Subject:  More & list of popular artificial salvation cop-outs

September 18, 2006

Killing innocent civilians justified:

Israel says their killing of innocent Lebanese civilians was Hezbollah’s fault for being in those areas.  Well, the logic in that allows al-Zarqawi to say that his killing of innocent Iraqi civilians was justified because Americans (and/or Iraqi American supporters) were in those areas.  So if we support Israel’s logic, then we should keep a good distance between our soldiers in Iraq and its people.  So, American troops: quit using Iraqi civilians as human shields!  I say, who shoots the bullet that hits you, is the guilty one (and their leader[s] who told or assigned them to do it).  Well… these fair correlations are available for the taking, so I’m just taking it.  If you don’t like the truth, then quit being so bias.

Worldwide Islamic rage:

I don’t know: We hope it’s nope, but is the Pope a dope?  Regardless, people do have difficulty thinking between the extremes; therefore, when a religion overrules Christ’s turn the other cheek (which Americans don’t abide), and goes back to eye for eye, you’re going to have this kind of Islamic reaction to simple Freedom of Speech.  Perhaps Muslims wouldn’t have so many problems and anger if they simply knew true right from wrong: Never hurt an innocent person (which includes over-revenging a guilty person).  By the way, a “guilty” person is someone who has (only) hurt an innocent person. – It’s just that simple, clean, and stable.  If someone of influence said to me: “Mr. Critical, you and Jesus’ recommendation of turn the other cheek, will find things only evil and inhuman with your spreading by the sword,” I would not only allow their Freedom of Speech, I would turn the other cheek by asking for more; until their entire stupidity is fully seen by everyone.  (A reason why all the “good” people in this world won’t debate me.)  Eye for eye is actual a perfect statement if everyone in the world wasn’t so stupid (and, thinking they’re smart).  So, since everyone is unworkably dumb, turn the other cheek is a more perfect recommendation, which would make things much better, as it stops escalation.  You might tell the Muslins that the Koran might work, if they weren’t so typically stupid.

Afghanistan:

I guess my baseball card recommendation like thing didn’t work.

United Nations meeting:

We should be honored to have a President who will express child-like anger behavior (like a baby that doesn’t get his way) rather than debate direct with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  “Last month, Ahmadinejad challenged Bush to a debate but the offer was rejected as a publicity stunt and distraction from the nuclear issue.” –UPI.  I think it would be good to have such a debate.  Maybe some pre-school teacher could force them to hug, then play nice together.  Maybe a good chess game and a couple of beers would do it.  How about both visiting a good museum together.  Then Iran would just not be an enemy, and the entire problem would be over.  You say, we’re not going to invite that (because Mahmoud would probably accept): we have to maintain acting like a baby that doesn’t get his way (because babys aren’t good communicators / debators).  Good, now I can say “I told you so” when the sh_t hits the fan.  Usually the one who is not willing to debate is the one who is really in the wrong, and would lose in a debate.  You know, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, etc. all have nuclear weapons; they’d all be invited to the museum.

The Democrats’ solution for Iraq:

O’Reilly says Democrats have no answer to exactly how they’d handle the Iraq mess.  Well, that makes sense.  Democrats are equally as dumb as Republicans.  The only solution is the one that I proposed months ago, that no one is going to do: Quit making dumb and bias excuses why Saddam Hussein is more evil than the average American, and give Iraq back to him, then militarily support him in stopping the internal violence.  Also give a lot of restitution back to the Iraqi people.  I know no one is even going to consider this, but I reiterate just so I can continue to gloat now and in the future on how much more smarter, ethical and realistic I am compared to everyone else, when everything else fails.  Incidentally, the sooner the right solution is done, the better.

What’s “democracy”?

According to http://www.answers.com/democracy, it’s “majority rule” (to be pithy).  Since we are a democracy and want all countries in the world to also be a democracy, does that mean when over 50% of the world is against us, we will submit to them?  No way, because our true values of democracy is baloney.  You see, “the game” is number one, democracy is number two.  I recently heard on Fox News that because of the Iraqi war, 55% of the world is against us; but, I’ve haven’t fully researched it.  Though, in early 2003, I remember Paul Harvey commenting how degrading it was for George W. Bush visiting and begging some of the smallest countries on the planet, for their support of an Iraqi invasion.  I never hear about this anymore, but I remember George actually broke International law by invading Iraq?  Tell that to Warren Jeffs sitting in his cell right now.

Warren Jeffs:

Hey, if I tell someone to walk into a brick wall, and they do, am I going to be charged with a battery?  I’ll try it: O’Reilly, walk into a wall.  Now, the next time I see O’Reilly, if he’s got a nose-bleed or a bump on his head, does that mean I will be arrested?  Or, if I’m lucky and he doesn’t do it, will I not be arrested?  Will it make a difference if O’Reilly tells the authorities that he did or really didn’t want to do it, but did it anyway, because I am his recognized leader?  Since 16 year-olds can’t get married without their recognized leader giving approval, does that mean that Jeffs is damned if he was and damned if he wasn’t the girl’s recognized leader?  Oh, it’s getting too confusing to understand, so let’s nail Jeffs just because the authorities we trust want him nailed.  Republicans bark at “frivolous” lawsuits, but aren’t even meowing at this one.

It wasn’t that long ago in Tennessee, etc. when a female became an old maid if she wasn’t married by 16.  I think the biggest freedom talkers in this country are the ones who like to make laws against freedom the most.  This country’s freedom of divorce allows the female a way out if she changes her mind.  If I had my choice between having a polygamist preacher living next door to me (or some guy married to a 13 year old), or someone who steels my garden hose, or has a kid who likes to ring my doorbell then run away, I’ll take the preacher.  I think shoplifters and muffler violators should have been ahead of the guy facing life in prison on the FBI’s “Top Ten” most wanted list.  Or, one of those jerks who tail-gate me when I’m driving 6 mph over the speed limit (trying to speed me up).  I think the FBI should instead do more “nationwide manhunts” for them ten year-old whippersnappers who run away after ringing my door bell.  Grrrrrr.  Top government people: dumb or dumber?

Warren Jeffs’ polygamist sect has been operating since 1890.  Laws against polygamy have been overlooked for many years, so it is really unfair to lock-up Jeffs for it.  Understand, I have no personal goodwill for Jeffs and his sect: you should all know that I’m against polygamy, and am even appalled by the fact the sect is prejudice against blacks (which does go back to early Mormonism).  I am just jumping on this to show how much our government is really not doing its job – that’s a much larger danger in this country.  That’s more of a threat and danger to the citizens of this country than any terrorist could achieve.  The difference, knowledge-wise, is: one is somewhat over-rated and the other is highly under-rated.

Referring to my statement about the FBI’s number-one most wanted being a cop killer: I’m not saying it’s okay to kill a cop, I’m just saying, e.g.: isn’t there anyone on the loose who has killed “two” people?  Wouldn’t killing “two” (of anybody) maybe be worse than killing “one”?  I’m just trying to show people that the authorities’ true colors are easily seen, and how nobody seems to see it.  So, since nobody can see it, if you’re a bias or corrupt authority, why change?  And another thing, chances are he killed the cop for defense reasons, or maybe even anger reasons; but, nevertheless, people who kill for self betterment, or for revenge are not as evil as someone who does it for entertainment, e.g., serial killers.  In other words, basically you’re going to be okay from the first element if you practice Jesus’ pacifism, but no one is free from a serial killer.  Also, no one is free from the evils of dishonesty and favoritisms in government, businesses and the media.  Killing for anger or advantage is something that will be less and less as the future progresses, and makes those needs less.  Killing for entertainment is an evil that must be deal with in the harshest terms.  I’d rather have a person living next to me that wants to kill me for my wife or if I anger him, rather than someone who wants to kill me for entertainment.  I remember a few years ago, an off duty Kansas City, Kansas police officer got completely off with first degree murder during state appeal, after he shot a bouncer in a bar full of witnesses, after getting his gun out of his car, after being removed from the bar.  The media talked about it, but really didn’t make a big deal about it.  I guess the public just doesn’t like being reminded of all their hard-working tax dollars funding big-time favoritism.  Nor, do they apparently really worry about someone being free who kills for anger.  So, think about the fairness of that, if you’re in prison for killing someone during a state of rage.  But, of course, don’t let it get you angry: hold it in for years, because you don’t want to anger your Parole Board.  Sure, I’ll write more next time why you shouldn’t kill someone when you’re angry.  Maybe, if everyone had hard, embedded “faith” that Jesus will judge and punish correctly / in fairness (like the Bible says), instead of instilling that he forgives all sinners, then acts of revenge might not be so emotionally “necessary.”  But, I know, all the rich people don’t want to hear it that way for some reason.  It is kind of a good but lonely feeling when you know something that no one else seems to know.  There would simply not be any more evil or (real) criminals, if they were all raised correctly: if superior intelligence ruled.  The fact that so many parents, teachers, officials and religious leaders already know it all is the reason for all ethical based problems.  If I shot a bouncer in a bar, everyone would love Mr. Critical getting the death sentence; because, no one would have to listen to rational solutions anymore, that only bores and/or irritates those who already know it all.  Self-pride where one lies to themselves, is what really rules (today).

If I was Jeffs, I would be wishing the authorities would just violate my First Amendment rights in the same way that Assad “Sam” Suleiman did to reporter John Mattes of Fox 6 News (San Diego): I’d much rather just get beat up in the face than face “life” in prison.  There seems to be a very fine line between something authorities totally overlook and “life” in prison.  It’s called “favoritism,” “bias,” “partiality,” “discrimination,” “prejudice,” “preferential treatment,” “preference,” “nepotism,” “unfairness,” “preconceived notion,” “foregone conclusion,” “predisposition,” “jaundiced eye,” “saving face,” etc.  --All things that will place you in Hades.  No, just because all cops do it, doesn’t justify it.  In other words, to our authorities, it really does make a big difference regarding who did what to who, rather than consistent justice / fair.  Most people could care less if the authorities lock someone up who shouldn’t be; but, they will just selfishly complain when the authorities let someone out who shouldn’t be.  Lots of people will say that life isn’t fair; but, the authorities’ job is to make things more fair in an unfair world.  All the laws are supposed to be geared toward that goal.

Here’s another thing most people don’t know: all the laws are just there to fool the stupid public and media.  How it really works is, if the laws support what a judge wants, then he will state that his decision is bound by law; if the laws don’t support what a judge wants, then they have their ways around it, to just ignore the law(s), and nobody (of power or influence) usually questions it.  If an individual complains to a higher authority, overall, they will ignore the same laws too.  In other words, they do whatever they want, right or wrong, regardless of the law, usually based on favoritism (which the law actually forbids, but…), and the higher authorities usually always support the system people, not the laws.  If a judge’s dereliction-of-the-law defensive explanation makes any kind of sense at all, the media will be lost for argument.  Only for very obvious / clear-cut issues, like the Iraq war, will it cause disfavor for a wrongdoer.  I realize that in most cases authorities go by the law: I’m just saying that when they want to be bias the avenue is open, simply because of the true high dumbness degree of the public and the media.  To them, the laws are really just guidelines; therefore, if you are seeking justice because the “written” laws are in your favor, then good luck.

The bottom line:

“C'mon people now, smile on your brother -- ev'rybody get together; try to love one another right now” –The Youngbloods, 1968.  “And you know it's right.  And you know that it's right:  We have got to get it together.  We have got to get it together now” –Thunderclap Newman, 1969.  These hopeful thoughts are impossible to accomplish as long as the Churches teach artificial salvation cop-outs, and the strong secular fad of wanting to be around the more attractive people.  Now, aside from natural disasters, practically all problems in the news are caused by two root problems: (1) artificial salvation cop-outs, and/or (2) the marriage standard.  (Actually, natural disasters will even be less and less of a problem, because once ethical based problems are not overwhelming our lives, our minds, and the news, we will have more time to teach realizations, formulate solutions, and construct defenses against natural disasters.)  To be pithy, since every woman in this world is a dishonest prostitute, and every man is a pussy-whipped john (or, has low libido), I’ll currently waive elaboration on the marriage subject because no one will be able to emotionally concur at this date.  (But, I will look forward to my next date where I [a pussy-whipped john] will wine and dine.)  Instead, I detail on the most destructive problem:

The “Antichrist” is not some terrorist organization, evil ruler, serial killer, Jehovah’s Witness, or the Mormon Church.  The relevance to justify the Book of Revelation’s importance of the term “Antichrist” refers to something very “noteworthy” (very large).  It’s so powerful that its supporters / preachers aren’t even aware of its evil: it thinks it’s conveying true Christianity but is actually instilling the opposite.  It definitely has to do with the teachings of Christ, but is false (“Anti-“).  There can be no better description of the “Antichrist” than this statement:

“What Shall I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?, Regular Baptist Press, Schaumburg, IL; pamphlet on my windshield, 10-18-05:

Someone named “Jesus Christ” disagrees.  Jesus explains that the only way for salvation is being good (to others):

Matthew 25:34-46:

³⁴"Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: ³⁵for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; ³⁶I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' ³⁷Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? ³⁸When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? ³⁹Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' ⁴⁰And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' ⁴¹Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: ⁴²for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' ⁴⁴Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' ⁴⁵Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' ⁴⁶And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Matthew 7:14: “Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”  I would agree that it would be very “difficult” to have a homeless person move into your home, because only a “few” will do it (and “none” in my audience); but, that homeless person will be your judge according to… Jesus Christ!  I love it when everyone ignores me on these subjects.  However, you can ignore me, but you’d better not ignore Jesus.  If you can bring home a or some homeless people that would be great, and you can look forward to a welcoming judgment; but, if you have influence, it would be thousands or maybe even millions of times better (for you) if you could preach the importance of it: how Jesus says it’s necessary.

The Golden Rule is the only way for salvation (for both this world and your soul); and, most importantly, anything else is a cop-out.  And for the world: you can fire all the crooked politicians, quit doing business with all the dishonest companies, expose all the bias media, but you’re never going to stop it from continuing as long they believe and trust in artificial salvation cop-outs.  I have found that doing good deeds pays very little in personal satisfaction; therefore, have concluded that doing good deeds (and never hurting an innocent person) is a “sacrificial” duty, and only rewardable in the afterlife.  In fact, in can be down right upsetting when it is to one’s financial (e.g.) disadvantage.  Basically, when you “give” something to someone, you then have less.

Because of the churches’ false condemnations of “victimless” sins, and mainly because they state that God will make your secular life better if you are “good,” causes most all of the atheists.  Other atheists think they are smart because they can’t see to the smallest extent, reckon God’s “drive” from the earliest point in time, or ponder to a possible future tangible resurrection.  The Churches are correct when they say that evolution has an underlining drive for betterment; that DNA mistakes (“mutations”) could not have created what we have.  The odds of the numeric extent of DNA mistakes that would need to occur, in the right direction, to make a better creature is an impossibility, and therefore irrational.  That would be like the playing card 7 coming up every time, in billions of draws.  (Or, a deck of playing cards numbering 1 to a trillion, coming up 7 every time.)  But, the underlying “drive” (God) did not do it in only 6,000 years.  God is limited, and does succumb to the pitfalls of its continued creation betterments it (“He”) puts into place / action.  Contrary to what churches want you to believe, when you drop something on your foot, it’s going to hurt.  When people think (via Church teachings / assurances) that God can instantaneous make one’s life better, then sincerely test it just to find it fail, one can easily become an atheist.  Those who disagree with me are mainly the wealthy, the influential, and/or the lucky; and, because the way the justice system (really) works in this country, they will likely find that “God will answer their prayers” even more, when they continue to lie, cheat and steal for whenever it’s to their advantage.

Popular artificial salvation cop-outs:

Jesus paid the penalty for our sins (conveyed for the advantage of the sinner).  – If there’s no afterlife penalty for wrongs, then there’s no reason to be good.  Intended to overrule / stop the pagan human / blood sacrifices, etc. salvation rituals of Christianity’s first listening audience: the Gentiles.  Totally antiquated today, since no one performs human sacrifice anymore.  A Church could talk all hour about Jesus’ command of the Goldenrule, but obliterate (subconsciously) the entire instruction by saying just once that “Jesus paid the penalty for your sins” at, e.g., the end of the sermon.  Such a sermon will basically end your wronging of others just for your entertainment, but not when it’s to your significant advantage, and that’s what’s still causing today’s multitude of problems.  The reason for a “Purgatory” is because of the need of “fair” judgment.

Not being homosexual.  – Basis for condemnation is corruption of New Testament translations: Paul actually expresses God’s approval of it in Romans 1:24-32, by “bringing forth” / “giving” / “delivering” (παρεδωκεν / παραδιδωμι) it, overruling the Old Testament.  The negative sounding English word descriptions of the homosexual act, tricks one’s mind.  Good example of a “spin.”  (I know you don’t believe me.)  Today’s churches “just say” that Jesus’ “love one another” (John 13:34) is not sexual love, and everyone “just believes” them (an excellent example of how gullible / trusting / dumb everyone really is); but, the Greek word used (αγαπη / agape) actually meant “sexual love” in other early text, especially in Song of Solomon (via early Christians’ LXX).  (No one will investigate: it’s easier to “just trust” today’s religious authority.)  Condemning “victimless crimes” is actually a sin.  Most people are one extreme or the other on this issue, solely depending if they are homosexual or not.  In other words, most everyone uses this as a cop-out if they don’t desire the same sex; which is why it is such a controversial and harmful issue.  The ones who condemn homosexuality the most are the ones who likely depend on this cop-out the most.

No sex until marriage.  – Easy to do if you have a low libido.  Condemnation is based on corruption of a New Testament word: fornication (originally Scriptures just meant “sex for money”: prostitution).  Condemning “victimless crimes” is actually a sin, and this particular one leads many people away from the Church, especially today.

Sexually faithful in marriage.  – Well, good for you, but it doesn’t justify other kinds of wrongs.  Very easy to do if you have a low libido, and/or no opportunities.  Marriage is not solution; but, Goldenrule still applies in marriage. “Mama’s in the graveyard; papa’s in the pen.” –Garth Brooks, 1992.  “Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that gun in your hand?” –Jimi Hendrix, 1967. –Marriage, hence jealousy, is what the Devil wants.

Pro-Life, but not a vegetarian.  – Just shows how don’t really care about “life” / those unborn babies.  They don’t really respect “life,” just their own soul.  Since they don’t have a personal abortion need, they just use it to try to impress God.  Most would quickly become Pro-Choice if daughter was raped.

Go to Church.  – It’s not wrong to go to a “school of religion,” but just showing up has no salvation value.  Goldenrule is only thing one needs to know, since Goldenrule alone is only way to salvation according to Jesus (Matt. 25:31-46).

Get on knees at Church.

Taking the eucharist.  – Shouldn’t even be done.  It’s not Jesus instructed.  It’s just an early Christian remembrance that got misunderstood and out of hand.  Original meaning was to overrule animal sacrifices.

Being Baptized.  – Just do it; but, don’t think it excuses evil.

Praying.  – God already knows your wants.  God hears you even when you’re not in your position and initiation of prayer.  Non-Goldenrule obsequiousness (words only) will just make it worse on you.  You don’t “move” God until you ask God how you can help “others.”  Since you are the one who also hears your prayers, you can accomplish self help (stop smoking, drinking, gambling, eating less, etc.).  How many people pray: “God, help me treat others better,” and/or targeted: “God, help me treat others better who hate/dislike me”?  (When I ask this, I get back: “Be more critical.”)

Holy water, etc.  – On this planet, everything is Holy.

Being blessed by the Pope, a priest or pastor.

Any blessing.

Jerusalem (it’s just a museum). – The Jews and Christians waiting for the Messiah / Christ to return to Jerusalem will be very surprised to find all of them being condemned for not practicing the Golden Rule to the Palestinians.  Those Jews and Christians should, instead, pray hard that the Messiah / Christ does not come back to Jerusalem.  I think God actually puts both the right things and the wrong things (contradictions) in the Bible, just to expose each one’s true colors, by seeing which one each of us choose.  Otherwise, the Bible (the Word of God) has lots of mistakes.  (I know, clergies aren’t even honest enough to admit that.)

Self accomplished suffering.  – Restitution can only be made to the actual (and living) victim of your sin.

Catholic “confession.” – A priest cannot forgive sin, only the actual victim(s) can forgive.

Protestant “faith alone.” – Bootlicking to the “name” of Jesus only, not his commandments.  Church leaders aren’t stupid, they know how to get your money.  They’re going down.  But that doesn’t mean that everything they say is wrong. – That’s why good people are fooled.  “Simple” for me to understand, hard for you.

If you think you’re right with God because you do any of the above, then you’d better think twice; because:

Matthew 7:21-23: ²¹“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. ²²Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ ²³And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

Pastors and priests who preach these artificial salvation cop-outs are best summed up with:

Mathew 7:15: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.”

Pacifist pastors / priests who make the people believe in ways to salvation other than the Golden Rule, are, in-turn the root cause of the “ravenous wolves” like behavior on the world.  (This is so far from people’s ability to comprehend that I don’t know why I’m bothering saying it.)  By the way, I believe most pastors / priests are not even aware of their error – “stupidity” is the only accurate explanation.  If I don’t “insult” people, I’m simply not explaining it as accurately / correctly.

Because of our inability to judge correctly and unbiasly, we are to emotionally forgive our enemies, because Christ assures us that He will cause those who have sinned against us to suffer:

Matthew 10:34: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.”

Meaning that not us, but Christ (“I”) will bring the punishment.  Again, we are not to implement revenge: Jesus is the One who will revenge.  Now, that doesn’t mean we aren’t to lock someone up when it is apparent that they will likely hurt another innocent person, we are just to base it on logic instead of emotions.  Some think that we won’t lock them up of we don’t have these emotional feelings of revenge; but, with humans, emotions cause people to be locked up way too long and causes people to be free who should be locked up.  So, more logic and less emotion is the key.  Though, it is not a sin to implement equal suffering on someone who has hurt an “innocent” person, it is just strongly not recommended simply because we all think we are sufficiently intelligent, but we aren’t.  By basing judgment on our emotions (especially our bias emotions), we just cause more problems than good.  The reason one needs “faith” in Jesus’ assurance of requital is because it has not been done yet: it is something of the future.  Thereby “faith” is the difficult but necessary word.  (Of course, likely no one in my audience has ever been wronged bad enough to even know what I’m talking about.)

Survival of the fittest:

If you believe that “survival of the fittest” is just, that would be like you arriving home to find a burglar has stolen your most priced possessions.  He’s gone, the law doesn’t have him: he got away with it; therefore, you call his actions “just” because he was the fittest.  Many people believe that God desires for “survival of the fittest.”  But, “survival of the fittest” is “old hat” standards to God.  God now wants something productively better: the Goldenrule.

Fair afterlife judgment:

There’s a bit of a difference between secular compensation and divine compensation.  Secular compensation (when not corrupted) usually only provides restitution for the actual value of the product, service, etc. in question: rarely does a court provide punitive damages (unless it’s part of favoritism).  Reasons are because it is rather complex to determine exactly how much additional inconvenience and suffering a wrong has caused a victim, mainly because dishonesty of such would be so prevalent.  But, in divine compensation, since all is know, all of the victim’s time in having to deal with it, personal distress, etc. will be included in the perpetrator’s afterlife suffering (unless full secular restitution is made [Matt. 5:23-26]: “civil case”-like restitution can only be made to the actual victim while he is alive [v. 25: “whiles thou art in the way with him”]; “criminal case”-like suffering can be the only commensurable method once a victim is deceased).  But, by the perfection of God, the victim is advised to not feel and suffer with his personal animalistic desire for revenge (to avoid escalations).  Instead, the victim is told to “forgive” those who have wronged him.  Instead, Jesus is the one who will feel all your sufferings and those revengeful emotions, and never forget you about it, even though you are supposed to “forget” about it, especially if many years have passed.  And therefore, Jesus will judge us all someday.  Now, if I’m smart enough to know that bootlicking to Jesus’ name (e.g.) only is an insincere cop-out, then surely Jesus / God knows it also.  Just because bootlicking is currently the best way to gain approval in today’s secular world, doesn’t mean that Jesus / God is not aware of the ills of this tactic.  But, people are so dumb that they actually think if they’ve fooled themselves, their boss, etc. then they’ve fooled Jesus / God (the knowledge of everything).  Therefore, being dumb probably has more to do with it than being evil.  (I’m sure I’m being damned by many people by helping you with this.)  Advantages to the sinner are (1) you have the rest of your life or the victims’ life, to make restitution (which victim must fully exhaust), (2) your afterlife suffering will not exceed the equal suffering and loss of your victim(s), and therefore, (3) if the victim “forgives” you, the victim will suffer less, and in-turn, make your afterlife suffering just that much less.  Now, if everyone, instead, had imbedded “faith” that this is the correct (and only possible rational) elaboration of Matt. 5:6,21-26, then no one would ever hurt an innocent person again... simply because the price would be too high.  And, when someone “must” hurt an innocent person, because it will save, say, everyone on this planet, then yes, do the “charity,” but you will still have to afterlife-suffer that small price, for the vast rewards of saving the entire world!  So, ask yourself, when you start killing people who live in countries that plan to destroy the entire world with their weapons of mass destruction, is the price of you dying several times over worth it?  To cause oneself to die many deaths to save the world – yes, it would be a very honorable deed, but I don’t think any leader we have today would really do it.  I don’t think today, any leader would start any kind of military action, if they knew it was going be to their detriment in any way.  I think it’s actually the opposite: Leaders today start military action only if it’s to their self-centered advantage, and/or just to satisfy their personal revenge (for like trying to assassinate one’s father).  (I am speaking so far about people’s heads right now that I can see the space shuttle.)

The economy:

There’s absolutely no reason everywhere in the world can’t look like Beverly Hills (or the back yard of the KCI Marriot).  We all definitely work enough hours to achieve it.  But all that is redirected to the few.

President Bush:

(9-11-06) The President is going to be speaking in a few minutes about how important the Iraq invasion was.  So like, right now I’m thinking that Iraq invasion was not necessary; but, in a few minutes I will be saying “Oh yeah… I didn’t realize all that.  I can now definitely see how important the war really is.”

After the speech:

Hey, he’s like a Boulder prosecutor by admitting that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, thereby conflicting the Darryl Worley song; but, why didn’t he mention the weapons of mass destruction we found years ago, which was announced to the public in June, 2006?-?-?  Still, the same old tremendous amount of unfounded and biasly-charged courageous and honorable words, telling how violence is still the only solution, while letting the other side realize that their violence is the only thing we will understand – it won’t make us stop our violence against them, but we do at least understand it: “some” communication is getting across.  I just don’t want to be the next victim of the next communication (terrorist act) just because all the news stations are overwhelmingly bias.  Well, again, one Presidential finding-of-fact at a time is better than none; but, since government leaders can’t be trusted, the press needs to pressure a better conclusion-of-law:  Instead of telling that we were given incorrect information (like it’s somebody else’s fault), Bush needs to say the words “I was wrong” (about the entire invasion, including the ousting) – As you can easily see, no way; because, that would forward a release of Saddam Hussein.  So close, but yet, so far.  No, George doesn’t think the sake of the Republican Party is worth that kind of honesty.  I guess others have to be really, really dumb and/or really, really evil to still go along with it.  So which is it: more dumb or more evil?  Concerning George’s comment about how bad America would look if we admitted the Iraq war was a mistake from the beginning, naugh: mainly just one person would look bad.  All the bigots (like on Fox News) who were for the Iraq invasion are now worrying about all the new Iraqi “terrorists” it created.  The bigots unjustly / unfairly start the problem, then whine like babies when it backfires (as I clearly stated it would, back in 2002).  If that doesn’t make a person want to vomit, then nothing should.  But, in conclusion, and I’m not sure, but I think “dumb” is slightly ahead of “evil” for the overall race.

I’ve been writing this stuff since 1998 and nothing (major) is changing.  I still visit various churches a lot (anonymously) and continue to hear the same cop-outs.  God still wants me to continue to write it.

Mr. Critical – I wish someone would try to prove me wrong.

-- Home (Index) --