How This Whole “World Peace” Thing Really Works

Everyone who has ever lived has at some point craved and end to all the excessive violence.  In effect, we all want world peace. I do not believe that it is never as elusive as the naysayers would have us to believe.  In fact, it may well be possible for an enterprising group of young people, or even cranky old dudes, to engineer it.  Here’s how it works.

God actually judges in the real world by a principle called “Lex talionis,” or mutual (reciprocal) judgment in like kind. “With the measure you use, it will be meted out to you.”  Many have noticed this “comes around, goes around” effect in life, and some like to call it “Karma.”   Here is an example of this effect, which (given our hi-tech world and high-speed communicative abilities) you can now watch on CNN.  Recently, a group of islanders killed about a thousand dolphins, and very shortly thereafter, God brought a Tsunami against the island and killed about a thousand islanders in retaliation. Remember, we seem to God as the animals seem to us — silly, without basic understanding, and brutish. In fact, we are far more cognitively-bereft before God than any animal could be in our sight.  Thus, what we do to the animals implies what God should do to us – with our permission.

As a matter of reciprocal judgment, we have this interesting fact from December 26, 2004: “A 9.1-magnitude undersea quake off Sumatra island caused a tsunami that killed 220,000 people in countries around the Indian Ocean, including 168,000 in Indonesia.”  See article at bottom —

This followed precisely upon Christmas. Note the date. Many in Indonesia (A high-concentration Muslim nation) began celebrating Christmas, an idolatrous holiday.  And they were judged by their own standard.  Islam calls for the death penalty for idolatry.


How to Become A Millionaire, or A Billionaire, in Short Order

Want real money? Bring it on.  This is the most brief and highly effective money-making post you will ever read.

1.  Get with some of your friends (form an LLC or corporation for about 150 clams in your state; paralegal groups do this for money online – see, etc) and audit (get the notes for) four classes at a university —

Stock market 101, Microeconomics 101, Macroeconomics 101, and “Legal Environment of Business”

2. Reduces these notes to flashcards, using 3 x 5 index cards, and memorize the course materials.

3. Identify 100 companies on the upswing with marketable goods and services.

4. Study the successful version of these companies from the past and identify the ways in which they succeeded, and list these.

5. Study the contemporary version of these companies (and their competitors) and identify their success features/ methods also

6. List 4 and 5 above together In one file and adapt them to your target companies and their markets, creating a proposal to be sent to the companies you wish to help.

7.  Indicate that if they use your value-accretive proposals, you would like them to estimate their value to the company and pay 9% to your group in their stock shares (and 1% in warrants).  When their share value soars, you share-value soars. Sell half your shares when they have risen sharply enough to convince you that the near term has run its best upward tally, and then let the other half of your shares rise indefinitely (put a trailing stop in behind its upward price action at some distance). Let it ride.

8.  Create and send proposals like this until you have the money you wish to retire.

Notes and Comments:

I have been sharing this recipe everywhere I go over the last year since January to whomever will listen up the eastern seaboard of the U.S. and across the internet.  Here are what appear to be (at least in part) the results — CNBC is reporting that:

“The amount of individuals that hold more than $30 million in assets has climbed to a new record in 2014, according to a global survey on Wednesday, which also warned that a lack of diversification meant that this wealth is not protected from shocks to the financial system.

12,040 of these new ultra high net worth (UHNW) individuals were minted in the year ending June 2014, said the Wealth-X and UBS World Ultra Wealth Report released on Wednesday. This meant a 6 percent increase from last year which pushed the global population of these millionaires to a record 211,275.”

read complete article?

The Number of Billionaires across the globe is now soaring in like manner:

CNBC has another like report on this wise:

Number of billionaires hits record high in 2014

Wednesday, 17 Sep 2014 | 1:18 AM ET

“The world economy is going through a rough patch, yet the world’s billionaire populationis at an all-time high.

A new survey shows that 155 new billionaires were minted this year, pushing the total population to a record 2,325 – a 7 percent increase from 2013.”

Complete article?

Is Your Bible Inspired By God? — Entertaining Several Challenges

I wish here to offer several challenges to the idea of theopneusticity, the teaching that the Bible is “God-breathed.” According to the Bible itself, it cannot be so.  In Matthew 19.4, we find Jesus teaching that what was “from the beginning” forms the normative standard for all men for all time.  The point of his rhetoric aimed at refuting the implied claim of his rivals that it was okay for a man to divorce his wife “for any or every reason.”  They appealed to developments in redemptive history AFTER the beginning, in fact, long after, from the time of Moses. Moses had allowed them a “certificate of divorce,” the formal documentation necessary to terminate their marriage.  Jesus rebuffed the idea that “revelation is progressive,” instead favoring the restorationist approach (Acts 3.21).

Did Moses write the Torah in the 15th century BC?  If so, the divine book was too late.

According to the NT, Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah, or else the Pentateuch, sometime after 1450 BC.   This means that the twelve patriarchs and their predecessors had no Bible, no God-breathed anything.  This novelty was not from the beginning.  This means that it was not given because of “the Fall” into sin, as Christians often challenge.

Adam would have to have written the first five books of the Bible if this were the reason.  Think it through.  If they did not need a Bible in Abraham’s day, we do not need one now.

This means that the Bible’s restorationist doctrine — what was from the beginning is forever normative — refutes the Bible itself as a far-too-late novelty that seems strange, unnecessary and out of place.

When Jesus taught that what was from the beginning is normative for all mankind, and that “the Sabbath was made for man” (not for Israelites only), he was implying that God’s original plan for mankind would always be normative, a point rather easily derived from the doctrines of the omniscience, omnipotence, sovereignty, and omni-competence of God.

In other words, God has no “plan B” because He does not need one.  Since plan A is the only one He offers, it always binds us to its ethical implicates and stipulations.  There was then no divine book, only the light of nature.  This does not mean it is unlawful to write down what nature testifies, but only that it is unlawful to say that “God is directly responsible for its details, or more briefly, “God wrote this.”  The doctrine of infallible men carries inherent dangers, namely, when they screw up (as they inevitably do), we all pay for it as long as we maintain the divine authorship of the errors.  They become incorrigible errors, where no one can repair the damage, much like democratic social programs.

But God did in fact convey the semantic content of the light of nature.  And if one puts it down in ink, all is well.  But we must acknowledge that fallible men alone are responsible for its content, since God gave no book from the beginning.  And (said Jesus correctly) Plan A always obtains.

So also, theopneusticity falsely implies that the creation is fallen.  The sole early testimony we have to this effect hails from a conniving and chatty wrap-around in chapter 3 of Genesis.  I have systematically demonstrated that the narrative is a bogus add-on, and not part of the original work.  Nor does it even make much sense.  It contains several conceptual and scientific errors, and a few contradictions (see my post for this at this blog).

Theopneusticity thus falsely requires us to believe that the testimony of creation is no longer clear.  Having been  scribbled upon overmuch by the evil deeds of men (sin), yea with a mighty spray-painting, its original message hath dwindled.  If true, this would have for many thousands of years stultified God’s original plan, which needs a clear testimony of nature.   Instead, the Proverbs would remind us that:  “There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan, that can succeed against the Lord.”

The doctrine of Theopneusticity also presupposes the doctrine of the Trinity, with its third ghostly Person in charge of the homework.  I have already shown the doctrine of the Trinity as a false, and belated, arrival to the Christian era of the early Church.   And the Bible of the early Church (the LXX) did not know the concept, nor have a word for it, in 250 – 100 B.C. whence it came into existence.  The reason the monotheistic people knew nothing of the trinity should be clear — three is two gods to many.  That is, theopneusticity promotes polytheism.

Moreover, if we allow the doctrine of the Trinity, which in the history of the whole national “church,” no Jew ever acknowledged (and Jesus was such a Jew), we must deny the infallibility of the (apparently blind) church.  The completion of the Greek OT concluded no later than 100 BC, by which time precisely no Jew ever had even mentioned any trinity.  Nor is there any word in the Septuagint (or the Hebrew Bible) by which to indicate the all-winsome cluster.  The Bible of Jesus simply knew nothing at all about the Trinity, so not one word about it from his own lips adorns the Gospels, just as we find a complete absence of mention in all the apostolic sermons of the Acts.  It simply never occurred to anyone until (perhaps) the corpus of the rather late-ish epistles.

Finally, Theopneusticity teaches that God has two different, though overlapping, revelations — one General and one special. This implies two different messages or “Words” to the wise. Since, in the Bible, God is represented by His Word, this implies two different Gods (by representation).

None of this forbids the careful study of the light of nature, with its contents written down for all to read. The book of Proverbs aims at this goal.  But we must maintain a careful fence between nature’s infallible light (its Author is infallible) distinguished from our best record of its contents.  The first is infallible, the second is quite fallible.

Where did this idolatrous doctrine get started?

The source of theopneusticity (perhaps the original idolatry) is found in Genesis 1.27, “man as divine image.”

Recall that the Egyptian glyphic imprint (the library of hieroglyphs from Egypt) stands behind the Bible’s idioms (the bricks that build its accounts, which seems to center on different parts of the human anatomy — the “open hand” or “good eye,” etc).  If we construe man as “divine imagery,” then so also those parts of which he consists.

This would imply that “divine parts,” translated into idioms, would form the pivotal points around which the biblical narrative revolves.  So then the writing by man’s [divine] hand is — by lex talionis — the writing of the divine hand.  This would convert the human writing into divine writing by a kind of transition in math called the transitive property of equality.  If A = B, and if B = C, then A = C.  If man’s is divine, and if his divine hand wrote the Bible, then the Bible is of divine origin.

Thus the idolatrous interplay between the human and the divine from Genesis 1.26-27 stands behind the development of the idea of Theopneusticity.  This seems to be the original literary Sin.

Jesus and The “Back to the Beginning” Paradox of Genesis 11

In the New Testament, Jesus showed his reformation-tradition understanding of Genesis 1 in requiring the rejection of divorce, since the beginning of mankind proves determinative for all time in governing human affairs. Several strands of reasoning operate behind this quite Semitic assumption.

  1. In the future, God will “restore all things” so that God’ s original intent for mankind will come to fruition. Acts 3.21 mentions therefore “the restoration of all things.” Likewise, today we speak of “back to genesis” movements or theological trends in the churches.
  2. God is sovereign. Solomon wrote: “There is no plan, no insight, no wisdom, that can succeed against the Lord.” This means that God’s original plan, not only will prevail “down the road” in the restoration of all things, but MUST prevail since God is Sovereign and Omnicompetent (Cannot fail).
  3. God is All-wise, all-knowing. Since the Lord knows the future with perfect certainty, and knows all that will transpire, or what might have transpired upon all supposed conditions, and since he knows all facts and all relations, real or imaginary, we must realize that He would have created and acted differently to prevent in advance whatever roadblocks once might present later to his original intentions. Genesis 1 displays the divine “Plan A.”

Please notice that God gave to mankind only one language from the beginning. Genesis 11.1 assures us that this singular tongue continued unabated all the way until the account of linguistic differentiation recorded just afterward in that same chapter. This produces an impossibility, God has ordered one language only for all mankind from the beginning as normative for us forever, and then Himself thwarts the original plan by going directly against his linguistic “Plan A.”

This demonstrates that the self-conflicted account of Genesis 11 promotes not actual history, but later rabbinical reasoning about “how the many different languages must have come about. Both here and in Genesis 14, the land of “Shinar” (i.e. Babylonia) shows up conspicuously, which remains consistent with Abram leaving “Ur of the Chaldeans,” and with Abram later styled “ a wandering Aramaean.”

The biblical record offers the consistent testimony that this first language showed up as an early form of Aramaic, the language in which Solomon would have written the first copy of the Proverbs; the tongue of Daniel and his friends, which they learned as the administrative language of the Babylonians of his day; and the tongue spoken by Jesus most frequently in his teaching (as seen behind the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew).

Matthew 19.4 has the passage in question where Jesus indicates the normative status of “what was from the beginning.” Given the teaching that language is responsible for the existence of all things in Genesis 1, this cannot be seen as a trivial point, but rather a supremely important “singular way of relating to God properly.”   Over time, as people and cultures introduce new technologies and new ideas, new words must be invented to “point” to these and discuss them in intelligent ways, and in light of the other referents used in the language (expanded reference, and its new set of relations, transpires as a necessary part of the development of every tongue).  Aramaic is no different.

What would Solomon do? I believe that this question is worth asking, and may be answered plausibly and profitably. Wisdom is found in the multitude of counselors.  This is, in effect what we have in both the form of the Greek tongue handed down to us from Alexandria, and in the form of the Aramaic used by the wisest of men — Solomon, Daniel, the Jewish Rabbis more generally, and by Jesus. “He who walks with the wise grows wise.”

To that end, I propose to take the most versatile and “reference-expanded” of all the ancient tongues (Alexandrian Greek) to create the upgraded Aramaic we ought to use today, by expanded it using Alexandrian Greek as our guide.  We should create an analog between each Greek word found most useful in the early centuries of Alexandrian-Septuagint environment and the older Aramaic used by Jesus and his contemporaries, to cause the same expanded reference traits in that Aramaic tongue as that the Alexandrian Greek experienced in its various academic and crafted uses, by which Greek and Egyptian thought inflected it during the timeframe from Daniel to the lifetime of Jesus and the apostles.

This would create an immensely profitable, and uniquely capable, Aramaic, which would yet retain its highly-expressive abilities to show the poetic and symmetrical, adaptable forms of Semitic thought in every aspect of cultural development.

A Brief Confession: Of the All-Wise God and His Glorious Character

The All-Wise Lord is one God only, and one Person only.  And there are no other true deities, or demi-gods, of any kind whatever.  The so-called “doctrine of the Trinity” represents idolatry and clearly departs from the Monotheism of Solomon, having both disastrous logical and sociological consequences, including the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the West in 565, and the Fall of the East and Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

The Lord God Almighty is a most wise, benevolent and pure Spirit, the only Creator of all things; He is most merciful, patient, kindhearted and practical in prudence. He is child-like, playful and soft-hearted toward the righteous, as a father is to his children, but just and stern with the wicked, as a judge to the convicted criminal, yet maintaining mercy in judgment whenever possible.

The Lord has no body, no parts, and no appetites; nor has he any special, local presence, and does not live in temples made with human hands, nor has He ever done so.  Instead, He remains omnipresent, upholding, sustaining, and leading, guiding and governing all things, so directing them to the historical goal He intends.  He does so without interfering in any knowable or direct way with the contingencies of human freedom, which similar freedom he has granted to all his creatures, with mankind having the greater freedom. The Lord is most free and graciously uses His freedom to beget and sustain ours.

The Lord has never “inspired” any so-called prophet to write “divinely-inspired writings,” which were not from the beginning, but which man-made tradition instead began with Moses.  Thus it is said, “Moses and the Prophets,” not “Adam and the prophets.”  Yet the Lord speaks abundantly clearly to us all by the light of nature, and seeks to bring all men to obedience and to the restoring of the good blessing which was given us from the beginning.

God does not inspire prophets, nor has He ever, nor can any man know the distant future with certainty.  “Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day might bring forth.”

God does not do miracles, no has He, ever since the end of his creative work from the beginning.  Nor can any (human) person do miracles, since these would undermine the necessary preconditions (e.g. the uniformity of nature) for doing science and rational induction, since it would undo the analogy of like kinds of events, phenomena or laws, past and future.  It would also thereby undermine the possibility of knowledge, and ruin our understanding of the causal nexus, or how causes relate to effects.

The Lord of Wisdom remains altogether rational, humble and loving at all times, never ceasing to show love in order to behave rationally; nor does He ever sacrifice wisdom (which needs rationality) in order to show love.  God is one, that is to say, He is a fully-integrated and unified, divine Person, with no one of His attributes ever impeding, but rather at all times, completing (making perfect), all His other distinguishable and magnanimous traits.  He is the very source and ultimate definition of all excellence and virtue.