Content: [Root Principles] [RP1: Maladies are 'punned' by Divine Justice to alert you] [RP2: Satan&Co. sometimes administer them] [RP3: Body is self-punishing] [RP4: Can't make snap diagnosis, therefore] [RP5: Self-diagnose only, and privately] [RP6: Body designed to react/respond to Thought] [Mutation Path of Spiritual Disease] [MP1: Disease is volitional, by Divine Design] [MP2: but secular proof of it goes unrecognized, so treatment is often ineffective] [MP3: Yet proof can be traced via Bible or secular means] [Micro (individual) Degeneration Path] [Aggregate Macro (societal) Degeneration Path] [Biblical Examples of Degeneration Paths]

How to use this page: in a word, "carefully", preferably only "on" yourself. Its purpose is to illustrate how one degenerates circumstantially, mentally and physically due to spiritual illness. Spiritual illness is technically limited to believers, though it's always the soul which becomes ill (the human spirit is but a CPU designed to process spiritual information by the Holy Spirit). Hence, the pathologic effects with respect to an unbeliever's soul would be similar, yet less marked: for, the unbeliever is structurally smaller, since he has no human spirit endowed with Infinite Righteousness and Eternal life. So any soul pathologies in the unbeliever may be strong, yet are merely relative to his smaller size. Christians get sicker due to rejection than unbelievers, primarily because a) Christians are permanently saved and hence endowered with Divine Attributes (2 Corinthians 5:21, John 10:28); also b) because they are thus designed to live only on spiritual food, Bible Doctrine, Matthew 4:4. See, the permanence of salvation can also be a curse in this life, if no superstructure of Doctrine is built on it (1 Corinthians 3, whole chapter; Romans 8:1-17, especially Romans 8:4; Ephesians 1:15-23 and Ephesians 3:15-21 on the design's purpose).

If you're evaluating medical or mental problems, please do not use this site as a substitute for consulting a qualified physician; the voodoo, herbal, 'holistic' etc. Stuff is also not good to use, except under a qualified physician's care. Don't reject God's Gift of Authority, or you will become worse, not better. Principles are in Romans 13. Frankly, 99% of all spiritual maladies come from not doing one of the Five Elements in God's System. If you are sick, find a good doctor, and meanwhile get in God's System and stay in it; whatever Element you're not doing or doing enough of, start now. There: you don't even have to read this webpage, spend any money on all those self-help books, gimmicks... you know the Divine Cure is God's System! Seriously: try it, no one need know but God and you. (And don't you dare write me about it, either: that violates your privacy.)

This section is a way for the believer to fine tune, troubleshoot (preferably his own) spiritual problems, which no physician or caregiver can address. Think of spiritual troubleshooting the same way as you would tracking down some problem in Microsoft Windows: be detached, calm. For, Doctrine heals. So it doesn't matter how the problem came to be, but rather, what Doctrine you're gonna need to address it. For that, you only need linger a little bit on the diagnosis: don't wallow in "the past" or in failures, like getting fatter wallets talk shows, 'psychics' and 'psychologists' do. Instead, use 1 John 1:9, pretend you're studying for an exam and any noted malady's Rx (prescriptive solution) will be a laboratory experiment, and... read on. (What's cool about being at fault is that you get your own body as a lab, instead of having to make a lab out of someone else's life, which you couldn't ever know enough about to properly diagnose! It really helps to get a handle on the live meaning of what Bible says about the sickness of sin — and you don't have to poke around in someone else's life, to learn this!)

One more introductory note: a lot of folks have written stuff on this topic. What follows here is different compared to what you've read. Most of what's out there on this topic is either vague, or totally unhelpful: ergo this site. This site is a corollaic extension of, and based upon, what I learned from "1991 Israel" and "1992 Spiritual Dynamics", my own pastor's tapes. However, don't take my word for what he teaches. He's the best source, in my opinion. I'm just writing here to "turn over" what I learned, to derive further corollaries, so to learn the material better.

1. Maladies or bad circumstances are relayed as "puns", to communicate Divine Justice.

Matthew 7:1-2

These two verses sum up how God "judges" us, whether we are believers, or unbelievers. Justice is our "point of contact" with God, because He is Holy. Love is God's Head Attribute, running everything (function of Sovereignty), but Love always runs through the 'office' of Righteousness, for Righteousness is the First Object of Love. Hence, His Justice is extremely precise and of a matching character: matched often to how we say a thing "is". Matched often to how we really are, versus what we think we are. Thus, as we know, if we accuse someone of stealing, for example, we ourselves will receive God's penalty assessed for that (accused) type of stealing, theme of Romans 2. Even if the person really had stolen. It's a scary rule, because it's human nature to be critical, judgemental; a control urge, a need to be 'in charge', 'in authority'. Well, it's really Adam's Original Sin nature, which we genetically inherit at birth: a DNA embedded god complex.

God's "punning" style of judgement is also famously known as "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". Throughout the Mosaic Law you will see such matching. "The punishment must fit the crime" is of course the principle, but beneath it is the deeper rule of "fit", per se. Balance. "Neither to the right, nor to the left." Exactness. Even Paradox, if the Paradox is Righteous.

So, a criminal who doesn't get caught by human authority never escapes God's authority. Pity him. So, a sin which doesn't get caught by human authority never escapes God's authority. Like Matthew 18:6 says, better to have a millstone around the neck (that verse references child abuse, but the general principle is behind it). So, a business which "sins", or an organization which "sins", or a government which "sins", or a people which sins — none escape God's Exacting Justice. Not even a little bit. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 illustrate the types of "matching" punishments which apply to individuals and even whole countries — whether believers, or not.

It's because God's Justice is so exacting that a person should beware of accusing by name or group-name specified folks or organizations. So, if you accuse "the rich" of a thing, you'll get the punishment that belongs to the accusation — whether "the rich" are guilty, or not. So: it's a fine line between observing a problem, constructive criticism, and "judging".

For example, to say that people deliberately or accidentally profit (get fatter wallets) on victims by encouraging them to wallow in their pasts — that's a generic truth, because it has regularly occurred throughout history in hundreds of ways. Notice what's missing: no particular group or individual is named. Even if you say, "talk shows", that just means the phenomenon occurs there. You can never say with assurance of facts that it's a particular person or a particular show you're watching. It might look like that, but you're not inside the person's head, so you don't know. Only God has all the facts. The most one can do, is extrapolate principles. Can't say a particular person or entity or group is "x", because you never have sufficient facts. It's always guesswork, even when it's your job to evaluate / judge. So how much more stupid is it, to be prejudiced?

God having all the facts doesn't stop us from assuming we do, too. Especially, if we are offended or otherwise want something we're not getting. That's the vulnerability: What's the composition of the desire to pronounce upon a thing or person as good, bad, etc.?

For example, it's downright scary for me to have to say that Biblical scholarship has been largely mediocre (and thus misleads) all these years; to say that Christian activism (i.e., prolife movement) is spiritual AIDS. Is that a judgement? Subject to Matthew 7:1-2? Sure sounds like it. But what's my motive? I'm trying to write out and see both the conflict in everyday life, and to see Satan's strategy and tactics, so I myself can avoid his traps, since I'm just as vulnerable. So, if someone else reads these pages, they too can be spared. It's really not about who's wrong, but about what's going on, and what the spiritual life really is, and how to live it. Someone else's wrong doesn't make me right, nor does it make me superior. Rather, it's just a different flavor of wrong from my own. Sometimes seeing wrong in another helps one better detect one's own, which is one of many reasons why God lets the wicked prosper: so that the believer can prosper by learning from their example, and not repeating it.

So, that's what I am trying to do, is learn and not do the same things, since I'm just as weak as anyone else. Only the Holy Spirit can properly diagnose, so only through Him can I see, in broad outline, that Biblical scholarship has been appallingly inept for hundreds of years, in the good ol' boy pattern: repeating past research's conclusions without a fresh review; sticking with the same old formulas because they are hallowed with age, rather than the hard work of digging in Scripture to see what it really means. (Of course, the Bible itself says this is the problem, in umpteen different ways.)

So, treating this like a clinical phenomenon (for our sin in Adam is essentially a congenital anti-God disease), what are the causes? What's the cure? In what other ways does this same phenomenon occur? Well, it occurs altogether in Christian activism: but until you know what to look for, you can't see it. That's how to use any 'wickedness' data. As a clinical tool — from which, you extrapolate principles and prescriptions. Not to judge anyone.

Being totally honest: there are two gigantic conclusions which came out of all this website writing: 1) we are all totally incapable of thinking our way out of a paper bag (Genesis 3 being the quintessential proof of that); 2) God means to transmute us to His Own Level via Christ. This latter conclusion is really the main theme of all my webpages, and it took me a good five years of daily, around the clock analysis in website writing, to prove it's Biblical. Because God is the Authority, I didn't want to exhaustively write out all the proof; it's more important that between God and you, you do your own homework so you yourself can see what's true. God will point it out to you (δείκνυμι clause in Isaiah 53:10-11), with or without the 'conduit' of any words in my sites (God is the Sovereign Executive, and He does use everything at His Option). So I could give a flip about blaming. Not relevant, the blame part, except as introduction, orientation in the broad sense, for we are all to blame (duh, that's why we needed a Savior). Only relevant, the 2) conclusion, which in the context of 1), explains why our salvation and future is "so great", as Hebrews 2 explains.

Therefore, the Divine DNA series is the flipside of this webpage, which basically 'derives' from Isaiah 53 and the Books of Hebrews, Ephesians, Galatians, Romans, Corinthians. This portion focuses on things that go bump in the 'night' of negative volition and ignorance of God.

Let's take another example: I may name a particular denomination or belief and then proceed to show how it is satanic. That however never can mean that everyone in the denomination, or even anyone, is satanic. Frequently, for example, something in Roman Catholicism is used as the paradigm. Yet, even if it's true that some Roman Catholic Church doctrine is wrong... it doesn't follow that all those in the denomination actually believe the erroneous thing. Nor does it mean that they are 'satanic' if they do. I don't know who believes what, nor do I know whether one becomes satanic for believing in it (because, duh, it could be merely mistaken rather than an Ananias-class motive). See? In order to illustrate a problem, you have to take a case history, but taking the case history never means that those in it are being judged. Of course, it's real easy to get all excited about some past very evident wrong (i.e., all the persecutions) — and go over the edge (Second Temptation in Matthew 4) into that most disgusting of sins, self-righteous arrogance (which is why Paul was the worst sinner in history). So, the less time one has to spend in these kinds of analyses, the better!

See, that's the key: analysis is required, for we are each required to rule on our spiritual lives. We have to spend time analyzing right and wrong, not analyzing about a person / group's wrong. In the latter case, there's an urge to build one's happiness on another's flaw. Bad move.

Here's a kind of litmus test for motive which I find useful: take the pronouncement, and then substitute a particular person's name, or a group's name, as the subject / object of the seemingly wrong / indictment. Do I still want to make the pronouncement? Is there a pressing urge? Does it lessen, or heighten? Is it satisfying, the idea that the person or group will be punished? If "yes", or if I still want to make the indictment, and especially if the urge heightens, it's temptation or sin and 1 John 1:9 may be in order. If I shrink from the pronouncement when a particular person or group 'becomes' the substituted subject or object, it may also still be a temptation or sin (of trying to fit in, wanting to belong). Very fine line, this. Of course, you can't sit around all day dissecting your motives! So, make a judgement call, and move on. Don't hang around in the jungle, for the enemy is in the bushes, waiting for you to stop too long. And, most of all: use 1 John 1:9 if you're not sure you didn't sin.

In short, your motive for pronouncement will be the key. If your motive is to diagnose, to learn, and if your motive is impersonal, meaning you absolutely do not want to condemn a given individual or group, nor do you want either God or man to redress or punish the ill you see — then you are likely not judging — but check with the Holy Spirit for confirmation (i.e. Romans 9:1). Be very careful not to fool yourself as to your motive. For, accusations mean the person is taking upon himself the Divine Prerogative of Judgement. That's why he gets the Divine Punishment which goes with the "accusation" — even if the accusation is correct. Even if the accusation is unspoken. Use 1 John 1:9, "just in case".

So, a malady one has may be the "pun" on the accusation made. Further, the person who was accused gets blessed by God, to balance against the accusation made. Sometimes, even if guilty. That's how exacting God is about sin. (Of course, whether the person enjoys the blessing is another matter entirely, dependent on his own private relationship with God. Like Psalms 37 notes, don't fret over the "wicked". They have no, or futile, enjoyment from whatever they have in the way of prosperities. See Leviticus 26's punishments, if you doubt this.)

That's the bad news. The good news is, the rule also works positively: to the extent we are living in accordance with His Will for us, we are "measured back" also — whether believers, or unbelievers. The "measured back" principle applies much more strongly — both ways — to believers, because we aren't part of Satan's kingdom anymore. Positively, we get far more than "we could ever ask or imagine." (Ephesians 3:20). The "pressed down, poured out, overflowing" verse (I think it is in the Gospels) also illustrates that principle. But also — "to whom much is given, much is expected" — so we believers get a lot worse discipline (the loss is unbearable.)

Crux: the Matthew 7:1-2 rule applies most of all to how we think of God. 'Point by point. Precisely. Whether we are believers, or unbelievers. How we "judge" Him to be will be "measured back" to us. Whatever we think properly of Him, whatever we think improperly of Him. Therefore, how we think of God, is how we will become; if we think ill of him, that is how ill our own lives become; if we think well of Him, that too is how well our own lives will become. How we think of God is also how we will think of everything and everyone else. So, all one's relationships in life will have the exact same characteristics as one's spiritual "sense" of God. To the extent correct, and to the extent incorrect.

That is the general rule, and it's a property of life, like a law of gravity — which you can see operating or referenced, in any passage of Scripture. This rule is rooted in truth: for God is Truth. He doesn't have to force this rule to be true. It is naturally true, similar to how the so-called "laws of nature" are naturally true. He did, however, also approve this rule. God has approved this rule so that we can be alerted to problems in our rapport with Him. So: for every spiritual "glitch" in our relationship with God, there will be a counter glitch in our mental lives, physical lives, our interpersonal relationships, and our relationships with "things".

Remember the parable of the talents? That illustrates the spillover effect into one's life. The stingy servant who hid his Master's "talent" (lots of money) in a "napkin" (covered it up, rather than invested it) projected onto his Master his own stinginess. So, what was the punishment he got? Stinginess: the money was taken away. Don't you think that stingy servant was stingy with everyone else? Judging them with tit for tat? Being self-righteous with them, even as he was with his Master? See how this spiritual disease spills over into the secular life?

In short, the maladies we can see depict the ones we can't see. They will be of a "punning" nature. They may exist even if one is growing spiritually (using 1 John 1:9 habitually, and rigorously learning Bible Doctrine in the Spirit), so don't mistake the maladies as only being the province of the highly advanced spiritual giant, or the highly retrograding human. Spiritually caused bad circumstances or physical maladies communicate where spiritual problems exist in the life. That's but one of their blessing purposes. Whatever doctrine I'm rejecting, its character will be mirrored in my life: circumstantially, and/or physically. That's the general pattern, and it works even if I'm in God's System and learning — so alertness is essential. The problem gets progressively worse, if there is prolonged carnality, the "seven times" principle of Leviticus 26. The idea is to alert the self to the problem in the kindest way possible. Notice the emphasis on privacy. Only the self can detect this problem, therefore:

• If I am unfaithful to God in some way, I will be unfaithful to others in exactly the same way — or, conversely, they will be unfaithful to me in mirrored response.
• If my interest in Him is casual, all of my relationships with people will be shallow. Relationships won't last. Small things will terminate them. "Love" won't be deep. Interests will be flitting. Tolerance will be brittle. In short, shallow in everything, easily washed away. Superficial. Image, rather than substance. (See the synonymal results?)
• If my idea of relationship with God is to want from Him people or things, or to think I serve God by "doing" for people and things; so will be my life: shallow, eyes on people and things. Forever empty, because people and things are more important to me than knowing God for His Own Sake.
• If I don't know Him, I will find myself often baffled and frustrated, because I won't know why "x" is happening, either. Blindness proliferates, as it is a virus.
• If I am legalistic, focused on sins rather than on grace, I will "reap the whirlwind". All the penalties of those alleged orreal sins will be "measured back" to me, tearing me up like a tornado does a house.
• If I am antisemitic, I will inherit all the punishments sent Israel's enemies: in my head, in my body.
• If I have eye problems, maybe that's because I'm not looking at the Word.
• If I have ear problems, maybe that's because I'm not hearing the Word.
• If I have movement problems, maybe that's because I'm not living on the Word.
• If I have a lot of trouble digesting Bible Doctrine over a sufficient period of time, I will have physical digestive problems.
• If I have trouble eliminating certain sin habits from my life, or I arrest in processing doctrine, after a sufficient period of time, I'll have physical elimination problems.
• If I have stomach cancer, perhaps I'm not eating enough of the Word, and instead learning religion instead of learning God.
• If I'm all of the above, I may just have a stroke.

Key → "sufficient period of time" is a key concept, for believers, in troubleshooting: the physical malady doesn't occur until it is helpful as a warning. That's one key difference between spiritually-caused physical maladies, and the ones we naturally develop from inherited genetics or lifestyles.

Here are some generic examples to help you better see how the punning works. Say a person is too attached to the parents, grandparents, or friend; so if the parents (etc.) are negative to God, the child is also (very common Bible refrain, also observable in real life) — since the parents (etc.) are the obstruction, the parents are removed. Pretty drastic thing, but I've seen it happen. Say another person became bitter during a divorce, divorcing God as a result, as if it were God's fault. Well, then the kids and others end up leaving that person, too. Bitterness alienates people: they get tired of it. So one is left alone, complaining about being alone, for the person has left God. Very common thing. Say another person values a certain promotion or money or whatever 'thing' to God. That's the very thing which will be lost. Say another person is very religious, legalistic: that religion and legalism will 'let down' the person, since God is not in it. Basically, you see that whatever you value above God, will be removed or a source of sorrow.

Medical conditions of course constitute things people fear. So what you fear, will happen to you. Again, the idea is to wake up and get into God's System.

If the person won't respond, or there is some other intervening judicial issue, a spiritual malady might have no symptoms, just like cancer. Then at the last moment, or near the end, all the disasters hit at once. This is the most common pattern, because disinterest to God is so common, there is no amount of discipline which will wake the person up. So then the Justice issue shifts to what's best for the periphery, and that often means the disinterested ones are blessed, not cursed. Hence the need for 1 John 1:9, since you may have no symptoms you can detect.

Another Key → a spiritually-caused physical malady might quickly clear up by frequent usage of 1 John 1:9, because the reason why one has developed a physical malady due to a spiritual cause is prolonged carnality. Self-absorption, has the hardest time recognizing that self is in a carnal state, so God sends an illness or problem as a wakeup call to the soul, bypassing the 'fortress' of self-absorption, so one can get out of it. So, one must also regularly study Bible Doctrine under one's right pastor, while consistently using 1 John 1:9. This is especially true if one has been carnal for a long time: only getting with Doctrine will provide the necessary spiritual defenses to avoid a return to the 'fortress'. Sometimes, God only partially heals, using instead some lower level of the malady to serve as "training wheels": reminders to keep with Doctrine — a real blessing, for these "training wheels" also keep one free of that 'fortress'! So, if you suspect you have a spiritually-caused physical malady, get cracking! If you wish to avoid spiritually-caused physical maladies, get cracking!

If you have never believed in Christ, the "cure" for you is different: "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31). You don't have to understand why salvation works. You just have to believe Christ paid for your sins. That saves you from Hell, and saves you to God, forever. After that, you use 1 John 1:9 habitually (I use it like breathing), and study Scripture. God will furnish you your right pastor (probably He'll do it in a humorous way). By the way: any physical maladies you have may clear up right away... or, the malady or maladies may merely lessen. Whichever way it goes, God is now using any malady to bless you. Soul surgery. After all, He made you, and He'll make you well, in the way that best profits you both down here and forever! (Note: tangible benefits are awesome, and usually both invisible and ironic.)

Conversely, this same judgement "punning" may be praise. It may indicate God's Pleasure with your spiritual life. In other words, like Job, you receive some physical malady because it's to demonstrate how important God is to you — i.e., as a witness to Satan & Co., who accused you of being 'too protected' by God (pattern is still like Job's). In such cases, the malady blesses you far, far more. Generally, you will come to know this fact sometime in later spiritual adulthood (before that, you'll likely be clueless, because you don't yet have enough doctrine to discern your own role in God's Plan). The Lord vs. Satan sites cover this topic in great detail.

2. God delegates punishment to Satan & Co.

Also, since Satan is the ruler of the world, he is allowed a certain amount of disciplinary authority over believers. He is also allowed to benefit or punish those who are on his "side". He is also allowed to benefit or punish those who he is trying to win over to his side. He accomplishes this by delegation, i.e., to the demons handling these administrative functions. Therefore, he will use these powers to "mimic" God's rule. So, some demon might impose physical conditions on a person to trick folks into false conclusions about what any physical conditions spiritually signify. "Healing" is a frequent favorite. They can make a person feel good, bad, be sick, well, get 'psychic predictions' fulfilled, have 'past-life experiences' (after all, demons know all about man's past!) — anything at all, for they do all this by thought transmission (telepathy), using man like a marionette. Up to and including death. The Supreme Court of Heaven (God) has oversight, though. For some readers I realize this point sounds outrageous, but if you would consider it you'll find it is at least as good a reasoned answer as any others you'll find. To contend that what one can physically observe is 'all there is', cannot be a rational conclusion: we haven't but recently 'seen' through science what we think we know today. Moreover, who has ever really "seen" thought? A logical person must logically conclude that immateriality deserves at least as extensive a consideration as materiality, especially considering the potential risks of not doing so.

The tactical goal of any demon activity is human obsession. Obsession decreases awareness, so decreases your orientation to reality; so leads you down the road to greater irrationality; from there, to mental illness. This tactical goal is strategically sponsored on the macro level via everything public. It's demon activity, because thoughts are contagious, and obsessive thinking is what they want to develop in as many people as possible. They piggyback on normal things, like the news, movies, whatever — to make people get overinterested in the topics. This is done a little bit each day ("salami tactic", in military parlance), and it's unavoidable. (We can't be hermits, 🤣 — that's obsession of a different kind!) The good news is, we have fragmented, busy lives — so the obsessiveness can be thwarted by focusing on the day's needs. Even better, by focusing on Bible Doctrine's printout of what every moment, means!

So, the trick is stay aware; are you balancing your work and leisure? Balancing what you spend your time on? Whatever is too-high or too-low, that's where your vulnerability is. Doctrine addresses it: find the Truth about what is the proper timing, placement, of the item in question, then stick to that answer. Of course, if you have no clue about the spiritual life, then the answer changes: find your right pastor, use 1 John 1:9 like breathing, and study under him. Play with what you study.

If you really like misery a lot, get involved with:

• Activism or crusaderism, theonomy, revenge, TAG, and other God exists or doesn't 'defenses';
• Drugs / alcohol, non-marital sex, fantasizing; Ouija boards, especially, channelling, chanting, psychics & like activity;
• Obsessive research about the supernatural;
• Research to find date of Rapture, or spectacular proof that Bible is from God, dinosaurs or 'x' in Bible;
• Tongues, prophetic utterances, snake-handling, visions, dreams, miracles, healing, casting out demons, etc.

In any of these, rest assured — you will get the feelings of a lifetime, but (!) — at both ends. For, in electing these activities, you are electing to become hopelessly addicted to feelings — of being smart, intellectual, holy; or, of the grosser sort. Addiction to feelings is the root reason why mental illness is so difficult to cure. For, as the addiction grows, so does irrationality, and to get that feeling again you end up becoming successively-irrational.

For, in choosing any of these, you are choosing Satan & Co. whether you know it, or not. That's why in Saul's day the punishment for being a medium was death. See, demons love to play with humans, but like the mythical Dracula (not Vlad the Impaler), they have to be 'invited'. When you get interested in any of these things, you 'invite' them, for you are judging God to be an emotional jerk, a genie, a dog! Who does tricks to please your puny human tastes. God didn't favor these activities in the Old Testament any more than He does now, but now, even more so will you be punished. For Christ is Risen and Ruling, so His Thinking is what we should learn: "think in terms of sanity" — corrected translation of the 'sober' clause in Romans 12:3 ("faith" there means Bible Doctrine, as it usually does, in the New Testament).

Diagnosis Key → if you are a Christian, and are obsessed about anything at all (including Bible Study itself), and have trouble getting off that obsession, you are being messed with, at least enough to keep your obsession going. Stop it. Treat it like an addiction, no matter what it is. Find the objective parameters for time you should spend on the thing and then stick to those parameters. It will take time to recover, but keep on with 1 John 1:9 and Doctrine (in the right amount), and you'll eventually get out of the trap. If you're not a Christian, believe Christ paid for all your sins, and you will be freed of the possession; then, use 1 John 1:9 like breathing, and ask Father in Son's name to show you who is your right pastor. Then study under that pastor every day, concentrating as best you can. The Holy Spirit will get you out of the past-memory trap!

When a demon has a temporary license to bug you, due to your 'invitation' (possession for unbeliever, influence, for Christian) he gets very territorial about it. Should you recover from your stupidity (1 John 1:9 and get cracking with Doctrine!), you'll still be bugged. Demon-bugging can be extremely subtle or obvious — depends on what 'gets' to you more — but in all events, the bugging is enticing, for they 'just can't get enough' of your 'invitational' replies! So, then, think: if Paul was so bugged he prayed to the Lord three times, how bugged would you be? It's not worth it. Human power is no match, and the intrigue you'll be tempted to restart, is not worth it. Some people I know are so "under the spell"... well, I can't talk about it. Best advice: don't get into these things at all. Or, if you were stupid, breathe 1 John 1:9 and think Doctrine day and night. That's what Peter meant when he said: "ἀντίστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ, καὶ φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν | resist the devil, and he will flee from you." (If you're really advanced spiritually, you might not get reprieve ('thorn' passage), but at least you'll know the Lord is being glorified, and you can just keep moving!)

Christ is way more attractive than all the kaleidoscopic, intellectual, etc. Attributes of Satan & Co. combined. If you got involved with the demon boys, the only real way out is to learn Christ. Only if you come to see Him via eaten Doctrine will you be more interested in Him than in their many, various, full-spectrum enticements. The key to success here is to be disinterested in Satan & Co.'s wiles. (I can't stress that solution enough: believers today, as in the past, get so thrilled with the contact, they find all kinds of excuses to keep on being involved, fooling themselves and being fooled by Satan & Co. that they are 'cured', now — to their destruction.) The only way to get disinterested is to be more interested in seeing your own Dread Lord, the most Gorgeous Person in the universe. The only way to See Him is to learn Bible Doctrine under the Spirit. So, get cracking!

3. Our "depravity" is essentially self-punishing. It naturally follows the pattern of Matthew 7:1-2 if we use our free will to stay negative to God.

Our spiritual death due to Adam's Fall, and its resultant genetic (only!) "total depravity" at birth accounts for certain spiritual-problem maladies which have mental and even physical results, even after one acquires a human spirit ("becomes trichotomous", in theological lingo) at salvation. So, all illnesses are ultimately rooted in spiritual causes, due at least to Adam's Fall. So also, the unbeliever, however virtuous, has a spiritually-caused congenital defect, from birth, onward: he has no human spirit at all, so can derive no therapy from God's spiritual solutions. Faith in Christ is first needed.

"Total depravity" became a congenital brain reflex of 'me be good', which is, in essence, an organically-inherited form of self-absorptive "dissociation". That is a psychiatric term. So, a note about what that condition means is in order. "Dissociation", in psychiatry, means a mental malady in which some portion of the person's personality — which disturbs him — splits off from his awareness. This split was accomplished by an act of will, either conscious, or subconscious. The person has "judged" something "bad" and must hide that judgement and that 'thing'. The "dissociated fragment" nonetheless expresses itself when the person encounters certain triggering stimuli. The "triggering stimuli" are events, people, even maybe colors or smells (small things) which remind him of whatever it is that disturbed him so much he "dissociated". The fragment expresses itself, because it's "stuck": it's trying to resolve the hidden problem, by reliving it.

Example: say a child was abused with a clothes iron. He dissociates. Every time he sees an iron as an adult, he'll feel (say, "unaccountably") frightened, hostile. Or, he'll act in some hostile manner, yet not know he did so, when confronted.

The person may or may not be aware of the fragment's expression. If he is aware of it, he finds his behavior unexplainable. "Unexplainable", because the fragment's cause is hidden from his conscious mind. "Hidden", because whatever caused the split in the first place, caused it in order to hide the disturbance. In other words, the split occurred to "protect" him from something he'd find too painful to admit or remember. So, the person literally does not know why that behavior occurs. That is, assuming he's even aware of it.

Fallen man is dissociated from God. So, he has no awareness of God. However, like fallen Adam, he still is disquieted, owing to the "loss" in the so-called "original sin". That's why the brain's 'me be good' urge exists: it's trying to make up for the loss.

Self-absorption is the root of all (non-organic) mental illness. It starts with a type of dissociation: preoccupation. Consciously, one will usually not be aware of this descent into madness. The descent may be momentary, or prolonged. Repetition is the key to the descent from momentary to prolonged. The cardinal sign of it is a diminishment of awareness. Kinda like dreaming, one becomes preoccupied with some problem, focusing on it. If there is some kind of emotional charge, awareness of reality will go to the background, and one becomes (at least momentarily) involved in a type of autism, for the sake of concentrating on the problem, in the name of solving it. The fact that one is concentrating on the problem to the exclusion of the rest of reality, unawares — that's the danger. Kinda like looking through your briefcase, oblivious to the road, while driving...

We all have many such moments during the day, for it is a normal part of our daily lives. When asked a question about ourselves, we may wander in our answer, forgetting the questioner (e.g., people who ramble on about their experiences or illnesses). When reminded of some past event, we may suddenly reminisce or relive that event, forgetting what it was we were doing before that reminder occurred. These are the more benign manifestations of the congenital defect of dissociation we inherited from Adam: we become momentarily "stuck": self-absorbed, dissociated.

Psychiatry deems "dissociation" and other mental maladies to belong more properly to the malignant forms of self-absorption, rather than the benign ones, as noted above. However, all are rooted in the selfsame brain urge to recover what was lost: happiness with God. The brain, which after all is just an organic component of the body, has no true thinking power of its own — it is just a repository, a set of programmed instructions, memories, etc. — like a computer, it needs a user to command it. However, the 'original sin' was a choice for the body to dictate to the soul — so, the brain 'thinks' it's supposed to keep doing this. So, it does. Its prime directive — derived from that 'original sin' — is to make self good, since self replaced God as the #1 object for attention. So, at root, self-absorption is the brain continually trying to make self "good". We are thus constantly bombarded with brain signals to be "good", so we are constantly tempted to be self-absorbed.

Self-absorption is thus a fortress, in which we are trapped. As unbelievers, we can temporarily escape the fortress by means of positive orientation to true morality (namely, the Ten Commandments, many versions of which are commonly held in all cultures). Morality is a type of protection, an antidote to the self-absorptive, mindless brain urge. Morality is about thoughtfulness, essentially — being thoughtful of others, as an equal value to being thoughtful of self. It balances against self-absorption, in the name of loving self. After all, self can't have a good life if others do not, for we are not islands unto ourselves. Morality, then, gets the self to look beyond the 'fortress' of the brain urges. So, one can leave off being walled up inside the self. At least, for brief periods.

The problem with morality is that eventually the brain will be programmed to recognize morality as "good", and hence will eventually use even morality to trap the person in the fortress. All too often, with astounding success: witness the heavy focus on "doing" for people, which is yet another form of self-absorption, masked in the name of "good" for others. You can prove it's self-absorption pretty easily, for the mantra of "doing good" is tyrannically propagated: life becomes progressively sterile, just a set of "I do for you and you do for me" rules. At that point, the person has no way out, except via faith in Christ. If he doesn't take that way out, he will become progressively self-absorbed. The morality mask may prevent his malady from being psychiatrically classified, but he will be just as ill — with all the consequent results (generally physical).

By contrast, believers who grow up in Christ will have progressively greater freedom from the fortress of self-absorption. At salvation, the believer is technically freed from the fortress, but of course doesn't know that fact, so stays there. If however, he grows in the spiritual life, he will not only come to know he's been trapped and is now free, but he will also be able to leave much more easily than mere morality can afford. This is so, because the Bible, which is the Mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16) gradually replaces the urge to focus on self, with Love for God. Such Love is way beyond what we typically know as "love" in the human race. It's God's Own spiritual love, which is essentially unlimited in nature — and thus the gradually-increasing replication of it in the believer, via spiritual consumption of Bible Doctrine, confers much more staying power and scope, for he is gradually learning to love like Christ does. Such a replacement also progressively weakens the brain's own urge to use even morality as an entrapping device. So, by the time one is spiritually mature, one spends most of his life outside the fortress, and the brain urge is impotent. (One never completely stops sinning, of course.)

In sum, the brain's dissociative, self-absorptive, 'me be good' urge is genetic: part of our DNA, which we inherited from Adam via spermatozoa (not the woman, which is how Christ could be born sinless from a fertilized egg). Consequently, the brain urge manifests itself most commonly as attributing merit to self due to some "good" choice. Indeed, one is bombarded from all sides to do a thing in the very name of being a good person as a 'reward'! The attribution is clearly evil, for then the 'good' one did, needing a 'reward', wasn't good, after all: were it really good, it wouldn't need a 'reward'! Worse, such an attribution is clearly irrational, since the merit of a choice depends on known merit in the object: recognition of merit merely means you wanted to be benefitted. The fact self chose the object confers no merit on self, at all.

Want proof? The choice would not have been made, if the object wasn't deemed meritorious. What happened? The recognition of "good" caused the brain to "tell" you that "you" are "good", because the object is "good". The brain is trying to make self good by attaching "self" to anything associated with "good". That's one reason why folks buy Nike shoes, for example. The brain "associates" the "good" athlete who's depicted as wearing the shoes, with "self", if self buys those shoes. So, the buyer imagines himself a better person, subconsciously, when he buys those shoes. Consciously, all he has is a brief satisfaction. The pattern is exactly the same as when newly-fallen Adam and the woman made those stupid fig leaf coverings over their genitals: they were trying to make themselves "good" through an external function, so to relieve an internal pressure. The emphasis on externality is the brain's attempt to get rid of the disquiet. It has to be expressed. That's the classic symptom of "dissociation", because the person's awareness of his real motive is masked by the fragment.

So, if a person is or thinks he is an "unbeliever", he can't "see" God, even though evidence of God is everywhere. God thus transcends man's dissociative blindness, constantly. If the person's free will keeps on insisting that God does not exist, the person becomes ever more shallow in his life. He has to become more shallow, in order to hide his awareness of God.

For a believer, this same dissociative nature provokes a like condition. The not being able to see will be on different topics, though. He might have a dissociative problem with respect to God's Grace, for example. Or, with respect to a particular doctrine. Or, with respect to a particular verse.

Whether believer or unbeliever, the problem of progressive shallowness obtains, because the person must keep hidden from his awareness whatever it is about God he has trouble facing. The "dissociation" endemic to man's depravity, however, won't be enough to cover up the awareness, over time, because it is only a reflex of the brain. Only volition can keep up the charade. In short, your free will must agree to the "totally depraved" dissociation reflex. So, the depravity alone will not suffice to hide this awareness. So, to keep hiding, the person will eventually use his volition to cross over into other mental conditions, in attempt to keep the awareness away from his conscious mind. He'll do this "hiding" via "defense mechanisms". Defense mechanisms are "children" of the depraved dissociative reflex we inherited from Adam's fallen DNA. These mechanisms tend to be used together, in layers, kinda like Alexander used phalanxed troops in battles.

All of us have and use these defense mechanisms. Mental maladies (often with visible manifestations) occur when the mechanisms are used too often. Here are a few of them. To see how these mechanisms operate dynamically, look at Genesis 3, how the Lord cross-examines Adam and the woman after the Fall: see if you can identify how many of such mechanisms 'show' in their replies:

• "Projection": essentially, saying someone else has some characteristic 'you' think 'you' have, but want to hide from 'yourself'.
• "Denial": insisting a thing known true is not true. Deliberate blindness.
• "Rationalization": covering up a truth by distorting it into what 'you' want the truth to be, using a semblance of a reasoning process to make the coverup "respectable".
• "Sublimation": a diversionary coverup, i.e., by means of some activity (like, watching television to avoid thinking).
• "Guilt" (well, like sublimation, a diversionary tactic of blaming self to avoid confrontation with some yet-unacceptable truth.)

Overusage of defense mechanisms with respect to God create a spillover effect on the mental and physical life, over time. The following results often illustrate such a problem: psychosomatic illness, preoccupation (i.e., with illness), "stuckness" (regarding some idea or problem), compulsiveness, obsessiveness, depression, anxiety. All of these behaviors are attempts to reconcile the thing which is disturbing, and none of them "work". Thus the person spins into mental illness, over time. Of course, once the condition is serious enough, the person should see a competent psychologist or psychiatrist. However, in all of us some small version of these problems will be "true". So, it's good to look for a possible spiritual cause — and see a medical doctor, to check for any organic cause.

In sum, then, the actual maladies one sees can be due to a variety of causes:

• • God is "measuring back";
  • Satan is faking it to deceive;
  • The malady is coming from some defense mechanisms;
  • It's some genetic or lifestyle malady, unrelated to your spiritual life.

4. One can't make snap judgements about what someone else's visible malady, spiritually means.

Caution: what one sees is always subject to interpretation. What looks like "depression" to you might just be a prolonged period without sleep. Moreover, no two conditions are truly alike. So, symptoms might be light, yet the condition severe. No two computer displays have identical calibration. "Red" on one monitor may look "pink" on another. "Size 10" fits a whole lot of "size 10" people differently. So it is with any physical or mental glitches: one size doesn't fit all the same way.

Even with truly serious conditions by anyone's standard, diagnosis is difficult. So, "cancer" doesn't always mean the spiritual life is cancerous. So, "cancer" also doesn't always mean the person who has it is a "spiritual giant", either. In short, just as a doctor can't make a complex diagnosis from a few symptoms, so we also can't diagnose spiritual maladies solely from some shallow physical problems viewed in another individual.

So, again, usage of 1 John 1:9 habitually, and learning Scripture under your right pastor-teacher will serve as the quickest litmus test, and the best protector against spiritual causes of physical and mental maladies. You could just "do" the foregoing sentence, secure in the knowledge that God will use any physical and mental malady to your advantage. Of course, though — don't bypass doctors and medicine! God does miracles every second (after all, by nature He's supernatural, so everything He does is supernatural), but He never eschews authority, so might not 'instantly remove' your maladies, preferring to use them to heal your soul, if that is better for you. May none of us be so crass, as to blame God for not snapping His fingers, and solving our puny problems, turning stones into mere loves of bread (Matthew 4:3)!

5. Diagnosis, then, is best done with respect to self, privately.

Here are some questions you can use as a checklist.

• Do I fear? Am I timid? Then maybe what I fear reveals my fear about God.
• Am I confrontational, insulting? Then maybe what triggers my attitude reveals some hidden anger toward God.
• What makes me feel insecure? Then maybe that's where I first feel insecure about God.
• Do I become hostile to others who disagree? Then maybe I "judge" God to disagree with me on that thing, and am hostile to Him, but am taking it out on other people.
• Do I obsess? Then, whatever that thing is, it represents something about God I obsess about, to try and make it "right" before Him.
• Do I procrastinate? Then, I'm procrastinating with God in that same type of thing.
• Am I frenetic, always needing to be busy? Then maybe I'm trying to be too busy for God.
• Am I always blaming others? Then I'm really blaming God, just like the Exodus generation folks, for those things.
• Am I lonely? Then I've absented myself from God.
• Do I feel no one understands me? Then I don't understand God.
• Am I always looking to own more? Then I'm not content with God, either.
• Do I need to be right? Then I'm trying to argue I'm right before God, too.
• Do I feel guilty? Then maybe I'm telling God He should punish me, like the paralytic in Matthew 9.

As you may have guessed, almost all of those examples represent some kind of disquiet about God. Notice how it always expresses itself outward. The brain is trying to get rid of the problem. What's the problem? There's a hidden "accusation" against God which self can't bear to face. Take "fear", for example. The person with the "fear" problem is really saying, "God, you won't protect me, you don't love me, here (with respect to the thing feared)." Ergo, the fear. The one being confrontational likewise "accuses" God of withholding, and resents it.

Key → do you see the pattern? Each of these attitudes resolves to an accusation, "God is UnFair", which is exactly the temptation Satan made to the woman: God "unfairly" withheld "knowledge" from her, so she should eat. Adam's temptation was similar: it would be "unfair" of God to rob him of his wife, so he ate. But in actuality it was Satan arguing for hiding knowledge the whole time (for Satan argues the path of least resistance should be employed, even if that means hiding the 'bad' that God shows in the world). 🤣

So, God will "respond" by mimicking the unfairness of which He is accused, just as He did with the couple (throwing them out of Eden). Just as He did with Pharaoh (sending more miracles He knew would "force" Pharaoh further, just as Pharaoh was mentally accusing Him of doing). God does this as a sort of "mirror", so the person can "see" his blind arrogance: to wake the person up to the accusation, so the person can grab 1 John 1:9 (or, faith in Christ, Acts 16:31, for unbelievers) — and get true relief. For, if he doesn't wake up, he'll spin down into misery. God doesn't want that. He didn't make us in order to throw us away!

If any of these questions "hit hard", examine self carefully. The brain will react strongly to anything which hits "too close to home". On the one hand, the reaction might just be coming from the brain, genetically. It's a reflex, and not necessarily something you personally will. On the other hand, to the extent you've agreed with that reflex, the reflex strengthens. So, the stronger the reaction, the more likely you've "found" a spiritual sickness.

Here's another quick litmus test for spiritual sickness: the things which really trigger strong reactions, are things which you are secretly condemning in yourself — or, more likely — in God. (We tend to mirror the flaws we most hate in others, for example.)

Such disquiet, if deep enough, will have "punning" mental and physical manifestations. Chances are, if you are reading this site and can actually recognize any manifestations, you'll get relief by following the two "Key →" steps, in "1.", above. (I've never seen those steps fail troubled folks who "got cracking".)

The whole problem's pretty scary, isn't it? That's why I use 1 John 1:9 like breathing. As often as I remember it, even if I'm not sure what kind of arrogance it might be. If I feel "bad", I use it. If I feel "good", I use it. It's a habit, and very easy to do. Takes a nanosecond. For, "if we judge ourselves, we will not be judged" (1 Corinthians 11:31-32). That's the flipside of Matthew 7:1-2. The "judge ourselves" rule is also in Psalms 32, Psalms 66, and Isaiah 38:15-18. "Thy rod and thy staff" and "Restores my soul" phrases in Psalms 23 are more examples of 1 John 1:9's need, usage, and result.

6. Body is designed to react / respond to soul's thoughts.

In many ways, this fact is the scariest of all. Like it says in Proverbs 23:7, you are what you think. Marcus Aurelius, who was both a philosopher and Roman Emperor (just before Commodus) once quipped, "Your life is what your thoughts make it."

No one knew that better than Our Lord Jesus Christ. The imputation of our sins to Him meant that all those horrible thoughts pierced His body, because the thought tells the body how to feel. The one who lusts to murder, who lusts for approval, who is petty, who is jealous — each of these thoughts has a feeling-command in it, so the body feels what the thought tells it to feel. So, imagine the inestimable horror of having all those commands hit His Body! So imagine, even before, how horrible it was to have Satan throw thoughts at Him, to hear human, ugly thinking? For souls express thought by words. Don't need to be Omniscient to know another's ugly thoughts!

People can and do control others by thoughts sent through words (and other means). If someone expresses anger, you will likely feel an urge to be angry in reply. That's reciprocity, and it is proof that the feeling rides on the thought, attacking your body, thus urging a like response from your soul. What happens, is, a given feeling is associated with a given thought, and then the sum is transmitted through communication to another. Contagiously. Whether one means to do so, or not. The more people there are around you, then, the more you are affected. Whether you know it, or not.

So imagine what your own thoughts do to you. So imagine what some outside stimulus tells your body to feel. So imagine what happens if Satan & Co. send you thoughts. Moreover, your body is constantly sending you urges due to the sin nature, so to get a thought to occur in your soul, which then tells the body how to feel! So you become a slave to all this onslaught — just as the Lord, who knew no sin, was made to be.

How much more enslaved are we, then, if we don't even know whether we'd actually want or believe the thought which hits us? Wouldn't it be embarrassing, to have believed a thing all this time, only to find out it's false? Wouldn't it be more embarrassing, to have believed a thing all this time, only to find the 'belief' is merely based on a repeated claim! Test this worldwide problem: try to defend something you believe, but haven't thought much about — see if you don't find major flaws in your prior acceptance, i.e., you just believed it, didn't examine it much for truth; or believed something about it which, on reexamination, is not so good, after all. Yikes! Look how many things we all believe, without even doing our homework!

What defense does one have, then? Short-term, try to be aware of what you are thinking. But long-term, only Bible Doctrine; for the short-term awareness only makes you aware of the problem, but Bible Doctrine 'eaten' under the Holy Spirit provides the solution. For the solution, is to change the Association of the thought, from: feeling, lies, whatever, to Truth. Since the Truth is gorgeous, associating Truth with a thing, person, whatever, makes for freedom from the tyranny of contagious thought. For, the association 'riding' on the thought, finds no target. That's how He paid for us, and that's how He defended Himself. For, Bible Doctrine is thought, too: God's. So, think: God is totally happy all the time. So, then: since the body responds and reacts to thought, the more Doctrine you think, the more you will reprogram your body against prior unhappy thinking; the more you will program your body to slough off all the external bombardment of thoughts hitting it; the more you will be happy due to the Beautimous Diamond Deposits made by the Holy Spirit!

See why it's so important to keep using 1 John 1:9 and getting Bible Doctrine under your right pastor-teacher? God isn't kidding when He calls you 'saved'! Saved to heaven, saved from hell, saved from the thinking of hell down here if you learn His Heavenly Thinking, saved from the emptiness of life which eventually careens a soul to its own meaningless destruction, far worse than Auschwitz. Saved to Hear Him, instead! Saved to See Him, instead! Saved to Enjoy, at last! Takes time to get there, but every second.. Worth it!

Conversely, without Doctrine, you have no defense at all. Those worldly thoughts, hitting you from within and without, moral, amoral, immoral, stupid, petty, demanding, whiny, needy, me!me!me! — will all program your soul to be miserable. So, will program your body to be miserable. And, sick.

Let's go through some examples, so you can see the effect merely reading has on thought, and therefore, on feeling. It's way beyond mere power of suggestion (which is powerful indeed: advertisers depend on it):

• You recline languorously on thick, luscious terrycloth, the white sand beneath warming it and you.
• Mom died.
• Just as you're leaving the home for that fabulous party, a dump truck crosses your path. It hits a bump, and some of its contents spill over you: fresh manure.
• John wants to murder you, and is stalking your every move; planning on how he will take you to a remote location and piece by piece, dismember you.
• εἷςγὰρΘεόςεἷςμεσίτηςδιὰτοῦτοπίστευσονἐπὶτὸνΚύριονκαὶσωθήσῃσύ. (Are you irritated, yet?)

As you can see, the words engender a certain feeling, once your soul perceives them. That's how temptation works. The thought hits, stabs, feels; so you want to either give in (because it overwhelms or feels good), or fight, which then encourages a different temptation to 'defeat' the first one, so you lose, either way!

Guilt is a good example of the 'different' temptation ploy. Like all other temptations, guilt is merely a thought striking the soul. (Even body temptations are only temptations due to the thought associated image.) A thought striking the soul is not the same as when the soul chooses a thought, but in daily life, it's hard to tell the difference. Guilt, in particular, accompanied as it is by a feeling of guilt, is extremely hard to push away, for with the feeling of guilt comes the feeling of paralysis. Hence, volition doesn't say no: it's paralysed. This felled the paralytic in Matthew 9. It routinely fells us: for, most of us are normal, and normally are aware that we don't measure up to some standard. Especially, if it's a standard we believe in. So, if 'guilt' is attached to some standard, then sold everywhere — like in the media, in charity, anywhere you look — people come to feel habitually guilty. And thus rebellion against that ongoing guilt eventually comes in to try to drive away the guilt. Both are defense mechanisms, and both are temptations we give into, and neither solves the problem. That is how the 1950's reversed into the culture we have in the United States, today.

So even if you only have the radio or TV on in the room, and pay no attention to it, your body does. That's its job. So if around you there are folks who habitually hear (and thus say) that the theory evolution is scientific, even if you disagree — you will be softened up toward it, and each repetition will make that claim seem 'just a little bit' more true. Because, it's a declarative sentence, thus a command. The more such commands hit your ears, the more they hit your body. The more they hit the body without being fought off, the more the body begins to send confirming urges to the soul, and the more the soul comes to accept such commands. Because, the ubiquity will feel good to give into. That's why an America can totally reverse its values since the 1950's. Think about it.

So, just think of the many words we all have rumbling around us inside, outside. Remember that time when you thought that thing, oh, how could you think like that! Or, someone said this thing, oh, how could he say that?! Ohhhh this thought feels good. Ohhh this thought feels bad. Never mind content. See? The murderer murders because he has come to like the thought, so he feels good when he does it. The petty person, too — likes petty thoughts, so feels good running down everyone. But what happens to the body? It is being sent sick-thinking, so it becomes sick, even while 'feeling good'. Like a drug addict. No different.

One of the many saving benefits of Bible Doctrine is that it promotes awareness and hence alertness, so these many thoughts can't just fly into your body anymore, unchallenged. Like a gated and guarded property, your volition will eventually be able to stop more and more gate crashers, halting them to question validity. Ironically, that's when you come to see just how many thoughts had gotten through, in days gone by, and what influence they had had on you. So, guard against unhappiness by learning Him, coming to love Him (Jude 21)...

Thought is contagious. That contagion works both ways. People can be saved from their hellish thinking by your good thinking: Bible Doctrine. Even if you never tell them the kind of thinking it is. So, also, "bad friends corrupt good morals" means that anyone around you who has bad thinking is a temptation to you. So what to do, become a hermit, divorce, leave them? Try 2 Peter 3:18, instead.

Reminder: a thought striking the soul may be mere temptation, and is not the same as when the soul chooses a thought (which would be sin if the thought were temptation to sin). So, in daily life, it's hard to tell the difference. Since you have to use 1 John 1:9 to stay in fellowship if you sin, and since all sin is really thought (body obeys thought, hence body sins are really thought driven), how to tell the difference? In the beginning, you can't. Just try to be aware of the thoughts, and name any you can. Long ago, I got into the habit of just thinking, "I confess my arrogance" when some time had elapsed and I hadn't used 1 John 1:9 — just in case. It's better if you can diagnose what's going on, but don't brood over it. Keep moving, keep learning Him. The Holy Spirit will improve your awareness, alertness, detection skills as He grows you up in your Groom to Be.

If you are in spiritual adulthood or later, or even nearing it, you will get hit with thought-transference by Satan & Co. depending on your weakest vulnerability (which for most is love/guilt), you'll get thoughts to weaken it further. Also, as your love for God develops, you will inevitably come to feel that you are not doing well in the spiritual life, that you are not obeying Him adequately — all that is a lie. It's the feeling which substitutes for truth, and the feeling is based on the Truth that you love Him. It is not true that you are doing badly, if you are keeping up with 1 John 1:9 and doctrinal intake. Tactical Solution to try:

• Recognize that the hits you get are mere feelings, whether they are your own, or from the demon boys (and who cares where they come from, anyway).
• Recognize that it Glorifies Him that you get hit, because your doctrine is developed enough that you can afford to get hit (akin to Paul's reasoning about 'thorn' in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10).
• So come to associate that feeling and thought with the fact that the Holy Spirit will use it to Glorify the Lord. Count on that. Holy Spirit never does anything else!
• Over time, as the repeated new association builds, you will find the 'hits' either weaken, or you like the reminder of the truth they represent.
• Meanwhile, try to associate the hit with a motive to push harder, embrace the hit by claiming the fact that Holy Spirit is using it to Glorify Him. That will speed the 'flip' in your associations from bother, to blessing. Note: Truth alone can make this switch — it's not 'positive thinking' or other dippy, psychological brainwashing nonsense.
• Eventually you will come to want being hit — that's the key to the Cross: Psalms 22:6! He loved being a Worm, because during his lifetime of training He came to associate the suffering with Father being Propitiated, and us being purchased! That's why Hebrews 12:2 is True! (That's how I learned this Solution, by the way. This solution saved my spiritual life, and I live on it, daily.)

1. Volition, not genetic depravity, is made the "king" of spiritual sickness and its consequent physical manifestations — or, of spiritual health — by Divine Design.

The inherent, depraved, genetic dissociative "reflex" of the brain is our legacy from Adam's fall; that this reflex is always trying to recapture what was lost: happiness with God. That this reflex thus constantly tries to recapture that happiness via reliving the prior "good" experience, so to fix, regain it; so, it keeps trying to "marry" the concept of "self" to "good", in anything and anyone said to be "good". Such is the root function of what's constantly hitting our souls: 'me be good'. It's not coming from God, it's coming from the physical brain's dissociative reflex.

The immaterial soul's free volition, which God, not man, creates in the soul, must agree to the claim of the reflex, in order for the reflex to have any real power. (Important: those who say the Fall corrupted man's free will are inherently wrong for this reason: they don't understand that materiality cannot corrupt immateriality. Only immateriality can corrupt itself. That's why God only creates the soul at each individual birth. Thus, God is never guilty of corruption, which of course is anathema to Him, anyway.) So, absent agreement, the reflex is but a constant annoyance, like a fly or a mosquito. Only the "rescue" of salvation plus post-salvation "epistemological rehabilitation" (my pastor's term for the learning of Bible Doctrine under the Holy Spirit) enables agreement to be progressively refused by means of a replacement knowledge and a replacement motivation: Love for God. These replacements progressively mutate the mosquito, as well as all of life's "good" and "bad" pressures, into handmaidens of Love, enhancements for the expression of Love. That's why the "Cross" was desirable, the very fulfillment of all Christ Himself wanted: "just because". Just because He loved God the Father so much. Just because He loved Righteousness so much, and wanted the worst of lives, so to express how Happy He was. Just because He wanted to pour Himself out for that very Righteousness, that very Father. Just because He also wanted to pour Himself out for us, so that we too could receive such a Happy Life: if we wanted it, too. To the extent we wanted it, too. Just because, it is the greatest and most fulfilling way to live, the way to "get it all", with no compromise.

It's through Christ, then, that God the Father designed the way to "mutate" what is non-God, to serve God, to exploit and celebrate His Own Being, His Own Enjoyment. Freely. With no need to coerce, seduce, manipulate, or alter the inherent nature of the thing or person. So, in Christ, and in Paul, in David and Isaiah, in Daniel and Nehemiah, in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we see these progressive joys: the joy of foregoing "fixing" whatever's "wrong"; the joy of receiving whatever's "wrong", yet at no expense to self; the joy of transcending all limitations; most of all, the Joy of Loving Righteousness. Totally. Fully. Everything else docking beneath that Love, in perfect full pleasure and inter-Love harmony. This is spiritual growth, what it produces.

Since mutation of non-spiritual into spiritual is the root structure, the root purpose and function, God's root design for rational life, it follows that rejection will have the same root structure, purpose, function of mutation: but, in the opposite direction. Toward fragmentation. Towards insanity. Towards hatred. Towards death, even while living. Just as God said it would, (via the Hebrew's kal-gerund infinitive paired-construct) in Genesis 2:17:

That is the summary statement of the link between spiritual pathology and physical (including mental) pathology. Note: compare the "breathed lives" verse in Genesis 2:7. Plural lives means plural deaths, thus accounting for the grammatical structure of Genesis 2:17. German scholars (Wilhelm Bacher, Bernhard Stade, Franz Delitzsch, Hermann Gunkel ?) explain the exegesis well. Not too many American Biblical scholars seem sufficiently aware of the Hebrew construction. Also, for those confused by how the creation account is worded: Genesis 1 is a summary, and overview; Genesis 2 is an analysis of relevancies, with details the summary did not cover. Ancient Hebrew often first summarizes, then provides detail. It does this often by means of punning or doubling grammatical structures, such as you see in Psalms and Proverbs. Even today, Hebrew contains this play on words characteristic.

So, spiritual death leads to physical (i.e., mental) maladies; so, spiritual maladjustment in the believer leads also to physical (i.e., mental) maladies. In both cases, the body life terminates with physical death, solely because, post-Fall, only soul life was initially imputed by God to corrupted body life. This explains why Christ had to "lay down [His] Life" (e.g., John 10:18). He had a human spirit and a soul imputed at His Birth, thus was Born Perfect; so, could not die physically, apart from His own Volition. As a result, the same principle works in reverse: even for fallen man, spiritual health has a positive effect, as well as a negative one, on physical health. For some fantastic enjoyment, try to deduce God's Genius via Justice and Love-Grace here, in His not choosing to: a) impute the soul to an incomplete body, i.e., in the womb; b) not choosing to impute a human spirit along with the soul, to a corrupted by Adam's sin body at birth.

Key → whether mutatively degenerative (effects of sin nature and sin) or mutatively rehabilitative (undoing the effects of sin nature and sin), God's design is such that man can choose what mutation he wants. The mutation, in fact, is a result of choice. First, Adam's choice to sin begot a DNA of corruption — rejection urge, mutatively translated into dissociation. Will in the human can override this urge, stop it, but the continual urge is such that man doesn't override it, just as the urge to urinate can only be temporarily resisted. Still, only Volition's assent causes any mutation degeneration to enter — and contaminate — the soul. The contamination remains solely a choice, so progressive contamination is likewise begotten solely by choice, with all the attendant physical effects. Precisely. Obversely, it is only choice which is used as the catalyst for spiritual rehabilitation, with all the consequent positive results on physical health. That is the overall pattern, both negative, and positive. 'Judgement' (choice to accept something as true) gets 'measured back', either way. Freedom, in other words, to go either way, all insured by God. In fact, one of the many reasons why God allows or even causes individuals to become afflicted by strokes and other brain-disabling maladies is to preserve them from further soul harm.

Evidentiary logic: about God, and the Genius Glory of His Design

Logic is in short supply when one is hurting. Logic is in short supply on a macro level, in society, for most of life, is — dare we admit it (?) — pretty annoying. We thus find ourselves deluged with the banal at every turn: television programs are shallow and stereotypical, news is soundbyte-like and kaleidoscopic, conversation is largely about things we own or do. In short, thinking about the nature of God or life is, well... no time for that. Yet, we can do it. So, what happens when we think a little bit about what "God" and the reality of life, mean?

Well, one obvious conclusion is that Total Depravity is a cost to God — after all, He could have had so much perfect obedience from us! Yet, why then didn't He make us robots, happily programmed to do His every whim? Ahhh, that would be unjust to Himself! God judges Himself to be Free; so, then, what matches that judgement, what should be 'measured back'? Freedom. Yet Freedom means the inevitability of sin, for finite creatures, being less than God to start with, will sin. Ahhh, and that judgement is... what? Well, the thing wrong must be fixed, no? Shall God not judge Himself also worthy of recompense? What kind of Judge is He, if He doesn't 'measure back' to Himself? So how shall He measure back to Himself? Let's see.

The central claim of the Bible is that all of whatever a person has or lacks won't make him happy: only relationship with God makes him happy. Critics of course counter that physical and mental inequities don't exactly square with a Just and Loving God. The Bible replies (most famously, via Ecclesiastes and Proverbs) that whatever superior thing "A" has will also become his superior nightmare. Likewise, for an inferior thing. And, in the end, no matter what one had, did, was — it all is emptiness ("vanity", in KJV), without God. Therefore, a Just and Loving God allows all free variety to exist, so that anyone can freely learn these facts; can freely opt out of the Sisyphean punishment that this world's goodies constitute. Having opted out, the person can have a truly superior life, transcending all obstacles and pleasures the world can provide. With any or all of them, or missing any or all of them.

So, God measures back to Himself this transcendence, for all humankind, freely (!) — by lifting the Stone that was 'too heavy' (against Righteousness) to lift. Christ, who as God-Man could do all yet did absolutely nothing (a fact plainly visible even at the Cross, yet invisible to works-rabid Christianity); Christ, Who could evade all bad, yet instead absorbed all bad (i.e., our sins) — He is the ultimate Witness to these facts. Our Cornerstone, instead of turning stones into bread; instead of taking up Satan on his offer to give Christ the entire world; instead of using His Own Deity to solve the world's problems; Our Christ lived on the word (Matthew 4:4), and "did" nothing. Just like a Lamb.

So, then: if "the" Superior Person of the Universe eschewed His Superiority, doing nothing to "help", and thus gained all, how much more would God use us, "the" naturally-inferior — to our own advantage? For, no one transcends "bad" by dealing with it — at all. To deal with it, is to fight on its turf. Christ disregarded that shame (Hebrews 12:2). Instead, Christ transcended everything, even by voluntarily dying just as He lived, on Doctrine (AKA "truth", "faith" in English Bibles), not in His Own Strength (see Luke 23:46 compared to Psalms 31:5 in NASB, Psalms 22:6, and Philippians 2:5ff, Philippians 3:9). As Paul would learn to say (2 Corinthians 12:7-10):

Outflank the enemy — don't fight him on his own turf. The Strength of Doctrine, the Mind of Christ, has no equal. So be weak, ignore it, disregard it. So, be Strong in the "power of Christ", His Mind. And let the dead world bury itself.

Most Important Key → thus, God measures back to Himself, Christ — which Christ Himself wanted. Thus, God gives to Christ, us — measuring back! Thus, because we are totally depraved, we need and get the life of Christ! Which, had we been perfect, we couldn't get! See the measured back Genius, Glory? God flips (leverages) the failure of our state into the fulfillment of a status we couldn't have had, even had we been made initially perfect! More: our spiritual mandate is to learn the Mind of Christ, so we can become — not workaholics, bustling on Satan's turf — but a like-minded Bride. For who knowingly marries someone incompatible? (See 2 Corinthians, especially 2 Corinthians 16, Romans 12:2-3, Philippians 2:5.)

So God flips the failure of Total Depravity, into the fulfillment of Glory, by means of Christ: "Christ in you, the confidence of Glory". (Colossians 1:25-27: "hope" means "confident expectation", Paul's way of tweaking Plato's Philebus.)

Thus, it follows that even the material side of this superior life in Christ is deliberately significant, transcending the small, the weak, the petty. Again, we see the Divine Justice principle of Matthew 7:2 operating, but this time from God's own Judgement, ex nihilo. In short, what was the criterion God Himself chose, to design the universe? His Righteousness, is a paradox: Righteousness demands all standards be simultaneously met and unmet. In short, full-spectrum. In short, the two demands self-cancel, so all must 😏 be Voluntary. So, Christ Voluntarily restricted the use of His Own Deity, and Voluntarily did not use even His Human Perfection for aught but the lamb's 'work': to be shepherded to the slaughter. The Lamb of God fed on the Word, not works; grew fat and wooly, so to make a good feast for the poor: us. A tola worm, not a man (Psalms 22:6), whose Thinking became the 'blood' dye for our royal crimson robes, since "the Word" became "the Word of the Cross" and the "Word of God" (confer Revelation 1:6, Revelation 5:10, 1 Peter 2:5,9, plus look up the "Word" titles in this sentence, which in the Greek are also titles of Christ). All by Choice. Foregoing all, He Himself fulfilled the Paradox, yet met all Righteousness. Freely. Full-Spectrum.

Accordingly: everything bad is turned on its head, creating paradox. So also, everything good is turned on its head. This, to show that nothing need impede, and nothing can improve, happiness with God. Thus, you'll find wry verses like: a slave is free though technically a slave; a freeman is a slave despite being free; the poor are rich; the rich are poor. The sick are well, the well are sick. Big is little, and little is big. For, nothing is impossible with God, so God demands only the impossible. Below that standard, anything is good, Full-Spectrum. By Divine Decree.

Such statements abound in Scripture, whether explicit, or told analogously via some Bible character's life story. They aren't just cute statements. The vivid and very shocking claim of Scripture is that the person who grows up spiritually also obtains the very objects which externals like money and beauty aim to purchase, but cannot. Sample verses like those of the talents, "hundredfold", Ephesians 3:20, "eye hath not heard", abound. They are meant to be taken very seriously. Beauty and money are desired for what? Happiness, comfort, contentment. Ahhh but these things wither, fade, perish. Isn't there some better thing to have, to permanize happiness, comfort, contentment? Oh yes. But not as the world gives, since the world itself is all withering, fading, perishing. Yet these things are added, too, if useful and as needed to celebrate life with God and testify to periphery how good that life is. With and without man's ideas of goodies: full-spectrum, in fact. "I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound." Paul knew "full-spectrum"!

For how much more is it purely obvious that God is the Joy of life, when nothing else man regards as good is evident? What, does one only love the goodies provided by the Giver, or the Giver, Himself? What, is the possession of goodies the "good", or is it the fact that the Giver gave them? God, or things? God, or people? As went the test in the Garden, as went the test in Job, so goes the test for everyman's life. For it's not about man's loyalty, but God's. For it's not about man's doing-without, being ascetic; nor about man's doing-with (which is harder), having prosperity — but it's about enjoying the Giver. Relationship. Rapport. Not externals. God loves us despite our inferiority, and gives us, full-spectrum, "the all things", as Paul puts it: Christ. Who had all of the worst, and all of the best: full-spectrum. Then, and now. What externals matter, compared to the joy of His Love? "For the Love of Christ keeps motivating us" (2 Corinthians 5:14ff)...

So the 'upside' of our depraved position is higher than were we perfect. The "high" was made higher, because our initial "low" was lower than perfect. See? Full-spectrum, maximally increased, so that even God can make "sons"!

Further, the fact that we are born depraved still is not the reason for our degeneration, since only volition can contaminate the soul, by choosing to agree to the depraved brain urges. So, the downside, albeit always healable via faith in Christ or getting with the spiritual life, is likewise awesome. High-low. Full-spectrum.

Again, externals don't advantage or disadvantage us, but rather, as always, the issue is, "what think ye of Christ?" So, the spiritually-diseased person's life is hell, no matter what he has or lacks. This, because the ten degenerative steps progressively deaden his ability to enjoy life. No matter what. Having rejected Christ (or the spiritual life, for the believer), he becomes progressively more dependent on substitutes: the externals. This, because the substitutes can never measure up to the happiness he would have with God. So, he becomes progressively narrower in his enjoyments, for only with God are externals "extra". To the person who rejects God (believer or unbeliever), the externals become idols he must worship, to maintain the charade that self-esteem must be based on self-merit: to maintain the desire to live.

Such an individual thus has increasingly less time to relax, so busy is he trying to shore up his unsustainable self-esteem. So, to others he may look quite happy — but that "look" is just the brain protecting his image. He's a slave to his brain, rather than the brain being a slave to him. So, whatever smarts, money, looks he has — they are nightmares. Now needed to survive, they are no longer the options of delight he initially thought them to be. Once, being beautiful was nice, but now it's essential. Once, being rich was fun, but now it's something to hang onto for dear life. Once, a hair out of place was barely noticed, but now it's obsessed over. Trapped in the fortress. True definition of 'hell'.

Literature and movies so abound with this "Twilight Zone" twist of fate that the idea should be familiar. Yeah, the grass is always greener on the other side of the street — until it becomes your side.

2. Secular proof of this Divine Design exists, though it is not recognized as such.

Thus, as the individual mutates degenerately, he progressively loses strength to go against his past choices. So at some point it may become validly necessary to be treated medically — i.e., by a psychiatrist. So, a psychiatrist who is treating a believer can provide relief for his suffering patient by an "Rx" of the patient using 1 John 1:9 and getting regular doses of properly-taught Bible doctrine. Perhaps the patient will need some mix of drugs to first stabilize the brain sufficiently, so he can calmly intake the spiritual information. Perhaps a combination of both secular therapy and drugs must precede the introduction of regular 1 John 1:9 usage and Bible study thereunder. (For the unbeliever, faith in Christ would first be necessary, before the spiritual process of 1 John 1:9 and Bible study thereunder will be therapeutic.)

To say that usage of 1 John 1:9 and Bible study is an 'Rx' a physician can use, implies we can empirically monitor spiritual phenomena, and indeed some psychiatrists have done so (but I don't personally know their names). Can we really do this? Do we have any evidence from science about this spiritual-physical link? Yes. Problem is, we don't generally recognize it as a spiritual-physical link, because science only has material means at its disposal: material instruments can't detect an immaterial soul, much less an immaterial human spirit. So, one is left with the necessity of using "what if it is spiritual or soulish" as a premise, and then any detections, which of course could be borne out empirically, still can't conclusively prove immaterial origins. However, the therapies would still work — which is the aim of such medicine, in the first place.

Evidence in Biological Structures

Physically, we have evidence — but haven't yet defined the evidence we have as being evidence of, for example, Total Depravity or 'spirit soul brain' interfaces. The dissociation reflex of the brain, as well as its defense mechanisms (both mental and the more rudimentary pain and pleasure reflex) are indeed viewed, but their origins are, of course, not scientifically recognized as due to Adam's Fall. Empirical successes of therapies in the preceding paragraph would also be evidence — but still one may debate the spiritual premise origin. Further, the extreme disuse of the brain — long puzzling to those in the biological and other sciences — is not recognized as perhaps being reserved for spiritual purposes. To get such recognition would require scientific proof of such immaterial components in man — which of course science can speculate about, but not prove, hampered as it is with finite and material measuring systems. (The fact that billions of people throughout the millennia attest to the existence of the Divine, is excluded from the scientific definition of "evidence"; which demonstrates that science can be quite illogical: it demands "observation" as proof, yet dismisses so many sustained observations as all hallucinatory.)

Oddly enough, the best non-Biblical proof of the mutation process may come from an atheist, Julian Jaynes.

Jaynes doesn't mean to corroborate Scripture, he means to debunk it. Actually, the debunking of Scripture isn't his main purpose, but rather a corollary function. His main purpose is to trace how it is that man evolved self-consciousness. He uses logic and known history, literature to make his case. He makes a very good case, too. He makes the best macro-historical case, I believe, for demonstrating how the dissociation I've been describing works to create mutations we can see — on the grand scale of time. In short, he unknowingly corroborates the Bible's contentions about the mutative process. It's truly astonishing, especially considering that Jaynes believes that faith in "God" is inherently self-destructive.

Like most of mainstream psychiatry, Jaynes also contends that the belief in God is inherently a hallucinatory desire, born of a defense mechanism to deny death. Like most of mainstream psychiatry, Jaynes also contends that a healthy self-consciousness requires independence from belief in God, because he (like they) are convinced that belief in God and self-responsibility are inherently antagonistic to each other. In short, his main philosophy is that reliance on God must mean self is less worthy, less "good"; hence, self-esteem is threatened by a belief in God. Hence, self must defend self by means of cutting off God. Hence, the self is only "sane", "healthy", "good", if independent of belief in, or association with, "God". (See how the brain's rejection-urge/dissociative reflex is reflected in the foregoing?) So, the question is, can one prove the origin of this inner "God" hallucination? Can one prove how it is that man gradually came to defeat this inner "God" hallucination?

Jaynes answers these questions by reference to logic, history, and biology. Essentially, he concludes that ancient man probably had some kind of organic pass-through via a hemisphere-joining section of the brain known as "Wernicke’s area", which over the centuries of man's evolution, gradually closed. While it was open, thus permitting transfer between brain hemispheres, man was basically hallucinatory. Its gradual closure via evolution created the happy state of man developing his own healthy sense of self, no longer hampered by those troubling "voices" or thoughts of some ruling God. He goes on to demonstrate the closure by reference to passages in literature (especially Homer) and Scripture — passages to show the 'openness' and the 'closing'. It's fascinating how he demonstrates this gradual change. In fact, it's from reading Jaynes' book that I came to understand how the "hardness of heart" pathology God describes, actually works. Unbeknownst to me, I didn't grasp the Bible's teaching on "hardness" sufficiently, even though my pastor explains it exhaustively, and I've long "known" that teaching. Nor did I grasp, until I finished the Jaynes book, the tie between Jaynes' description, and the Biblical descriptions of the "hardness-of-heart" process. A good companion book to Jaynes, also apparently written by someone who's at least 'neutral' on the question of "God", is: The Stages of Life: A Groundbreaking Discovery: The Steps to Psychological Maturity. Clifford Anderson references Jaynes' book, in his own.

So, did man in aggregate adaptively close off "Wernicke’s area" due to his progressive hard-heartedness to God? Was it "open" so that man could "hear" God? Does it get opened again once man believes in Christ and progresses spiritually? Frankly, I don't know. There has always been a lot of speculation about the 'spirit soul brain' interfaces: are they all material? All immaterial? Some combination of both? Frankly, I don't know what to make of the speculation. Some ideas sound plausible, some sound goofy. It goes beyond the intended scope here to analyse the merits of the varying claimed explanations. Let's just say that, since God is Omnipotent and Righteous, He'd know how to make the best structural connections.

Jaynes, of course, isn't claiming he's proved any material connection. He's doing a lot of very good hypothesizing, in the cause of fruitful research (for himself, his colleagues, science in general). From what I've heard, he's got his critics, among fellow atheists: their arguments vary. Again, it goes beyond the scope of this website to analyse their counterclaims. Suffice it to say that thinking begets mutative effects on the body. Psychiatry is loaded with all kinds of (sometimes competing) theories about how these mutations produce physical effects. Jaynes, I think, offers the most useful historical model. Of course, one has to abstract his model, in order to see how it says the same thing as what God says in Scripture. One could abstract almost any psychiatric model (that I know of, anyway) and derive the same pattern. So, either use Jaynes or whatever model you prefer, to see that God's treatise on the topic can be "independently verified", as it were.

Evidence in Man's Historical "Progress"

One can still use Jaynes' model, without needing to consent to the idea that Wernicke’s area (or any other physical component) "causes" the mutative process. For example, one of the other themes running through Jaynes' book is the progression in man from concrete to abstract thinking. He deems the progression essential to man's development of self-consciousness, since man's concept of "self" is essentially an abstract idea. He shows how man came to learn abstract thinking from metaphorical associations.

Of course, God also says that abstract thinking develops from concrete thinking, which is why the Old Testament system of spirituality was highly metaphorical. In fact, the main reason why the Canon is now closed is that Christ came: until there was a Soul to have Divine Thinking in it wholly, man could not get full understanding of God, because the interface could not be sufficiently abstracted for man to get that full comprehension transmitted to him. In short, the content of the Soul of Christ is to be replicated in believers between the Two Advents: that's the focal theme of Ephesians (and Romans 12-14, 1 Corinthians 2,14, Philippians, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1-12), for example. Thus replicated, believers become sufficiently compatible with Him, as intended in the Design.

Jaynes doesn't recognize, when he reviews Scripture passages, that they are deliberately abstract via association. He mistakes the metaphors for primitive understandings, rather than realizing that the metaphors display sophisticated abstract thinking. Thus, his dating of the time when man became possessed of self-consciousness is inaccurate, a criticism even voiced by others who likewise don't believe in Scripture. Still, he's right to say how man developed: each concrete item represented an idea. As man repeatedly used these concrete items to stand for the ideas they represented, man gradually lost his dependence on usage of the concrete, in order to think. He became fluent, in other words, in the ideas themselves. So, as time passed, he needed less and less to express himself concretely, and became more and more expressive of the ideas, as principles. Abstracts. Hence, Jaynes concludes, man came to be possessed of self-consciousness, for he gradually gained the ability to conceive of the "self".

God, by contrast, says He builds self-consciousness into each soul, as an attribute of personhood, so the ability to be self-conscious doesn't itself require the faculty of abstract thinking. Thus the faculty of self-consciousness, like the faculties of free will, faith (believing, which is essential to all learning), associativeness, etc. — all of these are just there. At birth. However, they can be developed further after birth, since the soul is capable of growing or shrinking, as the person's free volition chooses. God creates and imputes each individual soul at birth. The "formed you from birth" passages reference this fact: the phrase "from birth" means that "you" are not "you" until born. The making of Adam is the pattern, and folks like Elihu, David, and the prophets frequently analogize their own births to that pattern. Sadly, the English translates "birth" literally rather than idiomatically, thus giving rise to some grave misconceptions — forgive the pun — by believers. The English literal translation, "from the womb", does not have the connotation in the Hebrew of "from outside", but should — after all, the out-from meaning of both Hebrew and Greek prepositions is taught in the first year of those Biblical languages. It's very basic knowledge. French translates the "birth" meaning correctly.

So the development of abstract thinking is needed primarily for spiritual reasons. After all, God is the Ultimate Abstract Person. Until man can think abstractly, how can he understand "God"? Therefore, the faculties of personhood, created uniquely per-person at birth, are intended to progress as one ages. For the spiritual life, this is even more true: one is designed to "grow up" from the simplistic concreteness of spiritually-childish thinking, all the way to the abstraction level characteristic of spiritually-full (Ephesians 3:15-19) thinking.

One can observe the concrete-to-abstract mental development anytime, by watching a child grow mentally. One can also trace the aggregate concrete to abstract growth of a culture and society's development, (which of course was Jaynes' focus).

One can likewise see this fact anytime, from one's own learning on a topic, even as an adult. First, one learns a bunch of facts. Then, one plays with, analyzes, "turns over" those facts, to derive conclusions. Then, one begins to think abstractly, fluently, after some practice, for the conclusions and underlying facts now are seen as a "whole", it"self".

In fact, as one learns Bible Doctrine, this progression is exponential. It's designed to be. Each verse is like a concrete thing, a fact, a building block. One needs to learn the verses, alright, but that's only the beginning. The goal is to have a coalesced picture, living, circulating in your "heart". ('Synonym for the right lobe of the soul, everywhere in the Bible.) That is one reason why, for example, any one verse would take hundreds of pages to fully explain its meaning, yet the person who understands the verse completely, understands all those meanings at once, in the context of the whole realm of doctrine, and it's a living thing in him. Abstraction flows easily, completely, in coherent context. All at once. You see this in Paul's writings, for example, how speedily he grasps and references the whole, in every sentence he writes. Verbal plenary inspiration is but the highest written display of the very mind function "learning Christ" accomplishes (done by the Holy Spirit, in the believer, via 1 John 1:9 and study). So, we start as spiritual children, learning little discrete things. We think like spiritual children, and see everything through a child's eyes. As we are caused to grow spiritually, we become spiritually mature. Abstract thinking thus reaches the highest of levels, because at "Πλήρωμα" ("fullness", see Ephesians 3:15-19) it is toward, about, and reflecting Him.

Many secular disciplines vouchsafe a mental-developmental progression, from concrete to abstract. Linguistic scholars will tell you, for example, that one way to "date" a language's "age" is by the preponderance of concrete words it has, versus the number of abstract words it has; by the grammatical complexity of the language (the more simple, the more ancient). So, one can historically trace progress in thought, by progress in the complexity and subtlety of the language. One can also trace degeneration in that same manner: William Safire, a columnist, in his book On Language, does that tracing. So does Edwin Newman, in his books.

The discipline of mathematics likewise can be historically reviewed to see the same progression and regression. So also, music. So also, philosophy. So also — most poignantly — religion. So also, architecture. You can probably pick out almost any discipline, review it historically, and derive a like conclusion.

However, in these (and other) disciplines, as with language, an interesting anomaly presents itself to the historical analyst: as a discipline (or, a society) degenerates, it becomes hyper-complex. In short, like a bell-curve, the growing sophistication is — for a while — helpful. At some point, it goes beyond the "helpful" apex, and further complexity makes the discipline moribund, hopelessly tangled. This, because the discipline (society) can't stop "improving", refining. It becomes like a cancer, growing without restraint. At some point, the accumulated complexity kills the discipline (society), or so seriously wounds it, the discipline (society) dies, becomes enslaved by an 'enemy', goes through a "dark period" or a "Dark Ages", etc. Kinda like a fire burning itself out.

Jaynes doesn't reference this anomaly: it's beyond the scope of his intended purpose. Psychiatry, of course, as also medicine, will look for the apex-point, in order to treat the underlying illness that the patient's symptoms manifest. Historians, too, when they look at societal illness, seek this apex. In short, the idea that an apex exists is likewise well-known. Art and architectural style history are frequently used to date the rise and decline of a society, for example.

God's explanation is that the entire mutative process has a turnaround point, due to momentum. On the positive side, the turnaround is "maturity", and continuation beyond that point has no downward curve, but rather exponential benefit. On the negative side, the turnaround is likewise a "maturity", but an anti-maturity, so the individual thus self-afflicted becomes exponentially-trapped: in rejection. In fragmentation. In illness. In insanity. In death. So, burns himself out. Kinda like a fire.

Thus, the mutative process Jaynes describes, which he considers a positive one, is the selfsame process God describes as degenerative — whether or not one considers some Wernicke’s area connector. Further, whereas Jaynes does not go on to reference the cancer-like quality of "progress", God does — all the way to its tragic end. In short, one can still use Jaynes' analysis (or the apex-searching methods of psychiatry, medicine, history, linguistics, art, architecture), to better understand God's explanation of spiritual pathology.

Evidence in Biological Determinism/Behavioralism

Jaynes of course, like many others, believes there is a lot of truth to biological determinism. The American "behavioralist" school, which I believe came into vogue with Cornelia Otis Skinner's* works in the 1950's, is likewise rooted in biological determinism. Both have had an uneven reception. Both the behavioralists and the determinists are criticized on the grounds that their theories lead to prejudicial conclusions, i.e., that some people are "inferior". Multiculturalists tend to be the most vocal critics of the two disciplines.

* Or possibly B. F. Skinner as he is a better fit to the sentence, I am not quite sure who brainout was referring to back then.

Ironically, the Bible largely agrees with the two disciplines. Its depiction of what's known theologically as "total depravity", albeit unlike the common theological definitions of that term, is that Adam's fall created a condition of the body tries to rule soul. Thus, many of man's decisions and actions are rooted in genetic function, even though man is technically free to override those genetic predispositions. He just doesn't override them, but rather agrees to them. Moreover, it is true that one inherits much more than physical characteristics from one's ancestors. Interests and talents, ways of seeing things, etc. — these are likewise inherited. So, what seems to be "original" to an individual is not. Thus the Bible agrees that biological determinism has a great deal of validity.

Scriptural "determinism" differs, though, by adding that it doesn't matter if one is inferior or superior. Why? Well, first because "All have sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God" — Romans 3:23's two pronged indictment means, among other things, that all of whatever a person is, doesn't benefit him, apart from God. Nothing he is, apart from God, will make him happy. Conversely, nothing he lacks will make him happy if he had it. To make an issue of what one is or has apart from God is like saying a dead redhead is better than a live blonde: who cares who has better hair color, if dead? So the first reason why it doesn't matter whether one is 'inferior' or 'superior' is that such characteristics don't buy the individual anything worth having, apart from God . My pastor has a neat way of stating this fact: "There are no advantages to the advantages, without the Advantage."

Second: even were man perfect, his finiteness means he has neither merit, nor is he happier, compared to Infinite God. This second reason why neither inferiority nor superiority matter is that no such characteristic has any internal merit to start with. An ability per se, is just that: neutral. It can help you or harm you, but the help it gives is too small, and the harm it causes can be overridden by other means. The proverbial genius who can't even match his socks illustrates this point. In other words, unless one is Infinite, any abilities are vulnerabilities, too: the vulnerability cancels out the ability. That's the problem. That's why, for example, even Perfect Christ didn't depend on any of His Abilities (Divine or Human), but rather depended on the Holy Spirit, learning Bible Doctrine. That's how even He avoided the vulnerability that goes with finiteness (and of course, to have used His Deity for the sake of His Humanity — e.g., Matthew 4 — was not done).

Total Depravity merely stresses the fact (meritless vulnerability of inferior or superior), because due to "total depravity" we vary even more, compared to each other. Spiritual pathologies stress the fact even further, for the pathologies make for even greater inter-human variance: for the pathologies stem from volition rejecting some aspect(s) of the fact that man has no merit before Holy God. This rejection only occurs because the person rejecting has come to 'buy' the false notion that self-esteem must be based upon having merit, plus — an important, distortive "plus" — plus, such merit is caused by, and enhanced by, "possessing". It comes from possessing, alright, but what we need to have — God's Own Life — we don't have (until salvation, and even then we can't use it, until we learn Doctrine). So, "externals" take the place of "God", in our depraved quest for self-merit. Of course, the brain's congenital defect of dissociation spawns the constant urge to associate an external deemed good to one's internal self, so to (irrationally) resolve the dissociation from God at the Fall. Volition accepts the urge as valid, and thus 'buys' that false notion. Consequently, degeneration occurs, and differences among humans proliferate.

Key → the vulnerability destroys the ability, not merely balances against it, when spiritual pathology occurs. Spiritual pathology is distinguished as the realization of this depravity in the soul, caused entirely by repeated volitional assents. So, one's own spiritual pathologies wreck any non-volitional 'superiorities' one has, and exacerbate whatever non-volitional 'inferiorities' one has.

Third: since the entire notion of externals improving internals is false, it doesn't matter how much external merit one has or lacks (i.e., due to determinism). This third reason why inferiority and superiority is irrelevant is perhaps the most important: what is regarded as 'inferior' or 'superior' couldn't help or hurt the real "you" — your soul — anyway. So whatever you lack or have externally, it's your soul, not the other things, which matters. Of course, the big hint here is that God paid for us, not our accoutrements. We get saved, not our works; We get saved, not our abilities.

But wait! Is one individual inferior to another? Yep. Is one individual superior to another? Yep. Does the existence of an inferiority in individual "A" hamper him? Yep. Can the individual go against his genetic (or social) programming (or handicaps)? Yep. Is it difficult to go against such things? Yep. But free will is in the soul, which by design is to learn how to dominate the body. Therefore (be prepared to chuckle!)...

Most Important Key → the inferior quality can serve to leverage a superior accomplishment. God's Justice, as ever, is ironically punning: see the last half of Romans 5. This "Key" unlocks the Glory of God's entire design for creation: the paradox of free leverage. We are more blessed by inferior problems, because they are used to create superior benefits. That's the whole design! What Adam had, is inferior to what we can get, in Christ! When God makes the soul, God of course foreknows all the bodily handicaps the individual will face. So, maybe God fashions that soul such that the resulting handicaps will advantage the individual. Thus, an adversity for "A" is a prosperity for "B", however much it may generically appear as adversity. Latin maxim comes to mind: "not all misfortune comes to injure."

It may take some minutes to absorb the enormity of this fact. Logically, God flipped depravity into Glory greater than had we all been perfect like Adam — as a measure back to Himself! And why not? If you're gonna spend $300,000 for a Rolls Royce, you had better get way more than $300,000 worth of enjoyment out of it! The higher the cost, the higher the profit better be! So, the more 'inferior', which after all, God has to bear more than you do — the more 'superior' will be the benefit baptised onto it, by Divine Decree! So, that's why Christ took on Humanity. That's why it's to God's advantage that we be allowed to be totally-depraved. And what's to God's advantage, has to be even more so to ours. For, we are (after all), a gift to the Son, for crying out loud. God, of all Persons, doesn't give chintzy, defective, gifts!

Corollary → All inequities, be they severe or minor, permanent or temporary, thus come from: 1) the genetic mutations of Adam's fallen DNA, totally apart from any volitional responsibility, or 2) spiritual maladies (volition being negative to God), or 3) some combination of the two. Habitual use of 1 John 1:9 by the believer, plus rigorous growth in Bible Doctrine thereunder, not only gradually eliminate 2) and 3)'s volitional "side", but leverage 1) into greater profit for the person than pre-Fall Adam's. After all, why would God have Christ pay? Would it not be for pure profit to Christ, to God, to everyone? As Romans 5 concludes at the end, the idea is for grace to abound all the more: Grace is the quintessential expression of Love (Romans 5:8), a Love which pours out for the object, asking for nothing in return. Pure profit, full-spectrum. Period. Nothing less than this impossibly-high benefit is acceptable to God. Therefore, He mandates and insures it!

So much for all the whining people do about their alleged problems. So much bitterness. So irrelevant. So, if you are poor, as James says, rejoice in your wealth! If rich, rejoice in your poverty! For God flips all into "greater grace", and... "Christ in you, the confidence of Glory", and "from glory to glory". Forever and ever. Let's have cheese with wine, not "oh geez" with whine. Celebrate, not commiserate.

Fourth: the entire idea that "self-esteem" requires self-merit is — insane. So all the supposed differences people use to measure themselves by themselves are utterly irrational standards. God would be asinine to make self-merit the criterion of self-esteem. Hate would do that, but Love never would. So, this fourth reason means that (alleged or real) inferiorities and superiorities are merely varieties, for everyone's enjoyment. Not competition. Proverbial expressions like "heavy hangs the head which wears the crown" testify to the fact that one has to be truly insane to believe that being 'higher' ought to be better. Better a meal of vegetables, King Solomon wryly noted. Not only is it true, that with any higher ability, go higher problems, too; not only is it true that externals don't make the soul better; most of all, it's a stupid criterion, to say self-merit should be the basis of self-esteem!

What, is one gonna stand in front of the mirror, saying "I am good, I am good"? What, is one gonna get all excited due to approbation from those lower than self? 🥳 What's the intrinsic value of that? Is that the meaning of life? Gee whiz. See, self-esteem based self-merit doesn't satisfy, so shouldn't even be a standard. And isn't. That's also Solomon's point (about the vegetables). And, more significantly, God's.

Could God make this fact more obvious? The Trinity Themselves all subordinate to Each Other, even though Equal. That's a big hint that the status of being #1 isn't actually satisfying itself. What is, then? Well, look: Son subordinates to the Father, obviously. Son made creation as a Gift to the Father, and then took on Humanity to pay for it all in His Humanity, as well! Again, as a no strings Gift. Father, too, subordinates to the Son in that He designed the Plan, in order to delight the Son, uses everything in it to Glorify the Son, and gives everything to the Son. The Holy Spirit subordinates, in that He restores everything — from the Earth (Genesis 1:2 onward), to the human (salvation and post-salvation grace and power, Sealing Ministry, etc). These things He does, as Gifts to both Father and Son. Love substitutes, subordinates. So the idea of self-esteem based on self-merit is laughable. They do love Themselves, surely — but why? Because the Attributes are lovable: whereever those attributes are. That is why we are imputed with Righteousness at salvation (2 Corinthians 5:14, 2 Corinthians 5:15, 2 Corinthians 5:19, and especially 2 Corinthians 5:21 are sample verses on this imputation). So, Love loves, not 'competes'. Wherever the merit resides. That it is, or is not, in self, is superfluous, to Love. And, where there is no merit, Love loves anyway — just a different 'flavor'. Because, Love ... loves. (See Romans 5, especially Romans 5:8, and 1 Corinthians 13.)

Moreover, Adam, who was happy pre-Fall, had no knowledge of "good", so his own self-esteem wasn't based on his own merit, as he had no concept of "good" or "bad"; he had to get such "knowledge" (hello?) by eating from that Tree. It's hard for we fallen humans to fathom, but perfect Adam and the woman didn't need to feel they were "good" in order to love themselves, or to get loved by each other. They just simply loved. In other words, were we all perfect like they were, yet unequal, we'd not even care about the inequalities, for we'd not regard our inequalities as having anything whatsoever to do with merit — or love. We'd just simply enjoy the differences. Period.

Amazing. We have no problem gawking over the different types of animals, plants, in this world — with nary a thought about their competing merits. Each has its own beauty: we know that instinctively, and enjoy each one. The variety is itself endlessly pleasing: we write just as many extolling poems about the plain wren, as we do for the peacock. Yet, boy oh boy, when God or people are involved — zap! Merit must be the criterion? Competition must exist? Are any brains working, here? No, of course not, for the brain is dissociating. And we dummies give into it.

For "Total Depravity" is all about competing merit. It is nascent in fallen man as a dissociative genetic reflex, because it was introduced into the body by means of a soul choosing a body desire (by Adam, to keep his wife) in preference to a desire to be with God (which to Adam's mind meant losing his wife). That was the essence of (Satan's, and) Adam's sin: competition with God.

• • That is why total depravity is genetic (see the punning matching?),
  • Why it is dissociative (too painful to remember one rejected God),
  • Why it is only through volition's agreement that it can "deprave" thinking (immaterial volition can alone corrupt its own immaterial soul — Adam's soul can't be materially propagated, for crying out loud).

3. Secular disciplines, as well as the Bible, offer pathological "tracing" steps to monitor and diagnose the mutation.

We can diagnostically trace the anti-mutation pathology in man, and thus derive, step by step: a) how man comes to spiritually-caused illnesses; and b) how the idea of "God" mutated into so many 'versions'. (Of course, there are a welter of other corollaries one can trace, but I'll leave the reader to figure them out and enjoy them.)

To do this tracing, one can blend what Jaynes and the above-mentioned secular disciplines observe, and what the Bible says. The two categories of sources reveal the same degenerative patterns. So, we have "two witnesses", as it were, both antagonistic to each other: secular disciplines, and God's Word. So, these two witnesses nonetheless agree as to the pattern. Thus we have something we can justifiably consider as being a reliable explanation for how it is that man mutates, in his thinking. More importantly, such tracing is invaluable, to therapeutic applications.

Here's the basic degenerative pattern both Jaynes (and others) and God explain (each in their own ways, of course). Note carefully how the degenerative pattern has the exact same structure as God's "rehabilitation" pattern.

1. The brain's dissociative reflex "responds" to a truth reminder-stimulus by sending up a "bad" or "good" valuation of it, to the soul. In either case, the brain is urging the soul to reject the stimulus's truth. The "good" valuation distorts that truth; the "bad" valuation likewise distorts that truth, but in a more obviously hostile manner. In either case, the distortion is usually accomplished by stressing some aspect, and also by denying or rationalizing away any others. This distortion is endemic to the dissociative reflex. Why? Because it's genetic: a corrupted 'cousin' of the pain or pleasure reflex, which merely says: "hurt!" or "feel good!", that's all any reflex "knows". So, in order to press its urge on the soul, which it's doing in the name of protecting the soul from harm, the inherited from Adam's Fall dissociative reflex employs any and all defense mechanisms as 'troops'.

Example: Joe Schmoe feels uncomfortable with the idea of supernaturality, so when he hears "God", his brain sends up a signal, "foolish!" using the defense mechanism of "denial". His brain also sends up the signal, "irrational — look at all those crazy Christians!"... because many Christians he's seen are demonstrably nutty, that kernel of truth justifies believing that the so-called "Christian" idea of God is also irrational (guilt by association). That's a defense mechanism of "rationalization".

2. Man agrees with his dissociative reflex's 'justification' for rejecting:

• • A particular truth,
  • In a particular way, and
  • To a particular extent.

3. The 'justification' replaces the item rejected, in the same particular way, and to the same particular extent. It's very precise.

Example: Joe Schmoe's rejection is based on his feeling of discomfort with supernaturality. That's a very precise trigger mechanism. The "particular truth" he's rejecting, is likewise precise: the Christian "God". The rejection is also done in a particular way: based upon the irrational behavior of folks he sees as "Christian". (Paul uses this same example in Romans 3, but on a broader level.) The replacing "truth" is that "reason" is the 'god' to believe in, hence he can be comforted that supernaturality does not exist. Further, "reason" becomes his "confidence", even his 'faith'. Further still, this emphasis on "reason" stands tall with respect to "God" issues. However, because "reason" is now 'god', Joe Shmoe won't recognize he's abandoning reason in other areas of his thinking. Thus, "reason" will be neglected as a judgement-criterion in other areas, because it is standing so tall, here. For example, Joe will not recognize the inherent irrationality of demanding material science methods as the arbiter of determining immaterial God.

4. As a result, the reflex has gained reinforcement from the ruling soul's volition: "yes, you are right", the reflex is told. This reinforcement causes the reflex to become stronger the next time.

• • It is more-strongly reactive to the same stimulus;
  • It is more strongly seeking associated stimuli;
  • It is more strongly "energized" to press collateral claims.
  • In short, the "yes" from the soul's volition creates power in the reflex which it did not have before. Each subsequent "yes" adds to that power.

Example: Joe Schmoe's rejection strengthens each time: he sees a "crazy" Christian, or even when he sees anything associated with any seen "crazy" Christian. Joe's objection to the "Christian God" becomes progressively hostile, rather than merely indifferent or passive, as the brain reflex strengthens in its protective function. He becomes more dismissive of collateral ideas of God, too, as the scope of the association spreads, due to his volition endowing the reflex with an ever-greater "protection" mandate.

5. The accumulation of these replacement "truths" create a "personality", with its own structure, its own reasoning process, its own growth. Over time, the progressive use of this "personality" will come to dominate the individual, come to be the individual.

Example: Over time, Joe Schmoe becomes laconic, even cold. Why? He's become increasingly distrustful of any emotional attachments, since they have become progressively-associated with irrationality, since "belief" to him has become equated with "God", and hence, insanity. So he becomes irrationally fixated on "reason", and the coldness to him epitomizes reason: the irrational conclusion is, of course, that if it's cold, it's devoid of emotion. So, must be 'objective'. So also, Joe's obsession with "science" as the sole arbiter of truth. So, if he can't "see" a thing, or has no "expert" to justify a thing exists, he disbelieves, but calls his disbelief, virtuous reason. He becomes proud to be skeptical, even cynical. That's virtue, to him, and he becomes what he considers virtuous. He thus becomes more shallow in his judgements, and far less rational: credentials matter more than substance, for the credentials themselves are deemed conclusively correct — since institutions grant them. So, those without credentials, or other mass-approbation symbols, are devalued. So, Joe values himself based on superficialities. They also come to dominate his ideas, his personality, his worldview. Status, not substance, guides his life. Irrationally. All in the name of "reason".

6. As the "personality" develops and gains dominance, it will have physical effects. In psychiatry, for example, a malady known as "hysteria", is the physical 'fulfillment' of a believed falsehood. Hysteria, like any other mental malady, varies by degree and scope. The brain makes-real the lie believed, by means of physical expression, eventually. So, if you believe you are tired, you will be tired; if you believe you are hurt, you will be hurt; if you believe "x", the brain will make "x"'s physical result in your body. Eventually, persistent belief will permanize the believed result, bodily. That is, in essence, how any mental illness comes to outwardly manifest itself.

Example: years ago, when the Beatles were in their heyday, I had met a woman in a mental institution who really believed she was pregnant by a "dead" (famous alive singer). To look at her, you'd swear she was indeed pregnant — about 7-8 months along. But, the psychiatrist told me, she was not pregnant. Her belief in the lie was so strong, she manifested the result of the lie, i.e., by looking physically pregnant.

7. Thus, spiritual degeneration creates a replacing, progressively-dominating, progressively-visible 'fulfillment' of the believed replacement lies. The conditions known as "mental illness" are but a subset of degenerative processes, which subset is relatively abnormal by human societal standards: fallen human standards.

Example: going back to Joe Schmoe, again. Joe's progressive denial of emotion makes him more emotional, but less able to see it. His discomfort thus increases. He will thus manifest a progressive withdrawal, coldness, distance. Maybe he will have ulcers or other chronic gastrointestinal problems. He may have alternating bouts of constipation. His blood pressure may be high, yet his (likely) fastidious attention to diet and health makes the high blood pressure a mystery. Maybe he will become impotent. Maybe he will obsess over details. Maybe he will become irascible, "a control freak", due to the hidden 'fight' with his emotions, so his spouse will leave him. Maybe he will go from job to job, always unsatisfied. Conversely, maybe he will become jaded, or an alcoholic. Even, suicidal. Or — just as likely — the accumulating pressure might result in a "miraculous experience", so that Joe Schmoe becomes enraptured by some mystical religion. Even, some apostate version of Christianity. All these behaviors are but the brain's attempt to relieve the internal soul pressure by external means, which volition, of course, empowers.

8. As the Bible repeatedly explains with a plethora of examples, any "strong delusion" or "madness" punishments are solely due to volitional degeneration. In unbeliever or believer. Satan knows God's Justice Rule here very well; he has the delegated role of administering these punishments, and aims to use that role to his advantage (namely, beginning of Job 1 and Job 2). He thus tries to use God's punitive faithfulness, to justify fomenting progressive spiritual illness. It's his goal. So, Satan uses the administration of "madness" (which God assigns as protective punishment) to degrade the one thus self-punished, further; and, far more importantly, to similarly infect those in the person's periphery.

Joe's rejection is partly due to the 'contagion' of so many around him believing as he: that it is irrational to believe in God, on the grounds that one can't believe in God except at the expense of 'self-esteem', which is distortedly defined as requiring independence from any higher power. So, to fit in with his group, like any animal, Joe 'buys' that definition of self-esteem, subconsciously. Thus he cannot permit any opposing reason to threaten his thus-defined sense of "self". In order to relieve this growing unfulfillable pressure, then, all he sees and hears which buttresses that sense of self is likewise 'bought' as 'good'. Thus Joe loses the ability to regulate, stop: Joe's volition-reinforced dissociation gradually produces an insatiable demand for self-satisfaction, the acquisition of ever more support for that sense of self. He's addicted to the infection. So he infects others with his mutation of the contagion which had infected him, just like a person passes on a flu virus. (Reciprocity is the means. One is reciprocally affected by the attitudes of those in one's periphery.)

What distinguishes Joe in this stage, is that he's passed the point of self-control. His self-absorption is so locked-in, he can't read any of life's data except in a manner which buttresses ego. He can't regard even the slightest thing related to self as being inconsequential. Every little thing is critical to his ego survival. He won't know that, of course. He probably will retain the veneer of morality and respectability — since those are his ego requirements. Someone looking at Joe thus wouldn't detect anything is wrong. In this manner, the outsider catches the 'virus' Joe carries, since Joe looks "good", and the outsider's self appropriates the "good" Joe represents, to the self, as a standard toward 'improvement' of self. However, some major good or bad event happening to Joe will rip away his veneer, visibly — to those intimate with Joe's personality. Such folks also catch Joe's 'virus': they adversely react to Joe. Why? Because they had believed in the veneer, and now it's gone. Disillusionment, rather than objectivity, results, for the reactors' selves made a 'mistake' to have highly-regarded Joe. So, the virus spreads. Either direction.

Caution reminder: there are organic neuroses and insanity (etc.) which are not the result of volitional negativity to God. Such maladies are not in view, here. Such maladies have organically-determinable causes which can be medically treated. For example, if one accidentally ingests certain molds, he will manifest symptoms which appear identical to certain volitionally-caused mental disorders. The resultant damage to his brain might even be permanent, and can only be "managed" by various medications and therapies. So, such cases are not in view, here.

9. Thus, much of what passes for "madness" in man, although rooted in negative volition, hence pathological spiritually, is also enhanced by Satan & Co. at a macro level. "Invisible Impact" partly explains how one can spot their 'enhancing' involvement, especially en masse. So man not only receives urges (AKA "temptation") from his congenitally-defective brain depravity, but also receives urges from Satan & Co. constantly.

They enhance by means of telepathically urging aggregate irrational behaviors of the same type, on the same subject, at the same time. Such aggregate urging validates, masks the irrational nature of the 'suggestion'. The "aggregation" quality dulls the mind to recognition that the urge is irrational, since the brain dissociatively deems high Quantity to denote high Quality. The brain dissociatively denies the idea that so many people can be infected, for if they are, then self must be infected, too. Hence, the brain responds with a majority-makes-right rationalization. Examples abound, and logically cannot be accounted for by the typical gestalt-explanations or "herd instinct", particularly since many of these 'enhancements' burst out too suddenly; or, despite overwhelming evidence of irrationality, remain so entrenched in so many.

• • Antisemitism in Hitler's Germany, and American segregation, come to mind: the widespread aggregate, and eventually, "official" acceptance made each respectable, and thus rationalized-right, despite even private awareness that such policies were morally, foundationally, wrong.
  • The millions who suddenly and privately sat transfixed, watching O.J. Simpson's white Bronco travel the freeway — for seven hours — and then wondered, why did 'I' do that?
  • Less dramatically, even though we all bemoan the banal quality of television, we still accept it. Why? It's too much for the brain to admit that what's popular or institutional, is usually of the lowest quality.
  • Similarly, we regularly accord academic or other official "achievements" as authoritatively valid, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Why? The brain is a reflex: it wants simple "yes" or "no" validities. Moreover, it's too much to admit that maybe a person's credentials don't indicate competence, for if those credentials aren't dependable, self's achievements indicate nothing, too.

Thus, Satan & Co. can "hide" the destination, as it were, of such 'enhanced' irrationalities, in the 'comfort' of sheer numbers, structures. To make them 'respectable'. In effect, so to herd man where they want mankind to go: Götterdämmerung. Lemmings. Pied Piper. It's too much for the brain to admit that we can be so easily manipulated, despite the long and successful history of propaganda. So naturally the brain will vehemently deny the idea that some supernatural creatures do this sort of thing. Thus, the obvious supernaturality of aggregate inanities, such as the short list above, goes unnoticed — or, is explained away.

10. God at some point must order the deaths of those sufficiently infected, for the sake of those still healthy enough. Progression of contagion, because authorized by Divinely-delegated punishment, is helpful up to a point (i.e., we learn from "bad" what not to do or be, just as we learn from "good" models). Beyond that point, those infected will not willingly change their minds, nor will the healthy be further benefitted.

Examples: Aggregate infection causes the downfall of neighborhoods, regions, countries, and at times, even the world. Malaise spreads (confer Hebrews 12:15). To counter the malaise, people sublimate. One such sublimation is war. More routinely, natural disasters and diseases occur to given groups at given times. So, the infected ones are sentenced to death, a penalty Satan & Co. also generally administer. This is a primary reason why God 'kills' people — to limit their contagion. For believers, this capital punishment has a special name: 1 John 5:16's "sin face-to-face with death", a public example of this is Charlie Kirk. Note: 1 John 5:16 does not mean a loss of salvation, but rather a loss of all the additional rewards Scripture conditionally promises, to those who "endure". This fact is overlooked by those who don't notice that the chapter is addressed to "children" (τεκνίον), one of the names for believers John previously defined which is better translated as "my dears"; and that it begins with a statement that believers have eternal life.

• • Frequent usage of 1 John 1:9 and study of Bible Doctrine is the key to believer sanity, just as Ephesians 6, and Romans 12:2-3 explain. (Greek of Romans 12:3, from the point where KJV says "soberly", should instead be translated something like "rational, without illusion, as God has assigned to each one a standard of thinking from Doctrine." Else, one misunderstands the verse's meaning — as happens so often with translated verses.) If the believer spiritually arrests, so stops using 1 John 1:9 (or worse, never starts), he will become physically and/or mentally ill. An example of that is August Natterer, who, in 1907 suddenly got 'ten thousand images' from "someone" (obviously demon thought transference), ultimately devolving into a series of reversing Bible Doctrine (saying that Christ couldn't fulfil salvation because he was crucified too early 🤣). Whether the particular version of his illness manifests itself as "abnormal" by fallen man's societal standards, depends on what issue Satan wants to make of that carnal believer. Beware. Don't be scared, don't be engrossed, just keep on with Doctrine. For your own sake.

• • So, it becomes necessary to frequently check the self's motives. For example, the (understandably) skeptical person reading this site might wonder, "How do I know this information isn't hallucinogenic?" Good question. If what's said here is true, then Satan & Co. will be sending the brain a strong incentive to say it is 'hallucinogenic', in order to hide the truth. If what's said here is false, then of course the reader's brain is not threatened. However, the brain might be recognizing "good" from these words and then distort them into some 'self be good' claim. In short, you have to decide for yourself what your own reaction means; what you should do, if anything, with this information.

Of course, the above description employs some Biblical views that Jaynes and secular disciplines would not countenance. Still, if you are familiar with Jaynes, or with any non-God (i.e., psychiatric) version of the underlying concepts in these 10 points, you'll see the essential structure is astonishingly similar — without reference to spirituality or demons.

• The Stages of Life, offers yet another parallel to the above structure, with zero intent to corroborate Biblical explanations (so far as I know).
• Books by psychiatrist Grant Woods* (William Glasser?) also come to mind. His main thesis, as I remember it, is that the human will is far more responsible in mental illnesses than members of his profession seem to feel comfortable admitting. I don't remember the titles of his books. The reader is invited to investigate his works.
• One might also profit from reading Pierre Janet, a fellow student with Sigmund Freud; Janet went on to become involved in neurobiology. He had a lot to say about "dissociation".

* there is no psychiatrist or psychologist by the name of Grant Woods. Perhaps brainout meant William Glasser?

In sum, the reader can find secular descriptions of the degenerative process which largely trace out these steps.

Let's now consider some examples of how the degenerative process works in deriving mutative ideas of God. Basically, these mutations occur because some, but not all of the truth about God is accepted. The reader should be able to reason out how this happens, so I'll just give the gist of the ten degenerative steps described in red text, above.

Most so-called "primitive" cultures are polytheistic. Each "god" has a particular set of (usually limited) powers over a given (usually limited) geographical area or natural force. The commonality among these cultures is the idea that each such "god" must be "appeased" by means of some "sacrifice", in return for which the sacrificer receives some benefit — or, at least, less or no harm. Thus, we see that's what's accepted, is the idea of a higher power. Thus, what we also see accepted, is the idea that this higher power is "owed" something. We further see that this higher power "responds" in some way, if what the power is "paid" satisfies it. We also see that this satisfaction is expressed in terms of conferring some benefit upon the one(s) who did the "paying". Further, most cultures depict these "gods" as being in "competition" with each other, and/or with men, at least occasionally; that they can play pranks on each other, or on men. In short, there is a capricious quality to these characterizations of these "gods".

We also see a lot of rejection. Rejected is the idea of solely one all-powerful Deity, generally. Or, variantly, rejected is the idea that the all-powerful is "alone". Further, rejected is the idea that "Deity" is absolutely Righteous, for this Deity is capable of being appeased by something man can "do". Moreover, the Deity isn't completely righteous, because the Deity is capable of being capricious. Thus, even if all-powerful, the Deity isn't necessarily just. Further still, any Deity "love", if the culture deems that attribute present at all, is definitely capable of quick shutdown. This, because the Deity is not Absolutely Righteous, so has no "backbone" to any "love". ("Love" is notably omitted from most cultures' characterizations of Deity; if named at all, the description given "love" more comports with the actual definition of "lust". Just think of all the philandering of "Zeus", for example.)

The following degenerations are thus visible:

• The brain's dissociative reflex "responds" to any truth reminder-stimuli regarding the existence of "Deity" with a moderate "yes"; however, regarding "righteousness", with a strong "no". The reflex failed to conquer the existence stimuli, but succeeded in conquering the "righteousness" stimuli — at least to a distortive (i.e., limiting) extent.
• Thus, "gods" are more acceptable than "God"; thus, "God" will excite progressively-hostile reaction, whereas "gods" will excite progressively-warm reception. Characteristics of "gods" which are too "big" to fit "gods" will likewise eventually excite hostility, but "smaller" ones will receive ever-warmer acceptance. Thus an increasing legalism, a hardening of what constitutes "gods", occurs in their thinking.
• Further, the idea of "appeasement" will likewise harden, narrow, reify. It does this, predictably, by means of an ever-greater emphasis on bodily functions. Thus, abstract thinking will decline, even if it was initially present. Roteness of movements, "sacred ritual", etc. Will come to dominate the "spiritual" life. So, any "enhancements" of that life will also be bodily-defined, i.e., taking peyote or other drugs, so to get a feeling of "communion". In short, "worship", which is supposed to be the highest way to live, becomes reified and emotional. So "lower" ways to live will begin to reflect that same emotional reification.
• Any opposition to these ideas of "gods" will provoke ever-greater hostility, in the name of loyalty to the "gods" believed. This opposition will become more physical, more antagonistic, more violent, with each successive opposition "stimulus". So, any "heretics" who even raise mild questions will come to be violently suppressed, hunted, suspected. So, loyalty itself goes on the chopping block. Father turns in child, wife turns in husband, child turns in parents — and it's all deemed "holy", in order to "serve" the "gods".
• The society with such a belief thus gradually declines and disintegrates, so that only tyrannical rule can hold it together. Fear becomes the "glue" for the continuation of that group. Fear is inward, and has the ever-growing outward expressions of pettiness, withdrawal, paranoia, persecution, mysticism (phallicism is essentially a form of mystical union), etc. Here we see the society escalate in its degeneration. Whatever "progress" it had made toward any refining of expression (e.g., in art), there's no check on the escalation, so "progress" becomes cancerous. Unstoppable. Invisible to those within the society, until it's almost too late. By then, though, even those few who detect degeneration will largely misdiagnose its cause (like Socrates did).
• Ultimately, the society dies. Another (not so weakened) power will use its competing to-gods' loyalties to justify destroying the society. Or, the society itself will simply implode.
• Along the way, of course, both the individuals in that society, as well as the society en masse become progressively afflicted with mental as well as physical maladies of all kinds.

We thus see that their ideas of "gods" determined how they themselves related to their world, to each other — in a progressively destructive manner. We should also be able to understand that the society could have been well-advanced in abstract thought — but, because abstract concepts (i.e., Absolute Righteousness) were rejected, the society progressively lost its ability to reason. Hence it isn't necessarily true that what we see as a "primitive" culture, actually "started" that way. (One can easily draw a parallel here to America's declining culture, but the reader can analyze that parallel on his own.) Most of all, we see the brain's dissociative reflex, even though not wholly successful in denying God, is nonetheless successful at distorting any god concepts into 'me be good' pathologies, with deleterious physical (i.e., mental) effects.

Of course, one doesn't need to believe in multiple "gods" to go nuts. One can cycle the patterns depicted above for multiple gods into any of the world's so-called "monotheistic" religions, and come up with the same ending: reification of worship, body-stress, consequent decline of the ability to reason due to the decline in abstract thought (due to rejection of Absolute Righteousness); along with pettiness, legalism, disloyalty to other humans, societal implosion/takeover. History is rife with examples.

Plenty of believers in the Real God go nuts: the Bible is a textbook on them. So, let's now consider some Biblical examples, to see dynamic progressions within the "mutation path" of spiritual pathologies. These examples will reveal both the mutative process, and the Lord's exacting, even punning, Protective Response: punishment-blessing. Please keep that fact in mind, as you read: even His Punishment is designed to bless. That the recipient doesn't benefit from it only happens if the recipient refuses to learn from the punishment. Such refusal speeds soul degeneration. If God did not equip man with an immaterial soul possessed of inviolable free will, there would be no possible recovery from refusal. In short, even one sin would be fatal, in that (untrue) case. So: whatever pangs of guilt one may have, take heart: recovery is always possible, so long as one is breathing.

Biblical examples show both the underlying degenerative pattern, and the many mutating variations. To see them, one must analyze the verses, for the Bible is meant to be read with the brain "on", not rotely-intoned. Use 1 John 1:9 when you do it, so that you will not fall asleep, or easily miss the logical basis underneath the seemingly simple words. (People's eyes tend to glaze over when reading Scripture, since we are all propagandized into regarding a 'holy book' as something which isn't supposed to be analyzed with the eyes open, never mind the logical conclusion that a 'book' is meant to be learned, so must be thought over, not emoted over! Therefore humor gets lost, sarcasm gets lost, and pretty much every other rhetorical device that God uses)

The mutations are very important to study, for they will show you how to diagnose (preferably your own) spiritual problems. Examples of spiritual maladies which translate into physical ones are rampant, in the Bible. Prolonged rejection of God leads often to insanity, for believers and unbelievers. You're invited to analyze some of the underlying examples (which in part led to the Lord vs. Satan's conclusions).

1. Accusations and their matched punishments: a quick reference list.

Since God really wants a free, self-sustaining, independently-happy creation; since this state can only be obtained via self choosing to learn and Love Righteousness, self needs to study and conclude, freely. Seeing someone else's conclusions will only help so much. Therefore, the list below gives you some reading you can do on your own, in the Bible. Note carefully what the person's problem was, and what was the punishment. Examine for "matching", punning concepts, metaphors, synonyms.

• Succinct descriptions of spiritual pathology are dramatically presented in Romans 1:18 through Romans 3, Deuteronomy 8, James 1. The Romans passage is the best place to start, I think, because it makes clear the progressive illness afflicts believers, not merely unbelievers; that moralistic believers are most-susceptible to spiritual illness. You can tell all this, even from translation. Biblical keywords for the progressive illnesses are many. Here are a few of them, to research: "darkened" (used everywhere in Scripture); "strong delusion" (Isaiah 41:29, 1 Thessalonians 2:11); "hard" or "hardened" (used with "heart", again, all over the Bible); "split-souled" (tamely mistranslated in English Bibles as "double-minded"), in James 1:6; "madness", in Deuteronomy 28:28 and elsewhere (Ancient Hebrew's "shigaon" devolved into the modern Yiddish "mishgoss"; adjective: "meshugge"); "whose god is their emotion", Philippians 3:19. ("σπλάγχνον" is a metaphorical term for "emotion": idiomatic meaning any Greek of the day knew. Sadly, since 'σπλάγχνον' literally means "guts", KJV and other English Bibles translate it "appetite". 🤦)

• The Fall of Adam and the woman.
• Cain's punishment for murdering Abel.
• The Ziggurat of Babel.
• The story of the Flood.
• Miriam's leprosy, for being leprously jealous of her brother Moses' authority, and of his marriage to the Ethiopian woman. If you have "Moses" (starring Ben Kingsley), you'll see some of how that played. (The movie is very inaccurate as to the historical period in which the Exodus occurred, and on some other details, but it is still worth watching, and is well cast.)
• The following Exodus incidents: golden calf; the quail; the first report from the Land (the crying); the Korah rebellion (and earthquake); the broken tablets; the 'rod that budded'; well, that whole period is chock-full of incidents! (Exodus - Joshua)

• Moses, at second Meribah (where he strikes the Rock, instead of speaking to it). Review in context of Deuteronomy 1-4, also.

• Aaron's punitive death.
• Saul's mental illness.
• David's sin with Bathsheba (fornication, then murder of her husband).
• Hezekiah's punishment.
• The Battle of Berachah: how Sennacherib's army was routed.
• Judas.
• Peter's denial.
• Paul's trip to Jerusalem, to make that vow. End of Romans is where he starts to rationalize the trip — against God's will.

• Ananias and Sapphira. Keyword: "lying".

2. Accusations and their matched punishments: Analysis.

This subsection will cover what I've come to see of the mutation process, from Biblical examples. I'll only focus on a few of them, to illustrate the mutation spectrum. Further, I would prefer to focus on how believers mutate, since how unbelievers mutate is more obvious (namely, all the differing versions of "god", and rejection of any notion of "god".) Finally, we believers are often blind to our own mutations, which in our case is much more critical to correct. So, it's hoped that the reader will thus profit from seeing the analyses below, as a sort of "mirror", to use James' term (James 1:23). That can only happen, of course, if one is using 1 John 1:9 and positive to learning. In such a state, any material viewed will be made profitable by the Holy Spirit.

We humans are creatures of reciprocity. So 'measuring back' is an apt way to communicate. So, you'll notice that the punning punishments below are very much phrased as reciprocation, a sort of anthropathic method God's Love uses to make the point: wake up!

The prime case study regarding believer mutational variations, is the Exodus Generation. These people, unlike Pharaoh, were believers. However, like Pharaoh, they were completely hardened: God was only good for the 'show' He could make. (Note: you can easily tell who's a believer by whether the person says "My | Our God" versus "Your God" in the Old Testament. "My | Our" = believer; "your" = unbeliever. Only folks who believed in God left — it was an act of faith.) Read Exodus-Numbers as a book, and note how truly insane these people behave. Romans 9-11, 1 Corinthians 10 are partly a running commentary on them. The list below summarizes some of the types of spiritual maladies they manifest:

• They want to see — and get — signs and wonders. When they get them, they are impressed, penitent. Yet, within even a few days, they become antagonistic toward God. They blame Him for their problems. They accuse Him. They don't believe He'll help them, again. In short, whatever good He does for them, they quickly forget. Whatever difficulty they have, they quickly "throw" at Him. This condition is a type of "demand syndrome" common to mental diseases like paranoia (a severe form of projection), bipolar disorder, depression, and almost any type of neurosis.
• They are hypocritical, sentimental and very emotional: they pretend to fear for their children (who they were abusing!) when they are to go into the Land and destroy the giants; when God then forbids them to go into the Land, they cry all night long (nervous breakdown, really) and then go into the Land anyway — and of course, get "chased like bees" by the folks they insanely went to attack. This symptomizes a frozen in childhood state, owing to lack of authority orientation.
• They are orgiastic: the golden calf incident. The Egyptian ritual they re-adopted was to express their rebellion. It wasn't merely about sex. Sublimation.
• They hate the desert — which is what their souls were: "Our souls are dried up!" — (Numbers 11:6), complaining about the manna just before Operation Cobra. Projection.
• They occasionally don't have water, because they aren't drinking the "water" of the Word.
• They hate God's food (which symbolized Bible Doctrine: Deuteronomy 8). Constantly they complained about the manna, and asked for meat, instead. (Ma-Nah is a nasty way to say "what is this?!"), so God "measured back" to them by sending them so much quail, that they died from gorging.
• They hate God's authority. Constantly they are seeking to overthrow Moses and undermine his authority. Rejection of authority. Power lust.
• When they ask to see proof of God Himself, and He shows Himself, they suddenly become afraid, so He only lets them see His Glory after He passes by. Denial.
• "Operation Cobra": their venom against God is so high He sends them Egyptian cobras ("fiery serpents" is a bad translation), which they would easily recognize as the cobras He freed them from in Egypt. That's why the "brass serpent" was used. (While slaves they frequently encountered these deadly snakes. The snakes were the symbols of Royal Rule, so no one was allowed to kill them. So, as slaves, they were the most vulnerable to the snakes.) Obsessiveness denoted by habitual malice. Maybe a type of paranoia.

• Ananias filled by Satan

Relevant passages include: Acts 14-23 (especially Acts 15:20, Acts 18:18, Acts 21:15-26), Galatians 1:19, 1 Corinthians 15:1-10, Romans 1:13, Romans 11:13, Romans 15:24ff, with Numbers 6. Motive shows in a number of places there, but also Romans 9:1-6. Translations don't do the Greek text justice.

It's amazing how this one man has so changed history. It's even more amazing how people even today vehemently divide over defending him or debasing him. Even Latin American soccer matches aren't so heated! Why all this attention on a squeaky-voiced, hook-nosed, kinda dumpy guy who never got married? Paul was the only apostle God entrusted with the new-in-species Doctrine Christ accomplished via His Spiritual Life down here. That's why. See, everything changed, due to the Cross, and though many believed in Him, they still believed the Law was the post-salvation life. They were too "dull", you see (Hebrews 5:11 - Hebrews 6:6). But, through the way God used to awaken Paul to eternal life, the event on the Damascus Road — Paul caught on. And he later died for it, too — went to Heaven, and was resuscitated (2 Corinthians 12 + maybe Acts 14:19). It was Paul, then, who knew the most. It was Paul who taught the others that now Christ is Risen, we are our own priests under the King-Priest. That they learned the lesson is evident from passages like Hebrews 5-7, 1 Peter 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9. So, then: for Paul to make a vow which pertained to the Age of Israel was to say that the Levitical Priesthood was higher than Christ's. Paul of course didn't mean to be so blasphemous: but who does, when emotion or arrogance drug us?

Paul's "fall", which apparently theologians deny (how, I can't fathom since Scripture is so obvious about it, and there are over 300 connected verses), centered around his lingering love for Judaism. It's understandable, and of course is not ipse wrong. But Paul's soft spot for Jerusalem translated into a recurring emotional expression regarding both his fellow Jewish believers, and the Nazarite vow; which he didn't finish the first time, being in the wrong location (Acts 18:18 — ingressive aorist means he only began to cut his hair when he realized he wasn't in Jeru, so couldn't finish the vow). He was motivated to take the vow in the first place, to thank God for delivering him from the Jewish legalists via Gallio (earlier in Acts 18 and prior). It was an emotional thing. Anyone can 'relate'!

So, years later, when God orders him to Rome permanently, he knew God was saying it doesn't matter to his long-ardent desire (see Romans 9:1-23) to teach his beloved fellow Jews about the Church Age (Paul's term, usually truncated to the lexeme "Age over the Ages"). So, like Jonah, he got stubborn again and went the opposite direction from God's geographic Will: to Jerusalem, rationalizing his go to Rome mandate into a side trip (the Romans passages, plus the movements between Achaia and Jerusalem, in Acts). Having gotten to Jerusalem, despite many warnings (Acts 19ff), he gets put on the spot by his good friend James, who calls in a past favor (Acts 15:20 compared with Acts 21:17-25). This, despite the fact that by caving in, Paul disavows what he taught in his previous epistles about the inapplicability of the Mosaic Law (Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, Romans). In short, he makes himself a hypocrite if he caves in. But he's carnal, here.

So, Paul caves in, to make peace with the Jerusalem legalists, by making a (very expensive!) Nazarite 'peace / purification' vow, plus funding four others' vows (Paul was wealthy). So, what happens when he goes into the Temple, out of fellowship, having been warned he'd be bound in chains? Paul gets thrust out of the temple by the mob (it's illegal to murder someone in the Temple 🤣); so, beaten up right before the Peace offering (which was just outside the Temple door on specified occasions) where he's supposed to shave his head and throw his hair on the fire to get 'purification' under Judaic law (which he well knows is obsolete)! Only he still doesn't get to finish cutting his hair; instead, he's being beaten by the howling mob who are also beating each other up for the privilege of being the first to kill him! Purified in the wrong way, which is of course God's punning on Paul's wrong way to reconcile (he's not using 1 John 1:9's function)! Which event 'just happens' to alert the Romans, who then rescue Paul. Which event 'just happens' to be the triggering event leading to a long imprisonment and eventual return to Rome: where he was initially supposed to go.

Who says God doesn't have a sense of humor! Paul is even shipwrecked like Jonah would have been — and instead of Paul getting thrown over, Paul (now in fellowship) saves the entire crew from getting thrown over... after all, he was going in the opposite direction from Jonah's, yet in the same direction (think about it, heh).

People similar to the 'Exodus generation' pervade history. I get the strong sense, from the way Scripture keeps stressing such folks, that most people in hell will be like these people, even as most in heaven will be like them (differentiated only by the fact that the latter at least had the objectivity to believe once in Christ). Such folks adjudge God to be only mean — they don't want a God who punishes to bless. Thus they can make themselves god, for they "suffer", you see, the mean God's punishments. This suffering makes them feel good about themselves. Okay, then: that's the 'god' they want, so that's the God they get. If unbelievers, they get hell, which will please their need to suffer. If believers, they get a status in heaven which makes them have to labor a lot (though they will have no pain). So, either way, they get an eternity cooked to order. Just like everyone else, they get "measured back".

Pride, which is what volition's "yes" makes out of the 'me be god' brain urge, always eventuates in madness. Here, that madness is a martyr complex. However nice a person may be on the surface, inside, that 'me be god' tyrant rules him. A tyrannical martyr complex in particular will have a nice, humble exterior. It's hard to dislodge, too: for the tyrant has defined self-esteem so strictly, that no admittance of weakness is available. So, when the tyrant is thus entrenched, the only way to outflank it is by appeal to the basic, common sense of self-survival: a high-enough pain level to promote the objectivity to say, "Please, God... what did I do wrong?" However, these people (like the Exodus generation) are so far gone, they substitute a type of martyr complex, so self can still pretend it is "good". (The guy in Hades, Luke 16:20ff, is a more-detailed depiction of this self-righteous condition.)

Here, in the Tribulation, you see them in spades. As usual, Scripture says pages of information with but a single verse: the Cornerstone, which these people (via projection) judged to be Vindictive and Bludgeoning, is now being sought to do that job. The One they stumbled over is adjudged by them to be at fault, so they can moan and groan in their self-righteous pain. So, by the time they say this famous verse, all of life to them is similarly tyrannical. So now, they get tyranny. So now, want the Rock to knock them dead. That's as far as their sense of grace allows them room — not enough room to actually change their minds and embrace the Rock. Oh no. They will not give up on the idea that the Rock is a Weapon against them. So, it becomes one. That's the God they still want, and that's the God they get.

Saul, handsome and taller than everyone else, succumbed to the prosperity of being king. Came to love his status more than God. So, judged God less important than his own status. So, became jealous of anyone who God loved, like — David. Became jealous of anyone who loved anyone but Saul — so, even jealous of his own son's Jonathan's love for David. So, became afflicted with a jealous madness. So, mimicking his jealousy, God 'jealously' took the kingdom from him and gave it to David. After all, Saul was installed by God, because the people thought less of God as a ruler than of a human one. So, Saul, who at inception was indeed a strong believer, should have taken deep warning of his own potential downfall. (So should we.)

People in adversity always think the grass is greener in the nicer neighbor's yard. They don't know that prosperity actually brings more adversity with it. Those below the one higher are jealous of his higher status, so there is always some kind of conflict: the one higher has to fight to keep what he has from the graspers. This provokes a type of contagion, for the one fighting comes to overvalue keeping what he has. Deflected as he is on the battle, he forgets that true enjoyment came from the One who gave him that status, and that the status itself is of no consequence.

Saul, like anyone else, got deflected. He started out with God being first, but via the constant infighting, the true material prosperity he had, and the need to preserve what he had — he lost sight of God. So, God 'lost' sight of Saul, and mimics the jealous reaction, pointedly anointing David long before Saul even knew who David was. God dragged it out, too — waiting for Saul to come to his senses, to see the punishment metaphor. Could God make it more obvious? Saul was too self-hardened, though, and died the sin unto death at the Battle of Mt. Gilboa (probably the first tactical-flanking battle in history). Of course, he went to Heaven, for he was a believer. What a waste of a kingly opportunity to grow spiritually.

Hezekiah, like Saul, had the understandable problem of being too affected by prosperity. When he was accredited with the salvation of Israel and surrounding nations from enemy encroachment, his exalted status in their eyes provoked a pride. So, at this point he's judging God as less important than what others think of him, also. In his case, though, that pride was bitter, in part because he was now, having cut God out of his life, alone.

Pride needs to make self more important than everyone and everything else. The Pyrrhic victory of achieving this 'status' is that self is alone. So, now, ya got what ya want — king of the mountain! Alone, though. What a bitter thing, to finally 'make it' — and there's no rainbow at the top. Heavy hangs the head which wears the crown.

Hezekiah kindly received Divine Discipline in the form of a bitter illness, from which he recovered because (unlike Saul), he did awaken. So, God granted him 14 more years. However, Hezekiah succumbed again, and this time the bitterness was extreme: self-blinded to God, having executed God from his life, he was 'rewarded' with seeing all his sons executed — and then his own eyes were put out. So the last sight he had was a bitter one, and he lived awhile after that, instead of himself being mercifully put to death. (More, later.)

Herod, like Saul, came to value his kingdom more than God, but a big part of the reason seems to be loyalty to his father, and to Rome. Herod is a very interesting character. He comes off being very engaging, and truly desirous of pleasing, helping. A deep-seated need for approbation, coupled with superior diplomatic skills, characterizes him. His father was very helpful to Caesar, aiding the latter to consolidate his power. Caesar rewarded him by rulership. Herod (the son) thus is Hellenized, an outlook which fits nicely with his underlying personality.

Herod, as far as I can tell (so far!), was an unbeliever. However, he was eaten alive with conflicting attitudes about Judaism, and especially about the coming of a Messiah, the Tola ("Worm") of Psalms 22 (whose blood was crushed to make the crimson dye for the robes of kings). You see Herod's split-souled attitude in a lot of ways. He married a Jewish princess (Herod was a Hasmonean Arab); he did a great many pro-Judaism works, especially the completion of the reconstruction of the Temple; he had a terrible conflict over the handling of John the Baptist, despite the latter's condemnations (which were really preemptive appeals for Herod to change his mind about Christ). He also had a conflict, it appears to me, over the entire Zealot position. He definitely had a conflict over Christ. In sum, love-hate attitudes seem to have eaten him up all of his life. Seems to be partly accounted for by some desire to be loyal to his father, too. Although he facetiously asks the Lord to do a miracle, one can't help but wonder if he didn't really want one, to justify overthrowing his father's memory, in favor of believing in Messiah (remember, his father was the one who so rabidly hated the idea of Messiah, he ordered the execution of all babies under age 2).

So Herod differs from the above two kings in that Herod was always 'on the fence' about Christ. He stayed stuck there, eaten alive by the mental conflict — so became eventually eaten alive by his body, in the worst way. Thus his prolonged, slowly-deteriorating physical condition (which is too gross to explain here) gave him ample opportunity to recognize the metaphor of his mental attitude, and change his mind ("repent") to believe in Christ.

The paralytic judged himself to be too guilty for Divine Forgiveness. Thus the person had a 'paralyzed' view of God, which eventuated in he himself becoming psychosomatically paralyzed. Were it not for his four friends literally picking him up at the four corners of his blanket and throwing him before the Lord, this guy would not respect the idea that his sins were forgiven him.

Bitterness is the worst of sins, spawning dissociative expressions like vindictiveness. (confer Hebrews 12:15, Isaiah 38:15-18, Proverbs 14:10, Romans 3:14, James 3:14, Ephesians 4:31, Job7:11, 1 Samuel 1:10, Proverbs 17:25, Job 8:20, Lamentations 3:15, Lamentations 3:17, Lamentations 3:19; Isaiah 33:7, Colossians 3:19) Guilt is that form of bitterness which turns on self, rather than blaming others. This is done because the dissociative reflex of the brain has been validated with respect to self-blame. As with all such motives, this is a way of playing God: if "I" am the one guilty, but no one else, then I am God. The person using guilt of course is unaware of playing god. The brain will protect him from that awareness.

God, though, will pun it. More and more bad stuff will happen to the person, until he wakes up and realizes he's trapped himself into a corner of helplessness. That way, he can break out of the 'me be god' via guilt syndrome, and rather think, "wait! I need something!" Like God, for example.

So it was, with the paralytic. He would use the Old Testament equivalent of 1 John 1:9 (Psalms 32:5, for example), but then couldn't move on from there. He slowly descended into paralysis by progressive inner-loathing over what he'd done wrong, never letting it go, always mortgaging his future to his past: this is the flipside of self-righteousness, for guilt is a substitute for punishment. Again, playing god.

So it took the words of Christ Himself, before the guy would respect what his friends had been telling him all along — your sins are forgiven! Only the Lamb's Voice would make this guy wake up to the call of forgiveness.

I love the Greek here: θάρσει is a command! "be confident / take courage!" then, the famous, "your sins are forgiven you!" uses a Greek tense which means "permanently". Wish the English could bring it all out.

And boy, did he wake up! And never looked back. That's what we need to do with 1 John 1:9. It's Christ's payment, not our sins, which God wanted and got. So τετέλεσται, already! It is permanently finished, completed, perfected, mature! Move on, and grow!

Forgiveness is no license to sin, but a license to grow. Just as one can't add anything to faith in Christ for salvation, so also no 'addition' of penance, guilt, or other works can add to forgiveness. Move on. Name it (ὁμολογέω, translated "confess" in 1 John 1:9 really means to cite or name as in a court case) — and move on! θάρσει!

Unless, of course, you wanna play god and paralyze your life in bitter self-reproach...

We only know of the result of the Gadarenes man's illness. Majority Text says Γαδαρηνῶν; other manuscripts (like the Byzantine Text Form) say Γεργεσηνῶν. Really, the areas were contiguous but Γαδαρηνῶν is most likely the original. Backing into his malady isn't difficult, though: he was naked, despite all weather, lived in the tombs, and kept cutting himself. This, because he was possessed. To be possessed, someone has to want it. That doesn't mean one recognizes possession for what it is — but rather, the feel-good of it, the retreat from reality, is what is desired. Clearly this guy wanted to leave reality, and be dead, or at least live in a dream world. He displays the classic self-mutilation pattern of guilt, though we don't know if he really did something to be guilty for. Given his behavior after the demons were exorcised by the Lord, it appears that this guy was initially a gentle person — which is consistent with the external personality of many a guilt-ridden person. So he, like the paralytic, maybe retreated into some kind of self-blaming mode — again, judging God to be against Him. So, until he was healed — God was against him: Proverbs 3:34. (Guilt is a truly heinous sin; that religions use it often to get works out of their congregations is even more heinous.)

What we adjudge of God is what "God" we get; what life we get; what our own personality becomes. The "two-edged sword" of the Word cuts both ways. Which way shall it cut? Beware.

(Originally written October-November 2000. This is the piece which unlocked the "Lord vs. Satan" for my pea brain. Last Revised March, 2004.)

John's theme in 1 John is a how-to primer on post-Cross spiritual mechanics. Theology used to call this "experiential sanctification". Bible calls it growth, which is why John uses child-adult metaphors to depict spiritual growth thresholds, just like the other New Testament writers (and the Lord) do. So, you use these mechanics to grow up in Him, which God uses also to beat Satan in this, the last stage ("hour") of the angelic appeal trial. 1 John greatly affected my pastor. He started teaching us even more comprehensively as a result of what he learned from it in 1980, retooling everything he had taught us, prior. Obviously, I myself was completely changed by it as well (my entry under his ministry was 1971).

John's encouragement in this epistle: Being "born of God" means we are in both a temporal and eternal unimpeachable status from the moment of salvation, which is what makes us sons of God, via the Baptism of the Spirit (1 John 3, 1 John 5:13, 1 John 5:18, 1 John 5:20 — the hundred+ Baptism of the Spirit verses are too many to list here). So, let's learn to grow up and enjoy that status by "abiding" in Him: spiritual growth in our born from above (spiritual birth, unterminable) life is the theme of the epistle (1 John 1:3-4). Upshot: since we have the status, let's get the function of spiritual intimacy with God. (Paul discusses this same "upshot" in Romans 5-8.) Via that function, spiritual fellowship with believers will occur: John repeats this last phrase often to show that God first; and as a result, life with people evidences love.

These mechanics really work. Let me provide a banal illustration, which happened just now as I was re-editing this page. I have two cars, one of which I don't want to part with, but it's not worth fixing. The apartment complex apparently didn't want to tell me to get it fixed, or thought their months-prior inquiry about the car was a warning, who knows. (If someone asks you a question, you don't hear it as a warning, but maybe the one asking is trying to be diplomatic, 🤣.) So, they just put a sticker on the car warning it would be towed. So, I didn't know of this problem. So, I just happened to see the car (which I don't drive) with the sticker on it, yesterday, while driving to mail something. It would have been towed today but I didn't know that, yesterday, nor could anyone at the office tell me what the problem was, or when it would be towed, when I called them yesterday.

Being a sinner like anyone else, my first instinct was to be angry over not being told it was a problem. But, before knowing all the facts last night, I realized that I didn't want to sin. No matter why: Everything plays for Father, and that's how the Son wants it, 24/7, so everything is free from all lesser purpose. So, I'm finding myself vehemently thinking, I don't need to sin, I don't want to sin, I don't care what the problem is! This realization under this circumstance, was a real surprise! The happiness despite this upset was incredible: I only had to use 1 John 1:9 infrequently, though one of my biggest failings is annoyance over petty things. Today, of course, I just made arrangements to donate the car, and God the Son (obviously long beforehand) made arrangements so this reconciliation between the complex and me, could be met. They are happy, I am happy. See? Evidence of Love, because God is first. Bought by millions of Bible Doctrine deposits, lovingly deposited by The Spirit, even into our pea brains. God is fabulous!

Key to reading the Epistle: John uses parallelism as a rhetorical device, so you can match clauses and thus see the interrelationships among variables like sin, word, love, etc. It's kinda like math, where the formula is slightly different in one part, so you can see how that part either results from the part that is the same, or changes the part that is the same. He does this by precisely matching keywords: for example, NASB's "practice truth" in 1 John 1:6 tells you what He means by all other "practice" references in the epistle, so that all other "practice" must be a practice of truth. So, when you see "practice righteousness" in NASB's 1 John 3:7, you know it means that you practice righteousness by practicing truth. (NASB translates ποιέω as "practices"; other versions might translate it as "do" or "live by".)

Another big key, Isagogics: the reader of a translation of 1 John is severely handicapped, even though the words seem extremely simple. Isagogics matter altogether here. John uses special keywords with special definitions known to his audience. The purpose of a special word with a special definition is to incorporate by reference all previous verses and clauses which use that word. You have to know Greek culture and Jewish culture to understand the definitions. Because, a letter is written to an audience, using terms the audience would understand. Bible pays strict attention to the frame of reference of its audience, so you should as well, in order to get what God means to say.

Running physically above the encouragement purpose, John unrolls a divine drama in each of his writings, as here in 1 John. That's his larger rhetorical style, blended with age-old Old Testament metaphors, to explain God's trial purpose "from the beginning": to prove why Satan & Co.'s alternative to the Divine Plan was hellish. Bible is first a set of legal documents; one use of which, is as a deposition in a Trial — the Trial of Satan and the Fallen Angels. See Genesis 3, Matthew 25:41, Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28, beginnings of each Job 1 and Job 2, Genesis 6, etc.

You'll need to know something of the original languages to see the technical trial words, for translations never render them properly. "Satan", for example, means "opposing attorney", "legal adversary", but English either transliterates his title, or truncates it with the vague "adversary". So you've no clue what is being said, 🤣.

The promise that God (the Son) would take on Humanity and pay for sins was a big sticking point with Satan, and probably was the cause of war for him. Satan knew of this promise, as (I suppose) did all the angels, when only angels existed, and before Satan rebelled. Since 1967, My pastor has spent lots of time explaining this, and the Lord vs. Satan extrapolates to account for that origin, testing for doctrinal fit in my understanding, etc. Suffice it to say that because this promise was long known, man ended up being additionally created for the trial purpose, and of course Satan & Co. chose to mock it all. Pretty much every culture in history has some story about this beginning, each one a mutation on the same theme. So, in the Bible, the promise of such intimacy was thus derided by Satan & Co. by means of phallicism. Genesis 6, "the gods" (Satan & Co.) had sex with the women (allowed by God for that portion of the trial of course, no longer the case today in the Church Age dispensation), and phallicism has been some version of that ever since. Greek culture from Mycenae forward is thoroughly born of and saturated with, this root idea. So in the Genesis 6 court case pronouncement (רִיב), God rules to allow the four generation curse to finish out; during which time, Noah is to build that boat and alert all those laughing at him that God is really gonna tsunami everyone who doesn't believe in Him.

So the audience of the Bible was very familiar with Greek-god type concepts. So the Bible frequently makes reference to those concepts: and of course any student of history knows that the Greek pantheon is but one flavor of many worldwide versions. Same 'gods', you see. Same game played on all mankind, to mock the Redeemer to Come. To mock the Promise of His Thinking being in our hearts, as a consequence (i.e., in Jeremiah 31:31-34, the easiest translated reference to see). That's why the Jews even to this day cherish torah, for it's the word being in them, which was the promise from Genesis 3 forward (illustrated by clothing them with skins, and by Abel sacrificing the Lamb of God).

So you can't read the Bible with modern eyes. The Bible has modern uses, and 1 John constantly tells you it's supposed to be circulating in your head 24/7 — but according to the Bible's definitions, which are very precise, and rooted in the Bible, not in accordance with modern day definitions. Example: "Light" is not only a Gnostic term (for on one level he writes to refute gnosticism), but is more importantly a Hebraism, a favorite Old Testament term referencing "the beginning", "Let there be Light". The Lord used it a lot in the Gospels, since He is the Light of the World. Then the Holy Spirit, who restored the world in Genesis 1:2ff, is to restore us who were in darkness (unsaved), by infusing us with the Light who rose: hence, the Word, His Thinking 'enlightens' us. Not gnostic junk.

See? You have to know the full past infused definition of the words John uses, to get what he means. John makes heavy use of his previously written Gospel as the database for definitions. Of course the modern reader needs the same isagogics to even get the Gospel of John. See, there are temple keywords (i.e., καθαρίζω, μένω, φόβος, αἰώνιος) which were important both in the Old Testament and in Greek pantheism, and John is bonding both ideas here to show non-Jews how the Old Testament ties in; how under the "new commandment" they are to 'live in the Temple' of their bodies (made so by the Holy Spirit).

So against this trial backdrop, the Incarnation had a Chief Witness function (i.e., "Faithful and True Witness" title in Revelation 1:5, Revelation 3:14, Hebrews 1:2, Hebrews 2:3ff). So too, for us, since we get the same spiritual life (1 John 4:17), we face the same question: since "now" (Church Age) God dwells in you, how do you 'dwell in' Him? Answer: via Filling, the mechanics of which are explained in 1 John 1:9 (in context), and via the Word, the mechanics of which everyone already long knew: study your brains out under your teacher. Old Testament version is Deuteronomy 6, which is likewise a think Law all day lifestyle. New Testament parallel passages are legion, for it's the main theme of the New Testament, as a fulfillment of Genesis 3's promise of salvation.

See, you'd also have to know the many 'layers' of the meaning of σῴζω and σωτηρία, translated (usually badly) "to save" and "salvation", respectively. The terms mean first, rescue, delivery. Just as in English there are many types of rescue, delivery, saving, so also in any language. So the floor is saved to Heaven, but also, rescued from this world; delivered (devoted) to God. So many wordplays! So the entire post-salvation life is atop the 'floor' (see 1 Corinthians 3 in this connection), and you are being saved all the time! Like my pal Dashius said in #scripture, some years back: "I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved." Perfect description, fabulous way to state what the writer of Hebrews says in Hebrews 10:1-17. That's a Catholic saying, by the way. (Too bad the Catholics barnacle it with a bunch of nonsense. Too bad we all do, in variant ways.) salvation is permanent, but starts like a baby. As in, born from above. You grow up with reference to your salvation, and 1 John explains how. Every New Testament epistle is foundationally on this topic, expressing the concept in more ways than there are websites on the internet.

In 1 John, you'd have to know the Greek culture for 'dwelling' with a god: "abide" is first a technical word for what a Greek disciple of a god did; he made a permanent home as a slave to dwell in, live in the god's temple, so to be close to the god; taking care of it, thinking about the god all day — see Euripides' play, "Ion". So John can write in Scriptural shorthand because the readers were so familiar. Their familiarity, he repeats often in Chapter 2, with Greek drama flourish.

"Abide" is the verb μένω; it's a major keyword in Scripture (including the Hebrew equivalent). It has many layers of meaning, and all of them are in view: abiding in the testimony (in Word), abiding at your (military) post (staying on the job), abiding in the witness box (your faith in the testimony, the latter term having heavy Old Testament significance). Its root meaning: to dwell in the comfort of one's own home. It is translated, variously, in English: "abide", "dwell", "remain", "rest", "be in fellowship with", "be at home with", etc. As far as I can tell, Scripture writers mean all of these layers of English meanings at once, whenever they use the verb. You are resting in the Word, like Christ rested on the Cross. See also Hebrews 4. So if abiding, remaining. In the Testimony of Christ. In the Word. At your soldier's post. In the Witness Box of the Angelic Trial. At Home about It, the Word, The Thinking of Christ, for it keeps on circulating in you. So you "keep" it (1 John 2:5), cherish it, hold it close, guard it (root meaning of "keep", verb τερέω). See also Jude 9.

The verb "μένω" becomes "μονή" as a noun suffix. It's a common suffix, and always has the same connotation of the verb. So Peter's love of 'ὑπό' prefixes means the same as "μονή". Connotation of dwelling in, staying under ("Ὑπό" means under), obedience due to love. Hence the very common Bible verb, "ὑπομένω", literal, to dwell-under, but has all the connotations of the underlying μένω. So too its cognate noun, "ὑπομονή", usually drily translated "endurance" or "obedience" or (ugh) "patience", in English Bibles. My pastor likes to call it, "staying power", which is much closer to the meaning: a good thing, not a dry one. So, as you can see, this "μένω" concept is a very frequent one in the New Testament. For, in the Old Testament, it references God dwelling with us, "Immanuel". In that Tabernacle. Filling it. Get it?

Also, the translations of the temporal nature of the verbs, are pitiful. Clauses should always be understood as "during the time that (verb)". It's punctiliar. English translation sounds like you must constantly do in order to be saved, but Greek depicts fellowship, in or out. That's why John interjects with verses like 1 John 5:18, that you are saved so are rescued from a state of sin.

Now that you are permanently saved, you face a different issue, after salvation: your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, now; but are you in your own temple with Him, or are you lollygagging around in your mind, out somewhere else? Without the Spirit, without the Word, you're out (1 John 2:5 is tied to 1 John 4:12-19, and of course to 1 John 1:5-10). So the 'evidence' of being out is that you will sin, you will be in the dark, you won't love your fellow man, and you won't know God, so of course you can't love God, since you can't even love God until you know Him.

Dramatic evidence of Trial Success is that you learn and stay in word. Then you know God, then you love God, then you love your fellow man. You can't sin if you are in the Word, but only if out — so if you're not getting the word in you, you're out. But, then use 1 John 1:9 to get back in (1 John 1:5 - 1 John 2:2), because you know you are supposed to be walking in the word (1 John 2:3-6). See? It's punctiliar and 'where' you are temporally, not what you do, etc.

John also uses the socratic style of rhetoric, which was then current among his readers (Greek culture was very saturated in everyone, so this was familiar). Plus, John combines loads of Greek drama flair. Hence parallelisms abound in every verse. You read them vertically (comparing clauses in prior verses to the same ones in the verse you read) to get the matching analogy. For example, 1 John 2:5 uses "word" as a parallel to "commandment", to "truth". 1 John 4:17 plays back to 1 John 2:5, so you can see that love only gets completed via the word in US. Not works.

As he later does in Revelation, in 1 John he paints the spiritual life as a play in which God beats Satan. Greek plays were always done as a series of 'fours' (set of four distinct plays), and we are in play #3 of this set. You might say play #2, if the Lord's First Advent is play #1 of the New Testament, depending on how you classify what Bible calls the "Age", AKA "Dispensation" in theology. Play #3 is thus the Tribulation, and #4 is the Millennium. I prefer to call this play #3, with #4 being the Tribulation, because the Second Advent is a new beginning. #1 is thus the Old Testament, and #2 is the First Advent.

Outcome: because you dwell in the Temple Word where God is, you "overcome" the devil. See, in 1 John, "μένω" has all its meanings. So we are the actors, constituting evidence in the Trial, and so if we are μένω'd-out-of-Word, that's our testimony; if in, that's our testimony. John keeps on playing in and out parallelisms so the reader can see the dynamics of the witness in the trial; so he can know for himself 'where' he himself is, in or out. See, we are not so much witnesses to mankind; that's a necessary but way lower role, and is not in view in 1 John. John focuses instead on our trial witness to the superior power of abiding in the word, vs. Abiding in the world's word, which Satan wrote; our abiding in the Word produces the Love, which proves Satan wrong.

It's not about people-to-people, at all. Every clause in 1 John is explaining evidence pro or con God in the Trial. For, people are the evidence in the trial, and this is the climactic phase, which "from the beginning" God has been demonstrating. Along the way, John reinforces Paul wholly, alluding to Ephesians Temple metaphor, since John's letter is likewise dramatic; John also alludes to every major Old Testament prophecy in this letter, and like Paul stresses that this is the climactic phase of history.

Along the way, John reinforces James wholly, i.e., be a doer of the word, not just a hearer, in 1 John 3:18. Just like James stresses in James 1:1-2:26, you can't do a word you don't know; you can't do a word you don't live on like the Lord did in Matthew 4:4. The work is to live on the Word, not do things for mere people, for crying out loud. You are a temple slave, and your 'duty' is to live for God, not people. As a result of living for God on His Word, love will naturally flow out from that love... to people. Every New Testament epistle stresses this formula in many ways. Greek uses foundational elements of the language to show it's a foundation for your life: participles, genitive and dative case endings, aorist and present tenses, putting foundational characteristics at the end of verses, or dramatically out of place at the beginning of verses. (See: you gotta know the original languages of Scripture, so get under a pastor who teaches them. Such pastors do exist. Mine isn't the only one.)

Being a temple slave was always a privilege, in New Testament or Old Testament. Remember how the Levites got paid with every Levitical sacrifice? Remember how a portion of the national income tax every third year went to them for the secular portion of their duties? People forget that the Mosaic Law was in three parts: two civil, one spiritual. LXX calls these ἐντολή (Decalogue, civil), δικαιώματα (spiritual, the sacrifices and feasts), and κρίματα (jurisprudence). You'll need those keywords to navigate the New Testament and 1 John. In the Old Testament, the Levites handled all three, so their jobs were somewhat like civil servants, not solely priestly. God always separated church and state. Same idea pervades pagan temple cultures, too: it was a real nice job, alright? So, John makes allusions to the Book of Hebrews, because he's using the session and change in covenant as a database (i.e., in 1 John 2). Maybe he also alludes to stuff in Peter, but I've not yet examined the epistle for those allusions. There are tons of allusions to what the Lord said, which John recorded in the Gospel. John is building on his Gospel, since they already had that "old commandment" given to them to cherish ("keep", in most English translations, verb τηρέω means to guard, hold close, cherish, keep thinking).

You have to study in the original languages yourself, or you'll miss the angelic trial evidentiary focus which John uses. Greek drama always starts at the top, never the bottom. Reading the translation, it looks like body stuff; that's the opposite of what the Inspired Word says. So you need the exegesis. Holy Spirit will enable understanding: man's IQ is utterly irrelevant at all times.

See, because the entire Trial and history and Bible are to reveal Christ, you are to understand that there's no separation between Word and Person. So all New Testament epistles use "Christ" to also mean the Bible, for it's His Thinking. Hence, Christ = Word = Truth = Love = Righteousness = Eternal Life. It's always talking about God's Nature, which includes the Bible, His Thinking. Any human meanings of the word arrange hierarchically well below that first tier. So, each metaphor tells you the mechanics of transference: you get filled up with Righteousness (Romans 8) by the Righteous One's thinking, for example. So, you can do righteousness because you did truth (1 John 1:6 paralleling 1 John 3:7). So if Love-Word is in you, you will thus love your fellow man.

Hints on this fact are obvious. In 1 John 4:16, for example, "have come to know and believe" tells you that "Love" is learning and living on scripture, not an emotion, for crying out loud; for, that's what Our Love Himself did (Matthew 4:4). So, we get completed in "Love", and thus are evidence of success just like He is, for we are evidence even as He was Evidence down here (1 John 4:17). "Love" is a common Bible moniker for Bible, and Paul spent all of 1 Corinthians 13 using that moniker for the completion of Canon; which John also uses as a moniker and to talk about Canon's completion, in 1 John 1:4 (Scripture is 'joy' / χαρά), 1 John 4:17, and in other ways, like in the "you have no need of anyone to teach you", which alludes to the most beloved Old Testament promise, of the Word being in our hearts in Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:8 - Hebrews 10:17. Below this meaning, all the other ones result (i.e., we love because He first loved us, because we got His Love built in us, 1 John 2:5 tying to Romans 5:5): which is the main thrust of his letter — showing how the results play out.

Also, meaning is much clearer, when you are careful in tracking how John uses these titles for the Lord. For example, the NASB translation of ζωή as "the eternal life" in 1 John 1:2, is a moniker for Christ, since He is "The Way, the Truth, and the Life". "Life" is meant, but absolutely, so "The Eternal Life" is fine. But don't mix it up with the acquisition of Eternal Life, due to salvation. See what a difference proper tracking makes? 🤣 1 John 3:15's statement that a murderer doesn't have The Eternal Life abiding in him, means a temporal out of fellowship problem due to the sin of murder; not a salvation problem. Clearly the translations of 1 John aren't good, despite John's simplicity. My pastor commented once that the simpler the Greek, the more meaningful it is, and the easier it is to screw up the translation. Maybe that's why 1 John is not well translated, especially with regard to the temporal nature of the verbs, contrasted with the unimpeachable permanence of other verbs (i.e., 1 John 5:18 compared to 1 John 5:13, compared to 1 John 3:15).

Kinda like the SNAFU in communication between my apartment complex and me: in translation, well... a vehicle of peace nearly got towed away without warning.

Beyond the above basic orientation, some surprising principles are in 1 John: here's a brief on them. The Holy Spirit will alert you to study this book, I'm certain. No one makes it in the spiritual life without these mechanics.

1. Whatever comes from a spiritual motive produces a spiritual gain.
2. Whatever comes from a non-spiritual motive produces a non-spiritual gain.
3. Spiritual motives are impossible apart from being first born from above (believer in Christ), and being in fellowship with the Holy Spirit (1 John 1:9 used, habitually).
4. Spiritual motives cannot be sustained apart from consistent learning of Bible Doctrine while in fellowship with the Holy Spirit.
5. Non-spiritual motives harm.
6. Whatever comes from a counterfeit spiritual motive (thinking oneself in the Light) produces a counterfeit spiritual gain.
7. Counterfeit spiritual gains are the most harmful of all: deceiving self, and "having a form of godliness, but denying its power", which deceives others, particularly unbelievers and young believers.
8. Satan's #1 goal is to maximize counterfeit spiritual gains. Thus he not only stunts the growth of the Body of Christ, but he dishonors Christ in the eyes of all. This goal, to the extent achieved, buys Satan time in his ongoing attempt to prove he can rule and benefit man better (i.e., gain man's "love" better) than Christ (confer beginning of Job 1 and Job 2, as well as 1 John).
9. Satan aims to prove, via Trial Arguments (e.g., Job, but the principles there apply in varying degree to us all) that God the Son made rational creatures (i.e., Satan & Co.) defective, hence too handicapped to avoid failure (sin), so no one deserves to go to the Lake of Fire. The fact that (presumably angels and) man may opt to receive the Salvation Gift doesn't ipse prove anything, since the Gift has strings: Accept salvation or burn. If strings, then God does not love, and Satan & Co.'s rebellion was justly a filing for divorce (as it were), which God should grant, without punishment; not only to Satan & Co., but to all unbelievers. (Satan thus claims to be the "savior" of all nonbelievers.)
10. The True spiritual life, true spiritual gains, buy time for mankind as a whole to receive salvation and to learn Christ, thus receiving the freedom God intended "from the beginning". (Tie in principle: salt of the earth, remnant)
11. Freedom means freedom to choose Christ (choose to receive salvation) as a floor... the ceiling is true independence, wrought by Bible Doctrine (Mind of Christ) circulating in the soul, which produces in the believer an inviolate Integrity, and thus an inviolate Love (i.e., maximum enjoyment of all circumstances and persons, be they pleasant or not). This result can only occur due to free use of volition, since Love requires choice. Such a result is superior to equality, the heart of Satan's plan. To have made rational creatures with full Integrity absent their choice to learn it (via learning God) would be tyranny, and such beings would be equal, alright: as automatons. Love does not tyrannize.
12. So, in God's Plan, spiritual gains are internal and rarely visible, because spiritual gains progressively produce love and peace, which are fundamentally quiet by nature. (confer 1 Corinthians 13, and "fruit of the Spirit" verse... Galatians 5:16?)
13. These true spiritual gains are produced solely through learning Bible Doctrine (1 John 4:4-17), because to grow spiritually, one must learn Christ; that learning produces Love for Him, and the Love for Him produces love for one's fellow man. (Tie in verses: 2 Peter 3:18, "grow in grace and in the knowledge of Our Lord and Savior.." and Ephesians 3:15-19, Ephesians 1:15-23.) Absent learning Christ, all works count for nothing, because the person doing the works is out of fellowship, or has not yet learned love. (1 John, whole epistle, plus 1 Corinthians 13, James 2:18-24 compared to James 1.)
14. Thus, the first work is to learn Christ, without which the believer is a counterfeit. This gives the believer a progressive spiritual competency in any activity he is given by God to do; he is able to decipher, with progressive competence, the difference between false spirituality, false righteousness, and the true "deeds" God Himself orders for the believer.
15. Thus, God the Father's first priority for the believer, and the most important one, is to produce in the believer a thinking pattern progressively-more like His Son's Humanity's ("Mind of Christ", 1 Corinthians 2:16, and whole chapter). To God the Father, the person, not the person's works, are the most important, since it is the person who will be living with His Son. To Satan, by contrast, the person's works matter, and the person is expendable, for the person is only worth to Satan what he can "get" from the person.
16. Satan & Co. cannot defeat this thinking pattern, so those exposed to it or those learning it are prime targets in the Angelic Conflict. ('Major subtheme in 1 John.)
17. Seduction, more than crass attack, is the preferred tactical approach Satan & Co. take to neutralize such "targets". (Matthew 4's extremely varied and subtle temptation patterns tie in here.)
18. If the tactical objective, seduction, loses effectiveness or is insufficient, crass attacks are added (confer Job), to create a Keil und Kessel (double-envelopment) barrage against the growing believer.
19. The greater the prolongation of this double-envelopment deployment, the more spiritual gain the growing believer receives per "inch" (as it were) of offensive movement (staying in the Spirit, learning Bible Doctrine).
20. Externally, one is in circumstances such that one feels "on the edge", seemingly near-collapse (confer 1 Corinthians 10:13, 2 Corinthians 12:7-9, 2 Corinthians 4:6-10).
21. Such externals are designed to exploit our weaknesses but curb our strengths. ('Not having own righteousness; so, if we "can", God "can't", and we have cut Him out in favor of our own righteousness and competence).
22. Spiritual gains under such externals produce a massive Keil und Kessel counterattack "reply" of increasing (but always invisible) strength.
23. Such spiritual gains produce balance such that one is a Joe Palooka "bop bag"*. Satan can't knock one down and keep him down. (2 Corinthians 4:6-10 ties in). * In the 1950's, the Ideal Toy Company made inflatable vinyl punching bags (branded 'bop bags') with a weighted base, featuring the Joe Palooka boxing character. When the kid punched the bag, it would rock back and forth, but could not remain struck down, due to the weighted base. So also, the believer can be struck down, but not kept down, due to his maturity in Christ, learned via Bible Doctrine (2 Corinthians 4:6-10, compared to 1 John 1:4 - 1 John 2:6, and all of 1 John 4, plus Ephesians 1 and Ephesians 3).
24. Alternatively, if the believer collapses under the weight of these externals, or otherwise becomes negative to further spiritual growth, he lapses into self-deception (thinking self in the Light), and his spiritual life arrests. At that point, he becomes progressively hardened, frozen in that spiritual growth state (i.e., "young children", "young men"), and is only going through the motions of the spiritual life, like the Ephesians ended up doing in Revelation 2. The believer becomes a spiritual casualty, and doesn't even realize it, because he's observing the "form of godliness"; instead, he is really loving the world (really, his own ego). Such a believer is most-favored by Satan & Co., for the discrediting they can make of him in the world.
25. Works done by spiritual casualties are "wood, hay, stubble" and do not count before the Judgement Seat of Christ, but the believers themselves are still saved. No works done outside the Spirit, or with insufficient competency due to lack of doctrine learned, count. (Major theme of 1 John and James).
26. Conversely, the believer who uses the 'learn My Son' mandates to hide in (pride himself on) doctrinal knowledge, and/or to excuse himself (like the qorban gimmick) from helping his fellow man is also in self-deception, and is a spiritual casualty, fancying himself to be in the Light. Idea remains: "neither to the right, nor to the left". (1 John 3, second half, and James 2:18-24)
27. Above all, the First Commandment, upgraded to the highest level in all human history, due to the Session: 'can't be happy if you don't get to the "completion" of God's Love (KJV's "perfect" is τελειόω: "to finish, complete, fulfill" and is a major keyword in all New Testament); 'can't avoid shame at Judgement Seat of Christ if you don't get to that "completion"; 'can't love your fellow man if you don't love God; 'can't love God until you know God; 'can't know God unless you learn God; 'can't learn God if not in the Spirit (1 John 1:9 used habitually); 'can't learn God if not first a believer in Christ. (1 John 4:12-17, especially 1 John 4:17, is shouted and climactic, the thrust of 1 John.)
28. The Prosecution's (God's) Trial Evidence of the believer's (freely received from Doctrine) Integrity, love and Happiness level proves God the Father's Plan superior to Satan's, in the Angelic Conflict — not — repeat, not — the believer's works.
29. Works, contrary to Satan's longstanding claims, are tangential, byproducts, and of themselves do not prove the motive behind them. It's the thought that counts. So Satan's claim that God the Son made rational creatures solely as pets He could train for His amusement reflects Satan's motive, not God's.
30. Satan's claim that rational beings were created defectively by God the Son is proven not merely wrong, but also his alleged-correction, equality, is proven both inferior and maximally-miserable.
31. Hence, the Divorce (as it were) is granted with prejudice, and the sentence of the Lake of Fire for all who have never once believed in the Son for salvation, is the new, separate 'universe' in which the divorcees shall live forever, as befits their rejecting, miserable, self-made natures.
32. However, Love has never rejected them, and instead provided all of this time and teaching so to avoid the Lake of Fire outcome, despite knowing they would forever reject Love. So, God being Omniscient, always knew and will always know the suffering; always saw and will always see the suffering; always "suffers" with them, forever. (As it were — knowing suffering is greater than feeling suffering, and God has no emotions) So Love, the motive of God's Integrity, still! Never rejects them.
33. Believers, likewise, have in varying degrees rejected the Love for God, to the extent such believers did not grow in the knowledge of Him. To the extent of their spiritual arrest during their lives on earth, and in accordance with the Covenant (or Dispensation) applicable to them, such believers shall be forever arrested at that level; however, within that level they will be able to continue to learn forever, and will be maximally happy within such level forever. (1 John 4:17, in light of whole epistle, plus Ephesians and Revelation 2-3, Revelation 19, Revelation 20)
34. In short, the eternal state (and the Millennium) is a hierarchical society, just as in the Garden Adam was the head, and the woman was the wife. Everyone will be ideally suited to his niche in that society, yet will have uncompromised free will, and will never choose to sin, even as God never chooses to sin. Such a range of inequality provides maximum enjoyment, synergy via differences, in which Love rules them all.
35. Believers who have grown to Πλήρωμα (Ephesians 3:19's "fullness" is "πλήρωμα", and is a major keyword in the New Testament, which John uses in 1 John 1:4) will be co-rulers with Christ. Purpose of the higher status is to love, just as He loves. Thus, those lower are benefitted, and gain more than were they absent rulers. (Analogous provisions apply to those of other Covenants and Dispensations, e.g., the Jeshurun class of the Old Testament.)
36. Because, it is not about Power, it is about Love, "from the beginning" (biggest theme in 1 John). Power is worthless, without love. Works are worthless, without love. Goodies are worthless, without love. Everything is worthless, without love: "for God is Love." (confer 1 John 4:12, 1 John 4:16.)

This is my collection of 1 John 1:9 videos. The video descriptions have important added information. Carefully note how easy it is to know that you always had to name your sins to God, once saved. New Testament is continuation of the rule but without animals to sacrifice, theme of Hebrews 10.

---

True Spirituality is an Absolute, a state of being: you're only spiritual, if Filled with the Spirit; you're only Filled, if breathing 1 John 1:9.

Most Christians don't even know about 1 John 1:9. So their spiritual lives are comatose. For the spiritual life has always required the Spirit, for its 'breath'. A billion good deeds by a walking corpse counts for nothing. Man's righteousness is dismissed as "menstrual rags" in the literal Hebrew of Isaiah 64:6 — infertile egg passed, ugly, smelly — only worth burying! So without that Breath, there's no life, no prayer heard... even while you are living. So the Old Testament procedure to get that Breath Back! Was Genesis 3:12-13 ("and I ate" sin-admission), Psalms 32:5. See also Psalms 41:4, Psalms 51:4, Psalms 66:18 (no prayer heard until sin named), Psalms 106:6, Jeremiah 3:25 - Jeremiah 4:1 (notice how God waits for Jeremiah 3:25, before replying in Jeremiah 4:1), Jeremiah 14:20, Daniel 9:4-5 (same 'waiting'), Micah 7:9. For the "Spirit of the Lord" (literal, Ruach-YHWH, Hebrew) gave them the Light, the Shining Word (i.e., Micah 7:9), and thus their faces would shine (like Moses); for without His Breath, they could hear nothing, know nothing, and the truth would not be in them. So they named their sins to God. And then, they were breathing, again...

The Temple in Israel was the home of the Glory of God, the Cloud Who led them; the Holy Spirit filled that Temple on its first day of Dedication, 2 Ethanim 950 BC... and no one could enter then, 1 Kings 8. So long as that Temple wasn't defiled, so long as the rituals continued, so long as Israel wanted Messiah, the Temple and the Glory, remained. When defiled, the Glory reluctantly departed, but then returned when Israel returned to her God. And when she did, she first purified that Temple, from top to bottom. So the Light of Israel returned... for awhile.

"Shub (return) to the Lord" is always and only a matter of Thinking. Bible's "heart" metaphor always signifies the circulation of Thought. For thought is to the soul what blood is to the body. Hence blood is what seals a covenant. Meaning, thought. "And Abram believed in the Lord, and it was accounted to him as (God's Own) Righteousness", Genesis 15:6 (quoted in Romans 4:1ff and James 2). Note: the belief — which is a thought — was accredited, like an accounting transaction. Not works. So you could engage in all the punctilious rituals you wanted, and all day long, too — but your inner 'cup' remained unclean. Thus explained the Lord, to the Pharisees. Thoughts on Him, shub. Thoughts off Him, no-shub. "This people worship Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me." That's how it was, then. That's how it is... now.

Then: the Promise to Come, Messiah (i.e., in Jeremiah 33:8). All other promises, rest in Him (i.e., Jeremiah 27:7's witty "noah-tsedeqah", referenced throughout Hebrews 3-4). Take the Promise of your salvation! And if you did, well... when you later sinned, you first named the sin to God; then, because Messiah had not come yet, you took that lamb (etc.) to the priest. That was then the two-part ratification procedure for Israel, which together constituted recognition, admittance that the Promised One will take away the sin. So, you usually ate some of that sacrifice, to depict belief in that Promise; and the priest did, too.

So now that the Lamb has Come and Paid: take the Promise, grab the Promise! Don't forget the Promise, don't forget the Ratification Procedure of Purification, naming your sins to God! For the Sacrifice has been completed, once and for all (theme of Hebrews 10). Peter wryly counsels all this in 2 Peter 1:1-9, deftly alluding also to Paul's Ephesians 1 language, and Hebrews 10. Peter even (uses a colloquial term? Or) makes up the word "μέγιστος", which is hilariously-bad koine Greek (which has no superlatives). But fabulously good, Doctrine. Usually translated "very great", "μέγιστος" is used as an adjective to modify "promises", in 2 Peter 1:4. Superlative among the common (= koine, which has no superlatives), because there's nothing else like these promises! Peter knew his Greek, boy oh boy. Loves to tweak its rules, too...

God's Provision, God's Plan, rests and vests in His Superlative Son, no one Like Him. So God's out to make us like Him! Him, the Promised One from Whom all Sevens Spring. The Sevened (= Promise, in Hebrew) One, in Whom all rest. The true Ark behind the Veil (Hebrews 6:18ff). Peter has all this wordplay in mind, when he uses "μέγιστος" with "promises" (the setup occurs in 2 Peter 1:3). And it was true back "then", so μέγιστος-true now, that Provision and Plan is run by 'Mom' the Choreographer, the Holy Spirit: 2 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:4, 2 Peter 1:5.

So take these promises, resources, Philippians 2:2–8 ("ὑπάρχω" in Philippians 2:8 the Divine Resources), referencing both Ephesians 1 and Romans 5: especially, the promise that if you name your sin via Psalms 32:5 and Psalms 66:18, you will be purified — cognate noun καθαρισμός, in 2 Peter 1:9. Then you can be filled up with the Divine Resources, since you are a temple, now. Your inner man is thus made strong (literal translation, passive voice in Ephesians 3:16) by the Spirit, so your inner cup is pure — at a level the Old Testament people couldn't get.

For the Old Testament people only got "ἁγιασμός", set apart from the sin (until they did it again), for they were set apart unto God (synonym for being saved). Usually translated "holy", the term really means "sanctified-to-God"; so "ἁγιασμός" was a much sought-after experiential goal in Israel; so you demonstrated your desire for it by engaging in certain rituals; chief among which, was the Nazarite vow (Numbers 6). No works, there: you cut your hair, then let it grow for so many days and then cut it again at the altar outside the Temple; then you threw the cut hair into the fire below the altar. During the time you had let your hair grow, you basically devoted the time to studying the Word; you also sacrificed certain animals (very expensive, so often someone else gave you the animals, see Acts 22). This Nazarite vow is an acknowledgement procedure that man's power and abilities counted for nothing. (Signified by the hair activity — note that the sacrifices were thus greater than normal, so all those hairy abilities increased the debt to God, principle of Romans 4:5.) So now when you remember that beautiful verse the Lord spoke, how every hair on your head is numbered, well... it's got much more meaning, huh... The Lord did not have long hair. "Nazarene" is not the same thing as "Nazarite". A Nazarite is someone who is a sinner, as Numbers 6 makes clear. So any movie or documentary showing the Lord as having long hair, is calling Him a sinner. Ignorant of Bible blasphemy, but blasphemy just the same (it's likely that the demons have influenced the pop culture visage of Christ having long hair: probably during the Tribulation, whoever they select to masquerade as "christ" for their fake second coming will have long hair and play on pop culture images). Takes five minutes to read Numbers 6. Takes months to grow your hair out, so to add to the production cost of those movies and documentaries which thus falsely portray Him...

So no purification, καθαρισμός except for the Temple, back then. Instead, the καθαρισμός was a future promise (i.e., Ezekiel 37:23). But now, yes! We get that full purification, since we are the temple (1 Corinthians 6, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 2), courtesy of Messiah: Who Came, Left, followed by the Temple (Daniel 9:26 and Hebrews 6:18ff fulfilled).

So now, come take these μέγιστοι promises! Free for the Taking: come, buy, eat without money and without price, and no hairy nonsense, either (Isaiah 55:1-6)! Take, grab and hold onto your Freedom to name your sins to God! So to keep breathing and growing up as promised by the Spirit! Peter deftly warns all this, in 2 Peter 1:9; he uses deft syntax to illustrate what happens if you forget to name sins to God; he allusively reminds them of Paul's Philippians 3:8, and then Zephaniah 1:17. Look up Zephaniah 1:17 in Hebrew or LXX, it's really gross; so translation is necessarily, way sanitized. Lexicons are either cryptically euphemistic, or won't even list the grosser words. That's the contrast theme of Peter's second letter, too. The straw man in 2 Peter 1:9 instead takes forgetfulness of the purification, not naming his sins; therefore becomes the guy in Zephaniah 1:17. So the purification and the promises, are cut off from his life, even as "of the purification" clause is cut off, dangling at the end of 2 Peter 1:9. So the straw man cuts off the promise at his end, preferring to cut a different covenant (think of the Nazarite vow's defilement); so the guy turns off his memory; so turns off the operation of the promises in 2 Peter 1:1-8. So he turns on fantasy, imagining himself spiritual: returning to his own vomit, instead of to God (contrast theme of epistle, see 2 Peter 2:22).

For when God gives you a promise, He gives you a procedure to take it. He gives you something to take, which means you can refuse. So, if negative, you refuse to take it, even if you forget; if positive, you grab it, and as often as possible! Take, grab onto, hold: verb λαμβάνω, often translated "seize", is used in context with the promise of booty; the promise of deliverance; so behind it is a strong faith. And the procedure in the Old Testament, was to seize an animal and present it to the priest, signifying that the sin will be purified by the Lamb to Come. So Isaiah 53:10 in the LXX, uses that word purified (never translated), to show the Lamb to Come will purify all who sin. At which point, there is a procedure: believe in Him like Abram did, and God makes you as righteous as He is. That was true then (Genesis 15:6), that is true now (2 Corinthians 5:21). But if you become unclean afterwards (and we all do, sin continues in time), because this Lamb paid, you name the sin to God. That was true then (Psalms 32:5, Psalms 66:18, etc.), and that is true now (1 Corinthians 11:31, 2 Peter 1:9, 1 John 1:9, among other things).

The Promised breathing capacity afforded believers via the Old Testament spiritual life was a mere sigh in the wind, compared to the filled-up standard Christ received for His spiritual life: for He was given the "Spirit without limit" (John 7:39). As a Legacy, we get the Spirit without limit, too: but without 1 John 1:9, our equivalent of those Old Testament verses, we are even more 'walking dead'. For if you get to be Filled, there is no room left for anything human. They didn't get the Spirit as we do, so their human stuff counted for something, when they were πίμπλημι'd (LXX keyword, usually mistranslated "filled", but it's like being filled up with food, so much lower in power-level). But we get "πληρόω", a total filling up, Absolute; for we are to operate solely on His Power, just as Christ did. Royalty has its privileges. And, its responsibilities.

Refer to Πίμπλημι vs. Πληρόω for further details on the Old Testament vs. New Testament "filling" words. John the Baptist was "πίμπλημι" from birth (corrected translation of Luke 1:15, which only the NIV gets right in any language I can read). Christ, by contrast, was ΠΛΗΡΌΩ (i.e., Luke 4:1). Latter verb is only used for God filling you totally. No partial spirituality. It's absolute, or nada, for us Church.

Royalty has many ranks. But only the topmost ones will rule. Royalty is bred to rule, is bred to love that sacrifice more than breath itself; so for it to be denied rulership, is a grief only a Royal can know. The peasant will never know it. The world didn't ever know Jehovah Elohim as Israel did. The world will never know the Lord as we can. And in eternity, no one can know Him as well as we will — if we complete our Royal Training down here. To not do that, well... is only a grief a Royal can know... at the Bema. Not worth it, to miss using 1 John 1:9! Of course, this brainout learned that fact the hard way...

So about 10 years after Peter, when the apostle John wrote 1 John 1:9, this Absolute "Filling" Requirement — and its Royal Meaning — was so well-known, he didn't have to use the term "Filling"; he only had to remind the reader how you got it, in 1 John 1:9: name your sins to God. Else, you're in the dark, baby, and Zephaniah 1:17 is your life. For what was true then is even more true, now: one stumbles blind in the dark, if 1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:10 (see also Job 34:32, Micah 7:9). Fancying self in the Light, baby. Fancying self spiritually functional. But not. No Word, no prayer, no nothing functions, absent the Spirit = Breath. That Same Procedure which gave you physical life (Genesis 2:7b, God breathed your soul into the out-from-the-womb body at birth), is the same Procedure for your spiritual life; except that you're forever on The Respirator, the Holy Spirit: to sustain your spiritual life. For the Lord had warned them while the Temple was yet standing, in John 15 (Vine and Branches): "apart from Me, you can do nothing."

Ergo 20-some years after that Temple's second existence is gone, John reminds his readers that they are the Temple now; thus he begins his clever subtheme on old vs. new covenant, upcoming in 1 John 2; for John uses Old Testament keywords to teach what continues but upgrades. So in 1 John 1:9, he uses the famous Old Testament Temple purifying and Future Promise of purification key verb, "καθαρίζω". Our English words "catharsis" and "catheter" are cognate derivatives of the verb. What a word, "καθαρίζω". Meaning "to utterly purify", "καθαρίζω" has a very specific meaning and long-established history of usage in the LXX. Hence, all over the Old Testament you'll see "καθαρίζω" used for how the temple gets purified. Significance: completely, utterly clean, pure. Because God won't fill anything which is even one jot! Defiled. No filling, no fellowship. Empty temple, capable of nothing on its own. So the choice is a stark one: use 1 John 1:9 and you are utterly Filled with His Unfelt Power! Sin, and you are utterly desolated, bereft. No matter how much you kid yourself with works and church attendance. That was even true then. That is even more true now.

Isaiah 53:10 tells us the eternity past contract between Father and Son, hence it is precedence for 1 John 1:9. LXX of Isaiah 53:10 uses "καθαρίζω" to show how Father would impute and judge our sins in Christ; how, Father thus gets paid 'booty' by Christ's Thinking, which in turn satisfies Christ Himself (Isaiah 53:11, amalgamated). So, citing precedence, John uses "καθαρίζω" in 1 John 1:9; because the sin was prepaid on the Cross, you but name it to God.

At the beginning of 1 John 1:9, the word mistranslated "confess", is instead a courtroom verb, ὁμολογέω. It means to "admit into evidence", really. So the English "confess" is a bad translation. For, by using 1 John 1:9, you (like the Old Testament people), are citing a Courtroom Case where the sin was already Judged, the Cross. Thus in 'reply', your sin is cancelled: verb ἀφίημι, another legal term, the legal cancellation of a bad debt, usually misleadingly translated "forgive". Finally, you get καθαρίζω, purified of all wrongdoing (corrected translation, last clause in 1 John 1:9). You'll find most translations always incorrectly translate "purify" as "cleanse" (possibly demon influence, because if you look at all other religions like Hinduism, they always correctly use "purify" in the English for their version which is linked to Satan: being "purified" by the "rising dawn" 🤣 (Isaiah 14:12).

You thus regain your fellowship in God: you 'do' one thing, cite your sins, and you do that because you want your Holy Spirit breath brains back! And you can get Him back, precisely because Christ paid. So, your citation acknowledges that, just as any good attorney will tell you. God has long laid down this procedure, going all the way back to Genesis 3; and you're using it now, post-Cross... as prescribed. So in 'reply', God does two things: He

• • Cancels the sin-debt (so belay penance, don't blaspheme Christ's Payment); and
  • Purifies you from all wrongdoing. Utterly. All that past is wiped out. All you have left of the past, is your proclivity to repeat it.

But if you refuse to use 1 John 1:9 — though still saved, you are in contempt of Court — so you separate yourself away from God. So you are spiritually comatose: a walking corpse. Same is true if you later feel guilty about it, keep chaining yourself to it, etc. Paul oughta know: his sin in Acts 22 was among the worst! But what did he write a few years later, in Philippians 3:14? That he keeps on forgetting the past, pressing onward (military verb, διώκω). To look back will just paralyze you, like it did the psychosomatic cripple in Matthew 9. Christ really paid. God oughta know!

Since now each of us is a Temple indwelled by the Spirit, even as He indwelled the Jewish Temple (i.e., 1 Corinthians 6, 12, Ephesians 2), then — to purify our souls, we name our sins to God. Else, we are defiled. In that state, we can't learn squat, can't get prayers heard until we admit the sin to God. In that defiled state, our prayers go no higher than the ceiling, and Divine Punishment for "wrongdoing" (ἀδικία, last Greek word in 1 John 1:9, usually mistranslated "unrighteousness") begins. If you can't remember or classify the sin, just call it "arrogance". I do that many times a day, even if I'm not sure I've sinned, since God knows. It's helpful to name the sin, because that process trains your brain to recognize and classify for diagnostics, but you don't have to overcomplicate everything down to every last detail.

If we keep on not using 1 John 1:9, the Punishment escalates (Colossians 3:25, same "ἀδικία" term); because so long as unnamed sin remains, you deny consent to the Holy Spirit to act on you; you deny consent to His Self-Chosen, Restorative, Breathing Role (hence Ephesians 4:30, Ephesians 5:18 mandates). But watch this: since we're Royal, we don't often get 'visibly' spanked... visibility, is for peasants. Moreover, if the Royal gets harmed, those depending on the Royal get harmed. So the Royal must be protected. So others suffer, but the Royal must be left alone! So we often get the worst kind of punishment: nothing happens. Nothing happens, because we're untrainable; because, others need us to have good circumstances. So being untrainable, we mistake our ease for being "in" with God; so we won't wake up. Keeping up our Unfilled status, we eventually get capital punishment, 1 John 5:16. Upon which, we live with the Lord forever; but we're "naked", never having developed in our Royal Role for eternity. So we get a low role. Kinda like a peasant.

God is not unjust; nor is He piously vicious... like people are. True Justice does not exist if you just punish a person forever. For the first injustice is, the one doing the injustice has incurred damage. So the first justice issue is to repair and restore the damage done. All jurisprudence is based on this principle. Especially, God's. Hence, the Cross. God must be paid damages. Okay, but since the Cross did occur, it becomes unjust to keep on making the sinner pay and pay and pay what God can't use, anyhow. Screw up just a little bit, and people will demand you 'pay' forever. God is the opposite of all that. Paul 'got it' about God being opposite all that. Now you can, too: Philippians 3:14, Paul's autobiography can be yours. For Free. Get out of jail free, 1 John 1:9. So now you "grow in grace and in the Knowledge" of Him, 2 Peter 3:18: that is Glory. Now the Glory of God Who filled that Temple way back in Solomon's day (first day after Rosh Hashanah), fills you, too. That pays God, more than all the good deeds from those stupid fig leaves, until the end of the Millennium...

This mandate to use 1 John 1:9 is pretty easy to trace in the Bible, huh. It's got a consistent usage history, huh. And it's pretty simple to use, huh: takes a nanosecond when irritated in traffic, feeling afraid or guilty, and wham! Pure again. Until the next sin. Which makes it pretty doggone important to know, huh.

So in 2000 years, where's the teaching on this vital connection between 1 John 1:9 and Filling? Did you go through all the many verses cited above, to see how obvious it is in Scripture? Going back all the way to Adam, the Genesis 3:12-13 "and I ate" clauses? Sheesh: even in translation you can see it. Sure, you need the original languages in the LXX and the New Testament to grasp how deftly καθαρίζω in 1 John 1:9, references filling the Temple, which you now are. Most people don't want to learn God that much, so they don't study the God-preserved texts in the Greek and Hebrew. So almost no one anymore, teaches from those texts so you can know.

Okay: but you don't need the Greek to see the procedure in 1 John 1:9's translation, right? Read the verse in your favorite translation: what's your immediate, common-sense reaction? Oh, I better name my sins to God! And that's just about the only way people find out about this procedure. It's instinctive — I didn't know Bible as a child, but I remember using that procedure — so that's the only other way you know about it. For where is the teaching?

It's not as though 1 John was unknown. That is one of the most popular epistles (fancy term for "letter") in the New Testament. There are scads of websites talking about 1 John. But hey: just try to find even five pastors on the internet, who know that connection to Filling: who recognize that 1 John 1:9 is a courtroom claim which gets you the unfelt 'Brains' of the Holy Spirit. My pastor is one of those who did teach it, and for 50 long years he's harped on it to the point of exhaustion. Which is why God clobbered me so badly when I stopped using it for a short while, some years ago (I have no excuse, baby). But what other pastors I could find, sheesh — they were trained by my own pastor, 🤣. So they don't count in the "five"...

Sure, you can look around the internet and in history and find a whole lot of stuff about people confessing sin: but what do you really find? Distortions of 1 John 1:9, all over the place! The Catholics make you confess to "priests" (even though you are one yourself, 1 Peter 2:5,9 so you didn't need them), and then you did penance; the Protestants liked public confessions, and then assigned various punishments; you'd weep and wail to get everyone to feel sorry for you, and then you went back to the same ol' same ol'. Carnal the entire time, all these folks. That was true then, that remains true now. What a lot of walking corpses.

Now watch this: 2 Peter 1:9 (in the Greek) flat tells you that without taking the purification (καθαρισμός, shorthand for the result of naming your sins), you're not in His System (2 Peter 1:1-8). So you are blind (allusion to Zephaniah 1:17's disgusting, wallowing, state). But of course, every translation strips out the vital keyword, take — λαμβάνω, here in participial form, "λαβών". The translators thus mimic the straw man's own bad memory in 2 Peter 1:9, by forgetting to translate "λαβών"! If rendered in good English idiom, a corrected translation of 2 Peter 1:9 should read:

Exegetical Notes are vital here, or the humor will be missed: first of all, the entire passage of 2 Peter 1:1-8 is about taking the promise, which is why Peter uses "μέγιστος" — a colloquialism or an invented word — in 2 Peter 1:4. So in 2 Peter 1:9, "take" is the centerpiece of the entire passage, another item to take, not forget. Verb "λαμβάνω" has many layers of meaning; but its root sense is of grabbing and holding. Often the verb is used kinda euphemistically for rape, pillage, helping oneself to something. Connotation of wanting something, and it's free for the taking. So "seize", "grab", and similar strong words could be substituted here. By picking "λαβών", Peter alludes to the five infinitives of Isaiah 53:10, which a metaphorically depicts God 'plundering' (especially 'raping') Christ with our sins, making Him 'pregnant' with them. So, 2 Peter 1:1-8 are in Attic Greek Drama finance language, to show the 'fruit' of that plundering, The Grand Producer (God) thus equipping the actors for an expensive play going on a circuit.

See, in the Old Testament, you took an offering to the priest, named your sin, and then got purified. So you took "purification" — the animal or meal offering, depending on your finances. Peter's making wordplay on the Ultimate Purification Lamb, Christ. So you take "purification", when you name your sins, because you don't need an animal anymore. You are your own priest, too. So you name those sins. You are sinner and priest. Is this a clever phrase, or what? So why isn't "take" translated in English Bibles? This is a very obvious and witty reference to the Old Testament practice.

The translators missed all this, else they'd have properly translated 2 Peter 1:9. The goal of translation and hermeneutics is this: you first read the entire verse to "apprehend the exact thought of the writer", as my pastor puts it. Only then do you know how the words are being used, and thus how you should translate and interpret them. So look at God's Thought, here: "λαβών" is not an auxiliary verb in participial form; rather, the participle denotes a causal, preceding-event in its true sense of grabbing and holding; hence you translate it as a finite verb (which they do, but not with the right finite verb). Moreover, Peter picked the aorist tense, not the present tense. The tense choice tells you Peter's purpose: to warn against the action, since it cuts you out of a functional spiritual life (given the Divine-equipping context of 2 Peter 1:1-8). So what is the straw man of this verse wrongly grabbing? Forgetfulness! So λήθην is in the accusative case; but what the guy should have grabbed, was καθαρισμός. In which event, καθαρισμός is in its proper place in the sentence, and would become καθαρισμόν. But since the guy put forgetfulness first, you have λήθην in a proleptic position, 🤣. Cutting off purification! So the case of καθαρισμός must now become descriptive genitive of the forgetfulness, 🤣! What brilliance! Moreover, by this verse we know that the function of 1 John 1:9 was long known by the Hebraistic nickname of "καθαρισμός". Someone should do his ThD. thesis on Peter's brilliant and deliberately-unconventional use of the Greek language. Wish I coulda been that person. Peter sure knows his Greek syntax! Peter likes proleptic accusatives, especially with αὐτός. Peter is maligned by scholars, who deem him to not know Greek; they want Peter (and Paul, for that matter) to sound 'respectable' by their definition. Well, that's not God's definition, else Peter (and Paul) would not have been given Canon to write. No amanuensis, other than God the Holy Spirit, okay? End commercial message.

Check it out yourself! Do you see the word "take" (or a synonym) anywhere in your translation of 2 Peter 1:9? I looked it up in BibleWorks in English, Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese — in all the versions BibleWorks has of these languages — well? Do you see it anywhere in the translation languages you can read? 🤣 The very thing the verse warns against — forgetting — is what occurred in the very translation of it! They forgot to translate take, so they forgot to translate the reason for the blindness! Thus being blind to it! 🤣 It's as if some malevolent genie played a trick on the translators' brains for centuries. Hmmmm. No such thing as genies. Is such a thing as a smart demon...

And it's not just the translators that get duped, it appears the demons baked this "forgetting" joke in Hinduism itself, as per this quote by Krishna (who amalgamates the reverse of 2 Peter 1:9 and as well as Satan's tree of knowledge):

• स्मृतिः — memory
• ज्ञानम् — knowledge
• अपोहनम् — forgetfulness / the power of causing forgetfulness

Yeah, and somehow everyone forgets to teach it, too: century after century. No wonder we have so many goofy ideas and bad scholarship regarding Bible. No one is taking the Holy Spirit's Power and using it!

So I must use 1 John 1:9 a bazillion times a day. So it's not my power or smarts: I lost my brains in favor of His Brains when I first believed in Christ like everyone else, genitive τοῦ νοὸς, Ephesians 4:23. Holy Spirit empowers you and in fact is the Only Source of Brainpower you have, ibid. What deft wordplay, there: you can't be renewed, refreshed, reinvigorated except by Agency of the Holy Spirit. He's the Breath of your Brain, get it? So that same Holy Spirit will testify to any accuracy or inaccuracy, however surprising, in this page. Which are 'my' webpages, only in the sense that the mistakes are truly mine. Everything right... He did it, Ephesians 4:23, John 14:26 principles. Period. Not voices or visions or random Bible pages with a blind finger landing on a word. But the Holy Breath so you're not 'brain dead', brain dead spiritually. Fancying yourself spiritual and alive, just the same, running warning in 1 John.

So... isn't it about time we breathed 1 John 1:9 habitually, to avoid spiritual apnea? So we don't waste precious time? Quite some surprise, huh. And here you thought God wanted you to do all the huffing and puffing, 🤣. When instead He's always said, Stay On My Respirator, The Holy Spirit!

Forgetting to teach the fact you should name your sins to God is the norm, by the way: especially, after about 1970 or so. Up until the 1960's in America, it was fairly common knowledge that this is how you got filled with the Spirit; you couldn't be a Baptist if you didn't know the verse, for example; it would be part of your Bible study, duly underlined.

Cleverness in and duration of mistranslating 2 Peter 1:9 compared to the original Greek, is provably superhuman, which is the topic of this Appendix. It matters, for one of the running themes in my webpages is an ongoing demonstration of surgically-strategic satanic tactics designed to derail the spiritual life. But if that topic doesn't interest you, stop reading here.

What follows below needs rewriting for clarity and succinctness.

We saw the dire blindness consequence of forgetting to use 1 John 1:9, in 2 Peter 1:9.

The word "μή" is used for "not", and it denies even the idea, so is a very strong negative; he not only has no Divine Resources, but even the idea of them, he lacks; he's living on a fantasy, therefore. Hence the capped "not", above. Peter's Greek wordplay doesn't port over into English well. Peter is deliberately reversing the rightful object of "take", which is "purification", and the wrongful object, "forgetfulness"; for the Greek reader, this is a very pointed construction. Literally, Peter says that the blindness comes from grabbing Forgetfulness of the "purification": Bible key term καθαρισμός. So the person grabs forgetfulness (λήθην), rather than grabbing the purification (καθαρισμός) itself. Again, this is very witty in Greek: proleptic "forgetfulness having grabbed", literally — 🤣, as if the forgetfulness was the Hero! So, okay! That's all he gets for his grabbing, 🤣! So if not grabbing what God provides, such a one is not partaking of God's Power System (2 Peter 1:1-8).

To not use 1 John 1:9 renders the spiritual life functionally comatose. That's why Satan sponsors religion — to kill your functional relationship with God. They don't care about sin, but if they can get you to sin and then not use or not know you can use 1 John 1:9, they have paralyzed your spiritual life. You have no functioning relationship with God, in that state: 1 John 1:8,10 and here in 2 Peter 1:9. So the Catholic method of you confessing to a priest, doesn't purify you, either. So the Protestant fad of you confessing to other people, doesn't purify you, either. So both religions' practice of assigning penances, doesn't purify you either; sins are named to God.

So of course, 2 Peter 1:9 must be mistranslated, in case you recognize the importance of using 1 John 1:9. And here's the typical mistranslation, so you can compare how bad it is. Notice how the mistranslation reverses the meaning! We'll pick the three most famous published translations:

So what 'message' does the mistranslation send? Oh, you only need to remember that He paid for sins! And then you'll magically get those qualities in 2 Peter 1:1-8! So you do something 'humble' — remember Christ paid for you — to get something! Ahhh, so your works beget magic! Yeah, God is supposed to be impressed that you remember His Son. 😊 Sheesh: 🙄 makes one want to vomit, huh.

"Purification" is a huge Bible keyword for this function of naming sins to God; notice how it's used by the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 1:3 (legal basis) and elsewhere. And we also saw that the Old Testament method of taking "purification", was Psalms 32:5, and Psalms 66:18, naming one's sins to God. Purification itself, is a result of Messiah coming to pay for sins; so back during the Old Testament days, the Temple depicted His Coming to do that; especially, the Holy of Holies. Hence the promise of purification was depicted in all those rituals and especially the sacrifices; so the purification of the temple was a big deal. But you'd have to take it; God doesn't foist a promise He makes on you. You can elect against taking this asset in your inherited from Christ, portfolio. So everyone long knew how one was to take it; so the warning against forgetting to take "purification", is all Peter need say in 2 Peter 1:9.

So if Satan & Co. motivate a translator to eliminate the word "take" (λαβών) from translation of 2 Peter 1:9, the entire meaning of the verse is reversed. Clever. Hence in translation, it looks like you don't need to name your sins, because they were already paid. Which makes no sense, given the welter of Old Testament information on why you had to name sins: that's like cutting out all of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy verses on the animal sacrifices, which were all sin occurring so you did the sacrifice recognition rituals for believers. Yet there's actually debate about this? With some treating verses like Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 as appositional, so you don't need to use the obvious Bible verse 1 John 1:9? Yikes! Pray for them to get common sense! A five-year old would know to admit sin to God.

Again, we're Royal. The Royal is punished at the end, and seldom visibly, before. Our "end" is the Bema: that's where we're going, Revelation 4:1 (the Rapture). Could come tomorrow. Could come 10000 years from now. So see the liability? A peasant is essentially a child in his thinking, so needs physical stuff to learn, and he learns the slow way, the hard way. But if you are not supposed to be a child, but act like one, what do other people do? They avoid you.

Petulant adults are not supposed to be spanked. So, they are left alone, whenever possible. Which means, they likely do not learn. But they are adults, so are independent, on their own. And those who refuse to use 1 John 1:9 are just like Peter describes in this verse. The behavior described in this verse plays live before your eyes. These people can't read, can't hear, twist whatever they imagine they read or hear, and it's like going down the rabbit hole with Alice, to be around them. They manufacture offense out of a mere 'hello', they are constantly full of themselves and have an iconoclastic, martyr complex — test the description in 2 Peter 1:9, see for yourself. Then try to get away from such folks as quickly as you can: 2 John goes so far as to say, "don't even greet them". They are toxic. Scary stuff.

Hence 2 Peter 1:9's mistranslation needs mistranslations to precede it; so that when you get to 2 Peter 1:9, you're thinking of yourself as the actor in all prior verses, too. This goal is deftly accomplished. The mistranslation is fuzzed up all the way back to 2 Peter 1:2, when the subject switches from Peter to the reader. First goal of mistranslation is to strip out Who is the Actor, the Holy Spirit, in 2 Peter 1:2; so εὐσέβεια (one of Peter's favorite words) is rendered "godliness". So now it looks like something 'moral' man makes of himself; "εὐσέβεια", however has the opposite meaning — what God does to you — so it's light-years higher than human morality. So in translating 2 Peter 1:3-8, the Holy Spirit is stripped out; the mistranslations throughout, denude the Greek verbs' Divine-Actor and passive meanings (action He does to you). For example, verb "ἐπιχορηγέω" in 2 Peter 1:5, is only used of God, by New Testament writers. Verb signifies the actions of the Producer and Financier of a Greek play, which from 2 Peter 1:2, we know is the Holy Spirit. So in 2 Peter 1:5, Peter wryly uses the verb in the imperative mood: it's an exhortation / order that you consent to God's doing it to you: God equips but won't coerce, 2 Peter 1:3. But the mistranslation chops out all the Divine Producership which "ἐπιχορηγέω" signifies, and reverses it into an insipid "supply", which you do. That's a good example of a translator stripping out the wealth meaning, too. The Producer of a Greek play was always rich. Human prejudice against wealth has always been with us. Satan & Co. just "λαβών", take advantage of it, here.

So now you think you ought to be doing those virtuous verbs in 2 Peter 1:3-8. So now you're religiously huffing and puffing for God, busier and busier with dead works and judgementalism. So of course by 2 Peter 1:9, the mistranslation also 'forgets' to record the one thing you are to actively do: take advantage of the Divine provision of purification, "καθαρισμός", by naming your sins to God!

So now you know why the blinded translators forgot to translate "take" in 2 Peter 1:9. So now the mistranslation makes it sound like you merely remember Christ paid for your sins — doing that will magically insure you get all those ego-building qualities in verses 2 Peter 1:1-8.

So you will miss what the verse really says in the God-breathed Greek: that precisely because He did pay, you must take advantage of that purification, by naming your sins to God. Again, same rule as in the Old Testament, as illustrated by all those rituals and sacrifices. You had first named your sins to God, Psalms 32:5 and Psalms 66:18 (etc.) to take advantage of promised purification. You took the lamb to the priest, to take advantage of the promised purification. For in those days, the purification was future, a promise. Today, it's past, and still a promise. So, a promise must be taken. Or, refused. So this mistranslation, results in a refusal, and the promise remains cut off, so long as that refusal continues. Nerd note: you can't lose your salvation. So this refusal only lasts so long as you live down here.

So, being happily clueless due to the mistranslation in 2 Peter 1:2-9, you remain nicely comatose. Just where Satan & Co. want you to be. Busier with your dead works than you ever were; happily (but secretly) patting yourself on the back about how good you are, that you remember Him. Vomit!

And here's the capstone: howling laughter mockery, the joke is on us, "Gotcha!" 😜 For by making the translators forget the key verb "take" in 2 Peter 1:9, you can't even know the mechanism which purifies the 'temple' of you! But! You could have learned this verse instead, in the God-Breathed, original language texts. Which, have been widely available to Bible translators, teachers, and now the public, beginning about 1-2 centuries ago! So historically, We deem God boring: because we won't even give His Preserved Word, the time of day! So Satan & Co. are granted a right to mess with us, as a kind of wake-up call. And they are very careful to point out how egregiously uninterested we are, by their slapstick promulgation of religion (and of course baking 2 Peter 1:9's reversal in Hinduism, but ensuring the terms are translated correctly, just not for Bibles 🤣). So it remains our fault, that we don't learn. We have been mocked... but it's our fault.

Look how the translator is mocked by Satan & Co. to mistranslate 2 Peter 1:9 so egregiously, is like flunking first-year Greek in seminary. Now do you think a translator would intend to show himself so incompetent, doing in the very process of translation, what the verse warns against? And this is but one of thousands of Bible verses, so cleverly mishandled!

Yet for over 500 years that same forgetting, occurs in every translation. And in over 500 years of teaching, that same forgetting occurs, too. You can't find the teaching in Catholicism, for sure (they make you confess to other people, and of course teach spirituality as stuff you do); you can't find it in Protestantism (they don't believe in ritual, but they do believe in the people confessing thing, and know nothing about what Filling is, generally). So where is it, all these centuries? Blips of recognition emerged in the 1930's. Then, disappeared again.

Where is this recognition, today? Again, as noted earlier, I can't find five pastors who weren't taught by mine, who know about 1 John 1:9's critical breathing importance for your spiritual life (and now they refuse to use it themselves). The closest thing to recognition, is a common emotional distortion: you tell God how sorry you are, promise to never do it again, and pick something you hate doing to atone for it. Wrongo! 1 John 1:9 is not being used, because the verse says you merely name it, no penance or emotion counts for anything. You didn't get saved by adding verbs to believe, and you don't get purified by adding verbs or emotion to naming the sin. Verb ὁμολογέω in 1 John 1:9 doesn't mean "confess", but "admit, cite" — it's a courtroom verb, you're admitting into evidence, citing, the 'courtroom' of the Cross. Same function as the presentation of the animal to the priest in the Old Testament, except the Church believer is a priest, so he does his own naming privately to God. Sample verses on the fact you are your own priest are 1 John 1:9 itself (only priests could do what you're doing, in the Old Testament), 1 Peter 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6, Revelation 5:10, all of Book of Hebrews (running subtheme, especially in Hebrews 5-10). So, you instead fantasize you're doing the verse, but 1 John 1:8 & 1 John 1:10 describes your real status. So you are still just as carnal as ever. Even, worse: because now you'll rant and rave and do penance every time you shock yourself with some sin. And grow down, not up.

So Satan & Co. are herding this thing. For good reason. The longer they can put off Church's spiritual growth, the longer they delay their own incarceration during the Millennium... and in the Lake of Fire forever. So this is a life and death matter to them, to keep us comatose. And from what I can tell, they are wildly successful: probably 99.9% of all Christians live their life in a state of carnality — especially, the religious types. For those latter think they are 'pure'. Same problem as the Pharisees had back in the Old Testament, until today.

If you test 99% of folks' claimed beliefs for sense, you discover an amazing thing: most don'T make sense. So, who's not thinking? Surely God thinks. Just as surely, René Descartes, regarded as one of the greatest thinkers of all time, wasn't thinking either. For, he wrote: "Cogito ergo sum." "I think, therefore I exist." Oh? Did he just come into existence without a cause? And this, in a treatise which is dedicated to deciphering the nature and existence of God? 🤣 "Cogita", not "Cogito". For "Cogita" means, "He thinks." That is, God. So, we needn't feel bad that 99% of our beliefs can't be rationally accounted!

So, we generally believe a thing because it 'fits in' with some feeling, or person in our periphery. Or, because 'something' about it seems right, and we aren't inclined to audit further. Of course, that's why Enron and Arthur Andersen became a mess. Why WorldCom became a mess. Why Parmalat collapsed. No thinking, so no auditing, so no monitoring, so... disaster. And we the masses, angry that such rich folks could be so non-thinking, trash the whole companies, instead of singling out a few individuals, and saving the companies. For, companies are but aggregates of people, just like nations are. We trash based on emotion (jealousy, greed, prejudice), instead of finding a more rational way to solve a problem which affects thousands of lives. Oh well: we felt like trashing. Not, thinking.

So, why believe or disbelieve based on feeling; or, because it's popular; or, because a spouse or parents or friends believe? Only five-year olds should be slaves to feeling, threatened by differing from the crowd, by change, or by mistakes. Why disbelieve because you don't like something? After all, when you were five years old, you didn't like coitus, either.

First Challenge: is the belief based on prejudice? What's so funny about intellectual arguments against God or a particular 'god' is the seething undertone of, only stupid people believe that. Oh? So if a drunk really has a million dollars, and he stupidly tells you so, he's wrong? Oh? So if a respectable person who doesn't have a million dollars lies to you, claiming he's rich, he's right? Hmmm. How easily we humans make judgements on how we feel; on how we feel about someone or something else. Then call it, 'true'. Even, "rational". Which is fine, because you have a right to feel and judge any way you like. But how smart is it, to adjudge something said about God, Who is worth way more than a mere million bucks and is not the speaker, by the speaker's attractiveness?

Frankly (hope you're sitting down and calm), there is some valid reason for prejudice. Some things people like are gross (ugly, bad, etc). Some are not gross, but if your cultural or racial or other background calls them gross, you will regard them as gross. Which, technically, isn't wrong either, because that's the societal agreement in which you live (all societies are essentially de facto agreements about how to view things corporately). Nonetheless, just as we each have our own families, so also there are other families on this planet, other societies: so to know how that other group views the same thing will help blunt prejudice, or at least make it easier to interact. This is the essence of getting along with your fellow man, AKA "manners", "diplomacy".

Note how it's not necessary to say everyone is equal; it's not necessary to say every norm is equally good. It is necessary to say that people should have the freedom to associate with whomever they will. Not, because this is a political or moral principle, but because otherwise, you have unending war. Note well: the essence of togetherness is peace, which requires reconciliation. That's why people construct on that fact all manner of moral, religious, cultural and political agreements.

When it comes to God, this question of reconciliation is all-encompassing, however. For, "God" would have to mean infinite, undivided; hence, 'Together', 'inside', so to speak, all He creates. Or, all things are 'inside' Him, but in my opinion that analogy misleads, implying God is spatial. God by definition would have to include an Attribute of Truth, too: else, how could He naturally 'stay', God? So everything, however gross, would have to be reconciled somewhere inside His Attribute of Infinite Truth. Clearly some things would require a penalty or other payment to justify reconciliation, but if that payment is made, then the thing has a justifiable place, right? However gross it may be to us, God has to reconcile it, or it can't exist. To gerrymander truth is wrong, obviously, so in God the accounting reconciliation of all things must be freely valid. Else truth is not truth, and God is not God.

So, whatever exists, must be validly accounted for. So it doesn't matter, human-to-human, if one is 'bad' and another 'good', when it comes to reporting information about God. What does matter, is whether the information is correct: the attributes of the speaker aren't God, so can't be relevant to proving the correctness of the information about God. So, if a drunk or someone in a 'bad' culture is nonetheless given the right information about God, the person's badness is irrelevant. Principle: judge data about God by its content, not its messenger. After all, if God exists, then everything reflects Him by likeness or contrast, so if He wants to use a donkey to teach an ass (Balaam, in Genesis)... (See also 2 Corinthians 2:14-16.)

Second (flipside) Challenge: how does it honor God if you don't question Him (Malachi 3:10, "ask" verses, Isaiah 7, James 3), in the name of some dogma that you must mindlessly obey, brother — to avoid guilt, or get goodies? Doesn't such 'obedience' equal a claim that God is tyrannical? After all, if God had wanted mindless obedience, couldn't He just zap that into you, thus making it easier on Himself? So, then: it makes sense that there are literally thousands of verses in the original languages of Scripture which encourage, exhort, command, even plead for you to question Think ask Think ponder Think. After all, aren't all good relationships based on shared thinking? And shouldn't the reason for man's existence be, to know God? To freely share His Thinking? Why should God, or you, settle for anything less?

Frankly, a whole lot of what God orchestrates in your life is designed to encourage you to question. All too often, we look at stories like Abram's, and say God 'tested' him, which, although true, isn't the main point. If Abram didn't have cause to question, how would he know he could question, since the root attitude we all have, is fear? Note Adam's behavior when he heard the Lord come into the Garden, in Genesis 3. Note Abram's behavior, in Genesis 13-16. Well, before he was age 99. The idea of God freaks us out. So we are afraid, naturally, to question or ask Him anything. So, in Abram's case, God promised him whole nations of heirs, but then didn't seem to make good on that promise. So that, Abram could learn to ask and get answers and trust God. A good parent will do much the same thing, lest the child remain slavishly dependent. For, if you ask, two things are happening: 1) you are curious, and 2) your brain is working. So, you learn to think. Of course, when you get an answer, because of 1) and 2), you'll use your brain more. So, you learn to think better. And so on.

Then there's the problem of disinterest, which is the deepest kind of negative volition man can have. Nod to God on Friday or Saturday or Sunday, like a laundry chore you must do. For this group, which frankly is all of us at some stage in our lives, God orchestrates punishment, with or without a long 'nothing happening' period. Idea is, such disinterest, when motivated to question, will actually, accuse (see the pattern in Genesis 3). When the 'bad' thing remains, the accusation (maybe gradually) reduces to an actual questioning. Assuming, that is, the person has any positive volition to God. Else, the accusing will only intensify, the person will become more bitter, and the punishment will upgrade to match the accusation. The story of Pharaoh in Exodus is a prime example of this latter category. Perhaps the ultimate example is Satan: illustrated by his clever, cold, dismissive, apoplectic, insinuating speech and thinking in Genesis 2, beg. Of Job 1 & Job 2, Isaiah 14, and especially, Matthew 4. English masks tone, so you can't see much of his attitude in the words.

So, in short, either to increase a person's already existing interest (but blocked by fear), or to get-negative-person-past-disinterest, God will orchestrate circumstances to motivate questioning Him.

Nonetheless, we humans come up with all sorts of reasons to justify what we believe, because we don't want to think; so we settle for soundbyte reasons... whew. Testing belief puts us face-to-face with that name, "God". For, the big problem we all have is to learn how to live on God's Word (Matthew 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3). It's not a religious issue, not even a to-people issue, but a relationship-to-God issue, a living-to-God issue. Yet who is really God? Yet what is really God's Word, as distinct from man's? How do you live on God's Word once you find it?

So most of what you see promoted or taught in any faith, Christian or no, not only doesn't answer our questions in a manner which makes sense, but is idiotic: flashy emotional appeals are made. Largely, 'to separate you and your money. Conform! Be Politically Correct! Crusade! Feel the power! Well, God isn't ever like that, which makes sense: why would the Most Gorgeous Person in the Universe need any of that tripe? So God does answer and does make sense, for no money (see Isaiah 55): you can prove this assertion, if you are willing to spend the time. For yourself. There's no need to be afraid. No need to be hostile. God is not some race or culture, that one should feel threatened.

Frankly, just ask God to help you 'see' Him better. For, think: if God exists, won't He want to answer you? Don't ask for some physical miracle, 🤣: immaterial God communicates immaterially to your immaterial soul. That's far better direct-contact testimony than even the (so-called) Red Sea parting! That's why you are a soul. People who rely on physical miracles, emotion, signs, etc. Demonstrate a desire for toys, not God: for what miracle can't be explained away? What emotion, proves anything? What sign, can't be otherwise interpreted? Don't waste God's Time, or yours: just go to the source. Ask Him, even if you're not sure if He is, or Who He is. For the real God likes to answer (see 2 Chronicles 7:14, Malachi 3:10, "seek" verses); which after all, makes sense.

In the ancient world, "rhetoric" was used to cut out emotional appeals and nonsense, so to cut through to find truth; it was an analytic system which tested the sense of a thing. To save time in testing, you took a position: 'thing X is not true', or 'X is true', etc. From there, you worked through to conclusions based on that positional premise, so that you didn't waste time with irrelevant information. The conclusion would have to reflect the premise logically. So, if the premise was incorrect, it would prove incorrect. Or, vice versa. Bible deliberately uses this style, in all its books. To save the reader, time. Book of Romans is a good sample of how "rhetoric" works to analyse and prove the truth of a thing.

The world of finance and accounting determines the truth of something's value, by means of appraisal. You've probably heard of jewelry or real estate appraisal. Well, there's another type of appraisal called "business appraisal". Most consider its methods dull (lots of grunting accounting is involved), but to appraise the worth of a large or small corporation is really an art like rhetoric. For, in that particular financial discipline there are theories, as in any other discipline. The key to proper business appraisal is to value the business according to many (at least 5) theories, and if they all come up with the same approximate value-answer, you likely have the correct value-answer. That's what rhetoric is, for valuing truth.

Finding truth key → if by different paths the same conclusion is reached, the conclusion is probably true. That's what appraisal aims to find. Different methods of evaluating the worth of the object, all reasonable methods, all of them coming close to the same dollar value, means that dollar value is likely the right one.

So also, in the analysis of truth. If reasonable methods of appraisal (here, of truth) which don't agree with your own method, also derive a similar answer as your own method did, then answer is probably right. Granted, if a whole bunch of people come up with the wrong answer, you'll also see a lot of agreement about it. With respect to finding God, this 'wrong answer agreement' happens most of the time. Fortunately, a wrong answer with respect to God will always have a glaring goofiness which is core to the agreement itself: so you can see agreement is really based on emotion, not objectivity.

For example, for millennia billions of people have believed in some form of God or gods. They keep on doing so. Granted, why and how they believe might turn out to be goofy, but so many for so long and all believing, constitutes a recurrence of the same valuation (broadly speaking), by the widest divergence of methods. So it still behooves the objective person to conclude: hey, I better investigate this idea.

By contrast, the consensus among mankind has always been that you must do something for 'god', to get favor from 'god' (or 'gods'). Here, what's core to the consensus, is the unreasonable idea that man can do something for 'god'. So man's puffing up his own value with hot air. It's goofy to claim that Someone so far better than you needs anything you've got. So this very pervasive consensus of man's worth is untrue, no matter that 99% of humanity, buys it.

Therefore, you can afford to save time by objectively analysing belief bases. A "belief base" is the foundation of a belief, not its specifics. For example, a belief base in the Koran is that God is One Absolute Person. A specific, is the belief that you give alms to the poor. You won't prove the Koran wrong if you prove the alms, because the alms question is corollary to the base of who "Allah" is claimed to be. So first test the base, which means, the nature of the deity as described in the holy book, or similar such fundamental. Later, you can audit any corollaries.

Suggest you do this analysis by assuming true the belief base, even if it turns out untrue: that's the logical equivalent of solving math equations, so saves you query time. Also, this assumption makes for greater objectivity, and saves a lot of hassle in query (people won't be threatened by your questions).

So, you can read what someone writes in a book or webpage, noting carefully why and how they 'appraise' what they call a truth. Those who believe in the Koran, have reasons. You can investigate them. Those who believe in the Bible, have reasons. You can investigate them. Between the two (here, only two mentioned), you can ask, what are the commonalities? Do the commonalities make sense? Then, of course, you'd have to analyse the books on which they base their conclusions, looking for yet more clues to commonalities. Same, with any number of sects within a particular faith. Same, in comparing holy books themselves (dispensing with human beliefs altogether, a faster system). Then, when you find a glaring goofiness, you can pitch that holy book, narrowing down the possibilities.

In sum, both the methods of rhetoric and appraisal offer objective sleuthing by means of agreement (commonality might signify an objective fact due to its recurrence), and by means of process of elimination (eliminating the goofinesses). Thus you have real data and real information upon which to construct or revise your own beliefs.

It's a solemn responsibility to learn and vote on how God is. Too little homework is disrespectful. Matthew 7:1-2 is echoed in a bazillion passages of Scripture. Too often, people are afraid to question, because they consider it disrespectful to question; hence, commit the greater disrespect of not knowing. A God Who gives you a brain would not be honored by ignorance. Especially, implacable or willful ignorance, the bane of every religion and sect ever on this planet.

It doesn't honor God that you prefer some 'sign', 'feeling', 'miracle' as proof or education about Him, when instead, He gave you a brain, a book, and a teacher. Yet, ask most anyone about how they know God lives, and you'll hear their preference for the titillating: learning is boring, 🤣. Then, it's not God they want, but a good time. How honorable is that?

It also doesn't honor God to just swallow what even a right teacher teaches, since no teacher will ever have enough time to teach all of what is behind what he teaches. So, even if you do know you've got the right definition of God, the right holy book, and the right teacher, if you don't question and seek more, you're basically telling God you don't care to know Him better, and you don't care about the teacher's efforts, either. How honorable is that? Of course, many teachers get very nervous if you question; many a faith beats you to death with don't question! Commands. Would the real God be so threatened? If 'yes', then why do you have a brain? To avoid confrontation and save your teacher time, ask God for help on what you want to know more about, or what bothers you. If you are a Christian, there's a Royal Protocol for this: use 1 John 1:9, ask father in Son's Name (Christ is our juridical basis, Romans 5:1), then talk about what you want to know. See James 1-4 for more details on how the protocol works — and fails, when folks don't follow it.

So, I write to know better. Writing webpages helps me be more objective, because I fear misstating God to another person; to me that's a horrible thing, and any cost to avoid misstatement is worthwhile. In the process of this writing, then, I find the need to frequently test and revise. Also, the process resulted in some remarkable evidentiary patterns. As applicable, these patterns are disclosed in the pages.

Of course, you must complete your own due diligence. Deductive methods are far more efficient: rhetoric, appraisal, etc. You start with A reasonable position, then test it out. Don't flail around with just facts and no premise; preferably, use a positive premise rather than a hostile one. When it comes to God questions, most (even pro-Bible) scholarship today uses hostile premises and induction, so wastes time and money. The blind leading the blind, the blind men and the elephant.

So be smart in your research: if you are a Christian, keep using 1 John 1:9 to stay online with the Holy Spirit, or you will blindly go down fake trails, like so many scholars. Save time 🤣: be online with the Spirit, not your own understanding. You will be able to prove it, after you see the answer. Again, deduction is the most efficient testing method. So, deduction is used in these webpages: you might find techniques of deduction and sleuthing which you will find profitable in your own pursuits; you might find ideas or insights helpful; but in all events, you too have to do your own testing. Each of us is individually responsible to God for what we believe: like Elihu told Job, "the ear tests truth". No one else can be blamed for our own cherished falsehoods. Blaming didn't work for Adam and the woman in the Garden when they first accused God (hypocritically — see Genesis 3), so it won't ever work for us.

So "Brain" and "Belief" begin with a "B" for a reason: belief per se is a faculty of learning — if you aren't believing, you aren't learning. (You can't learn 1 + 1 = 2 without believing it true.) Learning is based on facts and analysis, but if you don't do the fact-finding, and if you don't do the analysis, you don't learn, either. So, if you just believe absent sufficient facts or analysis (i.e., for emotional or fit in crowd reasons), then you tilt after windmills, fantasizing like poor ol' Don Quixote. Even if what you believe, is actually true! Belief assents to an idea, calling it true. So you 'learn' as a result. Trick is, not to 'learn' what's not true! Hence the foregoing rhetoric and appraisal testing styles, to help root out falsely-believed tenets, while at the same time, finding correct tenets.

So, feeling is bogus; think, use your brain. Question, test any claim for sense, always. For, God wouldn't give you a brain, give you the ability to question, learn, if He didn't want you to use that brain He gave you... right?

• Web conversion of SMP.doc

Warning: Without 1 John 1:9 your Power is out, see 1 John 1:6-10. So until you use it again, all spiritual function ceases, and you'll only fancy yourself spiritual.

Five Infinitives in Isaiah 53:10–11's transformative LXX text, run by the Holy Spirit: Power source, DDNA production, Divine energy for your human spirit and soul (see Part 3’s “5 Infinitives” section)
καθαρίζω (purify)	ἀφαιρέω (take away, plunder)	δείκνυμι (point out, make known, publish)	πλάσσω (produce by sculpting)	δικαιόω (to legally perfect by making righteous, justifying)

Ten Problem-Solving Devices ("PSDs") and Spiritual Growth Stages: (“TULIPS?” Part 5, section 4) These are my pastor's terms. They are explained in his 1985 Ephesians and 1992 Spiritual Dynamics series. Small-font parentheses are explanatory.
Spiritual Childhood			Spiritual Adolescence		Spiritual Adulthood (substage 1 and 2)				Spiritual Maturity aka “Pleroma”
1Jn1:9	Spirit-Filling (due to 1Jn1:9 used, unfelt)	Faith-Rest	Grace Orientation	Doctrinal Orientation	Personal Sense of Destiny	Personal (Divine) Love (Focus on) for Father	Impersonal Love (Independent-of-attraction) for mankind	+H, sharing (in) the Happiness of God	Occupation (Divine-Love Focus on) with Christ

Spiritual Maturation Benchmarks (Part 3’s “Spiritual Maturation Process, Overview”)
Consuming Bible	Spiritual Skills	Thought Pattern	Relationship to God	Love Growth	Trial Status	Weakness Growth

His Seven‑Faceted House of Thinking (Part 3’s “Abiding in His 7‑Faceted ‘House’”)							His Four‑Sided Divine Happiness (Part 3’s “Four Happinesses”)
Abiding Function	Abiding Desire	Abiding Development	Abiding Plunder	Abiding Victory	Abiding Intimacy	Abiding Compatibility	Hefty (His Strength)	Hearty (thought‑based)	His Own (Replication)	Husband‑ Intimate

Notes:

• Spiritual Maturation is a Filling-up-with-Word process, both learning and living on it, Romans 8:4. As spiritual growth occurs, the bottom-row blocks on this page gradually fill up while you are Filled with the Spirit, recovered via 1 John 1:9.
• The filling-up-with-Word takes a lifetime. Notice the process is bi-directional, hence exponential in its effects.
• When you finish the maturation course, all bottom-row blocks are full: your King-Sized soul is thus crowned at Bema. (δρόμος is a maturation racecourse, in 2 Timothy 4:7 -- from τρέχω, see Hebrews 12:1-2.)
• The 5 infinitives "operate" on you (Hebrews 4:12) as you use the 10 PSDs. Their results slot into Benchmark, House, & Happiness blocks. The charts help you diagnose progress.
• The 10 PSDs are actually spiritual skills you think with, problems or no; as you age, they aggregate into a spiritual maturation 'team': i.e., until you're a spiritual adult, the last five PSDs don't turn "on", though 'seeded' prior.
• So Maturation is a progressive rightward-filling up in the 10 PSDs, as you spiritually age. The rightmost one will typify your thinking the most, so it's an index of spiritual growth and salient function.
• Spiritual Maturation 'magnetizes' around the highest psd you've developed so far; and all the lower ones run through it. Took me years to figure that out.
• You take these Filled Up "riches" with you at death, as The Spirit makes them in you -- so they are "gold, silver, precious stones", constituting the "work" rewarded at the Bema, 1 Corinthians 3, Ephesians 2:10. (The word "man" is not in the Greek of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, but instead ἕκαστος is used. That's each believer, a more impersonal term; it's not the believer's own hands doing the work. The One Doing That Work is in v.16, so Paul's wordplay on Who's in view, is witty. Man can't make gold or precious stones.)

Five Infinitives, Run by the Holy Spirit: Power source, DDNA production, Divine energy for your human spirit
καθαρίζω	ἀφαιρέω	δείκνυμι	πλάσσω	δικαιόω

Ten Problem‑Solving Devices and Spiritual Growth Stages These are my pastor’s terms. They are explained in his 1985 Ephesians and 1992 Spiritual Dynamics series. Small‑font parentheses are explanatory.
Spiritual Childhood			Spiritual Adolescence		Spiritual Adulthood (substage 1 and 2)				Spiritual Maturity aka “Pleroma”
1Jn1:9	Spirit‑Filling	Faith‑Rest	Grace Orientation	Doctrinal Orientation	Personal Sense of Destiny	Personal (Divine) Love (Focus on) for Father	Impersonal (Independent‑of‑attraction) Love for mankind	+H, sharing (in) the Happiness of God	Occupation (Divine‑Love Focus on) with Christ
Usage of spiritual life (1Jn1:9) is fitful to sporadic, increasing in duration and consistency with repetition, as human ideas of God and the spiritual life dominate instead. “Faith‑Rest” is restricted to claiming simple promises and learning Basic Bible at a rudimentary level. Easily distracted and threatened. Concentration poor to sporadic. Easily led astray by false doctrine, humanistic ideas of God and the spiritual life, works, ritual, human approbation. Feeling mistakenly used as criterion for spirituality. Retardation evidenced by loss of curiosity, legalism, prickliness (hypersensitivity), stubbornness, and bizarre twisting of what is read or heard. To the extent one has such attitudes regarding ANY particular Bible doctrine, the retardation there will spread like mold to all other Bible believed.

Spiritual Maturation Benchmarks
Consuming Bible Only in Bible Class, which is rarely or sporadically attended. Low or emotional interest; but grasp? Almost nil.	Spiritual Skills Basic skills in flesh tones, with little coordination.	Thought Pattern “Faith”: Word feels like touching God, but is a jumble to the mind. Often talks to God.	Relationship‑to‑God Feely, touchy Do’s = spirituality Morality = spirituality Emotions = spirituality Judgemental	Love Growth Child’s trust, curious Spouts Bible, parrots Easily hurt	Trial Status Ignorance Believes despite discomfort in the face of putdowns by “smart” people.	Weakness Growth Threatened by every argument against Bible, defensive. Easy prey for false teachers and ideas.

His Seven‑Faceted House of Thinking							His Four‑Sided Divine Happiness
Abiding Functions Using Verses Prayer	Abiding Desires Curiosity to know Bible more.	Abiding Development Desire to know Bible grows, so Desire to know God grows.	Abiding Plunder Bible desired and recalled.	Abiding Victories God’s View begins to matter.	Abiding Intimacy Prayer	Abiding Compatibility Learning Word	Hefty (His Strength)	Hearty (thought based)	His Own (Replication)	Husband ‑ Intimate

Notes:

• Spiritual Childhood is a fleshy kind of spirituality; even when filled. Children are very body-oriented; when a child, one gets do's in order to teach knows. Hence a flesh color highlights this stage. Portions of title text highlighted or bolded signify the childhood portion of maturation. Note color and highlight changes in the next three pages, compared to this one.
• Underlined text changes the most as maturation progresses; or conversely, most speeds regress, if sustained too long. Can't stand still, in the spiritual life.
• Items listed in the "Abiding" categories most propel growth in that category, but might only be present occasionally.

Five Infinitives, Run by the Holy Spirit: Power source, DDNA production, Divine energy for your human spirit, now a daily, habitual feature of the spiritual life.
καθαρίζω	ἀφαιρέω	δείκνυμι	πλάσσω	δικαιόω

Ten Problem‑Solving Devices and Spiritual Growth Stages These are my pastor’s terms. They are explained in his 1985 Ephesians and 1992 Spiritual Dynamics series. Small‑font parentheses are explanatory.
Spiritual Childhood			Spiritual Adolescence		Spiritual Adulthood (substage 1 and 2)				Spiritual Maturity aka “Pleroma”
1Jn1:9	Spirit‑Filling	Faith‑Rest	Grace Orientation	Doctrinal Orientation	Personal Sense of Destiny	Personal (Divine) Love (Focus on) for Father	Impersonal (Independent‑of‑attraction) Love for mankind	+H, sharing (in) the Happiness of God	Occupation (Divine‑Love Focus on) with Christ
Usage of spiritual life is sporadic to regular, increasing in duration and consistency with repetition, as human ideas of God and the spiritual life come into question instead. “Faith‑Rest” expands from claiming promises and learning Basic Bible to reasoning it all out. Less distracted and threatened. Concentration sporadic, but stronger and more sustained. Still attracted by false doctrine, humanistic ideas of God and spiritual life, works, ritual, human approval. Feeling becomes less of a criterion for spirituality. Intellect begins to matter more. All ideas now questioned. Answers begin to be known. This is the stage where Bible for itself begins to compete with other values — and begins to win. Retardation evidenced by intellectual legalism, stubbornness, reversing what is read or heard. Such attitudes on ANY Bible doctrine spread like mold to all other Bible believed.

Spiritual Maturation Benchmarks
Consuming Bible In Bible Class, which is regularly attended. Ponders meaning after class, and sometimes when not in it, without external impetus. Higher interest; and grasp? Beginning!	Spiritual Skills Basic skills in gold tones, with better to good coordination. One begins seeking isolation to study and think out Bible.	Thought Pattern “Hope”: Word begins to have meaning more than feeling, begins to coalesce in the mind. Often talks to God, and asks God about MEANING of his own life. The “He” begins to replace the “me”.	Relationship‑to‑God Feely, touchy, but now also content. Do’s = spirituality, queried. Morality = spirituality, queried. Emotions = spirituality, queried. Judgementalism declines though bellicosity increases. That’s an emergent love of talking Bible, as it now begins to make sense!	Love Growth Independent trust, and still curious. Spouts Bible, parrots, and habitually reasons it out. If hurt, will seek answers. Begins to appreciate pros and cons; can get bogged down in them.	Trial Status Crossover to Cognizance, a very dangerous time. Believes with less discomfort (but more fixation) when disputed by “smart” people.	Weakness Growth Threatened by some arguments against Bible, combative. Less prey for false teachers and ideas; too likely to fight them, so may miss accurate teaching.

His Seven‑Faceted House of Thinking							His Four‑Sided Divine Happiness
Abiding Functions Using Verses Prayer	Abiding Desires Curiosity to know Bible more, burning questions.	Abiding Development Desire to know Bible grows, so Desire to know God grows.	Abiding Plunder Bible desired and recalled. Bible reasoned and found making sense. Bible enjoyed!	Abiding Victory God’s View becomes a burning question.	Abiding Intimacy Prayer Study (maybe too much)	Abiding Compatibility Learning Word, avidly.	Hefty (His Strength) Developing certainty Word is True.	Hearty (thought based) Begins here.	His Own (Replication)	Husband Intimate

Notes:

• The turning point in Spiritual Adolescence is a) Bible as a whole begins to be grasped, plus b) you realize a need to 'get serious' about it, so God's Agenda for your life becomes a burning issue. God Himself in your life, not a mere slotted routine on Wednesdays, Sundays, holidays. Switch from body-ideas to principles changes your view of spirituality, calls Churchinanity into question.

Five Infinitives, Run by the Holy Spirit: Power source, DDNA production, Divine energy for your human spirit, a daily, habitual feature of the spiritual life.
καθαρίζω	ἀφαιρέω	δείκνυμι	πλάσσω	δικαιόω

Ten Problem‑Solving Devices and Spiritual Growth Stages These are my pastor’s terms, explained in his 1985 *Ephesians* and 1992 *Spiritual Dynamics* series. Small‑font parentheses are explanatory.
Spiritual Childhood			Spiritual Adolescence		Spiritual Adulthood aka “Spiritual Self‑Esteem” (substage 1 and 2)				Spiritual Maturity aka “Pleroma”
1Jn 1:9	Spirit‑Filling	Faith‑Rest	Grace Orientation	Doctrinal Orientation	Personal Sense of Destiny	Personal (Divine) Love for Father	Impersonal Love (Independent‑of‑attraction) for mankind	+H sharing in the Happiness of God	Occupation (Divine‑Love Focus on) with Christ
Usage of spiritual life is regular to instinctive, increasing in duration and consistency with repetition, as human ideas of God and the spiritual life are progressively discarded. “Doctrinal Orientation” becomes instinctive and increasingly sophisticated. This is a beginning prosperity test, and we often flunk it as the Laodiceans did. Competence becomes the new false spirituality. Retardation appears as Bible‑smarts legalism. True Bible Competence can wreck your spiritual life if you forget Who gave it to you. It is dangerous to enjoy smarts too much.

Spiritual Maturation Benchmarks
Consuming Bible Bible Class attended instinctively, part of the daily lifestyle. One ponders meaning every day. High interest and grasp which is comfortable.	Spiritual Skills High skills in green tones, good to great coordination. Bible integrated with daily life. Too integrated, denigrates to the level of mere culture.	Thought Pattern “Hope”: Word is proven to the mind. Since answers are now known, the believer oddly stops talking with God as much as formerly. It’s a setback.	Relationship‑to‑God Content and whys dominate. Do’s = spirituality, rejected. Morality = spirituality, rejecting. Emotions = spirituality, rejected. Judgmentalism switches to those who don’t study Word. Divorces and separation from friends and family happen here (Matt 10:34–40).	Love Growth Coalesced trust, which ironically dulls curiosity. Bible reasoning dominates. If hurt, ignores it. Loves pondering pros and cons, may be fixated. ATTRACTION PHASE of Love.	Trial Status Crossover to Cognizance, very dangerous time. Enjoys debating when disputed by “smart” people. Prosperity rest ensues, so one slides into complacency.	Weakness Growth Ticked off by some arguments. Too “settled”, so misses good teaching. Too busy enjoying the “rest” of having answers. Setup for Divine Discipline to follow in substage 2.

His Seven‑Faceted House of Thinking							His Four‑Sided Divine Happiness
Abiding Functions Using Verses Prayer	Abiding Desire Easy to want to study.	Abiding Development Knowing Bible peaks.	Abiding Plunder Bible recalled often. Bible’s triumph seen. One stops to smell the roses — yikes!	Abiding Victory Tactical Victory of the spiritual life. God’s View is settled.	Abiding Intimacy Prayer Study revs up or down	Abiding Compatibility Learning Word, familiar or hot.	Hefty (His Strength) More certain Word is True.	Hearty (thought based) Bigger here.	His Own (Replication) Begins here.	Husband Intimate

Notes:

• This 1st substage of Spiritual Adulthood is a very heady time, and a major victory in the Trial -- so R&R ensues. And that's what's wrong with it. So many years spent in ignorance but now knowing, is like winning the lottery. The believer here is more mature than millions of other Christians -- and knows it. Two polar dangers result: Word complacency and/or Word-bulimia. Like any newly-rich person, this spiritual adult goes overboard. Sin patterns reverse, old relationships die -- yet that's not only the believer's fault. Commonalities once shared with intimates drop off. Divine Love for God began -- but halts. Testing and Discipline will shortly follow the R&R, as all this prosperity distracts you from His Agenda.

Five Infinitives, Run by the Holy Spirit — Power source, DDNA production, Divine energy for your human spirit, a daily habitual feature of the spiritual life.
καθαρίζω	ἀφαιρέω	δείκνυμι	πλάσσω	δικαιόω

Ten Problem‑Solving Devices and Spiritual Growth Stages These are my pastor’s terms, explained in his Ephesians (1985) and Spiritual Dynamics (1992) series.
Spiritual Childhood			Spiritual Adolescence		Spiritual Adulthood II — “Spiritual Autonomy” (substage 1 & 2)				Spiritual Maturity — “Pleroma”
1Jn 1:9	Spirit‑Filling	Faith‑Rest	Grace Orientation	Doctrinal Orientation	Personal Sense of Destiny	Personal (Divine) Love for Father	Impersonal Love for mankind	+H Sharing the Happiness of God	Occupation with Christ
• Usage of the spiritual life becomes instinctive under pressure. Human ideas of God collapse here; Jacob was lamed, and so is the believer. Some “laming” is reserved for Evidence Testing. • +H is what you live on to complete the phase, so it is not fully filled in until the phase ends. Love for Father becomes instinctive and progressively sophisticated — again, under pressure. The cockiness of substage 1 is burned out, or you are. If successful, you limp into Spiritual Maturity by the end. • You will either spin out of the spiritual life permanently here, or you will make it. Most do not make it.

Spiritual Maturation Benchmarks
Consuming Bible The pressure begets an all‑consuming interest in God and His Word. The Word becomes your life. One associates Bible meaning all day. “On Fire” grasp of Word.	Spiritual Skills Fluent, high skills in green tones; great coordination. The Bible becomes the Arbiter in every minute of your thinking. It takes over your life.	Thought Pattern “Love,” by the end of the phase. The Word is the Mind — you cannot yet handle that changeover. Talking with God becomes a constant oxygen tank by the time the phase ends.	Relationship‑to‑God You see Christ. Living is Christ. Bible is His Thinking. Bible is your thinking. Everything in the world “dies” to you as you see its flaws and your own — and see they don’t matter. Philippians 1:21 marks the end of this substage.	Love Growth Absolute Love forms by the end of this substage. Bible reasoning owns you. Compatibility phase of Love. All competing loves die here, though you don’t yet realize it.	Trial Status Cognizance reifies into seeing Him — a very dangerous time. Disputes end. Prosperity ends the phase, helping you recognize that He owns your life.	Weakness Growth You lose everything here. The stage ends with a refining of the reason for living — Philippians 1:21 becomes the sole reason. Setup for Evidence Testing to follow after respite in Spiritual Maturity.

His Seven‑Faceted House of Thinking							His Four‑Sided Divine Happiness
Abiding Functions Living on Bible. Prayer.	Abiding Desire “On fire” to learn Christ.	Abiding Development Seeing Christ. Bible now seen as His Living Mind, wholly.	Abiding Plunder You start thinking as Christ did, as your motive is to know Him better.	Abiding Victory Strategic Victory of Spiritual Maturity. Occupation with Christ becomes front‑and‑center by substage end.	Abiding Intimacy Prayer. Intimacy with Him shifts into high gear.	Abiding Compatibility Compatibility with Him becomes the burning issue — and you know you are not compatible.	Hefty (His Strength) Word is Him. You are happy. You feel like dog‑doo‑doo — and don’t care.	Hearty (thought based) His Heart. You want to know it constantly.	His Own (Replication) Becomes stable here.	Husband Intimate Begins here.

Notes:

• This 2nd substage of Spiritual Adulthood is very humiliating, but Occupation with Christ. Becomes your thinking. It had been building, but you didn't know that. This ending is the 2nd Tactical Victory and 1st Strategic victory in the Trial -- so R&R ensues. So many years spent wondering about Him: and now you really start to know HIM. You're now more mature than billions of Christians who'll ever live, but your cockiness is gone. You're exhausted and grateful, instead. The self doesn't matter anymore: HE replaced it in focus. Wholly. So now, it's time that the changeover to Him, get tested: during Πλήρωμα. A brief R&R ensues (or maybe a long one) -- and then, for the rest of your life, it's a rolling series of tests, patterned all on His.

Five Infinitives, Run by the Holy Spirit — Power source, DDNA production, Divine energy for your human spirit, a daily habitual feature of the spiritual life.
καθαρίζω	ἀφαιρέω	δείκνυμι	πλάσσω	δικαιόω

Ten Problem‑Solving Devices and Spiritual Growth Stages These are my pastor’s terms, explained in his Ephesians (1985) and Spiritual Dynamics (1992) series.
Spiritual Childhood			Spiritual Adolescence		Spiritual Adulthood (substage 1 & 2)				Spiritual Maturity — “Pleroma”
1Jn 1:9	Spirit‑Filling	Faith‑Rest	Grace Orientation	Doctrinal Orientation	Personal Sense of Destiny	Personal (Divine) Love for Father	Impersonal Love (independent‑of‑attraction) for mankind	+H Sharing the Happiness of God	Occupation with Christ (Divine‑Love Focus)
Evidence Testing fuses your thinking with Christ’s. Constant spiritual life. Many die soon afterwards. Pure Olive Combat (three phases) is covered in the referenced doctrinal materials. You live on Occupation with Christ to complete the phase. It formed at the end of Spiritual Adulthood and develops full function here. Leftover +H and Momentum Testing often begin this phase. Any personality quirks or hangups are resolved. All conflicting desires become Operation Footstool under Him.

Spiritual Maturation Benchmarks
Consuming Bible The Word became your life. Now you reflect Him—His motives and ideas before the Father. Matt 4:4 is your life. TOTAL grasp of Word.	Spiritual Skills God pours out rivers of spiritual understanding. There is nothing you cannot quickly and fluently grasp. The Bible rules your life.	Thought Pattern “Love”—Him. Everything Him. The Word is Him, 24/7. Talking with God is your oxygen tank. Bible is your thinking, 24/7, absolute.	Relationship‑to‑God You see Christ 24/7. Living is Christ. Bible is His Thinking.	Love Growth Absolute Love. Christ owns you. Rapport completion phase of Love.	Trial Status “Cognitive Invincibility” (pastor’s term). You see it play live, daily. Internal disputes end. He owns your life.	Weakness Growth Philippians 1:21. Everything you never wanted and ever wanted successively hits, and you are flattened the entire time.

His Seven‑Faceted House of Thinking							His Four‑Sided Divine Happiness
Abiding Functions Coalescing FUSION of His Thinking in you occurs now.	Abiding Desire Him.	Abiding Development You think as Christ did, to emulate Him better. You know how. It becomes instinctive.	Abiding Plunder Seeing Christ, 24/7.	Abiding Victory Strategic Victory of Pleroma — Occupation with Christ is constant.	Abiding Intimacy Prayer is constant. Intimacy with Him completes—totally aggressive and responsive at once.	Abiding Compatibility Compatibility with Him is now forged and completes.	Hefty (His Strength) Word is Him. You are happy. You feel like dog‑doo‑doo, and don’t care.	Hearty (thought based) His Heart. You know it constantly.	His Own (Replication) Completes here.	Husband Intimate Completes here.

Notes:

• This final and extremely subtle Πλήρωμα stage -- which can last a decade or more -- gets you crowned forever; but what you care about is seeing Him, glorifying Him, Philippians 1:20-21. This finale is the 2nd Strategic Victory in the Trial, ending your testimony victoriously, or killing you in shame. So you go home, usually soon afterwards. So many years spent wondering about Him: and now you are like Him. You're now a king, but only for Him do you want that. Wholly. Forever. So you began as an ignorant child, barely able to spell "Jesus". You finish, not knowing where His Thinking begins and your own, ends. Simple start, simple finish. Circle, objective from subjective genitive, the Love of God in Christ Jesus, end Romans 8! Trial over!