ALFRED KINSEY REPORTS: SEXUAL-REVOLUTION DEVOLUTION, GNOSTICISM, MYSTERY RELIGIONS, FREEMASONRY, FOUNDING FATHERS

There is no doubt that lust gets out of hand more with some than with others and for all sorts of reasons, none of them good. Lust becomes twisted with shortsighted and even cunning selfishness. It can grow and fester. It can sneak up, sneak in, and lash out.

In reaction, individually and collectively, people tighten up and even lash out in reverse. However, there is no doubt that this is reaction to iniquity. The original error promotes hardness of heart on both sides.

In the Garden of Eden, God does not preclude procreation. To reach that point or idea where it is thought that God does stand opposed to human procreation, one must reverse engineer the plights of human kind. What I mean is that even in the Garden with no frowned upon activity and then with only the introduction of the sex act between a male and female keeping only unto each other forever and in no sense other than pure affection, one is not given the reasons for or even the starting point where evil enters in leading to a cascade or otherwise of pain and suffering and death, etc. The sex act at that point is not yet twisted, selfish. It is not yet a heart-hardening act.

The place where evil enters in is when the cart is put before the horse. It is where the pleasure derived is not after the motivation of affection within the bonding described above. Something goes wrong, and the seeking of pleasure takes the lead. Then further twisting occurs, is learned, and is spread where the other becomes less and less important and even a hated enemy standing in the way of the twisted pleasure that at some point very early on, and I maintain that it begins at the very moment of the first twisting, becomes pain, suffering, harm, and leads to death of the soul and also, in a directly connected sense understood on God's level, death of the manifestation that we know of as the flesh.

Now, the Gnostics have various currents running through their schools. One is that the original sex act was an error, that humans were pure spirit and no matter (flesh) and that it was a dreadful mistake to engage in matter. Without being as matter they conceive it, there would be no pain and suffering.

Well, Jesus said that we will be as the angels who are spirit; however, his very flesh was made strait. He returned to the realm of the Garden mentality where selfishness had not yet entered in. He did though return enhanced above that earlier state. Sex for procreation is no longer because the soul is eternal whether manifested in human fleshly form or not.

The proverbial and literal (someone most fits the bill) Adam and Eve were at the beginning of the journey that took, and is taking, the human soul and souls through all of history, errors and all.

There are many variations of Gnosticism. The one that is being pushed most is the version where the forbidden fruit is not the act of putting self first but the act of sex itself. This version of Gnosis or "knowledge" is in direct response to the generally understood Roman Catholic (RC) concept of original sin that is also the sex act itself. In this version, both Roman Catholicism and the Gnosticism I've describe in brief in the paragraph above are very similar. There is though also RC tradition that sex is not inherently evil. Nevertheless, sex for diseased (selfish) gratification is a cause (a movement) that deceives its victims. It is a lie that doesn't want to be exposed. It masks itself in all sorts of tempting symbols and imagery and myths, etc.

In a Gnostic view (among many), matter is inherently selfish and evil (creation is evil fashioned by evil for evil) and humanity is going through an evolutionary history where humans will see the light (expose the false God) and become gods. This is usurpation. It is humanism. The God of Jesus then is a tyrant. Of course, that's simply assigning Satanic attributes to God.

For other Gnostics, Satan is the hero who licenses sex (what one wants). They consider it freedom while it is predatory, devouring, and abusing hiding behind layer after layer of obfuscation.

These are at the heart of the so-called Mystery Religions that are themselves perversions of even the original human religion that always was and remains Christianity.

So, it comes down to an argument over first cause and the issue of consistency or hypocrisy. I stand with Jesus saying that his worldview, cosmic view, and spiritual view are not hypocritical but truly right, healing, redeeming, harmless, and beneficial.

Now, that last Gnostic view immediately above shares concepts with Jesus since he was derided and even ostensibly crucified for making himself God. As Jesus explained, however, the scripture was the law of those Jews condemning him, that the scripture says we are gods (of a sort), and furthermore he, Jesus, was not usurping God or denying God but quite the contrary, lauding God and joining God (certainly not the tempting, twisted-humanist Satan). Of course, I agree completely with Jesus.

The so-called sexual revolution holds itself out as being enlightened relative to even real Christianity (to them, darkness). They are in error. They are still ensnared in the original error where the pleasure cart is put before the unselfish, harmless, affection horse.

You may recognize from what I've briefly written above that there are actions and reactions that soon divert from understanding the root cause. So we ended up with Victorian attitudes, where even the legs on tables needed pant legs to cover them, and the opposing reactions, one of which came in the form of Alfred Kinsey, who under the new scientism, ushered in a wave of libertinism rather than just a setting strait and straight concerning the first error of mind.

Kinsey was a practicing bisexual, masochist, orgy, group-sex pornographer, and God knows what else. He was also a zoologist, which is more important to his errors than apparently is appreciated by those who stand opposed to his views on sexuality.

Before I go on here, let me state that I believe wholeheartedly in both repentance and forgiveness. Alfred slipped. He was slipped up. Had he come to realize it and wished to and did earnestly repent, I would be in the forefront of those calling for forgiveness. He never repented even when confronted. Where his soul is right now is not for me to say. Where it is though, and isn't going to be, at least based upon where he left off in this life, is with God.

Kinsey produced "Reports" on male and female sexuality. He taught pedophiles how to measure and record. They gave him their data that he reproduced in his Report without qualification. That process, of course, was highly unscientific, not to mention immoral.

One of the things Kinsey "discovered," although it had been known by Freud for instance, was that children have nerve endings connected with their sexual organs. Why this was considered a scientific revelation is only on account of the audience. Kinsey published his Reports for the general population for effect, to attack in reaction to the Victorianism I mentioned above.

Kinsey was reckless. He didn't qualify the statements and data of the pedophiles so that the reader would automatically be led to question abuse and pain and suffering, the result of pedophile acts on the emotionally vulnerable.

Kinsey ostensibly concluded from his worldview and specious research that it is good for children that adults incestuously masturbate them starting at the earliest possible age. Of course, that is not healthy at all. Nothing but evil comes out from it.

We see that there are those in authority, granted them by Satan, advocating that in the schools in the U.S., masturbation be taught to five-year-olds. There is no doubt that these same authorities have been long "teaching" this in their homes and on the streets. They seek to invade every home with it. They seek to make it the law of the land. Of course, Kinsey's train leads to many other things being introduced, even things his wicked imagination never conceived. "Do What Thou Wilt" (Aleister Crowley, another bisexual) is the law of the most evil (always has been), and it is invading the Earth and corrupting all who partake.

Deism, Freemasonry, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism (Talmudic), Mormonism, Paganism, Satanism, Scientism, Scientology, Theosophy, Wicca, Zionism, and more, all come into play here against Jesus's true teachings.

  • Understand that you are not to partake no matter what.
  • You are to stand against all of the distortion and confusion.
  • You are not to be coercive about it.
  • You are not to seek wrath but rather enlightenment for the sick in mind, such as Kinsey and his entire ilk.

Sex is for procreation. Were it not for procreation, sex would not exist. Left alone, children mature physically at a certain rate that ordinarily corresponds in a loving and wholesome environment with mental maturation. Rushing sex only induces confusion and harm.

When Alfred Kinsey and his wife-swapping, bisexual, (highly likely incestuous) orgy, pornographic imbibers came out with their "scientific" Reports, many people were unaware of such unnaturalness. They had been taught to avoid it. Many did not. Remember though, the root cause had not been at the forefront of the reasons why certain behaviors were verboten.

Also bear in mind that this was all before all the harm done by pedophile priests and others finally came streaming out. So, Kinsey's supporters must defend against the proof of the horror of the lives of the innocent children who have been abused by sexual predators down through the ages.

Here's another thing to know when thinking about these things. Even from a purely scientific standpoint (and Kinsey was a biologists who might have known), the higher the order in complexity and sentience, the more disease causing is incest. In other words, the more evolutionarily advanced the human species, the more it becomes important to avoid inbreeding. Inbreeding leads to more diseases sooner in humans than in other species, although they certainly do arise in other species as well.

Let me clarify here also that my issue with Kinsey is not that he did not turn in pedophiles. His group (Kinsey Institute) gives all sorts of rationales for not doing that. My issue begins long before that issue could even possibly arise. My issue is with Kinsey's whole, fractured, antichrist, worldview where his "research" would even be an undertaking such as he did it.

What he was doing was seeking to justify himself, rebel, and proselytize for that which is harmful. He was, in a word, wrong.

Now, I mentioned zoology earlier because he took his cues from less-enlightened, less-advanced, less-evolved flesh. That is not human kind's rightful position. Human kind is to rise above and out from baser, reptilian, flesh. Human kind is to be a light to the other species, not a perverter and confuser. We aren't to drive the other creatures insane. Sadly, that is exactly what many human beings have done and are still doing. They magnify their own confusion leading even the animals astray.

Kinsey was finally not opposed to bestiality either. He kept opening door after door after door even though his own initial inclinations (rightful inhibitions) were giving him pause.

Kinsey went about the world promoting his evil science to the governments of the world (he had funding from the Rockefeller Foundation; eugenicist, oil, gas, petrochemical, and banking dollars at work; capitalism; crony but still capitalism — private until they buy the laws they want to force upon you). As a result, we see more and more libertinism being self-licensed by those who float to the top and want themselves to be able to gratify themselves without fear. It is a form of sociopathy. It is an unclean spirit manifesting in the flesh of their brains. Others are less important than the sick one's "pleasure." Others are there to be used in any way that increases whatever the sick one imagines he wants to experience. All are therefore enslaved by the spirit of death. Their throats become open sepulchers.

The problem has been with the reaction. Those who want libertinism allow contrary arguments that come out from those who are straw men (easily confuted). They do not want to face up to the root cause because to do so means failure to maintain their positions of "authority."

The Libertarians need to be made aware that their ideology falls short of wholesomeness. Aiming for anything less than the New Heaven means falling short forever. The Founding Fathers of the United States were not aiming for the New Heaven with their Enlightenment. They were seeking to kill the New Heaven before birth. This does not mean that the Roman Catholics and Protestants were or are aiming for the New Heaven. They are not.

The homosexuals, of course, work in varying degrees via incrementalism and gradualism to bring forth that which is iniquitous. "Homosexuals: What they ignore." They will never be able to bring forth the Christian Commons, as it is predicated upon harmlessness, repentance, transformation, atonement, and so much more that is precluded by the disease that is homosexuality.

In no case is homosexuality immutable or harmless. It is a disease of the heart, mind, and soul that spreads itself. This is why adopted children in homosexual houses become homosexuals at alarming rates. It will backfire as children age and rebel against the evil that is homosexuality. Many will come to realize that they were abused and misled by society licensing (that is condoning) homosexuality, not just being non-coercive.

Here's a video that covers some of this: Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles . If that one doesn't work, try this: Watch what happens when the homosexuals become the fascists.

This disintegration into Hell will continue even as many will see the real light Jesus showed and still shows.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.