If you believe that Israel is going to disarm any time soon (because of some false promises by the Antichrist), you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the European Union constitutes a revived Roman empire, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the curse on the serpent in Genesis 3: 14-15 is a prophecy of Jesus' defeat of Satan and you believe you are a Biblical literalist, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the U.S. Constitution created a government based on the absolute laws of the Bible, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe George W. Bush never lied as president because you believe he is a Christian and a lying Christian is impossible, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of an all-knowing God, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Koran is the literal and inerrant word of an all-knowing Allah, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Atlas Shrugged is the literal and inerrant word of an all-knowing Ayn Rand, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Atlas Shrgged was Ayn Rand's blueprint for the New World Order, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe that the present time in history is the first time that many people have run to and fro and knowledge has been increased (Daniel 12: 4), you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Moses and Thutmosis must have been the same person because of their similar names, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Moses and Ahmosis must have been the same person because of their similar names, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe RuPaul and Ron Paul must be the same person because of their similar names, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Dr. John Coleman, British-born conspiracy nut, and John S. Coleman, alleged by Gary Allen to be an American member of the Bilderberg Advisory Committee, must be the same person because of their similar names, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe that success for the "Holocaust denial" movement might lead to a slavery denial movement, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe that what you are doing at midnight on New Year's Eve is what you're going to be doing the rest of the following year, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Screaming Egos make better music than the Blazing Bozos, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believed that Y2K was going to lead to a cashless society, you were (probably) deluded.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Jesus as Shyster
Some writers have called Jesus a rabbi. And Lenny Bruce said "rabbi means lawyer." But to judge from the Gospel of John 8:12-20, Jesus was not simply a lawyer; he was a shyster.
Here is the relevant quotation, in which Jesus debated with the Pharisees:
"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
"The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
"Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
"And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true .
"I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
Then they said unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me nor my Father; if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
"These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come."
When Jesus said, "It is also written in you law, that the testimony of two men is true," he was
referring to the Mosaic law that can be found in Deuteronomy 17:6: "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death."
Much of what Jesus said in his debate with the Pharisees was simply unproven assertion. Insofar as he had an actual argument, it basically boiled down to this: Mosaic law requires two witnesses to prove something true. He and the Father that sent him were two witnesses that he was the light of the world. Q.E.D. Jesus was the light of the world.
Jesus' citation of the Mosaic law--"your law," as he put it to the Pharisees--may have been an effective debating gambit. The Pharisees were probably in no position to challenge that law. But it should be obvious that the law in question is not the expression of any objective truth, but is only an abitrary rule of thumb, at best.The idea that to have two witnesses, instead of just one, making the same claim, is always going to lead to the truth is absurd and ridiculous. It is entirely possible for two or more witnesses to agree, but to be mistaken, or maybe even lying.
Furthermore, Jesus claimed the Father that sent him as his second witness, but the Father that supposedly sent him never testified to the Pharisees on his behalf. From the Pharisees' point of view, Jesus had only one witness, himself.
All in all, Jesus' argument, insofar as he had any argument, was completely specious. That he relied on such a specious argument shows that Jesus was a shyster and not a god, unless, perhaps, a god can also be a shyster.
Here is the relevant quotation, in which Jesus debated with the Pharisees:
"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
"The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
"Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
"And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true .
"I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
Then they said unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me nor my Father; if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
"These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come."
When Jesus said, "It is also written in you law, that the testimony of two men is true," he was
referring to the Mosaic law that can be found in Deuteronomy 17:6: "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death."
Much of what Jesus said in his debate with the Pharisees was simply unproven assertion. Insofar as he had an actual argument, it basically boiled down to this: Mosaic law requires two witnesses to prove something true. He and the Father that sent him were two witnesses that he was the light of the world. Q.E.D. Jesus was the light of the world.
Jesus' citation of the Mosaic law--"your law," as he put it to the Pharisees--may have been an effective debating gambit. The Pharisees were probably in no position to challenge that law. But it should be obvious that the law in question is not the expression of any objective truth, but is only an abitrary rule of thumb, at best.The idea that to have two witnesses, instead of just one, making the same claim, is always going to lead to the truth is absurd and ridiculous. It is entirely possible for two or more witnesses to agree, but to be mistaken, or maybe even lying.
Furthermore, Jesus claimed the Father that sent him as his second witness, but the Father that supposedly sent him never testified to the Pharisees on his behalf. From the Pharisees' point of view, Jesus had only one witness, himself.
All in all, Jesus' argument, insofar as he had any argument, was completely specious. That he relied on such a specious argument shows that Jesus was a shyster and not a god, unless, perhaps, a god can also be a shyster.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Lucifer's Lexicon
CHRISTIAN ANARCHIST, n. One who loves his enemy, the State.
EXCOMMUNICATE, v. Formerly, to exclude from the mass. Now, to exclude from the mass media.
HAJ, n. The annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, aka Allahpalooza.
INDISPUTABLE, adj. That cannot be disputed, according to someone who doesn't want it disputed.
MOSES, n. The Lawgiver, who proved with regard to law that it is better to give than to receive.
OBJECTIVIST, n. One for whom the golden calf is a sacred cow.
RIGHTEOUS GENTILE, n. A useful idiot. It is possible that George W. Bush was the most righteous Gentile of our time.
RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE, n. A man who went from haberdashery to balderdashery when he organized the group now known as Jehovah's False Witnesses.
SKINHEAD, n. One who shaves his head and is either a racist or antiracist bigot.
SURGICAL STRIKE, n. An accidental bombing of a hospital's operating room.
WHITE SUPREMACIST, n. Anyone so designated by a Rainbow Supremacist.
EXCOMMUNICATE, v. Formerly, to exclude from the mass. Now, to exclude from the mass media.
HAJ, n. The annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, aka Allahpalooza.
INDISPUTABLE, adj. That cannot be disputed, according to someone who doesn't want it disputed.
MOSES, n. The Lawgiver, who proved with regard to law that it is better to give than to receive.
OBJECTIVIST, n. One for whom the golden calf is a sacred cow.
RIGHTEOUS GENTILE, n. A useful idiot. It is possible that George W. Bush was the most righteous Gentile of our time.
RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE, n. A man who went from haberdashery to balderdashery when he organized the group now known as Jehovah's False Witnesses.
SKINHEAD, n. One who shaves his head and is either a racist or antiracist bigot.
SURGICAL STRIKE, n. An accidental bombing of a hospital's operating room.
WHITE SUPREMACIST, n. Anyone so designated by a Rainbow Supremacist.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Are You (Probably) Deluded?
If you believe Elvis Presley faked his own death so he could become an underover narc and you believe Elvis has called you on the phone to tell you to keep up the good work writing books claiming he's alive, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe there're no such things as the Bilderberg meetings, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Bilderbergers are all-powerful, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Alex Jones' "inside information" about the Bilderbergers, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the word "teenager" was never used until shortly before the Beatles arrived in the US, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe rock and roll was the creation of a British conspiracy, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believed circa 1965 that the fall of South Vietnam to the Communists would result in the Pacific Ocean becoming a "Red lake," you were (probably) deluded.
If you believed circa 1965 that by 1970 at the latest the Soviets would invade the US, you were (probably) deluded.
If you believed before 1989, or still believe, that by the very nature of Communism it was impossible for the Communists to ever abandon the goal of world conquest, you were, or are, (probably) deluded.
If you believed in 1941 or thereafter that FDR really had a map showing the Nazis' secret plans for reorganizing South America, you were (probably) deluded.
If you believe/believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, you are/were (probably) deluded.
If you believe "Surfin' Bird" by The Trashmen was the most wonderful record ever released, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an authentic document, you are (probably) deluded.
If you make excuses for the "sins" of your ancestors, such as slavery, by saying that you can't judge the past by present-day standards, and yet you believe you are not a moral relativist, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency were eight years of peace, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe everyone in the rest of the world loved and respected the US before George . Bush became president, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the members of the Bush II Administration have ever publicly told the truth about the real reasons they invaded Iraq, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Michael Jackson meant it when he sang, "iI doesn't matter if you're black or white," you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Paul McCartney is dead, you are (probably) deluded.
Etc., etc., etc.
If you believe there're no such things as the Bilderberg meetings, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Bilderbergers are all-powerful, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Alex Jones' "inside information" about the Bilderbergers, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the word "teenager" was never used until shortly before the Beatles arrived in the US, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe rock and roll was the creation of a British conspiracy, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believed circa 1965 that the fall of South Vietnam to the Communists would result in the Pacific Ocean becoming a "Red lake," you were (probably) deluded.
If you believed circa 1965 that by 1970 at the latest the Soviets would invade the US, you were (probably) deluded.
If you believed before 1989, or still believe, that by the very nature of Communism it was impossible for the Communists to ever abandon the goal of world conquest, you were, or are, (probably) deluded.
If you believed in 1941 or thereafter that FDR really had a map showing the Nazis' secret plans for reorganizing South America, you were (probably) deluded.
If you believe/believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, you are/were (probably) deluded.
If you believe "Surfin' Bird" by The Trashmen was the most wonderful record ever released, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an authentic document, you are (probably) deluded.
If you make excuses for the "sins" of your ancestors, such as slavery, by saying that you can't judge the past by present-day standards, and yet you believe you are not a moral relativist, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency were eight years of peace, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe everyone in the rest of the world loved and respected the US before George . Bush became president, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the members of the Bush II Administration have ever publicly told the truth about the real reasons they invaded Iraq, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Michael Jackson meant it when he sang, "iI doesn't matter if you're black or white," you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Paul McCartney is dead, you are (probably) deluded.
Etc., etc., etc.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Are You (Probably) Deluded?
If you believe there is a Committee of 300, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the Committee of 300, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Queen Latifah is the head of the Committee of 300, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe that Theodor Adorno wrote all of the Beatles' hit songs, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe that Kurt Lewin wrote all of the Rolling Stones' hit songs, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe that Dr. John Coleman wrote all of the Village People's hit songs, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe George W. Bush was Tony Blair's poodle, rather than vice versa, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the British monarchy is descended from the pharaohs, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe George Washington was a 33rd-degree Mason, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Masons, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Global Elite is planning to kill off 80-90% of the world's poplation, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe JFK was assassinated because he gave a speech warning against secret societies, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Nazis literally won World War II, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Otto Skorzeny was a Holocaust mastermind, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Nazis used fluoride on concetraton camp prisoners to keep them under control, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Adolf Hitler's book, "Mein Kampf," spelled out a blueprint for world conquest,
you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe UN troops are one block away from where you live in the US and are coming right now to grab your guns, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Alex Jones is accomplishing anything more than entertaining you when he has himself filmed or videotaped shouting defiantly at Bilderberg meeting attendees through a bullhorn, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believed that Ron Paul was going to win the 2008 presidential election, you were (probably) deluded.
If you believed Hillary Clinton was sure to win the 2008 presidential election because she was David Rockefeller's choice, you were (probably) deluded.
If you believe it can be shown by check stubs that Prussian philosopher Hegel was in the pay of Austrian Minister of State Metternich, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the tribes of Manasseh and Dan joined forces to become the Macedonians, Macedanians, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the tribes of Manasseh, Gad and Issachar joined forces to become the Madagascarians, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Jesus really lived at th time of Moses, you. are (probably) deluded.
If you believe I killed your Jewish relatives in Europe during the Holocaust and I am now claiming they died from typhus to try to deny my guilt, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, balanced that state's budget by cutting taxes, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Ronald Reagan, as president, showed that deficits don't matter, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe George W. Bush restored honor and integrity to the White House, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Bush II Administration invaded Iraq because they sincerely morally disapproved of dictators who torture and kill people, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe FDR sincerely hated war, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Saddam Hussein's WMD were moved to Syria, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe you can't negotiate with terrorists, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Arabs own Hollywood, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Rupert Murdoch is a Jew, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Ahmedinejad, president of Iran, has threatened o wipe Israel off the map, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was accidental, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe John McCain is an expert on history, war, foreign policy, etc., You are (probably) deluded.
If you believe that in war there are only teo possibilities, defeat or victory, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe isolationiam led to World War Two and, therefore, isolationiam is absolutely, universally wrong, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Barack Obama is the Antichrist, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Barack Obama is the Messiah, you are (probably) deluded.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
If you believe Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the Committee of 300, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Queen Latifah is the head of the Committee of 300, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe that Theodor Adorno wrote all of the Beatles' hit songs, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe that Kurt Lewin wrote all of the Rolling Stones' hit songs, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe that Dr. John Coleman wrote all of the Village People's hit songs, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe George W. Bush was Tony Blair's poodle, rather than vice versa, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the British monarchy is descended from the pharaohs, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe George Washington was a 33rd-degree Mason, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Masons, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Global Elite is planning to kill off 80-90% of the world's poplation, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe JFK was assassinated because he gave a speech warning against secret societies, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Nazis literally won World War II, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Otto Skorzeny was a Holocaust mastermind, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Nazis used fluoride on concetraton camp prisoners to keep them under control, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Adolf Hitler's book, "Mein Kampf," spelled out a blueprint for world conquest,
you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe UN troops are one block away from where you live in the US and are coming right now to grab your guns, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Alex Jones is accomplishing anything more than entertaining you when he has himself filmed or videotaped shouting defiantly at Bilderberg meeting attendees through a bullhorn, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believed that Ron Paul was going to win the 2008 presidential election, you were (probably) deluded.
If you believed Hillary Clinton was sure to win the 2008 presidential election because she was David Rockefeller's choice, you were (probably) deluded.
If you believe it can be shown by check stubs that Prussian philosopher Hegel was in the pay of Austrian Minister of State Metternich, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the tribes of Manasseh and Dan joined forces to become the Macedonians, Macedanians, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the tribes of Manasseh, Gad and Issachar joined forces to become the Madagascarians, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Jesus really lived at th time of Moses, you. are (probably) deluded.
If you believe I killed your Jewish relatives in Europe during the Holocaust and I am now claiming they died from typhus to try to deny my guilt, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, balanced that state's budget by cutting taxes, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Ronald Reagan, as president, showed that deficits don't matter, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe George W. Bush restored honor and integrity to the White House, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Bush II Administration invaded Iraq because they sincerely morally disapproved of dictators who torture and kill people, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe FDR sincerely hated war, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Saddam Hussein's WMD were moved to Syria, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe you can't negotiate with terrorists, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Arabs own Hollywood, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Rupert Murdoch is a Jew, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Ahmedinejad, president of Iran, has threatened o wipe Israel off the map, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was accidental, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe John McCain is an expert on history, war, foreign policy, etc., You are (probably) deluded.
If you believe that in war there are only teo possibilities, defeat or victory, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe isolationiam led to World War Two and, therefore, isolationiam is absolutely, universally wrong, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Barack Obama is the Antichrist, you are (probably) deluded.
If you believe Barack Obama is the Messiah, you are (probably) deluded.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Dr. Mark Hitchcock and Ezekiel 38 and 39
On December 18, 2oo8, I posted "Some Question for Premil Dips," concerning a couple of points about Ezekiel 38 and 39. I asked premil dips (premillenial dipsensationalists) to explain why, if the prophesied attack on Israel led by Gog of Magog was a prophecy about our future and not a false prophecy about ancient times, the attackers depicted in the pophecy are all riding on horses and carrying only ancient weapons..
Since then I've found an article by premil dip Dr. Mark Hitchcock, "The Battle of Gog and Magog," on the Pre-Trib Research Center website. Although Hitchcock doesn't explicitly address the question about the horses, he does address the issue of the weapons. Hitchcock has thought of two possible explanations.
"First it is possible that due to some form of disarmament the nations will resort to primitive weapons that can be constructed secretly and easily if a surprise attack were to be successfully achieved."
Well, this might be possible--Hey, anything's possible!--but it seems extremley farfetched to me. Hitchcock, I suppose, is thinking of disarmament imposed upon the nations (by the Antichrist?). Otherwise why would they want to secretly arm themselves? But when Germany, with Russian cooperation, evaded the Versailles treaty's restrictions on German armaments, it didn't resort to producing primitive weapons. Why couldn't present or future nations evade imposed disarmament by producing modern weapons? Why would they have to resort to producing primitive weapons? In any case, I, for one, will believe that nationa are going to disarm whn they actually disarm.
Here's Hitchcock's second possible explanation for Ezekiel's depiction of armies attacking Israel, supposedly sometime in our future, with nothing but ancient weapons.
"Second, the ancient weapons mentioned could be understood as their modern counterparts. While no view of the nature of the weapons is without problems, this is probably the best view. Ezekiel, inspired by the Holy Spirit, spoke in language that the people could understand. If he had spoken of planes, missiles, tanks, and rifles this text would have been nonsensical to everyone until the twentieth century. Moreover, the main point of Ezekiel's great prophecy is that a specific group of nations will attack Israel intent on completely destroying her. The focus is clearly not the specific weapons that will be used by these invaders. Ezekiel communicates in the only way that he can the powerful and well-equipped nature of the invaders."
Hitchcock says, "The focus is clearly not the specific weapons that will be used by these invaders." But if so, then why include a list of specific weapons at all? Hitchcock says, "Ezekiel communicates in the only way that he can the powerful and well-equipped nature of the invaders" But this is not the only way that Ezekiel could have communicated that point. He could have just said that the invaders would be powerful and well-equipped, couldn't he?
It's true, as Hitchcock says, that if Ezekiel had spoken of planes, missiles, tanks and rifles, the text would have been nonsensical to everyone until the 20th century, but only assuming Ezekiel didn't bother to explain that he was naming weapons that would not exist until sometime in the far distant future. Why couldn't Ezekiel have added such an explanation and made it clear that he was prophesying about events thousands of years in the future, if that was what he was actually doing?
Hitchcock says, "Ezekiel, inspired by the Holy Spirit, spoke in language that people could understand." But if, as the premil dips claim , Ezekiel was prophesying about events thousands of years in the future, then he used language that could not have been correctly understood by people in ancient times. People in Ezekiel's time could not have understood the prophecy to be about events in the far distant future precisely because the words Ezekiel used made it, and still make it, look like a prophecy about ancient times.
I'd like Hitchcock or any other fundamentalist prophecy freak to explain why the allegedly all-knowing and all-powerful God you believe in couldn't have gone to a little bit more trouble to make it clear that Ezekiel's prophecy was not about ancient times, but about the far distant future, as you believe. Why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire Ezekiel to state clearly that the events in the prophecy would occur thousands of years in the future? Why didn't Ezekiel say that, therefore, the weapons of the invaders would be weapons that didn't yet exist, but would exist only in the far distant future?
My opinion is that God (assuming God actually had anything to do with it) didn't bother to go to that little bit of extra trouble because the prophecy was, just as it appears to be, a prophecy about ancient times. Unfortunately for premil dips and other fundamentalists, that means it was a false prophecy.
Since then I've found an article by premil dip Dr. Mark Hitchcock, "The Battle of Gog and Magog," on the Pre-Trib Research Center website. Although Hitchcock doesn't explicitly address the question about the horses, he does address the issue of the weapons. Hitchcock has thought of two possible explanations.
"First it is possible that due to some form of disarmament the nations will resort to primitive weapons that can be constructed secretly and easily if a surprise attack were to be successfully achieved."
Well, this might be possible--Hey, anything's possible!--but it seems extremley farfetched to me. Hitchcock, I suppose, is thinking of disarmament imposed upon the nations (by the Antichrist?). Otherwise why would they want to secretly arm themselves? But when Germany, with Russian cooperation, evaded the Versailles treaty's restrictions on German armaments, it didn't resort to producing primitive weapons. Why couldn't present or future nations evade imposed disarmament by producing modern weapons? Why would they have to resort to producing primitive weapons? In any case, I, for one, will believe that nationa are going to disarm whn they actually disarm.
Here's Hitchcock's second possible explanation for Ezekiel's depiction of armies attacking Israel, supposedly sometime in our future, with nothing but ancient weapons.
"Second, the ancient weapons mentioned could be understood as their modern counterparts. While no view of the nature of the weapons is without problems, this is probably the best view. Ezekiel, inspired by the Holy Spirit, spoke in language that the people could understand. If he had spoken of planes, missiles, tanks, and rifles this text would have been nonsensical to everyone until the twentieth century. Moreover, the main point of Ezekiel's great prophecy is that a specific group of nations will attack Israel intent on completely destroying her. The focus is clearly not the specific weapons that will be used by these invaders. Ezekiel communicates in the only way that he can the powerful and well-equipped nature of the invaders."
Hitchcock says, "The focus is clearly not the specific weapons that will be used by these invaders." But if so, then why include a list of specific weapons at all? Hitchcock says, "Ezekiel communicates in the only way that he can the powerful and well-equipped nature of the invaders" But this is not the only way that Ezekiel could have communicated that point. He could have just said that the invaders would be powerful and well-equipped, couldn't he?
It's true, as Hitchcock says, that if Ezekiel had spoken of planes, missiles, tanks and rifles, the text would have been nonsensical to everyone until the 20th century, but only assuming Ezekiel didn't bother to explain that he was naming weapons that would not exist until sometime in the far distant future. Why couldn't Ezekiel have added such an explanation and made it clear that he was prophesying about events thousands of years in the future, if that was what he was actually doing?
Hitchcock says, "Ezekiel, inspired by the Holy Spirit, spoke in language that people could understand." But if, as the premil dips claim , Ezekiel was prophesying about events thousands of years in the future, then he used language that could not have been correctly understood by people in ancient times. People in Ezekiel's time could not have understood the prophecy to be about events in the far distant future precisely because the words Ezekiel used made it, and still make it, look like a prophecy about ancient times.
I'd like Hitchcock or any other fundamentalist prophecy freak to explain why the allegedly all-knowing and all-powerful God you believe in couldn't have gone to a little bit more trouble to make it clear that Ezekiel's prophecy was not about ancient times, but about the far distant future, as you believe. Why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire Ezekiel to state clearly that the events in the prophecy would occur thousands of years in the future? Why didn't Ezekiel say that, therefore, the weapons of the invaders would be weapons that didn't yet exist, but would exist only in the far distant future?
My opinion is that God (assuming God actually had anything to do with it) didn't bother to go to that little bit of extra trouble because the prophecy was, just as it appears to be, a prophecy about ancient times. Unfortunately for premil dips and other fundamentalists, that means it was a false prophecy.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Ode to Emperor Bush
Emperor Bush was quick on the draw
To enforce his self=made version of "law."
Emperor Bush was fast with a gun.
He shot before the fight had begun.
Emperor Bush liked preemptive strikes,
Like Hitler and paranoid Zionist kikes.
Emperor Bush invaded Iraq
To prevent--or provoke-a new terror attack.
War was Emperor Bush's last choice.
It was also his first, so neocons rejoice.
Emperor Bush was in a big hurry.
He went to war saying, "What, me worry?"
Emperor Bush had to attack.
He'd've got blue balls if he'd had to hold back.
Emperor Bush saved us from Hussein
And his terrifying toy airplane.
Emperor Bush saved us from Saddam
And his nonexistent nucular bomb.
Emperor Bush was the Lone Ranger
Saving us from imaginary danger.
Emperor Bush--it's no mystery.
A great misleader's how he'll go down in history.
To enforce his self=made version of "law."
Emperor Bush was fast with a gun.
He shot before the fight had begun.
Emperor Bush liked preemptive strikes,
Like Hitler and paranoid Zionist kikes.
Emperor Bush invaded Iraq
To prevent--or provoke-a new terror attack.
War was Emperor Bush's last choice.
It was also his first, so neocons rejoice.
Emperor Bush was in a big hurry.
He went to war saying, "What, me worry?"
Emperor Bush had to attack.
He'd've got blue balls if he'd had to hold back.
Emperor Bush saved us from Hussein
And his terrifying toy airplane.
Emperor Bush saved us from Saddam
And his nonexistent nucular bomb.
Emperor Bush was the Lone Ranger
Saving us from imaginary danger.
Emperor Bush--it's no mystery.
A great misleader's how he'll go down in history.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
The Truth Is Left Behind by Tim LaHaye
In his book, "The Merciful God of Prophecy," Tim LaHaye, like other premil dips (premillenial dipsensationalists), discusses the alleged prophecies of Daniel, including those in the story about Daniel interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream about a statue. The statue had a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet of iron mixed with clay. Daniel, enlightened by the all-knowing God of heaven, told Nebby that each part of the statue represnted a different kingdom. And Daniel explicitly identified the head of gold with Nebby's kingdom.
There is no universal agreement about the identity of the kingdoms that were to follow Nebby's, but LaHaye, like many other premil dips, identifies the silver kingdom as the Persian (or Medo-Persian) kingdom of Cyrus the Great, the brass kingdom as Alexander the Great's kingdom, the iron kingdom as the Roman empire, and the iron-and-clay kingdom as a revived Roman empire.
LaHaye, like many other fundamentalist prophecy freaks, seems to accept as "Gospel truth" Daniel's falsehoods that Nebbys kingdom was a kingdom over the whole world and that the brass kingdom (Alexander's) would be a kingdom over the whole world too. (Note: Even though some secular historians parrot the cliche that Alexander conquered the known world, that cliche is false. He didn't even conquer the known world, let alone the hole world, as allegedly prophesied by Daniel.)
LaHaye refers to these allegedly prophesied kingdoms as "world empires," apparently going along with the falsehood that they were all kingdoms (empires) over the whole world (even though Daniel only identified two of them as kingdoms over the whole world). And LaHaye brags that Daniel prophesied all the world empires of history. That's supposedly why the prophecy stopped with Rome (except for the revived Roman empire of our present and future).
Of course, there have been lots of other empires that Daniel clearly didn't include in his prophecy: the Chinese empire, the Arab-Muslim empire, the empire of Genghis Khan, the empire of Tamurlane, the Ottoman Turkish empire, the Spanish empire, the Dutch empire, the French empire, the British empire, to name several. LaHaye gives an explanation of why Daniel, who supposedly foresaw all of human history, didn't prophecy any of those empires. LaHaye mentions Genghis Khan and Napoleon and he says they tried to conquer the world but failed to do so. Therefore, their empires were not "world empires."
The problem with that explanation, of course, is that, by that standard, none of the "world empires" supposedly prophesied by Daniel were "world empires" either. Neither Nebuchadnezzar, nor Cyrus, nor Alexander, nor the Romans conquered the world. Some of them, e.g., Alexander, may have tried to do so but failed, like Genghis Khan and Napoleon.
There is, in fact, no good reason to believe that Daniel, prophet of the all-knowing God, foresaw all human history and all the "world empires" throughout history, as premil dips such as LaHaye claim. And, as I've already pointed out, some of Daniel's alleged prophecies, as interpreted by the premil dips, were literally false.
So why be a premil dip, Tim LaHaye? Why pretend the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God and that all (alleged) prophecies in the Bible are literally true? Why leave the truth behind, Tim LaHaye?
There is no universal agreement about the identity of the kingdoms that were to follow Nebby's, but LaHaye, like many other premil dips, identifies the silver kingdom as the Persian (or Medo-Persian) kingdom of Cyrus the Great, the brass kingdom as Alexander the Great's kingdom, the iron kingdom as the Roman empire, and the iron-and-clay kingdom as a revived Roman empire.
LaHaye, like many other fundamentalist prophecy freaks, seems to accept as "Gospel truth" Daniel's falsehoods that Nebbys kingdom was a kingdom over the whole world and that the brass kingdom (Alexander's) would be a kingdom over the whole world too. (Note: Even though some secular historians parrot the cliche that Alexander conquered the known world, that cliche is false. He didn't even conquer the known world, let alone the hole world, as allegedly prophesied by Daniel.)
LaHaye refers to these allegedly prophesied kingdoms as "world empires," apparently going along with the falsehood that they were all kingdoms (empires) over the whole world (even though Daniel only identified two of them as kingdoms over the whole world). And LaHaye brags that Daniel prophesied all the world empires of history. That's supposedly why the prophecy stopped with Rome (except for the revived Roman empire of our present and future).
Of course, there have been lots of other empires that Daniel clearly didn't include in his prophecy: the Chinese empire, the Arab-Muslim empire, the empire of Genghis Khan, the empire of Tamurlane, the Ottoman Turkish empire, the Spanish empire, the Dutch empire, the French empire, the British empire, to name several. LaHaye gives an explanation of why Daniel, who supposedly foresaw all of human history, didn't prophecy any of those empires. LaHaye mentions Genghis Khan and Napoleon and he says they tried to conquer the world but failed to do so. Therefore, their empires were not "world empires."
The problem with that explanation, of course, is that, by that standard, none of the "world empires" supposedly prophesied by Daniel were "world empires" either. Neither Nebuchadnezzar, nor Cyrus, nor Alexander, nor the Romans conquered the world. Some of them, e.g., Alexander, may have tried to do so but failed, like Genghis Khan and Napoleon.
There is, in fact, no good reason to believe that Daniel, prophet of the all-knowing God, foresaw all human history and all the "world empires" throughout history, as premil dips such as LaHaye claim. And, as I've already pointed out, some of Daniel's alleged prophecies, as interpreted by the premil dips, were literally false.
So why be a premil dip, Tim LaHaye? Why pretend the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God and that all (alleged) prophecies in the Bible are literally true? Why leave the truth behind, Tim LaHaye?
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Daniel Was Wrong
Premil dips (premillenial dipsensationalists) and other fundamentalist prophecy freaks love to discuss the alleged prophecies of Daniel including those in the story of Daniel interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream about the statue. According to the story, Daniel, with God's help, correctly told Nebby that he (Nebby) had dreamed of a statue with a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet of iron and clay. And Daniel explained to Nebby that each part of the statue represented a different kingdom.
Here is Daniel 2:37=38 (KJV) where he explains to Nebby the head of gold:
"Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength and glory.
"And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee a ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold."
This seems to be Daniel's longwinded (and perhaps poetic) way of saying that Nebby ruled over everyone on earth, thanks to God. And this interpretation is corroborated by an examination of Chapter 4 of Daniel, in which he interprets another of Nebby's dreams. In that case, Nebby dreamed of:
"...a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
"The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
"The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it." (Daniel 4:10-12 KJV)
And here is Daniel (4:22) interpreting this for Nebby: "It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth."
Daniel was clearly telling Nebby that he (Nebby) ruled the whole world, which, of course, was not true. Nebby never ruled the whole world, and he never even came close to doing so. Daniel, the prophet of the all=knowing God, was just plain wrong.
How come, premil dips? Why did Daniel falsely claim that Nebuchadnezzar ruled the whole world, and how do you reconcile the fact the Daniel was wrong about that with your delusion that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God?
Here is Daniel 2:37=38 (KJV) where he explains to Nebby the head of gold:
"Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength and glory.
"And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee a ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold."
This seems to be Daniel's longwinded (and perhaps poetic) way of saying that Nebby ruled over everyone on earth, thanks to God. And this interpretation is corroborated by an examination of Chapter 4 of Daniel, in which he interprets another of Nebby's dreams. In that case, Nebby dreamed of:
"...a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
"The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
"The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it." (Daniel 4:10-12 KJV)
And here is Daniel (4:22) interpreting this for Nebby: "It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth."
Daniel was clearly telling Nebby that he (Nebby) ruled the whole world, which, of course, was not true. Nebby never ruled the whole world, and he never even came close to doing so. Daniel, the prophet of the all=knowing God, was just plain wrong.
How come, premil dips? Why did Daniel falsely claim that Nebuchadnezzar ruled the whole world, and how do you reconcile the fact the Daniel was wrong about that with your delusion that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God?
Monday, December 22, 2008
Some Questions for Allah
Hello again, Allah. Once again I've been rereading you book "The Holy Qur'an," as translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, and I've got some new questions for you that I didn't ask in my essay, "An Open Letter to Allah," in my book, "The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays" (Nine-Banded Books, 2008).
In Surah 4, verses 56-58, you, or Muhammad (may piss be upon him) pretending to speak for you, said:
"Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire....
"But those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, we shall soon admit to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath....
"For Allah is He Who heareth and seeth all things."
You say you are you who heareth and seeth all things. But do you also smelleth and tasteth and feeleth all things? Hmmm? Or do you only have those two senses, hearing and sight?
In any case, what, if anything, do you mean by the word "soon"? You threatened to cast those of us who reject your signs (i.e., who don't think your supposed signs prove your existence) into the Fire "soon," and you promised to admit believers who do good deeds into Gardens "soon." That was back in the 7th century, right, Allah? So it's now 13+ centuries later and you still haven't fulfilled your threat or kept your promise, which you said you would do "soon." I repeat: What, if anything, do you mean by the word "soon," Allah?
In "Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary," I find the following relevant definitions of "soon": "without undue time lapse; before long."
It appears you have your own idiosyncratic definition of "soon," such as, perhaps, "Sometime within the next trillion years or so." Am I wrong? If so, set me straight, Allah.
In any case, I'd really like to know how much longer I'm going to have to wait until you cast me into the Fire.
In Surah 4, verses 56-58, you, or Muhammad (may piss be upon him) pretending to speak for you, said:
"Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire....
"But those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, we shall soon admit to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath....
"For Allah is He Who heareth and seeth all things."
You say you are you who heareth and seeth all things. But do you also smelleth and tasteth and feeleth all things? Hmmm? Or do you only have those two senses, hearing and sight?
In any case, what, if anything, do you mean by the word "soon"? You threatened to cast those of us who reject your signs (i.e., who don't think your supposed signs prove your existence) into the Fire "soon," and you promised to admit believers who do good deeds into Gardens "soon." That was back in the 7th century, right, Allah? So it's now 13+ centuries later and you still haven't fulfilled your threat or kept your promise, which you said you would do "soon." I repeat: What, if anything, do you mean by the word "soon," Allah?
In "Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary," I find the following relevant definitions of "soon": "without undue time lapse; before long."
It appears you have your own idiosyncratic definition of "soon," such as, perhaps, "Sometime within the next trillion years or so." Am I wrong? If so, set me straight, Allah.
In any case, I'd really like to know how much longer I'm going to have to wait until you cast me into the Fire.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Lucifer's Lexicon
AMEN, intj. Right on, bro. Tell it like it am.
BIBLE BELT,n. The belt that holds up the pants of Southern Baptists, except for Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, etc.
DARWINISM, n. A dogma that did not evolve from a wolfma.
FREE SOCIETY, n. According to Emperor George W. Bush, a society in which people throw shoes at him.
GOVERNMENT, n. The gang with the biggest bang.
HOSTAGE, n. A terrorist or other criminal's detainee.
QUAYLE, DAN, n. A member of the tribe of Dan, which is the real reason he has a place in ruling circles. For corroboration--using the word "corroboration" very, very loosely--see the conspiracy-nut CD titled "Ring of Power."
SO-CALLED RICH, THE, n. The rich, as referred to by Rich Limbaugh, er, I mean Rush Limbaugh.
TV, n. Transcendental Vegetation, America's most popular method of meditation.
(The above defiitions, if only because they were not written yet, were not included in my 1987 Loompanics book, "Lucifer's Lexicon," but they could be included in either a sequel to that book or a new edition of it.)
BIBLE BELT,n. The belt that holds up the pants of Southern Baptists, except for Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, etc.
DARWINISM, n. A dogma that did not evolve from a wolfma.
FREE SOCIETY, n. According to Emperor George W. Bush, a society in which people throw shoes at him.
GOVERNMENT, n. The gang with the biggest bang.
HOSTAGE, n. A terrorist or other criminal's detainee.
QUAYLE, DAN, n. A member of the tribe of Dan, which is the real reason he has a place in ruling circles. For corroboration--using the word "corroboration" very, very loosely--see the conspiracy-nut CD titled "Ring of Power."
SO-CALLED RICH, THE, n. The rich, as referred to by Rich Limbaugh, er, I mean Rush Limbaugh.
TV, n. Transcendental Vegetation, America's most popular method of meditation.
(The above defiitions, if only because they were not written yet, were not included in my 1987 Loompanics book, "Lucifer's Lexicon," but they could be included in either a sequel to that book or a new edition of it.)
Saturday, December 20, 2008
A Queston for Mel Gibson
My question is: When are you going to make a movie based on the book of Revelation, aka the Apocalypse?
Think about it, if you haven't already. It would be a very religious movie, like "The Passion of the Christ." And it would be a very violent, gory and gruesome movie, farmore so than "The Passion." Indeed, Revelation could be the most violent, gory and gruesome movie ever made. Imagine depicting the earth quakes, the plagues, the mass poisonings, the fires, the giant locusts stinging people, the giant hailstones, the blood as high as a horse's bridle flowing for 200 miles or so, the battle of Armageddon, and the lake of fire and brimstone!
I realize that Revelation jumps around a lot in time and space. It's not a straightforward chronicle of events like the Gospel stories about the Passion. It sems to me there are two possibilities. First, you could faithully follow Revelation, jump around in time and space, and make a very arty movie. Or you could hire some writer--me maybe--to turn Revelation into a straightforward chronicle of events. But either way, it can be done, Mel.
So what are you waiting for? At times I've read rumors that you were interested in making a movie about Boadicea or one about the Maccabean revolt. But no mention of Revelation. Come on, Mel. Isn't it obvious that it's your destiny to turn Revelation into a movie? And you can't fight destiny, can you, Mel?
Think about it, if you haven't already. It would be a very religious movie, like "The Passion of the Christ." And it would be a very violent, gory and gruesome movie, farmore so than "The Passion." Indeed, Revelation could be the most violent, gory and gruesome movie ever made. Imagine depicting the earth quakes, the plagues, the mass poisonings, the fires, the giant locusts stinging people, the giant hailstones, the blood as high as a horse's bridle flowing for 200 miles or so, the battle of Armageddon, and the lake of fire and brimstone!
I realize that Revelation jumps around a lot in time and space. It's not a straightforward chronicle of events like the Gospel stories about the Passion. It sems to me there are two possibilities. First, you could faithully follow Revelation, jump around in time and space, and make a very arty movie. Or you could hire some writer--me maybe--to turn Revelation into a straightforward chronicle of events. But either way, it can be done, Mel.
So what are you waiting for? At times I've read rumors that you were interested in making a movie about Boadicea or one about the Maccabean revolt. But no mention of Revelation. Come on, Mel. Isn't it obvious that it's your destiny to turn Revelation into a movie? And you can't fight destiny, can you, Mel?
Friday, December 19, 2008
Alex Jones, the Bilderbergers and Oil Prices
If you do an Internet search for "Alex Jones and the Bilderbergers and Oil Prices," you can find an article by Steve Watson, dated July 10, 2008, on Alex Jones' Infowars.com website. The main thrust of the article was that already high oil prices might go as high as $200 a barrel or even higher if Iran was attacked. In any case, the Bilderberg power brokers planned to keep raising oil prices.
There was no hint in the article that oil prices might fall. For example, Watson wrote, "With prices showing no sign of dropping, it is certain that an attack on Iran would spur on the rise for the foreseeable future."
Later in the article, Watson wrote, "Now there is serious debate about oil crashing the $200 a barrel level and beyond in the next year. If anything, the plan to hike oil prices is on an accelerated course."
And Watson concluded the article with this: "Far from having a crystal ball that allows us to divine the future, we were able to accurately predict the soaring cost of oil by listening to what the power brokers themselves were saying, through moles that managed to infiltrate Bilderberg meetings and obtain the information."
Speaking of Bilderberg, I remember hearing Alex Jones on the "Coast-to-Coast AM" radio program at the time of 2008 Bilderberg schmoozefest. At that time Jones claimed there were two factions within Bilderberg regarding oil prices. One group, he said, wanted to keep oil prices rising rapidly, as was then happening. The other group, he said, wanted to keep oil prices rising too, but more slowly. I don't recall any indcation from Jones at that time that the Bilderbergers had any intenion of reducing oil prices.
As I said, Steve Watson's article was dated July 10, 2008. Interestingly enough, according to a Wikipedia article about oil pr ices, the very next day, July 11, 2008, oil rose to a new record high price of $147.27 a barrel.
But, and it's a BIG "but," oil prices then dropped by more than $20 during the next two weeks, and they continued to decline for months, getting down to about $40 a barrel in early December 2008. On December 17, 2008, I saw it reported on MSNBC that oil had closed at $40.06 a barrel.
So what does this mean? Could it be that Alex Jones is not infallible? That his "inside information" isn't neccssarily accurate and reliable? Do Alex Jones Bilderberg moles really exist? And if they do exist, are they double agents who sometimes feed him bogus "information." Did the Bilderbergers, as Jones claimed, plan to keep increasing oil prices, but somehow their best-laid plans gang agley (went astray)? (In other words, are the Bilderbergers less powerfol, less in control of events than some conspiracy nuts seem to believe?)
Personaly, I don't know what the explanation is, but I do know that Jones' prediction that oil prices would continue to rise was wrong. So maybe Jones should forget about Bilderberg moles and get a crystal ball, if he wants to accurately predict the future.
There was no hint in the article that oil prices might fall. For example, Watson wrote, "With prices showing no sign of dropping, it is certain that an attack on Iran would spur on the rise for the foreseeable future."
Later in the article, Watson wrote, "Now there is serious debate about oil crashing the $200 a barrel level and beyond in the next year. If anything, the plan to hike oil prices is on an accelerated course."
And Watson concluded the article with this: "Far from having a crystal ball that allows us to divine the future, we were able to accurately predict the soaring cost of oil by listening to what the power brokers themselves were saying, through moles that managed to infiltrate Bilderberg meetings and obtain the information."
Speaking of Bilderberg, I remember hearing Alex Jones on the "Coast-to-Coast AM" radio program at the time of 2008 Bilderberg schmoozefest. At that time Jones claimed there were two factions within Bilderberg regarding oil prices. One group, he said, wanted to keep oil prices rising rapidly, as was then happening. The other group, he said, wanted to keep oil prices rising too, but more slowly. I don't recall any indcation from Jones at that time that the Bilderbergers had any intenion of reducing oil prices.
As I said, Steve Watson's article was dated July 10, 2008. Interestingly enough, according to a Wikipedia article about oil pr ices, the very next day, July 11, 2008, oil rose to a new record high price of $147.27 a barrel.
But, and it's a BIG "but," oil prices then dropped by more than $20 during the next two weeks, and they continued to decline for months, getting down to about $40 a barrel in early December 2008. On December 17, 2008, I saw it reported on MSNBC that oil had closed at $40.06 a barrel.
So what does this mean? Could it be that Alex Jones is not infallible? That his "inside information" isn't neccssarily accurate and reliable? Do Alex Jones Bilderberg moles really exist? And if they do exist, are they double agents who sometimes feed him bogus "information." Did the Bilderbergers, as Jones claimed, plan to keep increasing oil prices, but somehow their best-laid plans gang agley (went astray)? (In other words, are the Bilderbergers less powerfol, less in control of events than some conspiracy nuts seem to believe?)
Personaly, I don't know what the explanation is, but I do know that Jones' prediction that oil prices would continue to rise was wrong. So maybe Jones should forget about Bilderberg moles and get a crystal ball, if he wants to accurately predict the future.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Some Questions for Premil Dips
I have a couple of questions for premil dips (premillenial dipsensationalists) or any other fundamentalist prophecy freaks who disagree with my opinion that Ezekiel 38 and 39, about Gog of Magog leading an attack on Israel, was a false prophecy about ancient times, and who insist the prophecy is going to be fulfilled in our future, possibly--preferably!--in our very near future.
Actually, I have two main questions.
The first question is: If Ezekiel 38 and 39 is a prophecy about our future and not a false prophecy about ancient times, then why are all the attackers in Ezekiel 38 and 39 riding on horses? Do you really expect us to believe that Russia (who you identify as Gog), Iran, Libya, Ethiopia, etc., are going to attck Israel, and all the attackers are going to be riding horses? Even if Russia still has some Cossacks, as some of you premil dips like to say, the idea that Russia is going to attack Irsael with nothing but Cossacks seems extremely farfetched. (When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, were the invaders all on horseback? I don't think so.) And as far as I know, the armies of Iran, Libya, Ethiopia, etc., do not consist entirely of cavalry.
The second question is: If Ezekiel 38 and 39 is a prophecy about our future and not a false prophecy about ancient times, then why are all of the weapons that are mentioned in the prophecy--shields and bucklers, bows and arrows, handstaves, and spears--ancient weapons? Are we really supposed to believe that Russia, Iran, Libya, Ethiopia, etc., are going to attack Israel with armies using only shields and bucklers, bows and arrows, handstaves, and spears?
Well, what, if anything, do you premil dips have to say for yourself and your farfetched beliefs?
Speakup, Hal Lindsey. Speak up, John Hagee. Speak up, Tim LaHaye. Speak up, somebody.
Actually, I have two main questions.
The first question is: If Ezekiel 38 and 39 is a prophecy about our future and not a false prophecy about ancient times, then why are all the attackers in Ezekiel 38 and 39 riding on horses? Do you really expect us to believe that Russia (who you identify as Gog), Iran, Libya, Ethiopia, etc., are going to attck Israel, and all the attackers are going to be riding horses? Even if Russia still has some Cossacks, as some of you premil dips like to say, the idea that Russia is going to attack Irsael with nothing but Cossacks seems extremely farfetched. (When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, were the invaders all on horseback? I don't think so.) And as far as I know, the armies of Iran, Libya, Ethiopia, etc., do not consist entirely of cavalry.
The second question is: If Ezekiel 38 and 39 is a prophecy about our future and not a false prophecy about ancient times, then why are all of the weapons that are mentioned in the prophecy--shields and bucklers, bows and arrows, handstaves, and spears--ancient weapons? Are we really supposed to believe that Russia, Iran, Libya, Ethiopia, etc., are going to attack Israel with armies using only shields and bucklers, bows and arrows, handstaves, and spears?
Well, what, if anything, do you premil dips have to say for yourself and your farfetched beliefs?
Speakup, Hal Lindsey. Speak up, John Hagee. Speak up, Tim LaHaye. Speak up, somebody.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Lucifer's Lexicon
CHRISTIAN COSERVATIVE, n. A blind guide who strains out a zygote but swallows a fullgrown camel jockey.
ESCHATOLOGY, n. A branch of scatology devoted specifically to bullshit about the end of the world.
JONES, ALEX, n. A drama queen. A bullshitter with a bullhorn. David Rockefeller's illegitimate grandson.
HARRISON, WILLIAM HENRY, n. America's best president ever.
QUETZALCOATL,n. The feathered serpent; the Aztec god of transitional evolutionary forms.
SOON, adv., Sometime within the next trillion years or so. (This is the meaning of the word as it is used in certain prophetic writings, such as "The Holy Qur'an.")
THEOCRACY, n. 1.Rule by God, i.e., anarchy. 2. Rule by people pretending to represent God.
(The above definitions are hitherto-unpublished definitions which might be included in a sequel to the i987 book, "Lucifer's Lexicon," or in a second edition of it.)
ESCHATOLOGY, n. A branch of scatology devoted specifically to bullshit about the end of the world.
JONES, ALEX, n. A drama queen. A bullshitter with a bullhorn. David Rockefeller's illegitimate grandson.
HARRISON, WILLIAM HENRY, n. America's best president ever.
QUETZALCOATL,n. The feathered serpent; the Aztec god of transitional evolutionary forms.
SOON, adv., Sometime within the next trillion years or so. (This is the meaning of the word as it is used in certain prophetic writings, such as "The Holy Qur'an.")
THEOCRACY, n. 1.Rule by God, i.e., anarchy. 2. Rule by people pretending to represent God.
(The above definitions are hitherto-unpublished definitions which might be included in a sequel to the i987 book, "Lucifer's Lexicon," or in a second edition of it.)
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
No Child Left Behind
In their book, "Are You Rapture Ready?", Todd Strandberg and James D. Terry, two premil dips (that's short for "premillenial dipsensationalists"), assert that children too young to make a decision about accepting or rejecting Jesus as their Savior will be given the benefit of the doubt. They will be saved. Indeed , they will be Raptured to Heaven before the shit hits the fan, i.e., before the Tribulation. Or to use the words of George W. Bush--No Child Left Behind.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Ode to Emperor Bush
Emperor Bush liberated Iraq.
Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack.
Liberated Iraqis were dancing in the street
Because our troops were shooting at their feet.
Liberated Iraqis threw flowers and kisses
And a pair of shoes that were near misses.
Liberated Iraqis are now free
To murder boozemakers and drink only tea.
Iraqi women now have the right
To put on a burqa or stay out of sight.
Liberated Iraqis are now free
To bomb Christian churches and make Christians flee.
Liberated Iraqis now have the right
To obey Muslim law. Is that why we fight?
Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack.
Liberated Iraqis were dancing in the street
Because our troops were shooting at their feet.
Liberated Iraqis threw flowers and kisses
And a pair of shoes that were near misses.
Liberated Iraqis are now free
To murder boozemakers and drink only tea.
Iraqi women now have the right
To put on a burqa or stay out of sight.
Liberated Iraqis are now free
To bomb Christian churches and make Christians flee.
Liberated Iraqis now have the right
To obey Muslim law. Is that why we fight?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Allah Is Not PC
My book, "The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays," includes the short, satirical essay,"An Open Letter to Allah." To prepare to expand that essay into a book in its own right, I've been rereading my copy of "The Holy Qur'an," generally an unrewarding exercise. However, one interesting thing I've noticed is in Surah 4, verses 36 and 37. Verse 36 ends by saying "...Allah loveth not the the arrogant, the vainglorious." Verse 37 continues the thought: "(Nor) those who are niggardly or enjoin niggardliness on others...."
But some years back, there were news stories about someone who was offended by another person's use of the word "niggardly." The offendee ignorantly regarded the word as a racial slur.
In any case, the word is now deemed offensive and is to be avoided.
And yet, there it is in my copy of "The Holy Qur'an." It's true that the English translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, contained in my copy of the book, was completed back in 1934. But since
Allah knows all and sees all, including the future, He must have known in advance that "niggardly" would eventually become verboten. So let's give the devil his due. Whatever else may be wrong with Allah, at least He's not PC.
But some years back, there were news stories about someone who was offended by another person's use of the word "niggardly." The offendee ignorantly regarded the word as a racial slur.
In any case, the word is now deemed offensive and is to be avoided.
And yet, there it is in my copy of "The Holy Qur'an." It's true that the English translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, contained in my copy of the book, was completed back in 1934. But since
Allah knows all and sees all, including the future, He must have known in advance that "niggardly" would eventually become verboten. So let's give the devil his due. Whatever else may be wrong with Allah, at least He's not PC.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Ahmed Osman's Jesus Revisionism
In his book, "Jesus in the House of the Pharaohs," Ahmed Osman claims, among other things, that Jesus lived (and was killed) at the time of Moses. The following quotation from pages 39-40 of his book is about one piece of evidence cited by Osman in support of his farfetched revisionist theory:
"If Jesus lived fourteen centuries earlier than has been thought, it would throw a new light on an event described in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke--the meeting of Jesus and Moses at the time of what has become known as his Transfiguration: 'And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. And there appeared unto them Elias (Elijah) and Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.... And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man anymore, save Jesus only with themselves' (Mark 9: 2-5, 7-8).
"Christian authors avoided trying to interpret the meaning of this account until the nineteenth century. It was then explained away as not being a description of actual hstorical events, but rather a matter of the psychology of Jesus and his disciples or having been a 'spiritual experience.' However, the factual nature of the Gospel narratives themselves does not permit this interpretation. Unlike the confrontation with Satan, when Jesus was alone with a fallen angelic being, the Transfiguration cannot be interpreted as symbolic or a description of a vision. Here we have three disciples who are said to be witnesses to a meeting between Jesus and Moses, an event that is the only clue in the Gospels to the era in which Jesus really lived."
Osman's assertion that "the factual nature of the Gospel narratives" does not allow the Transfiguration to be interpreted as symbolic or a vision seems rather odd coming from an author who devotes so much effort to arguing for the non-factual nature of the Gospel narratives.
And if the Transfiguration is a clue that Jesus really lived at the time of Moses, then what about Jesus' disciples who witnessed it, according to the Gospels? Did Peter, James and John also live at the time of Moses? As far as I can see, Osman has not directly addressed that obvious question.
And if the Gospel accounts of Jesus' disciples seeing him schmoozing with Moses is a clue that Jesus really lived at the time of Moses, then what about Elias (Elijah) who was also seen shooting the shit with Jesus? Did Elias also live at the time of Moses? Osman makes no attempt whatever to answer tht question or in any way to explain the presence of Elias at that particular powwow.
So musch for this ridiculous "argument" in support of Osman's crackpot revisionist theory that Jesus lived at the time of Moses.
"If Jesus lived fourteen centuries earlier than has been thought, it would throw a new light on an event described in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke--the meeting of Jesus and Moses at the time of what has become known as his Transfiguration: 'And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. And there appeared unto them Elias (Elijah) and Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.... And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man anymore, save Jesus only with themselves' (Mark 9: 2-5, 7-8).
"Christian authors avoided trying to interpret the meaning of this account until the nineteenth century. It was then explained away as not being a description of actual hstorical events, but rather a matter of the psychology of Jesus and his disciples or having been a 'spiritual experience.' However, the factual nature of the Gospel narratives themselves does not permit this interpretation. Unlike the confrontation with Satan, when Jesus was alone with a fallen angelic being, the Transfiguration cannot be interpreted as symbolic or a description of a vision. Here we have three disciples who are said to be witnesses to a meeting between Jesus and Moses, an event that is the only clue in the Gospels to the era in which Jesus really lived."
Osman's assertion that "the factual nature of the Gospel narratives" does not allow the Transfiguration to be interpreted as symbolic or a vision seems rather odd coming from an author who devotes so much effort to arguing for the non-factual nature of the Gospel narratives.
And if the Transfiguration is a clue that Jesus really lived at the time of Moses, then what about Jesus' disciples who witnessed it, according to the Gospels? Did Peter, James and John also live at the time of Moses? As far as I can see, Osman has not directly addressed that obvious question.
And if the Gospel accounts of Jesus' disciples seeing him schmoozing with Moses is a clue that Jesus really lived at the time of Moses, then what about Elias (Elijah) who was also seen shooting the shit with Jesus? Did Elias also live at the time of Moses? Osman makes no attempt whatever to answer tht question or in any way to explain the presence of Elias at that particular powwow.
So musch for this ridiculous "argument" in support of Osman's crackpot revisionist theory that Jesus lived at the time of Moses.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Lucifer's Lexicon
CRUSADE, n. A jihad for Jesus.
GRAY MATTER, n. The type of matter necessarey for discerning shades of gray, rather than seeing things in black and white. Gray matter is not the matter with Kansas.
PANTHEIST, n. One who believes God is everywhere , even in the toilet (keeping a copy of the Koran company, perhaps).
(The above definitions are in the "Lucifer's Lexicon" section of my book "The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays," a 304-page paperback published by Nine-Banded Books. Price: $13.
Available from Amazon.com.)
GRAY MATTER, n. The type of matter necessarey for discerning shades of gray, rather than seeing things in black and white. Gray matter is not the matter with Kansas.
PANTHEIST, n. One who believes God is everywhere , even in the toilet (keeping a copy of the Koran company, perhaps).
(The above definitions are in the "Lucifer's Lexicon" section of my book "The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays," a 304-page paperback published by Nine-Banded Books. Price: $13.
Available from Amazon.com.)
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Ode to Emperor Bush
He lifted the economy with his tax cuts.
There was no bailout, you conspiracy nuts.
There was no bailout, you conspiracy nuts.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Histrical Trivia
Here's a quotation from Nicholson Baker's 2008 book, "Human Smoke":
Edgar and Lillian Mowrer were guests of a German banker. It was late in 1932.
"'After dinner,' Edgar later wrote, 'while the men, all Jews but me, sat over coffee, several boasted of giving oney to the Nazi party at the request of Aryans like Schacht and Thyssen.'
"Mowrer was silent. The banker, whom Mowrer identified as 'Arnholt'--possibly Hans or Heinrich Arnhold--asked him what he was thinking.
"'Merely wondering,' said Mowrer, 'how the People of Israel have managed to survive so many thousands of years when they obviously have a strong suicidal urge.'
"The banker scoffed at Hitler's rhetoric. 'Just talk,' he said."
Edgar and Lillian Mowrer were guests of a German banker. It was late in 1932.
"'After dinner,' Edgar later wrote, 'while the men, all Jews but me, sat over coffee, several boasted of giving oney to the Nazi party at the request of Aryans like Schacht and Thyssen.'
"Mowrer was silent. The banker, whom Mowrer identified as 'Arnholt'--possibly Hans or Heinrich Arnhold--asked him what he was thinking.
"'Merely wondering,' said Mowrer, 'how the People of Israel have managed to survive so many thousands of years when they obviously have a strong suicidal urge.'
"The banker scoffed at Hitler's rhetoric. 'Just talk,' he said."
Monday, December 8, 2008
Pearl Harbor
A quotation from Nicholson Baker's 2008 book, "Human Smoke": "Henry Stmson [Roosevelt's Republican Secretary of War and reputedly a member of Skull and Bones] was writing in his diary. He, Knox, Stark, Hull, and Marshall had been in the Oval Office with the president, batting around a problem that Roosevelt had brought up. The Japanese were likely to attack soon, perhaps next Monday, the president said. 'The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves,' Stimson wrote. 'It was a difficult proposition.' I was November 25, 1941."
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Aldous Huxley and World Government by L. A. Rollins
For the edification of some conspiracy nuts, here's a quotation From Nicholson Baker's book,"Human Smoke," regading something Huxley wrote in his 1937 book, "Ends and Means":"The international police force that people were clamoring for was a mistake and a misnomer, Huxley believed. 'The police act with the maximum of precision; they go out and arrest the guilty person,' he wrote. 'Nations and groups of nations act through their armed forces, which can only act with the maximum of imprecision, killing, maiming, starving and ruining millions of human beings, thr overwhelming majority of hom have committed no crime of any sort.' An international police force was in actuality a force for international massacre. 'If you approve of indiscriminate massacres, then you must say so,' he wrote. 'You have no right to deceive the unwary by calling your massacre-force by the same name as the force which controls traffic and arrests burglars.'"
For the edification of some conspiracy nuts, here's a quotation From Nicholson Baker's book,"Human Smoke," regading something Huxley wrote in his 1937 book, "Ends and Means":"The international police force that people were clamoring for was a mistake and a misnomer, Huxley believed. 'The police act with the maximum of precision; they go out and arrest the guilty person,' he wrote. 'Nations and groups of nations act through their armed forces, which can only act with the maximum of imprecision, killing, maiming, starving and ruining millions of human beings, thr overwhelming majority of hom have committed no crime of any sort.' An international police force was in actuality a force for international massacre. 'If you approve of indiscriminate massacres, then you must say so,' he wrote. 'You have no right to deceive the unwary by calling your massacre-force by the same name as the force which controls traffic and arrests burglars.'"
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Lucifer's Lexicon
MAVERICK, n. A politician who occasionally disagrees with his own party but who never, ever disagrees with both parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)