A letter to Jerusalem

You will be in Jerusalem as I write, so greetings to the brethren, as Paul might have had it.

Perhaps the Catholics were indeed responsible for moving the day of worship to Sunday though I think there is a precedent for Sunday worship in the book of Acts, and anyway I think every day is a day of worship so I'm not too bothered about that stuff.

As for Rob Skiba, I think all people on the public stage are shills. Skiba has helped spread awareness of biblical cosmology for sure, just as David Ike has revealed much deception on the world stage, but ultimately these folks are all gatekeepers. In the case of Mr Skiba I am wary of his insistence on changing the names given in our King James Bible for God and Jesus. He is also constantly referring us to the apocrypha. The result is that he is saying, de facto, we cannot trust in our Bible. or in the Bible alone. Also the name issue of course is a side swipe at the KJV, because if we should be using words like Yaweh and Elohim etc. then why are they not in our Bible?

The Lord has taught me that I can rely on the Bible and that he will preserve a true Bible for all time.

Research and the Bible itself inform me that this refers to the King James Version:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

although I also think its six predecessors, from Tyndale to Geneva, are mainly reliable. As you probably know already, several of them are beloved by those of us who understand the truth of Biblical Cosmology, due to 2 Samuel 11.11:

And Vrias sayd vnto Dauid: the arck and Israel & Iuda dwell in pauilions: & my Lord Ioab and the seruauntes of my Lorde lye in tentes vpon the flat earthe: and shulde I then go into myne house, to eate and to dryncke & to lye wyth my wyfe? By thy lyfe and as sure as thy soule lyueth, I wyll not do that thyng.  

Isn't it interesting to note that in this passage Uriah is speaking the truth to David, who was attempting to deceive him to cover his own great iniquity: the righteous confronts the devil!

I think my negative appraisal of the HRM is influenced by the dispensational teachings I was exposed to at church. While I was initially dismayed to hear the preacher's view of such matters, I went on to do my own research and I am satisfied that the interpretation is mainly good and most important in understanding the Bible overall, helping to clear up what appeared, on the face of it, to be contradictory or at least incompatible positions or statements. I know there is much opposition to this understanding, and I have researched the objections as carefully as I have been able, but I remain quite confident of it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the preacher is an excellent teacher. I was spellbound 1 during many of his sermons and Bible studies expounding the deeper meanings of Scripture.  I think he mainly draws his material from his extensive studies of biblical scholars from the 1600s to the 1900s, broadly, and those folks had plenty of insights to share. It saved me wading through a body of literature that is absolutely vast and gave me a smattering of some of the key points, so I am most grateful. He is also quite a passionate speaker from time to time and shares some mainly reliable information concerning the deceptions that surround us. 

Sadly, I can no longer attend because I am almost certainly seen as a potential troublemaker, having inadvertently angered the elders by speaking of the transgender deception that surrounds us (not during the meeting) and warned the preacher (likewise informally) that he is placing his trust in "necromancers" rather than in the Word of God in relation to the FE issue.

1 I just noticed I used the word "spellbound", perhaps I was!

Tolerance and love

The only person I could freely talk to about my many unorthodox beliefs was my father, a matter that is surprising to me indeed.

I use the past tense because my father is nearing the very end of his life and can no longer follow the kinds of complex reasoning involved in unravelling the deception of the world.
I suppose he is an oddball like me - or I am one like him. However, I have come to understand that the truth lies in the Lord Jesus Christ, while he was determined never to even look in the direction of the Bible, despite having three copies of the AV on the shelf near his chair.

I can talk to my daughter also, but I am careful to step around her shibboleths. I know she will disagree with me about many things, so I look for common ground and try to explain the contents of the Bible, as far as I am able, because she does not know that book and because I am her father.
In general, I understand that people do not share my views about things, so I adopt a peaceful and tolerant approach to others.

I wish I could rely on your tolerance too. I know you don't agree with me, but it is most tiresome to have to fend off angry attacks every time I make a statement.

Anyway, what do you know of epistemology and philosophy? I don't think you have any particular interest in those matters, but I studied them for a while and I learned quite a few things, including debating techniques, although I am no expert.

When you say, for example, "se una donna è brava e competente per te è un travestito" you are using a strawman argument. Perhaps you know what that means, but I will explain just in case you don't: you are deliberately mischaracterising my position in order to ridicule it.

Strawman arguments are common, but they are dishonest. Like when I proposed at church that we should organise a "men's meeting", and the preacher, who didn't want to do that for some reason, spent ten minutes arguing against youth groups in the church, which was not my proposal any more than I am proposing that clever and competent women are male to female transgenders. It is a plainly silly idea and thus easy to argue against. Also youth meetings in church have many well known drawbacks and so the idea can be easily opposed, but that was not my proposal - indeed, I do not agree with youth meetings in church any more than I think that all clever and competent women are transgendered men.

See what I mean?

More generally however, I dislike debates. I will listen to people's views - I might disagree and offer a different interpretation, but once it has been established that our views differ, I expect the matter to end there. If we do not agree, then let peace govern the nature of our relations. If one of us is wrong, then let it be so - all truth will be revealed one day.

Why can you not afford me the same courtesy I afford you? I have no intention of ridiculing people because of their ideas, even though I think many of them are completely misguided. I understand people must come to their own conclusions. I speak about my ideas, but I don't expect others to accept them. I am very used to this situation. Wherever I go, I encounter dissonance, whether it is in the agora, in the church, or among the conspiracy people. All I ask is that people allow me to speak freely, without censure or prejudice.

People might think my ideas are crazy, but if they know me at all and care for me I would expect a modicum of respect rather than mocking.

So, here we are, alone and unable to speak. We could have pursued a friendship or even more, but that would require tolerance. If you feel you must scold me and criticise me, that is your prerogative, but then where is the "love" of which you often speak? Surely it is in tolerance that we find real love - it's easy to love people when they simply echo our views and prejudices.