Magic always comes with a price

And the chaser:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

When weight lifting, power is not gained without a sacrifice. One does not get stronger unless one applies greater stress than the muscles can currently sustain, give those muscles time to heal, and then repeat the process yet again. And again. And again. No pain, no gain, as the old phrase goes, right?

In the TV fantasy drama "Once Upon a Time", the character Rumpelstiltskin was frequently bargaining with the other characters, the title of this post being a common phrase he cited frequently. The other major characters, seeking to change their fates, would often be tempted to use magic, and had to be reminded that such power always came at a price.

In the Japanese "Fullmetal Alchemist" stories, the principal "magic" is called "alchemy", and it works on the principle of "equivalent exchange". To "transmute" something that is into something it is not, a price must be paid, and so certain types of alchemy are forbidden because the costs are simply too great.

The prices we pay to make changes in the world are viewed as negatives by those who do not wish to pay them.

The prices we pay to make changes in the world are the foundation for perspective of those who do.

So many times in fictional stories do we see the characters try to have their cake and eat it too. To defeat the bad guys without violating their own principles. To win the heart of the fair maiden through acts of noble chivalry. To beat the other team through dedication and hard work.

Except that we have a lot of people who don't have perspective, who did not suffer the requisite pain, who did not pay the price, and they believe that because nobody has come to collect by now, that nobody is going to at all. Generations in on these arrogant bargains, whilst the devils we made them with watch the interest rise on such unpaid debts, they're in no rush to collect anytime soon.

These viewpoints are ultimately childish in nature, reflecting a severe immaturity and stagnation of understanding the reality we live in. A world which does not care for us, whether we live or die, whether we are happy or sad, there is but a cold indifference as entropy continues to undo all that is.

IVF has a price.
Contraception has a price.
Abortion has a price.
Divorce has a price.
Denial of genetics has a price.
Gluttony has a price.
Fornication has a price.
"Diversity" has a price.
Indoor plumbing has a price.

Each aspect of "advanced civilization" that materially separates us from the animals of the field comes at a price, and in our arrogance, we have made terrible deals and taunted fate to "do its worst". The only path forward is to pay the bill, or to make the debt disappear by eliminating the one who would seek to be repaid.

Any wonder why there is so much hatred for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? The one who judged the world, and then passed that role of judgment on to Jesus Christ? Ever wonder how atheists and agnostics are never triggered by any faith the way they are by Christianity?

They see the writing on the wall, the debt that they owe God for their rebellion, but believe that if they can eliminate their debts in this life, perhaps they can also find a way to do the same for the next. When Christians preach the Gospel and repentance, they remind everyone that there is only one way such debts can ever be repaid or eliminated. If such a thing is true, they are damned, and so they cling to the hope that Christians are wrong, and are driven passionately to show that there is nothing special, unique, or important about Christianity.

Jesus Christ paid the price so that sinners could be reconciled to God the Father, so that humanity could return to its place and purpose of bringing glory and honor to God through obedience and worship.

Unfortunately, many will arrogantly choose to bear their own burdens, even unto eternal damnation, rather then worship any but themselves and their own power, their own intellect, their own abilities and traits. Do not leave this life guilty of debts that cannot be repaid.

There are no innocents in hell.

Same action different reason

The choice by parents to not vaccinate their children is not a simple one. The Pro- and Anti- camps don't want to paint it that way, a simple binary is all that is apparently desired, at least among the voices that yell the loudest.

In discussions with my wife on the topic, I never could get her to understand the nature of my position regarding vaccines, in large part because I could see past the propaganda that each "side" was using to try and make the "us vs. them" as clear as possible.

Vaccines work. That is not controversial to people who are honest, the controversy comes entirely from what is built upon that simple fact, and that is where the "houses" of the Pro- and Anti- stances that are most popular will eventually crumble to the ground. The reason they haven't already is that enough time hasn't passed for the consequences of their errors to have played out completely.

For example, one disconnect that people struggle with is understanding the difference between how something works at the hypothetical level, and what we actually deal with in reality. An anecdotal argument of this type I got into with a friend years ago which highlighted this problem was on the topic of circles.

I had said that this: ____________ was the most accurate representation of a circle that we could materially make.

It's a 2d shape looked at from the side, so it becomes a 1d line.

The basic reason why this is the most accurate representation is that it has no thickness, and it has defined edges.

Now, the reason that the 2D shape most people associate with a circle is not nearly as accurate is because a circle has no corners or vertexes. From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, they even more specifically state: "a closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve".

From pixels on a screen to the arrangement of atoms in the graphite deposited on paper, we never actually achieve representing this perfectly. Pixels are arranged in a rectilinear manner, so while our eyes cannot perceive it, when we see a circle on a screen, it's an abstraction, a close but not-quite-perfect representation of a circle. Similarly, while our manufacturing efforts are impressive, the way that subatomic particles arrange themselves is something we still can't control at the individual particle level, and even what looks or feels to be a smooth surface, let alone a perfect circle, upon close inspection under a microscope reveals an imperfect arrangement. Now, in most cases, this difference is irrelevant, we can work just fine with the abstracted manifestation of a circle because the details which differentiate our imperfect manifestation from the definition can be safely ignored.

But under what circumstances are such differences sufficiently important?

Return policies for goods that we have purchased are a great example of an answer to that question. When we purchase something and expect a certain feature or functionality, and the resulting product does not have those features or functionality, we can make a value judgment on whether the difference is enough to demand that the product be replaced or currency refunded.

When the disparity between expectation and manifestation are sufficient, we do want to seek redress.

And that's the nature of the nuance with my position on vaccines.

I've seen the chart that shows how many communicable diseases saw significant reduction before the implementation of vaccines. Such a graph does not change the fact that vaccines work at all, but does address the cost-to-benefit ratio.

I've seen the paperwork criticizing the ingredients used in vaccines. Such papers do no change the fact vaccines work at all, but it does address how we make or store vaccines.

I've seen the claims about how children were harmed by vaccines. Such claims do not change the fact vaccines work at all, but does expose that whatever chemical combination was used in the vaccine triggered a response in an individual, and we should try to figure out what that is exactly, but the numbers clearly demonstrate that it's not a very common problem at all. It's not impossible, but it is improbable, but we should still seek to understand what factors affect the odds.

Finally, I've seen the articles from people who do try to explain how vaccines don't actually work, and while this would directly deal with the fact vaccines work at all, I do not possess the required expertise to tell when medical professionals who refute such articles in layman's terms that I do understand are simply lying.

To give an example of what that could look like, I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and both my job and hobbies all involve interactions with machines. Because of that knowledge and experience, when I see "Popular Mechanics" try to debunk criticisms of the 9/11 story, I can tell where they are hoping their audience doesn't know enough about structural engineering and materials science to see through the lies.

Similarly, I've worked in the aerospace industry for about a decade. With the recent resurgence of the popularity of "Moon Landing Hoax" theories, I can quickly tell who has really done their homework and really understands the mechanisms they're describing, whether Pro- or Anti-, and who is just parroting something that was merely sufficiently convincing for them to believe.

With vaccines, I don't have that innate ability because I haven't spent the time to become an expert. When I do start digging though, it doesn't take long for me to find that people forgot the "verify" part of "trust but verify". It's certainly possible that every piece of information I am looking at is a deceit, but then such a simplistic heuristic applied consistently would mean that I can't trust either the Pro- or Anti- stances regarding vaccines at all.

So when things are that bad, what choice does one have?

Well, at the most simplistic level, I cannot know the ingredients in a specific vial with any degree of certainty.

I don't know which ingredients are supposed to be there, and which aren't.

I simply don't know how big the disparity is between what is in a particular vial and what should be there based on the hypothetical ideal of a vaccine.

So the best answer is to believe neither, do nothing, and wait till more information can be gathered.

If we can't trust large organizations that sell products for a profit, then every Anti- website which sells books, herbs, supplements, and all sorts of alternatives is no more worthy of trust than the FDA or the CDC or "Big Pharma". They're all in it for themselves, and will say anything they need to drive you to make a choice that lines one of their pockets.

Eroding trust in established organizations has consequences that people still haven't fully comprehended.

Don't confuse people who act like you as doing so for the same reason. Don't mistake someone who seems to agree with you for having gotten there the same way that you did. And if people want to undermine trust instead of building accountability, just enjoy the show when the same simplistic and crude dynamics are used right back on them.

Spreading hate: Part 5

This is a continuation from Part 4, discussing the following article:

Spare the Rod: The Heart of the Matter

We last left off with the woman who authored this article trying to make some contrasts about behaviors before and after Jesus Christ, attempting to try and show that because things are now different after Christ's death and resurrection, parents don't have to discipline their children as they did prior to Jesus Christ having died on the cross, because in paying the price for sin, children are naturally less sinful than they were before. Or something like that.

I'll try to let her explain it.

My point is summed up in this verse:
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” (James 2:10)
In other words, if you feel bound by those five verses, then you must be bound by all.

If you recognize the wisdom in the good advice given in five verses, then you are bound to The Law, which is completely distinct from the passages in Proverbs.

Get that?

If you're "bound" to the advice given by Solomon in Proverbs, you're bound to all of The Law that God gave to Moses and the descendants of Israel.

Stupid stupid stupid.

People who aren't smart can't tell the difference between things. They literally cannot perceive a distinction in the patterns, they just see more of the same.

To say that this woman is stupid because she can't tell the difference between The Law and wisdom is being kind.

If you truly believe that those five verses have been interpreted correctly and that “spare the rod, spoil the child” (Note: There is no verse in the Bible that says ”spare the rod, spoil the child.” That phrase is actually from a satirical poem called Hudibras by Samuel Butler first published in 1662.) refers to an actual physical rod (instead of a symbol of guidance and loving correction…i.e. discipleship) and that the word used for ‘child’ refers to a toddler or small child instead of the actual linguistic translation meaning ‘young man,’ then so be it.

She hopes that nobody can tell the difference between "believing" and "knowing".

We can know what the verses literally say, there isn't any belief involved at all.

It's the folks who don't like what is said that must put their faith in twisting meaning in order to make themselves feel better.

Further, why wait till the end of the article to admit defeat? If her goal isn't to convince of truth, then she's just wanting to express how she feels.

How one woman feels is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches as good parenting.

But do you really believe that Jesus’ New Covenant is for everyone except children? That grace, mercy, unconditional love, and forgiveness are for adults only?
The disciples made that mistake, and Jesus said to them,

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” (Luke 18:16)

Five verses with questionable interpretations versus following Jesus’ example…no contest. [end excerpt]

Jesus' New Covenant doesn't apply to anyone that has rejected it, and we're not "born Holy", accepting it by default.

We're born in rebellion, spiritually dead.

And so the terms of the new covenant, the grace and mercy afforded by it, don't matter until faith has been placed in Jesus Christ.

Until the terms of the New Covenant has been accepted, they don't apply.

God's love may be unconditional, but salvation is not.

All have sinned, but not all will accept the gift of salvation.

God's love for those who have rejected God's love doesn't matter. What God did on their behalf is nullified by their rebellion, and so all that will be left is God's justice and wrath.

If folks don't understand that, adult or child, they will not grasp the weight and importance of salvation.

That is the point of the Gospel, that is the "good news", that we have hope.

Her last contributions are that of a footnote:

*Note: Hebrew is a very descriptive, picturesque (i.e. visual) language. In describing something that is out of the ordinary, words were often used to convey a deeper meaning using word pictures. That is the case with the word na’ar which means, literally, ‘independent male’ and refers to a young man, but is also used as a word picture in rare circumstances to convey an unnatural independence when referring to an infant or young child who has been ‘ripped away’ or become unnaturally ‘independent’ from the nurturing presence of a parent. This is the case with Moses as he was placed in a basket and sent away from his mother as an infant (yeled in Hebrew throughout the text of the Exodus account except for one word picture, na’ar, indicating the baby’s separation from his mother) and with Samuel who was left at the temple by his mother at a young age. In those unique instances, the word picture of a male made independent by unnatural circumstances is conveyed by the use of the word na’ar. In every other instance, na’ar literally means a male of independent age, a young man.

This woman is a worker of evil, seeking to spread hatred among parents, teaching them that in Jesus' name "what was good is now evil, and what was evil is now good". Her message is not the first of its kind, it won't be the last, and we're already seeing the terrible fruits that such a spirit brings forth in due time.

It is hatred of your children to not guide and direct them in an effective manner, whatever that ultimately requires of the parent. It is hatred of your children to leave them unskilled, undisciplined, unprepared to deal with life, and with a terrible ignorance as to the full nature of the God that will one day judge their eternal fate.

It is not love to look at sinful behavior and call it "acceptable", to make no effort to refine and teach as circumstances require. God was never passive.

Boys and girls respond to correction and rebuke differently, and I can speak to that with personal experience. Even what works with one boy won't work with another either, so even within the same gender, there are significant differences in how a child reacts to a parent providing rebuke.

To eliminate a viable means of correction is to spread hate. It is to pretend that the children which require more correction do not deserve the perseverance and commitment of their parents to the instruction that is required of that child. It is to play favorites with personalities, which were uniquely crafted by God, under the pretense that because of Jesus' sacrifice, children are now born Holy, with natural desires to remain Holy, and parents need only get out of their way for that process to work out.

When parents, together, correctly demonstrate all the attributes of God, then a child can have opportunity to grow in understanding as time goes on, being able to see how man and woman, together, embody the fullness of God in all things, both the attributes we find attractive and the ones which we don't because they require change of us from our sinful state.

For a final anecdote of the historical extremes that the author is clearly ignorant of, it wasn't until after Rome prohibited fathers from being able to execute significantly unruly children that Rome fell. It was a consistent departure from discipline, not an oppressive application of it, that signaled the end of that empire.

The truth is that children are born in rebellion, against their parents and against God, and parents need to fight hard to overcome such rebellion because both the temporal and eternal fate of their children is directly affected by the parent's choices in such matters.

Keep struggling parents, keep trying to the extent you are able. Jesus Christ has already died, so calibrate your sacrifices accordingly, but also know that the power of the Holy Spirit inside of you can give strength to do that which you could not do on your own. Like discipline a child because you love them and care for their future more than how you feel.

Spreading hate: Part 4

My apologies for the huge delay, this blog is not in my top priorities right now, but that will change in the near future.

To continue from Part 3, discussing the following article:

Spare the Rod: The Heart of the Matter

We last left off with the author of the article insisting that, even if one is not convinced by the butchering of the translations, we can just do away with all of it because we're now under a "new covenant" anyway. What this does is undermine the entire article up to this point, because if she's willing to dismiss anything that was in the old testament under the "old covenants", then it doesn't matter how they get translated at all in the first place.

Such contradictory behavior does not bode well. Let's continue.

We accept that Jesus brought a new and better way, a way of the heart, “Not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.” (2 Corinthians 3:3b), but don’t seem to want to acknowledge that better way with our children. We accept God’s grace and forgiveness for ourselves, but often don’t share those gifts with, and model them for, our children. But we are our children’s first taste of God. Is it any wonder people have such a hard time understanding grace and mercy and unconditional love when they may not have been taught those things by their earthly parents and don’t exercise them with their own children?

God's love might be unconditional, but God's wrath is not.

Failing to demonstrate this is why people's understanding of God now is so screwed up, why people think that God's attribute of love is so powerful that it overrides every other attribute permanently.

At no point is there an understanding that none of God's attributes overrides another, that none will singly define God, that you can't add or subtract from those attributes and end up with a being that even remotely approximates God.

Parents wanted to pick and choose which attributes of God to model, and in so doing, created a false image of what or who God really is. By pretending that there is no anger, no hatred, no animosity in God, people have created their own god to worship and adore, while the God of the Bible, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is ignored.

The God that commanded the extermination of sinful peoples simply does not exist anymore, and that's because Jesus Christ died on the cross so that instead of eternal damnation, we could have eternal life. The disconnect between the temporal and the eternal is significant and jarring to those who are paying attention.

Through Jesus’ sacrifice, he tore open the veil dividing man from God and brought a new kingdom, a kingdom of inner governance through the Holy Spirit whose fruit is “peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” Nowhere does Jesus say to follow him except when it comes to our children. He doesn’t say to offer grace and mercy and forgiveness to everyone except our children. The Bible doesn’t tell us to show the fruit of the Spirit to everyone except our children.

There is no "inner governance", there are just fewer barriers between God and man.

Further, we are not the Holy Spirit, it's a separate entity that resides within us to help us, but it is not an overriding force, it is an assistant.

This kind of subtle twisting of scripture is how female emotions were ever treated as an equivalent to the Holy Spirit.

Realize that if there is an "inner governance", then obviously truth is found "inside" and not "outside", so if "inside" you feel like something is wrong, that must obviously be the Holy Spirit really trying to tell you something, right?

Nope.

That's not how the Holy Spirit works, because the Spirit is often busy fighting the desires of the flesh, which do not disappear with the arrival of the Spirit as a new tenant.

The strength of convictions tells us almost nothing about whether such convictions are from God or not. How strongly we feel tells us nothing about the source of such feelings. We are still broken, at war, on the inside, and we won't find lasting peace until the next life when sin has finally been conquered.

Such misunderstandings are not the foundation upon which any parenting advice should be based.

If we truly believe that, based on five verses in the Old Testament with disputable translations and debatable interpretations, we are being disobedient to God’s commands if we don’t spank our children, then we must take that belief and walk it out fully.

It's just her disputes and her debates, based mostly on her feelings and not any truth, but we're not supposed to notice that she's trying to pretend that her convictions are really important in the grand scheme of things.

How well would a police officer respond to "but there is dispute and debate on how fast I am really supposed to drive!"

As stated in previous my entries, understanding is not prerequisite for obedience.

Further, it should be noted that what the Bible says about parenting won't align with God's message on salvation, because they are two very different circumstances. The two topics are connected in that they're discussed in the Bible, but because what's literally happening is different, what the Bible says about what a person is to do is going to be very different as well.

A user's manual for a car may list information on headlights and the stereo, and they both even may use electricity from the same battery in the car, but how you turn on or off headlights won't tell you anything about how to find a particular radio station.

What worked for one set of circumstances might work in another, but that should never be assumed to be the case. Different sets of instructions for different circumstances we'll encounter, and we can know the author of the article doesn't understand this because of how she continues.

In other words, if we must obey that supposed command, then we must obey all the other commands such as...

- an “eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24) and stoning adulterers (Leviticus 20:10) …but didn’t Jesus bring forgiveness?
- we shouldn’t feed the homeless because “if a man doesn’t work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10) …but aren’t we supposed to be the heart and hands of Jesus?
- we shouldn’t give Christmas shoeboxes to prisoners’ children because “the sins of the father are visited on the children” (Exodus 20:5) …but isn’t the “kingdom of heaven made up of such as these?” (Matthew 19:14)

This is retarded.

She's arguing that if God made any command on any topic in the old testament, then we can't just follow some of them, we have to follow all of them.

I'll say that again.

If God made ANY command on ANY topic, we have to follow ALL of it or NONE of it.

There is, according to this woman, no other option.

Which is why she chose to re-write scripture to her own liking by rejecting everything she didn't like and keeping only what "felt good", and that's before we even excoriate the detailed points she is trying to bring up.

The punishment for sins as detailed to the Hebrews were part of regulating their monarchy/theocracy. That was part of their legal system. As Gentiles who are not a part of that legal system, there is no need for us to enforce the Mosaic laws as were used to dictate the rituals and practices of the historical Israel.

But notice that the parenting advice references don't come from the Mosaic law, but instead come many many generations later, as wise advice from men who were described by God as being wise. These weren't commands for Israel to put into law, these were guidelines for behavior that would need to be adapted to the circumstances of the parent. If a child reacted merely to words, great, but refusing to do anything else would be a failure on the part of the parent to not actually provide effective correction and rebuke.

As to feeding the homeless, there is no command for Christians to take care of non-Christians. Every reference to charity and giving is within the scope of the Church. Those who are outside, still in rebellion with God, are not to be given access to the storehouses of the King when they plot his demise.

Even in the final days, when Jesus Christ judges the nations (races) of "goats" and "sheep", the "sheep" are not condemned by how poorly the "goats" treated their own. Read Matthew 25:31-46, and notice how the "sheep" and "goats" lived among each other until the end when they were finally separated. There will be nations of "goats" intermixed with nations of "sheep", but Jesus knows which are his, and the sheep are judged based on how they took care of Jesus' people.

So if a homeless person is a Christian, that is one thing. It's another if the homeless person is homeless because they are suffering the consequences of sinful rebellion and refuse to repent and turn to God. Job suffered greatly, but never stopped giving glory and honor to God. If people declare Jesus as Lord, then they are part of the family, and we are called to care for our family.

Except in cases of unrepentant sin. So even there, if someone declares Jesus as Lord, but is bringing sin with them into the fellowship because they will not repent, then they are not entitled to be cared for as the natural consequences play out.

Finally, anyone stupid enough to think that "not encouraging materialism" is somehow "visiting the sins of the father on the children" is simply not worth listening to. Buying gifts for someone who is struggling is a nice idea, but children whose parents are incarcerated don't need "stuff". It is not loving to them to buy things for them and then pretend like anything of value was done on their behalf. Such shallow and vapid gestures are why most churches, and most 'Christians', are a complete waste of time.

And it gets worse, as things continue on into Part 5.

Spreading hate: Part 3

This is a continuation of Part 2, discussing the following article:

Spare the Rod: The Heart of the Matter

So far, we've had the author of the article, a self-confessed feminist and social justice advocate, provide definitions to Hebrew words which do not align with how an actual concordance of Hebrew words says those are defined. We've then been going through the "problematic" verses and replacing what was literally there with her incorrect definitions, and we're not supposed to notice how magically this all works out to support her narrative regarding her opinions on parenting.

We continue with that.

And, the last two ‘rod’ verses, found in Proverbs 23:12-26 read:
“Apply your heart to instruction and your ears to words of knowledge.
Do not withhold discipline verbal instruction and teaching, reasoning together from a child young man; if you punish guide, trigger his conscience, favorably impress, entice/entrance them with the rod wisdom, leadership, protection, they will not die follow a path of destruction.
Punish Guide, trigger his conscience, favorably impress, entice/entrance them with the rod wisdom, leadership, protection and save them from death following a path of destruction.
My son, if your heart is wise, then my heart will be glad indeed; my inmost being will rejoice when your lips speak what is right.
Do not let your heart envy sinners, but always be zealous for the fear of the Lord. There is surely a future hope for you, and your hope will not be cut off.
Listen, my son, and be wise, and set your heart on the right path: Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags.
Listen to your father, who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old.
Buy the truth and do not sell it—wisdom, instruction and insight as well. The father of a righteous child young man has great joy; a man who fathers a wise son rejoices in him. May your father and mother rejoice; may she who gave you birth be joyful!
My son, give me your heart and let your eyes delight in my ways.”

Get the drift? Do you see the deception and lies at play here, where she re-writes scripture as she sees fit, ignoring what God has actually said in favor of what suits her own convictions?

Eve did the same thing in the garden, and look where that got us.

Such a beautiful image of a father tenderly and diligently sharing his wisdom with his son, isn’t it? Clearly, applying these scriptures to small children is not in line with a literal interpretation. It actually makes more sense to apply them to the disciples, which is exactly what Jesus does with his twelve ‘sons.’

Words are a part of it, but they aren't all of it, or the end of it. When words fail, actions matter, and ultimately, just like with Israel, it doesn't matter of a child understands why so long as they comply in a timely fashion. Understanding requires time, and we don't always have that on our side.

Applying these scriptures "from the age of infancy to adolescence" is completely "in line with a literal interpretation", unless we just throw out what words actually mean in favor of what we want them to mean, and then scriptures will tell us anything we want them to tell us because we're just making it up as we go anyway.

Beyond translations and interpretations, though, and of far greater import, what seems to get lost in the spanking debate is that Jesus brought grace and mercy as his methods and message for a reason. The purpose of the law in the Old Testament was to highlight the need for a Savior because humans simply cannot live perfectly.

Yes, let's not dwell on perverting scripture and talk empty platitudes that don't really apply at all, because The Law was also how mankind reconciled with God, not just how the need for reconciliation was demonstrated in the first place.

Jesus' death was not just to bring God's love, but also to provide us a path out of God's wrath, God's final judgment and punishment of, sin.

Neglecting to bring up that God will judge all sin, and that those who "died in their trespasses" without reconciliation, will suffer judgment for their rebellion, is a nice way to keep the tone light and jovial.

No need to worry about eternal damnation because God loves me, right? WRONG.

God's love does not excuse our sins, but provides a means by which a debt we could not repay is lifted. The debt still exists, we are just no longer responsible for paying it, Jesus Christ is and did on the cross already.

Humans who go to hell rejected a free gift, and deserve the judgment and punishment God deems appropriate for them.

Jesus came to fulfill the outward requirements of the law that highlighted man’s sins and replace them with an inner heart change. He demonstrated in many ways that the law (outer governance and control through fear of punishment) was no longer to be a rigid yoke with its heavy burden of cleansing and rituals and sacrifices and punishments, but instead was to be a kingdom of the heart, of mercy not sacrifice, because the sacrifice was Himself.

Jesus cut out the "middle men" of the temple, and all the rituals and traditions related to temple worship, and that's pretty much it. He replaced an existing arrangement with one that was more personal, but the ultimate goal, the expected result of this, wasn't new.

God always wanted "inner heart change", when Israel demanded a King, God stated that it was not a rejection of the earthly, but a rejection of God ruling over their hearts.

Jesus did not offer anything that hadn't already been offered before, he just lowered the "barrier to entry".

Jesus stopped the people from stoning the prostitute (John 8:2-11) which was a requirement in the Old Testament. (Deuteronomy 22:21-22)

Jesus Christ was in a position to forgive the sins which would have prompted The Law to exact punishment in the first place. Nobody else is in this position. Everybody goes through, or rejects, Jesus Christ.

If she continued to live in sin, her eternal fate would have been unchanged.

Jesus healed people and traveled on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14) which was punishable by death in the Old Testament. (Exodus 31:14-17 and Numbers 15:32-36)

Jesus was the one the Sabbath was to be kept in honor of, so again, being above The Law, he could choose how it would ultimately be applied.

Jesus consorted with ‘sinners’ and ate with them (Luke 15:1-2) despite the admonitions in Proverbs 13:20. (the same book in the Bible with the ‘rod’ scriptures)

He who walks with wise men will be wise,
But the companion of fools will be destroyed. - Proverbs 13:20 (NKJV)

All sinners are fools, but not all fools are sinners.

Jesus showed again and again that if we accept him as our Savior, we are called to be “ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:6)

This works great for those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Nobody is borne accepting that, but instead, we are all born rejecting God from the start, due to arrogance and ignorance.

As such, children are at even greater risk of sin, and greater efforts should be put forth to constrain and guide their behavior so that they do not continue in sin, whether they can comprehend the temporal consequences, let alone eternal, or not.

We'll break here and continue in Part 4.

Spreading hate: Part 2

This is a continuation of Part 1, discussing the following article:

Spare the Rod: The Heart of the Matter

Let's begin where we left off, in a section of failed translation attempts in order to set up the later twisting of scripture to suit a demonic agenda where parents are told that acting in hatred for their children is actually loving.

We live in disturbing times where good is called evil, and evil called good.

The word nakah is translated ‘punish’ in most English translations of the Bible, though its literal translation is ‘beat’ as in “The sun beat down on his head,” implying a constant presence; or ‘hit’ as when beating back an enemy or punishing a slave or criminal; or ‘smite or smitten’ which can mean ‘hit or trigger the conscience’ or ‘be favorably impressed, enticed, or entranced’ as in, “He was smitten with the idea of a new bicycle.”

Overexposure to the sun can kill you, but even so, she's still very wrong, and this is the kind of wrong that would be funny if it weren't so terribly wrong.

nakah - to smite

The expanded definition:

A primitive root; to strike (lightly or severely, literally or figuratively) -- beat, cast forth, clap, give (wounds), X go forward, X indeed, kill, make (slaughter), murderer, punish, slaughter, slay(-er, -ing), smite(-r, -ing), strike, be stricken, (give) stripes, X surely, wound.

The author of the article used synonyms for "smitten" in her description, not realizing that she'd latched onto the wrong connotation, because the kind of smitten referred to in this term's definitions is often associated with death. She can't even handle the subtleties of English correctly, but we're supposed to trust her with Hebrew?

The word shebet is translated ‘rod’ and means, literally, ‘shepherd’s crook’ and, in Hebrew culture, was a means not only of guiding and protecting sheep, but also a symbol of leadership. The markings on the head of the shebet often identified the head of a family or tribe, letting everyone know who to go to for guidance and protection. The shebet, then, denotes wisdom, leadership, and protection.

shebet - rod, staff, club, scepter, tribe

Surprise, she got this one wrong too, and then made it worse. So much worse.

You see, she talks about what shebet means, and then shifts to what shebet denotes.

What a thing actually is tells us nothing about what that thing means to people. A crown is not the King, and even though Kings often have crowns, a King without his crown is still the King.

The crown is just an indicator, not an actual authority, by itself it's literally just a head garment, with no meaning beyond what we supply.

And it's the same with shebet. It's a literal thing that exists, not what significance that thing holds because it exists. The two concepts are completely different and not interchangeable at all.

But the author wants to use the definition for what shebet meant to people instead of what shebet literally is, because that's how she weaves her deception and lies while trying to appear intellectual and pious.

If you're still struggling with this, don't worry, it will get clearer later on.

The word muwth is translated ‘die’ and has several meanings related to death including ‘to follow a path of destruction.’
The word ‘ivveleth is translated ‘foolishness’ but also means ‘inexperience, naivety, silliness.’

muth - to die
ivveleth - folly

"To follow a path of destruction" does not show up in the concordance entry for muth.

Ivveleth is actually pretty close to spot on, so good on her for finally getting something right.

And, finally, the Hebrew word sane is translated ‘hate’ and yet means ‘does not love’ or ‘does not choose or show a preference for.’

And then right back to the deceptive re-interpretations.

sane - to hate

Expanded:

A primitive root; to hate (personally) -- enemy, foe, (be) hate(-ful, -r), odious, X utterly.

There is nothing in there about "does not love" or "show preference for", and it is a strong term meant to carry a lot of weight. Look at one of the synonyms in that list:

odious - Arousing or meriting strong dislike, aversion, or intense displeasure. See Synonyms at hateful.

This is not just some passive overlooking, an apathetic state, it's an active and strong connotation.

So, why is all this nitpicking necessary? Because of what she does next in butchering scripture:

When we read the five ‘rod’ verses with the literal translations of the words above, the meanings become more clear.
So Proverbs 13:24 reads:
“He who spares his rod wisdom, leadership, protection hates does not love, does not choose or show a preference for his son, but he who loves him disciplines offers verbal instruction and teaching to him promptly.”

She takes all her incorrect definitions and swaps them into the text to get it to say what she wants it to say.

Remember, shebat isn't "wisdom, leadership, protection", but literally rod, staff, club, scepter, tribe.

Hate is to hate, not simply "not loving".

Even "He who spares his" is translated from chasak, meaning "to withhold, refrain".

We're supposed to believe that "to withhold, refrain" the "rod, staff, club, scepter, tribe" means to withhold "wisdom, leadership, protection", despite those things not actually being a part of even the broad definition of the word?

I mean, there's already a different word just for wisdom:

chokmah - From chakam; wisdom (in a good sense) -- skilful, wisdom, wisely, wit.

If the intent was to not withhold wisdom, instead of a literal beating, why would the original authors have referenced an instrument of physical punishment instead of their own word for wisdom?

Why has it taken centuries for the "true meaning" to now become correctly known?

This is twisting scripture, violating and abusing it until the point one wants to make can be made. Like torturing a prisoner until the relent and just confess to whatever they're being told to confess. This is not exegesis, this is demonic.

"Did God really say...?" was the nature of the deception the serpent posed to Eve in the garden.

Proverbs 22:15 reads:
“Foolishness Naivety, silliness, inexperience is bound up in the heart of a child young man; the rod of correction wisdom, leadership, protection will drive it far from him.”

Here it's even worse, because she ignores that "the rod" and "of correction" are two different words, one of which she completely neglected to provide a definition for.

"The rod" we already know, shebet, but "of correction" is translated from musar - discipline, chastening, correction. She and those like her rely on the ignorance and laziness of others to never look at the text and see if they're really representing it accurately, let alone interpreting it correctly.

If we have a "rod, staff, club, scepter, tribe" of "discipline, chastening, correction", that apparently just means "wisdom, leadership, protection", and instead of trying communicate this clearly and succinctly by using words which actually mean those things, we are meant to believe that Solomon, easily among the wisest who have ever walked the earth, decided to use a play on words that would immediately be interpreted as physical disciplining for thousands of years until a feminist social justice advocate decided to clear everything up for all of humanity.

This is the part where one should roll their eyes with incredulity at the arrogance and ignorance on display by folks like the author of this article.

It continues.

Proverbs 29:15 reads:
“The rod Wisdom, leadership, protection and rebuke reasoning with, convincing, proving, persuading give wisdom, but a child young man left to himself brings shame to his mother.”

Remember, this is her re-interpreting scripture based on the definitions that don't exist in a concordance.

The whole "child isn't a child, but a young man" thing was shown to be wrong, because the term can be used "from the age of infancy to adolescence".

The word "rebuke" here is towkechah - rebuke, correction.

So, yet again, she is taking her clearly incorrect definitions to force the text to say what she wants, instead of properly seeking to explain what the text actually states.

We'll make another break here, continuing in Part 3.

Spreading Hate: Part 1

Things have been busy and I've been reticent to post anything, but upon having an article shared with me, I was prompted to write down my response so that it would be easier to capture a detailed response.

Spare the Rod: The Heart of the Matter

That is a link to the full article which will be copy/pasted here as well, but at least this way you can know I am not making this stuff up.

One of the hot-button issues when it comes to discipline and children is, of course, spanking, and the more Christian and conservative the audience, the more hot the debate becomes. And yet there are no verses in the New Testament that support spanking, smacking, whipping, or otherwise hitting children.

There are New Testament verses that discourage women ever teaching outside a very narrow scope, but we'll save that for later.

There are no verses in the New Testament forbidding women from attention whoring themselves out through social media. That surely must mean that it's acceptable by God if there's no verses dealing with that explicit topic, right?

No, because the Bible isn't trying to address specific behaviors in every possible manifestation, but to deal with, as the article tries to imply, the "heart of the matter", the motivations behind behaviors which are considerably simpler and fewer in number than how those motivations can be acted out.

There won't be a verse for every action someone could take, but there is a verse for why someone would act at all.

In the Old Testament there are a total of five verses that have been interpreted to encourage, or even command, the use of physical punishment on children. All five of those verses are in the book of Proverbs. The word ‘proverb’ in the original Hebrew text is mashal and defined as a parable, prophetic and figurative discourse, symbolic poem, pithy maxim (i.e.a collection of wise metaphors and adages).

Jesus often spoke in parables, and that hasn't stopped anyone from taking what he taught seriously, let alone literally, for good or ill. The number of times I have seen the parable of "the good Samaritan" used to justify everything from foreign aide to welfare, whether such charities are what Jesus was commanding or not, is sufficient evidence that people have no problems with such abstract teachings, so long as they like what those teachings teach.

We don't get to choose what the Bible means to us, because it's not "our" text. It's God's text, and so there are going to be controversial things in it that we disagree with, but realize that we're then disagreeing with God.

That's all well and fine if you do not then turn around and try to declare that you are obedient to God when you are ignoring what God actually states. Such disloyalty is not endearing to God, or to those who can see the disparity.

Of interest is that ancient Hebrew had many words for children, each denoting a specific stage of childhood and many a specific gender:
yeled or yaldah – newborn boy or girl
yonek or yanak – nursling baby
olel – nursling baby who also eats food (translated ‘young child’ in Lamentations 4:4 KJV)
gamal – weaned child (around 3-4 years old)
taph – young child, one who still clings to their mother
elem or almah – firm and strong, older child
na’ar (masc.) or na’arah (fem.) – independent child, young adult child (includes older adolescents and young adults).

Let's see how well she did by cross-referencing with an actual concordance:

yeled - child, son, boy, youth
yaldah - girl, maiden
yonek - no concordance entry
yanaq - to suck
olel or olal - a child
gamal - to deal fully or adequately with, deal out to, wean, ripen
taph - children
elem - a young man
almah - a young woman, a virgin
naar - a boy, lad, youth, retainer
naarah - a girl, maiden

Now, I would recommend that you read the full entries because some of what she says is true, because she's ignoring the nature of the Hebrew language where they have a significantly smaller vocabulary so, while in English, words don't tend to have a variety of nuanced meanings, in Hebrew this is almost always the case, and you don't get a sense of that as an English reader or speaker unless you look at the concordance.

Further, the concordance entries are of the root word, not necessarily the rendering used in a particular verse, and this is how a smaller vocabulary makes up for itself, by being able to communicate connotation through how the root word is changed for the context. The root word will be modified, sometimes significantly, but it's not technically a new word, it's that same root word, but now with the added meaning from context that then attempts to deliver the full message.

Her claims about the definitions are at best incomplete and worst entirely misleading, especially because she did not actually identify which ones they were in a way that folks could easily verify her claims for themselves.

The word translated ‘child’ and ‘children’ in those Old Testament rod verses is na’ar, which when literally translated, means ‘young man.’

Not only is she literally wrong, to quote a more detailed part of the entry for naar:

From na'ar; (concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence; by implication, a servant; also (by interch. Of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age) -- babe, boy, child, damsel (from the margin), lad, servant, young (man).

Can you see how that is not very specific definition at all, and how we'd need a lot more information than just the word by itself to really understand what is being said?

Let’s look, also, at the words translated ‘discipline’ and ‘punish’ and ‘rod’ and others:
The word muwcar is translated ‘discipline’ and means, literally, ‘verbal instruction and teaching.’ In Hebrew culture muwcar was vernacular for ‘let us reason with one another’ implying a mutual discussion for learning purposes. And towkechah is translated ‘reprove’ or ‘rebuke’ but also means ‘reason with, convince, prove, persuade.’ Neither of these words means to physically punish in any way, shape, or form.

"Your search - muwcar - did not match any documents."
towkechah - rebuke, correction

It's not good to reference a Hebrew word that doesn't show up in a concordance.

For the other one, again, look at how it is used and remember that there may not be another root word which carries this category of meaning. If you have one word for this type of correction relationship, then regardless of how that correction is supplied, this word is likely going to show up.

If you look at the verses outside Proverbs where this root word shows up, you'll see that what is common among them all is not the manner of correction, or why rebuke is occurring, but that it is occurring at all in some fashion.

As an example of how the root word can be used differently, I'll bold and recolor where it shows up in the following passage:

Let the saints be joyful in glory;
Let them sing aloud on their beds.
Let the high praises of God be in their mouth,
And a two-edged sword in their hand,
To execute vengeance on the nations,
And punishments on the peoples;
To bind their kings with chains,
And their nobles with fetters of iron;
To execute on them the written judgment—
This honor have all His saints.

Praise the Lord! - Proverbs 149:5-9 (NKJV)

You can see it for yourself with an interlinear translation. Now, this doesn't mean that this is the same exact meaning as used anywhere else in scripture, but to demonstrate the flexibility of meaning that exists with the Hebrew language's root words.

That said, how many entirely verbal debates involve a two-edged sword in one's hand to execute vengeance?

Given how the article continues, we'll break here for Part 2.

Policing the flock

Men who are natural "alphas" will naturally form a "tribe" around themselves. They become a focal point for a social circle, and they are usually the one who is responsible for determining who is "inside" or "outside" said circle.

Newcomers seeking to gain entry in the group must pass the criteria set by the one who defines that social group's policies.

The problem with this is that most people have been brought up on the idea that exclusivity is evil, that segregation is inherently wrong, and so any group that someone wishes to belong to should not ever reject them, or make their participation difficult, for any reason at all. As such, most people do not understand how their behavior will be regulated by the leader of their group. What they are allowed to do or not to is not unlimited.

Groups where there is no definition struggle with coherency, because if there is nothing that defines the group, how does one know it even exists, let alone demonstrate membership of it?

Given that, there is a difference then between disliking someone because they perform that role at all, and disliking the traits of the specific social circle that they shepherd.

Owen Benjamin is a popular fellow, famous or infamous depending on who you talk to, and in large part it's because he's forming a "tribe" through the internet, and what he's doing is so foreign to so many people, they don't even know how to frame their reactions.

For him, it's natural, because his personality is more "alpha", so while it's possible he's applying conscious thought to the process, a lot of it will be instinctual as well, and because of how naturally he looks after "his own", outsiders think that the problem they have with him is that. In his care for and protection of those who he cares most about.

The reality is that they probably just don't like the particulars of his "tribe", because they don't and shouldn't belong to "his", and so instead of trying to change Owen to suit them, they need to go find someone they are already suited for better in the first place.

They need to go elsewhere to find their "tribe", instead of trying to get Owen to change his to accommodate.

What complicates this is ease of access, so natural laziness will prevent people from putting in the work that they should to find "their people", and they'll instead try to project themselves out into the internet and complain when people don't live up to their expectations.

I was listening to a somewhat older Darkstream and the nature of the complains fielded were that people were attracted to Owen, but then repulsed by some of his behaviors. They were attracted to the role that Owen was playing, because of how natural and synthetic male alphas have been denigrated and undermined in Western Civilization, but they were put out by the particulars of the "tribe" that he presided over not being "theirs".

The problem isn't Owen, it's them. They are the ones who tried to latch onto the first person resembling a leader that came along, instead of doing their own part to make sure that said leader was someone they could or should even be following in the first place.

Owen is establishing his own terms, and if you don't like them, that doesn't mean you don't like him, just that he's not the correct fit. Move on. He's not the only fish in the sea.

Appreciate and respect that he cares enough about the social circle that he is cultivating to define it, to give it an identity, to ensure that it is kept safe from predators and manipulators who would seek to do harm to those under his digital care.

You don't need to agree with him on anything to understand that the role he is fulfilling, and the consequences of fulfilling that role, are natural and essential to the proper functioning of society.

Instead of getting Owen to change, we should instead be encouraging more men to stand up for their own "tribe", to stop being ashamed of having preferences, to stop pretending that people and cultures which are different and incompatible are anything else than that.

Leave Owen, and Owen's "tribe", alone. They owe you nothing, and acting like they do only reinforces why you are still "outside".

Patience is a virtue

Vox Popoli: Too little, too late?

...but what was once a morale booster has become an irrelevance.

The Q anon movement has one of the most difficult challenges: to save The People from themselves, without creating a messianic figurehead.

To cite a parallel in scripture:

Then one in the council stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people, and commanded them to put the apostles outside for a little while. And he said to them: “Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.” - Acts 5:34-39 (NKJV)

It is not difficult to create a movement, especially if one is good at emotional alchemy. If I can understand how to convert other people's emotions into actions, then I can become quite popular and a movement will come up around me, for at least two reasons. The first reason is laziness, in that humans will by default take the path of least resistance, and so if that means anointing someone over themselves who will do what needs to be done, time and again history has showed this is exactly what people will do, even to their detriment. 1 Samuel 8 records an example of this phenomenon. Now, this laziness is not an inherently "bad" trait, in that another way to look at it would be as "efficiency", in that spending time and effort on things which do not confer a survival or reproductive advantage will obviously prevent the maximization survival and reproductive success, and so such waste should be avoided.

The second reason is the phenomenon of salvation-by-association, or its antithesis, damnation-by-association, in that the adage "it's all who you know" has some truth to it. If we are in close relationship with God, that says something about us. Who we know, who we choose to associate with, and who in return chooses to associate with us, is not insignificant. In the wild, creatures are rarely alone, and both r and K strategists have groupings of their kind. Being isolated from "your people", or "your savior", is a terrible state to be in, and the power of exile, which lives on in banning, holds such a significant connotation because of what such an act would have meant throughout human history.

My wife recently asked me about the "place in society" for narcissists, and the conversation rapidly spiraled in scope as I tried to explain how, historically, they didn't have one, but in modern times, because the cost of depravity is so low, that we are nearly forced to demonstrate narcissistic traits just to survive. That, if we are not protected from being screwed over by others by understanding how people screw other people over, we're likely to get screwed and be at a loss to understand how to behave differently to prevent such exploitation from being repeated again in the future.

That, in some ways, the best means to avert being exploited by someone else is to use their same tricks better than them, but instead of misdirecting them to your own benefit, you simply send them away so that no further exploitation is possible. You use the power of the tools to defuse the circumstances, not keep them going, lest one become intoxicated by the power they wield and become the very thing they'd sought to avoid.

So, for those two reasons, it is just easier for people to look up to someone who has such power and can use it wisely, to someone who can save them from themselves, to offload their own personal responsibility to someone else who can make the decisions for them, to place someone else in a position of authority or power so that the individual is "set free" of such burdens.

That's where Q, whoever it is, has to play a very delicate game, because to really solve the issues in the United States of America, The People need to do the opposite. Instead of putting other people in power over us, we need to own and accept responsibility for our choices. Instead of giving up power to someone else, we must grow in our own strength and maturity.

We must reject our nature and go beyond it, but how can someone inspire someone else to save themselves?

To start, a framework for needing to be saved must exist, and this was generated by Q in detailing how evil and corrupt and terrible things are, and people just don't know it yet, don't accept it, don't understand it. Without this foundation, no further actions can be made, because if there is nothing that people need saving from, then why all the fuss?

Once the framework has been set up, there must be an understanding of responsibility, how things are supposed to be based on how things are now. An example of this might be President Trump hitting a legislative wall that he cannot burst through, but instead of trying harder to do just that, he steps back, shrugs, and says "I am not supposed to be breaking this down in the first place."

To his supporters and opponents alike, this will look like weakness, like giving up, and it will inspire action.

You see, President Trump can't just solve all the problems and then walk away, because when people get things done, when someone saves someone else, a relationship forms which does not go away once all the problems have been dealt with. There will remain the shared history, the debt to be repaid, and I am willing to bet that Trump understands this and wants none of it, because it is that kind of debt which clouds reality.

So Trump, to prevent becoming King, cannot be anything more than a President, but that does not mean he cannot make a big show of the limitations, or lack thereof, for the office in which he currently serves.

Trump needs the people to understand what a President is supposed to be, how they are supposed to act, what the expectations are, because while Trump was elected by many to grenade the existing system, the emotional desire to burn it all down was going to neglect the good and the bad in the system. People weren't going to learn anything if Trump did all the work, and Trump was the "last hope" to try and fix the system from within.

If Trump "can't do it", if the system is truly beyond repair, then Trump doesn't matter. The wall doesn't matter. Draining the swamp doesn't matter.

Because all of those things only really matter, in the grand scheme, if the system will keep going as it has.

Do people really think that, when Civil War V2.0 gets started, that the existing border between the United States and Mexico won't change?

Does a system of surveillance that relies on the internet retain its power to interfere with people's privacy if there is no electricity?

Does a centralized government which has created a police state still have the ability to uphold an oppressive rule of law thousands of miles away when they cannot even communicate across a single city effectively?

These types of questions are what folks should be asking themselves. These are what should frame the reaction.

It would be great if Trump succeeds, if he can pull off all that he set out to, but if he can't, it won't really matter what he has or hasn't pulled off in the first place. He's bought people time either way, and that is a gift.

With Q then, people are getting frustrated because predictions are made but not fulfilled. Ruminations of action, but no results.

The thing is, whoever is behind Q can't be operating on any sort of different MO than President Trump. They are trying to serve a purpose, to fulfill a role in the story, but they cannot become a messiah. Q can't "save the country", but it can lay the groundwork for The People to do so themselves, or if nothing else, again, prepare them for what will come by expanding their understanding of just how depraved anyone around them could really be.

Time will tell what the fruits of Trump and the folks behind Q are, because if they're already fighting Civil War V2.0, if there's a cold war going on for the control of the throne, then the dust hasn't truly settled, we are still in the chaos and "fog of war", and it would be delusional to think that we can properly judge their actions based on the information we have available.

What looks stupid, cowardly, unwise in one moment may no longer look so when further context is added in. When perspective is gained.

And we're denied that, because we can't foresee how things will really play out.

Perhaps, in time, even electing Trump will have been considered a mistake, because had Clinton won, the patient which was already too far gone could have been left in peace instead of going through painful treatments with no hope of success. That, instead of trying to fix the system, we could already have scrapped this one and been well on the way to trying something new.

Unless you, or I, know at least as much as Trump does, as the folks behind Q do, it's from a position of ignorance that we sling our barbs, our criticisms, and so while providing feedback is not a bad thing, it must be tempered with at least the ponder of "why didn't they do what appeared obviously in their best interests to do?"

Trump still needs to hear the fervor, the passion, the support of his goals and the frustration when they are not satisfied from The People who have his back, but if nowhere but your own mind, actually disqualify the alternatives to stupidity and cowardice before presuming those completely explain what is observed.

And then make preparations of your own. And then wait and see what happens.

There's always a reason, even if it's poor, for why someone does something. Time always ends up revealing that, taking away the guesswork of mind-reading.

Only time will tell

As Roosh discusses in the video, if you had told him what his future held, he'd have not taken the traveler from the future seriously.

In the male socio-sexual parlance as coined by Vox Day, gammas are fixated on proving their worth, but the manner in which they go about doing it only highlights how little they really have, because of the dynamic of time. Gammas simply don't have the patience to put in the hard work and then await proper recognition. It's not that they can't do the work, but that they want the recognition well before it's deserved. and when they don't get what they want, instead of "well I'll show you" vengeance-based display of genuine competence, they simply melt down emotionally.

Instead of fulfilling their claims, they declare in a huff that it would be a waste of time, which is what makes them a waste of time.

A delta, on the other hand, wants to put in the hard work first and is only jilted after they've already demonstrated competence and yet are still not recognized for having done a good job. The response for the delta is not an emotional outburst, however, but a concern that maybe the job wasn't done as well as they thought. Maybe there was something they missed or forgot.

The problem is that a delta can come across like a gamma when they don't understand what an actual demonstration of worth looks like. Instead of pursuing skills in things that are genuinely useful, deltas can be derailed into counter-productive behavior by existing gammas who insist that the delta who learns to act like a gamma will be super successful! The delta, in a Dunning-Kruger moment, does not immediately understand how wrong this is, and sets himself towards mastering the art of the gamma, and is thus jilted when realizing that they had invested in their own self-destruction.

To unlearn and relearn takes time, and thus why so few gammas, whether genuine or synthetic, rarely escape their own mental traps. Pride based in skills, even which hurt the practitioner, is a hard thing to overcome.

So, what does that have to do with Roosh and his book for women?

At a certain point in time, people can be right or wrong. A delta can act like a gamma. A gamma can fool someone into thinking they're an alpha. An alpha can net a high quality sexual partner. These behaviors describe moments in time, but moments alone don't tell us everything, thus the byline of this blog.

Roosh is a man who has learned lessons the hard way, over time, because nobody told him the truths that he now understands at a deep and intimate level. Better yet, he's trying to be a father-like figure, or at least a passive mentor, to try and share these discovered truths with others so that they can make better choices earlier in life, to avoid reinventing the wheel, to avoid creating further damage that the behaviors he engaged in for over a decade can cause in society.

Over time, what was before almost always changes, and yet how it changes tells us more about an individual than what they were at any one point in time. The trajectory of life is more significant than where it started from, or even how long anyone has been on a path.

Some people follow a path based on fate, a passive submission to whatever life throws at them. Others are much more intentional, seeking to shift the odds in favor of an outcome or circumstance they think desirable. Others still submit to those who may not know where an individual should try to reach, what destination they should strive for, but they can provide skills so that when that journey begins, the individual is well equipped to deal with all they will face.

In Christianity, this process is referred to as sanctification, and what matters most isn't how quickly you got on that path, but that you're even walking that path at all, because only those whose eternal fate has already been reconciled with God stay on that path over time.

There are times when Christians stumble, or are led astray, but if they've truly been saved, they can and will always return to that path.

Due to the obvious material consequences of Christian morality, it is possible for those who have not yet been saved to mimic this walk. To try and brute force the changes in their life, to find some way to emulate the same results, albeit by any other process than having bent the knee to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

And while they can walk that path for a while, it won't last. In due time, the fruits of their labor are exposed, their true priorities laid bare, their genuine allegiance made clear, such that on judgment day, only those who have remained ignorant of what Jesus taught as recorded in Matthew 7 will be surprised by the final roster.

Roosh is on a path that leads to the most important decision in his life, he is searching out truths and actively investing in change to his mortal benefit, and we can pray that he also chooses eternally as well, but either way, his change and his current efforts are just a point in time. Today he's releasing a book, but what of tomorrow?

What path will he keep walking? Will he draw on the strength of Jesus Christ to continue resisting the temptations of the flesh, to truly conquer sin in his life, or will he succumb to the desires of this life?

In the same manner, will a gamma shut up and just do their job?

Will a delta who has been misled swallow their pride and admit they were wrong?

There is but one source of change which supersedes all others, and that's Jesus Christ. With Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we can remain on the path of sanctification, and in time the results will be glorious and magnificent, even if we can't see them now, or only get to witness them in eternity.

Do not let what someone was yesterday define who they can be today, and yet do not forget who they were yesterday either, because it is what they are in the moment, and the context that moment in time, that truly reveals to us who someone really is.

Snow signals the end of times

Yesterday there was snow in my area, and we don't normally get much snow on a regular basis, so the commute was terrible in the morning as folks struggled to keep their cars from sliding off the highway or into each other. I myself was somewhat less prepared than I could have been, but I have decent tires and am not a bad driver, but upon reflection of today's commute, it's just a sign of the times that we are in.

Namely, that on the day when snow was falling, less people should have been trying to brave it, because neither their skills or vehicles were suitable to be out in such weather, and this phenomenon isn't restricted to a specific category of vehicle either.

There were pickups, jeeps, and other 4WD/AWD vehicles who were slipping around considerably more than they should have. It became easy to guess which vehicles had automatic transmissions, because the purpose of a torque converter is to act as a torque multiplier at low RPM, so they with even the smallest amount of depressing the accelerator generated wheelspin and sliding.

Folks were also trying to change lanes as if getting to work a minute or two faster made any difference, making steering and throttle inputs much too crude to make such a movement safely and carefully.

The contrast is that today, since we had no new snow, and the temperatures got above freezing yesterday afternoon, the roads were mostly clear. But the damage was done, and many folks in FWD commuter cars were still so frightened by the prior day's experience that they could barely get within 10 miles an hour of the posted speed limits, which means that even more traffic is in store for the area as folks who are driving too slow try to merge.

This phenomenon is an example of what I've lazily categorized under "volatility" in my conversations. It's not that there are accidents all the time per se, there were many of those, but that the odds of an accident happening are much higher than people realize. The variation in outcomes when things are left to fate is wild, with some folks getting by without a scratch, and others apparently not able to catch any breaks at all, and there doesn't appear to be any real difference between their circumstances other than one had "bad luck" and the other didn't.

The problem with this mentality is that luck is made in the same way that dental hygiene is sustained. No one act makes or breaks your future, but it is the aggregate of the smaller choices and habits you make over time that determine your "luck", and a lot of folks have presumed that because they've not run out of luck so far, that they may never at this rate.

What folks like that don't realize is that odds can shift without you being prepared. While I can't do much to avert the consequences of an asteroid strike on the planet, if I were to end up like Flint, without potable water for years, there are steps I can take to ensure that, should the circumstances go bad, I've not got "good luck" by random chance, but because I planned ahead.

The struggle with planning ahead is that means short-term sacrifices in fun and entertainment. Instead of an ultra-performance summer tire, for example, I chose an ultra-performance all-season tire, which sacrifices dry and wet weather traction at high speeds for the ability to retain traction in snow and ice. I also ordered a set of chains instead of putting money towards something fun or exciting, just so that when such a snow does fall again, I am even better prepared.

But that's a roll of the dice as well. I have increased my odds of success contingent on there being snow again.

This is the heart of the struggle with preparation, and given that most folks haven't even started to try and address it in their own lives, what we see is "volatility". Accidents which weren't necessary, damage and chaos which could have been avoided, all simply because people didn't want to make the necessary sacrifices now in order to facilitate a higher chance of success later. There is no growth, no maturing, no learning, only experiencing.

So what happens if the snow doesn't melt away in a day, or for a week? What happens if the tap water is contaminated? Your grocery store shelves are empty because the trucks that restock them aren't on the roads? Have you made a choice not to prepare for events that are probable?

OR do you just leave it up to chance, tempting fate to "do its worst", certain that you'll accept any outcome that is thrown your way?

Choose better now, because folks who have made such sacrifices won't have pity, remorse, or resources to share with folks who neglected the warning signs when times were good.

Fence sitters get shot first

Sit in the middle of a topic, be a moderate, and when someone on one "side" starts taking shots at the other, physically or philosophically, you're going to be in the way.

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way" is a warning to those who don't do one of those three, because if you can't, you're likely an enemy, and enemies must be removed from having any power or influence in the material world for there to be peace.

Trying to play peacemaker means you get shot anytime peace is not brokered, but even worse, nobody cares, because you're neither for or against either "side". You're a slimy and manipulative sort, trying to have your cake and eat it too, hoping that nobody picks up on your opportunism before you've gotten your pound of flesh and can move on.

The reason that folks do this is because they're trying to emulate Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ bridged the gap between humanity and God by taking all the shots that God ever would need to make against sin, and then asking us in turn to place our faith in Him instead of trying to rush past him to take some shots of our own. That is the arrogance exposed by a works-based salvation, it places an emphasis on remedying the price of sin by your own efforts, instead of accepting the gift that Jesus Christ offers freely.

A messianic complex causes people to run into the line of fire, sacrificing themselves to try and broker peace between two parties, and superficially we laud such behavior because it is usually only motivated by a deep love and care for the two parties involved. Again, this is going to be Christianity minus the Christ thing because we live in a society that has steeped in Christian principles for so long that folks have forgotten where they came from.

So folks are rushing to be moderates, to try and negotiate, to try and stop conflicts from occurring, because Jesus Christ was exalted as a reward for his sacrifices. While he humbled himself to a mortal life, in his resurrection he has been elevated above all others as the perfect demonstration of love and sacrifice.

People want some of that for themselves, the recognition and glory for having done something difficult.

But, much like the priests who pray on street corners, to be heard by men, such rewards are equally temporal, short-lived, because nobody has a perspective that appropriately includes how their actions will ripple across existence and on into eternity. We see what appears to be a path of action which would benefit us in our goals, but we don't really know for certain. Nobody can really predict the future, though many have killed themselves trying to manifest a particular version of one.

Such suicidal instincts are not laudable, are not worthy of praise, because it's ignoring that this story isn't ours to tell.

We aren't the focus of creation, the reason it was created.

We aren't even the reason that Jesus Christ came to save us in the first place, evidenced by scripture indicating that such an act was known and planned for before even "In the beginning..."

The reality is that we exist in is God's story, and we just play a role in that story.

Look at the interactions between David and Saul. How many times could David have made a different choice in whether to allow Saul to remain alive? How much easier would David's life have been were Saul removed from the picture at his first opportunity to do so?

Yet David would not put his hand against God's anointed for Israel, because despite God having told Israel how terrible the idea of a King was to begin with, Saul needed to demonstrate fully waht God had described before Israel could understand that, even when chosen by God to do great things, humans who get a taste for power will abandon God and, in their hubris, presume that God chose them for who they were and what they could do for God, as if their own internal judgment is enough, as if God looked over their life to that point and declared "Good job, keep doing what you were doing, but now with my support!"

The reality is that God is inviting us to walk with God in what God is already shaping before us in this world. God already has designs, reasons, and while we may come to know some, ignorance is not an excuse for disobedience, let alone outright rebellion, against God.

What Jesus Christ did in being a moderator between humanity and God was unique and miraculous, and to honor what Jesus Christ did we should not blindly repeat his actions, but also pay heed to his words and understand that "becoming more like Christ" does not necessarily include one's death needing to be on a cross for having pissed off Jewish autocrats.

Anyone else? They'll just get shot, and folks will be too busy trying to reload and take another that they won't have time to lament the unfortunate death of one who was crushed in trying to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders.

Sylvanas did nothing wrong

Due to a friend, I recently switched my gaming time from one online game to another, back to an oldie that I hadn't played in a long time. In getting back into the swing of things, I wanted to get caught up on the story as well as all the gameplay dynamics changes, and what I found was rather amusing.

To put it shortly, in the World of Warcraft, a character named Sylvanas is the leader of a faction called "the Horde". There is a single major opponent to them, called "the Alliance". The two fight over all sorts of stuff, and in the game story, Sylvanas recently burned down a the massive tree that served as the capitol city for a race of that is a member of the Alliance. Because it was a capital city, there were "civilians" killed as well as military, and so the game and players of the game have tried to portray this action as barbaric and evil.

Except that they miss the justification offered by Sylvanas herself: "This is war."

The old phrase goes "all is fair in love and war", right?

People don't believe or understand that, not really. ALL is fair?

One of the major Horde characters chastised Sylvanas stating "There is no honor in this!"

You know, because during a time of war, honor is more important than survival. Ideals are more important than living another day.

The Horde and the Alliance have a set of mutually exclusive values. The Horde is largely a collection of outcasts and misfits, a largely untenable amalgamation, if not for the races of the Alliance, who have subjugated and killed all of them at some time or another in their own history. The Horde has struck back, so they are no innocent doves either, but what that means is that there is no "good guy" in this mess. Both sides have blood on their hands, both sides have done terrible things, and neither side is without the need for redemption in some manner or another.

But that doesn't stop people from virtue-signalling their pacifism and lofty ideals about how wars should be fought.

Peace is a lofty ideal, but it is just that, an ideal, and in a fictional realm where everybody is guilty of crimes against someone else, peace won't come through negotiations and talk. The races of the Horde and of the Alliance want different things, have different priorities, and deep scars that will never truly heal.

What this means for the Horde and the Alliance then, locked in conflict, is that whoever survives will be the one that eliminates the other. Whichever subdues or subjugates the other will "win". It's an existential fight, and so neither side has any reason to hold back on their enemies. They're enemies.

And this is where people try to confuse things, to insert their superior morality where they have no enemies, and so they would seek to broker peace. These people do not quite understand that, because it's a fiction, because it's not real, of course nothing that either side has done really matters, because it's all pretend. The story is make-believe, and so Blizzard can make it whatever they want.

In reality, though, peace often isn't an option. Diversity + Proximity = War, and that's despite lofty ideals, because those lofty ideals can often be the grounds for the ideological diversity that then leads to conflict in the first place.

The Horde and the Alliance are at war. There is, in the nature of their war, no way to fight that isn't terrible. It's all tragic, it's all horrible. War has always been described as such, and in portraying accurately how each side will do heinous things to their enemies, Blizzard unintentionally exposed the idealistic pacifists who do not really understand that they are playing a game which is simulating war.

In war, your goal is to win and go home alive. To do this, you will do terrible things that, were you not in war, could be categorized as "wrong". You will kill people. You will break things and destroy stuff. You will commit atrocities in the name of survival that, were they not required to be done in the first place, you'd not have pursued otherwise.

And that's why, in terms of war, what Sylvanas did was not wrong, and despite her own significant moral failings and personal flaws, she made a decisive strike against her mortal enemies in an ongoing war where her faction desires to remain free of the authoritarian rule of the Alliance, let alone worse.

Sylvanas essentially nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and if you've seen the revisionist history trying to make out the United States as evil for having done that during WWII, for having gone "too far", for not having tried harder to "make peace", then you'll understand why so many folks, even those who played Horde characters, were taken aback at the decisive action to destroy an enemies' stronghold.

Sure, the story has been written such that it supposedly backfired so the Alliance then sack a stronghold of the Horde as well, and Sylvanas' character is full of bitterness and hate, but those things are a distraction, an irrelevance, they don't change whether what she did was correct or not in the context of war, regardless of the entanglements that existed on a personal level.

Choose to fight a war, to win it, instead of dying for an ideal which cannot actually exist.

Understand the times you are in, and act accordingly.

What dad does matters

When I was a kid, the things I was interested in most didn't align with the things my father was interested in. Even today, while I have been able to get my dad to participate in things, I am often wondering why it took so long.

For an example, when I was a kid, my first "dream job" was to be a monster truck driver. My parents did little to explore how such a thing would be possible. My dad took me to a Monster Jam show once, but about the closest thing to a tradition involving any wheeled vehicles was going to the annual "car show" at the Expo Center, where manufacturers showed off their new models before they were available at the dealer. It was something, but it wasn't a regular thing, a habit.

Today, I know that at the minimum I would have needed to get involved with professional karting. A doorway to many other motorsports, go-karts are a way to demonstrate or develop driving prowess in a controlled environment where the costs are generally lower than any other professional motorsport.

What dads do with their kids matters, and in this regard I am entirely spoiled, because so far it looks like mine are already trending down the same paths I am already on, the things that I find interesting. Next year we'll probably go to Monster Jam.

Even so, if my kids are interested in things that aren't already in my realms of interest, I still need to help them invest in and refine their interests further to develop excellence for themselves. I will certainly have opinions on whether something is ultimately helpful or not, but that's also where the separation between "career" and "hobby" comes into play.

What I do as "dad" matters. I can't just write my responsibilities off because I am tired, exhausted, unappreciated, etc. The struggle to spend time with my kids will cost me daily, but that habit is the price of trying to create a legacy. They won't know the difference for decades, but I will see the difference and understand it right now.

I love my dad, and enjoy the time we spend together, but the opportunities to do so are limited, and in turn the respective intimacy of the relationship is limited as well. Between men, intimacy is seen in the dimension of "truth", in that the closer two men are, the more truth exists between them, and that each knows about the other.

The basic framework for this understanding is in shared activities, especially when there is competition, because the truth of one's skills are not easily hidden. You scored the goal, got the faster time, finished the course without incident or injury, etc. This is where men get to know each other through objective means, and that knowledge is a prerequisite for trust, and that trust is a prerequisite for truth.

Thus a father, in bonding with his kids, will need activities, and they will be different with sons and daughters, but they still need to happen in the first place. A father needs to have an active role in the life of their children, even and perhaps especially because it is difficult.

I have a 700r4 that I need to rebuild, but it keeps getting delayed because of circumstance. It'll still be there, as with my other projects and hobbies, even when my kids have grown up and left my home, but I only get one chance to be "dad", and a father should understand this and make the most of it.

"Mothers plant and fathers prune."