Speaking in Tounges!

Finally, a pressing question I've had for the longest time listening to KWAVE is answered. Do they speak in tounges? You'd think they do based on their other nutty ideas, but up until today, the sermons have led me to believe they probably don't. But that isn't true, the do in fact speak in tounges! But, they don't speak in tounges publically, only privately. Pastor Raul says that to speak in tounges publically would be embarrasing, because people would think it's stupid. Yes, they would. He's right about that.

So anyway, Raul says that he speaks in tounges all the time in private. He asks something like, "Is it english, or spanish, or...?" and answers himself, "when I speak in tounges, I speak in Greek." Wow. That's a risky position. I almost have to admire it. He explained further that it's crazy, cuz he doesn't even know Greek! Almost sounding like a miracle. Hell, I wouldn't be embarrassed to take that public. But then he goes on about all the grunting noises he makes and how incoherent the whole thing sounds and that some people migh mistake him for an ape. He even made a couple of grunting noises, "woo - woo" to drive the point home (I think that means, "hi, how are ya?")

So what on earth could he possibly mean? I listened real intentively but it just didn't make sense, and I hope to learn more about the phenomena in future broadcasts. My only guess is that he was trying to say that when he makes these incoherent noises, when translated by God, they end up in Greek. That he speaks the Greek cipher code.

How Many Angels can Stand on Golgotha?

While Jesus was being crucified, the onlooking crowd apparently got a little rowdy and contributed to the killing with their own verbal barbs and insults. Pastor Raul says the mocking and insulting, the blasphemy was so horrific that God the Father was standing by with twelve legions of angels in preperation to wipe them all out. There must have been what, a couple hundred people there?

This is a God that knows how to mobilize. A roman legion apparently was in the neighborhood of three to six thousand. So we're talking up to seventy-two thousand armed and very dangerous angels ready to come down and massacre the onlookers. Keep in mind, the Egyptian empire a few thousand years ago enslaved er, six hundred thousand Hebrews--meaning it had to be pretty big. And God sent a single troop, the destroying angel, to take out the first born of every house in egypt. Granted, many of those are going to be unarmed children and would pose little difficulty. And granted, he went in at night. But there had to have been at least a few thousand fairly capable adults who woke up and pulled a spear or something and gave the angel a chance to practice his moves.

There is just no point whatsoever in appropriating such a force to the Golgotha incident. All they'd do is materialize on the mountain and everyone would suffocate from overcrowding. And if not, there surely wouldn't be enough room to draw a weapon or wind up to deliver a blow. It's an attack that's not only logistically stupid, but without any style. Much better would be to send in the single special ops guy and let him take the whole crowd on. That's far more terrifying and shows a sense of artistry. I knew a southern guy once who boasted one southern man from the Civil war era could take out three yankees. Indeed, that's how these brag sessions should go, I, or a very few of my guys can take out a lot of your guys, not the other way around.

Then again, here's the God who's only idea for keeping billions of people form burning in brimstone for eternity is to have his son kidnapped and murdered. So who knows what he's thinking.

Dropping "The Bomb"

A sermon yesterday morning instructed us on the devastating power of nuclear weapons. Of course, the preacher was talking about a bomb planted by terrorists. And the kind of damage it could do to new york and the surrounding area. Then he went on about Jesus, "dropping the bomb." How the armies of the world will gather at megido, and Jesus will wipe them out. I think his point was how much greater the destructive power of Jesus than anything we've ever seen. Well ok, so Jesus is a terrorist, and really terrifying one. No shock here.

Addicted to Jesus

Today we learned that when we seek pleasure in the world, it takes more and more of the same activity to acheive the same level of high. Apparently that's bad, because, we can never consume enough to maintain satisfaction. So the answer must be moderation, or something like that right? Living a life focused on greater things? Well, astonishingly enough, no. The answer is the pleasure introduced into the brain from Jesus. Because, unlike other pleasures, Jesus never runs out. As we become used to the ecstacy of Jesus, he can up the intensity indefinitely so we're never left chasing that first high, we can acheive it and more.

Pastor Brian Scores Two Points

In his sermon today, he related an experience with some "dear Muslim friends" of his. Apparently, the've all had some wonderful, edifying religious discussions over the years. He chomped at the bit in excitment though, to tell us how he "one upped" them, on one occasion, in a discussion on the cross. The Muslim friends, according to him, shared the belief that before Jesus was executed, God swapped him with some kind of substitute so Jesus never died. Pastor Brian then, really got them good, because, he argued (and don't even try to guess!) that this could not possibly be true. Because if it were, then the price of sin would never have been paid. (gasp)

Now, it would be just like a Christian, to think that people in other religions, are either so stupid, or so deceived, that they'd believe in something like original sin, that God by default sends everyone to hell, but doesn't have any kind of explanation of their own as to how they can get to heaven. Well, it just so happens that Muslims don't believe in original sin. But let's not stop Pastor Brian from reminiscing about that one time where JC passed him the ball and he brought down the glass.

Well, this is another one of those fine Christian examples, where a lot of time could have been saved by merely saying, "I'm right, and you're wrong." Or actually, nothing needed to be said, since we know that Both groups, being opposing religions, each hold the belief that they are right, and the other wrong. So actually, Christians should just shut up. Because they communicate exactly the same amount of information that way, as they do when they open their mouths while being far less annoying.

Jehova's Witnesses

One of my problems with God is his absolutely stupid best selling book known as the "Bible." Or "Biible" if you're a real hardcore fan.

The Bible, we're told, is the final, and only authority on how to escape from inexorable eternal fire. But there's a significant flaw in God's arduous work, nobody understands it. God is a worse writer than Martin Heidegger. The Bible is long, boring, inconsistent, obscure, and contradictory. A basic rule of logic goes like this: in a system with contradictory premesis, all statements are true. Understanding this, we can easily see why thousands of viewpoints are all painstakingly supportable by the Bible. And further, in its inexhastable freeplay, the Bible has survived, and will survive the ages just as the prophecies of Nostradamous, and the insanity of psychoanalysis.

Charles Russell, apparently was willing to throw away preconceived notions of what the bible teaches, and start fresh. Some of his original ideas are interesting (original in applying them to an actual religious movement). And certainly, the JW God is pretty darn compassionate compared to the horrer flick Jesus of evangelism. Of course, today, there is no question that JW "scholarship" falls into the same trap as any other religious mumbo jumbo, with an interest only in apologetics, not really trying to understand the Bible.

Don't get me wrong, there is no point in "trying to understand the Bible," but I think, those who really do, deserve some credit and are a step beyond those who arn't willing to challenge tradition at all. The average Jehova's witness, I'd wager, has a far better understanding of the Bible than Pastor Raul Ries does. In any case, it's funny to hear Pastor Raul shoot down belief after belief, with no explanation of context of the belief or how it was derived, but simply by stating the belief, and quoting his favorite proof text. "Jehova's witnesses say, "blah," but the Bible says, "bleh," and thus we see that they are false and of the devil." Why doesn't he just say, "JWs say "blah," and I say, "bleh," therefore, bleh."

I don't know how EVs can blame anyone but their own foul God for all the "cults" they rag on constantly. Should everyone just take their word for God's word? If not, what are the options? The Bible? Hardly. Did I mention the Bible goes on, and on, and on. It's fragmented, obscure, unclear, poetic, meandering. And your escape from infinite physical pain is predicated on deciphering it. What a mother-fucker God is, wouldn't you say?

It took God what, nearly two thousand dense pages to reveal the secret combo to the escape hatch: Admit you are a sinner, ask God to forgive you. That's right, that's it. But poor Charles Russell, he wasn't high enough apparently to figure that out. I'll bet if God had sent Jack Chick, instead of Jesus Christ, and your standard Chick tract, instead of the Bible, Charles Russell would have been saved. I'll bet, if Pastor Raul Ries, before he bacame a Christian, somehow got stranded on a desert island, and all he had was a Bible, he'd be going to hell. But if he were stranded on an island, and he had a chick tract, he'd probably go to heaven. Yes, Jack Chick, evil as he is, is less evil than Jesus. If Jack Chick were God, you'd at least have a chance.

Christians believe in works, not grace.

Grace. The favorite topic of the saved. The funny thing is, the typical born again position of grace actually includes works. That demonstrates some pretty poor introspection on the part of reborns everywhere. Pastor Raul this evening condemned the Catholic church today, for many things, noteably for "works." Granted, the particular works Raul believes in and the Catholic Church believes in diverge significantly. But, nonetheless, works are works, they are um, filthy rags.

There are only two positions I can think of which can successfully negotiate the problem of works.

1. Those who don't believe Paul's question, "Shall we sin that Grace may abound?" was rhetorical and will allow for the answer of, "sure."

2. Very generally, Calvinism. Since grace is predetermined by election, no effort is required on the part of the saved. Niether is their any possibility of backsliding, since all works after salvation are ensured by predestination to be good enough to satisfy other Calvinists. Technically, this all collapses once it's understood that most Calvinists (to my knowledge) are compatibilists. But that's a tangent discussion*.

Grace doesn't exist for christians, specifically because of the problem of backsliding. Christians usually can't tolerate the thought that Jim gets saved on wednsday, and is off fornicating on thursday, killing on friday, and taking the Lord's name in vain on Saturday, all in time to contemplate his mansions above on Sunday. So the question arises, was Jim really saved on wednsday? Calvinists will say no, and the other non-existent group I mentioned above will say "sure." But if a reborn says no, he wasn't saved, then logically, the salvation of every other Christian is also in question. How do you know that Jane, after 15 years of being saved and clean Christian living won't betray it all and go back to drugs and prostitution? And if the answer is yes, but salvation can be lost, the position I belive Calvery Chapel holds, then quite obviously, works are just as important as "faith."

What pastor Raul doesn't understand, is that it doesn't matter if you are trying to be good, hoping to one day be good enough to be saved, or if you are trying to be good, hoping that you don't loose your salvation. Pastor Raul, and most other reborns, believe in works as much as anyone else.


*Compatibilism holds that free will and determinism are "compatible." This view held widly by atheists too actually. John Edwards taught that mankind can be impugned for their sin even though God created man evil. If this is true, than man surely can be praised for his righteousness, even if his nature to do so is determined by God. And if it is the case, that horrendously evil deeds are evidence of non-salvation, then the state of not doing those deeds are part of the salvation package, a part attributable entirely to the agent.