the parts of our being; real internal command mirroring the command of the King above us.

We need to provoke our limits so as to be able to make real efforts to extend our limits. We need to confront and provoke the dragon in the darkness of the cave to be able to then slay the dragon. To be able to stand on that evil day you need to develop now as a spiritual warrior. Nothing rises above this in importance as a Christian. The love and peace merchants will be run over in their watery, worldly state of un-self-aware, non-understanding, self-deceived vanity and pride and 'holy' Satanic shallow arrogance like a squirrel under the wheels of a bus.

And I for one am not doing your fighting for you. If I am doing battle, beyond the veil, and I see you fools getting lost and duped and all the rest, I'm leaving you to yourselves. You weren't wise virgins, and you're not weighing me down. I know you're going to hell anyway, and that you want to go to hell, indeed have wanted all along to be in hell. What I'm writing right now is enough help from me to you to absolve me of any accusations of coldness towards you.

Homosexuals are out of the closet, why not Critical Text man-fearers?

It's finally happened. Academic Reformed Christi - excuse me - Churchianity, which gives authority to man and not God, has fully outed itself on the very representative forum called the PuritanBoard:

TR debates are hereby banned until further notice. I'll let all parties decide how they can fruitfully interact within the Church at large in the meantime.

'TR' equals Textus Receptus, or the Received Text of the Word of God, i.e. God's Word pure and whole, hated by the world and by anti-Christ and by all self-identified 'christians' who demand man be authority and not God.

So all defense of God's Word pure and whole is hereby banned on this worthless churchian site; and then notice he - a man - will "decide" how members of this forum can "fruitfully" interact "within the Church."

This occured because Thomas Weddle over there, who posts the least, but is most effective, exposes the critical text man-fearers directly. I.e., critical text man-fearers can't win the manuscripts argument. They lose every time. All they have is their sophistry and bullying (filthy creeps, when the King returns your bullying will turn into hiding underneath rocks, may your father the devil help you all he can - all he can, losers, all he can - which is all you can expect, which is nothing).

secularright.org exposes the default left-wing in atheist

Look at this post and thread. One dumb left-wing atheist juvenile delinquent after another. "Secular right"? Right. Atheism = shallow/ignorant/high self-estimate which in turn = left-wing liberal.

And typical of left-wing liberals the atheists at secularright.org are policing their environment with all the fascistic charm one sees at politically-correct left-wing universities.

Churchians and the single Christian

A big part of the shallowness of churchians is they have never faced themselves in the way of being alone with themselves. They exalt marriage and family to the ridiculous point of equating it with the faith itself because the mere thought of being alone with themselves represents to them all that is weird and uncool and ultimately unthinkable. They are shallow and hollow and when alone with themselves they see this void and freak out. The main crime here, though, is making 'church' a synonym for 'nuclear family.' What it does is it brings in all the worldliness of the world into a church, and really in very concentrated form. Then all the inane traits just follow: moralism ("My children are innocent and must be protected!" No, pilgrim, your children are infected and polluted with original and active sin like all fallen humanity. You got it backwards. "Well, my family is holy, and I am holy in being their leader and having fathered them!" No, you're family isn't holy, and you are a doofus. Just see to it your kids get a library card and some activity outdoors, and maybe give them some lessons on a musical instrument. As for you fathering them: wow, you did something 83 billion other doofuses with genitalia accomplished. It doesn't make you special.) Then all the array of inane traits associated with the big trait of churchians, their being uber respecters of persons. "Who is that person over there? Was 'he' invited? He looks alone. [silently: He doesn't look like us, either.]" Yeah, that person is called a Christian. A follower of Christ. Just the thing you most hate, churchian. And you know why? Because you instinctively know, even in your hollow being, that that Christian will be in the army of the King bearing down on you when you are engaged in looking for a rock to hide under.


Here is a post on the subject of singleness and church. Here is an excerpt:

"Today we need to rediscover the balance of valuing both marrieds and singles. Some of the greatest leaders of church history lived their whole lives as singles: Saint Francis of Assisi, Thomas Aquinas, Joan of Arc, Teresa of Avila, Thomas À Kempis, Bernard of Clairvaux. More recently, Protestant leaders such as Methodist circuit rider Francis Asbury, missionaries Amy Carmichael and Helen Roseveare, and German martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer were all single. C. S. Lewis was a bachelor for most of his life, married at age 57, was married for only four years, and remained a celibate widower after his wife’s death. British theologian John Stott, now in his 70s and never married, has had a significant worldwide ministry. Mother Teresa spent seven decades serving the poor in India as a single woman."

Village idiots by any other name

Mass [dolphin] strandings: Why?

*
deep water animals (the species that most often are the victim of mass strandings) can not "see" a sloping sandy beach properly with its sonar. They detect the beach only when they are almost stranded already and they will panic and run aground.

*
whales and dolphins may be navigating by the earth's magnetic field. When the magnetic field is disturbed (this occurs at certain locations) the animals get lost and may run into a beach.

*
in some highly social species, the group leader may be sick and wash ashore. The other members try to stay close and may strand with the group leader.

*
when under severe stress or in panic, the animals may fall back to the behavior of their early ancestors and run to shore to find safety.

Spot the moronic evolutionist answer.

A cult teacher by any other name

Puffed up with knowledge and shallow understanding James White is a typical cult teacher. He refuses to debate people who can show him up, then sends his followers to robotically repeat his warmed-over Counter-Reformation Satanic assault on God's Word pure and whole.

Currently at the PuritanBoard White's followers are making another concerted assault, and few of the Christians over there are able to see what is going on.

The few who one suspects are capable of discerning what is going on are not explaining it to the others or just pointing it out. This is because they know they'll be banned if they do.

Why be on a forum that bans you if you tell the truth, Christian?

By the way, a note to Steve Rafalsky: you're being a respecter of persons in your rebukes of defenders of God's Word, pure and whole (the Masoretic and Received Text) and your indefensible defense of a wicked sophist and corrupter of the Word of God like James White (you know better, Steve), and you are doing it under a guise of pious, holier-than-thou lecturing that is sickening. Wake up to this in yourself.

Nine thoughts for atheists, like the intellectual Everests at the secularright blog

Atheists are always demanding evidence, except for macro evolution.

Atheists today seem to have decided to brazenly appropriate everything created, discovered, invented, built, and founded by Christians, much in the same way victim's groups like homosexuals have appropriated the collected works of Shakespeare. Or as Janeane Garofalo has appropriated the right to demand, from the couch of a television talk show, the turning of carrier groups in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

How to disillusion an atheist: gently point out to him that his atheist hero who wrote what he considers the greatest atheist manifesto in the history of non-ape civilization was in fact a Christian, and was, in fact, a Christian when he wrote it (that will confuse the atheist!). Yes, then suddenly Dostoevsky will no longer be his special hero. The positive for the atheist? He will be able to continue never actually reading anything by Dostoevsky other than that paperback of the extract from the Brothers Karamazov on the Grand Inquisitor.

Atheists are still looking to coin a word to describe themselves since 'brights' never went over. I suggest 'brains', since that is all they seem to think they are. Who are they to talk, think, and act as if they are above their brain in some sort of sense of self-awareness when all they are are a brain? "There is a Brain rally being held in front of the Supreme Court. Brains, bring signs, and be prepared to make some noise! Brainism is on the march! No longer will we Brains allow ourselves to be second-class citizens! (Be careful to drive safely as Brains can be irreparably harmed when colliding with things like windshields. We need all our Brains healthy and operating at optimum level!)"

Once the atheist recognizes the very ground he stands on is owned by God suggest to him a new slogan: "Christians to my right, devil-worshipers to my left; my ass is grass." That's right, atheists; some of you are puppies on the freeway, some of you are moose on the freeway, either way you're a bit lost.

The atheist lectures: "So as you can see, religion is a fairy tale. It's about pink unicorns. Now, if you are interested in reality and reason, let me tell you how fish turn into race horses..."

The atheist thinks meeting the claims of macro evolution is the equivalent of giving a course in macro evolution. Marxists of course have always thought the same thing.

Freud to atheists: sometimes a Cambrian explosion is just a Cambrian explosion.

There's a new atheist magazine coming out: Sixteen Forever.

On the Republication of the Covenant of Works

Once again...

1. Sinai (the Mosaic Covenant) was a covenant of works for Jesus (and prior to Jesus' birth national Israel was a type of the Messiah, so that is why it was presented to national Israel, and see point #4 below to further understand this), and in that it was a covenant of works for Jesus it was part of the covenant of grace for us. So when some say it was a covenant of grace and some a covenant of works, they are both right (if they understand it in this on-the-mark way).

2. The parallel between the two Adams makes it clear. Jesus (the second Adam) came to accomplish what the first Adam failed to accomplished. Jesus did this. What do you think he was called on to do, not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? No, the covenant of works in the Garden was republished on Sinai (what was boiled down and revealed by God's word to us as the commandment not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was published more expansively on Sinai), and that is what Jesus succeeded in following (with all t's crossed and all i's dotted) hence doing what the first Adam failed to do. (And there is a parallel between the tempation of Adam and Eve at the tree by the Devil and the temptation of Jesus in the desert by the Devil; Adam failed to protect his bride, and Jesus succeeded in protecting His bride which are the elect.)

3. This parallel of the two Adams also includes the federal aspects and not just the individual. Adam in the Garden carried all his posterity with him in his actions; Jesus, the second Adam, carried all the elect with Him in His actions.

4. In the plan of redemption there are - other than Jesus Christ - two unique players: Adam, and national Israel. *Neither of these two correlate to fallen man.* (This is a BIG point that seems to get missed by all sides.) Both are a type of Jesus. Yes, the Israelites - individual Israelites - were saved by faith in the *coming* Messiah just as we are saved by faith in the *already come* Messiah, but national Israel's role was also corporately unique in God's plan in ways our role is not. National Israel shepherded the Word of God. National Israel played out the lesson of the worthlessness of the law in saving us in their actual history which became the Word of God. National Israel kept the kingly bloodline pure until the birth of Jesus. National Israel enacted the life of the Saviour typologically in history until the arrival of the Saviour. Until Jesus died on the cross national Israel was a unique player in God's plan of redemption, but after the death of Jesus on the cross and the resurrection national Israel no longer was a unique player (though their former status and work as a unique player holds some meaning in the eyes of God towards them as Paul intimates in Romans, but basically, as Paul says, they are in the same position regarding salvation as the gentiles are).

5. The aspect of the Mosaic Covenant (what I've been calling Sinai) regarding the land of the Israelites (a favorite aspect of the Mosaic Covenant for people who like to find problems where none exist) is simply part of the typologically unique aspect of national Israel. This aspect of it all is seen to be a problem when it is simply being forced into the plan of redemption in an off-the-mark way. It's said to cause a 'problem' when there is no problem (the Bible is simple and elegant; classical Covenant - Federal - Theology is simple and elegant). When we are in covenant with God and we sin God punishes us, but He doesn't cast us off. This is what was shown with the land vis-a-vis the Israelites. This is part of the lesson national Israel was enacting in their very history which became special revelation. The land itself was a type of the New Jerusalem, and not the actual land of Canaan or Palestine. The land promises are fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God.

John Owen, KJV-Only conspiracy theorist

Over at ye old PuritanBoard one Tim V. is angrily mocking any comers on the subject of the legitimacy of the Septuagint (he is *for* its legitimacy, you see, because it allows him to say that since Jesus read from corrupt manuscripts it's OK for modern critical text scholars to have their industry producing numerous corrupt versions based on corrupt manuscripts). Now, let's give little Tim V. (he has to be little) a shock (which he will pretend to have known of, he being a dishonest, corrupt 'bible' pushing type.)

First rowdy little Tim V. states:

"All reasonable people who have looked into the matter know that Christ quoted both from the Hebrew and Septuagint. That settles the matter. Christ quoted from two different compliation of texts that differ much more than the TR does from the W&C compilation.

The KJV onlies know that if Christ quoted from both, they don't have a leg to stand on, and invent a silly mythology that states the Septuagint never existed. And you can't argue with them anymore than you can argue with 9/11 truthers or Obama wasn't born in the USers. They start from a position of elevating all data to the same level of quality, so they can come to any conclusion that they want."

Love that 'all reasonable people.' I think the Soviets used to say: "All non-insane people believe..." then fill in the blank. All non-insane people believe it is good to murder 9 million Ukrainians. Whatever.

Well, what did John Owen think about the matter, Tim V.? It's easy enough to find out. (By the way, Tim V., John Owen lived in the 1600s.) He wrote a book with a whole chapter devoted to the Septuagint. It's called Biblical Theology:


After, in classic John Owen fashion, he has some fun with some quotes and views and speculations from the ancients who believed the Septuagint was not a fable, where they hang themselves on their own "silliness" (a word Owen uses for them and their views) he states this:

"However, despite all this, the point will be made that our Saviour used this version and so commended it to the Church. This is rather like that of the author who solemnly tells us how our Lord used to sing mass and perform as a sacrificing priest! This could be brought out of the New Testament writings with about as great a degree of probability as his endorsement of the Septuagint!" - pg. 544, Biblical Theology, trans. by Stephen P. Westcott

Owen then goes on to make the exact same point dumb KJV-Onlists make (the conspiracy theory Tim V. slams the dumb KJV-Onlists for believing in):

"Add to this that later, Christian users and copiers of the Septuagint would naturally adapt their quotations to those given in the New Testament. The asserters of this certainly have strong probabilities for their opinion."

He then goes on to give in detail two instances of this. You have to acquire the book. Suffice to say, according to Tim V. the KJV-Onlyists have quite a long history and quite good company in their conspiracy theories.

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God

To the BHTers who can't stand the smell of ocean nymphs, here is something to gnaw on. Listen at least until the drums kick in. I know the attention span is still what it use to be.

The studio version, with better visuals.

(How do I explain further to the iMonk about his wife...) The external, moving world of things and events are a sort of hieroglyphics, and sometimes a mirror too, to be read, by a non-totally-sleeping being. There is the element of providence at work in our sanctification as well. Your wife is engaged in a heroic act, in effect journeying into the depths of the Beast itself, to show you to yourself, and to attempt to awaken you. Only one thing can save you and save her. Finally once and for all not playing devil's advocate - and/or court jester - in your relationship with your conscience and the Word of God. The real Word of God.

One more comical thing about modern version 'bibles'

An unspoken - or rarely mentioned - Achilles' heel of the critical text modern version 'bibles' (ESV, NASB, etc.) is the fact that they base themselves on the Authorized Version 1611. I.e. critical text scholars are incapable of translating the Word of God themselves without it being seen as a lightweight, shallow product; so they have to derive authority for their product from the King James Version. They want the reflected authority of the Authorized - King James - Version, which is the authority of the Holy Spirit Himself, while at the same time they want to undermine that authority and replace it with their imbecilic 'authority of scholars.'

Two ever-present themes addressed by Thomas Watson

After writing about a couple of themes I picked up a book at random (Thomas Watson's Body of Practical Divinity) and turned to a page at random and started to read.

What I turned to was a 13-point section on what we will have in the Kingdom of God.

Points #1 and #12 addressed directly the two main themes.

I was writing about how human beings need so much stuff - and need to do so much stuff - just to survive and the continual hassle of it all. Here is a section from that book addressing that:

"[Being in the Kingdom of God] implies a freedom from the necessities of nature. We are in this life subject to many necessities; we need food to nourish us, clothes to cover us, armour to defend us, sleep to refresh us; but in the kingdom of heaven there will be no need of these things; and it is better not to need them than to have them; as it is better not to need crutches than to have them. What need will there be of food when our bodies shall be made spiritual? I Cor 15: 44. Though not spiritual for substance, yet for qualities. What need will there be of clothing when our bodies shall be like Christ's glorious body? What need will there be of armour when there is no enemy? What need will there be of sleep when there is no night? Rev 22: 5. The saints shall be freed, in the heavenly kingdom, from these necessities of nature to which they are now exposed."

Of course, the question of what replaces our basic experience in such glorified bodies is not addressed in the above passage, but the point is made. We can yearn or pine or complain for something now that can only exist when glorified in the Kingdom of God.

The second theme was the general: "There's nothing to do! no where to go! all is vain; you can go here, go there, but it's all the same, accomplishment...etc....it just leads to golf, seemingly."

The easy response to the above is to say, but have you experienced everything, have you climbed to the top of the mast of a swift sailing ship? Have you harpooned a whale? Have you built a skyscraper? Have you produced a great movie? Have you had a family? Have you blah, blah, blah. It's all the same to someone who has just reached a certain point.

Now, here is the relevant passage from the Watson book addressing that specific theme:

"In the kingdom of heaven we shall be freed from vanity and dissatisfaction. What Job says of wisdom, in chap. 28: 14; 'The depth saith, It is not in me; and the sea saith, It is not with me;' I may say concerning satisfaction; every creature says, 'It is not in me.' Take things most pleasing and from which we promise ourselves most content, still, of the spirit and essence of them all we shall say, 'Behold, all was vanity.' Eccl 2: 11. God never did, nor will, put a satisfying virtue into any creature. In the sweetest music the world makes, either some string is wanting, or out of tune. Who would have thought that Haman, who was so great in the king's favour, that he 'set his seat above all the princes' of the provinces, for want of the bowing of a knee, would be dissatisfied? Est 3: 1. But in the kingdom of heaven, we shall be freed from these dissatisfactions. The world is like a landscape painting, in which you may see gardens with fruit trees, curiously drawn, but you cannot enter them; but into the joys of heaven you may enter. 'Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.' The soul shall be satisfied while it bathes in those rivers of pleasure at God's right hand. 'I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness.' Psa 17: 15."

This sentence says it all (and C. S. Lewis echoed it in one of his books):

"The world is like a landscape painting, in which you may see gardens with fruit trees, curiously drawn, but you cannot enter them; but into the joys of heaven you may enter."

So, straining and trying and despairing to do what you can't do is vain. It has to be remembered. This is perspective. Higher perspective. But when you charge on up the mountain to the summit you can have a false sense of what is possible beyond that.

Then again, Jonathan Edwards said something to the effect of: (paraphrase) You shouldn't be afraid to be too greedy in acquiring spiritual things.

Something like that. Basically he was saying to the more staid Christians that it's OK to strive for more and more spiritual gifts. Still, the flesh is a boundary and we shouldn't let it dispirit us by trying to do things that can only be done in a state of glorification. Not that we need to accept limits, but still, the point is not to get dispirited based on the fact that we are not in glorified bodies.

Further note on this: This post has a passage from Meredith Kline's Kingdom Prologue making the same point as Watson regarding the second theme quoted above. Kline's way of describing it is unique, striking, and powerful.

Atheists are shallow

I once did my time as the lone Christian at the Sam Harris forums, but I was just looking at the Richard Dawkins atheist forum and it strikes me that, though atheists are many things, one thing they are to a striking degree is they are shallow.