More Random Religious Thoughts

More Random Religious Thoughts

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are eternal and immortality, Lucifer, Revelation, Saul’s age when he began his reign, Mariology, a time without the Moon, and the Philippines and the Baptists.

Eternal and Immortality

Many people confuse “eternal” with “immortality.” They are different. An eternal being has no beginning and no end. An immortal being has a beginning but no end. Once born or created, an immortal being never dies or ceases to exist.

Are humans naturally immortal? Daniel 12:2 suggests that they are not. Daniel 12:2 reads, “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” According to this verse, only many dead are awake, resurrected; the others remain asleep, dead, in the grave. Those who are not resurrected appear not to be immortal. Once they die, their bodies and souls appear to remain dead forever.

Furthermore, the Hebrews believed that the body and soul were so intertwined that when the body died, the soul died with it. Consequently, the soul is not naturally immortal. It remains dead and unconscious until God resurrects it to immortality.

Lucifer

Many theologians teach that Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, is a pure spirit being. Therefore, he is indestructible and must live for all eternity. First, Lucifer is a created being. Since he is created, he has a beginning. An eternal being has no beginning. Consequently, he cannot be eternal. Second, to claim that he must live forever declares that God is not omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, can He not uncreate (annihilate) what He has created? Third, God is omnipresent. Therefore, wherever Lucifer is, God is also. (Being omnipresent, God fills every particle, wave, frequency, or whatever Lucifer is made of.) How can a being as holy as God tolerate the eternal presence of a being as evil as Lucifer? At some point, God must terminate and annihilate Lucifer. Fourth, God is omniscient. Therefore, God always knows the existence of Lucifer. How can His Pure Holiness tolerate knowing the existence of Lucifer, who is pure evil, forever? What God does not know cannot and does not exist. Consequently, at some point Lucifer must vanish because God ceases knowing him, knowing about him, and knowing of him. Contrary, to what most theologians teach, Lucifer is not indestructible and does not live forever.

True Luciferians, such as Albert Pike, consider Lucifer to be Yahweh’s, Jehovah’s (Adonai or Adonay as Luciferians call Him), equal. Lucifer is their god, and Satan, who is a different being and Lucifer’s subordinate, is the prince of the world. Luciferians believe that Lucifer is the God of Light and the God of Good; Adonai (Yahweh) is the God of Darkness and the God of Evil. Lucifer is or was the highest, brightest, and most intelligent of God’s creatures and held the highest office in heaven next to God Himself. They also believe that Satan is the elder brother of the Archangel Michael and that God sent Michael to earth as Christ Jesus. (Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe that the Archangel Michael and Jesus are the same person.) Both Satanists and Luciferians believe that Jesus failed in his mission when he was crucified. Unfortunately for the Luciferians and Satanists, but fortunately for the followers of Christ, Lucifer and Satan lose.

Another Look at Revelation

In Mysteries of Ancient South America, Harold T, Wilkins cites H. S. Bellamy, who argues that Revelation is the history of a great cataclysm caused by a pre-Lunar satellite of the earth coming to close to earth and being destroyed by the earth, which caused large parts of the satellite to crash into the earth.

How Old Was Saul When He Began to Reign

How old was Saul when he began to reign? The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, so many translators guess at the number. The American Standard Version and several other translations guess 40 years.  The New International Version and other translations guess 30 years. Several translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, leave the number of years blank. A few follow the King James Version and claims that Saul reigned one year; thus, they avoid giving his age when he began his reign.

Mariology

Mariology is the body of beliefs or dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary. It is a set of doctrines that Catholics accept and advocate, which Protestants reject.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Moreover, except unitarians, both agree that Jesus is God. Therefore, if Mary is the mother of Jesus and if Jesus is God, then logically Mary is the mother of God. However, Protestants reject the idea that Mary is the mother of God. Therefore, Catholics are logical, and Protestants are illogical. (For unitarians, this issue is not a problem since they reject the notion that Jesus is God. Thus, they hold that Mary is the mother of Jesus, but she is not the mother of God because Jesus is not God.)

When Jesus was promoted to God, his office as the mediator between man and God became vacant. Catholics promoted Mary, the Mother of God, to the office of the mediator. Since Protestants reject the notion that Mary is the mother of God, they logically have not recognized her as the mediator. Consequently, they had to find another solution. For the most part, they use mental gymnastics to explain this problem away by making God the mediator between God and man.

Thus, both proclaim that Paul erred when he wrote, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Both covertly claim that Paul was too ignorant to understand and express deep theological ideas. Whereas, the Catholics assert that Paul should have written “the woman Mary” instead of “the man Christ Jesus,” Protestants believe that Paul should have written, “the God Christ Jesus.”

If Jesus is God as both Catholics and Protestants maintain, then Catholics believe logically about Mariology, and Protestants believe illogically about it. Moreover, both disagree with Paul about who is the mediator between God and man. Is the mediator Mary or God? Both concur that the mediator is not the man.

Was There a time without a Moon

Some allusions to the time before there was a Moon may be found in the Scriptures. In Job 25:5 the grandeur of the Lord who “Makes peace in the heights” is praised and the time is mentioned as “before [there was] a moon and it did not shine.” Also, in Psalm 72:5 it is said: “Thou wast feared since [the time of] the sun and before [the time of] the moon, a generation of generations.” A “generation of generations” means a very long time. Thus, much time elapsed between the appearance of the sun and the appearance of the moon.

The Philippines and the Baptists

One good thing came from President McKinley’s war to steal the Spanish empire from Spain. He stole the Philippines and, thus, gave the Baptists a retirement home. Where else can a good Baptist retire and have maids, cooks, gardeners, and other servants and live a lifestyle that he could not afford if he remained at home in the United States and have all of it paid for by the folks back home? As long as he tells them about the great missionary work that he is doing, they gladly and gracefully support him.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Some Comments on Democrats and Republicans

Some Comments on Democrats and Republicans

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are Trump-haters’ attitude toward guns, Democratic hypocrisy, and Republican shills.

Hating Trump and Gun Confiscation
Most ardent Trump-haters are convinced that Trump wants to make himself president for life and become an absolute despotic tyrant. Yet, most of these same people want to disarm American civilians, which means disarming themselves, and give the US government an absolute monopoly of firearms. Once these Trump-haters are disarmed, how do they propose to protect themselves from Trump’s tyranny?

Democratic Hypocrisy
Democrats reached the pinnacle of hypocrisy for impeaching President Trump over his telephone conversation with the Ukranian president. They accused Trump of extorting the Ukranian president into investigating Biden's and his son’s corruption. Biden publicly admitted that he extorted the previous Ukranian president to dismiss the prosecutor general who was investigating his son. Now, according to a treaty that President Clinton made with Ukraine, Trump asked the Ukranian president to give the United States information about Biden’s and his son’s corruption, and the Ukranian president asked Trump to give him information that the United States had about their corruption. Thus, Democrats impeached Trump for what they imagined he may have done while ignoring Biden’s extortion and even defending him when he actually did what they accuse Trump of doing. This is hypocrisy!

Republican Shills
About the accusations against President Trump, Rev. Dr. William Barber, former president of the NAACP’s North Carolina chapter, said, “Republicans are now asking what they should do with Trump. Here’s an idea: What would you have done if it were Obama? Do that.”

For the most part, Republicans did and continue to do what they did when Obama was President. They did and continue to do mostly nothing except an occasional complaint. For the most part, they shilled for Obama.

President Obama committed more impeachable offenses than President Trump has. Republicans had a good deal of evidence to remove Obama from office for not being a US citizen. If he were a US citizen, they had good evidence to remove him from office for fraud.

Obama never produced a birth certificate to prove that he was born in the United States. The one offered the public was a fake. Moreover, Hawaii prevented everyone from obtaining a copy of Obama’s birth certificate that it was supposed to have. Also, he traveled with an Indonesian passport, which means that he was an Indonesian citizen.

Further, he attended college in the United States as a foreign student. If Obama were a US citizen who attended college as a foreign student, then he is guilty of fraud. If he qualified as a foreign student because he was a foreigner, then he was not a US citizen and, therefore, not qualified to be President. In either case, he committed an impeachable offense. Yet, the Republicans did nothing. By doing nothing about the accusations against Trump, they are acting the same way that they did about the accusations against Obama.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More Thoughts on Social Issues

More Thoughts on Social Issues

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are dysgenics and the welfare state, debt to society, abortion and vaccination, and how major corporations react to Black communities.

Dysgenics
From the late nineteenth century to after World War I, most Progressives were eugenists and pushed their eugenic programs through governments. With the rise of Hitler, eugenics began to fade in popularity. By World War II, most Progressives, who by now were becoming Liberal Democrats, had become dysgenicists. Now, dysgenics dominates the United States, and eugenics is vigorously condemned — from one end of the political spectrum to the other. Dysgenics is a leading cause of the deterioration of the United States, Europe, and many other parts of the world.

Since the days of President Franklin Roosevelt, Progressives have been promoting dysgenics by their promotion of the welfare state. Under dysgenics, low-quality people, nonproducers, are rewarded for breeding, and high-quality people, producers, are penalized. High-quality people are taxed, i.e., forced, to support low-quality people through various welfare programs. Thus, high-quality people must not only support their own families with what the taxman leaves them, but they must also support the families of low-quality people. The more money that low-quality people receive through various welfare programs, the less money high-quality people have. Because high-quality people must support low-quality people and their children, they have less money to support their own families. Therefore, they have fewer children. While the population of low-quality people, nonproductive people, is rising, the population of high-quality people, productive people, is declining. A larger percentage of Blacks are on welfare than any other race. Therefore, dysgenics is working for the survival of their species, while it is leading to the extinction of the White species. (The only thing that has served to check the growth of low-quality people is another progressive program — abortion.)

Debt to Society
One often hears about a criminal paying his debt to society. A criminal’s debt is to the victim of his crime, that is, to an individual or group of individuals. It is not to an amorphous abstraction called “society.” (Society is the aggregate of the people who cooperate to improve their individual and collective circumstances through production and exchange.) Society has not suffered from his crime; individuals have. Consequently, his debt is to individuals and not to society.

Moreover, the way the system has been set up, the victim helps pay for the punishment of the criminal. Taxpayers, which include victims of crime, pay for the punishment (or rehabilitation for the more progressive) via tax-supported incarceration. Punishment should focus on requiring the criminal to pay the victims of his crime with penalties. Instead, currently, the victim pays for the punishment of the criminal. Unless the court orders the criminal to pay restitution at the time of sentencing, the victim can only recover his loss through a civil suit against the criminal.  Even then, the victim ends up paying for the punishment (prison time, supervision while on parole or suspended sentence, etc.) of the criminal via taxation.

Abortion and Vaccination
Progressives and their kindred declare that the government should not tell a woman what she can do with her body. Therefore, abortion should be legal: A woman has the right to an abortion. (Pro-life adherents are not objecting to what a woman does with her body. They object to what she and the abortionist do to the body of another person: her baby.)

However, when vaccination is the issue, most of the pro-abortion people favor the government telling women what they must do with their bodies. That is, they favor forced vaccination. Thus, a woman should not have the right to control her body by refusing a vaccination. Further, denial of the right to refuse a vaccination extends to young females. Parents should not be allowed to refuse vaccinations for their daughters. Consequently, the government has the right, or even the obligation, to tell a woman what she must do with her body with respect to vaccinations.

Another argument used by the pro-abortionists in favor of abortion is that the government does not tell men what to do with their bodies. Yet, this claim is not true. The government forces males to be vaccinated to attend public schools and often even private schools. Moreover, the government forces men to be vaccinated when it forces them to war and die for the politically powerful.

A major difference exists between antivaccine people and pro-vaccine people. With rare exception, antivaccine people do not want to forcibly prevent people from being vaccinated. They want people to be informed about vaccination, its pros and cons, and to decide for themselves whether they and their children are to be vaccinated. They favor freedom of choice. On the other hand, most pro-vaccine people want to force people, especially children, to be vaccinated. Preferring coercion, they do not favor people making an informed decision. Accordingly, they oppose freedom of choice. In this respect, they are like Marxists and Puritans. Thus, antivaccine people favor freedom while pro-vaccine people oppose freedom.

Racial Actions of Major Corporations
Companies are falling all over themselves to fund radical Black racist groups in the name of fighting White racism, which is systemic, in the name of helping Black communities. If these companies really wanted to help Black communities, they would build their plants and offices in these communities and give the inhabitants of these communities priority in working in these plants and offices. Moreover, they would use the inhabitants of these communities to build the plants and offices. To show their commitment to these Black communities, they would require the managers and supervisors of the plants and offices to live in that community — and not live in a gated segment of the community.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen

More social issues articles.

Some Comments on People and Organizations

Some Comments on People and Organizations

Thomas Allen

 

Discussed below are the difference between terrorists and defenders of freedom, what Lincoln and King have in common, Limbaugh and conspiracy, the firing of Khrushchev, the Logan Act, the American Institute of Economic Research, and the Abbeville Institute.

Terrorists Versus Defenders of Freedom

What is the difference between a cowardly terrorist and a courageous defender of freedom? A cowardly terrorist wears a bomb on a bus and blows up himself and a busload of people. A courageous defender of freedom sits in the cockpit of a multimillion-dollar fighter jet and fires missiles from a hundred miles away into a crowded street.

What do Lincoln and King Have in Common?

What do Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King have in common? Both were assassinated. If they had not been assassinated, they would have gone down in history as scumbags. Assassination deified them. Consequently, assassination was the best thing to ever happen to them.

Limbaugh and Conspiracy

Rush Limbaugh used to call conspiracy theorists, most of whom are conspiracy scientists, kooks and implied, if not claim, that conspiracies do not exist. Now, he describes the Deep State, which he often calls a cabal, the way that most conspiracy scientists describe the conspiracy that controls the United States government and works to create a global state with a one-world government. Since he describes the Deep State as a conspiracy, although he does not use the word, does he now believe in conspiracies? If so, does this mean that he is a kook?

The Firing of Khrushchev

Nikita Khrushchev goes on vacation to a Black Sea resort. David Rockefeller goes to Moscow while Khrushchev is on vacation. Khrushchev returns from his vacation to learn that he has been fired as the primer and as First Secretary of the Communist Party. Coincidence or causation?

Accidental historians, i.e., establishment or orthodox historians, fail to see any connection between Rockefeller and the dismissal of Khrushchev. Most accidental historians claim that Leonid Brezhnev led a coup against Khrushchev. (Curiously, many accidental historians consider Brezhnev’s action against Khrushchev a conspiracy, although they assert that conspiracies do not exist and condemn historians who write about conspiracies.) Did Brezhnev need Rockefeller’s approval before overthrowing Khrushchev? Or, did Rockefeller order Brezhnev to fire Khrushchev?

Logan Act

The Logan Act, which was enacted in 1799, prohibits a private citizen from corresponding with foreign governments or governmental officials without the approval of the United States government. It reads in part:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

How do the American members of the Bilderberg Group avoid violating the Logan Act? The Bilderberg Group is a group of international globalists (illuminists) who gather to discuss international and national policies and the implementation of these policies in their home countries. During meetings of the Bilderberg Group, private American citizens are communicating with officers of foreign governments. The answer is that these private American citizens are the rulers, the real government of the United States. They own the politicians and high-ranking bureaucrats.

American Institute of Economic Research

I have been following the American Institute of Economic Research (AIER) off and on for nearly 50 years. AIER has deteriorated when compared with the early 1970s — the days when its founder Edward Harwood ran it. In recent years, AIER has adopted a strongly anti-South position. Such an attitude is strange since the South has historically been a staunch opponent of protective tariffs, which AIER ardently opposes. Its hostility toward the South is indistinguishable from that of the Puritan Yankee, who until recent years, has always been a strong proponent of protective tariffs.

Abbeville Institute 

Abbeville Institute produces many great pro-South articles. It is a leading defender of the South and the Confederacy. Unfortunately, many (some?, most?) of its writers are like most other Whites: They are racial nihilists, who have abandoned the old morality of preserving the races for the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity. 

Moreover, like most conservative Whites, they have exalted Martin Luther King as the greatest paragon of American conservatism and the epitome of conservative values. Instead of being a communist sympathizer and a frontman for the Communist Party, he has become an advocate of all the virtues and values that conservatives hold dear. Moreover, he loved Southerners and did not seek their destruction although everything that he advocated has led to their destruction. He is presented as a great uniter of the races, although he promoted policies that have led to a great hatred of and hostility toward the White race. So great is this hatred and hostility that most Whites, including many writers at the Abbeville Institute, support policies designed to kill the White race. 

These writers at the Abbeville Institute need to adopt a racial attitude similar to that of most of the writers of the American Renaissance. Only by openly supporting and promoting the preservation of the White race can the Abbeville Institute hope to save Southerners and the South. (For a start, they can cease lumping Whites and Blacks who live in the South together as “Southerners.” “Southerner” properly identifies an ethnic group of Whites whose ancestors were born and reared in the South and White who have lived in the South long enough to become indistinguishable from native Southerners. Blacks who live in the South are properly identified as Southern Blacks, which is a different ethnic group than Southerners. Moreover, they can identify King as a Communist sympathizer who advanced the communist agenda and not one of the great fathers of American conservatism.)

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.