Doojies House

What Is This “Holy Spirit”?

Posted on March 29, 2013 by Ralph Haulk

Actually what the Bible says about this “Holy Spirit” is nothing like what the christian churches tell us.
Over 38,000 estimated versions of christianity, and each of them claim to have the “Holy Spirit”. But here’s the problem logically, if the “Holy Spirit” is the spirit of truth: In any set of conjoined propositions, if one proposition is false, the whole set is false.
If we look logically at the more than 38,000 versions of the “true church” and their versions of the “Holy Spirit”, we would logically have to conclude that, as part of the one true church, they would have to be false, since they would contain false propositions.

None of them can be correct, because if you multiply error, you just get more error. In continuation of my last two essays, we can see that the Bible focuses on two “covenants” from God:
1.The promise, made between God and Abraham
2. The law, given at Sinai.

Many have assumed that the creation of the nation of Israel was actually fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, but in fact, they are not!

The promise made to Abraham, and the law given to Israel, actually represent two separate covenants!

Notice that Jesus brings up this subject with Nicodemus in John 3. In fact, he is speaking of two births. Jesus said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit”(verse 6). Two births, one of flesh, one of spirit.

People assume, quite naturally, that Jesus is referring to all people who are born. After all, we’re all born of “flesh”, right? W e reach that point when we “accept Christ”, and then we may be baptized and “born again”.

That, however, is not what what Jesus meant. As explored earlier, the phrase translated as “born again” is actually “born from above” , from the Greek word “anothen“. In fact, Jesus was saying “unless a man is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God”.

That’s what baffled Nicodemus. He was familiar with the terms “born again”, since the Jews had practiced baptism along with circumcision for converts to Judaism. Once circumcised and “purified” in the baptismal waters, the new convert was “born again” as a Jew. Yet here was Jesus telling Nicodemus that he, Nicodemus, would have to be born of “water and the spirit”.(verse 5)

Is such a birth a matter of freewill choice? If so, why didn’t Nicodemus realize it? If it is there for all to choose, why was Nicodemus blind to it? Jesus said to him “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”(verse 10).
Here was a man who was a rabbi, a master of Israel, and had no idea what Jesus was talking about.

What exactly did Jesus and his disciples “see” that Nicodemus could not(verse11)?.
The next scripture is most interesting: Verse 13:
“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven”.

This is in regard to Ephesians 4:9, but it also points back to the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 30:11-12:

“For this commandment, which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it?”

Jesus was referring Nicodemus to that very scripture. The truth was there, written in the commandments, in the law, and no man had to ascend to heaven to get it. It was there for anyone to see, but Nicodemus missed it. If Nicodemus, a master of Israel, missed it, why would we think we have any better understanding than he did?

Paul even refers to this in Romans 10:6-8. “The word is nigh(near) thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is, the word of faith that we preach”.

What “word”? The same one to which Jesus referred in conversation with Nicodemus; the Old testament. It was there for all to discover if they looked. There is a birth of ‘flesh”, and a birth of ‘spirit’, and both are recorded in the Old Testament.

It is very simple: the birth of “flesh” is the birth of the nation Israel at Sinai. Tat is one covenant with God. The birth of the “spirit” is the birth of Isaac, who was born of promise to Abraham.

How do we know this? Paul explains it clearly in Romans 9:7-11:
“Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, ‘but in Isaac shall thy seed be called’.”

A key verse, right there. Those born as Isaac are born of the promise. Switching to RSV, verse 8, we see:

“This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants”.

Notice the implications of that statement. The children of the promise are both descendants of Abraham AND the children of God!

So Jesus came as fulfillment of the law, but his baptism represented, not the birth into Israelite law, but the birth of the promise given to Abraham! In fact, the birth of Isaac to Abraham was merely a kind of “down payment’ on the promise, with Jesus being the fulfillment.

What Paul is clearly saying here is that the nation of Israel was never a part of the promise given to Abraham. The creation of Israel at Sinai was for a completely different purpose. They were the birth of “flesh”.

So, if the children of the promise are “reckoned” as children of God, what promise are we talking about?

Next verse: “For this is what the promise said, ‘About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son’.”

Verse 11 brings it into focus: “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works, but because of his call”.

In Galatians 3:29 we see this: “And if you are Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise“.

If one is baptized, one is ceremonially “born again” into that same promise as Isaac. But here’s the catch: you can’t choose it. It is simply not a part of human decision-making ability. It is not dependent on “works”, but on the guarantee that God made to Abraham.

Notice also, Galatians 4:28: “Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of the promise.”

Did this promise have anything to do with what Isaac did? No, because Isaac wasn’t even born when it was made. Isaac was foreknown, predestined to be born, and called by name in advance of his birth! Isaac fulfilled the conditions of Romans 8:29-30!

Does that mean a few go to heaven and the rest go to hell? Of course not. Paul clearly refutes this in Romans 11:32.

Look at Galatians 4:29: “But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh(Ishmael)persecuted him who was born according to the spirit(Isaac) so it is now”.

The birth which Jesus represented was the birth of promise to Abraham, a promise that did not include the covenant with Israel at Sinai. The birth of Isaac is a birth which was forenown and pre-planned, as written in Ephesians 1:4:”Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world.”

Certain inividuals are chosen to be servant/leaders in a kingdom here on earth. They are foreknown, predestined, and called, as Isaac was. And they are NOT part of the world religious or government systems. When you are baptized, you are born in to the hope of that promise, free of all human authority systems. You have the right to claim that freedom by your faith.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Abraham, covenant, Isaac, Israel, Jesus, promise | 1 Comment

Where Is This “True Church”?

Posted on March 23, 2013 by Ralph Haulk

Every preacher has his own version. You can go to any number of them, and they will all tell you “this is the one”, but when it comes down to proof, they don’t have it.

Oh sure, they can quote Matthew 16:18:
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

But what does that tell us, really? Assuming there is a true church, where the hell is it? And if there is one, why the hell shouldn’t it be obvious to all? In my last essay, I pointed out that deliberate deception has occurred, even to the point where Paul states in Romans 11:7 that “the elect hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded”.

Elect? Are these the same as the “true church”? And if so, can they be deceived? I already quoted Matthew 24;23, but look at the next verse, Matthew 24:24:
“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect”.

So, there’s an “elect” that apparently cannot be deceived, and they’ve got “something(Romans 11:7)” that sets them apart.

At this point, we come to a principle in science called “Occam’s Razor”, from Wikipedia, we see this definition:

“Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected“.

Further, the article states:

“The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced”.[b]

Taking these ideas, if we look at the various scriptures already offered, in combination with Matthew 24:23, we can now use Occam’s razor and apply it to test where is the “true church”. Since we see from Isaiah 55:8, Proverbs 16:25,Proverbs 3:5 and Romans 8:7 that it is impossible to decide on a set of “works” or decisions, or algorithms that get us from “here to God”, how can we escape deception?

We simply use Occam’s razor! What is the very simplest theory we can use to see how to avoid deception?
1.If we can’t discover it by reason or logic
2.If we cannot determine it by “works”
3.If we cannot prove whether a “man of God” is telling us the truth

Then, we have the very simplest conclusion to reach: don’t follow or believe any of them!

If we look at Matthew 24:23, we see that none other than Jesus has used Occam’s razor to tell us the only logical truth!
“Then if any man says to you, Lo, here is Christ or there, believe it not”. How do we know Jesus was telling us the truth? First, he used a standard consistent with Occam’s razor, and second, he gave us a statement consistent with Romans 8:7, Isaiah 55:8, and the two scriptures from Proverbs.

But if I tell you what is the most logical argument according to Occam’s razor, and further point out that Jesus himself told us this very same thing, you will “naturally” tend to reject it!
Your mind will crave to discover some “way”, some “path” some process by which you may find special recognition, yet Paul himself went to great lengths in Romans 9:16-22 to show that it simply cannot be done! Now, if you’re one of those people who wish to condemn Paul, remember that Jesus made a very similar statement in John 6:44!

If men try to organize in God’s name, therefore, their only accomplishment will be to splinter into more and more churches infinitely, and that is precisely what we’re seeing today! This, therefore, makes the third scientific “proof” that I am telling you the truth: if any statement proves consistent with what we see from observation, and it is the simplest possible explanation offered, it must be correct!

Therefore, the first “sign” of the ‘elect” will be that they are doing exactly the opposite of what the “natural” mind assumes is correct! They will be ignoring all religions! Give this simple statement to “religious minded’ people, and they will argue with you from now on, even in disagreement with the plain and simple statement of Jesus himself!

So we have Jesus’ statement of Matthew 7:14:
“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it“. It can be found, and by the simplest of logical methods, yet the millions will never accept it! It runs contrary to their “natural” minds!

But wouldn’t that include atheists? They don’t believe in the churches, so wouldn’t they be included in the “elect”? No, because the standard is specifically defined in both the Old and New Testaments.

The process is very simple. God made two basic “covenants” the first directly with Abraham, and then about four hundred years later with the nation of Israel at Sinai. The first covenant with Abraham is referred to repeatedly by Paul as the “promise”, and the second as the “law”.

Jesus explained to Nicodemus that there are two births, one of ‘flesh’ and one of ‘spirit’. Many christians assume that you “accept Christ”, get baptized, and you are “born again”. Not exactly. The phrase “Born again” is actually translated from the Greek “anothen” which means “from above”. The actual word for “born again” in Greek is “annagennao” literally meaning “again born”, which is used in 1 Peter 1:3:

“…hath begotten us again…unto a lively hope”.

Who is “begotten again”? Verse 2:

“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…”.

That is, there are those who are “elect” and are foreknown by God. This can be examined in Romans 8:29-30:

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son…”.

If we compare 1 Peter 1:3 and John 3 with Romans 8:29-30, we see first that there are those who are literally born of God, foreknown, and later “born again” with a “lively hope”.

They are born “from above(anothen) and then they are “born again”, actually made aware of a special relationship.

Go back to Romans 8:29-30. We see that these folk are foreknown and predestined, to become the image of God’s sons. We see further that these same people are also ‘called’, receive an understanding which they out of many will recognize. That is when they are “born again(annagennao, 1 Peter 1:3) with a “lively hope”.

To be “elect, therefore, you should:
1. Not be following the various religions
2. Understanding the difference in the two covenants, the one of “promise” and the one of “law”.

What did Paul say about it? First, we know from Romans 9:8 that the birth of flesh(Israel the law at Sinai) is different from the birth of “spirit” which is the promise made to Abraham. A s Paul point out(Galatians 3:17), the birth of “promise” came four hundred thirty years before the law at Sinai, so the law at Sinai cannot “dsannul” the promise !

If you are “of Christ”, therefore, you are born of “promise”. Galatians 3:29:
“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise“. Not of law, not of “works”, but of promise. Paul states this more directly in Galatians 4:28:

“Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise“.
Wat are the conditions of Isaac’s birth? He was foreknown, actually named, and called. Isaac fulfilled the description in Romans 8:29-30, which means all those truly “of Christ” will be born of the same conditions!
God already knows them, knows who they are, and will call them, as he did with Isaac. Al those who are “Christ’s” are heirs according to that very promise!
By freewill choice? No, you cannot choose it. The very best you can choose is confusion, deceit, division, hatred, and prejudice among those who claim closeness to God.

You can choose to be free from all the power structures of men, because there is no human authority over you as long as you harm no one. So, the ‘elect” are identified by certain standards:
1.They will not be part of any religious organization at all
2. They will understand the difference in the “promise” and the “law”
3. They will know that God has already predestined certain individuals to be His children
4. They will know that this very knowledge sets them free from all human authority systems

How many religions will teach you that? None of them. If they taught this simple truth, they would be out of business. Both church and state would be destroyed. “You shall know the truth” said Jesus, “and the truth shall make you free”.

To know the truth is to be free from all powers of men, both church and state. To truly serve God is to know that you are the equal of any human authority, and you have the right to face all accusers(Isaiah 50:8) and you are justified in doing so before God(Isaiah 54:17).

“Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth(Romans 8:33)”

You have been set free of all human authority, but the masses will never accept this. Only a few will. They will follow their “natural” conclusions, and they will be deceived. Do they go to hell? No. That will be covered later.

Posted in Sociobiological Evolution, Uncategorized | Tagged True Church | Leave a comment

The Gospel? All Religions Are Lying To You

Posted on March 23, 2013 by Ralph Haulk

This is a lead-in to a more fascinating idea that has been hidden from all the religions, actually kept from them, yet all through the pages of the Bible.
When people try to get me to go to some church or join, I quote my favorite scripture to them; Matthew 24:23 “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not“.

Notice , if any man says it. Any man, woman, boy, or girl, don’t believe them. If you do, you have been scammed. If God is trying to save the world now through Jesus, why would he deliberately deceive people?

“And for this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie”.(2 Thessalonians 2:11)

And why did Jesus speak in parables? Many think it was to clarify or simplify his message, for better understanding. That’s not what Jesus said! When his disciples asked why he taught in parables, he answered:
“Because it is given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given“.(Matthew 13:11) In Matthew 13: 35, it is explained that Jesus is fulfilling the prophecy:

“I will open my mouth in parables. I will utter things which have been kept secret since the foundation of the world.”

Things which have been kept secret? Has the truth been revealed to Christianity? If so, why are there an estimated 38,000 or more versions and growing? If you think your religion has provided you truth, how do you know? Can you prove it?

Certainly you can’t prove it logically, first because you have no provable evidence of God and second, Romans 8:7 tells us that the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God’s laws. If you really do have THE truth, how do you prove it to a natural, “carnal” mind?

“There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end therof are the ways of death(Proverbs 16:25)”.
“Lean no unto thine own understanding(Proverbs 3:5)”

If you take these scriptures with Romans 8:7, you can also add Isaiah 55:8:
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord”.

Our minds do no work like God’s mind, and our natural minds are enmity against God. How DO you know? The very act of proving, that which “seemeth right” to a logical mind, could very well be wrong! That leads logically to Jesus’ warning in Matthew 24:23: “If any man says to you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not“. Any person who tells you “here is Christ” could be lying, and you could not prove the true “man of God” by reason!

Still not convinced? Even Paul carries this same idea in his own writings. Romans 11:7:
“What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for: but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded“.

Blinded by God? Romans 11:32:
“For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy on all”.

Obviously “good works” won’t get us where we want to go, as Jesus points out in Matthew 7:22: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name hast cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?”

That’s pretty strong stuff. Who among us can claim to prophesy, and cast out devils? Even those will not be accepted!
Verse 23: “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity”.

“Good works” can’t get us there! Paul also says this in Ephesians 2:8-10:
“For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest man should boast”.

Works won’t get you there, and reasoning won’t get you there! You simply cannot get there from here, by your own efforts. How about faith? Paul says even faith that saves you is not your own !

Is it enough to believe? “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble”.(James 2:19)

Faith, belief, reason, logic, these will not get you there! You simply cannot get there from here by your own efforts! And yet James points out that faith and works provide justification! Contradiction? Not at all. James did NOT say that the law justified you. In fact, he pointed out that if you judge by the law, you must judge by the whole law, not just part of it(James 2:10).

What “works” did James emphasize? James 2:15: “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit?”.

James emphasized “works” but not works of the law. James 1:27:

“Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world”.

Noting about law there. Simply helping others, seeing that others are not harmed. Or as Paul wrote in Romans 12:19:

“…revenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath, for it is written, vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink. For in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.”

What we see here are not actions of law, but of love. Not control according to doctrine or dogma, but simple principles of giving, sharing with others, forgiving them even as God forgives you(Matthew 6:12,15).

War? Not by those standards! We aren’t even to pass laws that punish others unless they have harmed someone! How many professing christians actually practice these things? How many professing christians are encouraging war against enemies of other religions? In fact, they are not christians, as defined by Jesus and Paul. That definition really has been “kept secret from the foundations of the world”. I will explore it next.

Posted in Sociobiological Evolution | Tagged deception, false teachers, religion | 2 Comments

Marvin Minsky And Apostle Paul

Posted on February 8, 2013 by Ralph Haulk

Many who keep up with science are quite familiar with the pioneer in in Artificial Intelligence, Marvin Minsky. What shocked me was that Paul wrote something nearly two thousand years ago that parallels Minsky’s earlier studies into the human brain.

In The Age Of Spiritual Machines , by Ray Kurzweil, Minsky and Seymour Papert are referenced in a paper the did on the human brain:

“[the human brain] is composed of large numbers of relatively small distributed systems, arranged by embryology into a complex society that is controlled in part(but only in part) by serial symbolic systems that are added later…The symbolic systems that do most of the work from underneath must, by their very character, block all the other parts of the brain from knowing much about how they work. And this, itself, could explain how people do so many things yet have such incomplete ideas on how those things are actually done”.

We can compare this to the software and hardware of a computer. We know that many different programs can be run on software, but ONLY if it is compatible with the hardware of the computer. No matter how varied and complex the software, it depends on the hardware.

Even more important, the software cannot reach into the hardware and alter it, or the software itself ceases to function.

Let’s compare this to the conscious, thinking, self aware “mind(software)” and the deeper layered “society” of functions existing in Minsky’s concept of the brain. The mind can certainly “think about” the brain, imagine its various and complex neural connections, but there is no ability of the mind to reach down and alter the functions of the brain.

Let’s now proceed to what Paul wrote about two thousand years ago in Romans 7. I borrow heavily from the book of Romans because most Bible authorities point out that Romans is the core of Paul’s christian philosophy. If you want to know what he thought about it, read the book of Romans. So, Romans 7:

“For when we were in the flesh, the passions aroused…did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death”.

What are these “passions in our members”? Might they correspond to Minsky’s “society” that operated within the lower levels of the brain?

Further, might these “passions” or “society” be the result of evolution of microorganisms that have “learned” over the years, to function cooperatively within the human body?

If so, would they not, in fact, create conflicting situations in which we had to learn how to reconcile and manage the drives that operated from a “selfish” perspective?

James 4:1:
“From whence comes wars a nd fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts, that war in your members?

What we see developing here is a concept remarkably similar to Minsky’s concept of “societies” in the brain.

Pulitzer Prize Winner Jonathan Weiner writes in Time, Love, Memory, an exploration of the early studies of genes and fruit flies, that “we have conflicting motives and drives , and that we are aware of only a small subset of them at a time”.

Further, in studies of “split brain” patients, Weiner writes:

“…the left hemisphere[of the brain] is dominant in language…the right hemisphere is dominant for action and movement. Now the word ‘WALK’ is flashed on the screen in such a way that only the patient’s right brain sees it. Soon afterward, he gets up and begins to walk away. The experimenter asks him why he got up. ‘I’m going to get a Coke’ he says. He cannot explain the real reason because only his right brain knows, and his right brain is mute”.

“Each one of us” writes Weiner, “is a loose parcel of strivings that naturally display themselves to us, not all at once, but across time….A life is a great parliament of instincts, as Konrad Lorenz once put it.”

So here we are, right back at James 4:1-2:

“Ye lust and have not, ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not because ye ask not”.

There is an excellent parallel to what we are discovering in biology and computer science in relation to the brain.

In verse 3, we see this: “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts”. The more accurate word for “lust’ here is “pleasures”. We are by nature pleasure seekers. We want to “consume” things for our pleasure.

This “consumption of pleasure”, however, is not an “all at once’ phenomenon, but as Weiner writes, distributed across time, coordinated, organized over a period so that we combine thought and action.

The brain, as that coordinator, becomes aware of “time”, but acts according to genetic patterns, as the early fruit fly scientists discovered. There actually is a gene that dictates behavior according to time. The frut flies coordinated social and reproductive behavior around that ‘time gene”.

“An instinct, like a gene” writes Weiner, “is a kind of memory, a gift of time“.

We therefore seem to operate according to a coordination of “pleasures” that find ways to combine themselves, being expressed as conscious desires. The “lusts that war in your members”.

How far does this genetic influence reach in the brain? In Survival Of The Sickest, Dr. Sharon Moalem tells us of “jumping genes” that shape the brain of the newborn babies.

“Jumping genes are very active in the early stages of brain development, inserting genetic material all over the developing brain, almost helter-skelter, as a normal part of brain development. Every time one of those jumpers inserts or changes genetic material in brain cells, it’s technically a mutation. And all of that genetic jumping around may have a very important purpose–it may help to create the variety and individuality that makes every brain unique. This developmental frenzy of genetic copy and paste only happens in the brain, because that’s where we benefit from individuality”.

But what are “jumping genes”?

“…a large portion of our noncoding DNA is made up of jumping genes–as much as half of it. But the bigger surprise was this–those jumping genes look an awful lot like a very special type of virus. A huge percentage of human DNA is related to viruses.”

What used to be known as “junk DNA” turns out to have specific and very useful purposes. This DNA, noncoding for specific functions in the body, is “inserted” at random positions in the brain while the brain is developing. If the gene, as Weiner writes, is a ‘gift of time”, this special insertion give the brain a sense of individuality AND a sense of “time and space” in the organization of “pleasures”. There is a time for every purpose under heaven, wrote the author of Ecclesiastes.

Time, purpose, genes, pleasures, desires, lusts , all operating and directed over time by the brain itself, which cannot grasp how it’s all done.

If this is how the brain is developed, by coordination of desires over time, what emerges as a process of thought? LINEARITY. The extension of an idea and its purposeful expression into the environment.

This desire can become so powerful that it results in “pathology”, generally recognized as narcissism, and proselytizing.

Imagine the human gene, seeking to replicate itself , further seeking to minimize change to that replication by controlling its immediate environment.

Suddenly Western religion becomes explainable in terms of biology and genetics. Proselytizing and “conversion ” are no more than linear expression of genes seeking to control their replicative and reproductive environments. Linear extensions, decisions, algorithms, patterns, empiricism, all extending and behavior shaping patterns emerging from the genes. “Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little”.

The “software”, the “mind”, seeks to shape and organize conscious behaviors according to the dictates of these drives, or “lusts’ or “pleasures” that “war in our members”.

The brain operates to organize in linear patterns that are “yes/no”, digital 1/0, processes, but operate within a larger context of “reality”. “A” is always “A”. It cannot be both “A” and “non-A” at the same time, under the same conditions. Linearity broken up into yes/no decisions, with one option eliminating the possibility of a contradicting option : LOGIC.

But logic, as the “software” cannot alter the function of the “hardware’ that drives it. The logic is merely the digital processes, algorithms, that organize behavior, both socially and individually.

This takes us back to the brilliance of Paul and Romans 7: 15:

“For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that I do”.

Translate that into the discoveries above, and you have a remarkable insight, two thousand years old.

“Flesh” and “spirit”, “brain’ and “mind” “software” and “hardware” “lusts” and ‘genes”. The brain is not a “make happen” organ, but a “make aware” organ. it is a switching device that seeks one ‘pleasure’ to the exclusion of other ‘pleasures”. Individuality developed by interacting with the environment through “jumping genes”.

As Paul continues, “for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not”.

There exists no definitve algorithm by which we may proceed from “here’ to ‘truth’ in one system of thought. This is recognized as a result of Godel’s incompleteness theorem: “in any consistent axiomatic formalization suitable for number theory, there exists undecidable propositions”.

In order to “find” such a procedure, we would literally have to step outside of this reality, outside of our genes and biology, and see a “blueprint” not dependent on our own desires and pleasures. Religions actually deceive us by telling us this is possible, while it is obviously not. Trying to define “God” by a logical process is a violation of logic, because it is believing that you know what you cannot know. As Paul wrote: “…how to perform that which is good, I find not”.

No such algorithm, no such “work”, exists! or as Paul concluded in Romans 8:7:

“Because the carnal(natural, fleshy) mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be“.

What we perceive as “God” from our conscious, decision-making time perspective of the brain, is merely an idealized process we seek, but we canniot live “outside of time” in order to get ‘there”.

Or as Paul writes in Romans 9;16: ” so then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy”.

No decision procedure, no algorithms, no “works”, to get from “here’ to “God”. Such a decision procedure can only belong to God, assuming there is a God, as Paul writes in Romans 8:29-30. Or Ephesians 2:8: “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God(verse 9) not of works(decisions, algorithms) lest any man should boast”.

What we’re really talking about here is a kind of birthing process, a “chrysalis effect”, in which the new creature emerges from the cocoon of the old. But it can only be achieved by open interaction with all of life and this universe.

Posted in Sociobiological Evolution, Uncategorized | Tagged apostle Paul, biology, computers, genes, Jonathan Weiner, Marvin Minsky, Sharon Moalem | 1 Comment

“Hell” And “Due Process” Of Law

Posted on January 2, 2013 by Ralph Haulk

Within the concept of due process, as stated by the 5th amendment and SCOTUS, is the ancient idea that no man can be made to accuse himself. Borrowing from the writings of the Jewish rabbi Maimonides, SCOTUS has declared that the 5th amendment right against self incrimination has its origins in the Bible(Miranda v Arizona, footnote 27).

Jon Lilburne of England demonstrated this truth, leading to the destruction of Star Chamber judgement in England, pointing often to the trial of Jesus himself. As we see in John 18:19-23, Jesus demanded that the high priest provide witnesses against him, proving that he had in some way violated law. This was never done.
Verse 20:

“I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I said nothing. Why asketh thou me? Ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I have said”

Jesus exercised his right to face his accusers(Isaiah 50:8), and protection of God(Isaiah 54:17), thus becoming an example for all those accused of lawbreaking, or “sin(1 John 3:4)”.

Within this example, we see Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas echoing this principle of protection from God(Miranda):

“The principle that a man is not obliged to furnish the state with ammunition against him is basic to this conception….[The state] has no right to compel the sovereign individual to surrender or impair his right of self defense….A man may be punished, even put to death by the state; but…he should not be made to prostrate himself before its majesty. Mea culpa belongs to a man and his God. It is a plea that cannot be extracted from men by human authority. To require it is to insist that the state is the superior of the individuals who compose it, instead of their instrument”.

Law historian Leonard Levy writes:

“The framers understood that without fair and regularized procedures to protect the criminally accused, liberty could not exist. They knew from time immemorial the tyrant’s first step was to use the criminal law to crush his opposition”.

Applying this idea to the concept of “hell” as taught by Christianity, we see that Jesus demanded that his accusers provide actual testimony that proved he had indeed “sinned” by breaking the law. In fact, no proof was given, and as the Jews admitted to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any an to death(John 18:31)”.

From this we have the separation, as Blackstone pointed out, between civil law(Roman law) and “common law”, which recognized the authority of “God, reason, and nature”. The Jews could not lawfully put any person to death without direct proof, unquestionable, that the accused had committed a sin worthy of death. If they did so, by the law of Deuteronomy 19:19, they were guilty of the sin with which they accused the person. Therefore, it was unlawful for them to put Jesus to death by “hanging on a tree” without bringing the “curse” upon themselves.(Galatians 3:13, Deuteronomy 21:22-23).

As you see in verse 23, “…for he that is hanged is accursed of God”. This is in reference to Leviticus 18:25, which curses the land itself on which Israel lived, if they hanged a man from a tree. Consequently, it was important that Jesus be “laid to rest’ that very day on which he was hanged.

Paul, therefore, pointed out that Jesus was “made a curse for us”(Galatians 3:13). By leaving crucifixion to civil(Roman) law, the Jews avoided the responsibility of putting an innocent man to death by their law.

The Jews, therefore, can technically argue that it was civil(Roman) law that put Jesus to death, and not God’s law.

This would mean that if Jesus paid the penalty of law, which was death, he paid the penalty of civil law, which had hanged him “on a tree” by law. Civil law, in accordance with Justice Fortas’ statement, had no authority to compel any person to confess guilt, and federal law IS civil law. Therefore, we have the understanding of the 5th amendment that “[no person] shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

Due process of civil law? No, common law, which Justice Joseph Story shows plainly in his “Commentaries” is recognized as “due process”. Story takes his conclusions from English Chief Justice Coke, who equated common law with due process. Since Jesus had paid the penalty of civil law, any accused person had the right of common law procedure to defend himself against accusers, which included protection of God and the right to face accusers, as Jesus himself had demanded.

How far does the principle of the right against self incrimination go by Biblical law? Notice Jude 9:

“Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil for the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said ‘The Lord rebuke thee’.”

Notice, however, in describing “the devil” and his “angels”, in Jude 6, we see:
“And the angels which kept not their first estate(proper domain) but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgement of the great day”.

We see from this that God has “reserved judgement” on even those beings. Even the archangel, therefore, could not bring accusation against Satan, as God himself was the judge. “The Lord rebuke thee”.

In 2 Peter 2, we see this parallel of Jude. Verse 10:

“But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptious are they, and self willed, and not afraid to speak evil of dignities”.

Does this mean we have no right to speak out against human government? Next verse, 11:

“Wheras angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord”.

Who DOES bring accusation? Well, hebrews 2:14:

“Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he(Jesus) also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil”.

How is it that Satan exercises this power of death? Matthew 4:8-10, and Luke 4:6-8. Satan ruled over the governments of the world, and offered world power to Jesus, who then told Satan that “thou shalt serve the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve”.

We see from Biblical example AND the statement of a Supreme Court Justice(Fortas) that the state may accuse, but has no power to compel any person to admit of any guilt. it is “between man and his God”. We also see, from Biblical example, that not even archangels have this power of accusation(2 Peter 2:11).

The state has no authorization to condemn anyone by its own laws.

If the state acts as accuser, being under power of Satan, we see the nature of those people who serve it, in 2 Peter 2:12:

“But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not, and shall utterly perish in their own corruption”.

The state cannot justify condemnation of any man for breaking a “victimless” law. The state is no more permitted to such accusations or punishment than the archangels mentioned in 2 Peter and Jude.

Notice further the description of these folks in 2 Peter 2:18-19:

“For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from those that live in error.
“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are servants of corruption, for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage“.

if they are “again entangled” in these laws and doctrines, they have created their own bondage(verse 20). Civil law(Roman, laws of men), cannot exercise punishment simply by virtue of the law itself, since Jesus died and paid the full penalty for us.

These are not people, but those who serve a combination of “beast(government) and false prophet(church)”. It is interesting to note that Ayn Rand, an atheist, referred to them in similar terms; “Attila and the Witch Doctor”, the combination of “faith and force” without reason and logic.

We now know mathematically from Godel’s theorem and Turing’s halting problem, along with other mathematical proofs, that it is simply impossible, by human reason, to put all truth in one package. Every attempt to do so results in “undecidable propositions” or “self swallowing sets” of logic. By attempting to establish human authority, we become “entangled” in what Douglas Hofstadter(Godel, Escher, Bach), calls “tangled hierarchies” of human authority.

Such absolute authority cannot be established by either church or state, leaving us with Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 24:23.

So who is condemned to hell(hades, or gehenna)?

They are named in the book of Jude, verse 6. The devil and those who followed him in rebellion. They control the governments of the world, and they enslave those who wish to be part of that system, including both church and state. For whom is “everlasting fire” reserved? “The devil and his angels(Matthew 25:41)”.
Those who follow human laws and human reasoning that condemns men by the authority of “victimless crime” deceive themselves, seeking punishment for others “as brute beasts”, condemning that which they do not fully understand.

You are free, now, today. You need not enslave yourself to human reasoning or even religions(Matthew 24:23).
Ralph

Posted in Sociobiological Evolution | Tagged bible, due process, Hell, John Lilburne, self incrimination | Leave a comment

Doomed To Destroy Each Other?

Posted on December 27, 2012 by Ralph Haulk

Another person makes a pertinent point on this: “If viruses
control us then we as a species are doomed due to our disposition to
destroy.”

Yes, and that’s the point. Viruses act to cut and past across a spectrum of DNA to constantly inform the DNA of each species. While we consciously seek to organize and establish unchanging identities for ourselves, we act in parallel to the immune system, which seeks to maintain stability and order even as it seeks information from the environment. The organisms within a species are constantly forced to identify and adapt to these viral invasions.

It is, in fact, these constant viral invasios that cause the immune system to “take stock” and re-assess its “identity” in the environment. The process of viral invasion is basically simple: A protein encasede virus discovers a n interlocki ng “port” o n the outside of a cell, and “docks” with that cell. The cell then allows the virus to enter, where it is then escorted to the nucleus, which then exposes the cellular DNA to the virus. We may compare this to sex in a remote way, with the cell, in female-like fashion, exposing its DNA “naKedness” to the viral DNA. Both cellular DNA and viral DNA combine, creating a union of the two, providing a RNA “blueprint” which then replicates itself in the cell, which then ruptures and allows other such “mutants” into other cells, which then take this modified RNA/DNA mix and replicate more mutant verisions, until the immune system identifies and tags the invader, creating antiodies to recognize all such invaders and neutralize the damage to the organism.

Two positive things occurred:

1.The immune system has increased its “intelligence” by enlarging its “databse” of invaders, thereby creating its identity in such a way as to react and overcome its environment. The identity of the organism, its overall reactions, bridge the effects of the invader. This “bridging” is a kind of “analog” response to a “digital” invasion.

2. The behavior has been altered in the organism, since the immune system has developed a new repertoire of responses to the viral DNA

Otherwise, their reproduction would probably become cancer-like , replicating but not responding to external environment, since the organism would be forced to replicate with no information from the external environment to process. Overspecialization. In the same sense, based on the insight of the Tower of Babel story, a culture that has only one language and one way of justifying its world is extremely overspecialized and unable to adapt.

The approach of the organism is a kind of “best guess” process, in which the immune system has to respo nd to its environment by the latest available i nformation. If there is no viral DNA with which to interact, the immune system will allow cellular reproduction to occur in cancer-like fashion, as cells that have no regard for their surrounding environment.Howard Bloom describes this “best guess” process in “Global Brain“:

“The immune system contains between 10 million and 10 billion different antibody types. Each one is a guess, preconfigured to snag the weak points of an enemy. If one antibody isn’t properly shaped to lock onto an invader, another will have to sink its specialized hooks into the raider. It’s vital for defensive flexibility to have numerous fallback antibodies on the scene.”

This massive “database” of antibodies are applied until a pattern is matched, so we see the same basic process of intelligence working in the immune system as the brain. It is said that chance favors the prepared mind. It also favors the prepared immune system. Humans accumulate knowledge for future reference and application, connecting to those external references the same as the immune system keeps “junk DNA” as a database for connections with viral invaders. The brain empowers itself with this enhanced database, just as the immune system is empowered by cross referencing and connecting to new DNA configurations. This is a very basic function of intelligence.

Empires and god-kings formed from Egypt through Rome, as human bodies developed immune responses sufficient for them to band together and organize. Their capacity to overcome their environment, however, was dependent on forms of organization that discouraged diversity , and reduced everyone to similar patterns of behavior. While this succeeded short term, it failed long term as populations grew and spread, and encountered other central population s with their own empires and god-kings. The response was not individualist infoltration and adaptatio n as we see with viruses, but collective processes of war and collective destruction, with resulting empires overcoming and a bsorbing smaller kingdoms.

It became beneficial, in fact, for large bodies of soldiers to ignore their own personal survival and act in unison for the good of the empire. Philip Slater poi nts out in “EarthWalk” that this “machine-like” response in the face of danger had no value until men began to make war on each other, so that war, the machine, and sacrifice to one goal had an evolutionary effect on civilization. This form of war-like, sacrificial behavior is cellular in nature. Like cells, individuals sacrificed themselves for the greater growth a nd power of the nation or empire, but the problem was that as the empire absorbed these diverse populations and cultures, it experienced “indigestion”.

The new cultures and behavioral processes provided new reactions and required more recognition of these practices from within the empire. It was not the conquest, but the absorption of these alien forms of behavior that allowed the empire to adapt and grow, or be forced to die if it could not properly absorb the cultures. In this fashion, conquest of other cultures acted in a general pattern similar to invasion of viruses in an organism. Either the empire developed new forms of adaptive response, or it ceased to exist. It is probably true that the law or code of Hammurabi was one such generally adaptive response, giving “universal” guidelines for cultural behavior. Behavior and adaptation for organsims were now generalized and externalized for cultural maintenance. This cultural maitenance required strategies of defense. Just as the immune system deployed strategies for recognizi ng and detecting the “other”, so now cultures had to deploy strategies for controlling and limiting behavior and separating it from the “other”. This means that strategies for replication and reproduction that were internalized were now rapidly becoming externalized. Cultural “self” and separation from “other” which was practiced by the immune system, now became externalized and deployed by the culture as an immune response. In this immune response, men could behave “mechanically”, and sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the culture. The growth and development of cultures became dependent on mechanical, externalized, lawful strategies. Humans subordinated personal survival drives to collective survival drives, which meant that former strategies of individuals became the strategy of the culture, empire, or state. As such states or empires grew, strategies were developed consciously for the recognition of diversity. Individuals, like viruses, were absorbed and neutralized unless their “DNA” was important for expansion of the system.

War, proselytizing, religion, narcissism, these became qualities of the successful growth of human empire and power. As we see today, however, these very processes of growth and centralization are threatened as individuals themselves are once a gain empowered by telecommunications, and the adaptive repsonse moves away from the nation-state.

The externalization of immunity that allowed for human development over centuries is now being internalized again in the form of telecommunications across borders and individual empowerment. This means that the individual, wherever s/he finds him/her self, will have to learn adaptive strategies at the individual level which transcend the formerly successful collective level. Whether we are “doomed’ or not depends on a simple point:

Can we begin to respond to this emergence of individual empowerment and challenge the collective destructive power of the nation-state, or do we allow the nation-state to destroy us in its effort to preserve itself?

Posted in Sociobiological Evolution | Tagged civilization, culture, genes, Howard Bloom, religion, Tower of Babel, war | Leave a comment

We Are Slime

Posted on December 26, 2012 by Ralph Haulk

It finally dawns on me as a consistent pattern of thought that we are no more than the accumulation of germs working cooperatively to produce a functional system for protective replication. IOW, such things as E.coli proliferate through our system and fun ction quite well until we take in some other strain of bacteria or virus that causes the E.coli to re-organize its protective strategy, and forces us to an adaptive process.

Howard Bloom gives many examples of this in “Global Brain“, and Dr Sharon Moalem gives many examples in “Survival Of The Sickest“.

Dr. Jordan Rubin, in “Patient, Heal Thyself“, points out that we are actually healthier when we open ourselves to exposure from our environment in the form of dirt, germs, and viruses, because that’s what makes up our bodies and immune systems.

Further, what is known as “junk DNA” stored in our bodies is actually the remains of former viruses that attacked us, and are now neutralized in a kind of cryogenic process in which parts of them are selected for DNA to combat the invasion of alien viral DNA. Dr. Rubin has also discovered a form of black rotting material that looks like dirt composed of bacteria in a form that remains unchanged, apparently as old as the earth itself. Simply eating this “dirt” seems to cause healing within the body.

More interesting, it seems that the brain is actually a secondary apparatus that developed when the genes could no longer store necessary information, and a self aware decision process developed from the need to act when uncertainty arose.

The gut, it seems, was the first place in which bacteria and viruses organized and developed their strategies through competition among organisms, and it was this competition that allowed for the further development of our immune system, which is also a marvelous intelligence system that recognizes, neutralizes, and incorporates viral invaders.

Dawkins has shown that certain viral invaders affect behavior. This is also shown by Dr Moalem in his book. Certain bacteria can literally parasitize the brains of ants and spiders, creating a kind of feedack loop on which ant ad spider behavior act to further the spread of the bacteria.

There is no reason to believe, therefore, that human behavior, indirectly, is not also affected by viral and bacterial collusion.

For example, cancer is a process in which cells reproduce themselves without regard to their external environment. They become, to all intents, “immortal”. Placed in a petri dish, cancer cells do not separate and show respect for neighboring property, but grow in massive disorganized lumps that care nothing for symmetry or limits.

Jared Diamond in “Guns, Germs, And Steel“, points out that Europeans spread around the world and conquered the lands of Central America as much by the spread of germs they had acquired through intimacy with domestic animals as much as by guns or steel. This suggest something indirectly: suppose the very need to spread and conquer other civilizations is nothing more than the need of those bacteria and viruses to interact, to “cut and paste” with other systems in other envrionments, to affect our behavior in such a way that we must spread ourselves and overcome other environments for social justification?

Pulitzer prize Winning author Jonathan Weiner points out in the book on early studies of genes and fruit flies that language developed as a form of justification for actions. For example, if a split brain patient is shown the word “walk”, he may get up and start walking across a room. If asked why, he will say, “I want to get a ‘Coke’ ”, or “I want to stretch my legs”, etc. IOW, the language merely occurs as a conscious justification for why he acted as he did.

This means that the more unwieldy the language, the more it is subject to control of an elite, the more people will accept it symbolically as controlled by that elite.

This, in fact, is what McLuhan points out in the development of heiroglyphs and ideograms as opposed to alphabetic text which is subject to constant alterations that produce relationships of sound, which are themselves based on a very simple base of letters. From simple beginnings, complexity develops.

This very problem is summed up in the story of the Tower of Babel. The people had one language, they communicated with one symbolic representation of the world, and “nothing they imagine shall be restrained from them”. IOW, the formula for accelerated entropy and cancer. The “trick”, therefore, was to create a linguistic process in which “information’ continualy separated them so that the lingusitc “excuse’ they offered could not be proven consistent with the environment itself.
This, essentially, is the proof contained in Godel’s theorem.

The myth of the Tower of Babel shows an amazing insight into a very necessary process for the evolution of human societies. The brain may be conscious of itself, but it has no mechanism by which the “software’ of conscious thought may reach into the “hardware’ of physical genetic processes. As Howard Bloom points out, the brain is like the chief executive who must make decisions after all the facts are in, but who can only rely on the way the facts are presented to him.

The most basic interaction, and the intelligence system which controls it at the cellular level, is the immune system. “Language” is the secondary process by which we organize, classify, and justify the necesary decisions made to avoid death and destruction.

I have to ask myself if the most inspiring speeches, the ones remembered for their call to sacrifice and to “higher” and lofty goals, are little more than linguistic justifications offered for the necessity of our need to conquer and interact with other environments.

War, for example. The behaviorist B.F. Skinner points out that if you hit an amoeba with a very tiny electric charge, it will attack its closest neighboring amoeba, suggesting that at the most basic levels of life organization relies on a form of warfare to control its destiny and territory. You will also notice that the very best place for “superbugs’ to develop is on the theaters of war, where soldiers are constantly exposed to antibiotics that provide a breeding ground for ever superior forms of viruses and bacteria that take the very protective information provided, and evolve themselves into ever more dangerous vehicles of expansion.

“From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not even of your lusts that war in your members?” James 4;1.

The simple fact is we cannot simply use willpower or our logical mind to reach in and control these “lusts’ that war in our members, because these “lusts” are driven by the necessary life extension processes of bacterial and viral interaction, the necessary exchange of information for the cells theselves to reproduce effectively. If we do manage to control them, then we ourselves behave in a socially cancerous fashion, in the form of proselytizing religions, narcissism, imperialism , etc. The linear extension of “self” expanded while destroying surrounding environment, the acceleration of chaos and entropy.

W cannot develop a language, however formal or disciplined, that represents truth of itself. Language is useful only for general descriptions based on scientific observation. Language used for justification through belief, in the form of religion, defines a “God” who is more than existence, and cultures end up sacrificing theselves to that which is not useful for reproduction. Overspecialization, which leads to extinction of both cultures and species.

To develop and worship a God subject to language, therefore, is to worship a God that is locked within the social communicative needs of human survival. Such a God will generally be selected ABOVE any God that would reflect truth, since truth often challenges the reproductive imperative.

Therefore you end with some interesting conclusions about any God of truth: “My ways are not your ways, neither are my thoughts your thoughts(isaiah 55;8)”. The natural mind is enmity against God, and cannot be subject to God(Romans 8:7). All attempts to worship and organize in God’s name will result in disunity and war(Matthew 10:34-38). There is no need to follow any person who claims such power(Matthew 24:23). In fact, as a matter of law, we are commanded NOT to organize any system symbolically or iconically as God ( 2nd comandment).

So in fact there is a necessary distinction between “spirit” and “flesh” as pointed out by Paul, who also, in Romans 7, pointed out the futility of trying to control this “flesh” by the use of willpower. Can’t be done.

Logically, therefore if we DO try to organize in God’s name by the development of symbolic, iconic representation, the result will inevitaly be war, “wars and ruors of wars”. Why? because as historians have shown, it serves an evolutionary purpose for the development iof diverse cultures. it expands the gene pool for selection of diverse options among DNA, allowing for the “cut and paste” of viral invaders. From dust we came, and to dust we shall return. The microorganisms that formed tiny civlizations also formed humans as extensons of their own civilizations. Whatever higher quality of the human mind that leads to “righteousness” will not be accesible by human govenrments or religion, since they are merely the extensions of cooperative processes emerging from our genes. The human mind and self awareness is a mid-point, a kind of “halfway house” of development, between the “lower’ states of cooperative development and the “higher” stage of civilizational development. We are not the controllers of our destiny, nor do our thoughts parallel the thoughts of God, if there is such a being.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jesus And “Due Process” of Law

Posted on July 14, 2012 by Ralph Haulk

Educated people today are laughing at the “Jesus myth” and pointing out its pagan origins, and well they should, because Christianity as we have come to k now it is as pagan as Zoroastrianism and Mithraism, or the mythology of Greece. What even the professing Christians don;t get is that Jesus was Jew. He studied Jewish laws, he taught in Jewish synagogues, and for the Jews, “Laws ‘R Us”.

Jews didn’t like him, especially the Pharisees, who were the leading legal experts of the day, because he called the hypocrites and children of the devil. He threw moneychangers out of the temple, and even made a cord from drapes to beat them out of the temple. Certainly not your “Jesus child, meek and mild”.

But what we call the “beatitudes”( beautiful attitudes) shows us some important things about Jesus and law:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
“For verily i say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”.

Pretty simple. It wasn’t done away, but “fulfilled”, every jot and tittle. Does that mean that we are bound forever under law with no recourse for our own defense?

Absolutely not. That was the whole point of jesus’ teaching. If he, by his life, could “fulfill” the law, so can we. But how? Didn’t Jesus and Paul combine to say that we are under grace, and not under law? of course they did, and the reason is amazingly simple.

If a king, or a governor, or a president or a congress happens to pass a law, and then seek to pass judgement on you, they were bound by the very same law to examine every “jot and tittle” of that law in order to convict!

How do I know that? Two chapter over, Matthew 7:1:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

As you can plainly see from the chapter, anyone who judges you for any reason had best be sure his own house is in order. If you walk into court, and the judge says “I’m not on trial here”, he’s a damn liar, because he is under oath before God. he stands under the watchful eye of God, and he’d best know his stuff.

Romans 2:1:”Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doeth the same things.”

The big argument over “law and gracre’ is that paul taught grace alone, while James, the brother of Jesus, taught works. Notice, right from the start, James didn’t mention “law”, but “works”.

James 2:10: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

Notice, the argument is not the “disagreement” between Paul and James, because James just agreed with Romans 2:1. You cannot judge another by law, ANY law, without also being subject to that same law yourself.

Yet notice the verse in James 2:14:
“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? …Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone”.

Again, notice, not “law’ but “works”. What works? How about James 127:

“Pure religion and undefiled before God is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictin, and to keep himself unspotted from the world”.

That’s it! The essence of “pure religion”! No big disagreement, no argument. James 2:8:

“If ye fulfill the royal law according to scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well”.

You can take those same scriptures and apply them to the teachings of Paul, who in Romans 7:4 and other scriptures writes that we are ‘dead to the law” by the body of Christ. Dead to the law, yet Jesus said every jot and tittle shall be fulfilled. How? By knowing and using the law against those who would accuse you! If any judges you, then you have the right to look at that accuser and question him/her.

This is known as your right to face your accuser, no matter who that accuser may be. Where does it come from? As Jesus said in Matthew 5, it comes from “the prophets”, especially Isaiah 50:8:

“Behold, the Lord God will help me; who is he that shall condemn me?”

The judge, in courtroom cases, is under oath before God. The principle that “The Lord God shall help me” means that the accused, the defendant, is under protection of God, which is why the accused cannot be compelled to take the oath.

Also Isaiah 54:17:

“..every tongue that shall arise against thee in judgement thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the lord”.

This should be simply connected to the concept of being “dead to the law” as Paul writes. All those who profess to serve God are under the protection of God. “Their righteousness is of me”, and NO judge under oath to God can demand that ANY person admit to guilt , or be in any way held guilty without first facing two legitimate accusers(Deuteronomy 19:15) and having those accusers prove harm or damage. All crime, wrote Blackstone, shall include harm or damage. The judge and prosecuting attorney are both under oath to God, and they are bound to recognize the ‘righteousness” of each person that comes from God! No person can be compelled to be a witness against him/her self!

This right against self incrimination, admitted by the Supreme Court, has found its foundations in the Bible(Miranda v Arizona, footnote 27) coming from Maimonides, who calls it a “divine” principle of law.

When Jesus “fulfilled’ the law, therefore, it was there as our protection to k now and claim with full knowledge of its power! It is a law which is a “vision of all”(Isaiah 29:11), and is NOT to be “shut up” to the people(Matthew 23;13, Luke 11:52).

“..Shall the thing framed(law, constitution) say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?”(Isaiah 29:16).

The works of Jesus, the teachings of Jesus, the freedom Jesus offered, was about LAW .
Whatever judgement you pass on others, you shall be judged according to the law you use. This applies to all levels of society.

If you have doubts about this, look at Luke 22:67. In that scripture, Jesus is interrogated by the priests.

“Art thou the Christ?” They ask. “If I tell you, ye will not believe, and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go”.

There was Jesus demanding his right to face and question his accuser. The priests continued:

“Art thou then the son of God?”

Jesus answered, “Ye say that I am”. In other words, Jesus was merely pointing out that he was being accused of that, and they had nothing but their own accusation for prosecution. Jesus exercised his right to remain silent.

So they sent Jesus to Pilate, telling Pilate that Jesus was “perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar”. In other words, they accused Jesus of telling them not to pay taxes to Caesar.

“And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews?”
Again, Jesus said, “Thou sayest it”. Jesus merely repeated Pilate’s accusation. By law, Deuteronomy 19:15, for any offense, there had to be two witnesses , NOT the priesthood, and NO the state, and Jesus merely reminded both the priests and Pilate of that fact. In modrern terms, Jesus was saying ‘That’s what you say, now prove it”

We see the same thing in John 18:19-23. The high priest asked Jesus about his doctrines and his disciples, and Jesus answered,

“I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue. and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
“Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me(two witnesses rule)..behold, the know what I said.”

Jesus, according to “the prophets”, was demanding to face an accuser.

The n one of the officers hit him, and Jesus said, “If I have spoken evil(challenge to free speech), bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?”

In other words, “If you judge my words, show me what was unlawful. Prove it by direct accusation, specific accusation, of facts”.

Jesus therefore paid the price of law, without accusers, without witnesses, without proof. A s a consequence, we have made a man the symbol of faith in God, while completely ignoring the very premises for which he was killed!

In our society today, we routinely make laws to judge, to accuse, to condemn, and those accused are told that their rights come second to the compelling interest of the state.

The man who died so we could be ‘dead’ to such laws is worshipped, while we serve men who obey laws written “by rote” (Isaiah 29:13, RSV) or by the “precept of men”, has died in vain. The very meaning, and power and depth of freedom by law which he gave us is ignored, while we worship Easter rabbits and men with White beards , and yule logs, and garbage. The sacrifice and offering of worldly freedom, here and now, is put to shame.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Why Paul NEVER Founded Christianity

Posted on July 13, 2012 by Ralph Haulk

In my series of essays, I have shown that organizations can be based on “shallow logic”, which are little more than “copy me” commands, and “deep logic”, based on redundancy and depth of work that makes the organization more valuable to all.

Christianity follows the pattern of cults and mass movements by “renunciation of self”. That is, we place more faith in the collective ability of the group than we do ourselves, which means that the rule we obey increasingly become statistical in nature, reflecting general trends and assumptions recognized as “greatest good for greatest number”.

In most cases, the statement ‘I am Christian” means that we have become part of some organization, a church as opposed to synagogue, as Jews aren’t Christians, and we tend to justify our position as being part of that group to be guided by the “wisdom” of its leaders. We assume the organization has “deep logic”, because the number of people involved in the decision-making adds depth not available to individuals. This may in fact be true in regard to finite objectives, but not in matters in which there are an infinity of concerns to consider.

If, for example you asked your organization to define “God”, they would have to give a finite definition of an infinite entity, and in such cases, the number of “definitions” may increase to match the number of individuals to offer the definitions given.

This also has a correspondence to Godel’s incompleteness theorem: in any consistent axiomatic formalization suitable for number theory, there exists undecidable propositions.

In other words, we can never be sure that “our” organization is any closer to the idea of “God” than any other organization, no matter how formally we try to link our decisions of “God’ with “truth”. Consequently, there are an estimated 38,000 versions or more of the Christian God.

The result, then, is that no matter how deeply we ‘cross refererence’ our choices, no matter how many “authorities” from which we can select, there will never be a “final authority” to which we can turn, within our own human decision-making power.

As I have also shown in earlier essays, this has greater evolutionary significance for our survival. Diversity is the best “hedge” against total extinction. The more possibilities exist in our human social systems, the less ability of one threat to annihilate all systems. This is also shown in the example of my earlier essay, “The Tower of Babble And The ‘Gray Goo’ “. The less diversity we have in our choices, the more we are subject not only to destruction from external threats, the more we add to the process known as entropy, in which greater organization in one are leads to greater “chaos” in related areas.

Based on these fairly recent discoveries, therefore, logic dictates that we base a search for “God” NOT on a unifying truth, but on the diversity produced by our efforts. That is, all attempts to define God result in increasing diversity because that is precisely what is intended.

Bart Ehrman, the noted scholar and professor of ancient Greek, writes this about Paul in his book, Peter, Paul, And Mary Magdalene:

“(The book of) Romans has long been seen as the most important of Paul’s letters for anyone interested in establishing the content of his understanding of the gospel”.

Further, as we saw last essay, Paul’s ideas actually are important in regard to the “split’ between Judaism and Christianity, because Paul was allegedly a Pharisee, knowledgeable of the laws, rules, and hermeneutics used by rabbis for understanding of the Torah. The chief guideline being the Seven Middot of Hillel, used as the basis for understanding “God’s laws”.

Jesus had already declared the Pharisee rabbis as hypocrites(Matthew 23) and as “children of the devil(John 8)”, so Paul’s standing both as a Pharisee, and from his background as being knowledgeable in Roman law, Greek science and Philosophy, and Jewish monotheism, made him a solid choice as a “definer” of emergent Christianity.

Paul immediately challenged Hillel’s conclusions with Romans 8:7, telling us that the natural mind is enmity against God, and cannot be subject to God’s laws.

“Natural logic”, therefore, will produce exactly the diversity we see in Christianity today, with over 38,000 versions. Any logical reasoning we use to ‘define God” will result in evolutionary advantages to our survival, and will NOT lead to unity. “God’s will” if there is such, would therefore have to be consistent with the evolutionary advantages of survival.

Christianity, if true, would therefore NOT be based on the logic of human organizations.

Paul offers support for this conclusion in Ephesians 2;8-10, and in 1 Corinthians 1:27-29:

“But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound(put to shame) the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
“And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are”.

I’m reminded at this point of the remarkable speech which Ayn Rand put in the mouth of Howard Roarke in the novel The Fountainhead:

“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded.”

Ayn Rand the atheist was also born a Jew, and she was deeply affected by her childhood in Russia where wealth gained by honest effort was confiscated by the power of the state. her rejection of “God” as a collectivist authority, was in many ways a reflection of the Jewish mind that had been forced to live as “outsider”, because the Jew did not accept the doctrine of Christianity offered by the Catholic and later the Protestant churches. Rand logically rejected all forms of collectivist authority, because her experience in Russia showed where such things led.

However, her rejection of “God” as collective authority over men and human organizations NEVER took into account the implications of Romans 8:7, that the natural mind cannot be subject to God, assuming there is a God.

While the Jews had followed the destiny of that Torah God, their devotion led them to the adaptive diversity which allowed them to become the intellectual leaders in successive empires. By the time Jesus allegedly walked the earth, Israel had a tremendous diversity of religions, all trying to understand the “true” way of serving God by law. It was, in fact, the adaptive diversity of Jewish minds that allowed them not only to survive, but to rise to the top of each successive empire, and prepare for “God’s kingdom” during the Roman Empire.

The apostle Paul, as the rabbinical intellect of the concept of “Christianity”, rejected not only the rational “laws” developed by Hillel, but declared that ALL minds are ‘enmity” against God, therefore eliminating possibility of ANY human representing God by the process of “natural” logic.

If that was not enough to convince, Paul went further in Romans 8:29-30 to declare that God foreknew, predestined, and called His own children according to His perfect forekowledge. If that was so, then there was no way any human organization could, in fact, declare their authority by our “freewill choice”. If we did not have the capacity to be subject to God’s laws, then we certainly did not have the capacity to decide which human organization truly represented God, and Paul further destroyed such claims with Romans 8:29-30.

For the logical minded, that should be enough, but for those who persisted in the formation of a collectivist, humanly defined God, Paul reiterated the idea of “non-choice” with Romans 9:16-22.

“So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

We are faced, inevitably, with the plain consequences of Paul’s statement. No human organization has the ability to represent God by any human process of logic, which not only challenges Hillel’s “Seven Middot”, but it challenges ALL human authority, at any time, to claim that power. Further, in the development of “common law”, it was merc that was emphaisized, not the power to rule.

This leads, inevitably, to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:23:

“Then if any man says to you, ‘Lo, here is Christ(or messiah), or there’ believe it not.”

We must conclude that the “true gospel” if there is such, is NOT about collectively ‘renouncing the self” in favor of ANY human organization, but of accepting the responsibility of the self, against all human powers.

I emphasize this point in the development of human history and law, because it is necessary to understand how “common law’ evolved from these precepts.

Posted in Sociobiological Evolution | Tagged Bart Ehrman, bible, common law, Paul, Romans, shallow logic | 7 Comments

Hillel’s Rules And The REAL Gospel

Posted on July 12, 2012 by Ralph Haulk

“This proves from Scripture that the men who penned the Brit Chadasha participated in the Hebraic thought pattern of the sages and rabbis of their time period in interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures. We cannot justify ignoring the culture, historical, religious, social, and intellectual ambiance of this time (Second Temple Period), and try to isolate Yahshua and His talmidim from this environment. The Middot were part of everyone’s background in how to approach the Torah and Scripture.It is gratuitous to assume our Rebbe Yahshua and all the writers of the Renewed Covenant constituted the exception from the traditional rabbinical viewpoints. If these Rules were used by Rav Shaul and our Rebbe, then we as Messianic Yisrael must also use these same rules to teach, study, and interpret the Scriptures.It will allow us to follow the command given to Timothy to “rightly divide the Word of Truth (D’var Emet). May Yahweh bless your study of His holy Torah”— Rabbi Edward L. Nydle B’nai Avraham

http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0207/0207s.html

The “Seven Middot” are the seven rules of rabbi Hillel, and we see that Hillel came along about the same time, a little before, Jesus himself. We also see from the statement above by Rabbi Edward L. Nydle that all of that time were familiar with the “hermeneutics” of bible exegesis according to Hillel’s seven rules.

We can see from the link above that the apostle Paul referred specially to the “Qal Va-Homer” a fomr of a fortiori argument which states that “if such and such is true, how much greater is a related true?” If X is true in relation to Y, how much greater is X true in relation to Z, if Z is of greater weight?

Assuming, as Rabbi Nydle pointed out, we are to use the same rules to “rightly divide the word of truth(2 Timothy 2;15)”, then we must also include Paul’s statement in Romans 8:7 that “the carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to the laws of God”.

This suggests that there exists a system of rules by which we can rightly “know God”, but at the same time, the natural mind cannot be subject to those laws that represent God. This further suggests that, even if the rules are fully complete and consistent, which is not admitted, the human mind cannot correctly apply those laws. Therefore, we have a form of Godel’s incompleteness theorem, which states that in any consistent axiomatic formalization suitable for number theory, there exists undecidable propositions. Even assuming the correctness of the rules, we cannot apply them to perfect ourselves.

This understanding leads us directly to the reason why Jesus challenged the authority of the Pharisees of his day. While admitting they sat in “Moses’ seat(Matthew 23:1-2)”, he called them hypocrites. The main argument being that they were “self righteous”, justified in their own eyes.

As you can also see from the link above, these rules pre-existed Hillel. Israel was already aware of them, so there was no need for the rabbis or self proclaimed “masters” to interpret the rules according to their special “genius”.

It was precisely Jesus’ point when he said “call no man master” or “father”, since all are equal before God. As Hyam Maccoby, the Talmudist scholar, points out, Jews recognized the “kingdom of God” in two forms: that kingdom which would some day be given by God through his messiah, and the government of God, which was represented by the people of Israel, here and now. When Jesus accused the Pharisees of “shutting up the kingdom of God to men”(Matthew 23:13, Luke 11:52), he was referring to both the coming kingdom, and the kingdom which existed in the form of Israelite government at that time. The “Lord’s Prayer”, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven” referred to God’s will on earth AND heaven, here and now, to be judged according to God’s law. If it was an ideal of prayer for all Israel, it was an ideal to be practiced by law.

The Old Testament, or Torah, was meant to be used by all the people, for the purposes of making decisions in regard to God’s law or kingdom, here and now. The “spirit of God” to be “poured out on all flesh” was the spirit by which all could equally judge others in love and forgiveness, as we can see from Romans 12:19.

This is the difference between a system of “deep logic’, as we saw earlier, and a system of “shallow logic” which is the idea that there can be one authority that imposes rules and laws over the people. The concept of “freedom” according to this “Pharisaical” process of law by “masters” or rabbis, was developing into a process of paradox and contradiction, as Jesus himself pointed out in Matthew 23. By assuming the responsibility for “right laws”, the Pharisees were also assuming the responsibility of the people to learn how to judge, defend, and forgive the actions of others.

The principle “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, the Golden Rule, is not permitted if the people themselves must be subject to a system of rules that excludes such opportunities. By offering the “Lord’s Prayer”, that “thy kingdom come, thy will be done” as a prayer for all, Jesus was declaring that it was a “prayer for judgement” applying to authorities today as well as in the kingdom to come.

“But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your father forgive your trespasses(Matthew 6:15)”.

The law, then, was not based on the principle of vengeance, but of forgiveness. It was a law that was to be applied “out of court”, as we see in Matthew 18:15-18, with “adversaries” settling the matter between themselves, using only two witnesses , according to Deuteronomy 19:15. As you can see in Matthew 18:15-18, there was to be no “external” authorities in such settlements except as a last resort. Even then, the state was not selected as an authority in the matter, but the community and the church. In the eyes of Jesus, a person’s growth, in a full and personal sense, could only occur if each person had the right of “judging” according to the Golden Rule, to see others as s/he sees her/him self.

In contradiction to this, today’s religious and legal systems proclaim that we are “free”, but that our “freedom” must be limited to what they say we are free to do. In order to remain “free”, we are told that we must obey those in authority so they can “protect’ us by the laws which they approve. That is what the Pharisees of Jesus’ time sought, and what Jesus condemned, and that is why he was finally crucified, as a threat to all forms of centralist governments.

Posted in Sociobiological Evolution | Tagged deep logic, DiMont, Golden Rule, Hillel, Middot, seven rules | Leave a comment

What Is This “Holy Spirit”?

Where Is This “True Church”?

The Gospel? All Religions Are Lying To You

Marvin Minsky And Apostle Paul

“Hell” And “Due Process” Of Law

Doomed To Destroy Each Other?

We Are Slime

Jesus And “Due Process” of Law

Why Paul NEVER Founded Christianity

Hillel’s Rules And The REAL Gospel

Visit the Painful Truth Website

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta