The Jew/Muslim Final Solution

Ilana Mercer (also forward to Tamar Jacoby, if possible):

I am writing to you about your 14 November 2004 vdare.com article Muslim Immigration Time Bomb (http://www.vdare.com/misc/mercer_041113_muslim.htm). I agree with your degree of alarm over the legal and illegal immigration of Muslims into America. However, I want to take issue with some points you made, explicit and implicit.

I am a Texan whose parents' ancestry was a Scottish, English, Irish, German, Cherokee mix. As far as I know, I'm not in the least Semitic. My father was Christian Scientist and my mother Baptist. I was reared to be a Baptist. When I was a kid, I thought that, being Christian, I was also Jewish, just as Jesus was.

You see, "Jewish" is a religion, not a race. Your writing makes it seem that you think it is a race. Anybody can become a Jew simply by ascribing to Jewish beliefs. Most people of Hebrew descent think of themselves as Jews (as a racial group), but many of them are Christians or Muslims these days. Semitic people include descendants of the ancient Hebrews as well as racial subgroups in the Arabic Peninsula, Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula, North Africa, Syria, and Iraq. And when you look at who constitutes Jews today, you find many people of mixed racial and national ancestry. Sephardic Jews, for example, are dark-skinned people descended partly from the Moors who invaded Spain and married Jews there.

It is unfortunate that the word Jew has such an indefinite definition. I believe the typical meaning of "Jew" to most Americans is the Ashkenazi Jew, and that definitely is a racial group. Judging from your article, you are in that group.

Until the 1950s American and European Jews of any kind have been persecuted and/or oppressed. I believe the reasons for this were:

1. The clannish nature of Jews - they typically marry and socialize only other Jews of their religion and if possible, only other Jews of their race.

2. The religious nature of Jews - they adhere to religious traditions that make them seem outlandish to others -grooming, attire, social customs, beliefs, rituals.

3. The intelligence of Jews - with an average IQ of 115 among Ashkenazi Jews, most are smarter than nearly everybody else, and so they rise to the top in whatever they undertake.

4. The physical characteristics of Jews - facial features tend to make them stand out from other racial groups.

5. The social nature of Jews - Jews seem universally regarded, even by fellow Jews, as tightwads and shrewd negotiators.

No one is to be blamed for the above characteristics, and only Jews can control their social and religious natures. One cannot rightly tolerate oppression and/or persecution for any of the above characteristics.

However, if we contrast Jews with their arch-enemies, Arabic Muslims, we see similar characteristics. It is true that Muslims claim to have a different religion, but they honor the same prophets and pray to the same God. They are regarded as tightwads. They are arrogant about their religion and its practices. They are endogamous, clannish, and tribal. Many of them are quite intelligent. They have similar physical characteristics, though many of them show Negroid ancestry.

So why is it that Jews and Muslims don't get along with each other? And what could be done to set the stage for social harmony between them? Before addressing that, I want to share a little about my background and understanding about religion and Judaism.

I am no longer a Christian. Those are words I once thought I'd never say.

I was so absolutely certain Jesus died on the cross to save me from my sins that I knew I'd burn in hell if I ever forsake such a belief. Do you recognize anything familiar to your Jewish religion about that belief of mine? It is the practice of sacrifice.

Paul of Tarsus ignored the teachings of Jesus about salvation through the faith-embrace of Sonship with God when he formulated his infamous atonement doctrine. That doctrine is based on belief in the efficacy of the sacrificial death of Jesus, and it is founded on fear of burning in hell forever. It is a religious philosophy that resurrected the practice of human sacrifice from the pagan roots of the Hebrew people.

Much work had been done to eliminate the practice of sacrifice. Abraham was a firm believer in human sacrifice and nearly murdered his son Isaac to appease God. Five hundred years later, Moses instituted the ransom payment in order to wean the Hebrews from the abhorrent practice of murdering or giving to the priesthood their firstborn sons so God would somehow favor them and not stomp on them in vengeful anger for their miserable sins. 1500 years later, Jesus initiated the bread and wine sacrament, a take-off from the Passover feast, to wean his followers finally and fully from the practice of ritual sacrifice.

Think about that. How does sacrifice make any sense? No self-respecting Jew would ever openly question whether, how, or why God would or could be bribed by a sacrifice of any kind to show leniency or favor to his wayward chosen people, but it is a valid question. Why would God, as Paul seemed to believe, require the sacrificial death of his only begotten son, a being nearly his equal, if what Jesus said were true, to atone for sins of others? Where's the justice in that? What need has God of any kind of sacrifice? And even if God demand a sacrifice for appeasement, and if Jesus were in fact divine, wouldn't that be like sacrificing himself to himself, a divine being to another divine being? How does that make sense.

It doesn't, which is why I am neither a Christian nor a Jew. I don't think it ever made sense, and I don't believe God ever demanded anything of his earth children but righteousness - the sincere pursuit of truth, beauty, and goodness.

Most Jews might say monotheism was the core of Judaism. Originally it was, but that changed. The core was the necessity and practice of sacrifice - the pre-Jewish pagan notion of the efficacy of killing a perfect creature to appease God. Sacrifice was the ultimate substitute for righteousness God apparently craved. It was so powerful a linchpin in the Jewish religion that Jews were slavishly bound to it.

Now, inexplicably, and thankfully, Jews no longer practice sacrifice. The racial connection and remaining religious rituals are the main things that bind the Jews of the world together today. Any non-Jew can believe in God, but only Jews have their particular laws and rituals. That, and the fact that so many of the laws make no sense in our modern world, is why so many Jews are becoming less Jewish as time goes by. An enormous number of Jews are not religious at all. Many have drifted over to Christianity. A scant few have wandered over to Islam. A huge number are marrying gentiles of one kind or another. And, Jews do not proselytize. Jewish identity seems to be slowly disappearing.

Therefore, why should people worry that Muslims are so direly opposed to Jews? Why can't Jews, Muslims, and Christians get along with one another?

Until America was founded, providing religious freedom, Jews had as much to fear from Christians as from Muslims. Members of either group would oppress, persecute, and malign them. Because of freedoms guaranteed by the government, that no longer happens. Government-imposed religious freedom is a good thing.

But, as we know from the looting that is going on right now in hurricane-devastated New Orleans and Biloxi, once the government turns its head for an instant, people immediately revert to dog-eat-dog criminality. Today it's the looting. Tomorrow it's the pogroms against the Jews.

How can Jews, Muslims, and Christians be made to get along with and respect one another?

There is a way that people in general can be encouraged to be loving to each other in spite of their religious, racial, and social differences, and without the need for government force.

1. That way is: start seeing all humans as brothers and sisters.

2. That can only happen if people start seeing God as their Heavenly Father.

Of the three religions in question, Christianity is the only one that fosters that belief. Why? Because even though Christianity is blighted by its abhorrent atonement doctrine, Christians nevertheless do believe what Jesus taught was true.

And let's not forget that nearly all of the earliest followers of Jesus were Jews. That is because his teachings were not at all alien to Judaism. They just ennobled it a bit because they appealed to the noblest religious notions of the Jews: a belief in the basic goodness of God and in the goodness of righteous, moral living. Those same noble religious notions can also be found in Islam, and in other religions as well.

One of my main reasons for writing to you is to refocus just a bit on the salient elements of those teachings of Jesus for the purpose of illustrating how the strife between Christians, Muslims and Jews can be brought gradually to an end. I have summarized it above. It is his so-called gospel, good news for the Jews and the rest of mankind. Jesus began by saying "Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand." According to all existing first-hand testimony, Jesus' "Gospel of the Kingdom of God" consisted of three elements (let me know if you want to see scriptural proof):


1. Acceptance of the reality of the Fatherhood of God.

2. Belief in the fact of the Brotherhood of Man.

3. Faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to do the Father's will - to be like God.


What in those three points is alien to the spirit of Judaism or Islam? Nothing. They were then and are now good news to all religionists, particularly Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Here's why:

1. Fatherhood of God -

a. Christians already believe this, but the belief is weakened by the philosophically opposing atonement doctrine. Jews and Muslims do not really see God as a Heavenly Father, but more as an all-powerful, mostly beneficent king, and sometimes as a whimsical tyrant. They both believe humans are just God's subjects and he will smash them if they make him mad. Muslims think God has no children (Muhammad was speaking of physical / genetic offspring), so they join Jews in believing Jesus was just a good prophet and not any special son of God. They believe God makes people do the evil, iniquitous things they do. Muslims and Jews claim God loves them, but they wonder how that could be possible when he wantonly and randomly called for the extensive oppression, robbery, rape, enslavement, torture, and murder of his people. What loving God would do that? They say he loves them, but they don't really believe it. They believe he would love them if they were obedient to him. However, all Jews know it is impossible to live by those 613 laws, and Muslims know unrighteous they themselves are from time to time. In other words, they think God only truly loves them and treats them lovingly when they are righteous to his level of expectation.

b. The idea that God is a Heavenly Father automatically means all humans are his children and that he loves them and cherishes them as all fathers do their children. They are not merely his subjects, and since they are his children, then can rightfully expect to grow up spiritually to be like him. This means the universe is a friendly place for them, not fraught with spiritual danger the way it would be if God were merely a divine king and not a father. This is truly good news for both Jews and Muslims, for they can know that God will no more be hateful and whimsically mean to an erring earth child than would a typical, sane parent to his child.

c. Jesus taught that a spirit fragment of the Heavenly Father indwells the human mind, planning that human's ideal eternal destiny and encouraging the human to go in that direction. In fact, I found 18 references in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible that attest to the reality of a divine indwelling of man, so the concept is neither new nor exclusive to Jesus. Muslims claim they believe "The Book" but they don't believe a spirit fragment of the Father indwells their minds, and neither do Jews. Christians give it lip-service, but have no idea what it means. The value of the belief in the indwelling spirit of the Father is that it encourages people to behave and do the right things in life. This belief, fully embraced, can be a powerful influence in resolving difficulties between Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

2. Brotherhood of Man -

a. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are taught the principles of human brotherhood, but among Jews and Muslims it is radically circumscribed. Jews have traditionally interpreted "Love your neighbor as yourself" to mean a Jew should love only fellow Jews, and many have taken that limited definition to mean it is okay with God if they demean, cheat, and even malign non-Jews. Muslims see a "brother" as being only a fellow Muslim. The Qur'an teaches them not to make friends of Jews and Christians, nor with any other non-Muslims who oppose the religion and political force of Islam.

b. Jesus taught that all human beings are our brothers and sisters, and that we should love them and serve them unselfishly and lovingly. He plainly stated that will give us a high estate in heaven. Even the Jewish lawyer to whom he told the Good Samaritan story ended up fully agreeing that the hated good Samaritan was more of a neighbor than the Jews who passed by the beaten and robbed fellow Jew without helping him. To Muslims and Jews, even today, this tenet of the gospel is startlingly good news because it means they now have the motive (as they always did, had they attended to the spirit of their religious teachings) to be good and loving to their fellow humans. It should be clear to you that an embrace of this tenet of the gospel is the key to settling disputes between Muslims and Jews, for it makes the psychological barriers between them dissolve.

3. Faith -

a. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe God exists, but they do not have faith that if they strive to be like God they can be like him to the extent their individual capacities allow. Most Jews don't even believe in a life after human death, as thought this is all there is. Muslims actually believe they can go to heaven for oppressing, torturing, and murdering any who resist Islam, for that is "holy" jihad, or struggle against injustice. Even though Jesus couched his gospel in the principle of non-resistance to evil, and even though Muslims claim to believe the gospel, they don't really believe it because the Qur'an is so riddled with instances of Muslims mistreating others just because they are not Muslims. Many religionists are so mired in the utter injustice of fighting against others that they forget their obligation to try to be good. And what is being good all about? It is about being like God.

b. Jesus knew nobody had ever met God. So he patiently explained that he came here with a message of good news from God. Whether or not you believe that, you cannot dispute the wisdom of such a message. Purportedly on orders from God, Jesus encouraged people to have faith that if they sincerely try to discern and do the Father's will, they will become more perfect, or more like God. He plainly exhorted them to be perfect and to "sin no more," as though that were a reasonable expectation. He implied that there was some divine purpose in this, but he did not say what it was. The clearest example of what can happen to such humans who succeed in their striving to find, know, love, and be like God is in the incredible achievements of Enoch, who "walked with God", and Elijah, who achieved terrestrial escape in a "chariot of fire." Apparently, neither of those men had further need of human existence, for they had achieved their purpose for human life - they had developed balanced and majestic personalities. This is good news for all religionists who are devoted to the discovery and embrace of supreme values, for it means they can leave this world without having to die as most people do, and they can go on to the adventures that await them in Heaven. And it is especially good news for Jews and Muslims because it means they can get on with showing their innate abilities to demonstrate a divine and loving nature to one another.

The above gospel portrays a family of God more than a kingdom of God, and it asserts that we are all in the family together.

What does that have to do with your article? This: Muslims do not seem to realize they are in your family. You bemoan the immigration of Muslims because you know that they are singularly ignorant of the principles of the gospel of Jesus, and that even if they knew it, they would not abide by it because it is not spelled out in the Qur'an, and other comments in the Qur'an undermine Muslim devotion to the gospel.

However, you cannot deny that if all Christians, Jews, and Muslims took to heart the above tenets of the gospel, conditions between warring people and ideologies would dramatically improve, and war between them would come to an end. It seems to me that you would do far better to become an evangelist for that gospel than by merely complaining about the immigration problem. Maybe you can do both at the same time. But, you can hardly expect to be effective if you keep ignoring the gospel message while writing your articles.

My point here is that the gospel of Jesus is still the good news today that it was 2000 years ago, its tenets do not oppose basic Judasim or Islam, and you have no valid reason for not embracing and promoting it. I am certain that you, as a Jew in both race and religion, embrace that gospel in your personal, private thinking. You are undoubtedly quite intelligent, and you can see the sense and wisdom of the gospel, but how shall you get Muslims interested in it?

Here is just one idea. You can start telling Muslims these things:


1. The Qur'an promotes the gospel which Jesus brought from Allah, and commands all Muslims to embrace it.

2. Because Muslims do not know what the gospel is, they cannot abide by it, and therefore they must learn it.

3. Militant Muslims who might know the gospel ignoring it because they cannot know it from the Qur'an.

4. This gospel… (tell them what it is, and encourage them to follow it) enables Muslims to embrace their Sonship with God as his Spiritual offspring, and they really can become like God merely by sincerely striving each moment to discern and do his will..


Oops, can you do that and still be a good Jew? I don't know why not. Jesus was a good Jew. The gospel does not oppose the core principles of Judaism. The only problem is that you will have to dip into some resource other than the Tanach to find it so you can tell Muslims where to look it up so as to learn more about it.

Muslims all claim they believe the gospel, so when you imply or state they are ignoring it, you can stimulate them to learn about and follow it. The Qur'an preaches that the gospel of Jesus is good. By threatening humiliation on the day of judgment, Muhammad warned all Muslims to embrace it. Muslims know they ought to embrace it.

Unfortunately, the Qur'an, the Hadiths, and the Sunnahs do not specifically state what that gospel is. Presumably, Muhammad meant for Muslims to learn the gospel from some other source. Most Muslims assume the Qur'an merely restates the gospel without identifying its tenets. They are wrong. I have looked, and it is not codified there.

It is also unfortunate that the New Testament talks about the gospel a lot without enumerating its tenets. That is why Christians, if you ask them, will not clearly give you the 1-2-3 of the gospel as I have in my comments above. You have to study Jesus' teachings in the New Testament's four records (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) about him in order to arrive at a proper understanding.

Or, you can dig into the only other record of his life and teachings, one with much better credentials than the New Testament: The Urantia Book (http://urantiabook.org), or you can download a Windows help file version at http://bobhurt.com/urantia.chm. The Urantia Book is a masterpiece of American language literature, it is philosophically consistent from cover to cover, and it purports itself to be the fifth major revealing of truth to this world. The last section of the book, about a third of the overall content, is devoted to the life and teachings of Jesus. There you will find the most complete, concise, succinct, and accurate rendering of his life and teachings. It covers the gospel specifically.

I have spent my whole morning writing this message to you. I hope you can take it to heart and use the gospel to good advantage in encouraging benign relations between Muslims and other people of this world. Certainly a lot of Jews will listen to you, and so might some good Muslims. One Muslim who might be a good listener is Kamal Nawash, president of the Free Muslims Coalition (http://freemuslims.org). I'm sending him a copy of this.

I hope you will pass this message on to all Jews and Muslims of influence. They need to know that the gospel was not intended just for Christians, but for all mankind, and it is ultimately the only path to peace and harmony in our world. It eclipses all other tenets of religion, even while it offends none that are noble. It is worthy of your efforts.

IRS Sued for Billions in Tampa

A few years ago, David Bosset of Spring Hill, Floridda, made history by being one of the few employers to win a $25,000 refund from the IRS for overpaying employee withholding tax. He won the refund by asserting his employees were resident citizens and a withholding agent by definition in the IRS code may withhold taxes only from the incomes of non-resident aliens.

Now Bosset has one-upped himself. On 31 May 2005, he filed a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against the federal district court in Tampa, Florida, naming as defendants some IRS agents and the IRS as a private corporation. This is not a lawsuit against the government.

In the suit, Bosset alleges fraud by the IRS, and the 67-page complaint (available at http://bosset.com) proves it very thoroughly. It does not attack the IRS law (Title 26 United States Code) as either illegal or unconstitutional. It asserts that the IRS routinely defrauds people out of money by exceeding its authority, and conspiring to make people think they owe income tax when in actuality they do not.

Bosset provides a mechanism whereby others who have been abused by the IRS can join the lawsuit as plaintiffs. The cost is $500, a paltry fee for such a monumental opportunity to bring the IRS to justice for its many years of criminal abuse of innocent victims throughout America.

The lawsuit seeks $4 billion in punitive damages.

It's high time.

Sincere Questions for All Christians to Answer

Here are some questions that all Christians need to answer. They test one's knowledge of the teachings of Jesus and the relevance of those teachings. They also bring the one who answers face-to-face with the Plan of Salvation presented to this world by Jesus of Nazareth nearly 2000 years ago.

Note that you can answer in a comment to this post, right here on this blog.


1. What are the tenets of the gospel Jesus taught throughout his public ministry, and what Bible references can you show for corroborating support?

2. How do you interpret those tenets of the gospel, and in what ways were they both good and news to the Jews and Gentiles of Jesus' day?

3. Do you believe God is our Heavenly Father (Luke 11:13, Matthew 6:14, 6:26, 6:32, 18:35)?

4. Do you believe as God's children all humans are your brothers and sisters (Matthew 5:9, 5:45, 12:50, 18:3, Luke 16:8, John 12:36)?

5. Do you believe your sins are forgiven iff you forgive the sins of others (Matthew 6:14-15, Matthew 18:21-35, Luke 17:23)?

6. Do you believe you live forever if you love God and your fellow man (Luke 10:25-28), and that the only way to show love for others and have a high estate in heaven is to serve them unselfishly and lovingly (Matthew 18:4, Matthew 23:11, Luke 22:26, John 13:5-17)?

7. How do you explain Jesus' comment that "The Kingdom of God is within you? (Luke 17:21)"

8. What did Jesus mean when he told others to "Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48) and "Go and sin no more" (John 5:14, 8:11), is it really possible to be perfect, sin no more, and do the will of God (Mark 3:35), and if not, why did Jesus so command his followers?

9. Why was the need to love others (John 13:35, 15:12, 15:17) so important that Jesus repeated it?

10. Is it possible to obey Jesus' commandments (John 14:15)? If no, then why did Jesus not only tell his apostles to do that, but also tell them to tell everybody else in the world to do it (Matthew 28:19-20)? If yes, what will be the result in one's life, one's character, and one's power of personality?

11. Why did God send Jesus to this world with his gospel message? What is his ulterior motive regarding our eternal destiny?

Circular Simultaneity of Civilization

Professor Leny Mendoza Strobel:

I just read your April 2003 http://www.oovrag.com/essays/essay2003b-6.shtml essay A Hundred Years of American Tutelage And We Are Still Uncivilized, in regard to the “otherness” of Filipino expatriates, and I thought I’d write some comments. First of all, I enjoyed you style of writing, and the cogent points you made. It was a good read. But, there is more I want to say.

As you can see from my photo below, I am 62, Caucasian, and male. I’m smiling because I am happily married to a little brown woman. She could be from the Philippine Islands (P.I.), but she isn’t. She is Puerto Rican. I was born in Texas and have never ventured to the Philippines. There is much I do not know about the islands, its culture, its history, and its people. You and I are, other than residing in America and having been exposed to its culture and people, worlds apart. It would be almost miraculous if we saw anything eye to eye. Maybe a miracle is brewing.

The Civilizing Question Has Been Mooted

You mentioned a couple of books you read that opened your mind to some profound thoughts about the so-called civilizing process Caucasians have imposed on inferior races of people, and you poignantly pointed out the harsh possibility that the process was all wrong because there is no arbiter of which civilization is superior. You suggested it is better to have ancestors, roots, and relatives than somebody else’s civilization. I was somewhat intrigued by those assertions, for they do highlight important questions that deserve concrete answers. More importantly, they highlight a salient reality: major elements of every racial group that has undergone a civilizing process at the hands of another racial group would provide a concrete answer that is not only different from its civilizer’s answer, but also begs to be “right”, which it usually isn’t, in the grand scheme of things. You’ll see why I say that as you read on.

As you know from the American involvement with the P.I. since 1898, America cut the apron strings as soon as it became politically wise to do so. Many Caucasian Americans thought the civilizing process over Filipinos and Moros was a pointless waste of money and lives, just as many would feel the same about a similar involvement in sub-Saharan Africa (we can thank God none of the European governments lost a war to the USA and handed over one of their African colonies to the USA as a war prize). It wasn’t just Filipinos and Moros who thought American involvement in the P.I. was a bad idea.

After all, who’s to say the hustle and bustle of American cities and towns and the cushy lives of most Americans are at all superior to the dawn-to-dusk struggle for survival of the American wigwam, teepee, or pueblo dwellers, or of the marauding, pillaging, enslaving, woman-stealing, jungle-dwelling Muslim Moros of the Sulu Archipelago? Who’s to say Catholicism and Calvinism of the conquering Caucasians are superior religions to Islam, animism, polytheistic idol worship, or praise of Mother Earth and the Great Spirit?

Miraculously, I agree with you that those are interesting questions, and that the answers are troublesome, if one is to be honest. But you, being excessively politically correct (in keeping with modern tradition for university professors), not to mention somewhat feminist, will feel so uncomfortable with a spate of those answers that getting an honest discussion out of you will be like extracting teeth from a chicken. I’ll give it a try, though.

Inferior IQ and It’s Impact on Wealth

Ooops, did I just say “inferior races of people” in the fourth paragraph above this one? I thought maybe that would raise your hackles, and now I think I should explain. If you grab a copy of Lynn and Vanhanen’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations, you will see a table that shows the relative IQs of various nations, and some indications of the impact average national IQ has on Gross Domestic Product. It turns out that one can pretty much predict what the GDP will be from looking at IQ. And if you examine the statistical studies of the subject by the erudite La Griffe du Lion (see his articles The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations and Smart Fraction Theory II: Why Asians Lag) you’ll see that there is a very high correlation between IQ and effective productivity. That does not mean smart people produce more in terms of direct application of energy. It means they work smarter and get better results.

It is widely acknowledged in honest academic circles that IQ is very much a function of genetics, and is less affected by culture. African blacks, for example, have an average IQ of 70, while American blacks have an average IQ of 85. The IQ difference is a testament to better diet, better education, and better access to better genes in America (American blacks are about 18% white). American blacks, however, are a full standard deviation lower than American Caucasians in IQ (which is 100), and that is a significant difference that no amount of culturing can fix.

There are few rational, educated, honest people who will argue against the suggestion that sub-Saharan African civilization is equal or superior to American civilization. The continent is still plagued by dozens of different languages, oppressive poverty, rampant crime, abusive government corruption, miserable education, low productivity, illegitimate births, epidemic disease (like AIDS and malaria), internecine warfare, and primitive religion (Voodoo, animism, and Islam are alive and well there). I don’t know a single American black person who would want to live in black Africa. Even American blacks with their relatively low IQ want no part of Africa itself. And yet our college campuses are riddled with black students who want their black culture recognized and appreciated. They want to keep alive the very cultural results of a primitive, tribal, corrupt, collapsed civilization barely out of the Bronze Age, and yet they don’t want to live in the civilization that produced that culture. I see that as a grand hypocrisy, don’t you?

American Red people would be more noticeably demanding the same thing – the preservation of their languages and customs (with the exception of a couple of tribes, they had no written language) – if only more of them had survived the disease and war of the white man.

It is instructive in assessing the relative merits of the world’s civilizations to consider the conclusions of La Griffe du Lion:

“Thus, for a technologically sophisticated society, Smart Fraction Theory asserts that a nation's per capita GDP is determined by the population fraction with IQ greater than or equal to some threshold IQ. Consistent with the data of Lynn and Vanhanen, that threshold IQ is 108, a bit less than the minimum required for what used to be a bachelor's degree. Figure 3 illustrates the fit of (3) to the data of Lynn and Vanhanen. [see graph at http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sftfi1%7Bimage2%7D.gif - Least squares fit of Smart Fraction Theory to the data of Lynn and Vanhanen.]

Figure 3. Least squares fit of Smart Fraction Theory to the data of Lynn and Vanhanen.”

To explain the lower GDP of the higher IQ Northeastern Asian countries, the above formula is revised thusly:

“in market economies, per capita GDP is directly proportional to the population fraction with verbal IQ equal to or greater than 106.” [see graph at http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2fig6.gif - When smart fractions are calculated from verbal IQs, the appearance of NE Asian points is unremarkable.]

That is because Northeastern Asians (and their Amerindian relatives) are 6.5 points lower in verbal IQ than are Caucasians, albeit higher in cognitive IQ. That difference adversely affects their GDP. The “other” category in the graph includes Pacific Islanders like Filipinos.

Figure 6. When smart fractions are calculated from verbal IQs, the appearance of NE Asian points is unremarkable.

The Law of the Survival of the Fittest is Being Outgrown

Here’s the issue, and it is one you singularly failed to elucidate from your ivory tower: in ages past, when disparate peoples have come together, war, conquest, and some kind of civilizing process have served as a fulfillment of the law of the survival of the fittest. They have always been a way of saying: “We do not agree with your ideas, your civilization, or your stewardship of land, so we are going to civilize you, enslave you, or wipe you out, and become the new stewards.” Conquest and genocide were justified by that law alone, no matter how they might precipitate a crisis of anguish in our consciences.

But that is changing. Our world is making a transition. Laws in legitimate nations now prohibit slavery and grant universal suffrage, allowing their responsible adult citizens to vote. International laws prohibit, but do not yet prevent, a stronger nation from invading and conquering a weaker one whimsically and without provocation. “Civilized” nations now petition the United Nation for approval before undertaking invasions. National and international laws protect weaker minorities from abuse by stronger majorities. In short, the world is becoming more civilized. Far from being perfect, it is effectively disrupting and unbalancing the populations because it is undermining the law of the survival of the fittest. It is not replacing that law with one that achieves the same natural purpose – culling and reducing degenerate and inferior genetic stocks of the planet.

That is a new threat to world civilization, one that politically correct professors hate to discuss publicly. Since the law now protects inferior people, and since they tend to out-procreate superior people, the inferior people are burgeoning while the superior diminish in number. This causes politicians to pander to those of the inferior groups who are allowed to vote. Inferior people are less lawful and economically productive, and more poverty-stricken. Their immoral behavior has graver consequences, such as rampant teen pregnancies among America’s black and Mexican populations. They are a greater burden on society, and those from places like Mexico import their corrupt and degenerate cultures while they export American money to their families back in Mexico. But the biggest threat they represent is in the form of lowering the average IQ and consequently the GDP of the nation.

Yes, you can complain about the civilizing process because nobody wants to be “civilized” or dispossessed by somebody else. And you can complain that wars of conquest are usually genocidal, particularly against the crème of the race, which are usually the first ones to fight the invaders and die as a result. That gives rise to this question:

• What are you offering as an alternative to the law of the survival of the fittest that will achieve its main benefit peacefully?

Until you come up with a sensible answer to that very real and difficult to confront question, Professor, your complaints against the civilizing process are irrelevant. Why? Because it is axiomatic that a people who do not uplift their gene pool and protect it from degeneration will thereby cause future generations to be inferior to what they would be if the gene pool were protected and improved.

No longer do most nations invade others to colonize them. America and Americans have no interest in obtaining territories of primitive people as war prizes. Unlike all the other countries in the world, America and Australia were colonized as much by people who were booted out of Europe as by conquistadores. America is now paying a stiff price for importing so many unintelligent blacks as slaves, for now slave descendants comprise 15% of the population. People from all over the world have struggled to go to America to enjoy its liberties and opportunities, but normally the ones who make it to America’s shores (other than border-hopping Ibero-Americans) have the “right stuff”, the intelligence and personal drive to make their lives productive and worthwhile.

Yes, America invades other countries, but not to colonize. The interest is to eliminate illegitimate governments that are a grave danger to their own populations or to Americans. The two most recent examples are Afghanistan and Iraq. Earlier examples were Vietnam and Korea, utter disasters because the United Nations was calling the shots, and those nations still languish under division or dominion by evil dictatorships.

Now there are only two groups of people on this world who invade other countries by stealth, to destroy them from within, and to “civilize” them according to their own corrupt and demonic ideologies: Communists and Muslims. Observers of history have only witnessed the menace of Communism at work for the past century, but we see 14 centuries of the menace of Islam at work, now having conquered a fifth of the world’s people and a sixth of its land mass. And note this: from the honest observer’s point of view, both Islam and Communism seem to be superior ideologies to those held by the bulk of the peoples they have conquered. The horrors Islam and Communism have visited upon conquered people have actually resulted in improvements in the general conditions of before. Nevertheless, the conquered people have merely exchanged one kind of dictatorship for another. I do not consider that to be very civilizing, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

The Real Question: What are the Benefits of War?

I believe you are too preoccupied with the wrongness of stronger people bending weaker people to their will. You are missing the important question:

• What are the benefits of war?

When you are able to answer that question, I’d love to see your laundry list of benefits, and I invite you to share it with me. Then, you need to answer the really important question:

• How can the benefits of war be achieved through peaceful means?

I assert that the main benefit in terms of evolving civilization is the reduction of inferior and degenerate racial stocks in the world’s gene pool. History quite effectively argues that inferior people cannot evolve a superior civilization, and when presented with a superior civilization, inferior people will actively morph into something inferior. The reason the Caucasians who descended from European racial groups succeeded in conquering and subjugating or wiping out the American Red and Red/Yellow people, the Afghans, the Iraqis, and the Filipinos is that Americans are superior people with superior technology, superior civilization, and superior organization. That might be a hard pill to swallow if your ancestors are among the conquered, but it is a pill of truth.

America’s big mistake right now is that the egalitarians and academicians who influence public opinion do not want to admit the fact that some races are inferior or superior to others. So America’s virtually wide-open borders allow the nation to be deluged with inferior people from Mexico (their average IQ is 87), as though it were no big deal, thereby giving up the racial advantage earned by centuries of hard-fought wars to civilize and control inferior people. It is the equivalent of civilizational suicide. For in-depth studies of the effect, see http://vdare.com.

How to Replace the Law of the Survival of the Fittest Peacefully: Eugenics

I wish to propose an answer to the question of alternatives to the law of the survival of the fittest:

• Involuntary sterilization of the least fit
• Massive promotion of intelligent mate selection
• Special education and vocational direction for the stupid

Note that implementing my proposals will diminish your complaint about the forcible civilizing of inferior people, so their won’t be any “otherness” to cloud their thoughts about who they are. For, if inferior people do not exist, there will be no motive to subjugate them, civilize them, and steal or control of their natural resources.

Unfortunately, Americans do not, in general support the involuntary sterilization of undesirable gene groups. Hitler made that an unpopular alternative, and university professors almost universally denounce the practice as being politically incorrect, uncivilized, and a dastardly usurpation of people’s natural right to procreate more of their own kind.

There is another way of looking at it. Science teaches us the precise result that accrues when two people of inferior IQ mate and procreate. The children will also have low IQ. You could view this as a process by which two people, parents, inject an innocent child, their offspring, with a serum that makes the child stupid and unable to prosper lawfully in society. Were you to do the same thing with a hypodermic needle to a child on a public street in America, you would be hunted down by the police, jailed, and found guilty of committing a heinous crime. Why? Because it is fundamentally a criminally irresponsible act to procreate children who are certain to be stupid, and that is because it severely handicaps them in life, making them unable properly to care for themselves and their families without resorting to crime and welfare abuse.

The truth of this is made evident by certain facts, and I present them for illustration purposes. In America, as a direct result of low IQ, blacks are poorer, more criminal, and less educated than whites and Northeastern Orientals. Barely half the black children graduate from high school. 10% of black males are incarcerated at any one time. 40% of black children are illegitimate and 20% are born to children. 70% of black children have no father at home. 6% of eligible black males choose non-black mates. Black families are hopelessly matriarchal, and very few black men will tolerate such an arrangement because black men have between 13% and 19% more testosterone than do Caucasian men, and at least 20% more than Asian men (Moros might be an extreme exception). Educational standards are being lowered in colleges and universities that court black and Mexican students, virtually ruining the value of a bachelor’s degree. With the exception of entertainment and sports, blacks are inferior to other racial groups in America, and they are destroying American civilization.

A wise and benevolent society is obliged by decency to prohibit the perpetuation of inferior genes that debilitate people and destroy civilization. America needs to enact and enforce eugenics laws that effectively prevent criminals, the insane, children, the indigent, and stupid people (IQ below 95) from procreating, and that encourage the average and bright to seek average and bright mates. Such a program will not actually harm anyone other than those who are jailed for refusing to participate, and it will uplift our civilizations dramatically within 100 years (4 generations). The same program should be implemented in every country in the world, including the Philippine Islands.

I’m certain your motherly instinct drives you to complain that such programs will deprive men and women who don’t make the cut of the joy of creating and rearing families. That is not necessarily so. There are enough people in this world with IQs above 95 to supply sufficient sperm and egg to qualified husband/wife couples of low IQ. Every couple that is morally and financially fit should be able to parent children.

I’m guessing you want to argue that stupid people have just as much right to live as smart people. Well, no, that’s not true. Remember that our eugenics plan is intended to replace war and genocide as means of eliminating inferior people. In reality, stupid people do not have as much right to be brought into existence as do smart people. In fact, if society so dictates, they have no right at all. And because the law of the survival of the fittest would have killed them off anyway, they have no natural right either. The idea of eugenics laws is to provide a mechanism by which intelligent people can ensure future generations will be as able or more able to solve the problems of life as they are.

Why the Philippines are Still Relatively Uncivilized

Yes, the Philippines are still relatively uncivilized, even after 100 years of American tutelage, for several reasons.

• First of all, there is a practical limit to how much innately stupid people can be taught – the average IQ in the Philippines is only 86, and 90 is considered to be the minimum threshold for a technological economy.

• Second, social growth is always agonizingly slow because people resist change (so we need a few more centuries to see the real good that can result).

• Third, America is swamped with politically correct educators who stupidly insist IQ and genetics are unrelated and eugenics is not a polite topic of conversation, and that is holding back the establishment of eugenics laws that can help correct the problems associated with mass stupidity.

• Fourth, America is being deluged with stupid immigrants from third world nations, not to mention a burgeoning of the stupid already in its gene pool, and that “dumbing-down” process is impacting both government and academia, further suppressing the establishment of benign eugenics laws. On a world-wide scale with the UK’s average IQ of 100 being the standard, the average IQ of America is only 98, compared to 102 for the less-black nations of Europe, and 103 to 107 for non-black Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore.

Frankly, I think it might have been better for the USA to hand the Philippines back over to the Japanese after the war. Had that happened, the P.I. would have few or no Islamic terrorists (you’ll note there are virtually non in Japan), and it could be a monument to industrialization, just as Japan now is, especially if Japan had exported large segments of its population to the P.I. to enrich the gene pool above the minimum level required for a technological society. After all, the Japanese have an average IQ of 105, more than a standard deviation higher than the average IQ of the P.I. natives If you think the invaders from the USA have been racially arrogant and socially oppressive toward Filipinos, imagine living under Japanese rule for the past hundred years.

In the final analysis, an honest observer must conclude that the civilizations of Spain and America are generally superior to the native civilization of the Philippine Islands, and that the civilizing process has greatly uplifted the culture of the islands. Had neither Spain nor America entered, the P.I. citizens would now be oppressed by an Islamic dictatorship, and its people would be living in horrifying ignorance and poverty like that which racked Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Some Questions and Answers About Life

In closing this lengthy and unbidden correspondence, I am minded to ask you three questions that will lead you to a better recognition of what you already know – that regardless of how people express their individual, family, tribe, or nation existences, some things are superior to others. It is not just a matter of equality of all choices of religion, government, and human relationship. There is such a thing as social, national, and spiritual progress. And some civilizations foster progress more than do others. That is evident in our respective quality of life.

1. What is the meaning of life?
2. What is the value of life?
3. What is the purpose of life?
4. What is the mission of life?

When you honestly face these questions, here are the answers you will find:

1. The meaning of life is its adaptability.
2. The value of life is its progressability.
3. The purpose of life is to develop a balanced and magnificent personality.
4. The mission of life is to evolve sublime relationships – to be like God in consummate devotion to truth, beauty, and goodness.

A civilization is good to the extent that it fosters human progress through the above answers to a condition where people are smart, prosperous, fit, able, and benign. And note that any rational human being, regardless of roots, naturally craves living in such a civilization. So many people dream of coming to America for that very reason. That should be of prime importance in your evaluation of whether contact with Americans and America was overall beneficial for the people of the Philippines.

The Implications for Civilization

When you survey the various civilizations and religions of the world, and stack them up against 1-4 above, you then clearly can see some rise in value to humanity like cream that rises to the surface of milk. It is unquestionably far more civilized to erect modern sanitation and plumbing systems (such as are found in Manila) than to defecate in a forest latrine and walk five miles every day to bring water back home from the nearest river, into which your neighbors are defecating (a condition typical of remote areas of Mindinao and the Sulu Archipelago).

But the Philippines won’t always be that backward in its more primitive regions. According to La Griffe du Lion, “World IQs have been increasing at the rate of 3 IQ points per decade (the Flynn effect). If that trend continues, countries now in the mean-IQ neighborhood of 100, will near smart fraction saturation in about a century.” By implication, some outside influences are being exerted world wide to improve IQ, and that is improving the prosperity of the world, and as a consequence its people’s quality of life. Eventually, the Moros will be killed off or genetically and civilizationally up-stepped. In the end, none of God’s children will be left behind.

Yes, the civilizing process in the P.I. is cycling over and over through waves of corrupt government and civil unrest, and periods of relative peace and prosperity. What is happening today in the Philippines has already happened many times over throughout the world, and it will continue as though all moments of the past and future are like right now. The past and future are repeated in a never-ending circular simultaneity of man’s knowing or unknowing struggle to find, know, and be like God.

I thank you for taking your time to read this, and for the energy and thought you put into your essay. I welcome any feedback you might have to my comments.

Sincerely,

Bob Hurt

Saladmaster Dutch Oven

I own a large http://Saladmaster.Com pot with a dutch oven top. That and a 2-quart pot are the only things I had left after getting divorced in 1978 back in Loveland, Colorado. My ex got the rest of the Saladmaster waterless cookware set I'd sweated and toiled to afford.

Unfortunately, the 2-quart pot developed a rounded bottom and it rocked so badly on the flat glass stovetop that my new wife got mad and threw it away. When I went looking for it, and she told me what happened, I nearly had a heart attack because I knew what she didn't - it was guaranteed for life. Now I have an even newer wife (the guarantee on the old one ran out afer a month or two).

If you take pity on me, you can send me a new 2-quart pot. I'll love you for it, since I now do nearly all the cooking around here.

Meanwhile, the "real" reason I'm writing is to ask your advice on a sticky cooking problem. My oven door fell off and I can't bake while waiting to get a new oven. And today, some bananas were going bad, so my new wife asked me to make her some banana bread. I want to keep this wife, so I said "No problem. I'll bake it in my Saladmaster dutch oven."

"Our oven is BROKEN, remember," my wife asked, knowing I remember because Alzheimer's doesn't run in my family and I'm the one who caried the oven door to its grave.

"Sure, Babe," I replied. But I was talking about THIS Dutch oven."

I took the two pots out of the cabinet and proudly set them on the stove. I showed her how the thinner-walled pot could be inverted to make a perfect seal on top of the larger pot with the heavy bottom. "See? It's called a Dutch Oven because the Dutch people used cast iron pots like it to bake in over the fire place when they didn't have a real oven. That was before stainless steel was invented, and our Saladmaster Dutch oven is even better. See, the bottom and sides contain a cast iron and aluminum core that spreads the heat and keeps it even. That's how the pots let you cook without water. They heat evenly and hold in the moisture and nutrients, so the food you cook in it is delicious, cooked to perfection, and really good for your body. I'm gonna make that banana bread and bake it in this Dutch Oven."

She didn't believe me, of course, and walked back to her easy chair shaking her head and muttering about how I'd better not f*** up that cake.

Okay, so I grabbed my Joy of Cooking cookbook and whipped up the fabulous banana bread batter my wife has come to know and love. Then I looked in the cookbook and was dismayed to find no instructions on using a dutch oven for stovetop baking a cake. I searched the web, and ditto.

Then, I figured, what the hell, how hard can it be? I buttered the big pot, poured in the batter, smoothed it out, put on the dutch oven top, set it on the large burner, and set the burner to medium. After 5 minutes, I turned it down to 1, the setting just above low. It's an electric glass top oven, so I could only guess at how hot that was.

I went back to my computer to continue my search, then gave up and started handling email. Before long I noticed that tell-tale burnt smell, and jumped up to check the pot. Yep, the smell was coming from it.

I lifted the lid and smelled it more. Even worse, the top of the cake still looked like batter. So I removed it from the heat, cooled down the bottom of the pot with a wet sponge, turned the heat to its lowest setting, and set the pot back on. I was determined to bake that cake, burnt or not. After all, how hard is to cut off the burnt part?

Okay, now I have checked it a couple of times, and the batter on top is finally solidified into cake. So I did successfully bake the banana bread.

But, the bottom is burned, and I have no idea how to remove the cake from the pan without destroying it.

I figured, now that I have f***ed up the banana bread, and my wife has stomped out of the house without telling me where she's going, I'd better write to you for advice. So, here's my question:

How do I bake banana bread in my Saladmaster Dutch Oven without f***ing it up?

Can you send me a recipe booklet and some Dutch Oven instructions for stovetop baking?

Oleander and Cancer

You'd think the millions of dollars spent by pharmaceutical companies would have produced some sure-fire cancer cures, but then it's understandable that no cures have been found, and that is becasue a cure would prevent purveyors of cancer "treatments" from making money. And of course the US Food and Drug Administration gladly collaborates with medical doctors and pharmaceutical companies who really don't want to see cancer cured. The FDA does this by withholding approval of any "natural" remedies that are supported only by anecdotal evidence. Oleander and its derivatives are a classic example of how the FDA actually works to block people from taking folk remedies to cure cancer.

That, however, does not prevent you from making your own cancer cure using oleander.

There are numerous sources of information on oleander. One is Tony Isaacs' internet book at http://roselaurel.com. Another is the Minnesota Wellness Directory at ttp://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/cancer1/altthrpy3.htm#Oleander. Another is this blog.

The idea is that oleander leaves, normally toxic, can be rendered non-toxic by boiling the leaves, filtering the liquid, and further reducing it by boiling to produce a soup. Cancer victims can safely ingest up to three tablespoons of the soup a day (after an initial period of smaller doses to get the body used to it). By taking the soup, they can dramatically reduce tumor size in a matter of weeks. The recipe, in a nutshell is:

1. Wearing rubber gloves, collect a plastic grocery bag full of oleander leaves
2. Cut them to fit in a 3-gallon stainless steel or porcelain canning pot, then press them down and cover them with water
3. Boil the covered pot in a gentle roll for 4 hours, then remove from heat and bring to room temperature.
4. Use tongs to remove and discard the leaves.
5. Bring the filtered broth back to a boil and reduce it till it is 30% of the original liquid (specific gravity is 1010)
6. Filter the broth through 4 layers of paper towels in a colander.
7. If you want to make a skin cream to eliminate skin cancers or psoriasis, do not do the following steps. Instead, continue boiling till only ½ inch of liquid remains in the pot, and mix the syrup with any skin cream (syrup = 30%).
8. Mix the soup 50/50 with 80 proof vodka or cider vinegar to preserve it (shelf life 6 months)
9. Add a pint of pancake syrup for flavor
10. Pour the elixir into brown glass bottles and refrigerate.
11. Starting with ½ teaspoon of elixir per day, take a couple of weeks to work up to 1 tablespoon 3 times daily with meals. After elixir no longer produces fever (if you're taking it to eliminate virus infections) and the tumors are gone, reduce dosage to a maintenance tonic of 1 tablespoon per day.

If you or a loved one suffer from cancer (particularly if doctors have given up on you), remember oleander, which grows in populated areas all across the southern USA. The worst that could happen is you could die from it. So what? Cancer's going to kill you anyway.

C.H. Spurgeon and the Plan of Salvation

---

From: Bible Baptist Church Tommy H. Heffner Sr
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:17 PM

“It will not save me to know that Christ is a Saviour; but it will save me to trust him to be my Saviour. I shall not be delivered from the wrath to come, by believing that his atonement is sufficient; but I shall be saved by making that atonement my trust, my refuge, and my all. The pith, the essence of faith lies in this---a casting oneself on the promise. It is not the life buoy on board ship that saves the man when he is drowning, nor is it his belief that it is an excellent and successful invention. No! he must have it around his loins, or his hand upon it, or else he will sink.”

C.H. Spurgeon http://www.akjb.org

Tommy:

Thanks for regurgitating Spurgeon. I have a few questions and comments on your recital.

I do not understand the mechanism of salvation as you and Spurgeon see it. What exactly is it that saves you? Normally, you contend that one must merely accept on faith (believe, without proven facts as the basis) that Christ’s death on the cross constitutes a blood sacrifice of a perfect human being to atone for our sins and overcome our sin nature so that we can have relationship (fellowship or divine Sonship) with God. Now you say one must “trust” Christ to be one’s Savior, wholeheartedly trust that atonement, and be surrounded by it as though by a lifebuoy.

I don’t get all the emphasis on trust. If it is so hard to trust something that you must put effort and emphasis into it, maybe it isn’t that trustworthy. Even so, either you believe something or you don’t. Apparently, Spurgeon thinks believing is not enough, and one must believe so strongly as to be frenetic about it. Perhaps he is saying that’s how he feels, and everybody else ought to feel the same. Well, I guess he’s the preacher, so why shouldn’t he preach?

On the other hand, why should we believe him? His message is clear - his words indicate he is trying to pass on an essential truth to us. And yet he provides no credible support for his faith-trust in the salvation power of atoning sacrifice, and he gives us no compelling reason to believe it. In fact, the thing he’s encouraging people to trust seems so illogical and weird as to defy any kind of belief, much less trust.

Besides, Jesus very clearly did not agree with his ideas. In particular, Jesus never publicly discussed, or even mentioned, the concept of atonement.

Let us consider for a moment what Jesus did discuss, teach, and command. Look up and study the associated references in your Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible:

1. Jesus told people to “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15).
2. He ordered his apostles to preach in the same way (Matthew 10:7, Mark 6:12).
3. He said he was bringing the gospel to this world directly from the Father himself (John 5:30, 6:39; 14:10)
4. He told the apostles (and, by extension us and all other people) to
1. Love others (John 13:34)
2. Forgive others (Matthew 6:14-15, 18:21-22, Mark 11:25-26)
3. Serve others unselfishly and lovingly (John 13:14, Luke 22:26)
4. Love God (Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37)
5. Believe him and his God-given authority to teach those things (John 3:16, John 14:24).
5. He said forgiving others earns God’s forgiveness (Matthew 6:14-15),
6. He said not forgiving others earns God’s displeasure (Matthew 18:35),
7. He said loving God and other people earns everlasting life (Luke 10:25-28)
8. He said serving others earns a high status in heaven (Matthew 23:11).
9. Jesus encouraged people to embrace their Sonship with God on faith, seeing God as their Heavenly Father (Matthew 5:16, 5:48, 6:1, 6:14, 6:26, 6:32, 11:27, 18:14, 23:9, Mark 11-25 Luke 11:13)
10. He encouraged people to see themselves as God’s children, and all humans as their brothers (Matthew 5:41-48, 12:50).
11. He went so far as to state that God’s spirit indwells us (Luke 17:21, John 14:23), thereby having the most intimate possible relationship with us.
12. He offered hope that we can become like God in aligning our wills with that of our Heavenly Father (Matthew 7:21, 12:50, John 14:21), not only because God’s spirit is in us (see above), but also because we have the ability to be relatively perfect (Matthew 5:48), and after we pass his approval we can meet the Father in person (John 14:6).
13. He referred to scripture (implying it is true) that suggested we are children of the most High (God), and are or might someday be gods, perhaps to worlds in the outer reaches of the ever expanding and materializing universe (Psalms 82:6, John 10:34-36).
14. From the very beginning of his public ministry, Jesus taught his good news gospel about the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 4:23; 9:35, 10:7, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 7:22, Luke 9:6), and he explained that was the reason he was sent to this world (Luke 4:23). Never once in his public teachings did Jesus mention anything about his death or its relevance as an atoning sacrifice, nor did he encourage trusting in it as an element of salvation.
15. However, at the very end of his time here on earth, Jesus ordered his apostles (and therefore us) to teach his commands and his gospel about the Kingdom of Heaven to all creatures (including Jews and Gentiles) in all nations on earth (Mark 16:10, Matthew 28:19-20). He did not tell his apostles to identify as gospel and/or teach some other religious philosophy or doctrine of salvation, but he did warn his apostles against false prophets who would attempt to inveigle them into believing a false gospel (Matthew 7:15, 24:11, 24:24, Mark 13:22, Luke 6:26).

That’s what Jesus taught. His gospel message, authority to teach it, and orders for us to teach it are crystal clear throughout the Bible’s four gospel records of his life.

So where does Spurgeon get the goofy idea that trusting Christ’s bloody atonement as though it were a lifebuoy is what saves us? And precisely how does that mechanism work? How is it possible that God can be appeased by ordering the murder of his only-begotten son, a perfect being nearly his equal, as a sacrifice, and how does that atone for any sin at all? How is it logical that God would violate his second commandment “Thou shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13) by ordering the senseless murder of his perfect son. What is it about a blood sacrifice that erases sin? Why should we believe God wants any kind of sacrifice to be made to him, as though he were some corrupt Mafia chief who could be bribed? What need does God have of a sacrifice from others when he is already infinite, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and has everything?

To me it seems Spurgeon is tossing us a millstone dressed up like a lifebuoy, one that sinks to the bottom of the sea as soon as someone dumb enough to believe him grabs hold of it. His false notions about salvation are the kind of false prophesies against which Jesus warned his apostles, and they surely lead astray God’s children, especially the young children who trust preachers to tell them the uncomplicated truth. Both the Urantia Book and the Bible are very clear and emphatic about this:

Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

The Urantia Book, Page 1761 - Entering Capernaum at twilight, they went by unfrequented thoroughfares directly to the home of Simon Peter for their evening meal. While David Zebedee made ready to take them across the lake, they lingered at Simon's house, and Jesus, looking up at Peter and the other apostles, asked: "As you walked along together this afternoon, what was it that you talked about so earnestly among yourselves?" The apostles held their peace because many of them had continued the discussion begun at Mount Hermon as to what positions they were to have in the coming kingdom; who should be the greatest, and so on. Jesus, knowing what it was that occupied their thoughts that day, beckoned to one of Peter's little ones and, setting the child down among them, said: "Verily, verily, I say to you, except you turn about and become more like this child, you will make little progress in the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever shall humble himself and become as this little one, the same shall become greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso receives such a little one receives me. And they who receive me receive also Him who sent me. If you would be first in the kingdom, seek to minister these good truths to your brethren in the flesh. But whosoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea. If the things you do with your hands, or the things you see with your eyes give offense in the progress of the kingdom, sacrifice these cherished idols, for it is better to enter the kingdom minus many of the beloved things of life rather than to cling to these idols and find yourself shut out of the kingdom. But most of all, see that you despise not one of these little ones, for their angels do always behold the faces of the heavenly hosts."

To be honest, Tommy, I don’t know why you feel the need to quote Spurgeon in your sermons. He’s not much of an authority on the gospel or the plan of salvation. In fact, he shows that he does not understand it at all.

Is It Infantile to Believe in God?

My friend Chuck, after reading my blog on Christianity, responded on July 13, 2005:

"Mankind would be better served if it grew up, abandoned its infantile beliefs in supernatural parents, and realized that we alone are responsible for our own destenies. Mankind should have outgrown its need for this nonsense Century's ago. More harm has been done in the name of 'religion' and tribal god-images than any other cause save for passion and material greed."

I responded as follows. Let me know what you think...

Chuck:

It is so good to hear from you, and I thank you for sharing your views with me.

I have an unswerving devotion to the pursuit of truth, beauty, and goodness. Real religionists recognize that as a devotion to doing God’s will, and that could be seen as a devotion to seeking, finding, knowing, loving, becoming, and being like God.

Of course nobody has seen God, but it is logical that the first source and center of persons must himself be a person. And one of the main characteristics of personality is not only the ability to know God, but the ability to make and sincerely act upon moral decisions – doing the “right” thing to the best of one’s ability. It is insincere and hypocritical to do anything else.

You might therefore rightly consider that even though it is infantile to believe in supernatural parents, it is quite mature to believe in having a source of life and personality itself. Since the supreme source must itself be a person, what name would you give that person? I myself refer to him as my “Heavenly Father.”

Now Chuck, you have asserted that belief in “supernatural” parents is infantile. But I’m sure you agree that it is not infantile to believe in parents. I’m sure you also know that to the ignorant and immature child a parent seems very supernatural in nature, for the parent has apparently supernatural knowledge, wisdom, physical power, and mental power. The parent has provided a house, a car, food, clothing, and everything the child needs, including a genetic endowment that allows the child to grow.

You cannot, however, pretend to know that an earth parent is the source of either mind or personality, can you? There has never been proof of such a thing, and in fact there is significant evidence to indicate that your earth parents cannot be and are not the source of your mind and personality. The proof is that you are so much different from them in mental and personality expression, excepting of course the expressions you learned directly from them. Their personalities are their identities, just as you personality is uniquely yours. The only apparent mind-related endowment we get from our earth parents is intelligence, which is apparently genetic. I say it is apparent because exceptionally intelligent children are almost never born to stupid parents, and vice versa, but the children of intelligent parents are usually intelligent, whereas the children of stupid parents are usually stupid.

Back to the issue of supernatural, if a child thinks his natural earth parent is supernatural, that does not mean the parent is supernatural. Concomitantly, it is unreasonable to assert that the parent of your personality is supernatural. More realistically, the universal parent of personality must, by definition, be completely natural, not supernatural, but you are not yet mature enough to be fully aware of the power of that personality, nor of how that parent personality functions. In reality, therefore, you are just an immature “personality” and are “sub-natural,” while your personality parent is merely mature and wholly natural.

Would you be infantile for believing that? Its just a matter of perspective, Chuck.

Given that perspective, it is reasonable for us to see “God” as our Heavenly Father, and as his immature, sub-natural children, to seek to know him, communicate with him, and grow to be like him. That way we might someday evolve from being sub-natural to being natural, rather than (as you now might see it) to evolve from being natural to super-natural.

Get the idea?

Given the above considerations, doesn't it seem just a little infantile not to believe in God?

Bob