Where Is This “True Church”?

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.

The Gospel? All Religions Are Lying To You

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.

Marvin Minsky And Apostle Paul

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.

“Hell” And “Due Process” Of Law

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

Doomed To Destroy Each Other?

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?