This is a sequel to my previous post about a great adventure.

I've tried to be careful about establishing the title "elder" with my ministry. At the same time, I've performed a lot of pastoral ministry. There's a reason for that: Technically I'm an apostle. Let's not go crazy and make that a title with a capital "A" -- it's just the proper New Testament word for the role I play. An apostle is both elder and priest because he's a missionary. However, in a virtual setting, there's not much point in trying to do much priestly stuff. That requires a personal presence; it's meant to be experienced first hand.

As part of my expectation for adventure, I remain convinced that sooner or later I'll be coming to visit some of you physically. That's when you'll get a chance to sample some apostolic ministry. But this business of traveling stands out there somewhere in the mists of the future; I have no idea how it's going to be possible. All I know is that it must happen. The reason I make that a prayer request is because I want to avoid investing too much in something that won't happen. I'll follow my heart, but my brain is struggling on this issue. There's just too little to go on right now.

I believe it's a request the Father will entertain, but with all the usual caveats: "Be careful what you ask for." I'm willing to take that risk. I'm seeking a vision of service that will put me in the right place, at the right time, so that we can meet together face to face. There will have to be a lot more involved than just that, but it will have to be there.

Time for another rant. Here's the reference point that provokes me: Leaked Documents Expose NYPD's Long-Running Lack Of Officer Discipline

After serving as a Military Policeman, I took a great interest in the whole idea of law enforcement. Having law enforcement is a basic requirement of Biblical Law. The way we do it in the West is what offends Biblical Law. First, there's the false pretense that folks from all manner of nations and tribes can be thrust together into a single society. In a situation like that, somebody is going to get walked on, and it's usually the folks who try to mind their own business. The oppressive nannies of the world always rule become nobody else wants to.

Second, there's the false idea that in such a diverse society, you can somehow create a fair and impartial police force drawn from the same people being policed. That works if a given society belongs to a single culture because it feels like your own family is policing things. But it doesn't work in a diverse society that pretends there is only one culture, as is the way of things in the US. Everyone then starts to imagine that their own culture is, or ought to be, "the one."

The only way to have an impartial police force over a diverse society is by using soldiers hired from a foreign country. A civilian police force has never worked in diverse societies; there has always been a serious problem of oppression with it. It leads to leveraging the police force for more than the cause of simple public order. Criminal investigation must be a separate function, using an entirely separate agency. The current peacekeeping-investigatory hybrid agency cannot be impartial. One of the most dangerous things about fake impartiality is that the police are subject to every imaginable pressure to go easy on one person and not on another. If bribery is the only weakness, then it's easier to minimize the impact. When the pressures arise from mixed loyalties, it's impossible to manage. The addition of police unions only makes that situation worse, being blatantly partial.

Again, the only way to have any faint hope of fairness is if the police are your kin. Whatever might be bad about a patriarchal tribal society, everything else is far worse.

Anyway, the article linked above tries to answer all the wrong questions. The article does imply a certain collection of solutions, but those have never worked and they never will. The NYPD is an abomination to God in part because NY City is an abomination to God, as is the US and the whole of Western Civilization.

When I first graduated college, I had a burning sense of calling about the traditional American evangelical gospel ministry. I went at it, but was mostly frustrated. I know why now, but didn't understand then why I wasn't accepted into the secret brotherhood. So I went after a different dream and enlisted in the military. That didn't turn out too well, but there were bright spots in it. It was a grand test of my faith. I eventually understood that I had been granted a fine adventure. A few years after that, I was ordained by some folks who believed in me just that much, but not quite enough to actually put me to work.

Then I learned some new stuff about faith. I had been casting about for something invisible to me missing from the picture. Still not quite taken seriously as a gospel minister, I went back into the military and did a whale of a lot better than before... until it was discovered I had a birth defect that made it awfully difficult to stay in uniform (knees issue). The military was willing, but I knew it was pointless. What mattered most was the amazing new adventure it was, particularly in terms of religion. It was my volunteer work in chapel that made all the difference, another grand test of my faith. It was a spiritual high point hard to describe. But I felt compelled to leave the military.

Then I tested the waters as a school teacher, and failed in professional terms. I was too much a maverick at that point, but I did learn a lot of new tools. This was when my personal religion changed more radically. For the next twenty years I hunkered down and studied the roots of Christian faith, reviewing and deepening all I had learned back in Baptist college.

Fast forward to where things are right now. I've reached a stability point in my personal faith; I'm ready to test it again. This time military service is highly improbable. It was a wonderful context in which to test my faith, a context I fully understood, and where my influence was frankly powerful in spiritual terms. I have no idea what environment God has in mind, but I have this overwhelming sense of adventure in faith burning like a bonfire inside of me.

I wanna be ready for the next adventure; I'm seeking a clear sense of vision about it. That's my prayer request.

If you pay much attention to the debate about whether Google is guilty of censorship, here is an interesting challenge to the notion that Google is a private company:

Tell Me More About How Google Isn’t Part Of The Government And Can Therefore Censor Whoever It Wants?

"This is absurd on its surface, because Google is not separate from the government in any meaningful way. It has been financially intertwined with US intelligence agencies since its very inception when it received research grants from the CIA and NSA for mass surveillance, pours massive amounts of money into federal lobbying and DC think tanks, has a cozy relationship with the NSA and multiple defense contracts....

"There needs to be some sort of measure in place which protects the public from such manipulations. Either remove corporate power from government power or acknowledge that they are fully meshed and expand constitutional protections to the users of any media giant which has enmeshed itself in government power. Pretending corporate power and government power are separate when they are not while exploiting that inseparable symbiosis to silence political dissent is not acceptable."

At what point do we start to recognize interdependence -- the government depends on Google and vice versa -- as agency?

Ayn Rand was a godless Russian Jew who escaped the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution and went on to write some of the most-read books in the world. Not a few of them were long-winded; my personal favorite was the succinct novella Anthem. She openly worshiped Aristotle as the alpha and omega of philosophical inquiry, to the point of forming her own life philosophy--"objectivism"--as a direct derivative of his philosophy. There were a great many things she got wrong, but aside from the obvious Western epistemological baggage that comes with her interpretation of individualism that we slice off here at Radix Fidem, she did propose one thing right: a man owes nothing to another regardless of any claims. In other words, one cannot make moral claims on another without their agreement. Moral claims on strangers are, paradoxically, immoral.

As humans we are under a near-compulsory moral obligation: we owe allegiance to blood (family), because that is the inescapable feudal order of human existence. Outside of family, one had no moral obligations to an outside party except through a covenant agreement*. Covenant agreements were no legal contract--they were, in fact, much more serious, because it took precedence over the default "blood" contract one had with his family. The weight of this presumption rests on the family structure seen in feudal, tribal Israel and the general social structure of her surrounding tribes. This presumption is one that Rand, being thoroughly steeped in the Western tradition, would reject. Despite this, reality persists. Family was not only a fact of life, it was someone's entire world; you lived and died by family, which consequently held all the practical and social currency to support someone from life to death. Family is not regarded nearly the same way in America, for example, so "family" in this modern sense comes with some variability on this moral presumption. Yet, this holds true for humanity as a whole. Paul mentioned explicitly that those who do not care for family are no better than the pagans.

Additionally, as Christians, we are obligated to others within our voluntary church structure, as siblings adopted by one father: God. This aspect was particular to the monotheism of ancient Israel, and much more emphasis was placed on adoption in Old Testament feudal Israel than today. An adopted family member was held in higher regard than blood children. In this sense, covenant kin--other Christians within your assembly--should hold a high place in your priority than actual family members.

Outside of kin of blood and covenant, no one else has any legitimate moral claim on you. We may have to make some exceptions in modern society to keep peace, but wider "social responsibility" holds no sway with God in the long run. It's wholly anathema since it presumes Enlightenment philosophy, tracing all the way back to Aristotle and Plato**, a philosophy that we reject. Like the Hebrews of the Old Testament, God designed intended than spiritual covenants are held in higher regard than blood ties. This is reiterated constantly through all adoption analogies we read in the New Testament, with God the Father as the head, and the church as His adopted children.

With the proliferation of the Internet, talk is much cheaper, and so are social media postings, but the sway they hold can be insurmountable on people's real-world lives. Twitter mobs attacking individuals for saying the wrong thing (or thinking the wrong thing, by implication) are condemned under the idea that random, hapless people somehow owe them an apology. Those fanatical mobs won't last, even though they may enjoy temporary social power through digital ostracism.

Again: social responsibilities--in all its characterizations and forms like civic, democratic, liberal or conservative--rests on a idolatrous power structure that God has already condemned. As such, we at Radix Fidem also condemn it. We do not owe anyone a damn thing.

* There were some cultural exceptions to this. For instance, if a stranger-even an enemy--asked for hospitality, the tribal patriarch was obligated to provide it.

** Rand's objectivism, though it may disagree with other philosophies that branched off the ancient Greeks (particularly with political and ethical philosophies), is still another version of the Enlightenment worldview.

Nana is out of the hospital and back in rehab. The only reason she's not back home is because she has a wound that is slow healing due to diabetes. I stand by the words the Lord placed in my heart on day 1 when I was all panicky, "she will heal and be back stronger. She will be a light illuminating My Glory thus saith the Lord Most High, Amen". Yep, that is pretty much what hit square on the chest, boom!

My mom in law, Miss Judi to the village of Blowing Rock, NC as a treasured member of the community and a blessing to all, Mom to my wife and Nana to me and my children. She is in dire need of the effectual, fervent prayers of the righteous on this forum and to all your prayer chains. She has been in hospital and rehab and back in the ER today with concern of her CO2 levels. Her problems are related to complications of diabetes. Tonight the Lord placed a heavy burden, a weight on my heart to go visit her to impart a healing gift. I have no clue , other than to say that at certain times at our Father discretion, I have been able to heal and bring relief to pain in the persons he directs me to. Praise God, I was given the gift to take some of my father's worse pain onto myself to the Glory of God and see the scales fall off his eyes so he could finally understand that God's love and mercy had been with him all along, which allowed him to praise his redeemer in his last day's. Pray for Nana's recovery and that I may be worthy to impart God's gift to her in accordance to His direction and everlasting Glory. Amen and Amen.

Vox Day referenced the post that contained these comments, here. There are some interesting claims re: Platonism and Hellenization in general.

This question isn't directed to anyone in particular. Possibly Ed more than anyone, since he has the most suited background for discerning this stuff. And it's not even a question--it's more just a presentation of ideas.

Original link for this comment. I'm well aware he's addressing Hellenized Christianity more so, but interesting claim nonetheless:

Quote:I’m well aware that Christian believers will find this unacceptable, but I’ve long since come to an unoriginal conclusion: Christianity is triumphant renovated Zoroastrianism. It is not a continuation of Judaism mixed with some Hellenic ideas derived from Neoplatonism & Orphism.

Ideologically, Christians owe most of their world-view to Zarathustra & his followers: 1) dualism (not di-theism), 2) angelology, 3) World Savior, not a local Messiah, 4) figure of the Evil One, who is more like Zoroastrians’ Ahriman than traditional Jewish Satan, 5) great final conflagration, very visual & scary apocalypse- again, more Persian than Judaic, 6) fierce sense of election of God’s favorite group of people, which dwarfs Jewish chosen people story- again, Zoroastrian, 7) image of Heaven & Hell, which is absent in classical Judaism, 8) resurrection of the dead.

Of course, Christians don’t care – theologically- for fire; they have a strong sense of guilt (unlike classic Zoroastrians); phraseologically & iconographically, Christians derive their mythology from Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, but: take away Zoroastrian ideas from Christianity & you’ll be left with zero, zippo, zilch.

Normative Judaism is not the birth place of Christianity; Essenes & other intertestamental pro-Persian sectarians are.

Quote:Judaism is ethical henotheism which became ethical monotheism. It is a this-wordly religion focused primarily on covenant with God & ethical behavior, the purpose of human life being in fulfilling God’s commandments. From ca. 500 BC to 300 AD, many foreign elements, chiefly from Zoroastrianism (angels, resurrection of the body, Messiah, Hell as the state of divine retribution post-mortem, the end of times,..) & Hellenic (immortality of the soul, Plato’s concept of spiritual cultivation through learning, Neo-Platonic idea of unicity of Being & man’s possibility of direct communion with God, erotic love as the metaphor for God’s love,..) have been assimilated, theoretically, in Judaism’s religious practice, but the stress remains on this life with meager interest in metaphysical & otherworldly dimensions of religion.

Quote:One is that nowhere in the whole of the Tanakh does it say that a whole people can make themselves holy through study of texts. That’s a purely Platonic idea, and comes out of Plato’s Laws. That simply shows how thoroughly Platonized the rabbis of the second century were. The other one, which I say in this book and it has already given some offense, is that in fact not only is Judaism, which is a product of the second century of the common era—and it’s worked out by people like you know Akiba and his friends and opponents like Ishmael and Tarphon and the others, is a younger religion than Christianity is. Christianity in some form exists in the first century of the common era. What we now call Judaism comes along in the second century of the common era. Christianity is actually the older religion, though it infuriates Jews when you say that to them.

It's altogether natural that we should be less hostile to Muslims than the average Western Christian. This is a part of what puts us mostly outside of mainstream organized religion, American evangelical religion in particular. If you've spent much time in Europe, maybe you got a feel for the way some elements of Western Christian thinking have become institutionalized in the popular culture. In their minds, to be Western is to be Christian.

Oddly enough, a lot of Muslims agree with that assessment. Aside from indigenous Near Eastern Churches, most Muslims tend to think of Europe instinctively as part of the meaning of the term "Christian" in their own languages. I suppose it's no secret that a significant number of Muslim leaders have encouraged the idea of Muslim immigration to Europe as the path to conquering the infidels, and that it would go a long way toward removing what they consider the insult to Islam that Christians are so militarily dangerous. Those leaders say that, since military conquest is obviously not possible, they should send refugees to breed Christians out of existence.

I don't take that as a joke. I'm not worried about the loss of so much fake Christian religion, but I can say with prophetic gravity that if Europeans -- such as they are -- do not crush the Muslim invaders in some sense, Europe will change so radically in the next few years that we won't recognize it. Thus, Russia and Eastern European Christianity will become the new symbol of "Christianity," because they will most certainly fight such an invasion. They already fight it now, and are quite ready to escalate.

Some portions of America would join that fight, but certainly not all. The parts that won't have already surrendered culturally to a different problem entirely. Muslims aren't much of an issue here; the big problem is globalism, the new face of communism. We aren't going to see a communist revolution the way Europeans have experienced it (much less the way Asians have). It's a whole new brand of red revolution, seeking to crush the Western Crusader Christianity through mainstream secularist subversion. Only now are we starting to hear about violent revolution, and even that will be different from what manifested in the past.

This is part of what will split the US into smaller parts. The fracture in our country is irreparable, and in due time it will split wide open. It's all part of a broader vision of tribulation that Western Christianity will take a major hit over the next few years. Naturally this will reduce Israel's protection considerably.

The forums were down for some time last night. Not sure how long. It was my fault, since I had my hosting on manual renewal and not auto.

Everything looks good now.