| This is the story as it's written in the memoirs of General Hans Goust. The Nazi's occupy France and a Nazi General named Hans Goust is given total control of a couple of adjacent towns in the French Alps. (This is fiction, and the names and events are invented and any resemblance to any real person is coincidence). The town's people have to follow Hans' laws and ordinance or suffer the consequences. Two of the towns that Hans has control over disobeyed Hans ordinances, so he starved them until they ate the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters and until the children ate their own parents in some cases. Hans himself described his actions in his own memoirs as "bringing evil" to these people.
One fellow named Adam in a town called Eden had disobeyed Hans' ordinances, followed his own will instead of Hans' will and was punished for seeking freedom and liberty. Hans suspected that Adam had a collaborator in the town called Terra, and he decided to automatically blame the town, so either this collaborator stepped forward to be tortured to death by crucifixion, scheduled for the following Friday, or Hans would torture and kill everyone in Terra. He said that he didn't really care if the fellow who stepped forward was guilty or innocent, but his price is blood and someone is going to pay it or everyone will be tortured. Louise ("Lou-wee") was a nice compassionate fellow and inhabitant of Terra. He was perfectly innocent, but stepped forward to take the automatic and unavoidable blame that would be either assigned to him or everyone else. He chose to be tortured and die so that others may live. However, Louise requested and was granted a meeting with Hans in his garden called Gethsemane Gardens. Louise said that he was not arguing with Hans, since Han's will, will be carried out no matter what, but he asked Hans to please change his will/mind about the whole affair. He begged Hans for hours, and by one account, until Louise's sweat flowed like blood, but Hans didn't budge one bit. Friday, the sentence was carried out and Louise was beaten, dragged his cross through the streets, was crucified, stabbed, etc until he died and supposedly went to heaven. The ransom had been paid. Afterwards, not only did people need to conform to Hans' ordinances and laws, but they also needed to say that the crucifixion of Louise was a display of the grace and mercy *OF HANS*, and if they didn't, they were tortured to death themselves according to the directives of Hans. People looked at the selfless and self-sacrificial actions of Louise and praised it until it became the subject of folklore. Louise even gained a cult following; a belief called "Louism". Louists believed that Louise conforming himself to the will of Hans was such a nice thing that they confused this with thinking that the will of Hans was also good, and the will of Hans even became their moral standard of goodness. People that followed the will of Hans were said to be "Righteous" and people who broke the ordinance of Hans were said to be "wicked lawbreakers" and evil (since they were rocking the safety-boat of Hans.) Louists insist that the will of Hans and the will of Louise were perfectly in sync and they were of the same mind when it came to understanding Louise's "purpose". Some even say that Louise was born for this purpose and the whole affair was Louis' idea from the beginning. Louists who feel the need to believe that Hans was a benevolent fellow who really loved his townspeople look at his memoirs (translated into French) and see how he said that starving people in those other neighboring towns was an "EVIL" action on his part and they don't like that, so they suggest that the German word for evil also can mean calamity or a series of unfortunate events, even though they can't explain why seven or eight versions of Hans' memoirs say "evil" when describing how he, Hans, had "caused" people to starve until they ate the flesh of their sons and daughters and even until children ate the flesh of their parents. Their favorite modern versions of the memoirs says that it was an unfortunate yet just sentencing, after all, how can their standard of moral goodness (the will of Hans) sometimes be evil? How can evil be justice? Isaiah 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" The story above is a metaphor of Christianity, of course, and we can see here just why I contend that bible-based Christianity is an evil idea in disguise and is re-packaged and sold as a moral position and belief system. Those that insist that 'god' the father is benevolent and loves them are choosing to ignore Jeremiah 19, where the character 'god' says that he brings evil to these people who disobeyed his ordinances "causing" them to eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and in Ezekiel 5 where he brings the "evil arrows of famine" until men eat their sons and sons eat their fathers. In Ezekiel 5, (KJV) it's made clear that this "evil" action is performed to "comfort" 'god's "fury" more than anything else. These Christians of a lovey-dovey 'god' many times suggest that "Evil" (Hebrew ra') really means calamity and this 'god' who created the earth, universe and who made up all the rules just "had to" make these "wicked(1)" kids eat their "wicked" parents and that this is "justice" not "evil", even though at the same time, they are at a loss to explain why the character 'god' himself says that he causing family cannibalism is "evil" in the King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, the American Standard Version, the Robert Young Literal Translation, the J.N.Darby Translation, the Noah Webster Version and the Latin Vulgate (and probably others). In order to have a non-evil 'god' by description, Christians in denial are forced by circumstances to say that starving children and forcing children to eat their parents as a means of punishment is not evil. To anyone who still has any semblance of morality, this suggestion is absolutely absurd. These Christians with a lovey-dovey 'god' the father also play the shell game with Jesus/'god' the father and Jesus' will and 'god' the father's will, often saying that they were the same and that Jesus came here in order to die or that Jesus WAS 'god' rather than simply being in sync with his will. Of course, this requires one to totally ignore the Gethsemane scenes in the gospels where Jesus begged 'god' the father for hours to change his mind, and even until he sweated blood in the book of Luke. It also requires people to ignore Acts 4 that says that the "passion of the Christ" was all 'god' the father's idea. "nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt."(2) was not said by someone who's will was in perfect sync with who he was talking to. Nor does it make sense to suggest that Jesus was begging himself at Gethsemane, nor that he was asking himself if he had forsaken himself while on the cross. John 6:38 "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." Working with the metaphor presented here, Christians not only need to believe that Louise/Jesus was a magnanimous fellow, but that the Nazi Hans/'god' the father was morally "good" as well for demanding these innocent people's deaths to pay for sin/crimes they didn't commit. How can causing children to starve until they eat their parents be "good", much less the standard of moral goodness? Let's be honest, no one was twisting the arms of Hans/'god' so that they "just had to" torture people. It's the rules of 'god' the father himself that suggests that, as it says in Hebrews 9:22 (NAB) "...and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness". How can accepting innocent Jesus' (& Louise's) blood, paid as a "ransom"(3), and who got the death penalty for crimes he didn't commit, be "morally good" and a form of Justice? How can being required to call this action "mercy" and "grace" ON THE PART OF HANS/'GOD' THE FATHER be anything but the condoning of evil? How can the torture and killing of innocent Jesus/Louise be "good" if they both died and went to heaven afterwards? Would killing your Christian aunt be "good" if you believed you were sending her "home" to heaven? Obviously not, and not just because 'god'/Hans didn't give the orders for it to be so. What about the Christians/Louists that follow the dogma and ignore the memoirs/bible and the stories about Gethsemane, Acts 4/ ignore the memoirs of Hans? They typically say that critics just don't understand Hans/'god' and how good they really are and that the memoirs has authenticity problems and problems with consistency. (Or worse yet, that critics don't have the magical understanding THEY have). They might admit that the bible, the alleged memoirs of 'god', has it's problems. Yet they'll suggest that one should take the 'difficult' parts as metaphor, allegory and parable, and that the whole thing is about the necessity of Jesus "defeating death and the devil..." Yeah-right. Meanwhile they ignore Gethsemane etc as previously noted. So, what's better, following an evil idea or being delusional about the whole deal? Well, a least the "its all metaphor, allegory" Christians might STILL be capable of morality. And if the bible is largely howwash, then this begs the question, why believe any of it at all? Reverence notes: 1. Note that the Hebrew "rasha", is often translated as "wicked" and means lawbreaker/sinner, one who disobeys 'god's ordinances, even if this ordinance is threat that one must be a slave to the will of 'god' or be tortured in hell as a consequence, (Romans 6, NAB.) 2. Mark 14:36 (KJV) "And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt." 3. Matthew 20:28 "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.") The Dhampire LOGOS |
| The Nazi |
 |