W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

NEWS 100


February 2000: President Clinton announces DNA an employers' no-no,
to join with gender, race and religion
'Go and be one!' ... looms

ONE is just a unit in the numerical system ... or is it!

It is the lodestar, the magnet, the ultimate for so many people in so many things, the new call of the millenium, as the old call of the ages. Now it has more practical clout.

Physicists try, as we noted in Spiritual Refreshings for the Digital Millenium  13, to find a certain ONENESS. ALL the particles have ultimately to come from THIS, or to be understandable as THAT. It is ALL to be particle, or ALL to be wave or ALL to be a determinant or some other obsessive fantasy. IF it DOES not all become one, then it MUST! Why ?

If all the genders, for all the unisex obsession, ARE not one; if male and female are diverse components in the many facets of humankind, of which children are another, embryos yet another, reliability is one, unfaithfulness is another, why on earth should there be this absurd pre-occupation to JUMP the realities, which have nothing to do with philosophy at all, that there are differences of enormous functional importance in male and female, mature and immature, reliable and unreliable? What is the driving force about this compulsion for ONE!

It is interesting that it is closely linked to religion. There MUST be NO difference in creed which relates to employment. The man whose creed is for holy wars, and who may set about them, is to be viewed in some ultimately MYSTICAL way as REALLY just the same in employment prospects as some one who has a criterion of peace. The man who wishes to corrupt children, a paedophile (though here the concept of one is a little less compulsive!) as part of his religion of oneness of all things, is really to be employed just as freely as anyone else. NO! But what if it is his religion that all these things about differences are merely illusion, that what matters is the ONENESS of all human beings, and indeed of all things...

So you DO NOT mean that religion makes no difference! Ah, then why all this talk about it as if it were some sort of naughty thing, to have a religious preference for those whom you employ! If it applies in one field, why not in another ? Some religionists believe in making the world submit to their leader. Hitler had a religion like that, and so did Marx, although only indirectly, yet it hurt the bodies just as much! Does THAT make no difference, that your employe is continually in a state of active desire to forward whatever makes for THIS sort of world ? Did not wars arise, did not spies, did not those in high places in Germany make all the difference for a generation because they yielded to Hitler! Does what you BELIEVE then make no difference to a man, in this obsessive fantasy about oneness!

This thing, this obsession, it is itself, a type of religion, and a mystical type for which facts do not even matter. IT MUST BE SO, whatever the facts, and whatever the cost.

WHY is it a type of religion and yet so venerated with such monopolistic exclusivism by so many? Why is this so, since it is obviously absurd, as it clashes with other criteria no less desirable to many - such as a quieter and more peaceable world, reliability, integrity, the best use of resources which CANNOT be obtained by pretending what is not the same, in fact is so: WHY is it given such priority ? It is as we shall see, a subversive substitute for God, and most convenient.

The same occurred somewhat earlier in education. Children were, with Dewey eyes, to be adults, practising democracy. With Spock frocks, they were to be given licence and liberty, like adults. They were really so very human, really ONE with adults, so that it was almost wicked to restrain them or treat their immaturity as DIFFERENT and requiring INTELLIGENT adaptation in training.

Spock repented and said so, when he saw what he deemed the results of such a philosophy, and small wonder!

It is however the easy way. TREAT children as adults, MEN as WOMEN or vice versa if for some (non-unitary) reason you prefer it that way, if you will, but this mysticism has its penalties, as does everything which is contrary to reality. You can have your mysteries and your myths, but if they are not true, you pay! It is not unlike the case of the drunken driver who HAS his myth (while intoxicated) that he has new abilities or at least no impairment, until he lands in the lamp-post.

You can treat all religions as the same until you find yourself in a Communist prison, a Nazi labour camp or a Moslem harem: and does multi-marriage make no difference ? Is it REALLY true that to be one of a number of wives (which of course in passing, we note, destroys the concept of ONENESS, for there is ONE male and there are MANY females in such a case) makes no difference ? The author can never be a wife in order to find out, but one can use a little imagination. In the Western world, one wife can be a considerable problem for many; what of being one of MANY! It is not like children, when they are growing up and need help; these are real human beings who are fully grown, in an entourage about one man.

Of course all these things make a difference, and obsessive compulsions to the contrary are merely a psychic phenomenon. They have no logical place.


The problem IS, of course, one which is bypassed. SINCE all things are NOT one, all human beings are NOT one, all religions are NOT one (see Lead us Not into Educational Temptation! and Spiritual Refreshings for a Digital Millenium Chs. 4 and 8), and many have UTTERLY different objectives, methods and outcomes, what IS to the BASIS for acknowledging the differences. Oh not war! they say, while they war and war and war. Oh not truth, they say, as they glide and slide and deviously infiltrate these ideas with those and try the moral Moses stunt from the United Nations, ex-God! trying always to suggest their way into a delusion of unity by ASSUMPTIONS which are not established except by desire.

IF you say, DO AS YOU PLEASE! the world tends to blow up, the same as is the case if you say that to criminals when they would like to rob banks. If you say, DO NOT DO THIS! then they ask, WHO ARE YOU! to say that. Morals are all one. But are they ? Some kill and some make alive: is that no difference ?

IF morals are all one, then the idea is this: that it is GOOD to have it so, that this is MORAL to have it that we cannot JUDGE morals! But that! it is merely ONE MORE MORAL SYSTEM with this difference, that it insists on NOT giving any reason at all for itself, and is WHOLLY and not as are many, merely partly irrational! Ignore reason, however, and it does not ignore you!

It is the same in physics as noted in Spiritual Refreshings for a Digital Millenium 13. There are to be ultimate particles, ultimate building blocks, ultimate unities in gravity, electromagnetism and mass and so forth. It is all an obsession: IT MUST BE SO! Why ?

In fact, there are underlying unities and divergencies on many sides. There are particles and waves, and ultimacy is not to be postulated in either. There are children and adults, and neither is more ultimate: one is nearer its making place, the other nearer its strength place, but neither is the 'it', the grand, the unitary, the building block, the best and so on. It is true that if you go back to the embryo, you may say: THIS is the more ultimate, this is the building block! But is it ?

IN EACH CELL in the smallest zygote formed from sexual union, there is the ground plan for the WHOLE body. You cannot remove that. It is THERE, however small, however undeveloped the ENGINEERING side of the plan, in that early stage.

The fact that in physics you can combine components, like mass and velocity (and there are many such components which may be combined in many interesting ways to present many mutilple-componented objects) to produce momentum, does not say that everything is one. It indicates that different assembly units can be assembled. The fact that matter can be used to produce so much energy according to equations (which merely mirror the way the things are made and to be conceived from manufacture) does not mean they are ONE. It means there is a way of transferring the energy into another format. The format is not nothing. The energy is not nothing. The transference is not nothing. You can do the same with pre-assembled type houses, transferring so many struts from this smaller purpose to that greater one. The struts are not the REAL underlying unity. The fact that they can be moved about in intelligent and interesting ways does nothing to show that. It shows on the contrary the cleverness of the maker of struts in this, that he/she has multi-purpose units which can fit into a number of designed units which have different purposes in the composition of one whole, called a house.

The HOUSE itself is no more the unity than is the strut. Each SERVES a purpose, and the capacity for integration of smaller things into larger enterprises is the joint work of construction and intelligence, in the presence of imagination and purpose.

What then is it that we find as we move in our conscious and purposive way about in our world ? It is that the REAL unity (at a higher level, that is) is in our minds, in our purposes and in our plans and projects. The STRUT is not the ultimate, but a convenient mass-producible unit for making other things, somewhat like the case in LEGO, which illustrates the concept rather well. The unity is in the head and in the heart: it is in the plan and in the purpose. There is a PURPOSE, and for this there is a PLAN, and for both there is a MEANS and for this there are UNITS which can be ADAPTED to get the desired result.

  • Is it then the plan or the mind or the heart which is the ULTIMATE UNITY ? Such talk is not profitable for it is obvious from the consideration of the matter, that it depends whether we are considering the SPIRIT back of it or the MIND forwarding it or the MEANS executing it, or indeed the PRACTICALITY placing physical means into proximity in terms of particular plans. There is the purpose, the plan, the capacity to execute the plan and the ACTUAL execution (a swimmer has the capacity to swim, but the swimming itself is not the same as the capacity: it is the capacity enabled to exercise itself - thus a sick swimmer illustrates the importance of that phase!).


  • It is better and more to the point to ask this: WHAT is it all BASED ON! It is clear that it is not based on the struts, made by hands for mind for purpose of heart. It is equally clear it is not the house, made by all of this, and a product of it in synthesis. You can call the synthesis the ultimate unity, but the synthesis, the house, is really a PRODUCT of the mind and heart, will and purpose by plan. If you mean ultimate in the sense of UNDERLYING, then it is in the mind and heart. If you mean ultimate in the sense of fulfilling and exhibiting these things, then yes, it is the house, but it follows, it does not lead.


  • Then of course you say: IF it is all based on mind and heart, what are THEY based on ! As we have shown so numerously on this site, they are based on what is adequate for their production, which is the Creator who made not just struts, but minds and wills and bodies, and synthesised them not into a house, but into human being, whose inveterate and sin-stricken insistence on NOT bowing to his creator leads to all the problems of philosophy. The answer to all of this then is simplicity itself.



The UNDERLYING unity is God who CREATED it all, and in passing, created this MIDGET CREATOR, called man, who is a procreator not only in the derivation of children, but in the derivation of his own plans. He creates under licence. Unfortunately, this is most frequently abused.

Amongst these plans of man are the desire to plan out of existence the Almighty. When he tries to do that, he gets a great desire, when he is not bent on killing and being immoral just to show how moral it is to be immoral, and so making one more lame and indefensible morality based on nothing and meaning nothing and explaining nothing, and purely reductionist. What is this great desire so often to be found ? It is a desire for unity.

The world MUST be under ONE government; Europe must be ONE; religions must be ONE; educational patterns MUST be ONE; children and adults, man and woman, old and young, must be ONE. It does not matter if it leads to AIDS, if it leads to that psychological aids which is erratic mismanaged children who do not realise they are not gods, who then wreak on society what it has plainly asked for, and then pays for. It is obsessive compulsion that everything must be ONE, WHEN THE FACT IS DELIBERATELY FORGOTTEN that they are plainly NOT AT ALL ONE, but in different ways related.

The nostalgia for God, the sense that is and MUST BE somewhere, somehow a ONENESS has led the ancient Greeks to the same mania in philosophy. Everything says this one, MUST be water, no AIR, says that one, no CHANGE says this one, no permanence, says the other. THERE MUST BE ONE, and if it is not recognised for what it is, the CREATOR, then the suave slitherings of endless philosophies makes men look inane, as they propose things clearly contrary to facts, to explain facts! Of course this strange desire is just ONE MORE VERIFICATION of the UNIQUELY VALID reality of God as creator. It is just one more perversion of nature, which not being its own, and pointing to God, is not a fit place in which to find the unity which the Creator confers from Himself. Hence all the wild-goose chasing.

It is not different in the matter of GENES. "GENES, THE HIDDEN PERSUADERS" is the headline of an article in the Advertiser, February 10, p. 19.  YOU MUST NOT says Clinton, have genetic discrimination. Some people may be found to have a hidden vulnerability to bowel cancer, so their employers may not want to employ them in case all the training is lost in early death! NO! It is all one. You must ethically have this oneness. Race and religion, gender, genes, NONE must make a difference. WE MUST BE ONE!

Why ? Because in the case of employment, it is a matter of discrimination which is unfair, that is why!

Is it ?

But to whom is it unfair ? Do employers not exist ?

Are THEY not part of this ONE! Are some ones more one than other ones! That is not one: it is DIVERGENCE, DIFFERENCE plainly being presented as a MORAL issue! It is ONE that some people be one and that others be not one! Nonsense, that has all the sound of cant and hypocrisy. If employers cannot use their own discretion before becoming victims of all the paraphernalia of rules and obligations ad nauseam (it was the opposite a couple of centuries ago, equally obnoxious, but this is the other extreme), then what are they! Sacrificial victims! In that case, there are the sacrificers (government - who as forcing the thing are in any case not ONE, but VERY different from those whom they govern), and the victims (employers).

True it has been in some times past and in some places almost the opposite: there were the employers (sacrificers in many cases) and the employes (victims in many cases). This however merely illustrates our point further: in NEITHER CASE, old or new, is it ONE: SOME ONE is getting the treatment, and someone is giving it! Some suffer and some make them do so! It is not always like that; but this has been a noticeable trend.

There IS NO ONE, exactly as in our own works, except in the creator: the architect. The architect of man has given HIS ETHICS. This involves reasonableness, fairness, non-exploitation (Isaiah 58), yes and love for another, so that one loves the other as oneself. Does this mean that all are one! Far from it. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil" - Jeremiah 13:23. Ah but! you say, that is ancient. Yes, so is 2+2=4, and its endurance, so far from being contrary to value, is evidence of it! But what of the same edition of the Advertiser, as RECENT as a few days ago. What does IT SAY! On p. 32, in an affair as recent as the misuse of such sites as Yahoo by people flooding them with destructive multitudes of messages, there is a somewhat similar statement. It is this: "Bad people do bad things!" It is a quotation from a Mr Mallter who said:

  • "This is unfortunately one of the outcroppings of being a leading communications medium company. Bad people do bad things. It's going to continue to happen, (but) the penalties are pretty severe."

So here we have a touch of realism. It is here no longer UNITY is EVERYTHING. In this hi-tech practical area, we are being taught that there are good people, and there are bad people; and for bad people there are bad consequences which they reap, called penalties, and these people are LIKE THAT. They are not all one at all. It makes ALL the difference which they are, good people doing nice things which work out  or bad people doing bad things which require obstructive interventions called penalties. It is all so very old, so very new. It is real. It needs resolution for the bad to become good; and that needs power. It is as we shall see, available. In the meantime, this is the situation.


We learn from the recent Advertiser article featuring the technical expertise of Professor Grant Sutherland, to revert to the genes, that in a few years, maybe 15 or so, we may have the facility to DETECT which genes are in potential employes (for example). Thus the possibility could arise of excluding people as employes when they have a greater bowel-cancer potential (for example), and so become a practical matter for law. It could call for legal for intrusion by Government (as now in the US), so that bad people (in this respect, the idea is) would be prevented (or have a strong penalty) from doing bad things, such as wanting people who would fit better into their system of production, rather than those who - rightly or wrongly - they may think would not fit so well.

Good and bad are emphatically NOT ONE. There is, when the illusion of pretence is past and practicality intervenes, no question about that. Where the question lies is here: WHAT IS BAD!

Thus we may have this. Oh we do not agree, say some, for it is not bad for the employer to want what fits best. HE has to pay when things to wrong in all sorts of compensation and so on. WHY should he not use his own intelligence and select what will fit best, and so on! Oh no! say others, WE do not agree with that, for then we will have to foot the bill for all the people with slack genes, who may be a danger to their employers in later life, and since they may not get employment, WE will pay. THAT, it is clearly BAD, so we must FORCE employers to employ them AND pay for the results. That is not bad. In fact, they may say, it is not bad at all!

Now there is really far more to it than that. In fact, it is not merely WHO PAYS for the fact that NONE of us is physically perfect, and some less so than others; it is what happens to the joy of life of those not employed. And the issue comes to include the element of the compelled employer's joy, for that matter!

Ah but, of course, HE is not ONE, but the other! In fact, we do have here  all one at all: we have the ONES who are ONE, and the ones who are OTHER. It is all so hypocritical, this pretence of oneness, and this FORCING of this or that preference as though it were justice, when it is merely preference for some over others.

You MAY say: Ah well! that is so very true. Let us then ALL pay a tax, dependent on income (which is NOT ONE) a tax which VARIES between DIFFERENT people, so that those who are left unemployed, or so that employers when forced to do what they do not want and then hit with the eventual COSTS, may be compensated. But then whose joy! The employer loses his inventive freedoms, or the employe loses his job-functional joys. It is NOT ALL ONE. It is so very different, divergent, depending on who is the ONE and who is the OTHER, in the current philosophic PREFERENCE, for that is all it is.

Again the Bible, of course, has the answer. There should be love, not striving, concern not indifference, and concern for ALL. But on what basis ? The richer are not REAL people ? So slug them! That does not seem more than a social insult. The employers are lucky, so limit them: is that one! The employes are hard workers, so protect them! Are they? Do employers not work? Not in my own (admittedly limited) experience. Executive stress was not the name of a TV series for nothing!

Presumptions like these are not, and cannot be the answer. They merely show the avenue to hypocrisy in the pretence*1 that we are being so very moral, when we take up this NO RELIGION, NO RACE, NO GENDER, NO GENE cry, in terms of discrimination.

We tend to become discriminatory about what we insist on, in our discrimination, really suppressing some elements and highlighting others. There is nothing ONE about it. There is no UNIVERSALITY of command or concept at all, in this. From this then we must disjoin ourselves if discrimination is to be excluded.



The DESIRE however for JUSTICE, and for REASONABLENESS and for LOVING your neighbour as yourself, this is different. YOU CAN, if your spots do not stop you (see earlier) seek to be just and THEREFORE to consider in the same way, employer and employe. You can be reasonable, and therefore not just shove all the pain on any one party, far less in pretence that this is in some illusory way 'moral' rather than simple (unjust) preference. You CAN try to find the best way of limiting the damage result to the damaged out of love for them, and preventing the ruin of other functions of humankind in the process. It is hard, but at least it could be honest, if the love were present. You COULD ensure that those who were forced by your PREFERENCE for one party's welfare, against another's, would be compensated! That would be just. You COULD seek to help those who were hindered, by having a DIFFERENTIAL income tax, such as we have. That would be merciful. These are Biblical principles. They go up one step in the face of hypocrisy and speak of the SPIRITUAL aspects which ARE IN FACT ONE,  in our race.

That is, we are ONE in terms of being created on ONE pattern, and in that pattern there are vulnerabilities over time with sinful misuse (from man who is made in this form), and penalties (from God who made it); and how to regard one another and the resulting overall situation is to go back to this ONE beginning, in God, and to find the ONE pattern He prescribes in justice, mercy and love, based on knowledge of Himself, since we are not the criterion of these things and did not invent either ourselves or these things. Then it is necessary to apply it. (Cf. The Other News 19, SMR Ch.4, esp., Part 2, pp. 583-584, The Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 3, Joyful Jottings 24).

  • It is always foolish to assume people are all cretans, since they are not. We do not invent 'goodness' because some tom fool or clever politician wants us to believe that THIS is NOT someone else's PERSONAL DESIRE or PHILOSOPHY, but actually beyond all that. It is BECAUSE of our inward persuasion that there IS something like that, that we tend to accept this or that version of it, and endorse it. We do NOT try to persuade for hours on end, that something is GOOD, because only an idiot could not see that we were not trying simply to twist his/her arm to do what we WANT or what happens to please US: but rather we may act in this way because the CATEGORY of goodness exists, and we are trying to fill it, in someone not notably less intelligent or more foolish than ourselves.

There is ONE reality about what goodness is, one IMAGE for the human race, which is what is its good, its nature, its specification readout and treatment warranty, there is ONE God who made it, ONE source of the class of wisdom which is illustrated in our amazingly ingenious constructions, ONE being who CANNOT lie (SMR pp. 25ff., Barbs, Arrows and Balms 6, 7), ONE way we are to go.

There is ONE design for the universe, and there are MANY parts and particles which are in MANY ways inter-related but which, for all that, are of course NOT the same, thought the underlying processes and logic are ONE, in these highly DIFFERENT but related creations. My books are NOT all one, but there is ONE logic, ONE basis and ONE result to them all, and they are closely inter-related though VERY different if you look at some of the print formats, the stylistic criteria and the modes of starting and ending. The ONENESS of CREATION (ours or God's) and of thought, and of plan, and of purpose are actual unity (even possibly) ONLY when ours take their readout from God's. If they do NOT, then they are lies or fraud or foolishness; and they are NEVER ONE. Hence wars, which likewise come from the LUST to avoid God which results in the failure to take the ONE way which He prescribes for that ONE creation on the ONE pattern which He calls mankind. Ignore the pattern, you ignore the truth.

There is likewise ONE way home. Because there has been both judgment on and abuse by man, there is damage to the spirit, the mind, the body and the environment. This has often (for us) unpredictable consequences (like the atomic radiation based fouling of our environment, which conceivably could go on, if time permitted, for so many thousands of years), or physically, like the slow rotting of radiation sickness (cf. Zechariah 14's prediction).  There is ONLY ONE predictable way of FIXING this, and that is to return to the source of the ONENESS of our pattern as in the DNA and in the logic of our minds and in the capacities of our hearts to purpose DIFFERENTLY and CLASHINGLY.  It is to revert to action in terms of its MAKER, who has the ONLY ONE of the originals which is to the point, and which is not a FURTHER DEFORMITY when Mr Fixits of this world insist on some other oneness, as in the 'ethics' of the Clinton administration, noted in the Advertiser report on genes, referred to above.

The ONE WAY HOME is of course just as much the work of the Creator as we are. It is HIS ONE PLAN. It involves HIS ONE WORD or expression who came as Jesus Christ, and who went to ONE CROSS where He died ONE DEATH (not many masses) so that those who come to HIM ONCE, should stay there always, on account of Him who DIED ONCE AND FOR ALL (Hebrews 9-10, Romans 5:1-11) to cover the basically ONE thing about man which requires it, SIN, for those who accept His passage home.

THIS is the one which works because it is from the ONE who made us ONE with all our differences, in terms of ONE PATTERN, made us not physically (God is a Spirit) but spiritually in His image, so that it became possible to love or hate, to guess to find out, or to verify, to push or to receive, to be godly or godless, abandoned to all reason, or to follow it ... as we show on this site, to God, and to God only, for there is INDEED ONLY ONE God and only ONE way back and that is the one which He has provided. What would you expect ? That HE would obey the thoughts of our sin about how to make it right, or the thoughts of His own heart, as Creator! There are some insults which are childish (cf. SMR pp. 100-101).

NATURALISM is ONLY ONE of the many ways in which man tries to ignore the actual ONE who made us, who wrote the book of life and the books of nature, and who integrated their circuitries, adding that fascinating dimension which allows us to make a DIVORCE through foolishness, between our aims and our methods, called ERROR. That is only possible when purpose exists, otherwise the results simply flow. It is only possible when WILL exists, for otherwise, it all proceeds as made, and nothing is right or wrong; but if you ask any physicist, he will quickly tell you that you are wrong if you say this or that too readily, even if in the case in point, the error may be his. He RECOGNISES ERROR very quickly, and the work of will. His system, if he is a naturalist, cannot allow for it; so that it is unrealistic. But of course not all physicists happen to embrace the error of naturalism.


 ONE (only) RELIGION is ONLY ONE of the other ways in which man deludes Himself, unless by 'religion' you mean the objective return to the actual God (cf. Barbs, Arrows and Balms 6-7, A Spiritual Potpourri 12, Biblical Blessings Ch. 13, Ch. 15, End-note 1, Spiritual refreshings for the Digital Millenium 13, End-note 1), which here, for definitional clarity, we term 'meta-religion', in that it is by definition not at all concerning with man as its source.

That is the nature of the thing; and whatever you believe, it is best to see things in terms of their actual nature, or their alleged case.  Otherwise, words do not do their job of differentiating and distinguishing things, and pre-empt the question of what you are talking about. The other thing you need to see, is that what is said is what is done. That is the sense in which Christ said that if you did not believe in Him, then to believe Him for His works (John 14:11). That is the way in the Bible and it is testable, with an explicit challenge to that point, must justly and reasonably (cf. SMR pp. 895ff., 822ff., 252E-L, 208ff., Spiritual Refreshings for the Digital Millenium 13,End-note 1 ).

Otherwise man's one religion, like his one fundamental particle (from which all comes, all is built or whatever other compulsion is in view), one fundamental society (which is the model for all), one culture (which is a vitamising of all that comes around, so that nothing good in any may be preserved, except by some marvel of management now and again) and so on, these serve as so many Babels, which of course - let us be realistic - fail to work properly. Why ? Because, founded on assumptions contrary to fact and logic, contrary to God and even possible truth, and yet proclaimed as true (with whatever confusion of tongues or dexterity of wit), they are at war with what is true. Let us be more specific: they are generically at war with HIM WHO IS TRUE, and without whom there COULD not even be ANY truth, but only observations of connections which occur here and there. Whether these SHOULD be different would be the question. The purpose of it all is another matter. The author Himself...  yet another.

  • Avoiding the obvious, in such masquerades, will be an art form par excellence, no doubt in this last millenium before Christ comes, this last century indeed as one reads Luke 21:24-28; because deviousness and delusion become the first essentials of the end, and form part of the judgment it is going to bring on itself, as true desert for such word play, reality play,  confused delusion and deluded confusion (II Thessalonians 2:10).


  • These things are NOT the unfortunate results  of dear children, grown to be dear adults, who too dearly purchase their 'liberty' from God by their refusal of the truth, which as with vitamin deficiency, leads to predictable results. Delusion is one of the end products. It is certainly to be one of the end-products before judgment. (II Thessalonians shows this very clearly, a man acting as God, indeed SHOWING HIMSELF that he is God, while the cause "because they did not receive the love of the truth" is both apt and simple).

That is the way it is going to be, realistically, prophetically, Biblically, in terms of what logic requires (cf. Repent or Perish 7). Where YOU are going to be is another matter. YOU are different from others. YOU, like mass and energy, have some things in common, and some things that are different. It is NOT all one, but the design is one. It is NOT all the same, but the call is one. It is NOT the case that we are all going to the same place, but the REASON is one, wherever we go. If we go to God it is because we have taken His offer in the gospel; and if we do not, it is because we prefer to roll our own, which are merely delusive, and cancerous spiritually, with assured consequences individually, just as they are becoming so incredibly clear in our overall WORLD position, socially and environmentally.

WHICH WAY! It is life or death for the simple reason that it is divorce from, or unity with the Maker. That is the real oneness, and it is a oneness in spirit. Worship of God has distinct advantages, of which Himself is chief,  which will never repay those whose life is constituted by rebellion. Nevertheless, we are not saying what people WILL to do, but what reason requires. You do not HAVE to listen to reason. It is then that you become unreasonable. Reason however (SMR Chs. 1-3, That Magnificent Rock etc.) requires that GOD IS THE TRUTH, that HE SPEAKS TRUTH, that His way home is as He states, and that if you do not take it, as HE SAYS, you live without Him, which is another way of saying in perpetual divorce... from your Maker. That is very unmaking. It is thus you are unmade, unmasked.

If then you do not live in the truth, it is a lie. What is the need of a lie when the truth is magnificent! That is the perpetual question. Satan in Milton has it: Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. It is macho. It is pride. It is self-hood. It is delusion, for you do not reign when you are unmasked, but merely endure, rather than enjoy, everlasting contempt. You were the little fiddler who WOULD NOT accept the truth, and preferred to pretend to powers you did not possess. You were the little pilgrim at departure point, who insisted on the aeroplane to take you to advanced thought, cultural unity or whatever other unity you wanted, lest you should believe in your heart and being converted, be healed and made holy, filled with the love of God and the power to do His will, as a friend of His heart (Matthew 13:14-15, Ephesians 1:6,10-11), in that grand UNITY of which HE SPEAKS. For yes, unity does figure, but His way.


 What does it say ? "That in the dispensation of the fulness of the times, He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance...that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory." (from Ephesians 1:10-12).

You LIKE things to be one? That is the reality, and it works. Personally I prefer lightness to darkness, liberty (in Him) to slavery (to myself, or to some other imperfect being or group). I do not really think very much of myself, as a self, because when it is apart from Him, it is so very weak and vulnerable and meaningless; or filled with false strength that does not really accomplish anything worthy of being created. But that! it is natural. Apart from source, even a transmitter does not do too much! It is assuredly a work of grace that my eyes were opened to this; but then, it does not worry me: I LIKE GRACE, because GOD IS GRACIOUS and I love God. It is wonderful to show grace. It is so much better than mere narrow self fulfilment, social fulfilment, world fulfilment - for what!  For a false show of glory which always ends in wars because it is not founded on reality! Want more wars! Just watch the century and take a look at the penalty clauses in Revelation 6:4 and 8.

That is the scenario (Matthew 24). It is happening as if the impresario had just arrived from Berlin or Paris, and on site were superintending the opera himself! It is all so, it is always so; for that is the way with the word of God. It appeals to the thinker, because it explains all things; to the doer, because it works. Either way, it does it (cf. SMR Chs. 5, 9).

YOU ? Where are you going ? A good first question is this: Where have you gone ? Without God ? Then you are living in a moral vacuum, for no morals are even logically possible without Him as shown with references, above. You live for and by yourself... Oh no! you say, I love my family. Do you ? Why ? Because this is the desire of your self ? Good old self, then, you live for it: by and with yourself, you live as God. But you did not make yourself, and ignoring the One who did, you become shameless to the
point of contempt, that 'everlasting contempt' (Daniel 12:1-3) which God has in store.

WHY should it be so! It does not have to be. There is the unity with your Creator who truly is sublime. The word 'lovingkindness' is used a lot in the Bible, and it is a sure signal of Him. There are no contentions about if and when; it is the way He acts. He does not act that way to those who insist on being the moral and rational refuse of the universe, it is true; but who does act that way towards refuse. In this case, it is a chosen career as refuse, disguised by money or 'success', but the disguise does not alter the shape of the face, and even plastic surgery, the character of your genes. Your spiritual genes, to use a figure, are not altered by having done this or that for the ACTUAL purposes and with the ACTUAL OMISSIONS which are yours.

All you need to do is REPENT and BELIEVE, accepting the pardon in the Person of the one who gave the ultimate expression to God, the definitive expression, as His eternal word come in the form of flesh to SHOW what it is all about, to DO what had to be done and to INVITE you to take it from Him (Hebrews 1:1-9, 2:1-3). There is really nowhere else to go... but Jesus Christ. It is so simple. It is so old. It is so much abused. It is so unchanging, so unchangeable, so effective. Christ as Lord and Saviour according to His written word which is also the word of God to man. The only one written.




What a pretence it can so readily become! Thus you MUST employ without regard to creed ? So if a man wants to subvert your nation, and put it under the control of some international conspiracy, DEDICATED to world rule, you SHOULD employ him ? Why ? Because you want to help him do it ? Let those do so who are in sympathy with his aims, not patriotic citizens!

If he feels the yen to have the whole world in some system of pagan belief and irrational control, with women, for example, under extreme duress as in Afghanistan by report (cf. Benevolent Brightness or Brothy Bane 82, p. 206), then one must feel confidence in having him on the Staff ? on having him/her joined to the Firm with that all but inextricable bond with the employe, which government rules and penalties so readily can produce ?

Really ? Has reason stopped to function ? Has individuality no more meaning ? Has community value, changing and unfounded and indeed often foundering, to become god ? If many have their way, in their timid confusion and aggressive legislation, perhaps so. Is that not an oxymoron in the offing ? timid aggression ? Perhaps: but it is the fact. There is timidity in ONE respect, towards moral fortitude and realistic facing of facts; while there is potential aggression in another aspect, insisting that one's own moral torpor become law for others, and this in the NAME of tolerance, not as it should rather be termed, capitulation and godlessness!

THAT is where hypocrisy can enter, fostered by confusion, dynamised in the end by something akin to delusion.

But the case can be worse than this! This is mere hors d'oeuvres.

A BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN body, like any other, has its standards and objectives, purposes and value system or approach. If now you INSIST, for example, that THIS body employ homosexuals (no, one is not joking, for in all seriousness some people try to do this by LAW, not lawlessness, as one would rather prefer to suppose...), it is like asking a Texan gringo, to use the slang, to act as hostess at a night-club! It is exceedingly worse. (Cf. The Kingdom of Heaven 3 and  The Frantic Millenium and the Peace of Faith Ch.1, pp. 8ff., Note and Endnote 1 generally),

In ANY  institution, you want to EXHIBIT what you stand for, stand where you are and perform on the platform adopted. You do NOT wish to be a hypocrite,

  • SAYING this and that is MOST important and is the REASON why we are here, or is the QUALITY standard which we adopt,
  • and THEN do the EXACT (or even approximate) opposite.

Nor, if you DO happen to be sincere, and actually BELIEVE what you say, do you want to be foolish, adopting or being chained to what is destructive of goodness and virtue and strength. IF you are persuaded that this and that is MOST serious as a detrimental feature, then of course you do NOT want to be involved in those things. If you think lung cancer is not desirable, and that smoking helps it, you would be likely to declare a smoke free zone, if possible, in your offices. You do not WANT to contribute to such a result for ANYONE if it is in your power to stop it, within the bounds of courtesy and reasonable composure. Lung cancer hurts...

Thus,and similarly at the outset, a Christian school, for example, has a responsibility, if it is a good one, to SHOW the RESULTS and FRUITS of living the WAY it says is right. Thus ONE way is for the teachers, maximal articles of exposure, emblems held up continually if not on purpose, then in practice, to SHOW what they KNOW in the WAY they live, and to exhibit the realities of which they speak, in the quality and calibre of their living. ANOTHER way is for those who TEACH the Bible, and come for example to I Timothy 1:10, to state that this is the case, to live it in integrity and to help students with every method,

  • the visual by example,
  • the emotional by the testimony that tends to show,
  • the spiritual in that glowing face or radiant disposition,

so that NOTHING is contorted, distorted or unreal.

GOD IS A SPIRIT, said Christ (John 4) and seeks worshippers in SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH. A school dedicated to helping people KNOW God and SHOW God in their lives, must therefore do it SPIRITUALLY, and hence all things must be to that end: not least people, who matter so much that Christ died to offer to them, eternal salvation at vast cost, on the Cross.

To FORCE SUCH A SCHOOL in some  moral pretence, by LAW, to have people in the role of teacher, or for that matter in most other roles, who DISBELIEVE these things, and therefore do not DO them (James 2:17) -  it is the dictation to hypocrisy, to USE what you exclude, to exhibit what you know to be wrong, infectious to some and at war with the God you are serving.

As to DOING these things which you believe: Faith without works is dead. What does not work IS dead. If it has life, life shows. What KIND of life it has, this too shows (cf. Matthew 7:15-20). To use Christ's figure about the good tree and the good fruit it bears, let us note this once and for all:

  • FRUIT does not PLANT the tree (Isaiah 61:3), but it DOES exhibit its nature!

The nature in a Christian school which by all means is to be shown and taught, is that of godliness. What is in rebellion against it, at war with it, is like having a Nazi teacher in the British Royal Air Force during the war. Oh!they might say, it does not matter. He will not actually SAY that Adolf is it. True, he meets with some Nazi group in the suburbs somewhere, but the police know about it. It is quite harmless!

But would they REALLY say that! Not at all. You see Great Britain won the war, the Battle of Britain. It is true that some homosexual people specialised in betraying the secrets of atomic power to Russia; but that was not ENDORSED by law, but done in infamous subversion, contrary to law.

Naturally we should regard any nation that behaved that way, allowing Nazi instructors in the Royal Air Force, as already doomed by inane if not insane lack of understanding. The heart and spirit of the Nazi instructor, whatever 'controls' you may have had, would always be in the direction of subversion. You do not NEED that; you have trouble enough already with fire from Nazi bombs, without playing with the blazing ideology, as if the whole war were some moral-free game! and agony was merely for an exercise in macho!

There is a war on (cf. Wake up World! Your Creator is Coming... Ch.2, pp. 31ff.), as Paul notes in Ephesians 6, and God shows in Micah 3:5, Romans 1:17ff.. It is not for a time, but for eternity. The molestation of church and Christian schools or training by the State is not new. It happened with people being tarred and feathered and hung as stadium lights, in Roman times. It has happened often since. This present intrusion, this contemporary legal farce is ONE MORE WAY in which it is happening, but in the grotesque way of PRETENDING to be ethical, while forcing in tinny dictatorial blasts, Christian schools to put their tongues firmly in their cheeks and employ what corrupts, by their own Biblical basis! Small wonder one Principal, whom the author knows, told the government that if THEY wanted him to condone immorality in his staff (adultery, from memory was here the issue), then he would close his doors, with all the hundreds of families concerned deprived of the school. That response was eminently moral, conscientious and apt.

 HOW in Christ's name could you defile Christ's terms!  Will you for the sake of your children, kill them, or for the sake of your business, run advertisements on its corruption, give data on its defilement, and act to make this accurate!

Are you to do IN HIS NAME what He condemns ? Are you to foster, forward or incline by ANY means towards what He condemns ? A church school uses a Christian TEAM. A 'brother' who SAYS he is homosexual is NOT to be one with whom one keeps company , with whom Christian people are to be  involved (I Corinthians 5:11). Seeking help is always different, when the object is repentance. Proceeding unrepentant in that path, however, is always the same: excluded for Christian fellowship.

The world is wide, but the church is narrow (Matthew 7) and the narrow way is justly famous. It can be found and followed; or left. Those who find do not follow or mingle en route with the opposite, since it is in the other direction. They may help, not mingle. They may warn, not mingle, in their religious life.

It is found similarly in mathematics and sport, where if you take the broad attitude, it does not work. THIS narrowness is in truth, and it is because God who is the truth, is what He is and not another thing. Thus it is FORBIDDEN to have fellowship with UNREPENTANT 'brothers' (professing Christians) who are thus, or adulterers, idolaters or whatever other thing is against sound doctrine (to use Paul's own phrase, in I Timothy 1:10). It is also wrong to include NON-CHRISTIANS in CHRISTIAN PROGRAMS, since they are statedly BLIND to the truth (Ephesians 4:17ff., John 3:3). If you CANNOT SEE the kingdom of God, you would break a lot of things in your (ignorantly) blind actions!

Hence by command and by conception, by example and by responsibility to parents, children and to God, Christian schools, to take just one simple example, CANNOT have non-Christian teachers, or employ professing Christians who are nevertheless by their lives statedly excluded from the kingdom of heaven (I Corinthians 5:11).  To FORCE such schools  to do so is immoral, unethical, dictatorial, a subversion of individuality, the immoral Moses touch, where without God the State plays Moses, setting up its own religion without reason or truth, but just for a false concept of unity based on nothing.

On this last topic, see in detail in an actual case, an historical proposal: Lead us not into Educational Temptation, which the matter is analysed in actual place and setting.