Tag Archives: Dogmatic

Devil Dogmatics

1 Timothy 4:1-3 NIV

“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.”

We are not talking about denying the resurrection of Jesus, the Trinity, or the forgiveness of sins. Instead, we examine denying people their carnal desires for good sex in marriage and good food. Keeping Christian men from penetrating women in marriage is demon business. According to the Good Book, some morons will ditch faith faster than a priest at a strip club, chasing after demon whispers, from those whose consciences are as burnt as last night’s lasagna.

Marriage offers the pleasure of sex and the joy of family. Although God is a God of fertility and family joy, the biblical emphasis in marriage is on sex. Hence, this becomes our basic emphasis. The Bible has an entire book, the Song of Songs, dedicated to this, not family. Think about that. The Spirit of God, who wrote the Bible, gave the high title, “The Song of Songs,” to celebrate the romance and sex between a man and a woman, not to praise Jesus. Your worldview should include this. Christian sex should be world-envied.

These doctrines did not originate from men but from demons. The concept of restricting sex and food was so vile, a demon conceived it. They’re straight from Satan’s playbook. Only a demon would come up with banning burgers and apple pie. God’s all about the bangin’ and the breedin’, but these fools say no, you can’t enjoy your steak or your spouse.

Some have conspired with demons to spread these doctrines, making them human too. This is the opposite of Isaiah 55. These demon thoughts are too low for a human to think it. Only a demon could think it, and by demon manipulation humans think Satan’s thoughts after him.

The passage states these men have seared their souls with a hot iron. These trash have seared their own souls, not from too much sex or food, but from denying it to others. That’s some twisted stuff! This could mean they become perverted after searing their souls, or teaching such doctrines does this, or both. Either way, the horror is the same. I’ve never heard a pastor use the phrase “seared their conscience with a hot iron” in this context. What else do our pastors not tell us?

Not rejecting the resurrection, but rejecting carnal sex and food is so dark, vile, and rebellious it’s labelled a demon doctrine.

From this, we learn demon dogmatics withhold good things meant for Christians. These doctrines oppose the blessings given to God’s elect. God has given good things in creation, in Abraham and in Jesus, but demon dogmatics are designed to snatch and steal this knowledge. The goal is to ensure faith never has a chance to receive them.

Thus, “how much more,” would rejecting good things, such as miracle ministry, faith and the baptism of the Spirit, be demon doctrine. These good things have the blood of Jesus stained on them, and so they would be greater. If withholding sex is demonic, how much more so is withholding healing and miracles, which Jesus’s blood bought? If withholding a juicy steak is devil’s work, imagine what denying healing or miracles means – that’s like Satan on steroids!

Healing is good; it was part of the atonement, and Jesus spent much time healing, when He could have spent more time preaching. As Peter said, Jesus went about doing “good,” healing all oppressed by the devil. Supernatural healing is a very good thing in the Bible.

And so, to teach healing by putting it behind a paywall of, “if God wills it,” is a demon dogmatic. They block healing’s door, like bouncers at a club you can’t get into. Such a thing is so delusional that only a mind as perverted as a demon, could imagine it.

Jesus said, “if you are not with me, then you are against me.” He said this in context of blaspheming a ministry of healing, miracles and casting out demons. It is the ultimate devil dogmatic.

Those who evangelize these doctrines deserve all the harsh rebukes scripture gives them. Cut them out of your life as you would any demon. Demons cannot enjoy God’s good things and out of envy, they use pastors to propagate their dogmatics, keeping you from God’s gifts.

So, if you’re with Jesus, you’re all about the healing, the miracles, the good stuff his blood paid for. If not, you’re with the other team, the one with the horns and pitchforks.

Cast them out. Expose them for who they truly work for.

[1] Grok Ai 2025 personal editing. Grok aided with proof-reading and some witty summaries.

anirudh-_8TNaYeJF58-unsplash

To Reject Christianity is to Reject Thinking

It is always intellectually defective to say anything against the scripture, but recently I heard a comment that was particularly irrational.

Their argument went like this. “Because I have homosexuals in my family, therefore if someone says something against homosexuals, then they are morally wrong, and need public governmental (or an authority) punishment and or to be silenced.”

First. This is a type of ethical dogmatic zealotry, that would make the catholic church portrayed in anime, blush in envy.

Second, the reasoning is so illogical, that it is barely comprehensible.

If I have a family member who is a murderer, then an ethic is produced. It is now morally wrong for any person to say in public that murder is wrong. ??? LoL.

The other ethic they used was “they felt offended.”  However I felt offended that they felt offended at their irrational opposition at a biblical ethic. I feel offended at all persons who disrespect my Lord Jesus. If Hitler was offended at the Jews or if I’m offended at a particular skin color, then it produces a dogmatic ethic that the authority or governments use their power to suppress and silence these people?

If all offenses were used to silence other parties who offended, and since there is somebody who is offended at every known worldview, then it would mean the government would have to silence and suppress everyone, including itself. Such an ethic is implausible with reality.

But beyond the implausibility with reality, the knowledge of such an ethic doesn’t exist, except in delusional fantasy.

Ethics is not the same category as metaphysics or reality (any created reality). Ethics is God’s command. God’s command and what He causes is not the same category. Any anti-Christian definition of ethics is intellectual nonsense and even to understand the nonsense of anti-Christian ethics, these must use biblical intelligibility to do so. However, the Bible they presupposes to make up their ethical nonsense, is necessarily true, and says all anti-Christian thinking is false.  Thus all anti-Christian systems are false by logical exclusion.[1]

However, a simpler example might be helpful. If I say, “(A) All humans have sinned. (2) Oshea is a human. (3) Therefore mockingbirds are trees,” it is easy to see that I made a category fallacy. My first two premises have nothing to do with the category of mockingbirds or trees.  You cannot have different categories in your conclusion and still be rational or intelligible. To have premises about your feelings (being offended), or metaphysical statements about your family, to then conclude in a different category of ethics (something is righteous or unrighteous), is to be intellectually broken.  Yet, this is always the history of anti-Christian thinking. To reject Scripture is to reject truth, reject reality and to reject logic.

To boil it down even further, to have “is” statements about reality in your premises (this is that) and conclude with an “ought,” is always invalid and insane. To go from an “is” to an “ought” is unintelligible. To go from descriptive premises of reality to a different category of ethics in the conclusion is not comprehensible. It does not exist in the mind or in reality. It has no being.

It is no less delusional to say, “all cat blues 15 mist happys are houses, and so all people cloud 5s are super 9 flying backward dog 2s,” than saying, “this offends me, it hurts me, therefore it is wrong.”[2] Do you think the latter is more understandable than the first? Really? If you think the second argument is any less delusional than the first, then you are intellectually broken and deceived in an abyss of delusions. This is the bible’s definition of people like you, therefore it is a true definition of you. Obviously, to reject Christianity is to reject ethics, but is much more foundational than that.  To reject Christianity is to reject thinking itself.  

EndNotes

[1] This understanding of apologetics I got from Vincent Cheung. See Systematic Theology and Ultimate Questions. For a specific reference of the above argument see Captive to Reason, 2009 page 44.

[2] Some might confuse a piece of innate knowledge (Romans 2:15) in them with that is being said in second argument, and by this think it is understandable. Other than presupposing the Scripture to do this, this presupposing of innate knowledge is separate from the argument. The argument as it is, is unintelligible.