To elaborate on my views on marriage

In response to a recent comment I got concerning the subject and since I've been having some odd issues responding to comments on my blog, this post should be my reply to the following comment:

"regarding the above condemnation of cuckoldry (traditionally interpreted as a wife cheating on her husband with another man behind his back) I am curious of what you think of the gender-inverted "cuckquean" fetishism and how it might relate to the practice of plural marriage (1 husband 2+wives) like we see among Mormons.

Haven't read enough of your blog yet to discern what type (ie Catholic, Prodestant, etc) of Christianity you promote, but am curious of what you think of the practice of a husband taking on more than 1 wife and how it may relate to bible passages about marriage."

This is my response:

First off, I'm a non-denominational Christian. I owe no allegiance to any particular sect or ideology and bear none any hatred or animus. I have no quarrel with them insofar as we all agree on the same basic Biblical principles that tend to be universal to all Christians like loving your neighbor and forgiving your enemies.

On the topic of Mormons, I admit I'm still unsure as the historical and theological basis of a lot of their beliefs, and while some do have a basis in biblical precedent (in some ways Mormons tend to be almost neo-retro in trying to uphold ancient precedent in modern day), which I mostly find superfluous at worst in some ways but nothing to raise any particular objection to either in many regards.

Otherwise, I admit jury is still out on many of their beliefs and having conversed with a Mormon friend at length to gain understand of many topics I admit I was ignorant on concerning their beliefs, I'm still not sure what to make of many of them and am willing to let them go until I can give them a more thoughtful examination and merely respect any differences in opinion in the meantime.

On the marriage subject, though, my beliefs lean towards monogamy as the norm, as here is why.

It's clear from day one Adam and Eve were meant to be a pair. The Bible did allow for a man to have more than one wife, but it was clearly an exception, not a uniform rule, and based on the New Testament, the exception is generally just that. As a student of history, the multiple wives allowance is partially based on the absolutely terrible life expectancy of that period and thus having children with more than one wife was done for reasons of practicality, but the Bible remains clear it was an exception to the general rule, monogamy was considered the default.

Polygamy is illegal in United States, and as I consider that one of Man's laws that does not clash with the Bible, I accept that as I do air being breathable, but I respect anyone who disagrees for reasons of ideological difference.

Me, I have no interest in marriage. I remain single by choice, but do believe those who do get married would be best committing themselves to a stable monogamous relationship, both for personal and religious reasons.

A Steam practice I find odious

Something I find often on Steam I LOATHE and find utterly detestable is finding games that are obviously left to rot by developers who could at least ensure it will function on modern PCs when bought.

Two games in particular this is odious on are Fallout 3 and Deus Ex: Invisible War


The first one admits it's not gonna run well on anything newer than Windows 7 and requires several fan patches to fix issues that the official developers could have taken twenty minutes out of their lives to do themselves. Considering one usually has to still buy Fallout 3 and use it as one half of the Tales of Two Wastelands Mod just to run it on the Fallout New Vegas engine (which is modern computer friendly), and considering they still expect people to pay money for it and it has a very active modding community even now, you'd THINK Bethesda could be bothered to care.

Nope. They are too busy running customer goodwill into the ground with that trashfire called Fallout 76.

As for Deus Ex:Invisible War, granted, it's not all that great a game, but it's still a Deus Ex game, and when you consider the amount of work that went into all the other games in that series, keeping that running on modern computers would not be that hard, given it runs on Unreal Engine 2 and fans already made a patch to make it stable enough to run well to do just that.

But again, the official developers just could not be bothered to try.

In Bethesda's defense, they did at least have the decency to warn people about the issues on the store page, but there is no similar caveat emptor for Invisible War, which is REALLY could use given that without a fan patch it runs like crap and can crash every 10-15 minutes.

Another reason I despise this is because Good Old Games averts this practice, as they try to bundle everything they sell with whatever it needed to make sure it can be run or decently emulated before it's sold, even if that means they must resort to bundling fan patches, because they don't want you to be disappointed what you bought is dead on the table when you try to play it.

However, to devil's advocate for a moment, I supposed one could say Steam is under no obligation to FORCE developers to care so long as their games at least turn on when purchased, that is up to Steam's discretion.

Then again, I'm sure most players want to play what they bought, not just load the executable.

Because I want to laugh at my A-Logs (AKA those Mad At The Internet At Me)

I recently have gotten insulting comments from people who are trying to go out of their way to piss me off and all they doing is amusing me.

For the benefit of the confused, they are one of two:

1. One is some assblasted manchild who constantly sends occasional messages I need to be lynched or that I should kill myself either via my DeviantArt account page or this very blog. I rarely visit the former these days, and the latter I HAVE COMMENT MODERATION ON YOU IDIOT, YOUR COMMENTS NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY AND I DELETE WITHOUT GIVING THEM A SECOND GLANCE.

They appear to be someone very mad I got rid of examples for the Complete Monster trope on All The Tropes (one or both of the branches of it), and they think wishing very hard I should die is gonna fix things.

Honestly, I pity someone that petty, they can always find something better and less pathetic to do with their time.


2. My other a-logs are the same assholes I quit regularly posting on the Kiwi Farms to get away from because they made it clear they wanted me off their little hugbox, so I obliged them, only posting a few times in the TV Tropes thread recently to clear up some drama they were unclear on, but aside from that I have other things in life I'm more concerned about.

However, it seems they took the time to post some shit talk in response to my blog post a few posts back about why I don't regularly post on the Kiwi Farms, obviously gloating their bullshit got me to quit posting there regularly, and calling it, and I quote, "karma".

These comments will never see the public eye, they obviously know my blog has comment moderation, so this was done in the hopes of making me mad hoping I'll read it and get angry.

If anything, this just proves my point why I left, and if anything I'm facepalming someone from there is still so obsessed with me they have to post anonymous mocking comments like a coward (that only I will see) instead of having the spine and balls to post a link to my post in their Kiwi Farms Reviews thread and make public their disdain.

I posted in public too, fair is fair, I can take that like an adult.

I'm sure they didn't because the post they sent me anonymous comments on also mentions, the shitheels I left over aside, I still love the place and consider it doing the internet a valuable service, and I still contend, a few shitstains aside, most of it's members are fine people who I wish nothing but the best, and I even now still defend the shitstains in question's right to shit on me. I just wish those eunuchs could do so publicly and quit trying to troll people like the very site rules say they shouldn't.

Besides, if I actually do something that would earn me a thread, fine, I'll take my medicine, but so far, until that happens, I'd like to advise the idiots doing this I'm not going to bother dignifying your bullshit with further responses, you're sad attention whores who could learn a trade, get a hobby, do something more useful with your lives instead of trying to mildly annoy someone who has willingly decided to NOT do the same because I'm not a petty douchebag, and I lament that not everyone is that mature.

That in mind, I'm just going to pray God gives me the strength to never become these people, hate is an ugly thing that is making the products of their lives an ugly thing to witness, and I can only hope for His intercession in their lives before it destroys them as people.

Being Like God or Like a Devil, A Choice Every Christian Faces

It's said godly truths can come from the most unlikely sources, and since I'm a robot anime fan, I believe the anime franchise Mazinger Z has a moral Christians should do well to consider.

Mazinger Z was created by Go Nagai as a kids show like series where the hero Koji Kabuto (his name is a pun, his last means helmet, he pilots the machine from the head region via a device called a Pilder) pilots the title robot against the mad scientist Dr. Hell (the most obviously evil name you could ever have, as if the fact he looks like Santa Claus's evil purple skinned twin wasn't obvious enough) and his mechanical armies.

The conflict is over Dr. Hell wanting to seize the title robot and it's power source, Photon Power, for his own ends of world domination, and the implications of the show have a nice moral tale to them.

The title machine comes from the Japanese words "Ma" meaning "demon" and "Jin" meaning "God", and the dual titling is not accidental, as the series has a moral that is fairly consistent across most adaptations:

"You can be like a god or a devil, it's all up to you".

For Christians, this could not be more true. The light of the divine exists in all of us, as we were created in God's image and our souls are supposed to be reflection of His divine glory, but they are also corroded with the taint of sin, and if we listen to temptation, we can fall away from that divinity we should desire to emulate and become demonic in our depravity.

In the show, Mazinger is portrayed as a overall neutral element, it's power being able to bent towards good or evil depending on the will of the pilot, and that too applies to Christians. Our bodies and souls have us in the driver seat, and that potential to be glorified or debased is all up to our own will, and how we choose to act is, as the series moral puts it, is definitely up to us.

Further, in all the Mazinger adaptations, Mazinger is controlled via a secondary unit called a Pilder that is attached to the head and allows control of Mazinger's body.

We are that Pilder. Our actions are a result of our free will and conscious actions, and our potential for good and evil is just the same.

Granted, not all aspects of the plot make for a great example of Christian morality tale, it has it's own morally questionable elements like all other anime, but it's basic moral theme is quite adaptable to the Christian experience and is a good guideline for our potential.

That said, you can either put that soul and body you were given to work bringing to glory to yourself and thus to God, or you can do the exact opposite and become no better than a Devil.

And that decision is up to all of us to make.

People taking wiki posting too seriously: A rant post, which I've not done for awhile

I haven't done a post where I rage and moan about something mind-bendingly stupid in awhile, so here goes, brace yourself for me bemoaning galaxy-brained individuals being foolish.

Recently, some evidence came out some people were sockpuppeting, and I advised who gave me the information to report it to Wikia Staff.

For the crime of doing so, I got comments on this blog (which I have site moderation on to prevent) and my DeviantArt account saying I need to be lynched and got middle finger emojis, all for having the audacity to give some common sense advice to someone.

Apparently, just doing my job on Wikia is enough to get people to want to see me swing from a gibbet.

Honestly, if that is what I deserve for that, I'd love to know what these insanely butthurt people think should happen when I do something that is actually wrong.

I also got another instance where someone I blocked for being a raging jackass contacts me on Reddit to alternate between asking me to unblock them and acting like a total douchecanoe at the same time. Ironically, they almost had me convinced to do so until they just couldn't wait for me to respond (I wanted to think it over for a day or so) before they followed up their appeals with being insulting, which makes me hope and pray they never become a diplomat, they will certainly cause another World War with that attitude.

The sad part in both cases is people getting absurdly angry over posting on WIKIA, of all places. It's got some good wikis and some good editors, but it's also chock full of insanely angry children (and in some cases this is quite literal, others are just highly immature adults) who take their precious posts so seriously there that any threat to their continued ability to post whatever they please means they honestly believe the targets of their ire deserve death and abuse, no matter the legitimacy of why their edit ability may have been restrained.

I don't know what to say to this, aside from the fact that if these people are taking something like that this seriously, they could stand to find a much less stressful hobby.

Minetest and why I prefer it over Minecraft

One game I enjoy on Linux is "MInetest", a free, open-source clone of Minecraft, and in some way, I deem it superior.


1. It's FREE: Might as well start with the best aspect, I pay nothing to play. Granted, I don't regret spending money on Minecraft when I did, it was worth it, but you cannot beat absolutely nothing in terms of price.

2. MODS. Yeah, I know, Minecraft has mods too, but unlike Minecraft, I pay nothing for all of Minetest's mods, and the modding feature is way more granular, meaning I can strip a Minetest game down it's barest essentials if I please, while I can't do the same to Minecraft

3. Open-source. When Notch sold Microsoft Minecraft, all hope the engine would ever be completely free for anyone to mess with to whatever extent possible died. Prior to their acquisition of Minecraft, modders had been doing a lot of fun things unfettered by limits, now it comes with oversight by a third party over the core source and price tags on mods not released on approved storefronts for free.

4. Cleaner, more lightweight codebase. I find Minetest starts faster and runs better than Minecraft especially after hours of play, and given how much Minecraft can become a system hog over time, that makes it quite good from where I'm sitting.


I could go on, but honestly, if you want to switch from Minecraft to Minetest, it's not a difficult switch, both play about the same, but for the reasons stated above, it's why I only play the latter now.

Code Geass Season 2's biggest moment of stupid, and how it could have been avoided (contains Spoilers for Show)

A recent anime discussion has prompted me to write about the most cringe-inducingly stupid moment of the second season of Code Geass and how it could have been avoided.

And I mean THAT moment, the one where Zero gets backstabbed by the Black Knights over what amounts to a biased set of witnesses, a bunch of paranoia, a lot of poorly reasoned assumptions, an idiot seeking short-term gains making a judgment call they had no good reason to be making in the first place, and a leader whose biggest flaw was understandable but made the situation worse.

Let's dissect the situation and analyze the stupid, shall we?


1. Zero (Lelouch vi Britannia) is accused of planning to sell out his own subordinates, based on an out of context conversation recorded between him and a member of the enemy with an obvious axe to grind (Suzaku Kururugi), and said proof is provided by another enemy (Schneizel El Britannia) who has every motive to profit from sowing dissension.

This alone should have made the Black Knights suspicious. Just because they suspect their leader wasn't entirely on the level is no reason to trust two guys who have been working for their destruction over him without more to go on save an out of context conversation recorded under pretenses they cannot be sure were not doctored for their benefit.

2. All they really had to go on prior to getting the supposed evidence their leader was not on the level was a bunch of paranoia. Said leader has done his utmost to otherwise prove themselves just as capable as when they first met him, wearing a mask or not, and at the point they were duped into betraying him, he has yet to actually commit an act of clear cut treason against them.

Treason meaning "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", which he had yet to do to anyone they did not know had defected to their side prior to their knowledge. Further, the only real witnesses had every reason to lie, BEING ON THE ENEMY SIDE.

3. Most of their assumptions for treason came from poor information on said leader, whose identity they discovered under bad circumstances but in no way made said leader a traitor (the fact he hid who he really was shady, but given who he was, understandable to avoid trust issues, part of the reason said leader masked himself to begin with).

If anything, all they got out of knowing Zero's true identity was that he was related to the enemy, but they already had Britannians on their team already, so this was a dumb thing to hold against Lelouch.

4. The idiot who made the biggest part of the judgment call to betray Zero was Oghi, a man who had ACTUALLY committed treason by sleeping with an enemy officer, hiding that information from his own allies, and refusing to take a stand for either his cause or his hormones, even at the time he was forced to make an actual choice. Somehow, this ACTUAL double-crosser was trusted, but Lelouch was not, even though Oghi's actions were clear-cut giving aid and comfort to enemy combatants.

5. Finally, if Lelouch can be reasonably blamed for anything, it was his refusal to explain anything, if only to prevent misunderstanding.

Part of it was understandable. He was hiding his identity for reasons that would hurt his own forces as well as to protect himself, a lot of what he knew would be more dangerous if widely known, not less, and a lot of what he knew could not be reasonably explained without divulging said information it would be deadly if widely known. The Geass powers at the source of the show were dangerous by their very existence, and Lelouch wisely knew that wider knowledge of them getting out could only make them more dangerous, hence his actions trying to keep a lid on their existence.

However, his hiding his identity and the Geass knowledge also put him in a position of having to order brutal but necessary acts for poorly explained reasons (like the slaughter of the Geass Cult, which made perfect military and strategic sense but also made his troops reasonably horrified to be party to what came off like war crimes due to their own lack of knowledge of the situation). His identity as the outcast prince of the very monarchy who were the chief antagonists of the Black Knights should have come out sooner, as Lelouch had been naive to try keeping it a secret when a wider group of people he had to keep ignorant risked blowing his secret as time went on and attempts to prevent it just caused the reveal when it did happen to occur at the worst possible time.


Short version, Zero was innocent of any of the actual charges against him but guilty of hiding a lot, though most of it was, in his defense, as much to protect himself as it was to protect the troops under his command.


The entire betrayal he got was rooted deeply in his own forces letting their paranoia get the best of them and taking the word of people they should not have trusted without getting confirmation via parties who did not have prior biases, and the people making the decision to let Zero free or to let him hang should have been people other than ACTUAL TRAITOR Ohgi, who frankly had should have answered for his own treason but never did.



tl;dr: He should have come clean earlier, but he refrained trying to prevent the very disaster his unmasking ensured would happen.



Now that we covered the stupidity, let's cover what should have happened.


1. The witnesses who attested to Zero being a traitor should have been countered by witnesses in his favor. He never got that, and the word of biased witnesses who were from the enemy camp should have never been accepted without independent verification. Double galling is that the Black Knights had actually military personnel amongst their number and should have been wise enough to consider all this.

2. When Lelouch's identity came out, that should have been when they demanded Lelouch explain himself. Despite their paranoia, they still didn't know if he did anything that would be provable as treason (aside from being an outcast Britiannian Royal, which meant nothing bad given he was working for the Black Knights since day one as a logical response to being an outcast), they just had assumptions, they should have gotten his side of the story instead of assuming he should swing from a gibbet based on partial information.

3. Oghi's own fraternization with the enemy should have come out. He was leading the side who wanted to see Lelouch hang, even though he should have been the one at the end of a rope under the orders of any competent military tribunal, especially since his treasonous acts were partially responsible for actual military losses people could point to during the failed Black Rebellion.

4. Once they got both sides of the story, the decision should have been made if Lelouch still deserved trust. True, they had partial information he had brainwashing powers and that colored their decision, but even with that in mind, that should have been weighed against any evidence said brainwashing was used to weaken the cause of the Black Knights, If not, he deserved the benefit of the doubt.


Now, before I close this out, I'm a fan of Super Robot Wars, a crossover video game series that combines multiple mecha shows into one plot and often fixes the stupid in said plots by rewriting canon stupidity into something that makes sense.

In Super Robot Wars Z2-2, they follow the events of Geass canon, but the characters original to the game on the good guy side and good guy crossover characters are also part of the Black Knights, and the game gives the player the choice to avert this moment of stupid.

To avoid having to write a novel for those who aren't aware of what SRW is all about, here's the non spoiler version.

In the route where you have the Black Knights trust Zero, he gets several key witnesses to figure out who he is prior to the betrayal who will all speak up in his defense when the decision to decide if Zero hangs for treason happens. This causes Oghi to be forced to think for more than five seconds and make a judgment call to hear Lelouch out before they execute him.

If you pull off the conditions to achieve this route, the Black Knights stay loyal, the plot avoids Lelouch having to plot his own assassination later, and while the Black Knights are understandably not happy with all the lies and omitted information they had been fed prior, they decide that ultimately, based on the evidence, they can't really claim Lelouch ever planned to sell them out, even if they can at least accuse him of not being honest about all of his long-term intentions.

This history change means they still work with him for practical reasons to achieve their goals once the initial anger over their lack of knowledge of the situation they were not privy to is explained to them.

Short version, I like how SRW rewrote the story. It basically plays out that scene where he gets betrayed, only as it should have happened had everyone involved not acted like their IQ hit sub-zero.

And, if the player of SRW chooses, they can have the cast of Code Geass not do that stupid betrayal scene and thus avoid the dumbest moment in the show.

RPG Maker on pure Linux, some tips and tricks for the developer

I'm currently using Linux MInt 19.2 as the only OS on my laptop currently, and since I discovered a few weird quirks of RPG Maker VX Ace and earlier (MV has native Linux support), here's a few points to things that won't work well and some issues to work around.

1. If using Steam, even though Proton works just as well as non-Steam Wine to make RPG Maker work fine, some things to keep in mind.

A. Due to some weird issue, if you don't create a folder to dump all Steam Workshop items into and redirect all VX Ace projects to it, good luck trying to access the folders outside of the program itself. While Windows does this just fine, Linux is bit dense on this topic and forces you to do the step I just mentioned if you want to add resources to the project in any way, thanks to the goofy way Linux handles the Windows file structure and how Steam Workshop saves VX Ace projects.

B. The X window interface and DirectX can mostly play nice, but any scripts that dynamically resize the game window or stretch the game window display won't work right. This particular on the fly windows resizing feature of DirectX is not emulated properly at the time of this writing. Full screening games will work, but it will not stretch to wider than it would on a regular screen, there will be some black borders on widescreens.

C. Mods that call on DLL extenders do work, as Wine does tend to adapt to those with the appropriate DirectX calls, but it can depend on what they ask the OS to do. If possible, make sure it's not a critical feature or can be switched out in-game for something that plays nice on Linux.

D. I recommend having all the Ruby scripts you intend to work with open in a separate editor if needing to import scripts. I prefer Kate or a similar text editor, though any tabbed window supported editor, preferably with coding highlight for Ruby code, that would be ideal. If you use Notepad++ for Windows, it's equivalent in Linux will work well.

E. GIMP is a great editor to keep on hand for tileset editing. Audacity is good for the audio side. If you intend to frequently dip into DLC resource folders, might want to link to it via a shortcut somewhere, it's a bit harder to reach on Linux than Windows due to the different file pathing.

F. If possible, try to test games in a WIndows XP or later virtual machine or another machine with Windows for a better idea how the game will run there if you develop strictly on Linux. You can try ReactOS as a free substitute, but it's pretty unstable at the best of times. Windows 10 would be ideal for testing if only because Steam will only support it past 2020.

Christians, consumption of alcohol, and and what the Bible has to say on the topic

Note: The original version of this post contained an error concerning Mormon positions on caffeine. There are Mormon beliefs advising against coffee and tea consumption, but not caffeine in general, this latter topic tends to vary in some Mormon circles. I would like to thank Sstavix of ChristCenteredGamer for the correction.

Before I address the main topic the title addresses, I feel it important to get my own personal views about alcohol consumption out of the way first.

I'm a teetotaler entirely by choice. I do not consider drinking to be a problem when done in moderation, and for those that can enjoy the occasional drink without it becoming a substance abuse problem I have no issue with. The Bible generally seem to concur with my personal beliefs on this topic, and I consider it's admonition against allowing alcohol to be a snare to sin and foolishness to be sensible for reasons of morality and health.

That said, let's address how Christianity views the topic.

Catholics support alcohol consumption within moderation, and I find that understandable. Protestant denominations tend to vary on the topic, some quite against it for certain reasons, some more tolerant.

Baptists are strongly against it, but that is for reasons of Baptist tradition stemming from the Nazirites in the Bible (and John the Baptist, who was a Nazirite), Nazirites were forbidden to imbibe wine or the products of grapes in general, and Baptists are heirs to this theological point.

I have gone on record in other fora I find Mormonism's connection to Christianity rather dubious at best for many reasons, but they have a similar condemnation of alcohol, and even coffee, tea, and other substances that can be a detriment to the body that is laudable and commendable. While I don't entirely concur with the origins of the logic theologically, the basic arguments they make against defiling the temple that is the human body granted us by God and avoiding anything that could defile that temple and thus ourselves in the eyes of the Lord is a position I not only understand, I find it has a lot of good advice to follow for secular as well as moral reasons.

It's worth noting even many non-Christian faiths condemn alcoholism. Judiasm has similar beliefs in moderation of alcohol consumption as Catholics. Hinduism varies on the topic but generally condemns becoming a slave to drunkenness. Even Islam takes a strong stance against alcohol, considering it impure and something to avoid because it leads one to depart from righteousness.

As an aside, alcohol as a word is actually of Arabic origin, from the word "al-kuhl", and despite their cultural prohibitions on the consumption of alcohol, it is known that Muslims did discuss and even refine some distillation procedures, though this was as a result of forays into alchemy when that was in vogue, and the word meant "the essence", as in, whatever what was distilled could be refined into.


This all said, as far as Christians are concerned, I do not have any positive or negative opinions on personal choice regarding alcohol aside from what I have said above. Anyone who can drink responsibly and still avoid the temptation to do something that would lead them into sin is to be commended as far as I'm concerned.

At the same time, I do however dispute for reason of history the more "dry" extremes of Christian thought who would like to believe all instances of wine in the bible were just really strong grape juice. I personally find that smacks of trying to whitewash history, not to mention I personally find such thoughts incredibly naive and an attempt to pretend certain things didn't happen.

My disputes can be be verified due to frequent mentions of wine-presses, the fermentation process, and the offerings of wine God Himself commanded be poured out on the altar as offerings. Further, multiple confirmed call outs for drunkenness are recorded throughout the Bible, and since wine was confirmably in vogue during the periods of history the Bible covers and even a major source of agriculture and industry according to many historical sources, I consider it the height of reality denial for any Christian to deny the existence of alcoholic beverages and their mentions in the Biblical texts.

As for whether alcohol is drunk by any Christian, so long as you have not subjected yourself willingly to any vow to abstain from drink as specified under Biblical tradition, then I do not see any moral objection to consumption to alcohol so long as you do so with responsibility and refrain from allowing it to be a snare for sin.

Conversely, if one chooses to deny themselves drinking alcohol for any reason, whether based on the Bible or otherwise, they are likely being wise. It can have effects on health as well on on one's tendency for sinful or foolish activity, and thus remaining sober is certainly sensible if nothing else.

Marriage And Why Christians Should Consider It Serious Business

Note: I'm single, but I still highly respect the concept of commitment and marriage as an honorable institution, especially as God intended it to be. I also would like to dedicate this post specifically to Jason Gress, co-founder of ChristCenteredGamer and someone I personally know to take their marriage vows as seriously as Jesus advised all men should.

Marriage is a concept that gets treated with shockingly callous indifference in this day and age, and while I have no plans to get married and am happy single, I respect anyone willing to do so and stick with it, because that requires some long-term commitment, and if you marry as Christians are supposed to, that takes SERIOUS commitment, because you just aren't bound by mortal laws on the topic, but spiritual ones.

Another reason marriage is important aside from the obvious commitment is that God made a direct comparison between marriage between a man and woman is the same as his commitment to us. Making a mockery of marriage is basically giving God the middle finger, and considering God admits to grieving in sorrow when we forsake Him, Marriage is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

If one reads the Bible, the above point is repeatedly stressed. Marriage is a small scale reflection of the larger promise God committed himself regarding humanity, but it's no less meaningful, and by remaining faithful to one another in a marriage, the married couple also remains faithful to God.

If you are Christian, then the following practices should be detestable to you, and while I don't believe they need elaboration, I'm going to provide it anyway because it should explain why God takes it so seriously:


Cuckoldry: This is basically no different than when Israel forsook God to practice idolatry despite him being willing to remain fully faithful to all the promises he made, and then to His horror had to watch the people he chose to forsake him for powerless statues and carved tree trunks.

God did not appreciate being cucked, and neither should anyone in a marriage want to feel the same because not only is it spitting in the face of your spouse, it's spitting in the face of God, who meant marriage to be a binding promise of love and devotion, and turning your spouse into a cuckold just degrades them, much like God felt degraded when his people forsook him.


"Open" marriages: This is another concept God finds contemptible because marriage is an exclusive promise between one party and another, it's not meant to be treated like a rope of sand to break into fragments when one feels like it.

Just like God was offended by the idea people might worship an idol and then worship Him just to hedge their bets, so should any Christian couple be repulsed by expanding the number of people in the marriage bed. The whole point is to remain faithful to who you married and them alone, it was never intended for more than that.


Homosexual marriages: This is spitting in God's face twice over. Not only did he never intend Adam and Steve, but marriage is also between a man and a woman only, he made no other provisions for alternative arrangements.

Just as he made a covenant where it was stipulated there are no other gods before him, a Christian should always remember marriage has immutable conditions that cannot be changed on a whim, they are set in stone, and homosexuality is off the table no matter if you are married or single.


I could go on, but if you are single, fine, so am I, but if you believe in God, you are part of the bride that is humanity that God pledged himself to, so by walking with God, you honor your vows as the humanity betrothed to God. If you are married and also believe in God, then you have honored his vows both in miniature and in an even greater sense, and you will be blessed for it.


In conclusion, I believe Ephesians 5:25-33 puts it best:

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church"

Religions I Personally Cannot Believe In and Why

Note: I have gone on record I'm a non-denominational Protestant, yet I do not actively hate anyone of any faith or no faith, but I wanted to explain why I cannot buy into the tenets of several belief systems in particular and why from a personal perspective.



Atheism: While this is technically the absence of faith or denial of a higher power, I'm covering this first just to cover all the bases.

My reason for not buying into atheism is that, if you apply logic, it has a pretty hopeless message. Apparently, we live, die, and that's it. Our memory may exist for future generations, but if humanity as a whole dies out, our existence ceases to matter.

I can understand agnostics a little better than I do atheists, but flat out saying we were born, will die, and that's it for our existence is one of the most fatalistic things I've ever heard, and I refuse to believe human life is that pointless.



Scientology: Let's pretend I don't believe L. Ron Hubbard was a lying fraudster, which I'm absolutely convinced of, so instead, let me just point out the inconsistencies with pure logic.

Scientology was preceded by Dianetics, which was pseudo-psychology invented before it became the basis of religion, and the actual backstory of Scientology itself has no backing whatsoever in any objective historical sense. Most other belief systems at least have some form of objective historical basis, but Scientology does not even have that.

When the foundation is that shoddy, how am I supposed to swallow anything else about it?



Buddhism: Don't get me wrong, I do find some of Buddhism's tenets admirable, and many emphasize virtues many Christians would find laudable. I even admit praise for its emphasis on the denial of vices and folly and rising above that which makes us petty and venal.

My problem again goes back to logic. While it's well and good to follow it on this Earth, if humanity ceases to be, and in fact, Earth itself ceases to be, what benefit arises from its teaching anymore?


Hinduism: It's a great source to mine for mythology and fiction, admittedly, but as a faith, you are required, upfront, to believe a lot of things that have been endlessly retconned over and over again over centuries, not to mention it a pretty India centric faith, Buddhism made better inroads elsewhere because Hinduism was pretty much tailored for one specific geographic location.


Islam: Islam has a problem with basic logic that I cannot resolve. It claims Jews and Christians have an imperfect version of God's revelations, but the inconsistencies pile up fast.

First off, the very beginning of the Qu'ran says humanity was created from a clot of congealed blood, whereas the Torah and Bible cite we came from dust. Also, for a religion that claims Abraham as a patriarch, it sure has a lot of naked contempt of the Jews and a lot of advocacy of putting nonbelievers to the sword, whereas Jews mostly set themselves apart from others on God's instructions, and Christians merely exported the basic tenets of Judaism minus the Jewish specific parts because the religious franchise was made available to Jews and Gentiles equally.

Islam rolls all that back and makes conversion an even MORE exclusive experience than the things it claims precedes it.


Mormonism: Logic makes this one easy to skewer. It's basically the Bible with a lot of fanfiction attached that cannot be backed up by archelogy or any other branch of history, and it introduces a lot of concepts neither Judaism or Christianity ever countenanced or supported.

My late grandfather said he didn't believe it but it had a good backstory, and I agree. It's entertaining in a fictional sense, but I in no way can buy into its legitimacy because all we have is Joseph Smith's word for it, and even other non-Christian faiths bring more to the table for the verifiable historical fact than that.



I could go on about other, more minor faiths, but the short version is that while faith is a key component of all of them when I try to reduce them to logically provable stuff, Judaism and Christianity at least have provable continuity and a high level of consistency.

I won't claim they are perfect and that they don't have mysteries or inconsistencies, that would be arrogant and foolish, but at the end of the day, I'm a Christian besides faith in the creed because it has the least amount of inconsistency compared to its competitors based on the available evidence, and I'm convinced Christianity logically follows from the foundation of Judaism.

Why I'm a Biblical "Loose Constructionalist"

I once told one of my bosses at ChristCenteredGamer I have a somewhat liberal take on the Bible, and since that is a bit vague, I believe I need to explain that further.

First off, in general, I consider the Bible, while a record compiled by Man and thus flawed and imperfect, it's still an authoritative compendium of all the basics any self-respecting Christian should adhere to, that is NOT up for debate as far as I'm concerned.

However, I do have the following caveats, based on the same ones Christ Himself and His Father made clear concerning God's law:

1. As for the things not up for debate, like "do not steal", that's a pretty clear and straightforward command, you'd be hard-pressed to argue against that or saying it has some wiggle room.

2. As for the laws with extenuating circumstances, I take the more liberal view. For instance: "do not kill".

First off, it would be more properly rendered "do not murder", as there are several times God declared inflicting death permissible.

1. First, if he told you to end a life, then you had His approval.
2. Self-defense or defending another in such a manner lethal force is required.
3. Killing in a war as a uniformed combatant.
4. Killing for food (hunting animals or slaughtering animals for food preparation). If you want to be really comprehensive since plants can feel pain and are alive, harvesting them for the same reasons.
5. Putting to death someone after a trial of their peers judged them worthy of such punishment for an applicable crime.

In this case, you have to have a looser take on the no-killing rule because of all the caveats when it's okay as mentioned above. Trying to obey that one without doing so is not only being dense, it's literally impossible, because you literally can't kill ANYTHING, you'd starve to death pretty fast because you cannot eat any form of food, and given all the microbal beings that exist in water, drinking anything would be a death-dealing act too.

However, it's otherwise a rule you should take very seriously as far as not committing an act of killing in cold blood. That's explicitly condemned and there is no room for debate on that one.

3. Jesus was super fed up with the Pharisees taking a hyper autistic approach to this because their version of strict constructional adherence to the Law missed the whole moral and legal backing the Law was meant to enforce.

For example, when he healed people on the Sabbath, they called him out on doing work on the Sabbath, saying it was wrong.

Jesus considered this nonsense, and if you apply logic, you can see his point.

1. God's Sabbath day command was "do no regular work". Curing people of blindness and reviving the dead is hardly "regular work".

2. Jesus was doing those acts of healing on behalf of God, and if the Pharisees bothered to remember their own history, previous prophets had performed miracles for the glory of the Lord every day of the week and God never saw a problem with it.

3. He found it really galling they were more obsessed with following the LETTER of the law as opposed to its spirit. God commanded people to not work on the Sabbath because he wanted people to focus on HIM, not because he was pushy bureaucrat whose nose got out of joint if things weren't done in a certain way.

Jesus, whenever he healed people, he gave God the credit, and thus fulfilled how God wanted the day set aside for him to be one where you remembered what God wanted you to do, so Jesus never broke the command's spirit, and he'd really only be guilty of breaking the letter of the law if you hyper-autistically divorce it from it's legal and especially moral intent.

Another area I personally consider a loose constructionist point is the topic of swearing and "curse words".

I, of course, condemn stirring people to wrath, nor should one speak rashly or foolishly, since God does admonish that, but the Bible does not have a list of specific words that are condemned by the mere act of their utterance.

For the purposes of this discussion, let's take the mild expression "crap". By some standards, it's considered a word you should not say.

It would stir others to anger and thus tempt them to sin if you called them "a piece of crap", so yes, you should not utter it in that instance. Conversely, there is no moral prohibition on saying you need to clean up some dog crap off the floor because in that case you are simply stating something not calculated to stir someone to sin by your words and there is no rashness nor foolishness in stating a fact. You could use the words "turds" or "poop" if you find crap offensive or others find it offensive, but in that case, it would be personally offensive, not anything based on Biblical precepts. Thus, while I discourage and do not condone anyone being a potty mouth, no specific words are condemned by the Bible, but I do acknowledge some have no other purpose than to induce others to wrath and thus to sin and should be avoided on those grounds alone.


My conclusion is a simple and logical one: If God explicitly commands something is not to be done or his command covers an act condemned in a reasonably broad sense that your specific action would fall under in His moral and legal context, then don't do it. Otherwise, I would do as Jesus pointed out we should do and follow the Spirit the Law is meant to enforce if not the exact Letter because to do the latter without keeping the former in mind is missing the point.

Why Most Christians Miss The Point of God's Admonition Against Using Magic

If there is one fallacy many Christians have, albeit it often comes from the most well meaning motives, it's the belief that trying to influence the world using magic and the occult, contrary to the instructions of God, will actually have an effect on this planet or the people on it as regards events that cannot be explained. They agree doing so is immoral, and they are right, but they would be foolish to believe it has an effect either way without God's assent, nothing supernatural occurs without him signing off on it happening.

This is also missing a very basic point God himself made numerous times about why no one but him and those he gave power should ever trifle with the supernatural, and it wasn't so much he feared we'd do damage in a supernatural way if we tried, but more that we'd be fools to do so because we really have no power outside what he gives us.

He proved this several times in Scripture, showing Man's various attempts to substitute his power for that of others was totally toothless.

1. The ten plagues of Egypt as described in Exodus was God's mockery of the Egyptian Gods. Each plague was a deliberate slap to the faces of the gods said to have power over the sun, the water, livestock, insects, and all the other beings and elements said plagues turned against the Egyptians. God proved, successfully, that the Egyptians followed a sham faith in something that had no power to stop him in any way whatsoever.

2. Later, the Philistines captured God's own Ark of the Covenant and put it in front of their sea god Dagon as a tribute to it's capture. God proved himself mightier than Dagon multiple times, forcing the statue of Dagon to not only bow before his Ark; he even ripped off the head and hands off Dagon's statue after a few times of the Philistines not getting the point to hammer in the obvious point:

Dagon had no power, only God did.


Fun fact, Dagon was the FATHER of Baal in Canaanite tradition, which makes God's next trumping of false gods all the more hilarious.


3. When the showdown on Mount Carmel happened, God really set out to prove no power outside his own meant anything.Baal was allegedly a god over the weather, but Baal had failed to do ANYTHING to prevent a years long drought, simply because God said he'd withhold the rains until everyone acknowledged who truly held any power.

When the priests of Baal faced off against Elijah to prove whose God was superior, God set out to handicap himself as much as possible to just prove how meaningless worshiping Baal was.

God gave them several hours lead time on him doing anything. He had his own altar soaked with water several times over just to make the act of burning anything on said altar harder, and the contest was pretty lopsided to begin with, given the absurdly low bar set for both God and Baal.

All one of them had to do was light the slightest spark on their sacrifice without any human intervention first, and they'd win by default.

Baal was given every advantage, and the fools who thought he had power did everything including maiming themselves in a vain attempt to get their meaningless deity to light the slightest spark on their altar.

Once they finally gave up, all Elijah did was ask God to prove himself.

And God did, overwhelmingly. Despite the altar being soaked, EVERYTHING, from the water to meat on it to the stones of the altar itself, even all the excess water that had pooled in a trench around the altar, it was burned to the point NONE of it was left,


The point to all these incidents was God making a simple message clear: We humans have no power to affect this world supernaturally, except for what God alone allows and what he does on His own.

Any attempt by us to cast spells, make idols, summon demons, or affect this world in any supernatural way will actually do nothing except earn us His rightly earned contempt.


Granted, there were times when supernatural forces other than God were confirmably in existence, such as the demon possessed man who is oft referred to as Legion. Even the demons (who were the fallen angels cast out of heaven due to their collusion with the traitor Lucifer) bowed before God's power when Jesus told them to leave the man they had afflicted, and they begged to be sent into a herd of pigs instead of an even worse judgment at God's hands, and Jesus allowed it for one reason.

Sure, Jesus could have sent them straight to the bottomless pit if he wanted to, but the fact the demons begged Jesus to punish them in any other way means even they in their rebellion acknowledged even the mildest command from God had more power than they all possessed combined, and the slightest command from God would free Men from their influence.

Another time supernatural powers seemed to work was when King Saul was so desperate for God (who had turned his back on Saul for disobedience) to tell him something he went to a witch to summon the spirit of the prophet Samuel, all so Saul could get something from world beyond the temporal to go on since God was purposely putting Saul on Ignore for disobedience.

God chose to allow Saul to see what he was hoping for just so he could grind the spiritual glass in Saul, telling Saul his own death outside of God's grace was coming soon and there was nothing that could be done to avert it because Saul's faith in God's power had sunk so low he had turned to mediums and spiritualists (whom Saul had once hunted down on God's behalf) because his faith in God's power and that alone had become so weak.

Yet again, God proved the folly of we pathetic mortals in believing we have any control over the supernatural world. He even mentioned in the Books of the Law the only humans who would ever be authorized to do so would receive his explicit approval, and he even provided a two tiered test to weed out false prophets in his name:

1. First, what they predicted or whatever power they displayed had to come to pass. If it didn't, they were a powerless liar.

2. If the first happened, then on whose behalf the sign or supernatural work was performed had to be God. If done in the name of anyone else, they were not doing so with God's sanction or power and thus were false prophets.


Now, speaking merely for myself for a moment, I do not believe, based on all prior biblical precedent, any attempt by us humans to cast spells, summon demons, channel the dead, or any other meddling with the supernatural God said we shouldn't contemplate is real, at least nothing we do by ourselves has any real power, we have none because God gave us none by default.

If something supernatural does happen, it's for the same reasons Saul got to see what he was hoping to see, so God could grind in the glass over the disobedience of those who defied his instructions NOT to meddle in the supernatural, and any actual supernatural consequences of doing so is not because we humans have any power, because we do not, but because God chose to allow us to suffer for our defiance.

The more important reason God tells us not to meddle in the supernatural is far simpler than us messing with something we do actual damage with (and we can't), but it's more simple point, and I'll let God Himself explain why via Leviticus 19:31


""'Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God."


Note how God never says they are doing anything other causing others to be defiled? God never says what they are doing is effective, because it isn't, they are charlatans and liars pretending at God's own power.

What they are doing, however, is encouraging others to turn away from God by trusting in supernatural power attributed to a source outside of God's, who is the only one that can actually do anything. The pretenders can't do what God can do, but you would be foolish to be led astray by believing otherwise.

As for you following the example of said pretenders, you are not affecting the world beyond the natural one little bit. God is clear it is the height of arrogance to believe we humans without God's own sanction can do more than what he allows our mortal shells, anything beyond that is only allowed on his say so.

However, attempting to pretend otherwise accomplishes nothing save to defy God and earn his contempt, to which our fate is that of Saul, to die outside of God's grace because we chose to believe in something other than him.

So all Christians should be afraid to consider making the attempt even more than the actual act, because even attempting to influence this world beyond the natural is more than enough to earn us God's contempt, and that alone is enough of a judgment, we need not fear we could actually do anything God does not allow, but it's still wise to not even make the attempt since God said not to in the first place.

Why Evil Means Can Never Serve Good

Note: I would like to credit ChristCenteredGamer for the inspiration behind this post, based on a discussion on the CCG Discord channel when discussing the topic covered below.


There is a common fallacy in both real life and fiction that evil means used for good ends can somehow have the evil origins of the means negated by using them for the noblest of causes.


That could not be farther from the truth, especially for Christians.


For a popular fiction example, the comic book hero Batman is a good example of being very aware of this problem. Batman knows he has no moral or legal right to pass judgment on any criminal he stops from committing a crime, hence why he leave them to be apprehended by the police to dealt with by the legal system. He knows if he allows himself to believe he has the right to kill in cold blood, even of the most evil and depraved of people who "deserve it", he will quickly become just like them, and no matter how much the world might be better off for the absence of such evil people, he refuses to take the lives of even the most wicked of people because that would forever cross a moral line he walks every night he dons the cowl.

Even then, even if he doesn't kill, he is still a vigilante operating outside the law, and while he is  tolerated by the law to some extent because of his firm moral code, he has been warned more than once by the law he's on the razor edge between acting a good citizen and detaining a criminal in the act of committing crime for their processing by the proper authorities and being little more than the same thugs he stops.

To now use a real world example, it is argued in some circles child molestors should be killed on the spot and their deaths by extralegal killings should be celebrated, but the same reasons Batman does not kill even the most heinous of people still apply in reality: no one has the moral or legal right to determine the punishment of someone outside the law, both the legal and moral. Obviously, killing in self defense or the defense of another if such is required is acceptable if such is necessary, but finding excuses to do this is just rationalizing one's slide into becoming a murderer, and if the life of a child molestor or murderer should be taken, it should be by the very laws they show contempt, not the unsanctioned killing committed by someone who tells themselves they have the right to kill a criminal because they are "doing good".

No one person has that right. Even when God personally ordered the deaths of those who earned it under his Law, those who did the killings of the condemned were commanded not to exceed their mandate.

Those that did became little better than Jehu, who was originally commended for following God's instructions in wiping out the house of Ahab on God's instructions, but became little more than a bloodthirsty killer who became what he sought to destroy.

Jehu fulfilled his original mandate, but then stepped over the line and murdered the priests of Baal, who, while they were a stench in God's nostrils, they had not been ordered to die at Jehu's hands, he chose to add their blood to his sword on his own.

In doing so, he rationalized their deaths as doing what God would have wanted without getting God's explicit instructions, but in Jehu's way of seeing it, he was destroying those who opposed God, how could that be wrong?

As seen above, it's we humans assuming we can step outside lawfully and morally justified instructions to do what we THINK is right that is wrong and therefore evil.

And in doing something evil, you don't serve God, you serve yourself.

Evil means can never be used to fulfill good ends. Sure, you could argue the parties who gassed Jews should have been gassed themselves as a form of punishment appropriate to their crimes, but those who punished the parties responsible chose not to sink to such depths because that would have been compounding the original sin.

Murdering people in gas chambers had been declared a war crime and an act of genocide without any legal or moral protection. Had the people who ordered the executions of those who operated those gas chambers to die in the same manner, they would have been hypocrites who justified doing evil to evil people based on tainted laws and morality, and when you taint the law and morality, you become a hypocrite.

Under the laws of God and Men, such is legally and morally unacceptable for any reason, nor should it ever be.

Going back to fictional examples, let's say you use magic in a fantasy based game to summon demons, but you only use them to fight against evil people. Even if under a fictional code of ethics that is not inconsistent, under real world ethics, Christians are never supposed to consider using any evil means to serve a righteous end, as the ends then are no longer righteous.

While it not possible under most known means available to humanity in reality to perform such acts as summoning demons or shooting fireballs or some other acts of actual spellcasting, it's not something that should even be contemplated under ANY circumstance for ANY reason because.

1. As far as God is concerned, it's evil, end of story. He has a LOT to say about the very concept,and NONE of it is good.

2. Even if God gave someone power to do His Will, goes back to the example of Jehu, who was given leave to kill certain people on God's orders,but the temptation of bloodlust overcame Jehu and he became a bloodthirsty murderer outside of God's grace because he exceeded his heavenly license and did as he deemed fit, not God.

If God gives anyone else leave to do His Will either naturally or supernaturally, then one must do explicitly as God commands and do no more and no less. Doing otherwise is a but a gateway to Perdition itself, and the fate of those who do so is to die outside of the grace of God and to live the life after the one we live on this Earth in an even worse place than we will if we live outside of God's grace in our current one.


And there is no "evil means" one can justify to use for a "good" end that can be allowed, such is a deviation from God's command to do good and not evil, and everyone, especially those who know God's instructions, should know to never consider such means to ever be justified.

Overview of a game reviewer's job at ChristCenteredGamer

In case anyone wants to know exactly what I or any other reviewer of games and other media does at ChristCenteredGamer, here's a brief overview:


1. We get to pick, if we don't have a huge backlog of review keys, whatever we'd like to review, especially if we are volunteer reviewers. I'm a volunteer reviewer, but if we have a lot of review keys we need to check out, those go to the top of the pile. As for paid reviewers (regular employees who draw a fee for what they write, which is not a lot since CCG is a nonprofit), they generally handle the review keys first and foremost, but if they manage to get some free time, they can cover their own projects.

Note: All reviewers must do at least two reviews of two games of their own choosing prior to getting any regular requests to do game reviews, this is so CCG can get an idea of your competence and writing ability in general.

2. If we use a review key, we have to sign a contract prior (only the first time) stating we'll review the games we review within a certain amount of time or we have to reimburse the key we were given. The contract is needed to prevent someone from getting free review keys and running off with them, which is sad, I wish trust was not a problem for a Christian game review site, but such is needed in this day and age, alas.

3. Anyway, once a signed copy of the contract is in the hands of the CCG owners, game reviewers can pick review keys for any games that strike their interest for whatever consoles or computer they can redeem them on. Standard practice is limited to 2 keys at most, though people can take on multiple games for review depending on the backlog if time and circumstances allow. It's advised to not have a huge amount even if this is possible, that's a lot of writing you're gonna have to do and a lot of games you will have to play long enough to evaluate them for secular and moral content.

4. With review keys redeemed, here comes the part that sounds fun, you play the games. However, while you do so,you need to take notes (mental or physical) on the game play, controls, graphics, sounds, stability and any morally objectionable content,especially for Christians.

Depending on the game, this could take awhile, you need to play long enough to get a well-rounded idea of the secular and moral pluses and minuses of the media in question.

5. Then it comes time to write up a rough draft, following the standardized format used for all CCG reviews. To make the last step much less painful, try to proofread your draft as completely as possible PRIOR to submitting it to the review panel forum for reviews on CCG.

Trust me, doing so makes next step less tedious.

6. Once you've thrown your review to the wolves, the other reviewers will descend on the review like ants on sugar cubes and point out all grammatical errors and other mistakes you may have made.

Believe me, they will be VERY thorough, CCG takes the Christian ethic in having pride in not doing shoddy work that would embarrass you before God very seriously. Jason Gress (site co-owner) in particular is very strict on journalistic quality and who will make sure your work will not look shoddy, man clearly passed his English classes with flying colors, and he expects all submitted work to be something a journalist could be proud of. (And for the record, I concur with him.)

7. Once your work has been extensively revised and made fit for public consumption, it joins the queue of work to be published on the main site, which will be done according to the dictates of site policy, with review key work taking priority.

8. Once the work you wrote is published, it doesn't end there. If the review requires a rewrite due to new updates or information, you will have to revise it later. Also, comments may be left on your reviews, be willing to respond to them and take constructive criticism, if any, maturely.

9. If all this sounds like something you are interested in doing, you can apply here.

The post I dox myself in

Note; I dedicate this post to Jason and Cheryl Gress of ChristCenteredGamer, whose bravery and candor in their ministry for Christ has inspired me to be brave in my own life, and I owe both an immeasurable debt of gratitude for giving me the courage to say what is said below.


For those who have not realized I write for the website ChristCenteredGamer under my real name, I am named, in real life, Daniel Cullen.

I commonly go by GethN7 on most sites, Arcane or Arcane21 on Wikimedia wikis.

I have decided to quit hiding my real name for a few reasons I want to share, with both friends and enemies alike.



1. I'm at the point I refuse to be afraid of people trying to dox me. When I decided to have an internet presence, I knew it was a risk I'd run into, and for the longest time I was paranoid, especially because some malicious parties once tried to dox me with the intent of causing me all sorts of harm.

More recently, some of them have threatened to dox me just to scare me because they are scum who think I deserve it.

Let me be clear: I'm not afraid of you anymore.


Of course I'm no fool. My name, gender, and date of birth are now public knowledge, but I'm not divulging the rest save to trusted parties, and if anyone who wishes me harm and/or humiliation discovers the rest due to an act of crime, carelessness on my part, or simply is incredibly lucky to stumble across it by accident, so be it, I'm willing to live with that.


I already run a wiki for troping and analyzing media meant for all age groups called All The Tropes. I have sampled works ranging from family friendly to adults only, both for the purposes of reviewing them as works of media and for personal reasons. I am a proud, unashamed Christian, and I do not dare hide the fact I haven't always lived up to own morals as well as I should. I wear the weight of sin on me every day, yet I still won't deny I haven't always practiced what I preached, I know I have been a hypocrite in many ways.

All of my public work under my real and internet names is publicly accessible via web searches and is free for the scrutiny of the public, I don't shrink from it, as I put it out there, now it's for public consumption and comment.

The point is, however, is that I have recently decided to associate my actual name with my internet name because I'm no longer worried about what some malicious, petty people might do if they know who I am, let the chips fall where they may, I refuse to live in fear.


2. Awhile back, when some unregenerates tried to dox me, they falsely accused, smeared, and harassed an innocent man by the name of David Poole, a friend of my friend Brent Laabs. The evidence Poole was me was bogus and shoddy, and while Poole himself laughed off their stupidity, it rankled me then and still rankles me now some cowards would hurt an innocent man, especially because they made clear to me they wanted to use further smears to extort me into revealing who I was or they would continue to smear innocent people, trying to use my conscience against me.

Now that I have confirmed my real name, it is my solemn hope such callous and depraved actions never trouble another innocent person. Daniel Cullen is GethN7, as most of my enemies would know me, you can take things up with me, there is no need to hurt innocents when I'm your target.

I also address my more recent enemies, who wanted to dox me simply to scare me:

You have my "power word", as the internet term for it goes. Now that you have it, hope you can't say I never gave you anything, and to be blunt, given the sheer incompetence shown in digging that information up prior by enemies both old and recent, here's a freebie.


This stated, I do not believe I have anything I need to answer to before Men. The name Daniel means "God is my Judge", and it's God's judgment I fear far more than that of anyone else.

I now write for ChristCenteredGamer!

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/pc-mac/7096-dragon-quest-heroes-the-world-tree-s-woe-and-the-blight-below-pc


Writing this post to confirm that I do indeed write for ChristCenteredGamer, a fact I'm very proud of, as both a gamer and servant of God.

For the record, I want to get a few things out there for both my new employers and anyone else interested.


1. I admit I'm a sinner, unworthy to look up towards Heaven, but as someone who wants to glorify God, I will do my best to write work that does just that.

2. As a gamer, I've long bemoaned the horrible state of gamer journalism, and I have now become one (at one of the more honorable outlets for it from where I'm sitting) in the hopes of reversing the trend. It is my intention to be honest and honorable in this regard.

3. I will sublimate my personal moral opinions for the sake of CCG's standards, which are effectively neutral towards all Christian denominations and still strive to provide objective secular and moral information regarding the games they cover.


For example, as a Christian, I have no problems casting spells in games, because they are not anything resembling dabbling in actual magic IRL. I have no issue playing Grand Theft Auto as a Christian, as I know such activities should never be done IRL. I am constantly aware it's a catharsis meant only to be enjoyed as the computer program it was intended to be and that I should never be tempted to perform a sinful act as a result of playing such media, else I have no business playing it in the first place.

I would also have no problem playing Shin Megami Tensei as a Christian as it uses religious and mythological themes for fictional purposes and thus does not accurately reflect actual religion and it's views do not shake my own faith in the Christian God one iota.

Basically, my take on games is that they are a fictional medium that should remain purely in the realm of fiction and if they ever become a vector for temptation or evil, then I should cease playing them. Otherwise, I consider them a safe, sane alternative for entertainment that does not compromise my walk with God in any fashion.


The official line of my employers is to let gamers make up their own minds concerning morality, merely discussing all potentially offensive themes (especially for Christians) while still leaving the reader of their reviews the choice to decide if the game good for the secular aspects, moral aspects, or both if they prefer, a stance I have every intention of adhering to regardless any personal moral opinions of my own.

I work for them as a volunteer, not as a full-time paid employee, but I intend to regard my writing for them with the seriousness and gravity it would require a paid employee to do regardless. And if I fail to do so, I expect both them and the public at large to hold me to account, as God certainty would and will if I don't.

The Passover and Eucharist: A Guide

This post will be dedicated to discussing the original Passover festival as detailed in the Book of Exodus, and the Eucharist (the "Lord's Supper") as detailed in the New Testament Gospels.

The latter is derived from the former and shares some interesting differences with it in both meaning and history, so below I will cover both and any trivia associated with both.


Passover: Alternatively called "Pesach", it is a spring festival to celebrate the liberation of the Jewish people from their bondage in Egypt as depicted in the Book of Exodus.

The rite was originally celebrated in the month of Abib, which would correspond to the month of March on the contemporary Gregorian calendar used in most countries as of the writing of this post.

The month of Abib was to be the first month of the Jewish year, meaning, much like in Islam, which begin the first year of it's calendar based on the migration of the Prophet Muhammad to city of Medina, the Jewish calender's first year officially began at the time of the original Passover.

The Passover started on the fourteenth day of the month, where for seven days, bread without yeast was to be eaten. The first day was to be treated like a Sabbath, in which no regular work was to be done. The bread was to be eaten with "bitter herbs", known as maror.

The first day also required a year old male lamb without defect (from either the sheep or goats) be prepared. It was known as the "Paschal Lamb". It was to be roasted whole, nothing was to be boiled or eaten raw. None of it's bones were to broken, and it was to be eaten completely before sunrise of the next day, any remaining meat was to be burned.

The original Passover emphasized haste, as it was the day before the Israelites were to be liberated from Egypt and forced to leave after being freed. Accordingly, they were to be dressed as if for immediate departure.

The "Passover" as a term refers to the angel of death whom God sent to slay the firstborn of Egypt passing over the houses of those who painted the tops and sides of the doors of their homes with blood from the Paschal Lamb, therefore "passing over" them and not visiting a plague of death upon them. This referred to the original ceremony only, all subsequent ones were to be slaughtered and prepared at the temple of the Lord. The blood painting was also omitted from all future Passovers.





Eucharist: The Christian Eucharist takes two forms in most contemporary Christian denominations.

In it's most common form a wafer of bread and a small cup of grape juice or wine is consumed during a Sabbath service, as a reference to the bread and wine consumed at the Last Supper which Jesus commanded the discipline to consume as his "flesh and blood", which through the process of transubstantiation was to be the conversion of this metaphorical "flesh and blood" into it's literal version.

In most church services, this is done in remembrance of the commands of Jesus during this time.


Around Easter a modified version of the original Passover is performed by some denominations, and while largely similar to the original Jewish version, there are some differences.

1. Diet is largely the same as the Jewish version, though the lamb is usually derived only from sheep, not a goat, as the Jewish version allows.

This is typically done because of the association Jesus has with sheep (as his death on the cross was to be the ultimate Paschal Lamb offered for the sins of Men for all time).

2. This extended version typically celebrates both the original Jewish meanings of Passover and the changes Jesus introduced and is usually accompanied by readings of the the relevant sections of the Old and New Testament.

3. Catholics consider this ritual to be a formal sacrament, with Eastern Orthodox denominations largely similar, though the transubstantiation occurs due to the specific prayers to that effect during the service held as part of the event, while Catholics assume it to be automatic to the event itself.

Protestant denominations typically observe Eucharist to some degree (in one or both forms), but for many of them it's status as a sacrament is not as rigidly formal and the dates of it's adherence are often somewhat more irregular than it's Catholic and Eastern Orthodox contemporaries.

The degree to which the ritual holds significance varies between various Protestant and other sects, though most to all contend the rite is of direct importance to the Christian in their walk with Christ.

Deuteronomy: Cliff Notes Edition

The biblical book of Deuteronomy (which means "second law") contains a recap of most of Leviticus and Numbers, but ti also includes some new laws and expansions on older ones those books do not cover.



The new material will be covered in this post, with any specific historical trivia not explained in the original text noted.





One Place of Worship: The Israelites were commanded to worship only at the place designated by God, all other places were to be destroyed, especially those where sacrifices to other gods were made.



It further notes God would designate a suitable place in the lands of each tribe.





Prophets: Anyone who claimed to be a prophet who advocated worship of any god other than God was to be killed by stoning by the whole community. Prophet whom God ordained would be the only ones authorized to perform supernatural feats, and then only on God's behalf.





Idoltary: Any place or city encouraging idol worship was to be burnt to the ground as a burnt offering to God.





Asherah Poles: Asherah was a Semitic fertility goddess, and any tree dedicated as a monument to her was not to be planted anywhere near the altars of the Lord.



Some religious scholars believe this was done to distance God (Yahweh or YHVH, also called El) from other Semitic cultures, where intermingling of deities was common, and further lines up with God's instructions for the Israelites to set themselves apart from other cultures. She was also referred to as Astarte in Babylonian tradition..





Justice Provisions: God expected courts and officials for the dispensing of justice to be set up in every town of tribe, and he commanded they not accept bribes or show favoritism to anyone.





Witnesses; No crime could be prosecuted on the word of only one witness. Two or three were needed at minimum. Any malicious witness was to be put to death as they intended the accused.





Higher Courts: If ordinary courts could not settle a lawsuit, they could be appealed to the priests of the Lord's temple. Any decision they made would be final and binding.





Kings: If the Israelites wanted a king, they must have the following qualifications for leadership.

1. They must be native of an Israelite tribe, they could NOT be a foreigner.

2. Could not accumulate large numbers of horses nor silver and gold.

3. Had to have a copy of the law given to him by the priests which he was to review for the duration of his life to remind him of his place.





Laws Concerning Warfare:



1. All places war was waged against must be offered terms of peace. If accepted, the conquered would serve the Israelites. If not, they were be laid to siege and the males of military age killed, the rest were to taken as spoils of war. (assuming they were not near the territories of Israel's borders)

2. Before battle, all males who were newly married, recently obtained new property, or simply were scared to go to battle were to be released from service before the troops were organized and the command structure put in place.

3. For Canaanite nations, no city laid siege to could have any fruit trees destroyed for siege works, only non fruit trees were allowed to be harvested for this purpose. Their people were to be utterly destroyed to prevent the spread of their idolatrous ways.





Unsolved Murders: If a person was found in the Promised Land dead, their murderer unknown, the following had to be done to cleanse any guilt from the people:



1. The cities nearest the body must be measured for the one closest to the deceased.

2. The elders in the nearest city had to take a heifer that had never been yoked for labor and brought down to a valley with flowing water.

3. With the Levite priests in attendance, the elders must break the heifer's neck, wash their hands over the heifer, and pray for the guilt of bloodshed to pass over them, attesting they saw not the murder nor knew the murderer.





Taking of Captive Women as Wives: They were to be allowed to mourn her family for a full month, Then, after changing their clothes, trimming their nails, and shaving their hair (done most likely for reasons of sanitation), she could then be lawfully married.



If later divorced, she was to be let free to go wherever she pleased, and could not be sold as a slave.





Child Birthright; Firstborn sons had priority, even if a man had more than one wife and favored the children of one wife over the other, the firstborn of the unfavored would be higher priority than the other wife's children.





Disposition of Criminals; If a criminal was executed by hanging from a tree, they had to be cut down at sunset and properly buried, they could not remain overnight.





Miscellaneous Laws:



Crossdressing was forbidden.



Houses with roofs one could walk on had to be secured with a rial or those who fell from them would be considered murdered by the house owner.



Note: This is quite similar to a law found in 'The Code of Hammurabi", right down to the punishment.



A bird nest could be relieved of it's young but the mother was to be left there.



Any fallen animal of a neighbor had to be assisted without fail.



Vineyards and fields could not be planted with two types of seed.



Wool and linen could not be woven together.



Oxen and donkeys could not be harnessed to work under the same yoke.



Oxen could not be muzzled when treading out grain.





Martial Purity: If a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin when they have sexual relations, one of two things would happen:



1. If proof of the virginity could be established, the man would be fined a hundred shekels of silver for defaming an innocent woman and could not divorce her for life, having already dishonored her.



2. If he was right, she would be stoned to death for adultery.



If a virgin pledged to married was raped, one of two things would happen:



1. If she called for help and no one heard her or she was heard, she would go free and only the rapist would be punished



2. If she did not, both were to be punished with death.



A man could not married the former wife of his father. He also could not remarry a divorced wife later.



A virgin NOT pledged to be married, if she was raped, that would force the man to pay the father fifty shekels of silver and he would have to marry the woman as atonement for defiling her, he could not divorce her life.





Purity of the Assembly:



Anyone whose genitals were crushed or cut (and thus emasculated) could not enter the assembly of the Lord.



Ammonites and Moabites were to not be allowed into the assembly, even to the tenth generation of descendants.



Note: The Book of Ruth would be something of an exception, though it's indicated Ruth and Naomi went native and thus became Isrealites culturally, which would have been acceptable under God's law.



Edomites (due to being descended from Jacob's brother Esau) and Egyptians (since the Israelites were once guests of that country) were allowed to have the third generation onward of their descandants enter the Lord's assembly.



No one of an illegitimate marriage was to be allowed under any circumstances.





Purity of the Camp:



During war, all soldiers who were unclean were remain outside the camp until the next evening, having washed themselves in the interim.



In the camp, there must be an established latrine outside the camp, and all excrement was to be promptly buried by order of the Lord, so they would not show him anything defiled.





Escaped Slaves: They were to be liberated and NOT returned to their masters.



Note: As the Israelites were enslaved, this was done to remind them how terrible it was for them, and some scholars speculate this was done to discourage the practice of slavery.





Shrine Prostitutes: Both sexes were forbidden to be this, and God would not accept any of their earnings as offerings.





Property and Personal Laws:



1. No Israelite was to charge another interest. Only foreigners could be charged interest.

2. All vows of offering to the Lord had to be fulfilled.

3. Anyone walking through a neighbor's field or vineyard could pick kernels of grain or grapes by hand, but could not bring a basket to collect them.

4. Millstones could not be taken as a pledge for a loan, that would hold someone's life as security.

5. Kidnappers were to be punished with death.

6. Cloaks (doubling as blankets at night) COULD be taken as security, but had to be returned at night for the use of the loanee for their comfort at night.

7. All poor natives or foreigners were to be paid their wages promptly, they could not be withheld.

8. Fathers and sons were to be punished only for their own sins, not that of each other.

9. Any excess leavings in fields and vineyards were to be left for the poor and alien as charity.

10. While otherwise forbidden, if a brother died with no heir, the surviving brother must marry his brother's wife and have children by her so his family line would not die out. He could refuse, whereupon his sandal would be take, she would spit in his face, and his family line was known as the Family of the Unsandaled.



Note: Family lineage was highly important for the descent of property.



11. If two men were fighting and the wife of one of them seized him by the privates to restrain him, her hand was to be cut off.

12. Weights and measures were to be honest and accurate.

13. The Amalekite people were to be utterly destroyed, without mercy, for they showed none towards the Israelites at any point.

Biblical Weights and Measures, a guide, Part 2

See here for Part 1;

https://gethn7.blogspot.com/2019/05/biblical-weights-and-measures-guide.html



Lengths: Measures of width and distance.


Finger: About 8/10ths an inch, or the width of a finger measured horizontally.

Handbreathth: About 3 inches, or the measure of 4 fingers horizontally. (minus the thumb)

Span: 9 inches.

Cubit: 18 inches. Would have been the ancient equivalent to the American foot of 12 inches.

Long Cubit: 20 inches: A rarely used measurement mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel.

Fathom: 6 feet. Would have been used most often as a nautical measure.

Note: Survived to see more modern usage. Mark Twain's pen name is derived from the term "Twain", which would have been four fathoms, or 24 feet.

Reed: 8 cubits, around 9 feet (rounded up)

Furlong: 1/8th mile/650 feet. A measure of distance mentioned in Revelation, relating to a span of distance crossable by horses.

Stadion: Around 700 feet. Alternatively used with furlong in some cases.

Sabbath day's journey: 3/5 of a mile. Distance was used to measure the length from Jersalem's outer gates to the Mount of Olives.

Day's journey: 20 miles. Distance crossed by Elijah in 2 Kings after he fled for his life after the showdown between Baal and God on Mount Carmel.



Weights: Would have been used to evaluate the weight of certain objects aside from money, though has some overlap, as money was often evaluated in terms of weight before the use of currency.


Gerah: 1/50 ounce. A modern American dime would be about equivalent to this.

Bekah: 1/5 ounce or ten gerahs. Two copper American pennies would be about equivalent.

Pim: 1/3 ounce. Standard American nickel would be roughly equivalent.

Shekel: 2/5 ounce. Standard American quarter would be roughly equivalent.

Note: Has survived into modern usage as a monetary measure for the State of Israel, but that would be a proper form of currency, not a weight or measure.

Mina: 1.25 pounds or 50 shekels. Standard roll of American quarters would be equivalent.

Note: This term is one of the oldest known terms for weight for most historians, having shown up as early as the Semitic civilizations that were established along the Fertile Crescent of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Talent: 60 minas or 75 pounds.

Note: Gold and silver were later assigned specific talent measures to determine their value as an exchange medium, this measure of talent would have been used more universally for all items regardless of value, merely representing their aggregate weight.

Biblical Weights and Measures, a guide

The Bible often makes references to various weights and measures in common use at the time it depicts, but little or none of them are used today. Most Bibles contain a summarized conversion table in their index pages of the ones mentioned in the text, but this can still be confusing to modern readers.

The Old Testament period was set during the Bronze Age, before the common usage of currency in Mediterranean societies and thus instead of using a standardized currency based on coinage, items such as gold and silver were given value as established by their weight.

This system sufficed until the Classical Era, which takes place post Babylonian captivity and through the rest of the Old Testament, when early forms of currency emerged.

The New Testament takes place around the time of pre-modern societies, like the Roman Empire, which had long promulgated standardized currency to replace assessing value as was done in the pre-currency days, though some weights and measures were still used for other purposes.

Most Bibles do not cover certain trivia regarding certain weights and measures, so this post has been written to clarify a few ambiguities and confusing parts for modern readers, as well as to clear up occasional common mistranslations in certain texts.


Liquid Measures: Liquid measures cover measures for oil, water, wine, and other liquids.


Log: This was slightly over half a pint, typically mentioned in the Bible regarding the usage of anointing oil, and since not too much would be needed to cover the head of the anointed, this measure was used.


Kab/Cab: Often transliterated with a K or C, depending on translation. Roughly 2 and 1/2 pints.


Hin: Roughly equivalent to one American gallon.


Bath: Equivalent to six American gallons.


Homer/Kor: 60 American gallons. Both terms show up in translations of the Book of Ezekiel.


Metretes: 10 gallons. Shows up in some translations of the Book of John (Gospel Book)



Dry Measures: Covers measures for grain and other items that were not liquids.


Kab/Cab: Often transliterated with a K or C, depending on translation. Roughly 2 and 1/2 pints.

Note: As a dry measure, if used for flour, this barely would have been enough to prepare one meal for a small family for one day, and even that would be starvation rations.


Omer: About 2 1/2 quarts.

Note: Manna mentioned in Exodus would have been gathered in one of these measures, would have lasted a full day for most families for grain related meal products.


Seah: About 8 quarts.


Ephah: 6 gallons.

Note: Would have covered the usual amount of grain needed for the meals of a family for a week.


Lethech: About 30 gallons. Rarely mentioned measure that only shows up in some translations of the Book of Hosea.


Homer/Kor: About 60 gallons.

In dry goods terms, this would have been the amount of grain needed to feed a family for a month.



Money: (Value determined by weight)

Note: Due to the difference in density between silver and gold, silver would have weighed less but had greater volume.

Talent (Silver): About 100 lbs,

Talent (Silver Alternate): About 50 lbs.

Talent: (Gold) About 120 lbs.

Talent: (Gold Alternate): About 60 lbs.

Numbers: Cliff Notes Edition

I wrote a previous post on the book of Leviticus and the laws of the Israelites, this post shall cover the laws in Numbers, many of which elaborate or clarify those mentioned in Leviticus.

Portions related to the "story" will be skipped, this is merely a summarized version of the laws and their details. I have also skipped specific offerings that were non repeated and done for specific individual events at the time, unless otherwise noted.



Unclean People: Anyone who had a bodily discharge, was a leper (had any kind of disease), or was defiled by a dead body had to live outside the main camp so to not defile the main camp with impurity.


Restitution for Sin: Those who wronged another had to make it right had to make a sacrfice equivalent to the sin in question (as documented in Leviticus), had to add an extra fifth of the value of the original sacrifice, then it had to be given to the wronged party, but if that person was unavailable and a close relative could not be found to make the restitution, the offering had to be given to the priests of the Lord. These offerings would then be the property of the priest in their entirety.


Jealousy Offering; If a man suspected his wife of unfaithfulness, he had to bring her to meet the priests with a plain grain offering. The priest would then put it in her hands, mix dust from the floor with some holy water, then have her drink it.

If she was innocent of adultery, she would suffer no harm. If guilty, she would either become infertile and/or have a miscarriage, as she would be under God's curse.


Nazirite Vow: Isrealites wishing to dedicate themselves to the Lord (who were non-priests), they had refrain from wine, grapes, raisins, or anything derived from them. They also could not cut their hair for any reason. They would also be disallowed from making themselves unclean by dead bodies, even those of close relatives, during the duration of the vow.


Note: in the event the vow was accidentally broken by someone dying in close proximity without warning, they had endure a week of purification, shaving their head on the seven day, offering a sacrifice of bird for cleanliness on the eighth day. Afterwards, they could rededicate themselves, offering a male lamb for reparation.


Termination of Nazirite Vow (By Normal Expiration of Duration):

They had to go to the tent of meeting and make the following offerings:

One year old male lamb (burnt offering)
One year old female lamb (purification offering)
One ram without blemish (peace offering)
Basket of unleavened bread/wafers/cakes of fine flour, covered in olive oil
Any associated grain and drink offerings that attended these sacrifices normally

Afterwards, the Nazirite had to shave their head and place the hair on the altar to be burned with the peace offering. The priest would take the boiled shoulder of the ram, one cake of flour, and one wafer, then make a wave offering after placing them in the Nazirite's hands along with the usual regulations for the other offerings.

After this was done, the priest could keep the wave offering as their share, and the Nazirite could drink wine and eat products made of grapes/raisins again.


Regulations for Priestly Service: All Levites between 25 to 50 years of age were to be active members of the priesthood. Mandatory retirement began at 50, but retired members could still do minor chores to assist the active members.


Additional Passover Regulations: The Passover was to be done according to the instructions as specified in the Book of Exodus, but some additional regulations were established.

Those made unclean could still participate in the Passover (at least amongst others made unclean), though the same rules otherwise applied.

Anyone not on a journey and ceremonially clean who did not keep the Passover was to be exiled.

Foreigners had to be circumcised before they could participate in the Passover if they so chose to do so.


Deliberate Sin: Those who deliberately sinned against the Lord were to be exiled from the rest of the people.

Anyone who worked on the Sabbath was punished with death, as that was the Lord's day, where no work was to be done.


Tassels: Tassels with blue threads were to be placed on garments as a reminder against unfaithfulness.



Red Heifer Ritual/Uncleanliness Purification:

Au unblemished red heifer (female cow before having a calf) that had never been yoked (harnessed for labor) had be slaughtered outside the camp in the presence of the head priest. The head priest had to take it's blood and sprinkle it from his finger seven times before the tent of meeting.

The heifer then had to burned outside the camp along with cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool.

The priest and the man who burned the heifer would be ceremonially unclean until they washed themselves with water and then waited till evening (sunset) before re-entering the camp.

A ceremonially clean man then had take the ashes to a place outside the camp to be used for purification rites, they too would be unclean in the same way until they did as mentioned above.


Purification was done with water mixed with ashes of the burned heifer mentioned above and hyssop, done on the third and seven day of the week any unclean person had to wait outside the camp.

Failure to do so meant they remained unclean and were exiled.

All opened containers and other articles touched by uncleanliness were also unclean and subject to the same need for purification.

All who did the sprinkling of the purification water would be unclean till evening as well.



Amended Inheritance Laws: Inheritance of property ordinarily passed down to the eldest son. If that did not occur because the deceased had no son, the order in which inheritance passed was as follows:

1. Any daughters of the deceased.
2. Any brothers of the deceased.
3. Any brothers of his father.
4. Any closest relatives.



Daily Offerings: Two lambs, both without defect and one year of age as burnt offerings, one in early morning, one in late afternoon. Both were to be burnt offerings accompanied by a grain and drink offering.


Weekly Offerings: Each Sabbath required two lambs and twice the usual grain offering as well as the usual drink offering.


Monthly Offerings: On the first day of each month was offered:

Two young bulls, one ram, and seven unblemished lambs (all burnt offerings)

3/10ths an ephah of fine flour for each bull, 2/10ths an ephah of fine flour for the ram, and the usual grain offering for each lamb.

1/2 a hin of wine for each bull, 1/3 a hin for each ram, and the usual drink offering for each lamb.

One male goat was also made a burnt offering for purification.


Vows Made By Men/Widows: Any vow made by a man was binding on him before God, as is that for widows.

Vows Made by Women: All vows made by any woman living with her father or husband who is not countermanded by either or whom remain silent when they hear of said vows, then those vows stand. If they countermand the vows, they do not apply. If countermanded AFTER the vow is fulfilled, guilt rests on the man for not speaking up sooner.


Purification for Battles: After a battle, the plunder was to be divided in two, half for the fighting soldiers, the other half for the community.


1/500 cattle, donkey, and sheep from every 500 captured is the Lord's share from the fighter's share.
1/50 of the same is the Lord's from  the community share.


Cities of Refuge: In the event of manslaughter, to avoid retribution or revenge, the party accused of the crime could flee to one of six cities designated as refuges for their guilt or innocence of their culpability in the death in question to be weighed.

If they were guilty, they were turned over to the avenger for death.

If declared innocent of intentional malice or guilt, they were to live in the vicinity of the refuge city until the death of the current high priest, or they could be killed without guilt by the avenger prior. After the death of the high priest, they could return to their home without fear of retribution.


Amended Inheritance Between Tribes: Ordinarily, property within one family could not become the permanent possession of another. However, in light of the chance one side of a family line of one tribe could die out, if they married the family of another tribe, that tribe's family would inherit the property for their descendants.