What clever means to the rest of the world, I hope I am never accused of. Having been called it, I will realize I was just a fool with some charming sayings. I also am not so foolish, to realize some clever one will mock this saying by calling me clever. If I had to choose between John Donne or Byron to have an eve's chat, I'd choose Byron because at least he wasn't a raging hypocrite.
Why Grace?
Speeding down the road, Talking about my spat with Rebel--- I remember she told me the word Was insulting to a stranger--- The light turns yellow A caution, Then turns red, and I hit the breaks. Not intending to, I shoot out into the middle of the Intersection. I say, "Shoot," And shamefacedly drive through--- As you don't park in the middle of an intersection. I remember about a decade ago, The same thing happened, And being so careful not to sin, So anxious and filled with great heaving distress, I breeched the line, just like before, And cried out an oath. I realized this time I casually said, "Shoot" And didn't add sin unto sin. As, I was not so hyper afraid to sin That I self righteously sinned And added sin unto sin. Nor was I fearful of a ticket; As the last time, my conscience couldn't bear it. That is the reason we have grace--- So, flying off into an uncontrollable outburst We then say we're sorry, And do not pile upon ourselves Guilt upon guilt. Rather, we just brush it off And our conscience, Eased by knowledge of our own fallibility And God's forgiveness, does not react Like it were the end of Salvation.
This Eejit’s Rage Fantasy
I speak to a rebel Some decade ago... She calls me a nasty word. She tells me, "It is a term of endearment," Hiding the fact that it is not. I use the word against a woman; One who says I mansplain... And in a vile outburst I know now where it came I drop a nasty word upon her head And feel dejected. For the well of bitterness was that I was lied to. Please understand. I hadn't cherished the Rebel's friendship, But thought we made good acquaintance. Yet, she called I the word I called you. And now I know it is a nasty word And I am left questioning whether the word Was spoken illy about me. I do not know. And for that I lashed out against you. I'm sorry.
Brandon Ruins Everything
Marijuana does make people violent, and lazy, and insane. Video Games do cause increases in violent tendencies--- just watch any Call of Duty live Chat, and you'll see. Cops have been less likely to arrest people, or investigate violent crimes Which account for the drop of Violent Crime in this country; Which skyrocketed these past four years. A simple test of the hypothesis that video games cause violent tendencies, Is that in order to make soldiers shoot people Easier during World War II, They used human shaped targets instead of bullseye's. It worked. As is also true, video games desensitize people to violence, And reinforce dopamine receptors with violent tendencies. Breastfeeding is more nutritious for a child than baby formula. The Black Panthers are not heroes. They're the Black equivalent to the KKK. Blacks aren't incarcerated at higher rates due to racism, but because they commit more crimes. Also, that woman was arrested because her boyfriend was a resident of the household, and it was a domestic violence dispute, not a home invasion.
I’m Sorry
I'm Sorry I truly am sorry you suffered. If I had anything to say, Anything at all, I'd say I'm sad that no one came to your aid. It pains me, as I do not want to be in your shoes, Either... Yet, threatening me with "that" padded room... Why would I get put in a padded room? You cut me off before I could say anything, My Awakened Narcoleptic. I never said my government was oppressing me... Only my neighbor. Yet, if I end up in a padded room, We shall know who was truly behind this mess. As, I have faith, since the FBI has not burst down my door, Nor have they censored me, Nor have they told me I couldn't speak, That I am in no threat of my government. In Canada and Great Britain that is not true; Excuse me for fearing that tyranny would come here. Yet, the government's job is to protect me from my neighbor, And if mobs rule freedom of speech, Not a single word will ever be spoken again. Men are stabbed in public As for speech they get ran upon stage As evil tries to kill men whose voices it disagrees with. If you truly believe in all perspectives Then you'd be happy to let all perspectives have a voice, And not to be threatened by the sword of their fellow citizen Nor their censors. Yet, if I end up in a padded room, I shall know it was the government who did this. As, I am more sane now than I ever was.
Zion’s Walls
Upon reading Isaiah and the 51st Psalm, I came to an amazing realization. They were speaking of the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls. Old Jewish Men came to mind, telling me that Isaiah was first composed during Hezekiah, and was continued during the restoration of captivity by Cyrus. I almost fell for it, too, until I realized something quite odd. Isaiah 53 was in our scripture. And that's most certainly about Christ. I then realized something very powerful. These prophecies had been in the scripture for some 200 years, before Cyrus ever lived. Just like Zechariah naming Jesus (Joshua) and Isaiah naming Cyrus. And so, it became clear to me that a doctrinal error was on the part of the Jewish Polemicists, who wished to proselytize their lack of faith. The fact is, this was already in the book of Isaiah, as well as in the book of Psalms. This fundamental doctrine, that wouldn't be expressed until Nehemiah and Ezra, was there prophesied in the scripture for all to see. And it's likely why Cyrus left Israel back to Zion, was this prophetic utterance of his name. Even more relevant, is what this means under the New Covenant. The rebuilding of Zion's walls are a testimony to the Christian, of rebuilding the life, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to a life of perfection lived in Christ Jesus. The walls are a fundamental symbol for the restoration of Israel, and its captivity, through Jesus Christ. Let it be known, under Isaiah, the Israelites were taken captive. There was war in the land, and the destiny of Judah was uncertain. The walls were besieged by armies, and this calling card, the rebuilding of Zion's walls, was likely a Jewish call to arms, as we can see in the Jewish Combat Strategies when fighting at the siege of Jerusalem in 70ad. Rebuilding Zion's walls is a huge part of the Jewish tradition, but even more fundamentally, is the symbolism of the Walls of Jerusalem, and how they apply to the Holy Spirit. Even more miraculous, is the Jewish Rabbinical Teaching of the Messiah coming in two stages. First, to bind and seal Satan. To, in a sense, rebuild the walls and bind the strong man who is plundering our houses---if we keep watch over our mouths and actions. And this tradition taught the Messiah would win His victory in two stages, and hasn't the first stage already begun? The Holy Spirit binds Satan, and casts him out of us, and our lives. The Holy Spirit is the binding of the Devil upon the Earth, and the first assault against the forces of darkness. It is the transformation of men, to give them power over evil and demonic entities, and allow them the Spirit of the Kingdom. It is the rebuilding of our walls, and the overthrow of our captivity. It is the restoration of our Captivity through Jesus Christ. And with that, the foundation is set. Christ came first, to bind the Devil, and to get him into a pin. And then, to fill our hearts with good, and peace, and joy, and love, and to build our walls to be a defense against Satan. And this moment we attain salvation, our walls are beginning to be built, until we enter into heaven. Our captivity is restored the moment we confess Jesus, and give our lives to him. Our walls are built, and the Devil has no stronghold in our heart any longer. For, first, did not Christ have to restrain Satan? And this He did, by giving us the seal of His Holy Spirit.
A Comment YouTube Deleted
Context: Discussing the authenticity and accuracy of The King James Authorized Bible. ​ I know you believe that. YouTube is deleting my comments, I guess it doesn't want you believing. You should think about that, since I said nothing defamatory. You need to get the Barnes and Noble's Leather Bound Edition of the KJV, because what you're saying isn't true. It was translated from the Vulgate, and the original Greek Manuscripts, and meticulously combed through for accuracy. And in the King James Bible, it actually says, "Abusers of themselves with Mankind", which is closest to the original Greek than even the modern day English Translations. I know you think the Bible was drafted in 300ad, and that's what you've been taught. But, the fact is I have the Apostolic Fathers on my bookshelf, and they quote numerous passages from the New Testament, and all of them are the same verses I find in the Bible today. There's also lots of fragmentary verses surviving, which show the current New Testament verses are practically identical to the ones being used in 70ad. Which is only forty years after Jesus was crucified. Apostolic Fathers also quoted heavily from the New Testament and Old, and they are the same verses we have in our King James Bible. So, the KJV is actually one of the most authoritative translations in English, and the only reason it isn't used very often, is because of its antiquated English. I'm sorry, but it is one of the best Word for Word translations, if not the best.
Anne Hathaway was Black
The dedication on Shakespeare's Sonnets were to Hamnet. Shakespeare’s half black son, to the Black Lady, whom Shakespeare felt was foul looking. Why? Likely because she was of african descent, and it didn’t suit him well. I know this for several reasons. First, is the often reference to Hamnet's pale skin color---saying he could pass off as white. Second, to the reference to the "Slutishness of time" which means the story is reflecting on the possible erotic interpretation, that it is faulty, and the poem makes itself to be interpreted as a possible elegy several times. Third, because the subject of the poem is referred to several times as nigh his deathbed, and is on a sickbed recovering. Fourth, because Shakespeare calls himself Hamnet's slave, showing the depths to which he loved his son, and wished the circumstances were not so. Reading the Sonnets, it’s clear that Shakespeare had a son to a concubine, and the sonnets—given the fact that Ben Johnson wrote an elegy to his son—were written, also, as an elegy to Hamnet, Shakespeare’s son. W. H. stands for William’s Hamnet. And the half black skin tone on Hamnet led to a failed courtship, by which Hamnet was wounded and eventually killed, and Shakespeare was mourning his son through the course of the sonnets. Likely, it was written in the course of a couple of days, as a genius of literary masterpieces can do, and this was what led and inspired Romeo and Juliet. Not to mention many other Shakespeare plays like Hamlet and likely the riotous marriage led to the inspiration of Macbeth, and also the cross cultural marriage in The Merchant of Venice. Meaning, Anne Hathaway was black, and likely a slave on the plantation that she’s normally associated with. And they had a very tumultuous relationship, which translated to the plays. And Shakespeare, when he was eighteen, married her because he got her pregnant at twenty six, which, also, the strangeness of the marriage was likely due to the mixed race background. And there were blacks in England at this time, and many of them, due to the slave trade. Now, I know this from having read the sonnets, and having a very developed ability to read old English. So, Shakespeare was not Edward De Vere. Unless you’re going to say that Edward had a Black wife, and associated with with women of lower decent, as is depicted in the last quarter of the sonnets. Furthermore, it is nothing for a man with an iq of 190 to learn Latin, and gain the materials enough to have written the plays. Shakespeare was educated, and he was likely a voracious reader, being proficient in Latin, having self taught it, as is possible for someone of so high of an intelligence quotient. It happens every day with even normal people of slightly above average intelligence. Saying otherwise denies basic facts about history, humanity, and it destroys the credibility of the record handed down through the generations, which purportedly, is true, as the victors last generation were Christians, and they had not lied. Putting history into question, and trying to rewrite it is dangerous, stupid, foolish, and in a sense, the problem with the modern culture. It doesn't work, especially where it contradicts basic facts about Shakespeare, or in general, the entire canon of Western History and their witnesses' first hand reports whom the scholars would reference to make their books. To invent this theory that Edward De Vere is Shakespeare, one would have to create a conspiracy of an Earl to use a Stradford man as a front for his plays. Which, is almost entirely not the case, as there is no evidence to prove it, and rather, the theory relies on the hypothesis that such a convoluted plot could take place. What is known, is that through the Sonnets, Shakespeare associated with the absolute bottom rung of society, which is not proper for an Earl such as Edward De Vere. This theory is put to rest. To support my claim even more, that Hamnet was the subject of the Sonnets, there's reference in the later Sonnets to Shakespeare having dug open Hamnet's grave, and he describes how his Muse is lost, and he describes in stark detail a decayed corpse. This was Hamnet, who inspired Hamlet, and Hamnet had been killed over a failed courtship, because he boasted of having slept with a young maid. And Shakespeare was lamenting the behavior of Hamnet, which led to his wounds, and brought shame upon his family. In conclusion, Shakespeare was not Edward De Vere. He couldn't have been. ⒸB. K. Neifert, 2022 All Rights Reserved
Analysis of the Fable “Don’t Argue with Donkeys”
I just realized something. If the King decrees something contrary to judgment, that makes him a bad king. So, while the disagreement might seem arbitrary and petty, the worse villain is the Lion for decreeing a thing which is untrue, and then punishing the Tiger for what was. It’s funny, but this kind of represents all of the problems in Western Civilization today, that we justify the Lion in his bad judgment. The fact is, the premise of Western Enlightenment rests on reason’s capacity to win. If we say that there is no capacity in some, and that trying to win them by reason is wicked and unlawful, and deserves to be punished, then we fundamentally undermine Western Society, and the King really does decree that the Grass is Blue. This is not a good moral. At all. Author Unknown. Edited by Hamilton, Jeffery W.. "Don't Argue with Donkeys." La Vista Church of Christ.org, archives. https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/bible-studies/moral-principles-for-young-people-volume-ii/dont-argue-with-donkeys/. Web. However, as a fellow brother in Christ's story, I believe the point is good as a proverb for dealing with foolish people. However, the King in this instance is not a good king. He should never lie out of spite. Nor should a man be punished for speaking what is true by authority. Rather, authority should punish the Donkey, not the Tiger. Thus, the story shows our modern error in judgment. Questions answered: The Lion in the story was not just, and is an emblem of today's civil court system. That it explicitly, knowing what is right, justifies fools. One ought to disagree with someone, if what they are saying is blatantly false, as if their idea gets perpetuated, and becomes law through the King, who then becomes persecuted? Obviously we do. Is it the Tiger's fault that the Lion's decree was unwise? Does not a wise King tell the truth, and reward truth tellers? Will not Christ reward us, for speaking the truth in Christ, and for disagreeing with the world? How does the Gospel get preached, if there can be no disagreement? If Lies are upheld by those in high authority? We do not have to win every argument. But, that's not the point of this story? Is it? The Tiger went to the King to get a just discernment. And the King failed in this simplest of tasks. No. Reality does not change because of beliefs. Nor does it change because of the Lion's decree. I think there was no better way for the Tiger to handle it. As, he went to the authority, but the Authority lied and punished him, insead of the evildoer. As is what happens so often in this world. There is no authority, except what is depraved and wicked and unlawful ordinance. That is why so many people suffer. Who should have been punished was the Ass and not the Tiger.
The Abomination of Desolation
Having just watched a full length documentary on the sack of Jerusalem by Rome, it came to bear what Jesus meant when he said not one stone of the temple would stand. Why people in Jerusalem should flee when the "Abomination of Desolation" Surrounded Jerusalem. A wall was built around Jerusalem to shut the people in, so they could not escape. And, people were there to celebrate Passover. The Passover was Christ, and that dispensation was over. They were trapped in their false religion. Just like now, with Jerusalem bringing Red Heifers into its city---such a silly thing is only evidence of their folly---we must not be trapped in a false religion. If Jerusalem builds its Temple---and it might soon, but hopefully it doesn't for our peace and prosperity's sake; do not resist Babylon---we are not to go there as Christians. The Temple is in heaven. Not on Earth. The Temple is our body. Not a building. Of course, it will be just like the siege of Jerusalem on that day. The Abomination of Desolation---Antichrist and his armies---will surround the city. And in that moment, you must flee. When the trumpets sound, eat with shivering, and then flee into the wilderness and hope it is not winter or a Sabbath. Why not the Sabbath? Because the city will be packed with travelers, to bow homage to a false religion and there can be no escape. There are too many people. Why not the winter? Because you will have to survive the harshness of the winter's cold. And that army---not Gog or Magog---will surround Jerusalem just like it did on the day the Temple fell, and they will build siege works against it, and barricades, and checkpoints, and not let people leave the city without the Mark. And then Antichrist will come in, and seat himself at the temple, and he will rule there as if he himself were Jehovah. And those of my brethren going to Jerusalem to make sacrifice do so foolishly. The sacrifice is already made, in Christ's blood. There need be no other lamb. The Red Heifer is already consecrated in Christ's blood, and only Eleazar was to do the ritual. Once, and never again. Do not go to the Temple when this time comes, for it is a trap. And on Passover, when you go to sacrifice the lamb, you will already be boxed in and unable to proceed out of the grounds. You'll be trapped by the Abomination of Desolation. For, the wall surrounding Jerusalem was the deadly work. Rome built it in three days. Only three days. And Jesus' words were fulfilled to the letter. When Rome finally won its victory---for those fleeing the city were crucified when trying to escape after the wall was built---it ravaged through the city until the remaining forces of Jews stood on Herod's mount, and there they were killed and captured. And in the city, men, women, children and elderly were killed, captured and made into slaves.