Hard Determinism: The Real Issue Behind the Transgender Movement.

Many people are understandably disheartened at the lack of morality and common sense of this modern era. Indeed, we are at a time of apostasy and debauchery, and it is best represented in this recent movement of “transgendered” individuals who mutilate their bodies to become the opposite gender. However, those from Rome (especially Roman Catholics, but not to exclude Calvinists, Swiss Reformed, Lutherans, and other Protestants  who uphold infant baptism) wish to constantly pin the moral ills of society to those who do not agree with their ideology.  One particular internet blogger in particular, who has a pin name under “Jetbane”, a Calvinist,  made a brief rant about how Baptists are the  reason for this transgender movement.  Therefore, out of my disdain for infant baptism and Calvinism (See what Calvin and his followers did to us, including Zwingli, and you will see the reason for my distaste for Augustinian theology.), I will actually answer this online blogger. I will state a disclaimer: I am no theologian. I am no pastor (obviously, I’m female). I am not Bible teacher (Again, female).   I am merely a person who utilized common sense to refute this silly article. This should be a sad testimony to the author I’m responding to, since the premises were so ridiculous that a mere young woman could simply disseminate this quite simply. I pray this person repents, and no longer utilizes human depravity to force the issue of infant baptism.

Jetbane begins his article with these words, “Baptists are forever insisting that only those who can articulate their confession of Christ are to be Baptized.” (Why does the guy need to capitalize the word  “baptize”?) Well, he certainly began with the first point of often homicidal aggression of Calvinists to historical Baptists. In short, as a Baptist (That group also sharing like traits to other Anabaptistic groups, including Pentecostals, Mennonites, Amish, Plymouth Brethren, and even non-denominational Bible believers) one believes that one must be believe to be saved and to be baptized.  Anabaptistic groups have the correct view of baptism according to the Bible, especially according to the words of Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” In short, baptism requires belief prior to it, and only with belief can one truly be saved, and truly be baptized. In short, the sprinkling of infants is not considered baptism, because one does not have the cognitive ability to know one’s sinful state, let alone to believe. Along with the ideal of believer’s baptism, is also the ideals of salvation by grace through faith, and, free will.  It takes a decision to be one of Christ’s, and cognitive ability to count the cost, and make an assertion for Him. That Biblical regeneration, therefore, should not be attributed to a person long before he or she is actually aware, nor should one actually claim for a child to be a Christian when he or she clearly does not even know Christ. To force such a thing is cruel slavery, though I know that Calvinists do not dislike such a thing as that, and the author clearly makes it a point to enslave children to “act right” in this article.

But, he does go on, with the ideals of Calvinism in full swing:

Since infants can’t give what MacArthur’s requires therefore infants are not to be recipients of Baptism as a means of Grace. Indeed, the genuine Baptist doesn’t even like calling Baptism a ‘means of Grace’ since to speak like that is putting the emphasis on what God is doing in Baptism as opposed to the Baptist emphasis that Baptism is about what we are doing by being Baptized.”

I apologize, but being sprinkled in a tub, is not a means of grace. I actually sprinkled myself in a tub several times when taking a shower, and though it cleaned my body, it did not purge me of my iniquities. The fact that Christ died for our sins, and gave us a new life and new nature, is a means of grace. Sadly, since this person is an ardent Calvinist, he likely is not even saved, and does not even know the difference. (I am not saying that all Calvinists are not saved. Certainly, Spurgeon was definitely a saved man. That being said, the Calvinists  that are, are not devout historical Calvinists, who would gladly drown Baptists such as Spurgeon.) Also, the fact that children are forced into the militarized tenets of Calvinism is not showing a means of grace, either, but is a form of slavery. I would also like to add, that if you fuse the concept of immersion with infant baptism, as the Orthodox Catholics do, it is actually torture.  Again, grace is given by God, through the remission of sins, and the following of Christ. Grace is a gift, or offer, given, not something forced upon somebody. One could also see from these quotes that he also believes something that transgenders also believe, and that is hard determinism.  Simply put, he believes that decisions are innate, and therefore they supercede anything that refutes it, even if the refutations are grounded in Scripture, science or simple logic. In short, as a consistent Calvinist, he does not know the difference between anatomical realities and results of volition with the associated consequences. In short, he believes that one is set to believe something, as the transgender does.

One would be hard pressed to think that someone who believes in Augustinianism (be it Calvinism or Roman Catholicism) would have much in common with a transgender at first glance.  The perverse and sexually promiscuous cross dresser would look quite different from the devout and pious Puritan.  However, underneath the show of religion and secularism, both believe that there is no difference between one’s decisions and anatomical makeup.  On the Calvinist’s side, they believe that their baptism (if one wants to call it that) makes them Christians.  They do not believe that they have a say in the matter.  Nevermind, salvation is given for those who believe on Christ, and that is an active decision in Mark 16:16 and various other verses. They believe that they are simply a result of their parent’s wishes or the decrees of God (they proclaim) of Scripture. In short, they believe that they are simply a product of their theological environment, and predestined to whatever lot is given to them.  If they proclaim themselves to be saved, they feel justified to oppress others: after all, they believe in a pseudo Christian caste system.  It is their luck of the draw, so to speak, that they were professed Christians, and that the others were just, “fuel for the fire.” Many hyper-Calvinists do not even evangelize others, because of the fact that they believe that they are defying God’s will to do so (Even though, Christ actually stated the opposite). In the areas of repentance: It is very rare for a dogmatic Calvinist to believe that he or she should do so, because they do not believe that one could backslide, or fall away. They also do not believe in free will, so everything is merely a result of whatever consequence that goes on. Despite whatever action they may take towards Christ, beneficial or detrimental, they are either forever saved, or eternally damned. There is plenty of denial of personal responsibility or decision making in this ideology.

Compare that with a “transgendered” individual.  In his or her case, it is somewhat more complex, but the same idea. Statistically, their lives were littered with years of often repetitive sexual and physical abuse.  They often see the other gender, and therefore feel that if they became the opposing gender, they would be protected. In the case of a woman who wishes to become male, she sees the fact that men can protect and arm themselves, and therefore correlates masculinity with physical strength. Therefore, she wishes to become so powerful that men who attack her can no longer hurt her.  In the case of males, they notice that others rush to protect women and children.  Therefore, they wish to become the gender that would give them much affection and security.  However, in terms of theology, they believe the same fatalistic idea. They cannot really be washed from the torments that others did to them, but only maintenance it.  They also believe that their decision is innate, or fool themselves into thinking such.  The females believe that they are truly are males and vice versa, and nothing could change them from that belief unless it’s the Holy Spirit.  As for their lives, they feel stuck in the prison that they are confined to, and there is no deliverance or escape from it.  After all, they are often subjected to years of psychotherapy following the vile abuse, and psychology believes that one is merely a composite of one’s biological and environmental factors.  Oftentimes, a transgendered person would describe stating that they are “stuck”.  They state that they are, for example, “a woman trapped in a man’s body”, or, vice versa. They know that the hard reality is anatomical: they are stuck with what they are born with. However, they also, similarly to the Calvinist, do not believe that there is any amending the situation, only maintenance.  Therefore, they fight off the woes of the de facto caste system they were born into, as a person fights of a terminal illness, by which they are eventually going to be killed.  They do not, however, wish to be accountable to the God that made them thus.  They do not want to take responsibility of the fact that, victimized or not, they are still sinners. They do not even want to admit that their anatomy is dead set, and that their decisions are really against nature, science, or logic. Therefore, both the Calvinist and transgendered person believe that they are “deadlocked”, despite whatever  refutations are made to them.  Nevermind, the fact that God stated that one should repent, and to repent is to consciously turn from one’s sin, towards Christ. Nevermind, gender is not based upon feelings, and one should attain to the order that God built, and repent of any androgyny not illustrated in Scripture. No, both the Calvinist and transgendered person see biological makeup and personal decisions are interchangeable, and there is no accountability, conscientiousness, repentance, or responsibility in either ideology.

He begins his premise with a faulty note, stating that parents should be forcing their children into belief of something that is not cognitively aware:

“This is Baptist thinking. Children of Christians are not to be Baptized until they can name for themselves their own religious identity as Christian.”

Well, if one actually and truly believed in salvation by grace through FAITH (as the Calvinist claims he believes), then one would be more than thrilled that a person would wait until he believes, since faith and belief are synonymous. Therefore, if one truly does believe in salvation by grace through faith, one has to only assert that believer’s baptism is the only appropriate method, since infants obviously are too young to be cognitively  aware of their sins, let alone believe on Christ.  Also, one is not saved by osmosis, but saved by grace through faith.  Therefore, one cannot believe for another person, nor claim them saved or lost.  Also, to add to my previous point: He is not comparing apples and apples, but apples and oranges.  Biological identity is based on one’s birth: One cannot choose to be a man, or woman. One is what he or she is, genetically speaking.  However, one can choose to believe on Christ, and repent of one’s sins as the Holy Spirit moves them, or not.  But, both the transgender and Calvinist confuse biological identity with theological decisions. A transgender is deadset against biological reality, and will proclaim himself male or female, in spite of the biological evidence.  A Calvinist, likewise, will claim himself or herself eternally saved, in spite of the theological lack of evidence. Both are dead set against God, and their fellow man.

He then goes on to say that a child can be “sovereign”, which actually borders on blasphemy to me, but then states that the parents who try to not do so are basically letting their children go amok into the world of transgenderism:

“This thinking of the sovereign child, who can only be Christian in the context of their own self understanding is now bleeding off into other areas that make perfect sense given the Baptist premise of, ‘a child cannot choose their religious identity until they are epistemoligcally self conscious about what identity they want to choose’.”

One cannot force a person into belief or disbelief on Christ, and contrary to Calvinistic positions, a person actually does have the ability to believe or disbelieve on Christ. Now, a Christian parent can heavily influence that young lad or lass to believe on Him. Even the Scriptures state: “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6 KJV).  However, a person does not have the ability to believe for a child.  Such an idea is best illustrated when the Lord stated to Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:29-30:

In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.”

In short, a person has the cognitive ability to go and rebel against their father’s righteousness, or believe contrary to their father’s rebelliousness. Righteousness and grace are not hereditarily imputed: one has to believe for that. If belief is shown as the foundation of righteousness and wickedness in the Old Testament (As Jeremiah was an Old Testament prophet), how much more the New Testament. If these people truly believed that salvation was by grace through faith, they would gladly understand that one cannot force another to believe or disbelieve anything. One cannot be born Christian: it is an impossibility. Biological identity is hard wired, and set. However, one’s eternity is based on decision, to receive Christ, or reject Him.

He then asks this question, in an attempt to make Baptists sound similar to postmodern people:

What is the difference between Baptist parents insisting that their children have to be epistemoligcally self conscious about what religious identity they want to choose and Modern parents now who are insisting that their children have to be epistemologically self conscious about what sexual identity those children want to choose?”

To which I would respond, and repeat: Plenty. A person’s religion is not biologically based. A person’s gender, however, is. Not only that: One cannot force a person to believe on Christ. To do so is a theocracy, which is what happened in Calvin’s Geneva. In short, it is Pharisee torture. However, a person can state that a person will always be male or female. To state otherwise is indeed neglect and abuse.  I would also like to add: the parents of these “transgendered kids”, often do not try to simply neglect them into gender neutral nonconformity. They actually try to force them into it, by not acknowledging biological reality, and pumping them with the opposite gender’s androgens.  They often try to project their own blasphemy of natural order against God, on their own children. So, in short, they are basically torturing their children, in their own way. Both the Calvinist and postmodern parent sees their children as little more than avenues and spokes pieces for their own disgusting agendas. One just claims the name of Christ falsely, and one wears the biological makeup of Baphomet openly.

“What we are saying here is that there is a harmony found in Baptist parents refusing to baptize their children and many modern parents today refusing to ‘baptize’ their children into a predetermined gender believing, just as the Baptists believe, that their children should be able to have a say in the matter of what gender they will have.”

A child does not have a say in the matter of what gender he or she has. Believe or not (postmodern child abusers), society or parents have no say in the gender a child has. However, a child does have the ability to believe on God, a false God, or no God at all. As a believer, I can train up a child in the way he or she goes, but I can’t believe for him or her. To claim such is mental slavery, about as bad or as worse as for pumping them with the opposite gender’s steroids to make them a vain societal statement. I also cannot say for a child that he or she is a Christian, when he or she is obviously too young to know or believe on Christ for his or her sins.  To do that is another form of psychological abuse, and a false assurance. But, this person is utilizing Diaprax, as a means of making Baptists look abominable. He is already going on two false premises: that if one baptizes their children, they are already in a Christian identity, in the same way that if a person acknowledges biophysical identity. For one, as illustrated and repeated several times before, religious beliefs  are not innate! This is especially in the case of Christianity, where we leave whatever religious beliefs we had, and follow Christ. Secondly, even if one does baptize a child, it does not mean that one is saved, nor does that mean that the parents are raising their children appropriately. There are many LGBT people who came from a Roman Catholic background, and they were baptized as infants.  Needless to say, Calvin was wrong: Sprinkling of infants is no sure indicator of salvation at all, and to assert such is both blasphemy and completely oppositional to common sense.

He then states that this is merely a logical extension of the Baptist faith, therefore stating his thesis:

“Modern parents insisting that children must choose their own sexual identity is just the logical extension of Baptist parents insisting that children must choose their own religious identity.”

Again, apologies for sounding like a parakeet for repeating this point like a recorder, but 1)religious beliefs are based on personal decisions, not biological makeup, and 2) baptism is based on belief, and to force baptize my child and claim him or her as a Christian is parental abuse and blasphemy. Also, sprinkling an infant is not mentioned once in the Bible.  To also relate this, a child will not be harmed if he or she does not get sprinkled. Again, no salvation comes to infants, though, the Lord does have mercy on such, and allows them to go to Heaven, since they are not cognitively aware. For instance, the Lord states to children to come to Him:

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:16).

Also, David stated his child was in Heaven, and that he would go to him, but the child will not return to him:

“But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” (2 Samuel 12:23).

In short, the Lord has mercy on young children that are not cognitively aware of their sinful states. However, to utilize a child in a societal demolition, is doing a child harm.  They are trying to ignore the biological realities in an attempt to claim that gender is not hard pressed, but a societal construct. It is not long until they will force their preferred gender on that child, and try to force them to become what that postmodern (sociopathic) parents wants them to be.  Such is the case of what happened to Bruce Reimer, who was forced into gender reassignment, and who eventually committed suicide. Such lack of acknowledgment for God and man in the gender reassignment of postmodern parents is not just “neglect”, as the Calvinist man tries to make Baptists sound: it is abuse. However,  Jetbane admits that he is not comparing synonymous precepts, since he states here:

The point here isn’t that there is an exact one to one correspondence on this matter. The point here is that when you start with the sovereign individual who must be consulted before covenantal realities are determined apart from his or her approval the end result, naturally enough, is sovereign individuals who must be consulted before any number of realities are determined apart from his or hers approval.”

If this person is asserting that he (I’m assuming this person is a “he”), is a Christian, he or she must read his Bible a bit more often. The Lord dislike false balances, and therefore would be antithetical to utilizing diaprax as a means of manipulating Baptists:

“A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight.” (Proverbs 11:1).

Also, in terms of religious association, a person has the ability to choose if whether or not they will receive the Gospel, a false gospel, or none at all. I know that historical Calvinists despise the idea of free will, but one has the ability to do so. However, one does not have the ability to choose their own gender, and to insinuate such is preposterous. I would also take this one step further, and state this: One has the right to deny the God of the Bible, if he or she wishes. The person will be eternally damned, provided he or she does not repent, but they have that decision:

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” (Revelation 22:11).

One even has the right to damn themselves to Hell, by joining this transgender movement. I would not like it, would pray they repent, would preach to them when necessary, BUT, they do have that right.  But, one does not have a right to force their societal presuppositions on a child, and to do so is plain child abuse. No matter what your feelings are on gender, you should not give them life threatening medications, indoctrinations, hormonal treatments, and surgeries to emasculate or feminize them to the child you want. In the same way, one does not nor should have the ability to force their theological opinions on a person, and subject them to a perversion of Christianity, especially not in the name of Christ. One should not force a child to infant baptism, feigned creeds, sacramentalism, to death at the stake, and the like. To do so is theological abuse.  Therefore, in this way, both the Calvinist and postmodern parent show that they are abusing their children by their ideologies.

He then goes on to state that the reason that Baptists are to blame is because they acknowledge free will and the rights of the individual:

“Consistent Baptist thinking lends itself to the atomized individual and once the individual is atomized then he or she is free to be self determinate in every area of life from religion to sexuality to who knows where else.”

It is ironic since both the Calvinist and postmodernist deny the rights of the individual. Postmodernists are actually not very big on the area of free will, but actually are collectivists thinkers.  In fact, the whole reason they are doing this “gender neutrality” thing, is based on an experiment of the collective. Postmodernists are Fabian socialists, and therefore need deconstructive thinking in the area of morality, especially sexual morality. Similarly, the Calvinist is also a deconstructivist,  though he or she prefers the areas of theology. He or she often utilizes Hegelian Dialect or Diaprax to make their theocratic governance sound as the only solution to a moral problem, in spite of the fact that it was and is attempted in the Roman Catholic “Church”, to no avail. It would make sense, given that Calvin received his theology from Augustine, and Augustine himself was a skilled deconstructionist. Therefore, both the Calvinist and post modern parent are skilled at utilizing deconstructionism. One just utilizes theological means (the Calvinist), while others just use the societal result (the postmodern parent). In addition to the deconstruction similarity, one could also see how totalitarianism is also depicted here. Either one is subject to theocratic parents, who try to force them to believe in a borderline legalistic Christ that holds to the sacrament of infant baptism, OR, one goes and becomes a Godless postmodernist parent, and forces their children into secular humanism. There is no interest of the child as an individual: the child is merely a component to the egalitarian society of the postmodernist or the theocracy of the Calvinist. Individuality is at best not acknowledged, and at worst ignored and abused. In reality, Jetbane is showing his true colors here: He is claiming that Baptists are abusing their children merely because they allow their children to believe on Christ to the liberty of their own conscience, or not. However, in reality, he is advocating for the abuse of children by not acknowledging that people should have the ability to believe on Christ, or not. He is being just as detrimental to children, just in a different way.

He then admits that he is stating something completely different, as he is stating exactly what I have stated, only I added the words of diaprax and Hegelian dialect, to it:

“Some will protest that this isn’t a fair analogy since baptism signifies a supernatural event whereas sex is a natural given. But to protest such as this is to miss the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy is not supernatural vs. natural. The point of the analogy is the sovereign individual choosing all. When it is realized that this is the point of the analogy then all protestations of my creating a ‘straw man’  here lose their power.”

Actually, one actually can make that assertion that it is still false, because there indeed is that difference. Biological makeup and theological decisions are there, and are quite different from one another. However, what this Calvinist is stating, is, if one has to accept the notion of free will, and especially with the idea of letting a child have liberty of conscious, one would also have to deal with the ability that some could take that to an utter depravity. He is wrong on several premises. For one, the people listed are not Baptists, but secularists. Secularists do not believe in liberty of conscience, but in the human mind, individually and collectively, being a result of the biological and environmental processes. In short, pretty similar to a Calvinist, as noted throughout the article. Secondly, and more importantly: Sacramentalism does not actually save anyone’s soul, nor change anyone’s conduct. Therefore, infant baptism would not have changed Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and various others. Thirdly, in both the Old and New Testament, God gave them opportunity to make decisions, which is the synonym for free will:

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

If one can make a decision, one has the ability to make an assertion, which also denotes a free will. Jesus also states that one evaluate if whether not following Him is worth it to an individual, and then choose one’s path accordingly:

And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? ” (Luke 14:25-28).

If and when one has to evaluate something, one therefore has to make a decision based on that evaluation. Therefore, it would require volitional ability to evaluate following Christ, or bowing down the whatever precept of men one previously ascribes to. Therefore, even in Scriptures, one is given volitional ability to receive the gospel, or reject it for any reason.  Even the idea of “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2), requires a free volition. God is stating that there is consequences for the volition of not following Him, mind you, but man does have that ability to either repent, or reject, Christ. Therefore, even the idea of repentance, which is denoted all throughout the Bible, is based on salvation by FAITH (belief) through grace. One has to believe on Christ in order to please Him, and therefore bathing an infant by some defective Romanist priest is actually en moot, and setting up plenty of people into claiming they are saved, when they are clearly lost.

Also, in this last phrase, he admitted that both Baptism and gender are objective:

Let me also add here that both in God’s covenantal ordering and in sexuality both Baptism and gender are objective categories.”

I heavily agree that baptism and gender are objective. Here are the objectives of Baptism: 1) One has to believe, before one is baptized. 2) One is immersed after belief, not sprinkled. 3) One has to believe on Christ to be saved, and whatever baptism is useless if one does not believe on Christ. 4) It has to be the Christ of Scripture, not the Tammuz of Catholicism, the sex freak of Mormonism, the adulterer of Gnosticism, or any other false Christ, and 5) One has to be cognitively aware and willing to accept the Christ of Scripture. In the cases of the infant baptism of Catholics, traditional Calvinists, Orthodox, and Anglicans, none of those criterion are present for the child present in that infant baptism. So, based on that criterion, Jetbane would have to admit that he is not being objective in the case of Baptism.

“When one is birthed to Christian parents one is, objectively speaking, a member of the covenant and so is Baptized just as one is, objectively speaking, either male or female. There is a givenness in both being a member of the covenant and in our gender that is objective. That givenness may be twisted but it can never be changed.”

Actually, being the child of a Christian parent does not make one a Christian, as clearly illustrated even in the Old Testament. Had that been the case, Ahab and Jezebel, the sons of Eli, Absalom, and others would not have even existed. In addition, Ruth would have been considered mortally damned, because she was a Moabite, and Rahab would be considered damned for being a pagan prostitute. Had Calvinists lived in that day, they would have scoffed at the idea of the Messiah coming from David, which had a harlot and a foreigner for an ancestor. Since they deny the ability of being saved from belief on Christ, but instead believe the sprinkling to that Great Whore, they would have denied that Christ would be just propitiation for sins. In addition, they would hate the idea that Jesus died for both Jew and Gentile, since they are actually quite Anti Semitic, especially Luther. They deny that as Christians, we were grafted in a JEWISH covenant, not an Augustinian one. They deny that the covenant was not with us, but with Israel, the Jews. But, it’s the same old kid from that same old Babylon, which have seduced the world with her sorceries, the most seriously her handling of the Bible.

In the end, the most serious part of comparison between both the Calvinist and the postmodern parent is their unwillingness to see their own children saved.  In the case of the Calvinist, it is because he or she gives a false assurance that they are saved by a Romanist sprinkling. There is no rending of the heart, ability to know repentance, and becoming a regenerate creature. Such was the breeding ground for Germany, in a Lutheran environment, who gladly embraced the occult and evolutionary thinking, and paved the way for people like Hitler. In short, to quote the words of Jason Cooley, “you’re the same old devil you’ve always been.” Anything is permissible in a Calvinist environment, because they do not believe they can backslide, or fall away, and do not examine fruit. Therefore, if one is nominally a Christian, one merely believes him to be. Similarly, the transgender movement is pursuading children to go against Christ, by embracing something that is utterly against nature. They want their children to ignore God. Therefore, the Calvinist and postmodernist parent will find common ground in this aspect: their doctrines have left thousands of their own children on their way to Hell, one with a false assurance, and the other with a reprobate mind.




  1. (n.d.). Baptist Refusal to Baptize Their Children & Postmodern Refusal to Assign Gender to Their Children. Iron Ink. Retrieved October 7, 2017, from https://ironink.org/?p=6262

Cooley, J. (n.d.). Con Man or Conversion-No Change, No Salvation//Jason Cooley. YouTube. Retrieved October 7, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd3665hTMSk.

The Holy Bible: containing the Old and New Testaments: New King James version. (2010). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


Lessons of the Press: Synopsis of the Teachings I Learned in Journalism

Brittany A. Green

Prof. Chris Carrothers

JRNU 360

03 March 2017

Lessons of the Press:

Synopsis of the Teachings I Learned in Journalism

I learned plenty of lessons throughout this course.  My education in this class taught me much that would further my career as an aspiring journalist.  I made many improvements, as well as several mistakes.  Therefore, as a final portion of my class, I will go over the published compositions of this course, and publish it in the blog.  I will note that I did not revise any of my work.  It was actually not due to lethargy, but due to a further explanation of my lessons.  I am a firm believer in verism, and therefore believe one should be able to publicly confess and explain their successes and failures, and learn from them.  I have similar feelings about human imperfection that the apostle John has to sin.  In 1 John 1:8-10, he states: “ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (Nelson).  Since human imperfection is actually the result of sin, I feel that it is best for one to be honest about one’s imperfections, as one would be about one’s sins.  Therefore, I show my work unedited, to show both the flaws, as well as the lessons I learned from my flaws.me

Lesson 1: Avoid Personal Bias—From Both Commission and Omission.

My news story, “Home, Sweet, Rome? Anabaptist Groups Say, ‘No!’”, was a very informative story from the Anabaptist point of view.  I told much about the history of the origins of the Anabaptists, which then branched off into various sub denominations, such as the Baptists, Pentecostals, and Mennonites.  I also explained why plenty of the Anabaptists did not wish to unite with Rome, from theological and historical perspectives.  However, what I failed to do was to let those in Catholicism explain from their point of view.  I did not show how many people in Catholicism viewed the Inquisition as a reaction against heresy:

“One of the most enduring myths of the Inquisition is that it was a tool of oppression imposed on unwilling Europeans by a power-hungry Church. Nothing could be more wrong. In truth, the Inquisition brought order, justice, and compassion to combat rampant secular and popular persecutions of heretics. When the people of a village rounded up a suspected heretic and brought him before the local lord, how was he to be judged? How could an illiterate layman determine if the accused’s beliefs were heretical or not? And how were witnesses to be heard and examined?” (Madden).

I could have at least shown the Roman Catholic point of view, before making the article. I could have also shown how their point of view could at least seem contradictory to Scripture. For instance, they equate heresy as treason:

“Secular and ecclesiastical leaders in medieval Europe approached heresy in different ways. Roman law equated heresy with treason. Why? Because kingship was God-given, thus making heresy an inherent challenge to royal authority. Heretics divided people, causing unrest and rebellion. No Christian doubted that God would punish a community that allowed heresy to take root and spread. Kings and commoners, therefore, had good reason to find and destroy heretics wherever they found them — and they did so with gusto.” (Madden).

An average Anabaptist believer would have already seen the problem with this.  For one, Jesus stated that His kingdom was not of this world: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (Nelson).  Therefore, the mere fact that state authorities could persecute people on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, does make inference that the Roman Catholic Church is of this world. Secondly, an Anabaptist would also say that even if their points of view were heretical, one should not have put them to death.  When Paul confronted heresy, he merely stated, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” (Nelson).  There was no mention of torture or killing that heretic.  Paul simply rejects and separates himself from them, and goes his merry way.  Therefore, because of my omission from the Catholic point of view, I not only lost credibility from a Catholic audience, but also lost substantial evidence for Anabaptists. Therefore, I should have also inserted Catholic sources.

Home, Sweet, Rome? Anabaptist Groups Say, “No!”


Lesson 2: Procrastination May Help With Adrenaline, but Also Makes a Poorly Planned Paper.

Truth be told, when I wrote the paper, “God Complex of Connor Mc Gregor: How Narcissistic Personality Types Intrigue MMA Fans”, I wrote within the last few hours.  I forgot I had to write a paper.  Therefore, when I was writing the paper, much of it was unplanned, and simply what I could think of at the top of my head.  I was bumbling throughout the entire article, trying to find something half-intelligent to say.  To my surprise, it seemed to work quite well.  I not only sounded halfway intelligent, but quite intelligent.  My brother, to whom I wrote the paper for, actually commended me for my writing ability and shared the paper.  I also seemed to get praise from my brother’s friends.  However, I could have improved the paper.  For instance, there were times when I quoted Connor McGregor, and it added additional curse words:

““He shows me pictures of some favorite recent outfits on his phone. For a while he was into elaborate tailoring; now it’s pristine sneakers and luxuriously casual knits, minks, brash but accommodating fabrics. He talks about how Ireland is full of mini-McGregors these days, swarms of young men in beards and waistcoats, dressed beautifully—dressed like him—looking for ugly fights. ‘They all want to be me a little. That’s a Drake line. All them boys want to be me a little. And it’s true as f—.’…How do you feel about that?… ‘I mean, I don’t blame them. If I wasn’t me, I’d want to be me, too.’” (Green, God Complex of Connor Mc Gregor…)

I admit I should not have done that, since even I myself do not like cursing. I usually like the verses Ephesians 4:29: “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” (Nelson).  In addition, it also lacks professionalism to drop the f-bomb, or to quote someone who is dropping the f-bomb.  That was the gravest mistake I made out of the entire paper.  I also littered the paper with constant run on and long sentences: “One can know what one is doing, and be confident of his or her abilities, and still be humble and honest about their humanity.”  I should have given myself time for revision, since the appropriate message would be: “One can know what he or she is doing, be confident in his or her abilities, and still be humble and honest of their humanity.”  I admit my procrastination did help me with an adrenaline boost, which usually gives me a fight or flight response.  I tend to write better papers when I am rushing than relaxed.  That being said, when I am relaxed, I also tend to look more at my grammatical errors.  Therefore, I should always have enough adrenaline to be enthusiastic about writing papers, but also have enough thought preparation to proofread and edit articles.
God Complex of Connor Mc Gregor: How Narcissistic Personality Types Intrigue MMA Fans


Lesson 3: It is Best to Avoid a Culinary Interview if You’re a Food Addict With a Time Limit.

This may sound a like a humorous statement, but it is a lesson I learned when I performed a culinary interview with my mother, titled, “The Potato Interview.”  I honestly did things on a whim, and started with something that I considered short enough of a topic for discussion, but long enough for content.  However, I realized that culinary discussions are long, and therefore need much more time than 2 minutes.  The reason why is because both my family and I love food very much, and therefore can go for hours speaking about different kinds of potato recipes. When I ended the discussion, it ended at 5 minutes, which was 3 minutes above my set limit. I realized that culinary interviews are long in length, especially since those who are culinary enthusiasts spend much time speaking about their recipes.  There is a reason why culinary artists usually send cooks as guests, and then speak with them in small intervals throughout the news broadcast.  It is because culinary interviews are long, and therefore require a piece-by-piece discussion, while the rest of the broadcast is taking place.  People are also practical and visual, and therefore only listen to culinary interviews if they are available to see them.  Hence, why there are culinary channels, instead of culinary radio stations.  I will remember to keep this in mind, whenever dealing with an audio story.  Some things are best done with audio recordings, while others are done with video.  In addition, to preserve time, culinary interviews are by no means the most timely.

The Potato Interview


Lesson 4: There is More to A News Broadcast Than an Interview.

When I performed a video recording with my brother, titled, “Interview Concerning David Daleidan”, I did not have enough time to edit, nor to add photos nor content.  Therefore, the only thing that was given was the interview.  It was simply a commentary concerning the pro-life reporter.  I should have added photos, to make this more interesting.  Content regarding the STEM cell scandal would have been helpful for a watcher to notice, such as the Planned Parenthood employees, commentary from Cecile Richards, and others.  I could have also added background of the story, before I interviewed my brother.  A synopsis of the STEM cell scandal would have also given some background on what me and my brother were speaking about.  All in all, I realized that there was more to a news broadcast than an interview.  When I start filming as a reporter, I will watch videos of news reporters before publishing.

Interview Concerning David Daleidan



After all these lessons, most which are due to procrastination, I became a better writer. I will continue to utilize these lessons throughout my education, as well as my career as a journalist.  I hope that this dedication post will help instruct most of my fellow classmates, as well as others that happen to stumble across my word press.  Again, when a person admits their humanity, they are coming far closer to improvement of their flaws.


Green, Brittany and Brenda Riley. “The Potato Interview.” By Brittany Green. San Antonio, 2016. Digital Recording via Mobile Device.

Green, Brittany. “God Complex of Connor Mc Gregor: How Narcissistic Personality Types Intrigue MMA Fans.” WordPress.com (n.d.). Online Article.

Green, Brittany. Dir. Interview Concerning David Daleidan. Perf. Brittany Green and Dominique Green. 2017. YouTube Video.

Green, Brittany. “Home, Sweet, Rome? Anabaptist Groups Say, “No!”.” WordPress.com (2017). Online Article.

Madden, Thomas F. “The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition.” Catholic Education Resource Center (2003).

Nelson, Thomas. The Holy Bible, King James Version. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1990.



God Complex of Connor Mc Gregor: How Narcissistic Personality Types Intrigue MMA Fans

God Complex of Connor Mc Gregor:connor

How Narcissistic Personality Types Intrigue MMA Fans

Connor Mc Gregor is a very beloved character in the UFC. Many people like his boisterous, flamboyant, and often unfiltered behavior.  Though traits like this would often be characterized as arrogant, loudmouthed, and uncouth to some, others laud Mc Gregor as an aspirational hero, somewhat of an idol.  Mc Gregor certainly attracts attention, and several articles have been placed in his honor. Though, some would like to wonder, how could this attraction be? Why would people view his behavior as commendable, when they view similar people as toxic?
Well, a good sum of the reason could actually be how certain traits can be phrased, and how certain traits can be perceived.  For instance, he had an interview with GQ, and while his traits can be perceived to one as arrogance, others might view it as confidence:

“He shows me pictures of some favorite recent outfits on his phone. For a while he was into elaborate tailoring; now it’s pristine sneakers and luxuriously casual knits, minks, brash but accommodating fabrics. He talks about how Ireland is full of mini-McGregors these days, swarms of young men in beards and waistcoats, dressed beautifully—dressed like him—looking for ugly fights. ‘They all want to be me a little. That’s a Drake line. All them boys want to be me a little. And it’s true as fuck.’…How do you feel about that?… ‘I mean, I don’t blame them. If I wasn’t me, I’d want to be me, too.’” (Baron, 2017)

Certainly people do not mind confidence.  People tend to respect those who hold their heads up high, dress in ways that complement their bodies, speak well, and walk with an upbeat step.  Many view self-confidence as a proof of self-efficacy: That one knows what one is doing, and can take care of himself or herself.  That being said, there is a fine line between a healthy self-confidence, and a rather self-absorbed ego.  One can know what one is doing, and be confident of his or her abilities, and still be humble and honest about their humanity.  For some, McGregor does seem to be the latter. Here is another article, regarding his commentary about Jesus Christ of Nazareth:

“If you thought McGregor’s ego had grown to the level of Greek mythos prior to UFC 194, we are surely beyond the parable of Icarus and the sun by now. During a recent UFC 197 press conference, McGregor surely claimed himself Apollo, the chariot that rides across the sky. ‘Me and Jesus are cool,’ he said. ‘I’m cool with all the gods. Gods recognize gods.’” (MacNair, 2016).

McGregor is not merely demonstrating self-confidence in that statement, but is demonstrating a God complex.  Some would actually think that it is a form of offensive blasphemy.  Others would simply think it a form of self-actualization:  Many in the New Age movements also believe in self-deification, and would also believe themselves to be as deified as Christ, although not as self-actualized.  That being said, there would certainly be a sense of narcissism in that statement.  One would question if it is merely a narcissistic style, or a narcissistic personality.

Narcissistic styles and personality types are common in the entertainment world.  Many people have heard the old adage, “Do you know who I am?” kind of statement among the pedestaled behavior of celebrities, even though rarely stated by celebrities themselves.  Many celebrities have to develop a shtick as a comical effect: Making themselves as gods, or making themselves as devils.  In many regards, Connor McGregor’s behavior is very common.  He makes himself as a god, Apollos, which was the epitome of beauty and intelligence in the Greco Roman world.  Similarly, Marilyn Manson, Ozzy Osbourne, and several others, make themselves out to be the epitome of evil with representations commonly associated with the Devil.  Both of these are representations of deity, or of someone wishing to attain deity.  Self-deification is actually quite common in the celebrity world, and it is ironic that the association of “celebrity skin” is also associated with common traits of narcissism:

“DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

  • Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
  • Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
  • Exaggerating your achievements and talents
  • Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
  • Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
  • Requiring constant admiration
  • Having a sense of entitlement
  • Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
  • Taking advantage of others to get what you want
  • Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
  • Being envious of others and believing others envy you
  • Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner.”(Mayo Clinic, 2014)

That being said, many would simply say that celebrities have a lot of those traits exaggerated, partly as a means to keep the paparazzi away, and also as a means of keeping the fans interested in them for ratings.  For instance, if one wanted to keep the tabloids away, being rude or arrogant is certainly an efficient way to get a paper off one’s back.  One can also state offensive  statements as a means to get shock value, and therefore get ratings.  So, whether McGregor really believes any of the things he states is unclear, as in the cases of most of these celebrities.

Is Connor McGregor a narcissist?  Medically speaking, it is uncertain.  That being said, in his style, he certainly exhibits plenty of narcissistic traits, which his fans aspire to and emulate.  Perhaps his demeanor gives reason for a person to discuss at what point such a personality type is helpful or harmful, attractive or abrasive.


Baron, Z. (2017). Conor McGregor Talks Fighting Floyd Mayweather, Searching for Khloé Kardashian, and Really Getting Paid by the UFC. GQ.

MacNair, A. (2016). Opinion: Conor McGregor declares himself a god, but are we believers? MMA Mania.

Mayo Clinic. (2014, November 18). Narcissistic personality disorder. Retrieved February 25, 2017, from MayoClinic: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568

Home, Sweet, Rome? Anabaptist Groups Say, “No!”

Home Sweet, Rome? Anabaptist Groups Say, “No!”

Anabaptists state that Rome admits the theological differences, and Anabaptists refuse globalism and ecumenism.

By Brittany Green

Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2017


Worldwide, Notably in Europe and the AmericasJason Cooley, the reverend of the Old Paths Baptist Church in Minnesota, recites Revelation 17 to his parish.

Cooley begins at Revelation 17:4, with a solemn, yet authoritative tone:

“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour; and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:And upon her forehead was written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus,; and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration…”

After reading the passages of Revelation 17 and a brief prayer, Cooley then continues his sermon with fiery zeal and invigorating fervor, in a loud and commanding voice: “You know their sacrifice is supposed to be a witness to us.  But, Rome is drunk with the blood of the saints! Rome has always been drunk with the blood of the blood of the saints!”  He then makes reference to the Great Inquisition, and laments the fact that many Baptists forget or ignore their history to unite with the Roman papacy.  Using plenty of references to ancient and modern history, theology, and Scripture, he pleads to his parishioners that the members of his parish remember their history and theology, and urges them to preach against the Roman Catholic papacy.

Jacob Prasch is an evangelist and Bible teacher, revered for his work in apologetics with Moriel Ministries.  His mother was an Irish Roman Catholic, and his father was an Israeli Orthodox Jew.  Because of the negative experiences he had in both religious systems, Prasch spent most of his teenage and young adult life as an agnostic.  However, he converted to Christianity during the Christian revivals in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  Theologically, he is a traditional Pentecostal, and is against Cessationism and Neomontanism.  Prasch has made several videos, books, and commentaries against the Catholic papacy, both on the theological and historical fronts.  He even made comments concerning the Virgin Birth, and Mary’s role in someone’s salvation, which, according to him, is nonexistent:

“The pagan civilizations of the pagan near East, going back to Simi ramus and Babylon, had the mother and child thing.  Throughout most of the Old Testament, it was Tammuz, and the Madonna, holding the baby.  The kid, the lamb, the goat, is a picture of Christ.  You can eat that. But the mother has no part in his salvation, do you understand? Roman Catholicism: Don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk.  Mary did not co-redeem us, or co-save us. It was only the work of the kid, not the old lady.  With all due respect to Mary (her real name was Miriam). I can’t wait to meet Miriam…She was a nice Jewish girl: Miriam….I think Miriam is fantastic! Miriam is the greatest woman who ever lived! …The greatest woman who ever lived, and the only thing she can say is, ‘Whatever my son says, do it.’”

He then examines Mary through the passages of the Magnificat, stating that Mary admitted to being a sinner with the statement, “My savior.” He states that when one needs a savior, one has sinned, and all people have fallen short of the glory of God, save Christ.  Prasch has also has made several videos concerning the Catholic Church regarding the sex scandals, from rent-a-boys in the Vatican to pedophiles, and the edict “Crimens sollicitationis”, which was a document handling sex scandals in the Roman Catholic papacy.  Prasch examines the Bible, and compares the Roman Catholic papacy to Scripture, with constant theological differences to the papacy.

People would like to enquire what these two groups have in common. The answer to that is simple: They are Anabaptist groups.  Anabaptists, though often lumped together with Protestants in Catholic and Secular circles, differ very differently doctrinally from Protestant beliefs.  While an Anabaptist sees Sola Scriptura as the sole authority for doctrine, Protestants, like Roman Catholics, go back to the Church Fathers for their doctrine, notably the church father Augustine.  While an Anabaptist group believes in baptism when someone is old enough to believe and is converted, a Protestant believes in infant baptism.  While Anabaptists oppose Kingdom Now theology with the verses of Christ, “My kingdom is not of this world,” Protestants believe in Kingdom Now theology at least, and a State Church at most.  In theology, groups such as Pentecostals, Baptists, Menonites, and Plymouth Brethren are Anabaptist. Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Reformed, and Puritans are Protestants.  In history, Anabaptists were both tortured and arrested by several Protestants, including Calvin.  Ulrich Zwingli, the leader of the Swedish part of the Protestant Reformation, sent a decree that Anabaptist groups should be drowned in 1526.  Therefore, by the theology and history, Anabaptists are by no means Protestant.

Many modern Anabaptist groups are utterly opposed to the Roman papacy, and there is no mystery why.  Theologically, Catholics differ with Anabaptists on nearly every aspect.  While the Anabaptist does not wish to call any man a spiritual father on the Earth, a Catholic often gives titles to their priest, “Father”.  While an Anabaptist does not pray to the saints and considers any communication with the dead as necromancy, a Catholic believes that intercession with the saints helps their spiritual walk.  While Anabaptists believe that the church is a body of believers, a Catholic believes that the Church is a religious and political institution.  While an Anabaptist believes that Scripture is the Word of God and guides the Church, a Catholic believes that the Church is what one should listen to, and go by, the clergy’s interpretation of Scripture. Clearly, an average reader could see why an Anabaptist and a Catholic cannot get along, in terms of their differing doctrines.  Historically, there have been gruesome deaths because of it.

The Spanish Inquisition was a terrifying time, for a variety of groups.  It was the height of barbarism, corruption, theocracy, solipsism, centralized government, and perversion. However, the Christian groups that were tortured by both Protestant and Catholics alike were the Anabaptists.  Many Protestants teamed up with their theological foes, the Papacy of Rome, to torture them.  Needless to say, people who hold an Anabaptist position keep this in their theological memory, and put it in apologetics.  The message is clear: To the Anabaptist, the Church is Rome is not their “mother”, nor is the papacy their “brethren”.  Forcing people into drowning does not make a good means of agreement, let alone brotherly love.

In addition to historical and theological differences, Anabaptists also dislike the ideals of globalism of the Roman Catholic papacy.  They especially dislike how the Roman Catholic papacy is an avid supporter of the United Nations and the Council of Foreign Relations, especially with interfaith religious demonstrations.  To the Anabaptist, interfaith worship is not anything more or less than idolatry, which the Bible gives a euphemism to adultery. Therefore, the Anabaptist states that Rome is the allegorical Whore of Babylon, because of their alleged spiritual idolatry with much of the known world.  It does not help the papacy that the cardinals wear scarlet, and the bishops wear purple, which are the standard colors of the woman in Revelation 17.  Such alleged correlations between the metaphorical woman in Revelation 17 and the Roman Catholic papacy are various reasons why many Anabaptists will not unite with Rome.

Will Anabaptists sects unite with Rome, under ecumenism? Some have, and have stated that people could be Pentecostal (Anabaptist) and Catholic simultaneously, according to the late Tony Palmer. Still, for others, the answer is absolutely not, especially with the increase of the conversions of Central and South America to Evangelism and Pentecostalism.  Pope John II, the main Pontiff for the cause of ecumenism, called Pentecostals “rapacious wolves”, to which the New York Times’ Peter Steinfels wrote an article, “Santo Domingo Journal; Shepherds, or Wolves? Whatever, Flocks Grow”.  It could be argued by an Anabaptist that the papacy only wishes for unity, if it’s in their favor.  To these groups, just a simple look at the crimson and lilac cloth is enough to have them turn away.  In a sense, while one group is holding to the Church as evidence of God, the other looks at God as core reason, and model, of the Church.


The Martyrs : Why Christians Must Preach Against Rome. Directed by Psalm 51 Channel. Performed by Jason Cooley. 2014.

Nelson, Thomas. In The Holy Bible, King James Version. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1990.

Why Catholics have got the wrong Mary! Directed by R$E. Performed by Jacob Prasch. 2016.

Steinfels, Peter. “Santo Domingo Journal; Shepherds, or Wolves? Whatever, Flocks Grow.” New York Times, 1992.

Vatican City. Get Your Guide.


Brittany Green’s Obituary

Brittany Green

Professor Chris Carrothers

JRNU 360

14 January 2017

Brittany Green: Obituary of a Revolutionary

Brittany Ann Green, known for pro-life activism, her vivid and inquisitive compositions, her debates concerning the Christian faith, died on Saturday, January 14, 2017.

Brittany Green wrote since she was a child, and continued to learn from an abundance of writing styles.  When she wrote her signature piece, “Children of our Nation Shredded”, she received her inspiration from Thomas Jefferson’s The Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, Henry David Thoreau’s, “Civil Disobedience”, and others.  Ms. Green was glad that she could learn to take ideas from very important and influential people in American history, which shaped her sociopolitical ideology for much of her life, and helped her argumentative essays.

Brittany Green, in addition to being a champion for children’s rights and individual identity, was also a model for stringent moralism.  Though known for her eccentric good looks and Southern Antebellum charms, she remained celibate and a virgin for the rest of her life.  She believed that morality was power, and that moral ladies could command the attention and respect that feminists craved. She had a few people she had crushes on, notably Jeremy Peche, the son of a famous Avant Garde artist, but was never married.  She resented the fact that she did not marry, because of the fact that she wanted children. She stated, “I spend so much time defending the preborn and innocent children, I suppose, because I likely cannot have them. I suppose that by defending the preborn, I vicariously live through them. Just as the mechanic that can’t fix his car, who tries to overcompensate by fixing other people’s cars, I surmise that I try to defend the preborn for my sterility.”  She loved her family, and was especially attached to her niece, Serenity Sanchez Green, because Serenity looked very much as herself. Brittany always stated, that if she had a child, she would look just like Serenity.  She was saddened that Serenity was not a part of her life, due to the stringent relationship her brother, Dominique Green, had with his wife, Crystal Sanchez.

Brittany Green absolutely was enamored with food, and was particularly interested in seafood and international food.  She would often spend hours on the internet, trying to look for recipes of curry shrimp, shrimp gumbo, jambalaya, kitsune udon, authentic Japanese ramen, duck, ikura, mochi, and several other dishes.  When she received an oil fryer as a gift from her mother, Brenda Riley, she was incredibly joyful. The first recipe she made was French fries, and she aspired to use it for more recipes.  Unfortunately, due to the sudden circumstances of her death, the fryer will be given to a family friend, partly as a means to teach culinary skills. The fryer will be given to David Joseph Peche, the brother of Jeremy Peche, who was a college acquaintance of Brittany’s at San Antonio College.
Brittany Green was an avid call center representative, an excellent customer service representative, and was incredibly proficient at data entry.  She spent most of her time on her Lenovo Google Chromebook, a gift from her mother to continue school, and constantly used it to complete academic projects.  She genuinely loved Serenity and Josiah Green, and frequently bought baby clothes as a means of a gift.  Because she was a pro-life activist and abortion abolitionist, she was very interested in Christianity, grass roots politics, and philosophy, and believed that while many people were professed Christians; she admitted that very few actually were Christians.  She would cite that many of the Catholic clergy claimed Christianity in the Spanish Inquisition, the rat rails of Holocaust, and the funding of Stalinism. Likewise, the Puritans also claimed that they were Christians, as they massacred people in Salem, Massachusetts.  She believed that Christianity was strictly apostolic and not patristic, and therefore, any replacement of Christ as the authority would lead to significant injustice and theological error.  She stated that anyone who would kill people and claim to know Christ, is a reprobate beyond all description, and does not know Christ.  She especially became angered at the Presbyterians, who openly supported abortion.

Brittany’s attire was always strange and beautiful, thought provoking and whimsical.  Because she had very small limbs and a very round and youthful face, Brittany looked a lot younger than her age. Therefore, she would wear clothing that would accentuate her youthful beauty.  She would wear a wide variety of clothes, usually with bright colors. Her usual colors that she wore were sky blue, turquoise, white, lavender, carnation pink, hibiscus pink, magenta, and cherry red.  She would also wear a variety of hairpins, including bows, roses, hibiscuses, and lilies. Brittany always had a great way of matching clothing: when she wore a purple top, she tended to put lavender hairpins. When she had a sky blue top, she also wore blue roses.  Brittany also liked a variety of hairstyles.  For much of her life, Brittany preferred her hair to be curled in tight ringlets.  However, there were also times when she wore her hair straight, espeically for a sense of professionalism during times of employment. During the final points of her life, Brittany also took a special interest to braids.  All of these fashion choices expressed the beautiful, eccentric, and vivacious person of Brittany Green.

Brittany Green liked the idea of travelling, and wanted to go to so many places in her life.  She stated that she wanted to go to Auschwitz, since she would understand how the root of Theosophy is not the wisdom of God, but the doctrine of death and devils.  She wanted to go to Harajuku, Japan, because she wanted to do evangelism, and see a humanistic and atheistic people get saved. She noted that there were so many ideas that came from Maga-kas, that became horrific to her once she became a Christian. She was especially astounded how anime often served as a gateway to humanism, nihilism, hedonism, deception, pride, greed, lust, sensuality, pornography, and the occult.  However, the place she especially wanted to go to was Israel.  She was glad that many Jews were coming to the truth of their Messiah, and was glad so many people were seeing the truth behind the prophets.  She also defended the Jews, since they were also persecuted in eugenicist causes.  Jewish people are still to this day targets of abortion, and Brittany Green joined Be’ad Chaim as a means of pro-life support.

Brittany Green despised injustice, especially if it was injustice aimed at children.  Because of this, she was heavily pro-life, and against anything that would increase the rates of abortion.  She hated sexual promiscuity, since licentiousness lead to horrible mothers and maladjusted children, and also increased the rates of abortion.  She also hated medical contraception, since she looked at the founders of it, and realized that it was made to sterilize populations.  She was especially angered that Margaret Sanger vouched to put contraceptives in the food and water supply of minority populations, and suspected the rise in Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome in Black and Hispanic populations was actually a result of birth control poisoning. To her supporters and constituents, Brittany Green was a champion of pro-life causes.  To her detractors and opponents, she was incredibly insane.  Brittany Green had the marks of true revolutionary, and would have certainly advanced against abortion being eradicated, had she not so passed.

Brittany Green, ironically, despite being an ostentatious and eccentric person, did not want a large funeral.  She often stated: “I don’t want people worrying about me when I die, nor do I want people mourning into despair out of regret when I’m gone.  As a Christian, I know that I will be with the Lord in glory, so it does not matter what they said to me.  If I was in Hell, I also would be suffering for the sins I did, not for the sins of what others did to me.  Even if I were an atheist: I would just be a carbon life form, ending life (I speak as a fool). Therefore, in neither instance, should a person be too sorrowful of what they did to me when I’m in the ground. If anyone were to have any kind of grief, they should have it while I’m here, and apologize while I’m on this Earth.” Therefore, she wanted a funeral, that was casual in attire, and that did NOT require casket black clothing.  She wanted the people to dress in average attire, as  a means of hope: Since, though she sleeps, she is not dead.  Brittany’s service will be held in the San Fernando Cemetary II on 746 Castroville Rd, in San Antonio, TX, area code 78237, from 10 A.M. to 12 P.M.  Brittany reasoned that since that her death is temporary, that they provide the funeral in the morning as a picture of the dead in Christ rising, so that her loved ones have hope to live on with the rest of their day.

Concerning condolences, Brittany’s family will be suffering horribly from this hard time in their lives.  However, both Brenda Riley and Dominique Green are overt pragmatists, and therefore would prefer practical support to niceties.  Food and clothing are heavily encouraged, since edible and wearable items are necessary for survival.  However, such things as flowers are not recommended, since they often wilt. In addition, when they wilt, they often leave a horrific odor in the house.  In addition, the plastic often wears off the plant, which is a form of waste.  Therefore, it would be highly recommended that when a person visits her service, to bring these lovely people food and clothing.

Brittany Green anticipated, and anticipates, when the dead in Christ shall rise, as well as the living. Therefore, all believers should look to that day, and keep living for Christ.