Yippee! I got it!

Mucho Gracias and God bless you my sibling in Christ! I proof read your message and it was really good. I’m sure you won’t mind a few very minor tweaks I made to what you wrote (mostly things like capital or lower case, punctuation, etc.). I didn’t know exactly what to say to Beacon. It is difficult to teach our faith in today’s times, especially when you are guilty of not teaching it to those in your life who needed it. I know exactly what Charles Dickens meant when he wrote, “It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.” It is torment for me to have to confess to my divorced friends whose marriages I witnessed, whose divorces I witnessed, and whose remarriages I witnessed, that I committed an awful sin against them, the sin of not teaching the gospel in a timely fashion to them or the one they married when I was supposed to. I also sinned against their pastors by passing the buck and dumping the pressure of these marital problems on them. I pray for all of them and if the divorced & remarried ones can ever possibly bring themselves to forgive me, then the joy I can bring to them is that if they and their step-spouses can ever prayerfully receive the spiritual strength to help them reach the point where they can make the sacrifice that enables them to say, “My step-spouse and I sleep in separate bedrooms as brother and sister in the name of the Creator’s precise sociology that His only begotten Son Jesus Christ brought to us for the purpose of glorifying God to those around us,” then that is about as close to a “free ticket to heaven” that I can imagine a person in today’s world as having. I think I would be overcome by a godly jealousy for them if I ever heard those words come out of their lips. I cannot imagine how great of an impact it would have in the respect their children will likely have for marriage on the day their parents / step-parents face the parental duty (Eph 6:4) to teach them the pure sociology taught by Jesus Christ with regards to their sexuality. Whether it is in heaven or on earth, it is the bright future that I envision that brings me the joy that pulls me through the pain of the present.

Beacon, here's the message from the desert. I hope it helps.

[[[ Hello (brother or sister?) Beacon! I used to be an Atheist because religion didn’t make any sense to me. Christianity in particular was utter foolishness to me, and this is why. You are being bad disobeying an invisible Father. Then on Sunday morning you call “time out”, go into a building, say “Jesus, forgive me for being a bad boy all week long,” leave the building, call “time in,” and go back to being bad again. Repeat this every week, die, and then you get to go to heaven. Meanwhile, the rest of us who didn’t go into the building on Sunday morning to say “Jesus, forgive me for being a bad boy all week long” go to hell. It made a lot more sense to me to just get the most out of the time that I do have in this life.

The way that I came to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was purely scientifically. Darwin’s theory of evolution and sociology wasn’t making much sense to me, so I decided to imagine a Creator who loved us enough to give us a sociology text book. I started studying the Bible like a sociology text book and when I got to Adam’s rib, I knew that I was going to have to get some advice on how you go about reading it from some Christians. We found Augustine to be the best source of advice. I had to start believing in a Creator who gave us this sociology book in order to pray to the Creator and ask the Creator to help me understand it. I supplemented this sociological study of the Bible with an objective study of the Christian religion too. I wasn’t concerned with all the political divisions (ie. Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.). I just let the politics go in one ear and out the other. What I discovered from talking to Christians and studying their history was that there have in reality been two and only two belief systems inside all their assemblies throughout all of history. One was a religious belief in a Creator and His Son and His Spirit, while the other was a scientific belief in a Creator and His Son and His Spirit. Both faiths agreed that their sociology professor, Jesus Christ, was the answer to WHO “The Way” to get to the Creator’s Utopian society was, but the two faiths disagreed on the answer to WHAT “The Way” to get to the Creator’s Utopian society was, namely WHAT sociology gets you to a Utopia that this earth will never have because of the permanent presence of an evil spirit here. Those holding to a scientific belief in WHAT “The Way” was kept being pressured into tolerating the presence of those holding to a religious belief in WHAT “The Way” was, but sometimes it would become too intolerable for an assembly and cause them to divide into two assemblies: a tolerable one and an intolerable one. This process has been repeating throughout history. I think there are a few thousand of these political church divisions now.

Here is where Darwinism came into play in my group’s discussions. Our hypothesis was that if there really is a perfectly loving Creator who is preparing a Utopian society, then man can evolve into an animal by leaving the Creator. We turned Darwin’s theory of evolution upside down. The fast forward version of this theory of evolution caused by man’s pride is in the Bible (Daniel 4:33), but the “animal” that we were thinking about is the one who gets his or her face plastered on the evening news: murderers, drug dealers, spouse abusers, child molesters, cannibals, etc. The way man leaves the Creator is by leaving the Creator’s sociology brought to man by His Son (John 7:16), who we were thinking of as our sociology professor. The only thing we needed was to figure out the exact point at which man crosses the line by leaving the Creator’s sociology. This is when we focused our attention on the cell of the Creator’s chosen society. The sociological teachings of giving to the poor, loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, do to others what you would want done to you, and not worrying over worldly things were all brilliant aspects of the sociology that the Professor taught; but we knew that it was the cell that held the key to the entire society. The cell is the male-female relationship that causes the creation of new life. We had to find out precisely what the Creator’s sociology was on human reproduction in order to find the precise point at which man leaves the Creator’s sociology. When we saw that Christianity was all over the map on the Creator’s sociological cell, we had to ditch the Christians, metaphorically speaking that is. We let them stay as long as they left religious beliefs out of our scientific sociology study. We needed a precisely defined sociology, because if a Creator really loves us like the Christians say, then he would have brought us a precisely defined sociology (John 7:16) to the world. ]]]

[[[ As we concentrated on reproduction, it was obvious that the Creator didn’t want the male and female engaging in the reproductive act until they first enter into some sort of public agreement to be partners in this thing called marriage. The girl’s father seemed to be heavily involved in marriage at the outset. He would give her to the boy to take as his wife and the boy would thank him by giving her father some money, called a dowry. A virgin girl is valued highest, because she has saved a valuable gift for her husband (Exo 22:17). Her gift to him also means that there is a reduced mathematical probability of her ever committing adultery. It appears that the people didn’t understand the first two chapters of Genesis. As you read Deuteronomy and Leviticus, you get a feel for what the people were doing. I don’t know if they were experimenting or rebelling, but every time they did something that the Creator didn’t design their bodies to do, here would come a new command coming out of the clouds to Moses for him to write down. Sometimes a boy would test it out with his sister (Lev 18:9) or see how it works with another male (Lev 18:22). Sometimes a girl would see how it works with an animal (Lev 18:23). Sometimes the girl’s father would try to make some money before her marriage by letting a buyer fornicate with her for a price (Lev 19:29). Sometimes a man would marry multiple wives and try to disown the first wife (Deu 21:15-17). Sometimes the husband and wife would try changing spouses for awhile and then come back to each other (Deu 24:1-4). The most interesting one however was when the girl’s entrepreneurial father tried to make some money through her fornication before marriage AND get a virgin dowry out of a prospective husband to boot! Either that or an entrepreneurial man could try to get his dowry back from a virgin’s father! Nobody knows if the Creator saw this dispute ahead of time or not, but nevertheless it is interesting that He engineered the female body in such a way (with a hymen) that the male could prevent the father’s daughter, who the boy was agreeing to be a protective leader of in a reproductive partnership, from pulling the wool over the boy’s eyes (Deu 22:13-21). What makes this law so interesting is that the principle behind this law is “guilty until proven innocent.” Good thing Monica saved her dress! Pardon my humor. I need a laugh from time to time. When we read this passage during modern times, we tend to conclude that the girl in this case disgraced her father’s name by sneaking out of the house to fornicate with a male behind her father’s back (Lev 21:9), because that’s what happens today. That could be; but either way, it was covered by this law because of the precise location of the punishment, namely in front of her father’s house. Regardless of whether the father felt guilt over his daughter or betrayal by his daughter, it was a very sad thing that he had to see take place in front of his house.

As the Old Testament closes, we see that divorce is bringing about God’s wrath (Mal 2:13-17). He was going to replace the daily sacrifice of the Jews with a Gentile one (Mal 1:11). Then the ax comes down from heaven in the New Testament. Except for the boy who got the wool pulled over his eyes, there is no more divorcing and taking other spouses (Mat 5:31-32)! Zero! Nada! This “no divorce” sociology law obviously didn’t apply in the case of a bogus marriage like John the Baptist was talking about (Mat 14:4, Lev 18:16). Messing with the king on this divorce issue got John beheaded. I’m assuming that either the king’s brother (Mat 14:3) was still alive or his brother’s wife had children from him; because otherwise, John would have been in error (Deu 25:5-10). As for the “except for the testimony of fornication” clause (Mat 5:32), this is where our sociology is divergent from Christianity’s sociology. It appears to us that the sociology of Christianity is the result of thinking in reverse chronological order, that is by going from today’s thinking and traveling back in time to those words that came out of the mouth of Jesus Christ when he taught his famous sociology class, the 111 verses that start at (Mat 5:1) and end at (Mat 7:29). Christian sociology thinks of the woman’s “fornication” as “pre-marital sex and adultery,” whereas our sociology, which we developed scientifically by going in chronological order, thinks of a woman’s “fornication” as “pre-marital sex.” We tried to work out a precise sociology that would work with the Christian’s sociology that interprets the 2nd “except for fornication” clause (Mat 19:9) by combining the woman’s two sexual sins (Hos 4:13-14, Heb 13:4): the wife’s adultery (Greek moicheia & Hebrew nawaph) and the daughter’s fornication (Greek porneia & Hebrew zanah), but it was impossible. Not only was that contradicting “let not man separate” command (Matthew 19

[[[ Matthew 19:6) making it impossible, but we were going to have to come up with the precise amount of the wife’s adultery and the precise amount of patience to give her in order to define a precise sociology that lets man separate what God has joined. Is it 7 adulterous acts, 20, 100? Precisely how many acts of adultery is it? The answer is not in scripture. Then once the adulteress is caught, precisely how much time do you give her to repent of her adultery before you let man separate what God has joined? Is it a day, a week, a month, a year? Again, the answer is not in scripture. We must have the precise amount of patience to show for the adulteress in order to come up with a precisely-defined sociology that leads to the Utopian society, namely the answer to the question of WHAT “The Way” (Joh 14:6) to eternal salvation is. The Creator has a will for the victim of adultery, and Satan has a will for the victim of adultery. Whether the victim is male or female, separation from the un-repenting adulterous spouse is an obvious course of action, because the Creator’s sociology teaches that a spouse is not a slave (1 Co 7:15) to an Atheist who resorts to things like abuse or polygamy. However, at precisely what point does the Creator’s will (Mat 7:21) switch for an innocent separated spouse from being “remain unmarried or be reconciled” (1Co 7:11) to “marry another”? Marry another? We did a New Testament search on “marry” (Greek ginomai or gameo) and “another” (Greek hos, allos, or heteros). We found 10 verses. Eight times it was Satan’s will, because it was called adultery. One time, in the case of a widow, it was neutral, neither Satan’s will nor the Creator’s will since it is not adultery (Rom 7:3). And the last time, again in the case of a widow, it had the potential to be the Creator’s will. In that case, “marry another” needed to be done “in the Lord” (1Co 7:39). We could not precisely define through scripture that point where the Creator’s will for an innocently separated spouse switches over to “marry another” as long as the adulterous unbelieving spouse is alive. This is how we discovered that the sociology of Christianity is a “religious” faith in Jesus Christ, and our sociology is a “scientific” faith in Jesus Christ. Our team simply could not bring ourselves to believe in a Creator who would bring us an imprecise sociology. This is the same thing that plagued Peter when he demanded to know precisely how many times to forgive somebody. Well, 490 is a whole bunch of counting on a scorecard. Since the Creator’s sociology says not to count (1Co 13:5), it is evident that “70 times 7” (Mat 18:21-22) must have been symbolic of infinity. Peter may have been a simple fisherman, but he was also one of us science nuts who could not be satisfied with an imprecise sociology!

Interestingly, the Catholic woman was the only Christian agreeing with us on the debate over the “except for fornication” sociology which we coincidentally found to have been an approximately 490 year old Christian dispute. No wonder non-Catholics would say that Catholics are not Christians. She looked proud and the other Christians looked humbled. However, later we found out that her sociology was also impossible for us to arrive at with scientific precision. It was coming from what John the Baptist was saying about bogus marriages like incest. Incest can be a type of “fornication” (1Co 5:1). Instead of “divorce,” she called it “annulment.” Her sociology was scientifically precise from the Creator in scripture until she got to an annulment that she called the “Pauline Privilege.” She became disturbed and kept insisting that the Creator intended “bound” (deo), as a reference to marriage like in (Rom 7:2) and (1Co 7:39) when He inspired Paul to write “slave” (douloo) in (1Co 7:15). Eventually, we were able to help her to empty herself of religion and return her back to an open-minded scientific study again. She calmed down and admitted that she simply could not come up with a scriptural sociology that would define precisely what the unbelieving spouse had to do, before if becomes the Creator’s will for an eligible Christian to take the believing spouse in marriage. Many times we had to keep reminding the Christians that what we were doing was a scientific reverse-Darwin sociological study based on a premise that if a Creator really exists and loves us like the Christians say, then he would have brought us a precisely defined sociology (John 7:16) to the world. There was a newer Catholic annulment, called “spiritual immaturity,” whose origins coincided with the divorce explosion in the 1960’s that we could only ascertain from scripture as having evolved out of the “Pauline Privilege.” The “Pauline Privilege annulment” interprets “unbeliever” (1Co 7:15) as “un-baptized” and the “spiritual immaturity annulment” interprets �

[[[ “unbeliever” (1Co 7:15) as “un-baptized or spiritually immature.” We were able to see how having the former annulment without the latter results in an impossible idea of a sociology from a Creator that contains hypocrisy (Jam 3:17). However, we didn’t really care how Catholics interpreted the word “unbeliever.” We are chronological thinkers who were more concerned with the precise point in history that the Catholics started interpreting “slave” (1Co 7:15) as “bound.” This is when our study got very interesting! The Christian’s “Pauline Privilege” sociology was much older than the Christian’s “except for fornication” sociology. Not only that, but the driving force behind the “except for fornication” sociology was a Catholic turned Protestant man named Desiderius Erasmus who had also written about an expanded “Pauline Privilege” sociology that extended beyond the “un-baptized” unbeliever when he wrote annotations on chapter 7 of 1st Corinthians in 1519 AD. This is how we arrived at our conclusion that the Christian’s “except for fornication” (Mat 19:9) sociology evolved out of their “not enslaved” (1Co 7:15) sociology. The Catholics started interpreting “enslaved” (1Co 7:15) as “bound” somewhere between the time of Augustine around 400 AD, who had a precise and accurate rendering of the word “enslaved” (1Co 7:15), and 1199 AD when Pope Innocent III made an “infallible” ruling to initiate the “Pauline Privilege” annulment. Until we track down the exact date, our claim is that the two faiths in Jesus Christ, the SCIENCE of Jesus Christ and the RELIGION of Jesus Christ, diverged about a thousand years ago. The two faiths had unity of faith in one organized assembly for the 1st millenium. We didn’t have much information on the sociology of the world’s Eastern Christians, but it is interesting that the Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic churches officially divided about a millennium ago (1054 AD to be exact).

Our attempt to track down the point in time between 400 AD and 1199 AD when the Catholics “infallibly” re-interpreted the word “enslaved” to “bound” was very interesting, and it brought consolation to the Catholic woman. We were traveling back in time using modern technology (the internet) to look for the fallible Pope, and any person who might have influenced him. We couldn’t blame Pope Innocent III, because he was basing his “infallible” decretal of 1199 AD off of an “infallible” decretal of “Gregory.” Gregory was the bishop of Rome from 590 to 604 AD, and this “Gregory” decretal was imprecise. In reference to (1Co 7:15) it said that “contempt for the Creator” and “hatred for the Christian faith” dissolved the law of marriage for the one abandoned. “Gregory’s” imprecise sociology was not tenable with us, so we put him on the witness stand and started questioning him. Precisely, how much contempt? Precisely, how much hatred? His writings weren’t telling us anything on this issue. We were about to pin the blame behind church division with Pope Gregory, which was very sad because he was a great theologian; but then something astonishing came to us. We found Pope Gregory to be innocent! Why? Because we discovered that some person between 600 AD and 1140 AD, the year Gratian wrote the highly respected and influential collection of decretals called the Decretum at the University of Bologna, the very institution where Pope Innocent III was schooled, forged Gregory’s “infallible” name onto a whole bunch of decretals. ]]]

[[[ These are called the “false decretals.” They were written by Isidore Mercator and delivered to Rome in 854 AD. The forged nature of these decretals was not discovered until many centuries later. All of the debate regarding the “false decretals” is focused on the Pope gaining too much authority and becoming a very hostile un-Christ-like dictatorial leader in medieval times. Pope Innocent III was very much like this. He waged a bunch of crusades and set up the Inquisition. It was the hostile medieval mindset of the one major Western assembly of Christians at that time to defend Christ’s bride, the church, against the “heretics” that were out to destroy her. Apparently, they didn’t have the “truth will win out in the end” mindset that we have today. At that time, what they were doing seemed to be a noble chivalrous thing, but sadly it permanently scarred one side of the witness of sociological light (Mat 5:14) that the Catholic Church radiates to the world (the side of the light that is sexually moral but violent). Despite the peaceful witness of Catholics today, the current Catholic Church has to fight a stereotype of mistrust and conspiracy theories, because of their historic link to the medieval Catholic Church. As for the imprecise “Pauline Privilege” sociology and the entire imprecise sociology of Christianity on the whole that has grown out of it, we currently suspect Isidore Mercator (854 AD) as being the originator. We can’t confirm this yet, because we don’t have what he wrote translated to English. His name ironically means, “merchant of the gift of the Egyptian goddess Isis.” The thing that brought consolation to the Catholic woman was that we were unable to find a fallible Pope. Because of the “Gregory” decretal, the Holy Spirit was kidnapped from allowing the spirit of Pope Innocent III from deliberating upon the spirit of Augustine’s precise interpretation of (1Co 7:15), which very liberally gives the believing spouse the freedom to immediately leave a violent or adulterous marriage without any guilt whatsoever, while the rest of us go to work on helping the believing spouse by trying to turn around the heart of the unbelieving spouse through relentless teaching of the gospel and prayer until he or she finally gets it and reconciles with the Creator through Jesus Christ so that he or she can start seeing and loving the believing spouse the way the Creator sees and loves the believing spouse. In our faith, every marriage that has the Creator’s written sanctification in the Bible is not between two persons, but rather three: male + female + God (either the Creator or His Holy Spirit. It’s the Creator if neither spouse ever got baptized in Jesus Christ). ]]]

[[[ And there you have it. That’s my explanation of how I came to faith in Jesus Christ without becoming a Christian. We found that the name “Christian” (Act 11:26) originated from those who were outside the faith persecuting the disciples of Christ. Blessed were the “Christians” (Mat 5:10, 1Pe 4:16). If not for their faithful sacrifice, we probably wouldn’t have the words from the Creator in the Bible today. I am looking forward to the day I get to meet them to thank them. If I ever have to go to prison or to the electric chair for my not denying my faith, then I will pray in trusting confidence that the Creator will give me the same strength he gave them as I proudly call myself a “Christian.” In the meantime, I have come to the faith of the SCIENCE of Jesus Christ that says it is not the Creator’s sociology for the persons who are divorced & remarried while the original spouse is still living to be sleeping in the same bed together. It is the most innocent looking form of sexual immorality. Much worse forms have grown out of the innocent one. We’ve even got a modern form of Molech worship (Lev 20:2-5) that has grown out of sexual immorality that modern man calls “abortion” or “terminating a pregnancy.” Nevertheless, to tell the world that divorce & remarriage is in the Creator’s sociology damages the opposite side of the witness of light of Christ to the world (the side that is non-violent but sexually immoral), particularly to the children inside the divorced & remarried household who will need to be taught the Creator’s sociology, the SCIENCE of Jesus Christ, at some point in their lives in order to be consciously convicted to put themselves on “The Way” to the Creator’s eternal Utopian society. ]]]

[[[ The advice of divorced & remarried parents who are still sleeping in the same bed to their children to have respect for marriage by abstaining until the wedding tends to fall upon deaf ears. I’m not being judgmental, because many divorced & remarried were only taught the RELIGION of Jesus Christ. That’s just the way it is with fragile-minded children. The children are the most vulnerable ones to the modeling theory, social behavior that is based upon words and actions of others around them. According to our faith, once you cross over the Creator’s precise sociology into the imprecise sociology of Christianity, it opens the door to a thing called “moral relativism,” which I won’t get into here. Please see our website for more details on that. “Moral relativism” is essentially Darwinism in reverse, the science of how man evolves to animal by drifting away from the Creator. Unlike Darwin’s evolutionary science, ours contains the missing pieces. Hopefully, it is obvious by now how we arrived at the name of our faith, “Children of The Way.” Since marriage is the “great” mystery of our faith, because it symbolizes Christ’s unbreakable everlasting covenant relationship with us, we cannot worship in separate church buildings from the Christians. That goes against the very core of the Creator’s precise sociology. All we can do is to be as compassionate, patient, gentle, and humble as we possibly can as we offer to help our pastors burdened with the pressure and to teach the flock in need of understanding our faith. We want to try to help every person make it to the Creator’s eternal Utopian society through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ; but if we’re not very careful with how we teach the gospel, the ones in need of understanding the Creator’s precise sociology will harden their hearts to our science. Beacon, I applaud you for being cautious on how you teach and I hope this helps you. For the rest of you still with me, you can go to an overall ministerial perspective at our website, www.childrenoftheway.org. When you go there, please play Daniel’s very short card game and then use the road guide “Gabriel.” The angel that spoke to Daniel was the final clincher for me to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and “The Way” to go in life. I am so excited that I have to keep silencing the child inside me that keeps asking mom & dad, “Are we there yet?”

I’m still trying to be anonymous because this is too important for any human to receive credit for or to receive punishment for. Please just test the spirit (1Jo 4:1) that planted the idea of a precisely defined sociology from the Creator into our brains. All credit or punishment goes to the source of that spirit. In order to remain anonymous, I am sending this message to the one in Alabama who has never met me in person by using an anonymous email and asking him to cut and paste this message into our forum and delete the email. Thank you so much for listening, and I hope that we are explaining things so that you can understand them.

I pray that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ will grow from our spirit out here in New Mexico to yours. ]]]

Wow! I didn't know how long winded you were until I kept hitting that 5000 character limit. LOL.

OK. I'm sorry. That was dumb.

I've hooked this message from New Mexico into our page "The Separation". Readers will now be able to choose which perspective to read from: a separation from Atheism or a separation from Christianity. The only thing I took out was the small paragraph concerning anonymity (sp?). The only thing I added was a statement regarding the human dignity of the ones who had evolved into animals. In our faith, the human dignity of every human is equal and never goes away, even when they evolve into an animal. We must never forget that (I was concerned with the reader of this message forgetting and not the author).

Beacon, if you want to explain your faith in a more uplifting light (ie. coming from the Atheism perspective) and bypass the card game and all the questioning, then here is the direct link to use:

http://www.childrenoftheway.org/theseparation2.html

God bless you brother (or sister?).

Hey Beacon, I just got a testimony that takes the cake! Anybody who is trying to experience a feeling inside them that makes an orgasm feel like a “hellish experience in comparison” is either insane or somebody worth listening to. LOL. It’s too bad this person wasn’t around to lift the spirits of the one who left the team hanging his head.

This testimony comes from a Catholic Child of The Way. I hesitate to say ex-Catholic, because we as Children of The Way are committed to continue worshipping Jesus Christ inside the Christian churches we’ve established human relationships in since the core of our belief is that marriage is an inseparable lifelong covenant bond between man and woman that symbolizes Christ’s unbreakable lifelong covenant bond of love for each and every person inside a church (Eph 5:32). I will add to our website the separation from Christianity from the perspective of this Catholic, who Children of The Way also consider to be Christians because of the words we heard coming out of their mouths while we were sitting in their pews putting the Catholic version of the “daily sacrifice,” which they call “mass,” under Daniel’s microscope (Dan 8:12-14).

God bless you,
Your brother in The Way,
Little Daniel