Clown From Beyond The Stars

Clown From Beyond The Stars, by E.J. Nubbins: According to this dubious biography of fat funnyman Jackie Gleason, the obese *star* of The Honeymooners may have truly been from the beyond the stars, an alien being planted on earth by ETs to serve as a goodwill ambassador.  Nubbins *builds* his flimsy case around such *evidence* as Jackie's famed frequent Honeymooners threat to send his sitcom wife "to the moon," the fact that he built his house to resemble a flying saucer and named it The Mother Ship, and on the documented case of Gleason's Top Secret 1973 visit to Homestead Air Force Base, which was reportedly ordered by the gluttonous Gleason's close friend, President Richard Nixon. Nubbins proceeds to expand upon the facts with this highly speculative embellishment: Nixon sent Gleason, the Zeta Reticuli ambassador, to help arrange the friendly deportation of a captured alien (p. 66).  According to Nubbins, Gleason's second wife, Beverly McKittrick also believed Gleason was an alien.  The evidence: his testicles were the size of green peas (p. 83).  Like most UFO/Alien literature, this book lacks objectivity and logic, but is entertaining nonsense, nonetheless.

The Beach

The Beach, by Alex Garland: A bored limey Gen Xer travels around the world because he can find nothing better to do.  In Thailand, he runs into a mysterious figure who babbles incoherently about a legendary beach paradise populated by bohemian drop-outs.  The mysterious guy then kills himself, but not before leaving the limey with a map to the beach.  The opening of the novel, when the limey learns of the beach and then hooks up with a French couple to make the journey, is extremely well done—moody, with dark foreshadows of ménage à trois conflicts and a Garden of Eden-type fall. Unfortunately, once the plot reaches the beach, nothing of interest happens. The story drags through page after page of tedious description of the tedious beach life, before completely collapsing with a ridiculous out-of-left-field climax that is an absurd cross between Apocalypse Now and The Night of the Living Dead.

Bully

Bully, by Jim Schutze: A fat teenage girl lies naked on her bed, fantasizing about the semi-nude male hunks pictured on the posters which adorn her white trash bedroom walls.  The horny chubette aches to have a real flesh-and-blood boyfriend.  Unfortunately, she gets one.  A boy named Marty.  Marty has sex with her.  And beats her.  And ridicules her about her weight.  But the fat girl loves Marty.  She blames Marty's less-than-gentlemanly behavior on Marty's best friend, Bobby.  Bobby is even more of a bully than Marty.  Bobby and Marty *pump iron* together in a gym.  Marty is Bobby's punching bag when Bobby is having a steroid-induced homo-erotic rage—which is about every other day.  Bobby abuses Marty, Marty abuses fat girl.  Light bulb goes on in Fatty's head: what if Bobby was dead?  Then it would be: Marty and Fatty sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g, or so Fatty reasons.  So Fatty sets about assembling a *dream team* of mall rat killers: Marty, Mortal Kombat arcade slacker, two white trash teen girl prostitutes who whore for CDs, clothes and movie money, and a high school drop-out gangsta-wannabe who has to sneak out of his bedroom window the night of the murder (so mom won't get mad).  The juvenile delinquent posse gather at the local strip mall Pizza Hut to plan the murder—with only Fatty & Marty really taking it seriously.  The others, well, one of the teen prostitute girls "was excited.  Bobby was an asshole.  It was like witchcraft.  It wouldn't really happen.  But it would be fun" (p.97).  But then the murder really did happen, and Bobby's body was left for gator food in a South Florida canal.  When the nitwit punks were (quickly) caught by the police, none of them seemed to realize that, like, murder was a biggie.  Fatty was especially appalled that she had to stay in jail: "Why am I in here?  How come I'm not out?" she asks her lawyer.  He replies: "You are in here on a capital murder charge."  To which Fatty responds: "So what?  I mean, I've been in here for three months.  I've done the jail thing.  So what's the point in just keeping me here?" (p.250).  This true crime classic (which was later decently filmed by American teen connoisseur Larry Clark) thoroughly documents the total depravity of American youth: imbecilic creatures of pure carnality, for whom life has no value, and its only meaning is found in materialistic and hedonistic pursuits.

Saving Private Ryan

Saving Private Ryan: Make no mistake, the war scenes are expertly recreated—yet this still must be one of the dullest and most over-rated movies of All-Time.  The problem: a terrible script which offers a bland story (the totality of which is summed up in the film's three word title) and a big ZERO in the way of character development.  So threadbare is the plot, fabled director Steven Spielberg is reduced to showing about fifty close-ups of Tom Hanks' character's trembling hand in order to generate some *drama.*  And Hanks is disastrously miscast as a battle-weary Army captain.  Bob Crane seemed more authentic in Hogan's Heroes.  In fact, Hanks looked so much the fish out of water, during the final battle scene I kept expecting to see Meg Ryan parachute onto the set as a kOOky Army nurse sent to bandage up our wounded hero.  

Matt Damon is even worse as Private Ryan.  In one *memorable* scene which was meant to generate sympathy for his character, Damon laughably attempts *bittersweet nostalgia* as he recounts a bizarre anecdote about how one of his many now-dead brothers had once nearly raped a farm girl and then set fire to the family barn (?!?!).  A tedious and colossal waste of time.

Sunday

Sunday: A fat homeless Jewish man (played by an actor I had never seen before or since) awakes to begin another hopeless Sunday.  He leaves the shelter and begins wandering the wasteland streets of Queens, NY.  A down-on-her-luck limey actress (played by an actress I had never seen before or since) spots the wandering Jew and mistakes him for a famous movie director.  Starved for human contact, the homeless Hebrew pretends to be the movie director.  The former Shakespearean actress feels as homeless in grim Queens as the Jew, and though it is soon apparent the Jew is a faker, the actress continues to willingly believe otherwise, as the charade adds a bit of hope to her crummy life, as well.  Eventually the homeless Jew and the limey lady have the least energetic sexual encounter ever depicted on film.  Interesting character study with one of those annoying ambiguous endings.

Life In The Fat Lane

Life In The Fat Lane, by Cherie Bennett: Lara Ardeche is the perfect sixteen-year-old girl: 5'7", 118 pounds of high school homecoming queen.  Lara is the most popular girl in school and is admired by all—or, at least all that matter.  Then: tragedy!  Lara falls victim to Axell-Crowne Syndrome, a rare disorder that causes the body's metabolism to go haywire, resulting in rapid weight gain—no matter how little food a person eats.

Queen Lara is soon a 218 pound cow, shunned by her thin former friends, and now forced to associate with those she used to feel superior to: fatties, the handicapped and all other assorted geekoids.  

This is a strange novel (written for teens), with no apparent teen *target audience,* as one can't imagine a genuine fat person (fact not because of an extraordinarily rare disease, but because of Cheetos and Cherry Coke) finding comfort in this story because Lara never does lose her repulsion to obesity (among Lara's closing words: I'm not telling you everything was fine or that I didn't long to be thin, because I did. p.259).

In the end, the best Lara can manage is tolerance, and the grudging acceptance of the fat person's humanity. It's as if the author wants the reader to sympathize with fat people, but not too much!

On the other hand, thin attractive people are painted with the fat person's stereotypical brush: as shallow, vain and mercilessly cruel to all fatties and nerds.  There is also a bizarre subplot involving Lara's parents that must be read to be believed. . .hints of incestuous thoughts on the part of Lara's father while she is still thin, her mother's jealous reaction and then her gloating attitude as her daughter blimps out and loses her father's unnatural affection.  A strange curiosity from the shelves of late 20th century YA Literature.

Karla

Karla: Hard to believe a movie about the sin-sational Karla Homolka could be so bad. Karla was a seventeen-year-old Canadian cutie when she met twenty-three year old pretty boy Paul Bernardo, a young man of no talent--uh, that is, except for serial rape. Anyway, for some reason, Karla fell hard for Bernardo. Well, even the briefest consideration of Karla’s and Paul’s life together, in which they became Canada’s most famous rapists/murderers (at least, until pig farmer Robert Picton was pulled from British Columbia’s mud in 2002), will lead one to conclude a shared passion for sexual sadism was the reason Karla *fell in love* with Paul. But in this artless little flick, Karla is a psychological zero. Video game characters are more 3-dimensional. The only thing seeming genuine about her character is her appetite for sex. . .other than that, her participation in the rapes and murders of her little sister Tammy and two high school girls, the vicious beatings she endured from Bernardo (all mirroring the *real life facts* of the case) have the appearance of random events she just happened to chance upon, and then stayed to watch/endure/participate in out of a very morbid S&M curiosity.

The script doesn’t even suggest Karla went along with the kidnappings, tortures, rapes and murders because of the beatings Bernardo gave her (which the very few who supported her in her legal proceedings suggested). Indeed, in one scene a kidnapped schoolgirl, who has just watched Bernardo give Karla yet another pummeling, asks: “Why do you stay?” After the prerequisite *dramatic pause,* Karla sadly, wearily responds: “You don’t understand. . .” That’s for sure!

At best, the movie sort of implies Karla participated in the schoolgirl rapes and murders because she really liked Paul, and since raping schoolgirls was what Paul was really into, well, she had to go along, because that’s what wives do--they support their husbands. Karla rapes and murders the way some wives watch football with their hubbies--they have no interest in the game, but they sit there politely on the sofa and say *that’s nice* when the home team scores a touchdown.

While not overly graphic, the movie is genuinely lurid, so it may provide cheap thrills to those who enjoy watching half-dressed high school girls beg and cry, etc., etc.

It must also be noted the actress playing Karla (somebody named Laura Prepon) is terrible. Apparently this Prepon person was a television sitcom *star*--which might explain why she exhibits the limited range of an amateur thespian used to playing to a laugh track.

Once Upon A Time

Almost 16 years ago, I visited this place.  I started writing a blog entry about it, but never finished it.  It has sat as a draft for over 15 years.  I might as well post it.  I don't know if the links still work.  It will be obvious where I stopped work on it.

On a cave tour of southern Ohio, we stopped off at the Zane Shawnee Caverns, an odd little place owned by a group calling itself the *United Remnant Band of the Shawnee Nation.* They have set up their pseudo-reservation on about 300 acres, and they have 45 people of varying degrees of Shawnee blood living there. As you enter there's a sign that reads *Welcome to Indian Country.* They might just as well have put up a *Welcome to the Country of the People Who Got Fucked Over by Both the White and Red Man* sign, for it appears from the tangled account outlined in their badly written little history *book* (an unstapled digest sized 16 pager that sells for $3 in the gift shop and which is summarized online here) that neither group wants them. The land was thick with the stink of the cast-off.

Even in caverns these misfits got the short end of the stick. Only 10, 12 miles away is the storied Ohio Caverns—bigger, richer in crystals and far more lucrative. The parking lot at the Ohio Caverns was packed with cars and tour buses. At Shawnee, only a solitary rusty pick-up was sitting in the small gravel lot.

Ha, looking at that old Chevy truck while getting out of our ’97 Honda Civic, I felt like a 1%er. There were a couple old chiefs playing a board game on the covered porch to the entrance. They didn't answer our hellos as we went past. Inside, a fat old squaw was tending the gift shop. She told us we were the first visitors of the day—it was 4 pm, and they closed at 5. The squaw had to make a phone call to get an injun to come down and give us a tour. While we waited, we browsed the gift shop, a dusty mix of dream catchers, deerskin pouches and assorted bric-a-brac like this:
And this:
And in a forlornly failed attempt to add *tourist value,* the natives had patched together a little *nature annex*—a sad menagerie of stuffed owls, shabby pelts, a tank housing a decrepit turtle with a cricket hopping crazily around it, two small *aquariums* with blue gill barely visible through dirty water, and this angry turkey:
Maybe this bizarre collection had some meaning according to Shawnee lore, but to me it just seemed sad and peculiar.

While shuffling around from one oddity to the next, I tried to comprehend the weird faux reservation vibe. It seemed to be made of equal parts shame and pride—schizoid.

The mood brightened considerably when our guide finally showed up, a little injun named Black Land. He gave a tour like he had a group filled with Geronimo, Tecumseh, Cochise and twenty other red heroes, instead of four nobody mud people.

Black Land told us the all usual scientific mumbo-jumbo about how the cave and the cave pearls and the stalactites and all that were formed, but he also spun a lot of Shawnee tall tales to keep the kids entertained. Then, when we came to the middle of the cave, where the distance between the walls narrowed to almost nothing, and I asked him if any fat people ever got stuck, Black Land told a tragicomic story about a fat white woman who couldn’t squeeze through the narrow passageway and got left behind her tour group. Black Land said even though it took less than a minute for everyone to realize what had happened, the fat woman became hysterical and started screaming and lumbering back toward the entrance. In the process, as she was flailing her *buffalo butt-sized* arms, she knocked loose a couple of thousands of years old soda straws. “I’m sorry for the fat white lady,” my youngest said. Black Land nodded. “There’s fat in every race,” I said. Black Land nodded.

After the tour, I wandered around outside, careful not to disturb the two old chiefs, who were s

With Fear And Trembling

A Christian who:

Served in the IDF and. . .

. . .dedicated his life to Israel and Zionism.

This fellow, who took part in Israel's war against Gaza in 2014, and wholeheartedly supported Israel's current crimes against the Palestinians, and worked for the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC, was murdered Wednesday night by a supporter of Palestine.

All murder is sin.  It cannot be excused.  Whether on a street in DC or in the rubble of Gaza.

The murder of this fellow and the murder of 50000 Palestinians cannot be excused. 

If we say this fellow had a better chance to live than the Palestinians in Gaza, it will appear to lessen the sin of his murder.  But this is not the intent.  

It's simply a fact of this fellow's bizarre life that he had better circumstances.  It is unfathomable to me why a self-proclaimed Christian, with so many opportunities open to him, would he choose to dedicate his life to zionism. 

  

Looking at the bizarre life of Yaron Lischinsky, we remember the words of Jude:

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

How does a Christian join the IDF and, at the very least, support the killing of Palestinians, some of whom are Christian?  How does a Christian dedicate his life to zionism?

The New York Times says this of his upbringing:

He grew up in a culturally mixed family with a Jewish father and a Christian mother, and was a practicing Christian, according to Ronen Shoval, the dean of the Argaman Institute for Advanced Studies in Jerusalem, where Mr. Lischinsky participated in a yearlong program in classical liberal conservative thought after earning a master’s degree in government and diplomacy. “He was a devout Christian,” Dr. Shoval said, “but he had tied his fate to the people of Israel.” In his application to join the program, which Dr. Shoval shared with The New York Times, Mr. Lischinsky described his upbringing in a multicultural family and “the inner struggles” he faced while growing up in a religious household within secular societies in Germany and Israel.

Was he trying to serve two masters?  Was he as confused about his faith as Ellen Page was her gender?  

The Lord Jesus Christ knows this fellow, whether he was one of His sheep or not.  I don't know how he can be.  The causes he dedicated his life to are in total opposition to the gospel of Jesus.  

Well, it can be said most of us waste our lives.  True.  And while we may not support murder, we do participate in, in one fashion or another, activities that are contrary to the gospel.  But we would recognize that as sin, and understand it as something unworthy of Christ.  We would know we need God to grant us repentance.

A fornicator's life is not dedicated to fornication, it is ruined by fornication.

A zionist's life is dedicated to zionism, it is ruined by zionism.

Is the last state of either person worse than the other? 

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.

These are strange days here on the earth, irrationality and hatred abound.  Our consolation is that when all is said and done, His judgment is true.  Until then, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

[Please note this *terror* attack came just as I foretold in our May 11 entry titled David Versus Trump]

What Of These People?

It's very easy to express support for the pitiful Palestinian people.  Their lives are a not endless misery, because many of them are, indeed, ended.  We can sympathize with them, pray for them, perhaps donate relief money, it is easy to speak of the Palestinians.

But what can one say about Israelis?  We know the Israelis overwhelmingly support their government's crimes against creation.  These people, such as the one in the tweet above, shamelessly promote genocide.  What are we to think of such deranged, violent people?  

Is it as simple as the old Christian bromide: Hate the sin, love the sinner?

The Israelis are an ugly, mean-spirited, sadistic, arrogant, racist people.  They revel and delight in the suffering of the Palestinians.  They are beyond human feeling, their consciences have been seared with a hot iron.

Speaking only for myself, if I am being honest, I must say I know them.  I was them.  I am them.  I will be them.  I can look back at my life and see moments when I felt other particular individuals were not human, were not the same as me.  Without getting into needless specifics, I can simply say, at times, people I was forced to associate with became vessels upon whom I poured out my wrath.  If I felt especially wronged or inconvenienced (upon later reflection I would realize I had exaggerated my injury), it created an anger which needed a human target, whether or not they had anything to do with my perceived persecution.  I had complete disregard for these people’s feelings.  They were, indeed, targets.  Human silhouettes.

Under the wrong circumstances, most people are capable of murder.  All people are capable of unfeeling.  Most times it is simply the grind of our own life that leaves us unconcerned with the plight of the other.    

The Israelis, for over eighty years of reasons, collectively feel similarly, and have been, for at least seventy-seven years, pouring out their wrath upon Palestinians.  At times they have been capable of reflection, and debated a new course of action.  But the internal debate has now long since ended, and only the annihilation of the Palestinians seems reasonable to them.  They cannot view themselves as the rational, feeling world outside of the Anglo Axis of Evil see them.  They are genuinely surprised and offended when it is suggested they are acting criminally.  

It’s not that difficult for the individual to free himself from such misguided action. A word from the wise, a rebuke, resistance, time, a decent meal or movie, can snap one back into a sense of shared humanity.

But for the Israelis, their collective hatred is reinforced in their tribe, there is no one to rebuke them, the only rebuke comes from those outside the tribe, from those whom they despise.  The only possibility of the Israelis recognizing the humanity of the Palestinians is through supernatural revelation.

Currently we can view the Israelis as the enemies of all mankind, and as our Lord instructed, they should be prayed for. Barring supernatural revelation, the Israelis will continue to torture and murder the Palestinians until they are annihilated.  Will their psychopathy then end?  Or will they discover yet another insult to their collective body (even in the midst of their crimes against creation in Palestine they also kill in Lebanon and Syria)?  Perhaps Iran has offended them?

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

This is all we can do for Israel (or all that can be done for us).  There is no guarantee of a different result.  But at least in this instance we will have followed the Lord's command, and in doing so, we confess ourselves, as probably the only souls who can honestly pray for the Israelis are those who recognize themselves in Israel.

Just War?

I recently came across this interesting group through some YouTube videos which I found highly instructive.  Curious to learn more, I visited their internet pages. Here is how they describe themselves:

Operation Reconquista is a movement of Bible-believing Christians in Mainline Protestant denominations who recognize that our denominations have drifted away from the historic Christian faith. We are fighting to restore our churches to the true faith and revive them, because we do not want the great institutions built for God's glory to be used against His Kingdom. The word "Reconquista" simply means to "retake". The battle metaphor is NOT calling for violence or calling for a fight against anyone in our denomination, but a call to spiritual warfare against demonic forces that have infiltrated our churches.

Most commendable!  I whole-heartedly support a return by self-proclaimed Christians to the historic Christian faith.

On one of their internet pages, Operation Reconquista addresses 95 Theses to the Presbyterian Church USA.  I found nothing objectionable among these 95 Theses, and was gladdened to see they fully follow the 3 Ecumenical Creeds and the 5 Solas.

However. . .

When reading Thesis 66, which states the Church must honor the sanctity and inherent worth of all human life, my spirit was disturbed.  While all of the other 94 were immediately clear, the vaguity of this Thesis certainly gave me pause.  I sent an email seeking clarification, specifically if this honoring of life included adjuring Christians from supporting war. I quite speedily received the following reply:

Just War Theory is something the Church has universally held to since Augustine. This thesis is meant to say that abortion is murder and must be condemned by the Church.

God bless Operation Reconquista, I wish them much success in their church restoration project. 

That said, it is disheartening to once again find a self-proclaimed Christian group who condone war (which is mysteriously sanctified by man's judgement of *just*).  Outside of doctrines regarding the Lord Jesus Christ, the sanctity and inherent worth of life is of primary importance.  Yet here even the restorationists drift from the historic Christian faith.

The truly historic Christian faith (the faith prior to the calamitous time of Constantine) clearly condemned war.  Not a single surviving document from the first three centuries of Church history permits Christians to kill (or to even join the military).

It's almost impossible to find self-proclaimed Christians in the 21st century who renounce all killing (abortion, capital punishment, war, etc.), even though all advertise themselves as *pro-life.*   

In this regard, we must sadly conclude that in matter of the sanctity and inherent worth of life, Operation Reconquista reflect the kingdoms of the world (just as the Church largely has since the time of Constantine), and not the Kingdom of God.

Fun At The Motor City Comic Con

Last weekend was the Motor City Comic Con, a big fan convention where minor celebrities sign autographs and pose for photos, dealers sell Funko Pops, action figures, movie posters, comic books, manga and anime shit I have no idea about, and various other entertainment/art bric-a-brac. A fair portion of the attendees dress up like their favorite character from obscure pop culture, whether they have the physiques to do so or not.

People walk around and look at shit and each other, buy $6 bottles of water and then line-up to piss at one of the too-few shitters.

This is what passes for *fun* in Western culture.  Not that it isn't fun.  It's fun that is grossly merchandised and monetized.  Which robs the fun of some of its fun.  But that's just a minor complaint.  As minor as the celebrities.

Here's minor celebrity Christina Ricci frazzled and exhausted from acting like she wants to be so close to the unwashed masses that support her movies and television shows:

Here's aging minor celebrity Carrie-Anne Moss talking to a dude who probably beat-off to her in the Matrix twenty years ago:

Motor City Comic Con, fun for all!

Predestination VII

And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest Thou unto them in parables?  He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

*Free Willers* use these verses from Matthew chapter 13 to *prove* their *Free Will* doctrine.  

Their argument:

Well, if God has determined before the foundation of the world who will be saved, and did not determine this on His knowledge of how people would respond to Him from their own Free Will, but simply chose some who would believe and left all others with the inability to believe, then why did Jesus take the trouble to speak in parables?  If they had no ability to believe and be saved, Jesus didn't have to worry that any of His words would lead them to believe.  Jesus here hides His identity to prevent people from believing in Him.  But if Calvinistic predestination were true, these people never had the ability to believe.  There is no point in speaking in parables.

Now, before I answer their protest, let me protest their *proof.*

The *Free Willers* will say the verses quoted above from Matthew chapter 13 prove people have *Free Will,* because if Jesus had spoken plainly to the Jews they would have made Him their King, they would have *accepted* Him, they would have been saved and would not, therefore, have had Him crucified.  Jesus had to temporarily over-ride the Jews *Free Will* to make certain they would kill Him, that He would die on the cross and be able to save all nations, not just the Jews.  That's their *proof* of *Free Will.*  

Yet eight chapters later in the gospel of Matthew we read:

And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto Me. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set Him thereon. And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way. And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

You see how foolish the *Free Willers* proof is.  In chapter 13 of Matthew the *Free Willers* have Jesus terrified of the Jews believing in Him and being proclaimed King, but apparently a little later He has changed His mind, and orders His disciples to arrange His triumphal entry.

No, friend, it cannot be that the reason Jesus spoke in parables was not because the Jews had *Free Will* to believe, and that if He had spoken to them plainly they would be saved, and not allow Him to be crucified.  That cannot be the reason, for multitudes did indeed believe Him and hail Him as King.  

So what did Jesus mean when He said I speak in parables lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them?

There's no big *mystery.*  The answer is right there in the verses themselves, *hiding* in plain sight.

Jesus told His disciples:

It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

No mystery, no controversy, the scripture couldn't be any clearer.  Those who are elect before the foundation of the world are GIVEN to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven.  But those who are NOT elect, it is NOT given.

And look at this beautiful explication from the Lord Jesus Christ:

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

The non-elect, who have been given nothing, from him shall be taken away even what he has.  The non-elect, the depraved man or woman, what little they could make of Jesus' gospel in their reprobate minds, even that dim understanding will be taken from them by Jesus' use of parables.

Predestination VI

The Apostle Paul, quoting Psalms 14 and 53, wrote the following:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

This is a quite convincing proof of predestination.  Those who believe human beings have *Free Will* believe people can seek after God.  But the scripture clearly says none seek after God.

The *Free Willers* would say none out of their own *Free Will* seek after God, not that they don't have the ability to seek after God.

But this can very easily be disproved.

At the time the Psalms were written, and at the much later date Paul was quoting them, the world was full of people seeking after *God.* The world was and is filled with *Gods.* The Egyptian *Gods,* the Norse *Gods,* the Hindu *Gods,* the Roman *Gods,* the Aztec *Gods,* the Babylonian *Gods,* etc., etc.

The world was filled with dopes seeking after *God.*  The world is still filled with dopes seeking after *God.*  How then can scripture say none seeketh after God? 

The people were seeking after a *god* of their choosing, a *god* of their understanding and making.  They were not seeking after The God.  God.  The True and Only God.

Only those God chose before the foundation of the world will seek after Him, because, as Jesus to said to the infidels:

No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Predestination V

A YouTube channel named Soteriology 101 seems to have a major axe to grind with Calvinistic predestination.  They produce numerous videos *exposing* the *errors* of Calvinism and the doctrine of predestination.  

.

A recent video titled Ephesians 2:8 De-Calvinized (almost as if to suggest de-lousing, LOL!) concerned the meaning of the scripture:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

If we take the verse simply as it reads in English, we can see why a *Free Willer* would be so alarmed as to need to de-louse, I mean, de-Calvinize it.  If we understand, in English, the verse to say what it means and mean what it says, then, of course, there is no such thing as *Free Will.*  Salvation is purely a gift of God, no part of salvation, grace, faith, none of it, is generated or activated by man's *Free Will.* Every component of salvation is given by God as a gift.  

Well, of course it is not that simple.  Paul did not write Ephesians 2:8 in English, he wrote it in Greek.  I'm not a Greek scholar.  There are lots of Greek scholars.  It is a point of contention among scholars as to what the "that" in the above quoted scripture refers to.  The hot topic in particular being: does the "that" refer to faith?  If so, if faith is a gift of God, then man of his own *Free Will* cannot produce saving faith.  What does the verse in Greek teach?  Alas, as I said, there are many Greek scholars, and thus opinion is divided.  Don't trust me, check for yourselves on the internets, there are *scholars* aplenty who will conclude both for or against the idea that it is God who provides saving faith.

The narrator of the Soteriology 101 video states: "No one lacks what is necessary for their salvation.  God is not withholding the necessary gift of faith from some people leaving them without hope of salvation.  Paul taught us that those who perish only perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved (II Thess 2:10)."

The narrator then posits as one of the *proofs* that man's *Free Will* must be the source of saving faith these verses from I Timothy:

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

We are to left to conclude, apparently, (it is not explicitly stated, the video ends after the reading of the above verses) that if God wanted all men to be saved, He wouldn't withhold from some of them the ability to respond to the gospel with saving faith.

But the verse certainly does not prove men have *Free Will* to respond to the gospel with faith.  

If we interpret the above verses as the *Free Willers* interpret it:

God wants all people to be saved, God provides everything necessary for salvation to all people.

But if this is the correct interpretation it means God, the Supreme Wisdom of All That Is, willingly devised a plan of salvation that would frustrate His own will.

I'm not going to make that accusation against God.

God, the Supreme Wisdom of All That Is, knew before the foundation of the world exactly what His plan of salvation would lead to.  It would be exactly as His Son described it:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[A more reasonable interpretation of the verses from I Timothy is that if they teach anything at all they teach universal salvation.  That in this Age only a few will find The Way, but that God will, of HIS will, at some New Age, provide everyone with saving faith and bring everyone to salvation.  This is a decidedly minority view, of course.  Universal salvation is on the very farthest fringe of contemporary Christianity.  But it is still far more reasonable than the *Free Willers* belief that God, the Supreme Wisdom of All That Is, willingly devised a plan of salvation that would frustrate His own will.]

Obituary

On this day 207 years ago the English author and playwright Matthew Lewis died.  He wrote the notorious and first English language horror novel The Monk at age 19, of which we have lately written.  

Upon his death more than 20 years after the publication of The Monk, he was still being heaped with abuse, as we see in an obituary which appeared in The Tickler:

To my mind, this is an admirable legacy.  He got under the skin of the arbiters of taste, and stayed there, for eternity.  What better laurel for an author?

Predestination IV

The self-proclaimed Christian *Free Will* crowd are obsessed with flattering God as *fair.*  But of course, it is their limited, self-centered black-and-white concept of fairness.  It is the whiny, childish cry of the toddler who sees his sibling have something he cannot have.  It's not fair, they cry as they stamp their feet.

If God does not grant the individual the *Free Will* to decide for himself or herself if he or she will *accept* or *receive* or *believe* or *have faith in* their idea of God's plan of salvation (sinner hears the gospel of Jesus and evaluates it and judges it as appropriate), then God is not fair.  God is not fair if He has predetermined who will be saved if this predestination is not based on human merit or foreseen faith, but on God's own will.

Here is the sinner's prayer of the self-proclaimed Christian *Free Willer:*

God, I thank thee that I am humble to recognize I am a sinner, and that only through the shed blood of Jesus can my sin be washed away.  Father, You showed me this, You offered me Your plan for my salvation, and in my humility and spirit of brokenness, I carefully considered the pros and cons of Your plan, and in my humble opinion I have judged it worthy of me.  Thank you, God, for not making me as the Calvinist, who haughtily refuses to acknowledge Your fairness to all men everywhere, and would arrogantly deny all men everywhere the chance to judge You and judge Your plan of salvation. Amen.

Here is what I as a predestinationist (PD) would ask of the *Free Willer* (FW):

PD: Has everybody who has ever lived had the same opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus?

FW: No.

PD: Is that fair?

FW: Yes.

PD: It's an irrefutable fact Saul of Tarsus received a much more compelling presentation of the gospel of Jesus than Aleister Crowley received, is it not?

FW: Yes.

PD: Is that fair to Crowley?  

FW: Yes.

PD: Untold tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, a billion, lived and died without ever hearing the gospel, is that correct?

FW: Yes.

PD: So they had absolutely ZERO chance to be saved, is that correct?

FW: No.

PD: No?  Explain.

FW: Paul states in Romans 2 of those who are ignorant that God will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life.

PD: So the ignorant are judged on their own merits, Jesus didn't need to die on the cross, we could just be judged on our own merits and be saved?

FW: No.  This is just a plan until the gospel has been preached to the entire world, then there is no other path to salvation but through Christ.

PD: Does that seem like a plan devised by the Supreme Wisdom of the Universe, or just some theologian trying to argue in advance for God's fairness against the question of the fate of those who never hear the gospel?

FW: It seems like a plan devised by the Supreme Wisdom.

PD: Let me summarize what we have learned so far: people who do not hear the gospel are judged on their own merit, people who hear the gospel are only judged on their response to the gospel, and to the people who hear or read the gospel, some received a more convincing presentation.  Is this an accurate summary?

FW: Yes.

PD: What would be a fairer system: the system we just summarized, or a system in which every human being who has ever lived is thrown into a Lotto machine and God selects some number of whoever comes out of the machine to be saved?

FW: It is a much fairer system for people who do not hear the gospel to be judged on their own merit, and for people who hear the gospel to only be judged on their response to the gospel, and to the people who hear or read the gospel, that some of them receive a more convincing presentation.

PD: Thank you for contributing to our understanding of God's Plan of Salvation.

FW: You're welcome.

Predestination III

The self-proclaimed Christian *Free Will* crowd do not have a scriptural argument to support their belief in *Free Will.*  There are more verses that support determinism than *Free Will.*  Most of their arguments are of a philosophical nature, which they try to dress in theology.  We could call this *transtheology,* I suppose.  Their #1 *proof* for *Free Will* is their opinion.  Their human opinion.  Their very intellectually limited human opinion.  What is this opinion?

Their Opinion: God created humans with free will so they could freely choose to love Him and do good. Forced love or obedience would be meaningless.

There is nothing in the Bible to support this.  Not a single verse.  The only verses which offer any insight as to why God created is that He did it for His pleasure and His glory (Revelation 4:11 & Isaiah 43:7).

That God created because He wants people to *love* Him is not only not supported by scripture, it's also extremely childish.  And insulting to God.  As if God were an incel who couldn't find a date for the prom, so He created one.

It's also an extremely weak philosophical argument.  If God truly wanted a creation that would freely love Him, He already had it before He created human beings.  Angels.  Why is He repeating Himself with human beings?  Was He bored with the Angels?  Angels are believed by the *Free Will* crowd to have had *Free Will.*  From the Bible record, it appears some angels love and worship God, while some rebelled.  The same pattern as humans.  

In any event, both humans and angels are lesser beings than God, so the idea that God created because He wanted a creation that would *freely* love Him would only make sense if He created an equal being.  How can a weaker creation *freely* love such a more powerful being?  Human beings reject this concept in their own relationships (and write laws against it).  A mentally disadvantaged person is viewed as not capable of consent in such a relationship.  

As part of this juvenile proof of *Free Will,* the Free Willers assert that without *Free Will,* human beings would be *just* robots, as if it is self-evident this would be a lesser or worse condition. But this is FAR from self-evident.  I think I am a robot, and I am perfectly fine with it.  What would these *Free Willers* do if they found out in the life to come that, no, they didn't have *Free Will,* that they were, in fact, robots?  Would that invalidate whatever affection they did or did not have for their life?  Are they going to be angry? Shall the pot say to the potter, 'Why have you made me thus?

 

Here is a greater problem for the *Free Will* crowd: Even if they themselves have *Free Will,* they cannot deny that at many points in human history God clearly over-rode *Free Will.*  Jonah, Moses, Elisha, David, Paul, for example, did not choose their path, God stepped in and chose for them.

A more interesting and more compelling argument against *Free Will* is the extraordinary case of Judas, the most pathetic of all human beings.  The lamentable fate of Judas is most instructive in the *Free Will* discussion, because even the most ardent supporters of *Free Will* have to admit that Judas, at best, had a limited *Free Will.*

The gospel of Luke teaches that before Judas betrayed Jesus:

Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

There is no need to try to calculate how much blame to assign Judas and how much blame to assign Satan for Judas' betrayal of Christ.  All we need to know is Satan entered Judas, and we can therefore reasonably conclude Satan had some influence on Judas.  It would be unreasonable to say Satan entered Judas without consequence.  So it is most reasonable to conclude Judas' *Free Will* was limited, to whatever degree.

Why is this important?  An argument most *Free Willers* never address is this:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Scripture makes abundantly clear, with plentiful examples, not just in the case of Judas, but for every person, that, as the scripture above indicates, all humans are subject to supernatural forces that they are rarely aware of. 

Is *Free Will* really free if we are pushed to a decision?  It's like the pick a card, any card magic trick shown in the video above.    

The *Free Will* crowd would have to deny the Bible's clear teaching of supernatural forces acting in the world to assert *Free Will.*

There are decisions we think we make of our own *Free Will* that have been influenced by supernatural forces (some positive, some negative).  If we deny this, we deny scripture.

Sorry, limited *Free Will* is not *Free Will.*

I have a theory why *Free Willers* are so desperate to hold this view, even though it clearly contradicts scripture.  *Free Willers* are embarrassed for God.  They want to do God a favor by excusing Him of the evil in the world.  This is another sign of the childishness, the immaturity of the *Free Willers.*

The *Free Willers* want to preach to the infidels that the evil in the world is the result of the bad *Free Will* choices of human beings.  *Free Willers* are terrified when the infidel asks if there is a God, why does He allow evil?  The *Free Willers* apologize for God!  Shameful!

We have shown the most wicked act in human history, Judas' betrayal of Jesus, could not have been committed from pure *Free Will.*  The best answer from scripture we can give to the infidel's question if there is a God, why does He allow evil, is to simply state it is part of His plan.  We don't have the authority or knowledge to say anything more.  Let us not be like *Free Willers* and be afraid to provide an answer an infidel would object to.  Let us not apologize for God's plan, and make God a victim of *Free Will* in the eye of the infidel.

Predestination II

I understand why most people believe they have *Free Will.*  I have spent most of my life thinking about what I should do, what decision I should make.  It certainly is an authentic replica.  As I am thinking about the choice I must make, I never have the conviction it is not me making the choice, that I am just following some script or program.  It genuinely feels like I am deciding.

But that is not *Free Will.*

I know we have no *Free Will* because I am me.  I am always me.

The moment the sperm rapes the egg. . .no. . .THAT sperm WILL rape THAT egg and I will be.  And I will always be.  I am eternally determined.  

No amount of *choices* can ever alter me.

No person is the person they want to be.  Every person has something about themselves they do not like.  The more honest a person is, the less they like themselves.

If we truly had *Free Will,* we could change ourselves. It should not be necessary to provide a specific example.  We can all look at our own lives, every person is aware of at least some of their defects, some people have even cried about themselves, wishing they were different, but there was and is not a single thing in their power to change themselves.  We have a mind that imagines it is free, but it has no control over the machine that houses it.  The mind cannot grasp that is a creation.

The mind thinks it is free, but everywhere it is in chains.

No honest person says they are the person they want to be.  

We can present it this way: if we had genuine *Free Will,* then we are exactly the person we want to be.  

Every person, in some area of their being, has despaired of themselves.  They have wanted to change some aspect of themselves.  But no matter the energy they expend in change, they run up against the impenetrable of wall of creation.  They were created, they cannot change their mold.

The Apostle Paul frames the dilemma of *Free Will* this way:

For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.  If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Paul concludes our lack of *Free Will* is sin.  If he is correct, it is possible Adam and Eve had (and were the only people ever to have) *Free Will.*  I'd have to think about it (or imagine I am thinking about it) before I decide what I think (or become aware of what I am to think), but it could be when Adam and Eve, of their *Free Will,* ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they instantly lost *Free Will,* they cemented their own fate (and the fate of all who followed).  They walled themselves into sin. . .and death.  Certainly some change instantly occurred, because their perception of themselves changed instantly (Genesis 3:7).  As I said, I need to at least imagine to think about it before I am made aware of what my conclusion will be.

At any rate, whether Adam and Eve had *Free Will* doesn't change our state.  We don't have *Free Will.*  We cannot change who we are. 

Predestination

Predestination: a theological belief central to Reformed theology, especially as developed by John Calvin in the 16th century. It deals with God's eternal plan for the salvation (or damnation) of individuals.  Predestination in Calvinism means that God has eternally chosen before the creation of the earth (or "predestined") some people to be saved (the elect) and others to be damned (the reprobate) — not based on any foreseen merit or decision on their part, but solely according to His will and purpose.

Most American self-proclaimed Christians reject predestination, consciously or unconsciously.  They believe in some degree of *Free Will,* that they have the ability, of themselves, to accept or reject God's plan of salvation (which is accomplished through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ).

My Two Cents: 

Disclaimer: I wouldn't believe anybody who claims they can give you a blueprint for the salvation of the human soul.  

To grossly simplify Christian salvation, if we believe in *Free Will,* a person must first be presented the gospel of Jesus, and then decide to *accept* it or *believe* it or have *faith* in it.

Well, if we believe in *Free Will,* this means Almighty God can easily be defeated by the little man.  The Almighty Creator, in His Inestimable Wisdom, has created a plan for the eternal salvation of His crowning creation in which the little man can simply consider for a brief moment then say nah, that's not for me. The Almighty Creator is reduced to a humble beggar going door-to-door asking whoever answers His knock will you accept Me?

That's the *Free Will* position.  You, me, any stumblebum on the street can tell God to go kick rocks, and God has to accept it. 

What about Hell?  Isn't the threat of Hell the club in door-knocker God's hand which coerces our *Free Will?*  No.  Nobody who tells God to take a hike believes their decision will result in them being sent to an eternal torment in Hell.  So Hell has no place in the *Free Will* discussion.

Those who believe of their own *Free Will* that they have rejected the Christian plan of salvation may find out later there is an eternal consequence for the exercising of their *Free Will,* but by then it will be too late.  There would be no chance to reconsider the decision to reject God based on the newfound evidence of Hell.

Why would somebody of their *Free Will* accept God's plan of salvation?  Because upon hearing God's plan, of hearing of Jesus' atoning work, they, out of their own wisdom, decide God's plan is worthy of them.  Then the Almighty Creator rejoices He has won the little man's approval.

Both these options seem insulting to the notion of an Almighty Creator God.

But even if we were to accept this insult to God, we are still left with one argument against *Free Will.*  Whether the little man accepts or rejects the Christian plan of salvation is entirely dependent upon the working of his brain, a machine which he did not create.  It was either given to the little man by God, or arose by accident.  Either way, the instrument of his *Free Will* is an entirely external construction.  That cannot be argued against.  

I can no more tell you why or why not I accept the Christian plan of salvation any more than I can tell you why or why not I like strawberry ice cream.

It's probably obvious I am in the Calvinist camp.  How it all works, the mechanics of it, I don't know.  I'd have to be God to lay out the exact blue print.  But I am smart enough to know I am dumber than God, and that IF I am saved, it is thoroughly through His design, and not my *Free Will* decision to validate His design.

What is more interesting to me is the position of the self-proclaimed Christian *Free Will* crowd.  They will reject predestination, not primarily on scriptural grounds (because there are more scriptures that support predestination than promote *Free Will*) but on philosophic ideas which are based on some notion of a *loving and just* God.  Their argument is that a *loving and just* God would not create people who have no opportunity for salvation, who are predestined to spend eternity in Hell.

On the face of it, these *Free Willers* seem to be quite generous to God.  They bestow upon Him their laurels of Love and Justice.  He's too nice to create anything for the sole purpose of eternal torment.

But I find in their slaps on the back of God a hidden vanity.  They desire to claim some part in their own salvation.  However much they will claim salvation is of grace, a gift of God, a token of God's mercy, they will ultimately reject scripture:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

They just cannot choke down their own supposed *Free Will,* which is their fancy term for their own vanity.  For the *Free Will* crowd deny the scripture which says the gift of salvation is a true gift, a gift given by God, a gift which they had no part of, they did nothing to earn.  By insisting on their *Free Will* acceptance, they override God's ability to give a gift.  God cannot give them a gift they do not accept, a gift they do not intellectually approve of.  The determining factor in salvation is their judgment of God's gift.  This is the height of vanity.  In this, they resemble Lucifer:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

We have no *Free Will.*  We have no power to say no to God.  Whether our destiny is the New Jerusalem or the Lake of Fire, it's not in our power to determine.  

The *Free Will* crowd try to flatter God as 'loving and just' to claim credit for their own salvation!  They dare to define God???

It's not for little man to determine God's love or justice.

As for my own personal thinking, which is what I was given, I see God as an Author who has written a beautiful, harrowing story in which we all have an assigned role.  Am I saved or damned?  You decide.  I don't need to.