JohnYoungE

Gardener extraordinaire. Expertise in computer science, electrical engineering, microbiology and genetic engineering. Clergy. I own a welder and I'm not afraid to use it.

Last Notes

2024-09-03 18:38:19 UTC

- reply

Shockingly low numbers.

2024-08-20 13:48:05 UTC

- reply

I am part of such a congregation, and there is indeed singing. We think the enlightenment is crap, refer to Jews as antichrist and our teenage boys get taught shooting etc.

2024-08-19 14:29:32 UTC

- reply

My understanding from studying the early church is that the "Elders" would be the presbyters, and that there were two types of elders -- the ruling elders, and generally one teaching elder, who was what was called the Bishop. Serving under the elders were helpers -- deacons.
But there was no higher authority in the individual local church than this Bishop -- i.e. teaching elder. Or what we might call the pastor. Although Paul certainly tried to serve the function of an "overseer of bishops (i.e. the spiritual leaders of individual churches)" this was in very early days, and nowhere does scripture endorse the existence of archbishops, cardinals, etc.
As for apostolic succession -- I am rather iffy that this is at all unbroken if, in the line, you find men such as popes who fucked married women and had their husbands murdered etc etc etc. Although all people sin, the idea that someone can engage in THAT level of evil AFTER installation as Pope and be a valid apostle is not sane. And multiple such popes existed prior to the schism with the orthodox.
So I do not buy that an actual meaningful person-to-person succession actually exists. Rather, the succession is one of the spirit, not the physical. That said, the installation of a Bishop/Pastor that includes the laying on of the hands of others already in the ministry of that denomination DOES (at least in theory) assure the orthodoxy of the newly installed Bishop's doctrine.
However, the very existence of hundreds of Christian denominations and borderline schism even within those -- with the founders of nearly all of these having been previously ordained by the laying on of hands of a bunch of ministers of the existing denomination -- demonstrates the ineffectiveness of this.
Either way, I don't think that just because someone thinks he can trace his ordination back 200 generations, that makes it any more valid automatically than someone who cannot. The validity is determined by the fruit -- true faith and doctrine, proper administration of the sacraments, etc.
That said, I think people see schism backwards in some cases.
An institutional denomination can fall away from the true faith and doctrine or engage in egregious institutionalized sin. In these cases, those who break away because they still adhere to the true faith and doctrine are deemed the "schismatics" even though they are the ones doing what is religiously right.
In that respect I would actually see what both the Orthodox and Martin Luther did as completely valid. (And with only minor differences I actually consider true Lutheranism and Orthodoxy to be the same faith. One would best consider true Lutheranism to be the German Orthodox church.) Schism can thus serve to preserve the true doctrine on one hand, and also a way to get heretics out of the church on the other.
But beyond all this, Christ promised that his Church (consisting of the priesthood of all believers) would be preserved until the end.
So I believe the actual Church -- this priesthood of all believers -- IS fighting against trannyism etc. We see these as individuals and small groups -- but they are there, and their faith is driving them.
This should be seen as separate from entities with government/satanic subsidies (i.e. many institutional churches today, including Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran in some countries). The fact that entities basically funded (directly or indirectly) by government would fail to oppose its satanic initiatives is not shocking.
However, Christ's Church is not the same thing. And that church still fights.

2024-08-13 12:10:14 UTC

- reply

I am not sure. I think it is a false choice.
When I look at my congregation, most of the men in it are high functioning. That is, mostly highly educated engineers (civil, mechanical, electrical) who are in the top 1%-5% income-wise. Obviously, their wives are no slouches either. And their kids are sharp.
Although many of us could "take the ticket" and do even better in the world, we are content to do "well enough" while maintaining our more spiritually-centered ethics.
There's no question that the fields of science and money (think derivatives etc) are hostile to Christian values and even Christians particularly, albeit artificially so. (i.e. post-French-revolution they have created a "contradiction" where there is none, because they address different issues.)
However, many high-functioning people understand the enduring value of religion.
Here's the thing: in my church, you look at those high functioning men and they have something VERY IMPORTANT that the high functioning men who avoid religion do not have: kids. Lots of kids -- generally 3+.
He who dies with the most genes in the gene pool wins, and smart people who also happen to be religious have a lot more kids than smart people who are not religious.
So I think you are going to start seeing a very interesting trend because of this.

2024-08-05 11:23:17 UTC

- reply

This is true.
Consider for example that Only Fans (Jew owned) is the largest contributor to AIPAC.
Consider that White men are the largest demographic giving money to Only Fans.
Thus, the power of the Jew is actually fed by the vice of the White man. If the White man changes himself and abstains from the vice, the Jew's power disappears.
Nearly all Jewish power works like this.
If I were to snap my fingers and all Jews on earth disappeared tomorrow, White men would have all the same tendencies and in less than 24 hours all of the corruption currently being run by Jews would be replaced by Chinese or some other ethnicity.
Understanding that Jewish power comes from our own failings is liberating because it means that WE HAVE THE POWER, often through small things they cannot even begin to control, to stop them just by changing our own choices.

2024-06-19 21:25:32 UTC

- reply

I'm racist and don't even live near "diversity." That's because I can connect a chain of causality and understand that diversity can kill me from miles away.
For example, though they never revealed why, the entire state of MA lost 911 for a few hours this week. I am quite sure it is diversity related. And let's not even get started with failing planes etc.
Furthermore, where I live is connected to other places with roads. And roads can be used to turn where I live into a shithole almost overnight.