Original Sin

What is the Devil? Does it matter what perspective one takes on His Infernal “Majesty?” Does He appear the same way to all who see the invisible?

The book of Revelation describes the Devil as “a great red dragon [12:3]” with a voracious appetite for fresh, newborn babies (12:4). A “wonder in heaven [12:3].” What one called Paul- the- apostle (Saul of Tarsus) would characterize as a “lying wonder [2 Thessalonians 2:9]” of the Devil. [With an appetite for men: the Mutton of His Pasture (et. al.).] This much of the light the canon of the 'Holy Bible' casts on His character allows a peep of HIM as far back into the canon as Genesis 2.

The first mention of “not good” in the canon occurs in Genesis 2. It is the LORD God’s “spirit of error [1 John 4:6]” (which informs his ways, as Spirit informs Nature) to which this first mention of ”not good” refers. It is also from the horse’s mouth. The LORD God's estimation of His own works, and thus His own way, is “not good,” as recorded in Genesis 2:18.

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be [as “made”] alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

Not good is the simplest way to say “evil” without saying evil. That is to say “not good” is the simplest definition of the word “evil.” Evil is a marked (or counted, which is to say “reckoned,”) absence- of- good. This absence, as all things present do, engages by degree. The LORD God, however, might be utterly void of good. If He is, the witty inventions [man, for one] He claims as copyright are not His own. It's much easier– and therefore more deviant, more devilish– to take credit for someone else's work. [“Footprints In the Sand,” Christians say. Iron Maiden more appropriately calls it “Fear of the Dark”.]

In light of the above: It's fair to say that, when the LORD God cursed the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” it was His own nakedness He was cursing in cursing the man who would see the invisible. Inasmuch as their ”Maker” had a deviant Spirit, Adam and Eve had eyes to see the evil (in their own nakedness, if nowhere else). They needed no instruction to grasp “not good.” They could do that masturbating.

Therefore it was “the knowledge of good”-- of which the LORD God is barren– which was so cursed. Evil is implied, if not understood, wherever it sits in solitude: and most places it doesn't. Only in cover- ups is it elsewise, it seems.

Adam and Eve’s Garden of Eden resembles the church of the Laodiceans (of Revelation 3:17): “thou [LORD God] sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked [as that which you've “made”]. [Life tastes like fecal matter and bile in your presence.]. “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.” “Wine & Piss” rockers “Lamb of God” say.

Bitter Wormwood; Gravel in the mouth; Cankered, swollen bellies; Rotted thighs: These are some of the things the Doctrine of the 'Holy Bible' calls itself, and says of itself, those times it encounters itself in guises it doesn't– or “can't” for legal reasons– recognize. 

Can anyone but the Devil stand to eat that which calls itself the Blessed Virgin of Christ [It's a “men- only” club, in Heaven, they say.]: at room temperature, “lukewarm?” Were I the Devil, it would seem to me roasted would be better; but He's such a Beast, He may eat it any way He can kill it; and enjoy it the more, the more “disgusting” it is to anyone who didn't birth it.

I suppose Jesus is “the first begotten of the dead [Revelation 1:5]” because– Adam and Eve being dead to the LORD God–: He is dead to them. That which kills Death is Life: “the knowledge of the good.” That which calls upon the LORD God to whom it is dead; and that which responds to it's call is, by definition, sorcery (Revelation 18:23). Let sleeping dogs lie.

“The obedience of Christ” is measured against Adam and Eve's “rebellion,” in that Adam and Eve chose the good in each other; Jesus the “thick darkness” of the LORD God [HIM, the Devil]: as reasonable to die for. I imagine “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” tasted each to the other as each other, when Eve and Adam partook thereof.

My nose says: Adam is the “man child” of Revelation 12; Jesus is the “Image of [his Father] the Beast,” in Revelation 13; The “hundred forty and four thousand” Mutton of His pasture of Revelation 14 (and their champion “Lamb”) are gay [Ladies “defile” them.]; Jesus “the Lamb of God” is “the good shepherd” because he's the Judas- goat leading them all to the perdition “the Lamb” and “the holy angels” are present in, in Revelation 14:10; The LORD God is Original Sin; And the ‘Holy Bible' is the Doctrine of the Devil.

Adam and Eve were correct: Better to know good for a moment and die; especially if you might otherwise live forever knowing only Evil. Why take the chance on eating of “the tree of Life” until you're dead to the LORD God? Let the dead bury their own (with- or- without baptism). If I were the Devil: who but the LORD God could begin to get away with my wickedness?

Marvel Not if the Comic- Book Matters

If I were the Devil, I'd like you to think there's only one God; and you're not It. Also, I'd like you to believe (even if– or because– believing is only pretence in you) that the only real God is the One you can't see (and live to tell about it). This is precisely the “Thick Darkness” in which “the One (and only) Omnipresent, Omniscient, (and, ironically) Omnipotent Judeo- Christian God,” with “One only Son (taken from someone else's Mother),” resides in: according to the Mutton of His Pasture.

(Query: If you never “shoot blanks;” but you only have one child– and that a boy–: Are you Gay; or strongly- Delusional about your Potency?)

Is it beside the point that His– the Devil- whom- they- call- “God”’s– ‘word’ is so duplicitous as to reinforce this “strong delusion” of strange aloofness to responsibility attributed to the Devil– who is called (among other things) “the LORD,” “the LORD God,” “the Lord,” and “God,”-- by His ‘Holy Bible’?

His ‘opiate of the masses’ is stayed upon sorcery and blood magic, (with the “strange flesh” of Baal-peor’s “Sacrifices of the Dead [Jesus]”) which is the backbone and “Chief Cornerstone; Elect and Precious” of either (perhaps any- and- all) religions spawned by that devil Abraham– whom Christian, Muslim, and Jew alike call “Father.” 

Is it someone else's fault His word– His “Special Revelation of Himself” is so esoteric as to literally hide the Truth (if it can be found) while repeating The Lies everywhere the Truth is missing? There's an awful lot of Everywhere- all- the- time Lies in “The Book” which Christians say “has not a shadow of a lie in it.”

If the Bible tells the truth about anything: it seems to do so only on accident or by force. Never voluntarily. The simplest evidence I know of that the Bible is not the “Absolute Authority” preachers, pastors, priests, bishops, popes, and even Apostles represent it to be is the favorite “proof” of (at- least-) some of the same–: of the same. Some (perhaps the one called “MacArthur” among them) went so far as to sign a “Statement of Infallibility”, called ‘the Chicago Statement’, in which (originally) there was a statement to the effect of: “If there's one lie in Scripture, ALL Scripture is Nought- but- Lies.”

Even in this (in)famous “Statement of Infallibility” one of the seminole “Evidences” of infallibility cited (as, of course, Authoritative) is the word of the apostle “Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God [2 Timothy 3:16a]”: which simply cannot be true, if Jesus is what they all “make- him- out” to be (“THE Way; THE Truth; and THE Life”). Jesus claimed Moses wrote Scripture inspired by the hardness of “human” hearts.

Matthew recalls Jesus of Nazareth saying, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives [Matthew 19:8b]”. This suffrage- of- divorce is Legal Doctrine (i.e. “Scripture”) recorded in Moses' Law. In the twenty- fourth chapter of Deuteronomy (verse 1), Moses writes: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” This, Jesus says, is inspired by “the hardness of [their] hearts”; not “inspiration of God” (as “Paul” writes).

“The apostle Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) also tells Timothy: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God… rightly dividing the word of truth [from the Lies].” Though the Devil wears many masks, one of the truths the Bible barely manages to whisper into the Abyss is that “the LORD God” (I.e. the Devil) is not the end- all, be- all he “makes- himself- out” to be on every page of the 'Holy Bible'.

The Wiseguy, Solomon (the Big Solomy), wrote: “If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for He that is higher than The Highest regardeth; and there be higher than they [both].” In the eighth verse of the fifth chapter of Ecclesiastes.

This word “The Highest” is another title attributed to the Devil who wrote the ‘Holy Bible'. The Big Solomy frankly admits to many levels of Gods above said Devil (in the above verse from Ecclesiastes); and some of these are no doubt Gods– not devils pretending. While this may be the only verse in the Bible which makes this claim: there are no ‘obscure passages’ in any Doctrine men call “The Word of God.”

Existentially, I agree with what The Big Solomy wrote, in Ecclesiastes 5:8. There's some full- grown big G’s in some places where (as far as I can tell) the Devil who wrote the 'Holy Bible' isn't allowed or welcome to be. I don't think he could handle it.

Sodomites can't stand to hear ‘others’-- those they call “white males,” regardless of skin color (or sex, even, maybe)– laughing. I don't know why this is so. I only know of this existentially: from witnessing the pain as it cross their features, in a blink- and- gone instant, at the sound of laughter. I suppose: like Heavenly Father; like Man- boy- loving Sonshine Jesus; like the ‘manly’ Bride of Christ– if it were true that Jesus has a father in any “heaven” which isn't a Lake of Fire.

The “chaste”, altogether queer- or- neuter “Virgin Bride of Christ” is the Sodom “where also [their] Lord was crucified [Revelation 11:8].” They call themselves His Body, and eat His “strange flesh” which– besides being the “Sacrifices of the Dead”– is, of course, (according to the Pretenders who call themselves “Believers”) their own by merit of their claim to be his flesh, “The Body of Christ.”

As for His blood: it would seem it is what it always- was- and- will- be. “Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.” It's an altogether “Kenite” (of Cain) delusion to claim murdering the innocent frees the wicked murderers of all guilt, for all transgressions, forever: including for the murder itself. “As Cain, who was of that wicked One, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.”

If there are any Gods anywhere, the Devil who wrote the Bible is a Fanucci in comparison to a full- grown Vito Corleone where any true God is. It's no comparison or competition. That's why The Big Solomy is the Wiseguy.

My giving of Thanks, this year, is: “It is Good to be Satan in a Christian Nation.” For all Gods everywhere, I (The Good Saint Lucifer) say, Amen.

Jesus' Hand in Lucifer's Cookie Jar

The apostle Paul, in his epistle, “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints [Romans 1:7a - c],” makes a startling– even presumptuous– assumption about Jesus which is as difficult to pass- up as a heater across the plate knee- high was to “the great Bambino.”

Paul says, “9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God [Romans 6:9 & 10].” How could Paul, or anyone else, know such a thing?

This is comparable to the assumption that, since the only supposed survivors of the alleged flood of Genesis were sons of Adam: the sons of God are never to be seen or heard from again, having all perished in the deluge. As if reincarnation were beyond the capabilities of a God who could raise filthy Jesus from the dead and ‘beam- him- up’ to heaven in front of witnesses (Mark 16:19). Job, for one, said otherwise.

At the end of the first chapter of Job, immediately upon being informed of the desolation of his children and his worldly belongings, Job says: “Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither [Job 1:21a & b].” Is the womb a place to go to die forever? or is it rather a place to be born? Obviously, Job believed in reincarnation. Why those who claim the Bible is the word of God don't likewise so believe in reincarnation is beyond me. Back to Paul's assumption of knowledge.

Paul presumes to “[know] that Christ… dieth no more;” a thing he could not possibly know. The problem with this assumption is that it was preconceived and headed- off by the prophet Isaiah. First, a word from Johnny Divine.

The apostle John, in his gospel, says of Jesus of Nazareth: “4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not… 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world [John 1:4,5, & 9].”

In so saying, Johnny Divine attributes to the person of Jesus the office, stature, character, and personality of Lucifer: the light- bringer. Ironically (in light of Paul's presumption of Romans 6), it is the nature of Jesus' resurrection itself which tells on John and the apostles (not to mention Jesus himself) in regards to this perversion of scripture.

When Herod heard of Jesus' miraculous works, he said: “It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead [Mark 6:16c - e].” Now, if Jesus had been seen holding his head under his arm while healing the incontinent masses, there would have been no doubt he was John the Baptist. The only doubt would have been that anyone in such a condition could be said to be alive. On the other hand, Jesus did come back from the grave in zombie fashion.

The apostle John records Jesus telling the apostle Thomas, “reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing [John 20:27].” How could anyone thrust their hand into the side of a man who had come back from the grave whole? And how can a zombie be considered to be ‘alive- to- die- no- more’, as Paul asserts in his epistle to the Romans? As previously noted, the prophet Isaiah wrote of just such a one as the resurrected ‘holy’ Jesus- full- of- holes: a zombie whom the grave would not have.

In the fourteenth chapter of his prophecy, Isaiah writes (somewhat tongue- in- cheek): “12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O ‘Lucifer [(John 1:9, above)]’, son of the morning!... 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven… 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit… 18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. 19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch [i.e. a zombie], and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword [hole- in- side]... 20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people [“the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet (Matthew 24:15)”]: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned [Isaiah 14:12 - 15, & 18 - 20].”

The Spirituality of Sadducees

When Christians partake of "the body and blood of Jesus" (even in Catholic assemblies, where they say the wafer and wine are, by virtue of transubstantiation, the veritable body and blood of Jesus): they claim innocence of vampirism and cannibalism owing to the fact that the wafer is not human flesh, nor the wine human blood. What they refuse to admit-- whether they understand it or not-- is that this makes them more guilty of vampirism and cannibalism than actual vampirism and cannibalism could: according to their God, the Devil's word.

Be advised: I say the above is so, according to their God, the Devil's word; not according to reality; and no surprise, for the two are not one. Nonetheless-- according to Abraham and all his children (Christians included)-- the only reality is their God: the Devil's word. So, what does the 'Holy Bible' say, appropos to the subject in question?

The apostle Paul writes: "28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God [Romans 2:28 & 29]." By extrapolation, this means that the vampirism and cannibalism of Jesus' blood and body are not fleshly exercises, but-- like everything else the Devil commands-- spiritual obedience.

Jesus of Nazareth said, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart [Matthew 5:28b]." What this means, vis- a- vis the subject at hand, is that anyone who partakes of communion is a cannibal and a vampire (not to mention a murderer and a thief) in his heart before he partakes; and in deed when he partakes.

This is why Jesus commanded his disciples to observe the ritual of communion: they were all guilty of conspiring against him. It wasn't Judas alone who-- in spite of Jesus-- disputed "which of them [the apostles, that is] should be accounted the greatest [Luke 22:24, et. al.]." They were all guilty of despising and conspiring against him whom they would claim to be the only legitimate spokesmen for. None of Jesus' words would be known if an apostle didn't say "Jesus said." Jesus never wrote a stick- it note; much less a letter or a book or a Gospel.

When Jesus told the parable of the vineyard, the Sanhedrin weren't the only "husbandmen" to whom he attributed the words "This [Jesus] is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance [Matthew 21:38c - f]." One of the cornerstone beliefs of the Christian faith is that a man has no righteousness in- and- of himself. It was (they say) therefore necessary to murder Jesus so that all who will might seize on Jesus' righteousness and count his inheritance for their own. Only in this way might a man be "saved" from his own inheritance, they say.

These are the lies a filthy dreamer believes.

Midnight In the House of Darkness

Jesus of Nazareth-- who Christians refer to as "the Word of God"-- spoke like a dragon. To this day, those who refer to him as "the Word of God" seem incapable of making heads or tails of the things he said. Like the officers sent by the Sanhedrin to arrest Jesus, Christians tend simply to dismiss their consternation over Jesus' words with exclamations such as, "Never man spake like this man [John 7:46b]": though all others whose words they understand not are dismissed by the same Christians as not sent by God: "For God is not the author of confusion [1 Corinthians 14:33a]."

This double standard is par- for- course with Christians, but it is perhaps true that nowhere is this duplicity more in- evidence than in the way they unreservedly accept the things spoken by Jesus-- though they admittedly can make no sense of them. One case- in- point is the parable, told by Jesus to his disciples and recorded by the apostle Matthew, of the ten virgins.

Jesus sets the scene for the parable of the ten virgins, at the end of chapter 24 of Matthew's gospel, by describing the punishment reserved for those who-- like his disciples-- "know not what hour [their] Lord doth come [Matthew 24:42, et. al.]." Jesus says [Matthew 25:1], "Then [at that time when the hypocrites such as his disciples are punished] the kingdom of heaven shall be likened unto ten virgins": five wise; five foolish. 

These ten virgins "went forth to meet the bridegroom [Matthew 25:1c]" bearing their lamps. Jesus says, "3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: 4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps [Matthew 25:3 & 4]." The text goes on to say (in verse 10, ibid.) that the occasion being observed is "the marriage."

The text also sets the time of this marriage at midnight (verse 6, ibid.), and says the guests are compelled to "go... out" to meet the bridegroom at that ominous time: implying they were waiting for him inside. We are then informed that the virgins have been burning their lamps while waiting for the bridegroom, inasmuch as the "foolish" virgins say their lamps "are gone out [verse 8, ibid.]."

The "foolish" virgins are told (by the "wise" virgins, who won't give of their oil to the "foolish") to go to the store and buy oil for their lamps. When the "foolish" virgins return from the store with oil in their lamps, they are refused entrance to the marriage. This supposedly reflects poorly on the future prospects of the "foolish" virgins: and that forever. The parable closes with a warning from Jesus to his disciples along with a reminder that they are of the ilk who "know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh [verse 13, ibid.]."

Christians and their preachers make much of the parable of the ten virgins, and there's frankly much which can be made thereof. For instance: why are the bidden guests compelled to go out into outer darkness to meet the bridegroom? Outer darkness is never referred to as a preferable location, or state of being, in scripture. Why is the marriage held at midnight? Midnight is the time when death and destruction walk through the land of the living, according to scripture.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the parable in question, however, is the fact that the virgins need lamps at all. What kind of "Lord" (verse 11, ibid.) has no lights in his house: especially on his wedding day? Perhaps more disturbing is the way in which those virgins who gained entrance to the marriage are perceived as fortunate and referred to as "wise" by Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really preferable to be admitted to-- rather than turned away from-- the house of darkness for anything: especially a "marriage?" I think not, but if I were the Devil, I'd want you to think it were.

Reading the 'Holy Bible' to Discern

The following first appeared on the blog entitled 'Fantastical Doctrines', which I've since retired due to the extreme change of opinion on the Doctrine, overall, the parts have impressed upon me: 

When reviewing the blogs I've posted, I often find myself wishing I had written things I didn't write and wishing I had written some things differently. This is unavoidable given the fact that, on the one hand, a blog post isn't supposed to be a tome. Nobody wants to read a blog post that takes days to read through. I don't know that anyone desires to read a post that takes more than one minute to read-- especially about something so boring as the 'Holy Bible'. Therefore a blog post is not a viable format to comprehensively expound any subject from a doctrine as convoluted and subtle as the 'Holy Bible'. 

On the other hand, one's understanding of the 'Holy Bible' changes as one reads it more and more; and this is nothing compared to how dramatically one's understanding of it changes as one writes about it. As such, I can't write anything about it entirely the way I want to, and I certainly can't write anything about it the way I will always want a thing I write about it to read. Such is the nature of the beast with which I so wrestle.

It's not really as annoying as it may seem, however. After all, the point of writing these blogs is not to solve all the riddles for the reader. Nor do I write to assuage my own vanity. The point of this exercise, as I see it, is to impress upon the reader the value of reading the Doctrine for oneself: so that the quality of the conversation surrounding the Doctrine might improve generally-- hopefully in this lifetime.

As much as I avoid it, I complain about charlatans more than enough, I think, for any notice afforded them to be ought but annoying here. Suffice to say: I find that those who have never been to church or Sunday school and yet, for whatever reason, read the Bible are less "blinded... in their minds [2 Corinthians 4:4]" than those who have the preconceived notions attendant thereupon. 

That is to say: the savant is less fearful, and thus more perceptive of the inconsistencies the fearful would be more prudent to fearlessly take notice of. It is best to cleanse one's mind of all such fear. "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love [1 John 4:18]." If you love the Bible, love it perfectly.

In loving the Bible perfectly, read it enough to notice all the subtle nuances. Don't let slothfulness or prevailing 'wisdom' talk you out of the revelations the spirit inside you is talking you into. To accomplish this, you must read it in it's entirety. You will most likely need to do this more times than you want to believe is possible in order to merely begin to find the subtler nuances, but often the less subtle nuances are the most salient. Remember: if the Bible were the word of God, 'obscure passages' would be a misnomer. Nothing about God-- except our understanding of God-- is obscure. 

Always do the math. Don't simply trust the numbers as you read them. There are numerical inconsistencies in the 'Holy Bible'. No one seems to enjoy math, but when looking for the integrity or lack thereof in the Bible, simple math will open your eyes more than you think possible.

If there is more than one account of a given event in the Bible, compare the various accounts with each other. This is sometimes arduous, but it's worth it to the mind which won't be satisfied without the knowledge necessary to discern. The differences in these various accounts will often surprise you.

Finally: always assume the Bible is the work of the devil. This may seem counter intuitive. Those who claim to believe it say it is the word of God, after all, and certainly it might, in some convoluted manner, be; but if the Bible is the word of God, don't forget it was written by 'the children of the devil [John 8:44].'

If you follow this advice-- part of which is to read the Bible in it's entirety many, many (this is to say, hundreds of) times-- you won't need to read things like my blogs to discern anything consequential about the Doctrine. And you will be shocked to find out how very little of it is consequential. Keep reading. Godspeed.