Dear,
Mr. Peterson

I come to you again, today, to tell you that morality is rational. That the psychopathic condition is irrational. Because more pleasure is derived from law, than lawlessness. More pleasure---for all people---is derived from law, than lawlessness.

Precisely, what law best creates pleasure? And there in lies which God is Preeminent. We have thousands of years worth of data, to show that a God whose moral is most like Christianity's, is a God Whose morality best suits the pleasures of men.

We see that men cannot have pleasure without morality. And the strictures of certain taboos---when accepted---take away the general pleasure of men because in history, men follow certain paths, and those paths create consistent behaviors and societies.

Men are like a Quadrilateral, where the laws of Quadratic Equations can be used to formulate any shape, so long as that shape has four sides. There is any number of shapes that can be created within that system, all of them valid and circumstantial based on the individual. That governorship comes to the Family, to so shape an individual within the constraints of the laws governed by such an object.

However, when men are forced into a system that warps them into a shape outside of what is written within them, they break. And that law is axiomatic, and founded in the thousands of civilizations we've seen throughout history. One degree off from that four lined shape, and men cease to function. For the laws are not meant for men anymore, but might as well be for some alien creature who does not have human DNA.

Yes, morality is objective, and the higher principles of human behavior are subject to a Higher Law that can be observed throughout history. That men rejecting that law, break the constancy of their natural shapes, and begin to degrade into chaos. Yet, the natural order is that some other power is put in place to restore order. And that is what is happening right now.

Why we know Jesus is God, and God exists, is that the morals best describing Human prosperity, and the morals which best govern Him, are exactly the morals described by Christ in His sermons, and also the Laws of Moses---that unclean foods create heart disease and thereby shorten lifespans, that unclean fabrics create septic rashes, and that sin is punished according to a gradient scale based on the severity of the crime, or that some men, having committed heinous crimes, need a way to get right before God and so have a cleansed conscience. That law is not sufficient without mercy, and that some men need to be punished more than others. A man who is sorry for committing murder is less abhorrent than a man who feels no shame in committing it. So forth, with the capital offenses justified by our current culture, there are an influx of behavior patterns which destroy the social fabric. Paramours, for instance, remove mates and the children who have bonded with them have one less individual who was imprinted upon them in their young psyches. Homosexuality creates a scarcity of sexual partners, which frustrates the libidos of not a few, and it creates social chaos. Transgenderism is duplicitous, and creates frustration. Bestiality, Catamy, such things create even worse social ills I'm sure. Catamy creates sex addicted children, who later grow up to be the very predators who abused them. And Bestiality, no society in my memory has ever degraded to such a low. But Incest, of course, destroys familial bonds, as it most certainly must.

There are causes and effects sin has on a culture, and the God who best defines sin, and the God who best manages it, and the God who best describes it, is the God of the Universe. Finding the laws which govern moral behaviors does not invalidate the Lawgiver. As, it's true that if God does not exist, neither ought the laws which govern morality. For, if there is a universal law, if it can be described---and it can---then there must be a God who created them. And considering we are talking about men, and not men from Gethen, there is only a certain way in which men can behave and operate. By bending men outside of their moral parameters, what existentially is created is chaos. And it's a pattern found in all of history, and it is one which must be understood. And because of that, morals are certain, and being that they are certain, they must prove God exists. Because no man who is rational can negate that truth, that morals are inherent in humankind.

Dear,
Mr. Ehrman

One of the first things I learned, after my conversion back to Christianity, was that eli eli lama sabachthani was a Rabbinical teaching method, where the first line of a Psalm was quoted, and meant to be interpreted. The psalm being quoted is Psalm 22. 

As for the inconsistencies in the Gospel---especially the point where Jesus talks---there's an Old Testament verse "He was silent as a lamb before His shearers," The prophecy being fulfilled by Christ. The fact that Christ did speak, and fulfilled the prophecy is comforting to me. Meaning, a prophecy can be fulfilled as it figurally transpired.

With that, I'm not going to reveal all the secrets of the universe to you. You'd likely not believe them. But your sermon on the inconsistencies of the Gospel just reaffirms the comforts of Christ's teachings, and dissuades me from having legalistic beliefs. Which, I'm happy about that because a prophecy gets fulfilled through a type, and not through literality. There's also a verse in John where Christ responds to Caesar. But, Christ was still "Silent" before His Shearers. And Christ was sinless, and a perfect fulfillment of Prophecy, sufficient as a Lamb.

And, the prophecy being fulfilled through Christ was in Psalm 22. It's literally one of the first things I was taught as a Christian. And frankly, the thing that converted me to Christianity, was the apparent meaninglessness of life without God's existence. And the moral vacuum that was apparent didn't exist. I can clearly see morals are inherent. And Christ taught perfect morals, which already agreed with what I observed about morality.

The fact is Black people 
Do get viewed in a certain way.
I understand it.
The solution isn't to be more racist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! x'D

Really, people are getting so dumb.

Dear,
Ms. __________

I suppose we write poems just so other people can think what they will about them. Yet, when I read them, I enjoy the act of learning what someone else had known. When Dante, for instance, linked rage and wealth, it was something only a master poet could do.

Being that you are published, and you are the authority over the art---seeing that you teach courses on it---it's just what we need to do with poetry, is ensnare people in their little postmodern bubbles. It's like no thought had ever been made, beside one internally entertained. No word on a page could ever inspire one to think about the world differently. No logic could be exerted on an "Esoteric Construct" that could ever possibly be true.

I understand the reason people read poetry right now. It is easy. There is little enjoyment in doing Math, so there is little enjoyment in finding something wise in someone else's words. I understand it perfectly---and do not begrudge you for getting published. However, I may interject that what makes a good poem is truth. That something true had been said.

You can never love someone you haven't listened to. You can imprint on their words as many of your own ideas as you want, but you don't truly understand them until you have recognized what their idea is. Whether disagreed with it, or not---it certainly doesn't matter. Because something had been said.

It's that reason, that if we forget this about poets like Eliot or Emerson, then there really is nothing left. There is no reason to speak, and no reason to even write a poem. If you are okay with someone interpolating into your poems---what business is it of yours to be a poet? If what you're offering is entertainment, then there can be no thing worth writing. Movies are far better an experience than any novel I'd ever read. So are dreams; which wise men try to interpret.

I suppose the enjoyment of all poetry is to think what you will, and refuse to believe someone else may have thought differently. And then to do them the discourtesy of never really trying to understand what they said. And so long as profits are coming in, what was the art but a means to getting rich?

Genius is the ability to remember
Facts, solve logic puzzles,
And do math.

Meanwhile, parents and children
Struggle to find discipline
And win the one hundred thousand dollars.

What is genius, is recognizing how unimportant
That show is, as the children are forced to regurgitate
Facts and data---
None the least are they shown to be geniuses
Except the one boy
Who is self motivated to learn.
And bonding with his father
He likely is the sure win to complete
The contest the strongest.

It's sad to me that this is what we call Genius---
Children's curious minds bogged down by structure.
So much so that what truly is interesting
They ignore and refuse to learn.

The joy of life is learning.
And contests strangle that joy.

Atheism is the hallmark
Of social failure.

Religion has failed.
Stories have failed.
Philosophy has failed.

Thus, men like sophists
Strive to invent religions from the stars
And the elemental atoms of the universe.

And sure enough,
Ignorance resumes its course
And the acropolis topples.

Tyranolog, sit upon thy bench
Of acacia wood.
The Library of Alexandra lay 
To the foreground.

"By the law of the land
"All your knowledge
"Retain'th in these volumes.
"Thou must, on threat of imprisonment,
"Tell every book thou hast ever read
"Every paper, every thought thou heardst,
"And thou must tell which of these books
"It come'th from."

The little Ethiopian Boy
Glanced up at the large palace.
"I cannot tell what books
"I read to obtain my knowledge
"Tyranolog. For, I've read so many
"And have seen so much.
"It is all a part of my very soul.
"Cannot I make something beautiful
"Without having to tell what book I may have learned it from?
"Or must I, lonely, keep a log of every sentence I read
"And thereby put it into a file as large as this library
"And so find the exact phrase which inspired me?
"For, I have written in my short life
"A summation of what I know.
"Must I now recant every word I have ever read or heard
"Before my life's work be published?"

The Tyranolog threw down her gavel.
"Blasphemy! You hear the offense against wisdom!
"Throw this boy into the dungeon
"And burn every word he had ever written."

Such it was under the Tyranolog.

I have heard it said
That there were two rival Princedoms.
The one dwelt by the waters
Was a lush kingdom,
Where the peoples,
With skill, had tilled the soil
And learned how to grow good crops.
Yet, the other land,
Being much more fertile,
Was ruled by a Warlord.

The King who ruled over the first kingdom
Was benevolent, and gave His subjects
Freedom to think, believe and behave
In any manner they so chose.
He did not oppress them
And He gave them their hearts' desire.
Knowing that their work
Produced the crops
And their crops produced the harvest
They must have toiled for the harvest
To be fed, and the King saw this was good.
For the land was dryer than the other land.

Yet, the Warlord presode over the lusher land
Where there were rumors of crops
Growing far more frequently.
It was rumored to have three growing cycles
And the fruits were supposedly decadent.
So, it came to be that many of the subjects
Of the First King's kingdom wandered over
Into the Warlord's lands.
And having wandered over to the land,
They were immediately subdued by his laws.
Yet, being fed, they lingered there
For the toil was not so great.

Yet, the Warlord had designs
To kill all of his subjects,
And thereby he was a foolish Prince
And caused great dearth in his land.
He oppressed his peoples
And killed many of them for no reason
Save his delusions that humanity was a curse.

It soon came to be, that the King
Saw His subjects were fleeing His kingdom
And He sought the reason why.
It was because the lands to the North
Were more fertile than the lands He had governed.
So, He mourned, knowing that the freedoms He had given
Were far more precious than the sustenance of sin.
It soon came by envoi that the King had learned
The designs of the Warlord. That the Warlord
Sought to slaughter all of the people
From the child to the elderly woman and even man.
It grieved the King greatly
So He had made a pact with the Warlord.
"Spare all the peoples, even those who came from your lands
"And those who come from your lands into my lands
"They shall be safe. Yet, those who stay in your land
"They shall suffer whatever you wish.
"Only spare the ones who leave and come into my domain.
"If Thou dost this, I shall be greatly pleased
"And even willing to hand over my own life for theirs."

So, the Warlord greedily took up the offer.
He paraded the King naked through the streets
And caused all of the subjects to loathe Him.
The Warlord then beat Him, whipped Him,
Caused all that were many to even spit on their Savior.
For, they did not know. 
It soon came to be, that the Warlord pierced His hands and feet
And nailed the King on a tree, at the border of the two kingdoms.
So, there, all could see the King were dead.
Yet, messengers came swiftly into the Warlord's domain
Telling all to hasten and run away
Into the King's domain where they would be safe.
For, the Warlord had thought to kill all the men who stayed.
Yet, very few listened. And many decided not to flee.
Yet, numerous were those who fled the Warlord,
And they found paradise in the Kingdom.

Yet, the Warlord was wroth that his subjects were fleeing,
So, before killing them, he roused their hearts against the neighboring lands
And raised an army greater than the sands of the seas.
He had amounted them, and convinced them that 
The land before them would be theirs
If they so chose to enter into it through his force.
Yet, it was deceitful, but the Warlord saw
That there was yet no King able to defend it.
Yet, while the army was upon its march
The King who was slain stood upon the hill
Between the two kingdoms.
The Warlord had said, 
"You are not dead? Yet I watched you die?
"Our contract is now nullified, since you now live."
And it soon came that one hundred forty-four thousand
Stood upon the crest of the hill with the King,
Faced against numbers greater than the sands.
The battle was fierce,
Yet not one of the one hundred forty-four thousand knights fell in battle.
The Host of the Warlord's, however,
Was slaughtered to the sum,
So that only the Warlord remained.
This man, the King threw into a dungeon
And burned his kingdom with fire.
The King's kingdom, however, through the knowledge of the land and its lay
Created a far more fertile land than even the Warlord's.
So, the peoples who escaped the Warlord's "utopia"
Were then given back their freedoms,
And prospered for eternity.


This is an Adaptation of a story I heard in Church. The Preacher had recited it, and I gave a shorter version of the story, filling in the gaps of what he preached. His version, the King's Father, the Emperor, came and fought the Warlord, and I felt that since the King is Christ, there would have to be mention of the resurrection. There'd be no victory over sin without the resurrection. Not that his version was lacking. It was just mine needed to be written as an addendum, to glorify Christ.

The American Dream.
One man says, "It is dead."
Another says, "It is alive."

He who says, "It is dead,"
Sees what America has become,
The pursuit of possessions,
The pursuit of fame
The pursuit of power;
And this dream of the Nineteen Fifties
As both interlocutors have agreed,
Is the pursuit of wealth and prosperity unmeasured.

He who said it is alive, however,
Reads Jefferson's words
In the constitution.
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
That these rights are inalienable.
He is right that the ideal American Dream
Are these three ideals.
Yet, he dismisses what Jefferson said,
"The separate and equal station 
"To which the laws of nature, 
"And of nature's God entitle them."
Not understanding the Law built
Within our nature... to which I appeal to it
And he says, "That is an appeal to authority."
In that statement, it breaks the American Dream in two.
For, if there is no authority, but our own,
Then there can be no life, liberty or happiness.
For all men, equally pursuing their happiness
Would infringe upon others in their happiness.

Thus, the Pursuit of Happiness
Becomes materialism...
And our younger generations sacrifice liberty
For that goal, rather than the whole.
For they will sacrifice authority
On the alter of Logic and Reason.
Yet, there is nothing logical about rejecting
The authority of how human minds are bent
And the order created by Law for their own happiness.
For if there is no Law and Order,
And Laws are not written according to the Laws which the God of Nature has dictated,
Then there can truly be
No Happiness at all
For all men's pursuits would trample upon other men's rights.
And that is the station of our way today.