Tempting

"I strongly hesitate to tell most people about the precious forgiveness and relieving ecstatic redemption provided by Jesus Christ
by His mortal crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension (commonly called: "The Gospel").

The reason for that is that one of the most damnable things a religious heretic can do is to purport to the particularly-during-warm-weather misattired, and/or loose-long-haired mopheads (who, in their self-righteous defiant arrogance and rebellion, presume they are doing nothing wrong) that
"God loves them and accepts them as they are"
and that
"Jesus died on a cross as their irrevocable renewal and reminder of their ongoing license to continue their constantly-forgiven-if-they're-bad immodesty"
(vainly self-justified by all sorts of convenient, carnal, doctrines-of-demons irrationalizations)."

I hope that you the reader are broadminded and patient enough with yours truly to bite the proverbial bullet on what I am about to write, which will sound somewhat similar (in attitude at least) to the anti-government/anti-police-state snippets which attorney John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute posts on my Facebook homepage.

You are free to cut me off after I state what I am going to state, but be it known that I am speaking my mind "with all due respect" in all forthright candor and potty-mouth-to-many frankness.

Song of Solomon 5:7 The watchmen found me, as they went about in the city; they beat me, they wounded me, they took away my mantle, those watchmen of the walls.

(1) Almost all of the clergy under whom I was church organist were, (and perhaps yet are), pompous asses.

(2) Many police officers and other government officials who have misrepresented me, falsely accused me, caused me serious familial and occupational disruption resulting in severe mental distress to me and mine were (and perhaps yet are) pompous asses.

To repeat:

Song of Solomon 5:7 The watchmen found me, as they went about in the city; they beat me, they wounded me, they took away my mantle, those watchmen of the walls.

Now, if you are still reading, and tolerant enough so as to continue on, you most likely are curious as to the details of why I called both groups: "pompous asses."

Quite understandable - especially in view of Romans chapter 13 in the New Testament of The Holy Bible (read it for yourself, if you are woefully not familiar with it!)

I guess an overall answer to why I deemed who I did what I did is that both groups were (and perhaps yet are) enforcement agents and patsies who have patronized and protected (and yet probably still patronize and protect) other pompous asses - whether of a congregational or of civilian status - and whether the issue was their purveyant promotion of sexist feminists and feminism, homopervert same-gender sodomy-unions activists, abortionists who murder babies, or something else as deviant.

Song of Solomon 2:15 Catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vineyards, for our vineyards are in blossom.

If the clergy and the police in question intended and yet intend to serve and ally with the so-called "legal" or so-called "popular" demonic agenda of the satanic, it should be understandable (though admittedly harsh-sounding) to term them all verifiable and bonafide pompous asses.

Song of Solomon 2:15 Catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vineyards, for our vineyards are in blossom.

Vulgar references aside, be it known - for a certainty - that I have never, and never will, call God a pompous ass. Nor anything even remotely close to that.

There are numerous reasons for that - one of which is that God never has had and never will have a homopervert, abortion-homicide, evolution-mythology, antisemitic, nor feminist-sexist agenda. Moreover - and dissimilar to the pompous-ass humans I mentioned - God has always been, and I trust will always be, completely just in His thoughts and actions. TOTALLY impartial, without prejudice or bias.

Having been said, this webpage author has, non-regrettably, written in the past that God was (of course) "responsible" and "the cause" (though NOT to blame NOR at fault) for placing, or allowing to be placed, The Tempter along with the dangerous-then-lethal Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. He was also responsible (though NOT to blame NOR at fault) for giving both Eve and Adam (gender placement in order of screw-up, not bodily formation) moral cognizance and free will to mortally make use of both the Tempter and the Tree.

With that in mind, it might initially seem that the following Scripture verse is at least a complete mystery, if not either hilariously-laughable or pitifully-pathetic postulation:

James 1:13 [AV, ASV, RSV, KJ21, JPS, etc.] Let no one (i.e. man) say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one (i.e. man) . . .

The ". . . cannot be tempted with evil . . ." phrase is significantly different in the MKJV:

James 1:13 [MKJV] Let no one being tempted say, I am tempted from God. For God is not tempted by evils, and He tempts no one.

Ah, ". . . is not tempted . . . " is COMPLETELY different than ". . . cannot be tempted . . ." -- because the ability to tempt in the former (and I believe preferable) phraseology entails not the result of God not succombing to any temptation He encounters or is confronted by, instead of lauding who originates the temptation or almost praising the obvious capacity of some tempter to at least try to tempt God.

See the difference?

The MKJV phraseology of James 1:13 indicates that any temptation sent to God does not even get through to Him at all -- whereas the mis-phraseology of the AV, ASV, RSV, KJ21, JPS renditions include, of necessity, a sort of credit given and/or acknowledgement of the sources of temptation being sent to Him which God then of His own free will has no alternative about them except to then reject them when imposed upon Him as He sits on His Celestial Throne in Heaven.

But God Himself does have His own free will - like Satan, demons, angels, and humans also have free wills - whether or not to entertain or consider temptation(s) from any source.

The same principle applies to the correct RSV rendition of Titus chapter 1:

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness,
Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised ages ago . . .

. . . compared with the incorrect AV, KJ21, MKJV, JPS wordings of:

1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is according to godliness,
2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before the world began . . .

So, God tempts NO one, and never has - including in the Garden of Eden?

Well then, WHO does tempt?

Holy-Spirit-inspired Saint James continues:

James 1:14 but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his [or her] own desire.

Bingo!

Now the reader knows why this author does NOT hold God the Creator to blame nor at fault for what happened to our primal parents Adam and Eve in The Garden, and especially what happens to us and those around us, be they friends or enemies -- even though this author does hold God the Creator "responsible" for imposing the dire conditions of a sinful-Serpent environment within which The Big Screw-Up in The Otherwise-Perfect Garden transpired.

Admittedly, and in all fairness, The Big Dangers in The Garden simply "came with, or went with, the territory." They were, thus and in essence, non-aggressively benign - in one sense. At least, they were VERY non-aggressive, and even "benign" in the sense that the nude human offenders aggressively went to both the Tempter and the Tree, and neither the Tempter nor the Tree came to them.

Sort of like when you the reader and I the author are standing up high on a rocky cliff which has not been marked or posted with warning signs by any forest ranger or park safety person (whether he would so post for humanitarian benevolence or merely selfish pay acquisition).

MUST we - as deplorably ignorant idiots - HAVE to be presented with A Big Danger Sign for everything we do in every place we go? ARE we THAT stupid? Are we even stupid at all -- whether or not we are "that" stupid?

WHY would we be stupid? That is a loaded two-part question. We must first ask IF we would be stupid, then after answering that part consider the "why" about it.

IS God to blame and at fault if we choose (as pro-choice beings) or decide to jump off the cliff to our momentary-painful prompt demise on the rocks far below?

Doesn't it give you a thrill to know that you or I or both have the choice to jump off a cliff to your/our/my death when standing on the edge of it . . . and no cop nor clergyman can stop you/us/me from doing it? Should I not speak for myself and leave you out of it?

Does it not send a tingle up your/our/my legs to know that you/we/I have the freewill choice to aim your/our/my rifle with sniperscope at the head of some cop or heretic "reverend" (like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Marty King) and blow their brains out (and, for the most part, no cop nor clergyman nor teacher nor parent can prevent you/us/me from suddenly doing that)? Does it not give you/us/me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that you/we/I can choose to not scribble on the sidewalk at the entrance of some library as a pedestrian tripping obstruction when your/our/my sensible and courageous mom or security officer forbids you/us/me from defacing public property with childish graffiti (and even The Devil cannot stop you/us/me from so minding your/our/my mother)?

. . . which brings to mind the following verse:

Isaiah 3:12 My people: children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. Oh my people, your leaders mislead you, and confuse the course of your paths.
Isaiah 3:13 The LORD has taken His place to contend, He stands to judge His people.

That verse should beat the proverbial feces out of want-to-get-attention-to-themselves mothers and their non-disciplined brat children being allowed to terroristically shriek in stores, libraries, church, (wherever they should instead maintain an "inside voice") without being adequately and promptly punished or physically removed to some covert place where a well-intention measured beating manually occurs.

However, doesn't it cause you/us/me to shudder when you/we/I realistically think about the very real probability (and not mere possibility) of the CONSEQUENCES of shooting an innocent clergyman, cop, teacher, mom, student, employer/employee, or pedestrian?

The plethora of phenomena in our environment created by God neither demand nor command that we misuse nor abuse ourselves by means of them, nor are Big Warning Signs necessary to post on every single thing inside or on all forests, oceans, mountains, cliffs on mountains, chemicals in nature, poisonous creatures on the planet, ultraviolet sunlight with which the non-deniably-insane over-tan and over-expose skin with resultant severe skin-destroying-and-withering sunburn and even sunstroke for the damnable excuses of style, conformity, or simply defiant rebellion against holy and godly modesty and decency.

MUST we flash a neon sign into the faces of sexually-harassing and adulterous-seductively-irritating warm-weather exhibitionists proclaiming: "SLEEVES, SLACKS, AND SOCKS FOR SAFETY?"