Note his wishy-washy vision of Christianity: but the speaker is judging Christians by what the say and do, and not what the Bible teaches. A reasonable point of view for an outside observer to take.
Our actions must change, if his understanding of the importance of Christian Law – tied directly to the concept of Divine Justice! – is to change.
Assuming that Whatifalthist even knows about the high view of the Commandments that is taught in the New Testament: after all, the solid majority of Christians don’t.
It’s time for us to change that.
We fail because we despise God’s Commandments. When we respect and uphold them, then we will succeed.
A side note, in regard to inheritance: I take North’s position, that the child who committed to caring for the parents in their old age should get the double portion. And unbelieving children must be disinherited: we are not here to enrich the Kingdom of Satan, but to build up the Kingdom of God.
I like his title for the first map: “The Humanist Wars of Religion: Ideologies of 1941”.
Somethings are just too obvious to ignore for the curious mind.
Which is why the secularist schools – and the mass media – and especially the universities – work hard to destroy imagination and curiosity, and push conformity in thought with as much might as they can.
oljecg Fear: is it a bad experience? Shame: does it make the group look bad? Pride: am I useless? Disgust: is it pure? Guilt: does God like it? Envy: dose he have more? Anxiety: does the group like it?
From the intro of the video:
The theory I have behind this is based upon a book I read that’s really brilliant named the worm at the core which is on how every single action we do in our lives is driven off death and how without the boundaries provided by death nothing really matters every moment of our lives.
We are aware of our own deaths, and we try our best to create some sort of immortality or another. This point will gradually make more and more sense as this video continues, as each of these emotions are a way to deal with death in one form or another.
You may notice that all of these emotions are negative: and I believe this is the case. Since as physics says, energy must be pulled from somewhere and there must fundamentally be balances and forces, with every reaction coming a counter reaction.
Thus, for the positive force of social cooperation, we need to pull on negative emotions. Also we are much more motivated against than towards: you are much more scared of getting eaten by a tiger than getting a new Honda Civic.
Unfortunately, Whatifalthist believes in gnostic secret teachings, kept hidden by the priests:
It’s almost an emotional or spiritual history of the world. This is a strange connection, but in some ways it reminds me of what the mystery schools of the pre-modern world taught the priest classes of ancient cultures like the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, as well as the early teachers of world religions like the Christians, Hindus and Jews had. Certain very similar secret teachings about the universe [that] their priest classes would share but which they wouldn’t tell the public, since they just weren’t ready for it.
Later thinkers like Isaac Newton, the Masons and the Alchemists were obsessed with this ancient wisdom…
Smells like the ex-Catholic magic theory of the Renaissance.
Whatifalthist is intelligent, but he disappoints. He has some good ideas, but bad & corrupt ones too.
Caution is advised.
“Most Westerners don’t understand the God of the Old Testament at all…”
“The God of the Old Testament”
Note that the vast majority of seminary professors — and either the vast majority, the majority, or a huge minority of Western Christians — also sees the God of the Old Testament as separate – and inferior – to the God of the New Testament.
Such foolish heresies lead to foolish believers.
Powerless, deceived believers too.
The video is still worth a watch.
Just be discerning: separate the good from the bad.
On the shift of American society from a Guilt to an Anxiety-based society (43:17):
One of the best anthropology books I’ve ever read is called the Lonely Crowd by David Reisman it’s a how American society shifted from a Christian guilt-based access[?} in the 19th century to to an anxiety one in the 20th. He goes through how every aspect of American society — between film, education, politics, workplace, and child rearing — show a shift from a society based around following the idea of being upright before God, to one where you try to please your social group.
“…show a shift from a society based around following the idea of being upright before God, to one where you try to please your social group.”
Very Establishment. And there’s always another anxiety attack being brewed up, via the global warmist crowd, or some puffed-up pseudo-plague.
Very profitable for the Right Sort, very costly for the Wrong Sort… just the way the Collectivists like it.
But the day of Judgement for the wicked is coming. It’s important that in that day, we are found to be upright and just before God, so we can inherit the future.
“In a world in which war and hatred are chronic, men have much to say about their longing for love and peace. It is questionable, however, that they truly want love or peace, because their actions make for war.”
Weak people want peace, because they want to keep what little they have… and peace lets them keep a low profile. A good move, if you are weak.
Strong people want war, because they want to take more of what others have… and war lets them build a big name for themselves. A good move, if you admire power above all things.
It is important for us to understand the meaning of peace, since it is so widely professed as a social objective and so little practiced as a way of life. The English word peace comes from the Latin, pax, peace, which is akin to pacere, to make an agreement, and pangere, to fasten; an agreement or unity of some kind is clearly implied. Such a unity must be more than a mere tying together of people, because then every unhappy marriage would qualify as a peace, and a tyrant’s rule over another people would also be peace. Peace thus requires a mutual assent and content in the unity.
“If everyone shuts up and obeys the Leader, then there is peace.”
Comprehensive oppression can indeed create a low-violence, low-conflict public environment, so long as enough fear is generated and sustained. This meets the definition of peace, so far as materialists are concerned.
This is not the kind of peace that Christians may aspire to: if there is injustice, then there is violence – violence against God, who is represented by the weak, the poor, the stranger. If a man murders another in his heart, then that counts as murder in the eyes of God.
The New Testament word for peace is eirene. As Vine has pointed out,
It describes (a) harmonious relationships between men, Matt. 10:34; Rom. 14:19; (b) between nations, Luke 14:32; Acts 12:20; Rev. 6:4; (c) friendliness, Acts 15:33; I Cor. 16:11; Heb. 11:31; (d) freedom from molestation, Luke 11:21; 19:43; Acts 9:31 (R.V. ‘peace’ A.V., ‘rest’); 16:36; (e) order, in the State, (f) the harmonised relationships between God and man, accomplished through the gospel, Acts 10:36; Eph. 2:17; (g) the sense of rest and contentment consequent thereon, Matt. 10:13; Mark 5:34; Luke 1:79; 2:29; John 14:27; Rom. 1:7; 3:17; 8:6; in certain passages this idea is not distinguishable from the last, Rom. 5:1.
Peace is inescapably a religious concept, because the agreement, unity, harmony, and contentment which are aspects of peace rest on a principled achievement.
 W. E. Vine: Expository Dictionary of N. T. Words, III, 169f.
Principles are tied to law, and the source of the law is the god of a given society.
Peace is more than a transitory state of mind. Narcotics and liquor can give a seeming peace briefly, and more unrest thereafter. Peace means, as the Old Testament word shalom indicates, a state of wholeness. In its full meaning, peace is both individual and communal, and it is an aspect of the covenant, and the salvation, righteousness, and blessing of the covenant. Peace is used in the New Testament, as opposed to strife; it means serenity of mind, and, above all, “the restoration of right relationships between God and man.”
St. Paul uses peace in this sense when he speaks of the fact that, “being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). Because Christ has made atonement for our sins, we have now a right relationship with God. This right relationship means restoration into our intended status in Eden, to be God’s people and to exercise dominion under Him, to obey His law-word in our everyday affairs and to live in all things by God’s “every word” (Matt. 4:4). Peace in the New Testament rests on the Old Testament meaning of wholeness, “prosperity, well-being, good of any kind.” This is its primary meaning. Christ restores us into that relationship with God which brings us into communion with Him who blesses us with wholeness and prosperity. Peace in this sense is declared by both Testaments to be characteristic of the Messianic times, for God’s covenant is a covenant of peace (Isa. 54:10, Ezek. 34:25f, 37:26). The Messiah is Himself the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6f., Mic. 5:5, Zech. 6:13). It is a time also of joy: “For ye shall go out with joy, and shall be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands” (Isa. 55:12). It is a time of universal knowledge of God: “And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children” (Isa. 54:13). Peace shall be worldwide and centered in the true Zion or City of God: “For thus saith the LORD, Behold I will extend peace to her (Jerusalem) like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowering stream” (Isa. 66:12).
 See E. M. Good, “Peace in the O.T.,”, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. III, pp. 704-706.
 C. L. Mitton, “Peace in the N.T.” in ibid., III, 706.”
So, to repeat, the right relationship between God and man is the relationship we had in Eden: to be God’s kings and priests on and over the earth, as we uphold His law in all things – including our public and private lives.
This right relationship is the root of peace.
From the time of Christ’s birth, this same vision of peace is stressed. God has sent His son “To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace” (Luke 1:79; cf. 2:14, 19:38, Acts 10:36, etc.).
Peace is thus first of all a restored communion with God, a present possession, and then a growing material and spiritual well-being and prosperity which encompasses the world. Peace “is the direct result of the redemption of Christ (Eph. 2:17), and consists primarily in a state of conscious reconciliation with God (Rom. 5:1), though often used in a broader sense to denote all the blessings which accompany and flow from that reconciliation.”
 W. Adams Brown, “Peace”, In Hastings: Dictionary of the Bible III, p. 733.
As Jesus was resurrected with a physical body, so peace has a physical component. It is better and more peaceable to be comfortably middle-class than to be poor. It may lead to a better life to be middle class than to be rich!
Two things I ask of you;
deny them not to me before I die:
Remove far from me falsehood and lying;
give me neither poverty nor riches;
feed me with the food that is needful for me,
lest I be full and deny you
and say, “Who is the LORD?”
or lest I be poor and steal
and profane the name of my God.
-- Proverbs 30:7-9, ESV
Some of the basic aspects of peace are thus, first, reconciliation with God the Father through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Second, this peace with God enables us to be at peace with ourselves. Instead of being at war with ourselves through sado-masochistic hostilities, we are at peace. Third, Christ and His law-word are the principles of our peace with men. This means, fourth, that Christian reconstruction is a basic aspect of peace. To re-establish Christian churches and schools, states, homes, institutions, sciences, and callings on the law-word of God is a necessary task of the peace-maker. It is the blessed or joyful peace-makers who are called the children of God (Matt. 5:9), because they are those who do the will of their Father in heaven.
Fifth, it must be emphatically stated that peace, in its Biblical sense, does not in any sense mean compromise. Compromise is a form of surrender; the word compromise is not to be found in Scripture. Peace rather is akin to power and is an aspect of the manifestation of God’s power unto salvation and victory. Frederick Douglass once observed that “Power concedes nothing.” Least of all does the sovereign and omnipotent God concede anything: His peace is on His terms and is grounded on His righteousness and grace. For us to imagine “peace” as compromise to be acceptable to Him is to imagine a vain thing. For men and nations to expect peace on any other ground than God’s salvation and our obedience to His law is to ask for judgment, not peace.
 Shirley Chisholm: Unbought and Unbossed, p. 59. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970.
Power religionists don’t mind fighting, to build a peace of the graveyards.
Escapist religionists will do anything to avoid fighting. Including filling those graveyards.
What we, Dominion religionists, need is a lawful, self-governing peace of the brave, not the slave or the grave. That’s going to take a while to build… and a lot of determination to fight for, day after day, year after year, lifetime after lifetime.
It’s the only peace that pleases God.
The kinship of peace with power appears in the old concepts of the peace of God, and the citizen’s peace. The peace of God prevailed where godly men were able to enforce the concept of the immunity of unarmed churchmen and husbandmen from attack by warring feudal factions. This peace prevailed where faith was sufficiently strong to enforce it morally (Related to this was the Truce of God, which limited the days of warfare.) The subject’s peace meant his immunity on his land from the contention of others. The King’s Peace meant that the protection and sanctity of the King’s house and servants was extended to all peaceable subjects, so that peace and justice were the common property of all. The King’s Peace functioned admirably when the King’s power was great, not otherwise. Power and peace are coordinate, not separate. The pacifist fallacy which sees the hope for peace in a renunciation of power is an implicit denial of peace.”
The King’s peace is the only peace worth fighting for.
That King being King Jesus.
Peace is thus more than an emotional state. It is also not to be confused with silence. The Greek has a word for peace as silence, sigao, to hold one’s peace, and it is used only in that sense in the New Testament. Peace, eirene, is very different; it is not silence, nor is it merely an emotional state. When Christ spoke of peace at the Last Supper, it was after He promised the coming of the Comforter or Advocate. Then, He declared, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:27). In commanding His people to be neither troubled nor afraid, our Lord was not advocating “positive thinking” or psychological self-help. He was assuring them of peace in a troubled world precisely because “all power” was His (Matt. 28:18). As a result, His people have the assurance of peace, because Christ absolutely rules and reigns over all things. As He declared, “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). Christ’s peace is thus grounded in Christ’s victory. His is the only true King’s Peace, which covers all His household with His protection and justice. All who strike against us strike against Him, and His justice shall overtake them. If we do not renounce Him, He will not renounce us. As members of Christ’s household, we are under the King’s Peace and must appeal to Him for justice against all disturbers of the peace. If we fail to sue for His peace in our prayers, we have not placed ourselves under the King’s Peace.”
“Christ’s peace is thus grounded in Christ’s victory. His is the only true King’s Peace, which covers all His household with His protection and justice.”
Christ’s peace and victory is sure (and linked!)… but it isn’t an instant thing. We must be patient, as we do he Great Work, guided by the Holy Spirit.
God expects us to pray and ask, in Jesus’ Name.
St. Paul, in Romans 5:1-3, associates peace with the fact of tribulation, as does our Lord in John 16:33. We have peace in tribulation, not because we find refuge in a flight from the reality of troubles and griefs, but because we have, in the midst of the worst trials and persecutions, the assurance of the certainty of Christ’s power and victory, and the redress of every wrong.
It will take a long time to redress every wrong. But we can begin, by ending the most flagrant injustices that are affecting millions today, and go on from there.
If Christians are going to lead, we will have to learn to master many difficult concepts. Reading -deep, thoughtful reading – is part of this process.
Videos have their place, as do PDFs. Even hour-long spreadsheets can be quite impressive: Perun has created many informative video powerpoint presentations on the Ukraine War using this method.
But the most demanding concepts require books to spell out. This includes the Christian faith: it can be understand as a peasant illiterate – and understood a lot better than many Harvard graduates – but real mastery requires intensive literacy. This is why Luther, Calvin, and Gutenberg were so instrumental in breaking the hold of experts on God – the priests – with the spread of literacy. So we can hear Him directly, without the spin of Our Betters.
If we want to lead society like the Jews, we need to master reading like the Jews. To master reading — coupled with logic — is to master complex concepts. It gives us the perspective to really understand what is happening around us. And deep understanding opens the door to deep mastery and control.
Our secular superiors obviously couldn’t care less about justice, or the need for family, or for a living hope that drives progress. They just want more power because of blah, blah, blah.
They don’t care.. but we do.
They don’t believe in any law above their own will… but we do.
They don’t believe in any objective judge, or any objective, universal judgement on the individual or on society. We do.
So, we need to break down their Satanic, lawless, oppressive castle. (“Anarcho-tyranny”, as the libertarians say.) And extend the Kingdom of God.
That requires reading, and reading well, as the preparation needed for effective action.
A commentator, O. Halabieh, provided some useful excerpts from the book. To quote him as he quotes the book:
Below are key excerpts from the book that I found particularly insightful:
1- “Perhaps we know more about the world than we used to. and insofar as knowledge is prerequisite to understanding, that is all to the good. But knowledge is not as much a prerequisite to understanding as is commonly supposed. We do not have to know everything about something in order to understand it; too many facts are often as much of an obstacle to understanding as too few. There is a sense in which we moderns are inundated with facts to the detriment of understanding.”
2- “Thinking is only one part of the activity of learning. One must also use one’s senses and imagination. One must observe, and remember, and construct imaginatively what cannot be observed. There is, again, a tendency to stress the role of these activities in the process of unaided discovery and to forget or minimize their place in the process of being taught through reading or listening. For example, many people assume that though a poet must use his imagination in writing a poem they do not have to use their imagination in reading it. The art of reading, in short, includes all of the same skills that are involved in the art of unaided discovery: keenness of observation, readily available memory, range of imagination, and, of course, an intellect trained in analysis and reflection. The reason for this is that reading in this sense is discovery, too— although with help instead of without it.”
3- “The first level of reading we will call Elementary Reading. Other names might be rudimentary reading, basic reading or initial reading; any one of these terms serves to suggest that as one masters this level one passes from nonliteracy to at least beginning literacy. In mastering this level, one learns the rudiments of the art of reading, receives basic training in reading, and acquires initial reading skills. We prefer the name elementary reading, however, because this level of reading is ordinarily learned in elementary school…At this level of reading, the question asked of the reader is “What does the sentence say?” That could be conceived as a complex and difficult question, of course. We mean it here, however, in its simplest sense.”
4- “The second level of reading we will call Inspectional Reading. It is characterized by its special emphasis on time When reading at this level, the student is allowed a set time to complete an assigned amount of reading. He might be allowed fifteen minutes to read this book, for instance or even a book twice as long…Whereas the question that is asked at the first level is “What does the sentence say?” the question typically asked at this level is “What is the book about?” That is a surface question; others of a similar nature are “What is the structure of the book or “What are its parts?””
5- “The third level of reading we will call Analytical Reading. It is both a more complex and a more systematic activity than either of the two levels of reading discussed so far. Depending on the difficulty of the text to be read, it makes more or less heavy demands on the reader. Analytical reading is thorough reading, complete reading. or good reading—the best reading you can do. If inspectional reading is the best and most complete reading that is possible given a limited time, then analytical reading is the best and most complete reading that is possible given unlimited time…On this level of reading, the reader grasps a book—the metaphor is apt—and works at it until the book becomes his own. Francis Bacon once remarked that “some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested.” Reading a book analytically is chewing and digesting it.”
6- “The fourth and highest level of reading we will call Syntopical Reading. It is the most complex and systematic type of reading of all. It makes very heavy demands on the reader, even if the materials he is reading are themselves relatively easy and unsophisticated. Another name for this level might be comparative reading. When reading syntopically, the reader reads many books, not just one, and places them in relation to one another and to a subject about which they all revolve. But mere comparison of texts is not enough. Syntopical reading involves more. With the help of the books read, the svntopical reader is able to construct an analysis of the subject that may not be in any of he hooks. It is obvious, therefore, that syntopical reading is the most active and effortful kind of reading.”
7- “Every book should be read no more slowly than it deserves, and no more quickly than you can read it with satisfaction and comprehension. In any event, the speed at which they read, be it fast or slow, is but a fractional part of most people’s problem with reading. Skimming or pre-reading a book is always a good idea; it is necessary when you do not know, as is often the case, whether the book you have in hand is worth reading carefully. You will find that out by skimming it. It is generally desirable to skim even a book that you intend to read carefully, to get some idea of its form and structure.”
8- “The first stage of inspectional reading-the stage we have called systematic skimming—serves to prepare the analytical reader to answer the questions that must be asked during the first stage of that level. Systematic skimming, in other words. anticipates the comprehension of a book’s structure. And the second stage of inspectional reading—the stage we have called superficial reading—serves the reader when he comes to the second stage of reading at the analytical level. Superficial reading is the first necessary step in the interpretation of a book’s contents.”
9- “The art of reading on any level above the elementary consists in the habit of asking the right questions in the right order. There are four main questions you must ask about any book. 1. What is the book about as a whole?…2. What is being said in detail, and how?…Is the book true, in whole or part? WHAT OF IT? If the book has given you information. you must ask about its significance. Why does the author think it is important to know these things? Is it important to you to know them? And if the book has not only informed you, but also enlightened you, it is necessary to seek further enlightenment by asking what else follows, what is further implied or suggested.”
10- “It is hard to learn to read well. Not only is reading, especially analytical reading, a very complex activity-much more complex than skiing; it is also much more of a mental activity. The beginning skier must think of physical acts that he can later forget and perform almost automatically. It is relatively easy to think of and be conscious of physical acts. It is much harder to think of mental acts, as the beginning analytical reader must do; in a sense, he is thinking about his own thoughts. Most of us are unaccustomed to doing this. Nevertheless, it can be done, and a person who does it cannot help learning to read much better.”
11- “Teachability is often confused with subservience. A person is wrongly thought to be teachable if he is passive and pliable. On the contrary, teachability is an extremely active virtue. No one is really teachable who does not freely exercise his power of independent judgment. He can be trained, perhaps, but not taught. The most teachable reader is, therefore, the most critical. He is the reader who finally responds to a book by the greatest effort to make up his own mind on the matters the author has discussed.”
12- “The First Stage of Analytical Reading: Rules for Finding What a Book Is About 1. Classify the book according to kind and subject matter. 2. State what the whole book is about with the utmost brevity. 3. Enumerate its major parts in their order and relation and outline these parts as you have outlined the whole. 4. Define the problem or problems the author has tried to solve. The Second Stage of Analytical Reading: Rules for Interpreting a Book’s Contents 5. Come to terms with the author by interpreting his key words. 6. Grasp the author’s leading propositions by dealing with ^is most important sentences. 7. Know the author’s arguments, by finding them in, or constructing them out of, sequences of sentences. 8. Determine which of his problems the author has solved. and which he has not; and of the latter, decide which the author knew he had failed to solve. The Third Stage of Analytical Reading: Rules for Criticizing a Book as a Communication of Knowledge A. General Maxims of Intellectual Etiquette 9. Do not begin criticism until you have completed your outline and your interpretation of the book. (Do not say you agree, disagree, or suspend judgment, until you can say 1 understand.”) 10. Do not disagree disputatiously or contentiously. 11. Demonstrate that you recognize the difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion by presenting good reasons for any critical judgment you make. B. Special Criteria for Points of Criticism 12. Show wherein the author is uninformed. 13. Show wherein the author is misinformed. 14. Show wherein the author is illogical. 15. Show wherein the author’s analysis or account is incomplete. Note: Of these last four, the first three are criteria for disagreement. Failing in all of these, you must agree, at least in part, although you may suspend judgment on the whole, in the light of the last point.”
13- ” Few people have ever read any book in this ideal manner, and those who have, probably read very few books this way. The ideal remains, however, the measure of achievement. You are a good reader to the degree in which you approximate it.”
14- “The great writers have always been great readers, but that does not mean that they read all the books that, in their day, were listed as the indispensable ones. In many cases, they read fewer books than are now required in most of our colleges, but what they did read, they read well. Because they had mastered these books, they became peers with their authors. They were entitled to become authorities in their own right. In the natural course of events, a good student frequently becomes a teacher, and so, too, a good reader becomes an author. Our intention here is not to lead you from reading to writing. It is rather to remind you that one approaches the ideal of good reading by applying the rules we have described in the reading of a single book, and not by trying? to become superficially acquainted with a larger number. There are, of course, many books worth reading well. There is a much larger number that should be only inspected. To become well-read, in every sense of the word, one must know how to use whatever skill one possesses with discrimination—by reading every book according to its merits.”
15- “History is the story of what led up to now. It is the present that interests us—that and the future. The future will be partly determined by the present. Thus, you can learn something about the future, too, from a historian, even from one who like Thucydides lived more than two thousand years ago. Let us sum up these two suggestions for reading history. The first is: if you can, read more than one history of an event or period that interests you. The second is: read a history not only to learn what really happened at a particular time and place in the past, but also to learn the way men act in all times and places, especially now.”
16- “Thus the most important thing to know, when reading any report of current happenings, is who is writing the report. What is involved here is not so much an acquaintance with the reporter himself as with the kind of mind he has. The various sorts of filter-reporters fall into groups. To understand what kind of filter our reporter’s mind is, we must ask a series of questions about it. This amounts to asking a series of questions about it. This amounts to asking a series of questions about any material dealing with current events. The questions are these: 1. What does the author want to prove? 2. Whom does he want to convince? 3. What special knowledge does he assume? 4. What Special language does he use? 5. Does he really know what he is talking about?”
17- “A curious paradox is involved in any project of syntopical reading. Although this level of reading is defined as the reading of two or more books on the same subject, which implies that the identification of the subject matter occurs before the reading begins, it is in a s sense true that the identification of the subject matter must follow the reading, not precede it. In the case of love, you might have to read a dozen or a hundred works before you could decide what you were reading about. And when you had done that, you might have to conclude that half of the works you had read were not on the subject at all.”
18- “As we have seen, there are two main stages of syntopical reading. One is preparatory, and the other is syntopical reading proper. Let us write out all of these steps for review.
I. Surveying the Field Preparatory to Syntopical Reading 1. Create a tentative bibliography of your subject by recourse to library, catalogues, advisors, and bibliographies in books. 2. Inspect all of the books on the tentative bibliography to ascertain which are germane to your subject, and also to acquire a clearer idea of the subject. These two steps are not, strictly speaking, chronologically distinct; that is, the two steps have an effect on each other, with the second, in particular, serving to modify the first.
II. Syntopical Reading of the Bibliography Amassed in Stage I 1. Inspect the books already identified as relevant to your subject in Stage I in order to find the most relevant passages. 2. Bring the authors to terms by constructing a neutral terminology of the subject that all, or the great majority, of the authors can be interpreted as employing, whether they actually employ the words or not. 3. Establish a set of neutral propositions for all of the authors by framing a set of questions to which all or most of the authors can be interpreted as giving answers, whether they actually treat the questions explicitly or not. 4. Define the issues, both major and minor ones, by ranging the opposing answers of authors to the various questions on one side of an issue or another. You should remember that an issue does not always exist explicitly between or among authors, but that it sometimes has to be constructed by interpretation of the authors’ views on matters that may not have been their primary concern. 5. Analyze the discussion by ordering the questions and issues in such a way as to throw maximum light on the subject. More general issues should precede less general ones, and relations among issues should be clearly indicated. Note: Dialectical detachment or objectivity should, ideally. be maintained throughout. One way to insure this is always to accompany an interpretation of an author’s views on an issue with an actual quotation from his text.”
19- “If the book belongs to the second class of books to which we referred before, you find, on returning to it, that there was less there than you remembered. The reason, of course, is that yourself have grown in the meantime. Your mind is fuller. your understanding greater. The book has not changed, but you have. Such a return is inevitably disappointing. But ff the book belongs to the highest class—the very small number of inexhaustible books-you discover on returning that the hook seems to have grown with you. You see new things in it-whole sets of new things—that you did not see before. Your previous understanding of the book is not invalidated (assuming that you read it well the first time); it is just as true as it ever was, and in the same ways that it was true before. But now it is true in still other ways, too.”
20- “Reading well, which means reading actively, is thus not only a good in itself, nor is it merely a means to advancement in our work or career. It also serves to keep our minds alive and growing.”
Most pagans are going to stick with Tiktok.
Most professionals will stick with textbooks and summaries of the important works of their field. A good percentage of them will have AI do the writing of their essays, tempting them to skip reading even the summaries.
We are going to do the hard work: the intensive reading, the learning, and the winning.
Note that reading with this level of intensity is a lot of work. And not all books require it.
But the most powerful books do require it. And so we must do it, to get the tools we need to win the war against Satan, in time and on earth.
The Bible is the book of books. We will only ever be able to take one bite at a time, digest it, integrate it, and move on.
Then at another time, we come to the same passage, bite it, digest it, and learn something new.
It is a good deed, to teach that illiterate Christian peasant to digest the Bible as well, one bite at a time. Literacy on its own enriches the world: literacy that helps the poor and weak understand the will of God undercuts the rule of evil elitists and power-hungry politicians of all stripes – not just the communist murderers
While guiding the illiterate peasant – and the tech billionaire – on the right road to victory, prosperity, joy, righteousness, and blessings, in time and on earth. Each in his own field, in his own situation, for his own family and society.
Systematic Theology – Church Baptism Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony Subject: Systematic Theology
Let’s begin with prayer.
We praise thee, O God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost who of thy grace and mercy has called us to be thy people, has made us a new creation in Jesus Christ, has given us such great and glorious promises concerning all our todays and our tomorrows. We thank thee that we have been called to victory, and we pray, our Father, that as we face the powers of darkness, we may face them as more than conquerors, in the blessed assurance that Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, and that of the increase of his government there shall be no end. Our God, we praise thee. In Jesus name. Amen.
I admit, I have grown cynical regarding great and glorious promises. Too many lying Great Men, stripping people of their wealth, liberty, and lives for the sake of their own power.
Fake gods and their fake salvation saturate the airways and dominate the institutions – including most Christian institutions.
I see God’s promises in a far better light than the promises of sinful, power/wealth-hungry men. But God’s great and glorious promises take time to deliver, as well as perseverance. And they are not for free: we must take up our crosses, as Christ commands.
“My burden is easy, and my yoke is light” Jesus said.
But, there is a burden, and there is a yoke.
It’s that burden — and the burden that Christ bore (what other leader bears the load for his followers?), and the distinct lack of instant gratification in the promises of God — that I find reassuring.
Real things have a weight, a feel of substantiality about them. They are what the are, not what you wish they are.
It’s that slow but steady growth and development of the Kingdom of God, pushing through trials and difficulties to make earth a bit more like heaven, day by day, that proves His faithfulness. In time and on earth.
God’s word will not return to Him void. That truth, plus the beauty, glory, and profound complexity of nature, is the best indication that greatness and glory does await those who hold Christ and His Law-Word above all things.
Our scripture this morning is from Paul’s letter to Titus 3:1-9, and our subject is baptism. Baptism. Titus 3:1-9. “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”
Baptism is a highly controversial subject, and the controversies about baptism in the church do show a hardening of the arteries, theologically. There are, I should add, many able works on baptism, but virtually all deal with it as the position of the church. They begin with the present view of a particular group, a denomination, and then go to the Bible to vindicate it.
Rushdoony is quite perceptive, to see this!
Now, the interesting thing is that in the Bible, baptism appears before the congregation of Israel came into existence, and before the church was brought into existence. Baptism, in its earlier form, and we will come to this in a moment, because one of the greatest Baptist scholars of our time has recognized that there is some connection between circumcision and baptism.
Circumcision in the Old Testament is first established by God before a congregation, the congregation of Israel was first created. It appears as a covenant rite when God makes a covenant with Israel. It appears again as baptism, this covenant act, or rite. When John the Baptist appears to say that the ax is laid to the root of the tree, to the old covenant people, Israel, and that God is going to create a new Israel and the new sign of the covenant is to be baptism, and he began to baptize. Now, with John, it appears very definitely as a sign of the covenant, so that the rite of circumcision appears as a sign of the covenant in the Old Testament and as the sign of the covenant in the New.
I said there was one notable exception to the prevailing temper which attaches baptism to the church, rather than to the covenant. David Kingdon, a brilliant scholar, in his Children of Abraham, gives a Baptistic view of baptism as a covenant act. He sees very clearly its covenantal nature, its relationship to circumcision. He does have a slight dispensational bias, but his work is very important and a ground-breaking study of the subject in our time. Kingdon, although we would not agree with all his conclusions, is right in seeing the doctrine of the covenant as the starting point of any study of baptism. God calls man by an act of grace into a covenantal relationship. He calls man to be a member of the royal family, the family of God. He gives his law to his people. All are therefore, total possessions of the Lord, because he is in covenant with them. He names them, he governs them, his law must be written in the members and on the tables of their hearts in all their members, and all must be dedicated to him.
The firstfruits belong to the Lord. Our income belongs to the Lord. Our children belong to the Lord. This is the meaning of the covenant, and baptism is a covenant rite. There is a familiar hymn by William Walsham How, written in 1864 which is very commonly used as an offertory hymn. However, its meaning is broader because when Howe wrote it, what he was stressing was the covenantal fact that all that we are, all that we have belongs to God. The first two verses of the hymn read:
“We give thee but thine own
What ere the gift may be
All that we have is thine alone
A trust, O Lord, from thee.
May we thy bounties thus
As stewards true receive
And gladly as thou blessest us
To thee our firstfruits give.”
Baptism is, above all else, the sign of the covenant. It is the recognition that we and our children, our income and our possessions are the Lord’s. We are his possession and his property.
Men don’t want to totally belong to God, body and soul.
Men want to belong to themselves.
But, as a branch cut off from a tree, all men can do apart from God is die, eternally.
We didn’t make ourselves – no matter what the Darwinians believe.
We were made for a purpose: a purpose we did not decide ourselves.
Christ, the uncreated perfect Man, is our purpose.
He is the perfect, unflawed image of God.
A true man must be filled with His Spirit, follow His ways, speak as He would.
The spirit of baptism is that which Hannah revealed in taking her child, Samuel, to Eli and saying, “For this child I prayed, and the Lord hath given me my petition which I asked of him. Therefore, also I have handed him back to the Lord, as long as he liveth, he shall be returned to the Lord.” So spoke Hannah, according to 1 Samuel 1:27-28.
Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 that we are not our own, that we have been bought with a price, the price of our Lord’s blood and therefore, we must serve and glorify God because we are his possession. Paul then goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that, because of the covenant, when anyone in a family, husband or wife, is baptized, God sets apart that family unto himself, and the unbelieving spouse, unless they object to the faith and fight against it, is under the blessing of God. They are separated unto him outwardly. The holiness is a separation. It is not yet an inward fact, and therefore, the children also are holy, are separated unto the Lord.
Of course, if all such who are, in terms of 1 Corinthians 7:14, separated unto God by his covenant, reject that covenant and do not, in due time, believe, their judgment is greater because they have known the covenant, they have known its blessings, and they have still refused it. Our Lord said in Matthew 11:20-24, that the sins of the cities of Galilee and Judea would be more fearful in their judgment on Judgment Day than those of Sodom and Gomorrah, because they had been within the covenant and its blessings.
An unwelcome truth.
An inconvenient truth.
A terrible truth.
We must acknowledge it, or perish by the hand of the truth.
Baptism is not essentially an ecclesiastical act, but a covenantal one, but virtually all the churches are agreed in making it an ecclesiastical, a “churchy” act. In fact, we would have to say that the Protestants are often the worst at this. There are some Protestant groups who insist that there is no valid baptism, or that it is a sin, to conduct a baptismal service in the home, or outside a church building. Well, the Baptists, at least when I was younger, would go to the river in the summer and have baptisms, but you do have many Presbyterian and Reformed groups who are insistent that it is only to be conducted within the four walls of a church. Well, it’s too bad that they were not around to warn the Apostles of that. After all, Paul did baptize the jailer and his household at Philippi, in prison, and poor Phillip, he was so ignorant, he actually baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch in a pool of water by the roadside. It’s sad that those people in Bible times didn’t have some kind of church book of order. They would have been so much better off.
And the Christian faith would just be a tiny, ancient, withered relic of the Roman Empire. The last surviving Roman Mystery Cult, complete with a ruling religious guild, mystical ceremonies, a magical (as opposed to lawful) way of viewing the world, and a hatred of the material world in favour of mystical, internal, irrelevant escapist ecstasies and experiences.
I can see the denominational leadership smile already… and not just in the liberal churches either, who wrote off the culture-challenging Commandments decades ago.
Well, the classic definition of baptism from the ecclesiastical point of view, I think, was given by Calvin, who said, “The baptism is a sign of initiation by which we are admitted into the society of the church in order that being incorporated into Christ, we may be numbered among the children of God.” Now, that is a good definition, but still a defective one, because he limits the society to the society of the church. It does, indeed, admit us into the society of the church, but even more, into the covenant of our God. That’s the basic fact. We are in the society of the church because we are in the society, the family, of God, in the covenant of our God.
Calvin gets it wrong, because he got the definition of the word “church” wrong.
To get the definitions right, I recommend Stephen C Perks’ Disciple the Nations. (Also in Spanish!) His books starts off with the correct definitions of “Assembly” “Church” and “Nations”, and grows from there.
Thus, our baptism is into much more than the society of the church. We are given remission of sins, not merely to sit in church, but to serve the Lord with all our heart, mind, and being, so that baptism stands for the remission of sins. Now, this does not mean that everyone who is baptized by man has remission of sins if the baptism is not by the Lord and his grace internally, but it does not mean that the adult affirmation is required. There are as many unregenerate people baptized as infants running around as there are unregenerate adults who were baptized as adults, running around. The adult profession of faith is no more a guarantee of the election of God, because men can profess things because of many reasons. One, very often, because their wife has nagged them about being baptized. Second, because they believe it’s a good thing and they should belong to the church. I know one man who told me, in his company, there were very few who did not attend church and almost none who believed anything.
There was a time when such fraudsters were restricted to the progressive churches.
Those were the days.
But, as God overthrows, emasculates, guts, and sterilized the fakes one by one — tares should be treated as tares — the Real Deal will, once again, have a commanding presence in society.
Now, in our scripture, Paul’s letter to Titus 3:1-9, Paul tells us that we are to live soberly, righteously and godly, in this present world. It is important for us to understand what is meant by that, because when Paul says we are to live righteously, he means justly, and it is a sad fact that too few modern translations pay attention to the fact that the word “righteous,” or righteously, has reference to just, justice, and justly. Justice and righteousness are the same thing. There is no difference in their meaning, but what has happened is that all too many Christians assume that righteousness is some kind of vague, pious feeling, rather than abiding by the word of God, the law-word of God. You cannot be just, or live in justice, if you commit murder, no matter how piously you feel inside, or how much emotional gush you can supply to prove that you are pious. To be righteous, you live in faithfulness to God’s law-word. So, Paul says in this passage, which is a classic text in the study of baptism, that we are called to be subject to authority wherever authority exists, godly authority, to be ready to every good work, to be sober, as he has said previously in 2:12, righteous and godly, and he goes on to say that we are, therefore, to live so because we have been made regenerate by the washing of regeneration, or by the waters of regeneration.
The powerful want power, the wealthy and fearful want safety.
It’s the poor and the weak who wants justice.
Most of them just want justice when they are wronged, not when they are doing wrong.
But some are serious about justice… and the covenant is sealed with a self-maledictory oath oath.
“May I be cursed if I break the covenant.”
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
--- Matthew 5:6, ESV
That’s a blessing for them….
… and an ominous warning for the rest of us.
Best repent, while we still can.
And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
-- Revelation 20:9-10, ESV
People go where their king goes.
Choose the right King to follow.
This is an obvious reference to baptism. It tells us what baptism represents. Baptism is the sign that God who, when he calls us, cleanses us, renews us, makes us a new creation. We must not, however, assume that because baptism is so described, that man’s act accomplishes what God alone can do. After all, Hitler and Stalin were both baptized. This does not mean they were regenerate. God’s electing grace is efficacious with adults and with infants. It is God who chooses us, not we him as our Lord makes clear in John 15:16, and he chooses us to bear fruit.
So, Paul says, we are baptized to be ready to every good work. We are saved to serve. He goes on to say we were once rebels, slaves to appetites, given to hatred. Now, we are to speak evil of no man, but to courteous, to be honest, to be faithful workers, careful to maintain every good work.
Then, he says we are to avoid controversy and contention where it is not productive of good works. We are to avoid foolish questions. What are some of these foolish questions? Genealogies, contentions, strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain. What good is accomplished in debating with somebody and winning a debate, if it does not serve a practical purpose? I’ve seen hundreds of debates between people, around a table, and formal debates, and I’ve never seen anybody convinced of the other person’s side. Whether they win or lose the debate, are they changed? You can argue with somebody about anything, including the law of God, but it is foolish, Paul says. It is unprofitable and vain, or futile. We have not been called to argument. We’ve been called to every good work. We are to manifest the works of righteousness, God’s justice, God’s law, in our lives. We are to be courteous. We are to be gracious. We are to manifest what God has called us to be, and we have been called to be heirs by his grace, according to the hope of eternal life.
For all who are regenerated do believe they are justified by grace, they are heirs of eternal life, and they maintain that righteousness, that just living in all their ways, in all their activities.
All of our acts, all of our life, is to be cleaned before God.
The baptized one, thus, is the one who has been circumcised from the heart, not by the letter only, Paul tells us. One who is truly regenerate, one who shows it in the totality of his life, who manifests the righteousness, or justice, of God, who reveals in all his ways not a spirit of contention, but of grace. We are then a new creation of his making. We work to make all things new. The waters of regeneration, Paul calls baptism, for when God baptizes us, it is cleansing, it is regeneration, it is renewing, but this does not exhaust the meaning of baptism. Does it only regenerate us? Can we stop there? Must we not apply it to all of life? Must we not say that when we are the baptized of the Lord, when we are the regenerate of the Lord, we must bring all of life and all of the world under the waters of baptism, or God will bring all of the world under the waters of judgment.
There is much more that can be said about baptism, and here, much of the teaching of the church is, of course, very much to the point invalid. What I have been trying to do this morning is to get you to see that the relationship of baptism is to the covenant of our God. Churches’ teachings have been and are important. The error has been to reduce it to an ecclesiastical rather than a covenantal fact. This is why the church has seen the new life in terms of the church, not new life that must now extend to the world, that the waters of baptism in their regenerating implication are for all of life, for the whole of the world.
In the name of the power of her own ecclesiastical authority, the church’s religious guilds turn into a joke.
God is not mocked.
Baptism thus, is an important fact. It is a fact of world consequence. We must, as Christians, cover with the waters of regeneration education at every level, family life at every level, civil or political life at every level, economic life, scientific life, agricultural, the whole of life must be affected by the waters of regeneration, because God created this world and then established a covenant with man, that man, as his covenant keeper, might be priest, prophet, and king over all the world, and God through Christ calls man back into the covenant, regenerates him to accomplish that purpose. The waters of regeneration must cover the earth, even as the righteousness of God, we are told, is to cover the earth from sea to sea. Let us pray.
O Lord our God, we rejoice in thy calling of us into thy covenant, of the cleansing of the waters of regeneration. Thou hast declared through thy prophet Ezekiel that the waters of regeneration shall go out from thine altar, flow like a mighty stream to cover the earth, to renew the desert and to make it blossom like the rose, to bring life to the dark corners and desert places of the earth. Make us thine instruments, O Lord, that through us, the waters of regeneration may flow, and that all things may be made new, and that we may rejoice in thy creation. Grant us this, we beseech thee, in Jesus name. Amen.
Now, THAT is a great and glorious promise!
Are there any questions now on our lesson? Yes?
[Audience] So many evangelical Christians, well, Christians of all stripes, share with the socialists and humanists the hatred of property, and also of belonging of anything. They don’t want to belong to each other or to a church, much less belong to God, and yet, they will stand of verses that talk about being bought with a price, that the earth is the Lord and the fullness thereof, and they’ll claim Romans 12:1-2, and all of this. What is a good starting point to speak with such people about the covenant, or about baptism, or about belonging to God as his property, when they hate property?
[Rushdoony] Start off by telling them that, according to Paul, they are property. They’ve been bought, and it’s not up to them to say what they’re going to do with themselves, or their properties, or to despise anything that God has given them. If we despise the property that we have, the money we have, then we are despising the Lord who gave us those things. They are the gifts of God. They are to be used for his purpose. The Bible never says that money is the root of evil, something that I often have quoted to me, but that the love of money is the root of all evil. When money, or property, or possessions take the place of God and become an idol, then they are an evil, but when those things are seen as the blessings of God, and are used, used for his purpose and for his kingdom, then they are blessings. We have all too many people who are very foolish in their use of the material things that God has given them, or who despise them, and that’s not good either. It’s sinful. So just tell them they are sinners. They have despised the good gifts of God. Never try to argue with sin. Just label it.
That’s some outstanding good advice, right there!
Any other questions? No more questions? Well then, let us conclude with prayer.
Lord, we thank thee for thy word, that thy word is truth, and thy word is joy and peace to our hearts. We thank thee that thy word promises us victory in Jesus Christ. Make us ever mindful how rich we are in Christ, our Lord. In his name we pray. Amen.
When the full story of Covid, the shots, the mandates, all of it, is someday told, it will not flatter Big Science (BS).
Project Veritas just released a new video, this one featuring a Jordon Trishton Walker, director of Research and Development, Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning at Pfizer.
Now maybe the guy is a loon and nothing he says is trustworthy. I’m simply reporting to you what he said.
What he said is damaging enough, though, that the army of Americans who have televisions for brains immediately questioned whether he really held the position that Project Veritas said he did. That attempt was a dead end, since it’s been verified that he is indeed the the person he and Project Veritas both claim he is.
Here’s a sample of what Walker says in the hidden-camera video.
First, the off-camera Project Veritas person asks, “Pfizer ultimately is thinking about mutating COVID?”
Well, that is not what we say to the public, no. So that’s why it was a thought that came up in a meeting. And we were like, why do we not? It was like, we’re going to consider that with more discussions. That exactly, actually. We were like, wait a minute, people won’t like that. Don’t tell anyone this, by the way. You have to promise you won’t tell anyone. [Smiles]…. We’re exploring, like, you know how the virus keeps mutating? Well, one of the things we’re exploring is like, why don’t we just mutate it ourselves so we can preemptively develop new vaccines? So we have to do that.
If we’re going to do that, though, there’s a risk of like — as you could imagine, no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating ****ing viruses. Like, do we want to do this? So that’s like one of the things we’re considering, like the future. Like maybe we could, like, create new versions of the vaccines and things like that.
So the way they were thinking about — don’t tell anyone, you’ve got to promise you won’t tell anyone? You’ve got to promise you won’t tell anyone, okay? [Smiles and laughs] So the way it would work is like we put the virus in these monkeys, and then we successively like cause them to keep infecting each other. And we collect serial samples from them, and then the ones that are more infectious, to like the virus, we’ll put them in another monkey and just constantly actively mutate it. That’s one way.
Or you can even do like directed, like simulation, which we tend not to prefer. And then you just sample what the different proteins on the surface of the virus look like over time. So then you can see the mutation. You can now force it to mutate in a certain way you want it. But you have to be like very controlled to make sure that this virus that you mutate doesn’t create something like, you know, just goes everywhere. Which is suspect, by the way, is the way the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. Like it makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere.
The Project Veritas person says this all sounds like gain-of-function research. Walker says no:
It’s definitely not gain of function. Directed evolution is very different…. You’re not supposed to do gain-of-function research with viruses. They’d rather we not. But we do things like selected structural mutations to try and see if we can make them more potent. So there there is research ongoing about that. I don’t know how that’s going to work. There’d better not be any more outbreaks.
Walker confirms what we already knew about the revolving door between government and industry:
It is a revolving door for all government officials. For any industry. So like in the pharma industry, all the government officials who like, you know, review our drugs, eventually come work for pharma companies. And the military, all the Army and defense government officials eventually go work for the defense companies afterwards.It’s pretty good for the industry, to be honest. It’s bad for everyone else in America.
And why is it bad?
Because if the regulators, who have to approve our drugs, know that once they stop being a regulator, you know, they want to go work for the company, they’re not going to be as harsh on the company where they’re getting their job.
Again, I’m just telling you what the man said.
We have a company on our hands about whom we may not say an unkind word on a platform like YouTube, or we will be silenced.
This is a company that, in tandem with government, sought to destroy the livelihoods of people who declined to consume its product.
And yet, dear reader, remember that although they haven’t been fully defeated, they couldn’t keep up the tyranny the way they wanted. Too many of us refused, and the tyranny crumbled.
The guiding idea behind the Tom Woods School of Life, which reopens for more members late next week, is that even in very unhappy and inauspicious times, we can still flourish and prosper. I’ve built the best community in the world inside that program — no defeatists, no whiners. Just doers, and winners.
In the meantime, watch the best speech I’ve ever given — and if you as a businessman, entrepreneur, or would-be entrepreneur implement what you hear in it, it will be the most lucrative video you ever watch.
The information that Pfizer and the FDA wanted to keep hidden for 75 years has been thoroughly documented and compiled into an ebook. Force the criminals to confront this damning information by pushing it to the top of the algorithm — for all to see:
A good policy: buy all the books that you are “not supposed” to read from Amazon but buy all other books from someone else. But if you insist, it is also available on our website.
It took me several hours to compile and create this video, so please share it far and wide. Thanks so much for your support.
Update: Dr Moore’s team has provided this statement to The Dossier:
Dr. Michael Kirk Moore and his staff WILL plead/HAVE plead NOT guilty to all federal charges. They broke no laws and harmed no person. Dr Moore, specifically, abided by his long held Hippocratic oath to First Do No Harm. We believe he and his co-defendants will be found innocent of all charges.
We believe this case is unprecedented and threatens the individual Constitutional, God-given individual rights and freedoms of families, parents, children, employees, business owners and Americans in all walks of life!
We look forward to presenting our case. Everyday we are strengthened and overwhelmed by the thoughts, prayers and support we are receiving from members of our local
Community, colleagues in the medical profession, from our fellow Americans across the country and freedom-loving people around the world.
At the height of Covid hysteria, parents in Utah were faced with enormous societal and personal pressure to “vaccinate” their children with Covid-19 mRNA shots. For fear of having their kids prohibited from attending school and various extracurricular activities, many took the plunge on the experimental gene therapy shots, despite zero evidence showing that it had any positive benefit to kids whatsoever.
To the vast majority of American parents, the choice was either to have their children take the shot or face being ostracized by many elements of society. There was no third option.
For some lucky parents, however, they found an advocate in a Salt Lake City area doctor named Dr. Michael Kirk Moore Jr, who had a plan to provide relief from the tyrannical mandates.
Behind closed doors, Dr. Moore, a board certified plastic surgeon, and some of his team at his private practice, crafted a plan to help parents defeat the mandates. Assisting in this humanitarian operation was office manager Kari Dee Burgoyne, receptionist Sandra Flores and Moore’s neighbor, Kristin Jackson Andersen.
Over the course of this undertaking, Dr Moore and his cohorts allegedly disposed of over 1,937 doses of Covid mRNA shots, and signed off on hundreds of vaccine cards.
The government’s allegations against Dr. Moore were expressed last week in an indictment charging Dr Moore with “Running a COVID 19 Vaccine Scheme To Defraud The Government and CDC.”
“By allegedly falsifying vaccine cards and administering saline shots to children instead of COVID-19 vaccines, not only did this provider endanger the health and well-being of a vulnerable population, but also undermined public trust and the integrity of federal health care programs,” wrote a Health and Human Services (HHS) special agent in the indictment. “HHS-OIG remains committed to working with our law enforcement partners to hold accountable bad actors who attempt to illegally profit from the pandemic.”
“This defendant allegedly used his medical profession to administer bogus vaccines to unsuspecting people, to include children falsifying a sense of security,”
While the government alleges that Dr. Moore was charging $50 for the vax cards as part of a “for profit” enterprise, the claim is emphatically denied by individuals with knowledge of Dr. Moore’s operation.
The Dossier spoke to several individuals with knowledge of the program, who could not speak on the record because of the current proceedings against Dr Moore and his team. All of the sources insisted that Dr Moore did not make a single dollar from the program. One source noted that he actually spent money out of his own pocket to facilitate it, so not only did he not make money, he depleted his own bank account to pull off the endeavor. Multiple sources added that some patients insisted on compensating him for his work. In response, Dr Moore advised them to instead donate the funds to a charity he supported but was not involved with.
Multiple sources also wanted to make clear that this was no rogue bait and switch operation, but that patients were fully aware of the process the entire time. Some parents requested that their kids receive injections of saline instead of simply dumping out the shot, so that their children would be out of the loop on what was going on.
According to the sources, the governments two aforementioned major allegations are categorically false.
The defendants made their initial appearance in court on Thursday. If convicted, they face a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The socialists have been ruling over the last century, stripping the wealth of our nations and destroying both our families and the ethical/legal system needed to generate wealth.
Our own tower of lies — propped up by more than a few Christians — probably won’t collapse like the Soviet Union. It’s more likely to slowly crack up and crumble away over a decade or two, as is currently happening to the government health care systems of Europe and Canada. The frauds will be revealed as frauds….
… and we will have to raise up something better, for the poor and the stranger. Fortunately if you look out for them, God will look out for you.
God spoke on this issue, and we should hear and obey Him. But in this case, I will push up an email first…
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27).
How did an ancient law, coupled with a commentary that expounded upon it, fleshed out in a 21st century novel, and obeyed by a faithful Christian woman (who had read said commentary and novel), end up being the answer to a young man’s and his mother’s prayers?
Let me start from the beginning. God’s law outlines the requirement that the people of God pay God the taxes He requires. I say taxes rather than tax because Scripture outlines three taxes or tithes. Most are familiar with the Levitical tithe as the 10% requirement. What many don’t realize is that this 10% was to cover the areas of health, education, and welfare. Received by the Levites, they in turn, gave a tenth of it to the priests for the administration of the temple. This is not commonly known among believers, but it truly addresses the responsibility of the people of God to deal with these areas that have been taken over by the state. Much can and has been written on this topic, and I direct your attention to the book, The Institutes of Biblical Law.1
This Levitical tithe is the first of three that the Bible commands. The second tithe surprises many because it commands those who give it to use it for their rejoicing before the Lord. In Biblical times, the Israelites would go to Jerusalem for yearly feasts/festivals or celebrate where they lived. God commands His people to take time to reboot and be refreshed in order to be better able to serve and enjoy Him.
The third tithe is often referred to as the poor tithe.2 This was to be a personal gift to a needy person or family. Instead of the impersonal nature of statist welfare, the giver and the recipient were to have face-to-face contact. This tithe was to be distributed every third and sixth year of the sabbatical or seven-year cycle.3 The intent was to help someone who needed a boost, to use the funds and financial assistance to capitalize them in order to help move them out of a condition of poverty or need. Again, many believers don’t practice this nor are they even aware of the requirement in Scripture to do so.
So, I have answered the first two parts of my riddle. The third part comes from Martin Selbrede’s novel Hidden in Plain Sight, which tells the story of a young woman, Jenna, who has discovered a scientific application that could change the course of history. First introduced in her thesis at Stanford University, the entire idea was shot down by the academic review committee, knowing that her idea had merit, but they were uninterested in it getting any traction. In the process of being betrayed by those who should have applauded her efforts, and getting on the wrong side of the U.S. government, she encountered a wealthy man who, working to rectify his part in the injustice she suffered many years prior, erased her significant debt. In the process, he educated her about the Biblical requirement to distribute a portion of her benefit by way of the tithe. In explaining the poor tithe to a needy person, he shared with Jenna:
“You’ll be tempted to split the poor tithe because you’ll feel guilty you can’t relieve all the suffering in the world. If you tried to help a quarter million people, they’d each get about a dollar. That won’t help them, and you’ll still feel guilty. You need to see past the deception your guilt imposes on you. Because your income happens to be large, the tithe to the poor will also appear huge. If everyone with average incomes obeyed this law, we’d abolish poverty altogether. People are guilty who fail in this; the Scripture calls it grinding the faces of the poor. “So, he concluded, “you will help just one person. Your choice is strictly voluntary, up to you. You’re doing no wrong in passing by or not choosing others, because God alone has a claim on that money.”
“Give it all to only one?” She still had a hard time understanding this idea. It seemed inherently unfair, but she realized he was prompting her to take off the distorted moral glasses she’d been wearing since birth.
“Jenna,” he looked her straight in the eye, using her first name, “God moves one person at a time. In this matter, He does not deal with classes or groups. Groups and classes resent this. Jesus generated intense hostility when He pointed out that God bypassed the widows of Israel to help only one widow from Zarephath, had bypassed the lepers of Israel to heal one leper from Syria. That hostility against God working one person at a time lives on today. You must see this with new eyes. You must learn to work with one person at a time. You must make it personal.”
He had then leaned in closer toward her. “That,” he added with emphasis, “is because God, unlike the state, is not impersonal. There’s nothing more personal than God, and His image bearers have no business being impersonal or institutional in dealing with the poor.”
And Jenna had experienced the guiltless joy of visualizing the release from miserable poverty that one family would enjoy because Jenna had honored the ultimate law the Creator had laid down.
God moves one person at a time. The ultimate law of mercy.4
Now to address the next part of my initial riddle. Lynora (a friend and sister in Christ) having learned of the relevant Scripture in the pertinent parts of Institutes of Biblical Law, and having read Hidden in Plain Sight, became convinced that she needed to distribute her poor tithe (something she had never done before) after she had come into a sizeable amount of money as a result of the sale of her home.
This is how I entered the story and had the privilege of being a part of it. When she asked me for ideas as to how to find a suitable candidate, I was able to share with her the times my husband and I had given to people in need from our poor tithe. One time it helped pay for necessary medication for someone who could not afford it. Another time it paid for labor and delivery expenses for a foreign missionary. And it had also been used in the past to pay tuition for a number of young people so they could participate in an online academy, and for others to attend summer Christian conferences. Lynora asked me to help her find someone who wanted a Christian education but could not afford one.
I went to work, visiting Christian schools in the area (during their open houses) and determining whether or not any of them would be suitable places for the funds to be allocated. After finding one such school, I got in touch with families I knew to see if they were interested. For one reason or another, I wasn’t getting any takers. Then, I asked one of the administrators of the school I thought was worth supporting (due to their commitment to transmit a Biblical world and life view to their students) if she knew of a would-be student or family who valued a Christian education but were unable to afford one. At first she said she was drawing a blank. However, right before my eyes I could see that God brought someone to mind. She said, “I know of a young man who is just the sort of person you have described. His mother has been trying her best to find a way that he could come to our school.”
As it turns out, this woman, the mother of four boys, did the janitorial work at the church the school is attached to. She and her husband weren’t able to come up with the amount needed to send even one of their boys to private school, even with the half scholarship that the school was willing to offer. They had a special burden for one of their sons, Christian, who had regularly expressed a desire to attend this particular school. The parents recognized the gifting and sobriety God had given their son, but continually felt as though they were failing him. His mother could see that her son had a genuine love for the Lord, a love for learning, and his unrealized potential was burdening her.
Fast forward to the meeting where Lynora (the donor), Christian and his family (the recipients), the school vice-principal, and I all sat to discuss Lynora’s willingness to pay for his entire high school career, 9th through 12th grade tuition and fees. I spent some time explaining the concept of the poor tithe to them and how it was supposed to be personal. I also pointed out that although it was understandable that the family would be grateful for the choice that Lynora had made in selecting them to receive this benefit, that it was God’s money and the praise and glory should go to Him. To keep things personal, Lynora plans to be a part of this family’s life on a regular basis, keeping up with how Christian is doing.
At the close of our meeting, Mom smiled, Dad beamed, and Christian was somewhat in shock. I sat back and considered how God’s plan had unfolded. An ancient law, expounded by a theologian, and put into an engaging story had prompted a believer to fulfill her obligation to the law of God. As Lynora and Christian posed for a joint picture, Christian’s mother confided to me that the night before she received the call from the school administrator to introduce the idea of her son’s four-year high school tuition and fees being offered, she had gone to the Lord promising that she would no longer be anxious for her son’s future and placed her and his desires completely into God’s hands, trusting Him for the result. Little did she know that her faithful prayer would be answered so immediately.
I ask you: What would be the result, if the Body of Christ took it upon itself to learn, apply, and teach how God’s economy deals with the needs of health, education, welfare, and relieving poverty, and replaced the state as the inadequate substitute that it is? I can tell you from first, and now, third hand experience, that the joy and sense of fulfillment would be sufficient to fuel a social revolution that would return the church to the main manifestation of pure and undefiled religion:
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27).
Andrea carries out a number of administrative duties at Chalcedon, putting much attention on promoting Chalcedon through social media and conferences. A main focus includes her direction of the Chalcedon Teacher Training Institute (ctti.org) — online classes in Biblical law for women. She began working for Chalcedon as a volunteer in 1987 and has been on staff since 1992.
Note that God would be perfectly happy if the man tithed 10% for the poor, and kept the rest for his own family and people. He would be doing far more than most of us, AND doing more than the Commandments even require in regard to the poor.
No, I don’t know if he is a Christian. But if he’s doing what is right, he will still be blessed by God, believer or not.
But you need to be able to feed your own family, and build a strong surplus, before you can feed someone else.