Category Archives: Things Jesus Never Said

Salt is a four-letter word

[WARNING: This blog post contains lots of very strong language and is practically guaranteed to give offence to weak-minded prudes. Please proceed at your own risk.]

vl5tk

The use–mention distinction is a foundational concept of (Western analytic) philosophy. To fail to recognise the distinction is, at best, to invite disaster.

The following true statements illustrate the distinction.

(1) Salt is an ionic compound, viz., sodium chloride (NaCl).
(2) ‘Salt’ is a four-letter word.

The first sentence is a statement about the substance called “salt”—it uses the word ‘salt’ to refer to that substance. The second is a statement about the word ‘salt’—it mentions the word without using it to refer to anything other than itself.

‘Salt’ is a four-letter word. Salt is not a four-letter word. And neither salt nor ‘salt’ is a four-letter word in the usual idiomatic (and only incidentally numeric) sense of the term. It’s perfectly polite and indeed good table manners to ask someone please to the pass the salt!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMkNsMMvrqk

In this post I want to say a few words about four-letter words (e.g., ‘fuck‘ and ‘shit‘) and their cognates (e.g. ‘fucking shit‘) and briefly discuss whether (and in what contexts) Christians ought or ought not to be using such vulgarities and profanities.

And it struck me that the perfect way to make the main point I want to make is to recycle the metaphor that Jesus uses in Matthew 5:13 right after the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says to his followers

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. (NIV)

George Carlin aptly refers to the words I’m talking about as “just words which we’ve decided not to use all the time.” And “that’s about the only thing you can say about them for sure.” Carlin’s bang on the money! Because, if we used the words all the time, they’d lose their “saltiness”! They’d no longer be effective cuss words and they’d no longer be good for anything more than just plain old communication. Which would be a dingleberry of a disappointment.

(Or would it? If we no longer had an inventory of “reserved” words with which to insult others effectively, we’d have to relearn the art of the insult. And our prose would begin to be colourful like Bill Shakespeare‘s or Martin Luther‘s prose is colourful. And actually that would be fucking awesome!)

Say what you mean and mean what you say. Is probably the one blog post of mine I regularly link to. It explains how (according to me, but I’m not wrong) words acquire their meanings. The meaning of a word (any word) is determined by the conventions that govern its use. And those conventions can and do vary between different communities of language users. Amongst the kind of people I usually hang out with, the words ‘fuck’ and ‘shit’ are used fairly indiscriminately. They’ve pretty much lost their saltiness in those contexts. (But I use those words extremely judiciously, if at all, if I’m having dinner with, say, my mum or any of her older friends.) Whereas both I and my peers still tend to hold back on using the terms ‘cunt’ and ‘motherfucker’. Those two words remain mostly reserved for when we need convenient terms to refer to truly despicable people, such as Peter Dunne.

But here’s the interesting thing. In the circles in which I usually move, the words ‘cunt’ and ‘motherfucker’ can cease to be insults at all simply by prefixing them with the words ‘good’ and ‘formidable’ respectively. To call someone a good cunt is to pay them a genuine compliment. And it is a mark of utmost respect to call someone a formidable motherfucker. Mohammed Ali was a formidable motherfucker. Vladimir Putin is a formidable motherfucker. Good or evil, you don’t want to cross such people! Not unless it’s from a safe distance, anyway. (I.e., well outside of Russia in the latter case.)

Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips. (ESV)

Here’s a picture taken Wednesday evening of me (on the right) and a couple of good cunts. 🙂 🙂

good_cunts

Now to the question, ought Christians to be using the sort of language I’ve been using here? The answer is simple common sense, really. It depends on the context and the occasion and the company. None of the cuss words above is at all appropriate during a church service, for example. (But you may say “piss” if you’re reading from the KJV.) Such terms should be used sparingly, if at all, in polite company. Because they’re impolite. But in impolite company (such as on my Facebook page) they’re not impolite. Here’s what the Apostle Paul says

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (NIV)

Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. (NIV)

It’s contextual, you see. Don’t go calling someone a good cunt if it’s “out of place” to do so. But do go calling them that if it’s “helpful for building them up according to their needs.”

I’ll finish by noting that there’s a big tension between being a good cunt and being a formidable motherfucker. If you succeed at being both simultaneously then you’re practically a saint.

Should Christians kill all the homosexuals?

I chose the title of this post carefully in order to comply with Betteridge’s law of headlines.

Should Christians kill all the homosexuals? (Let’s be clear. The answer is NO.)

Not even Pastor Logan Robertson thinks that Christians should kill all the homosexuals. He thinks that’s a job for the government.

I believe every single one of them should be put to death. Obviously Christians shouldn’t be doing it. I’m not going to do it. It’s the government’s job to be doing it.

Which is worse? Pastor Logan Robertson’s appalling homophobia or his abject statism? (Let’s be absolutely clear. It’s NOT the government’s job to kill homosexuals. It’s no one’s job. No one should kill anyone. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.)

Presumably Robertson is somewhat cynical about the government’s ability to do whatever it is they’re supposed to do, and that’s why he says he’ll pray that Marjoram tops himself, rather than patiently wait for the state to embark on genocide.

pastor-email

I’m downgrading my assessment of Pastor Logan Robertson from stooge to sitting duck.

I was by no means the only one to suspect that Marjoram and Robertson were colluding and that it was all a set-up to gain publicity for and sell Marjoram’s book. Or, worse, that it was a cunning plan by new atheists to discredit Christianity. Investigative journalist Ian Wishart says

Maybe it’s the investigative journalist in me, and the sceptic in someone else who shall remain nameless, but something seems fishy about this story of the pastor abusing the gay author.

Logan Robertson does not seem to have much of a digital footprint pre-dating this. In fact, his “church” is so obscure it runs from a house and its website was only established a matter of weeks ago. Frankly, I’m surprised Jim Marjoram was able to find so obscure a church to send an email to…because I couldn’t find it in the usual church email directories he would ordinarily have used..

Maybe I missed something…

What Wishart missed, and what I missed, is that Robertson has a history of serious mental illness.

hes_mentally_ill

Here ends the short sad sorry saga of Pastor Logan Robertson and his Westcity Bible Baptist Church with its congregation of three.

Or does it?

What about the elephant in the room?

Let’s grab it by the tail and look the facts in the face. The Bible quite clearly tells us, as Pastor Logan Robertson reminds us in his email, to kill all the homosexuals.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (KJV)

So shouldn’t Bible-believing Christians be coming out and putting homosexuals up against the wall?

There’s a standard form of reply to this last question, which has to do with covenants and/or dispensations. A typical reply goes something like this.

The prohibition on homosexuality in Leviticus is part of what Bible scholars often call the ‘Holiness Code’. Its purpose was to maintain the distinctiveness of the Israelites from the Canaanites.

levitical_leviticus

So we’re no longer required to kill homosexuals? Well, that’s nice and all, but I just don’t swallow the dispensationalist defence. Do I worship a God who, at one time, commanded the Israelites to stone their gay brethren to buggery? Or not? That’s the question I ask myself and my answer is NO.

I suggest that the repository of bigotry and bans that is the Book of Leviticus isn’t God’s word and doesn’t belong in the Bible. It’s canon fodder, i.e., expendable. (I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. Let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book.)

Rediscovering Dispensational Truth…Exposing the Frauds of Orthodoxy one Fallacy at a time… Part 1. Christ’s Gospel.

Lion_Lamb

Dear Readers, I intend to expound the Dispensational doctrines of the scriptures in a piecemeal fashion, having been labelled ‘a heretic’ for some of my Blog posts on this subject.
I can sympathise with such sentiments because Dispensationalism is *not* taught in so-called orthodox Churches, and to the Degree that it is at all studied in Higher Education, It appears to be maligned as a ‘modern heresy’… ironically by ‘Learned scholars whom pride themselves with being ‘up to date’ on everything.
I will be using my King James Authorised Bible.
I Dedicate this series of posts to my Fellow Blogger Richard Goode.
I hope that by taking my sweet time, and patently getting him to walk with me through the Bible, that he will slowly but surely begin to grasp the accuracy of the Dispensational perspective.

bedfont_milestone_2

Dispensationalism makes distinctions and puts various things, events, doctrines, etc in chronological order… thus creating a linear Time line which basically may be viewed as Past, present, and future… and we can place events in chronological order and see the flow, the changes, the purposes, etc and this gives clarity to what is going on and dispels a great deal of Confusion which results from not understanding the proper context of things and clearly making distinctions.
The Failure to appreciate Dispensational truth results in Chaos… and even has meant many Christians today don’t even know The Gospel of the Grace of God.
They utterly confuse it with Old testament Law and other Gospels.

I will start with the beginning of Jesus’s Ministry.

Sermon_On_The_Mount_Copenhagen

St Mark Chapter 1vs 14….

“Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, Preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.
And saying, The time is Fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand: Repent Ye and believe the Gospel.”

Ok… Now that should be simple enough to understand.
Jesus Preached *To Jews* ‘The Good News’ that God’s Kingdom was *at hand!*
This is called *the Gospel of the Kingdom of God*… and it was ‘Good news to the Jews of his day because They were living under the Roman Yoke.
The Jews were waiting for their promised Messiah to appear and Save them *as a Nation*, and to set up his Kingdom… ruling from ‘the throne of David’.

Jesus was telling them… The Time fulfilled… God was now moving to set up The promised kingdom they were waiting for… and this meant Freedom from Rome.

Traditionally this beginning of Christ’s ministry is said to have been 31AD

Notice what Jesus Gospel *did not include*…. it did not include any mention of the cross, or Himself dying on the Cross, or any ideas associated with substitutional atonement.
And we can know this because the Bible clearly declares that it was not until much later on in his ministry that Christ began to discuss the fact that he would be killed.

Chronologically speaking Matthew 16vs 21 is much later on in Christ’s ministry… yet it was not until this late stage that He began to talk about his Death on the cross… in a series of ‘Progressive revelations’…

“From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.”

Here we are specifically told the *from this time* Jesus *Began* to talk about his death… and no matter what scholarly squabbles about the actual dates involved… this Beginning of talking about the Cross was already two years into his three year ministry!

Thus we know that the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom he had been preaching said nothing about the cross!

Back in Matt 10 Christ sent his 12 disiples to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews Only…

“5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

The reason Christ sent his disciples to the Jews Only…. with this Gospel of the Kingdom is because God had made covenants with Their Fathers!
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David….

St Paul Says this about Christ’s ministry…. Romans 15vs8

“Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:”

That’s why Jesus himself said Matt 15vs24

“…I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

And that is why The Jews were looking for their messiah and “looking for redemption in Israel”
Go read Luke chapter 2 in your KJV!

Lost sheep

This will suffice for part 1 of this series.

Part two I will look at what happened when Christ started to tell the disciples about his coming death.
About why Peter slashed off the Ear of the Roman guard, why he denied Christ, and what the disciples thought when they got news of his resurrection.
All these things testify to the fact that they were not taught to focus on the Cross… but on the Messianic Kingdom.

As I have already said I dedicate them To Richard Goode, and pray God opens up his eyes to these truths.
I also pray that God can soften Glenn Peoples hardened heart, and spiritual Pride so that he at least will contemplate what I have said… on it’s face value rather than searing his own conscience and attempting to subvert these clear teachings into a confounding muddle…. which is what the so-called ‘orthodox’ must do to pretend that Christ’s Gospel to the Jews and St Paul’s gospels to the gentiles are the same.

Now I must declare that I myself do not claim to be a Minister, A Pastor, or any Person of Great piety.
I am a very carnal Man, and have many spiritual problems, and so I dont make any pretensions to be a Great Christian.

I am merely sharing what I have learned from much greater Christians than I.
And It appears that by God’s grace he has seen fit that I should know these truths, and I sincerely believe it is God’s will that I share them.
I guess God has always had to use less than perfect Vessels in his service.

Tim Wikiriwhi
King James Bible believer, Dispensationalist, Libertarian.

spackman_nz
My Old Pastor. The Late Great Dr Denis Spackman.

Some people may wonder why I would put the following song on the end of this blogpost.
it’s because sometimes it’s necessary to ‘loose your religion’ to discover the truth.

Spread a little hate worldwide

god-loves-fags-dykes-trannies-and-even-fred-8605-1255467711-45

I found reading this incredibly sad.

Fred Phelps, Founder of the ‘God Hates Fags’ Westboro Baptist Church, is on the ‘Edge of Death’

You know Fred Phelps. You loathe Fred Phelps. You despise everything he stands for, like his family members’ infamous protests at soldiers’ funerals with their awful “God Hates Fags” signs. They’ve been a symbol for many years of the religion-based animosity against the LGBT community — to the point that they’ve been labeled a “hate group” and even the most fundamentalist Christian groups denounce his church’s activities.

Nate Phelps … is Fred’s son and a former member of Westboro Baptist Church. He left the church, and therefore the core of the family, in 1976 when he was 18 years old and has since come out as an atheist, but he still keeps in touch with some of his extended family members, many of whom have also escaped from the church.

Tonight, on Facebook, Nate posted this:

I’ve learned that my father, Fred Phelps, Sr., pastor of the “God Hates Fags” Westboro Baptist Church, was ex-communicated from the “church” back in August of 2013. He is now on the edge of death at Midland Hospice house in Topeka, Kansas.

I’m not sure how I feel about this. Terribly ironic that his devotion to his god ends this way. Destroyed by the monster he made.

I feel sad for all the hurt he’s caused so many. I feel sad for those who will lose the grandfather and father they loved. And I’m bitterly angry that my family is blocking the family members who left from seeing him, and saying their good-byes.

401774-20130528-221417-640x360

It seems that Fred Phelps badly misconstrued the meaning of

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (KJV)

As for Phelps and fags … sure, if you truly believe that people are destined for eternal conscious torment in hell, then arguably it is a loving act to warn them as loudly as you can of their impending doom, but I don’t think Fred Phelps really understood or practised the second great commandment. Do you?

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (KJV)

I found reading his son Nate’s Facebook post incredibly sad but I find reading the reactions that news of Phelps’ impending demise has engendered even sadder. Here are some typical reactions I’ve seen on (or linked to from) Facebook.

Fuckin hate this cunt with a passion !! If he needs help gettin over that edge Holla !!!!

Someone give him a shove, and maybe stab him in the back a few times

sweet i so hope he lingers on in utter pain and has to spend the remainder of his miserable existence being hand bathed slowly by a FLAMING HOMOSEXUAL 3 times a day

Just waiting for God to flush the toilet

To the people who spew such venom, I’ve simply got to ask. What did Fred Phelps ever do to you? Did he picket your funeral? Did he personally come and pee on your rug? Seventy times seven, peeps. And don’t you think you’re getting a bit overwrought over something that’s essentially a clown act?

Hate breeds hate. Luckily, I don’t loathe Fred Phelps and never did, but so many people do. Phelps bred hate and spread more than a little hate worldwide. And I’m guessing he might even have inspired some of heavy metal band Slayer’s lyrics. 🙂

No reciprocal hatred from me. Just a wish, in the spirit of yesterday’s St. Patrick’s day, that Phelps’s is “a quick death and an easy one.”

Ayn Rand collected Social Security

what-would-ayn-rand-do-copy-jpg_43658_20121207-443

Ayn Rand collected Social Security.

It’s not just a low blow. It’s lower than that. It’s a Facebook group.

Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”

I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.

There is nothing wrong in accepting private scholarships. The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Ayn Rand collected Social Security.

She regarded it as restitution and opposed all forms of welfare statism. Problem?

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

Ayn Rand collected Socialist Scalps.

When it comes to slaggin’ socialists, Ayn Rand is unsurpassed.

Bow down before the Rand!

We are not worthy!