Even More Denominations

 Atheists, agnostics, and Gnostic claims that blare over the Internet claim to be the Truth, the biggest one being the evolutionary alternative to special creation.  But doesn't one see that evolutionary chaos is a reaction to special creation?  That the 'scientific' theory is actually dictated by its difference from special creation, rather than its relationship to reality?  This is why we have to take Sheldrake and others seriously.  Darwinian evolution is a species of special creation via negativa; although it denies the creator, it still relies for its existence on the existence of a creationist mythology to rankle against.

Evolution is not so much a true account of how the world came about, as it is a denial of how Christians say the world came about.  The 'denial of a Jewish deity' part may be true, but it is curious that the evolutionary story is so neatly opposite to what is claimed by the creationists.  

To go from 'God bringing things about instantly' to 'nothing somehow arranging itself over vast periods of time' is a little too neatly opposite itself to be plausible, no?

What did the Romans (J) Ever Do For Us?

 It's glaringly obvious.  The Romans and Greeks had philosophy, engineering, aesthetics, art, everything. The Js had NONE of this.  So how did they take over?  The Js gave us this notion of monotheism. And even that was a lie, because recent scholarship shows they originally believed Jehovah was basically Zeus, the head of a Divine Council, with a Loki/Satan like counterpart.  

The idea of monotheism equalised people, only after it was, perhaps admittedly, stolen from the Jews.  However, they thought they had the right to rule the world, so the theft is either ironic, or part of the Plan.

Supercessionism

 Picture a scenario where God says you Js are my Chosen People.  You are special and chosen, based on your bloodline.

But then I come visit you in human form.  You fail to recognise me and think I'm a blasphemer.  So God's response (despite knowing everything) is to curse you.

Now EVERYONE (ie. Gentiles) who recognises Jesus is the new Chosen, and any who remain true to their belief in the Old Covenant is cursed by God, to eternal conscious punishment.  Along with Gentiles who neither hear of Jesus or whom hear it but don't buy into the Jewish drama with their god.

Sounds like bullshit, right?

You Become What You Hate

 Jesse Peterson may have some questionable theology and it's hard to know sometimes how much of what he says is trolling, but I suspect (and hope) he's more serious more often than he's just joking.  He makes an interesting point in this video that 'you become what you hate'.  This is an excellent thing to bear in mind when pondering the JQ.  It's both necessary and legitimate to recognise that a certain 'revolutionary spirit' exists among a proportion of the people who identify as Js (what constitutes a J is itself a vexing question) and that this spirit is implacably opposed to Christianity.  

But if acknowledgement turns to hatred, then one's faith in Christ is at risk.  I've found myself striving to reject Christianity altogether (so far, without success, thanks to a very stubborn Holy Spirit commanding an army of hard working guardian angels) because I've been susceptible to the 'Identity Politics' based argument that Christianity is a Jewish psy-op intended to demoralise and disempower people of European descent.

I noticed early on when reading the works of Hitler esotericists Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano that they embraced a white supremacist Myth of the Blood in response to the Jewish Myth of the Chosen bloodline.  They actually sought to mirror the behaviour and beliefs of those they abhorred.  

The loosest theological definition of a J is someone who 'rejects Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, relying instead on his commitment to his racial heritage'.  Is that precisely what the Nazis did, supposedly in response to the JQ?

Be born again.  Forgive your parents.  Anger is evil.  Anger makes you female, and unable to control your emotions.  And the inability to control oneself makes you hate.  And you become what you hate.  Have no room inside you for hatred. 

Who'd a Thunk It?

 The moment I told my friend, Paul C, that I have a blog I found that all my motivation for writing was sapped completely.  Writing a Famous for Fifteen Minutes...if I say something, the motivation goes away and is replaced by anxiety and mental block.

Tell no one.  What then time is right.  Just do it.  In secret.

Why Peter and Not Paul?

 If it's all made up, as some contend, I have to ask why is Peter listed as the first Pope, and not Paul?  Paul had way more influence.  If this is some made up fabrication, why is it so poorly scripted?

But Will He Dare Call Out the Transgenders?

This is a good argument not just against the subjectivity of the Holy Spirit speaking to Protestant Christians interpreting God and the Bible for themselves, but the unreliability of feelings-based 'truth seeking' across the religious/nonreligious divide.  I wonder what MindShift Skeptic would say to people who feel they were born in the wrong body?  Or to people who choose to 'identify' as this, that, or the other, because they feel that that is who they are?  The scientific and psychology community has been going along with endorsing such feelings as 'true', now legally mandating recognition by all of society that there are many genders/sexes, etc.  Are such intuitions as innately unreliable as the intuitions falsely associated by Christians as the truth-telling voice of the Holy Spirit?  Should a 25 year old biological male be allowed to compete against teenaged girls in swimming because he feels that he's female?  I agree with Mindshift that listening to the Spirit, or any feelings-based intuition, is mistaking mental activity for Ghostly whisperings, but all he shows is that Christianity does not have a special inner 'objectivity' that differentiates it from the inner feelings of non-HolySpiriters.  Is he willing to apply this skeptical reasoning to other examples of dubious 'inner witness', or will his fear of cancelation and/or desire to replace his lost Christian faith with virtue-signalling progressivism cause him to restrict his brave debunking to only the Christian delusion?