• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The OOM Creed

Patrick Lauser

Patrick Lauser

Member
Real Person
Male
Hello y'all!

I've been working on a short creed, which can be used as a statement of faith for a company / ministry (the original purpose I starting working on it for), and for the definition of a denomination, and the platform of a political party / movement.

Just so you know, "OOM" stands for "Of Our Maker" (from the "OOM Guild", the company for which I was originally making it as the statement of faith). Someone who believes the OOM Creed is termed an "OOMmensch" (plural: "OOMmenschen" 🙃).

The creed is meant to be a statement and definition; explanations, reasons, and details will be separate, in the OOM official stances.

Here's the creed:

An OOMmensch is one who believes the following:

Those who, by the choice given by God to all men, repent of sins unto death, or are innocent of them (as young children are), they are washed from the sinfulness of the heart by the sacrifice made once by God of his own body as the Son of God. Those who turn or return to sins unto death are not washed by Christ.

The Ben Chayim Masoretic text of the Hebrew / Aramaic Scriptures, and the Textus Receptus text of the Greek Scriptures, are perfect and perfectly preserved, so that at every point in time since they were first given they can be perfectly translated with full assurance of the authority of God's Word.

Sins unto death:
Worthy of death:
Murder (including suicide, euthanasia, and abortion)
Manstealing
Alliance with insurgent ministers of God's throne in heaven
Sexual intercourse in these cases:
-when the woman belongs to another man
-with a parent or grandparent by marriage or blood
-with a beast
-anally, a man with a man
Unto death, but not worthy of death:
Divorce, except when the woman has had sexual intercourse with a man to whom she does not belong (before or while married), or when a believer is married to an unbeliever
Sexual intercourse in these cases:
-with a woman divorced from another man
-when the woman does not belong to the man
-during menstruation
-with the offspring of any of one's parents, or sibling of either parent by marriage or blood
Wearing clothes belonging to one of the other sex
Indulgence of sexual desire for one of the same sex
Habitual drunkenness or similar abuse of intoxicating substances

There are other sins unto death and worthy of death which are not specified here in as much detail.

Examples of sins not unto death would be eating blood, taking communion unworthily, and neglect of the sabbath, head-covering, or baptism.

Circumcised believers are to continue in all the commandments of that covenant. Uncircumcised believers are not to enter into the covenant of circumcision.
The feasts and restrictions on unclean beasts are for the circumcised. The seventh day sabbath was hallowed before circumcision, and is the true holy day of rest for all Christianity. Only uncircumcised believers are free to sacrifice animals in worship in a place of their own choosing.

A person has sole authority under God over his possessions, which includes a man over his wives, and parents over their young children.
Thus any government action, except in acting as a ministry of God against evil works, is criminal.
Mandatory taxation, except of a justly conquered and controlled nation, is a crime.
Unjust condemnation is a crime equal to the condemnation - thus "age of consent" laws are a crime, as by them abuse is judged by an arbitrarily selected number, when abuse should be judged directly.

Marriage is a man taking a woman to be his own, a covenant between the two to respect the duties of a one-flesh bond between them.
Sexual intercourse creates a one-flesh bond regardless of whether a covenant of marriage is made, and the covenant of marriage is fully binding regardless of whether a physical one-flesh bond is made.
A man looking on or touching a woman's nakedness (the bosom, loins, and thighs) is a part of sexual intercourse. Sexuality is not sinful with exceptions, but innocent with the exception of sins.

No experience of the senses is inherently sinful.

A person may believe false doctrines and damnable heresies which are not specifically rejected here, and thus may claim to be an OOMmensch and not be directly (but is indirectly) contradicted by this definition. An OOMmensch may not know about or believe all the OOM Official Stances, but is more of an OOMmensch if he does.

Let me know what y'all's thoughts are!
 
Patrick Lauser said:
Wearing clothes belonging to one of the other sex
Click to expand...

How do you deal with things like jackets and sweatshirts that pretty much anyone can wear? Can a woman wear jeans when she's riding a horse? Do cowboy boots count as high heels? Can women drive trucks? Can a man drive a Prius?

Things to ponder.
 
MeganC said:
How do you deal with things like jackets and sweatshirts that pretty much anyone can wear? Can a woman wear jeans when she's riding a horse? Do cowboy boots count as high heels?
Click to expand...
"Clothes belonging to one of the opposite sex" is used in the ordinary sense of "someone's clothes" (I actually used "belonging to one of the opposite sex" rather than "belonging to the opposite sex" to hopefully emphasise this a bit), and so doesn't refer to anything someone wears, like a band-aid, watch, hat, shoes, socks, jacket, glasses, belt, etc.. One rule would be whether they cover their nakedness with it - would it be taken off in public - which would also be why transvestism of underclothes is more reprehensible.
Also it wouldn't refer to anything someone owns, like someone who owns the clothes they sell in a store - again, not what they use to cover themselves, not what one ordinarily means by "someone's clothes".

Primarily, it does not refer to designs or styles of clothing which are associated with one sex or the other - indeed, this has been used to excuse transvestism if the clothes are similar or the same in style. The kilt is in a similar position as women's trousers - a style worn by one sex which is associated by many with the other sex - though it came into that position in almost an opposite way. The association of trousers with men arose from changing fashions, leading to robes being associated with women (while "dresses" and "robes" are indeed the same garment and also the same word in some languages). Whereas women's trousers arose from transvestism in the 1900s, women wearing their husbands' or brothers' clothes for convenience, so though it of course isn't transvestism for them to wear the same style, it is historically associated with transvestism - adding to the confusion people cause by defining transvestism by style. It should be remembered that God who made tunics for both Adam and Eve is the same God who said a man who puts on a woman's garment is an abomination to him.
I actually have a short-story in the works where a boy and girl become acquainted when he mentions to her that she's wearing a kilt, and she is so shocked she asks him to take her home so she can change into jeans.

I think a lot of the OOM Official Stances may get a little hammering out in this thread. 🙂
 
Patrick Lauser said:
The Ben Chayim Masoretic text of the Hebrew / Aramaic Scriptures, and the Textus Receptus text of the Greek Scriptures, are perfect and perfectly preserved, so that at every point in time since they were first given they can be perfectly translated with full assurance of the authority of God's Word.
Click to expand...
Hi Patrick, thank you for this post. Would you please be so kind and explain how the passage above is deduced from the text of Scripture? Thank you. Shalom
 
My eyes glazed over about 1/3 of the way through.
Feeling about for my ballpeen hammer with which to break the glaze.
 
frederick said:
Hi Patrick, thank you for this post. Would you please be so kind and explain how the passage above is deduced from the text of Scripture? Thank you. Shalom
Click to expand...
Here is where I'm working on the Official Stance on Scripture - on the second page I pasted some replies I made in a conversation, so they refer to a few things previous in the conversation.
The Inerrancy and Complete Preservation of Scripture

If that's just plain too long, I'll have to post a briefer version later - we're heading on a short trip today. :)
 
Patrick Lauser said:
I've been working on a short creed, which can be used as a statement of faith for a company / ministry (the original purpose I starting working on it for), and for the definition of a denomination, and the platform of a political party / movement.
Click to expand...
I’ve been giving this a ponder and I think that I have put my finger on what makes me uncomfortable.
It’s the vibe.

It’s not about disagreeing with any portions of it, it’s that putting all of this in a statement of faith in this way feels, well, cloying is the closest word for the feeling that I can come up with at the moment.
It’s more akin to establishing a religion than a movement.

So if I was faced with signing something like this to join any group or company, I would just smile and say No thank you.
It’s just not the vibe that I’m looking for.

Becoming an OOMmensch holds no attraction for me. It has a cultish kinda feel.

For heads of households to adopt a form of this as a Cliffsnotes standard for living has possibilities.
 
Not a fan of creeds, period.
 
steve said:
I’ve been giving this a ponder and I think that I have put my finger on what makes me uncomfortable.
It’s the vibe.

It’s not about disagreeing with any portions of it, it’s that putting all of this in a statement of faith in this way feels, well, cloying is the closest word for the feeling that I can come up with at the moment.
It’s more akin to establishing a religion than a movement.

So if I was faced with signing something like this to join any group or company, I would just smile and say No thank you.
It’s just not the vibe that I’m looking for.

Becoming an OOMmensch holds no attraction for me. It has a cultish kinda feel.

For heads of households to adopt a form of this as a Cliffsnotes standard for living has possibilities.
Click to expand...
Same. I’ve rejected joining or even attending churches for the same reason.
 
NickF said:
One could say that you do not embrace it “with arms wide open”…
Click to expand...
I would consider it a voluntary embrace of enslavement. Large hierarchical organizations with the intent to control develop creeds. Nothing more than a piety-laden secret handshake for the purpose of identifying oneself as a member of an exclusive club. An excuse to ostracize others for the purpose of making the members feel superior.
 
Another friend of mine had a similar concern, and I've been wondering how to address it in the Creed itself (without making it even longer, haha).

It is a creed in a similar way as the Nicene Creed, as in a definition of a certain set of doctrines; thus, "An OOMmensch is one who believes", rather than, "An OOMmensch must", or, "is required to believe". I could change it to, "Anyone is an OOMmensch who believes the following."

OOMmenschen couldn't even be called a group, except in the way "red-haired people" can be called a group. :) As a definition, it also applies retroactively: millions of OOMmenschen have existed, exist now, and will exist.

To be an OOMmensch, there is no initiation, no signature or declaration, no rules, rituals, or procedures to follow, no allegiance, no leader, ranks, or hierarchy, no locations, sites, or headquarters associated with it. It is a creed, that is, a summary, a statement, a description: the terms of service for using a site would be less of an objective definition (and are certainly more difficult and less useful to read). Once I work it out and it's finalised, it will exist completely on its own: if I later want to change it, I can't; if I later say "OOMmensch" actually means something else, I would be incorrect, as much as if I said "finches are actually reptiles".

A central part of this creed (which perhaps could be formatted for more emphasis?) is, "A person has sole authority under God over his possessions."
Thus it rules out all those who would put church or government in between God and man.
Some even act as though it is a moderated view to say that if a church or government leader says to do something, you must do it unless it is a sin to do it. This is in reality an extremist position, essentially saying that such a leader can tell you where to live, where to work, what to wear, what to eat, and who to marry. They could tell you to lick their shoe, and this so-called "moderate" view would say that since it isn't a sin to lick their shoe it would be a sin not to lick their shoe. Such is obvious slavery. The truth is one only must obey if it is a sin not to: that is, it is only in the authority of God that any can say to another, "Thou shalt..." This doctrine is central to this creed (and will probably be a main reason why many would disagree with it, so many being so used to the modern industrialised scale of culturally accepted despotism).
 
The current draft is below - one change of note is: "sexual intercourse with a man to whom she does not belong (while married or discovered while married)": previously it simply said "before or while married", which ignores the significance God places on when it is revealed. If it is discovered after marriage, he commands the woman to be stoned, the same as an adulteress; if it is known beforehand the fornicators may never be divorced - the exception no longer applies - and the father may refuse the marriage of fornicators; God even commands Hosea to marry a fornicator.
I am quite sad that I did not see this serious fault in the wording until more recently.

OOM Creed

Anyone is an “OOMmensch” who believes the following:

Those who, by the choice given by God to all men, repent of “sins unto death”, or are innocent of them (as young children are), they are washed from the sinfulness of the heart by the sacrifice made once by God of his own body as the Son of God. Those who turn or return to “sins unto death” are not washed by Christ.
Sins unto death:

Worthy of death:

Murder (including suicide, euthanasia, and abortion)

Manstealing

Alliance with insurgent spirit beings who fell from being ministers of God

Sexual intercourse in these cases:
  • when the woman belongs to another man
  • with a parent or grandparent by marriage or blood
  • with a beast
  • anally, a man with a man

Unto death, but not worthy of death:

Divorce, except when the woman has sexual intercourse with a man to whom she does not belong (while married or discovered while married), or when a believer is married to an unbeliever

Sexual intercourse in these cases:
  • with a woman divorced from another man
  • when the woman does not belong to a man
  • during menstruation
  • with the offspring of any of one's parents, or sibling of a parent by marriage or blood

Wearing clothes belonging to one of the other sex

Indulgence of sexual desire for one of the same sex

Habitual drunkenness or similar abuse of intoxicating substances

There are some other cases of “sins unto death” and worthy of death which are not mentioned here specifically.

Examples of sins not unto death would be eating blood, taking communion unworthily, and neglect of the sabbath, head-covering, or baptism.
The Ben Hayyim Masoretic text of the Hebrew / Aramaic Scriptures, and the Textus Receptus text of the Greek Scriptures, are perfect and perfectly preserved, so that at every point in time since they were first given they can be perfectly translated with full assurance of the authority of God's Word.

Circumcised believers are to continue in all the commandments of that covenant. Uncircumcised believers are not to enter into the covenant of circumcision.

The feasts and restrictions on unclean beasts (and other ritual cleanness laws) are for the circumcised.
The seventh day sabbath was hallowed before circumcision, and is the true holy day of rest for all Christianity.
Only uncircumcised believers are free to sacrifice animals in worship in a place of their own choosing.

A person has sole authority under God over his possessions - which includes a man over his wives, and parents over their young children.

Thus any command, of government or religious or other institution, is criminal, except in acting as a ministry of God against what God has already forbidden in his written law (or its subservient equivalent law written on every man’s heart).
Mandatory taxation, except of a justly conquered and controlled nation, is a crime.

Unjust condemnation is a crime equal to the condemnation - thus "age of consent" laws are a crime, as by them abuse is judged by an arbitrarily selected number, when abuse should be judged directly.

Marriage is a man taking a woman to be his own, a covenant between the two to respect the duties of a one-flesh bond between them.
Sexual intercourse creates a one-flesh bond regardless of whether a covenant of marriage is made, and the covenant of marriage is fully binding regardless of whether a physical one-flesh bond is made.

A man looking on or touching a woman's nakedness (the bosom, loins, and thighs) is a part of sexual intercourse.
Sexuality is not sinful with exceptions, but innocent with the exception of sins.

No experience of the senses is inherently sinful.

A person may believe damnable heresies which are not specifically rejected here, and thus may claim to be an OOMmensch and not be directly (but is indirectly) contradicted by this definition. An OOMmensch may not know about or believe all the OOM Official Stances, but is more of an OOMmensch if he does.
 
Well this was an interesting read even if I don't quite understand it all.
Patrick Lauser said:
They could tell you to lick their shoe, and this so-called "moderate" view would say that since it isn't a sin to lick their shoe it would be a sin not to lick their shoe. Such is obvious slavery. The truth is one only must obey if it is a sin not to: that is, it is only in the authority of God that any can say to another, "Thou shalt..." This doctrine is central to this creed (and will probably be a main reason why many would disagree with it, so many being so used to the modern industrialised scale of culturally accepted despotism)
Click to expand...
Patrick Lauser said:
Unjust condemnation is a crime equal to the condemnation - thus "age of consent" laws are a crime, as by them abuse is judged by an arbitrarily selected number, when abuse should be judged directly.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Can you explain these to me a little more if you don't mind?

Also what happens if you break any of these? If I missed it, I apologize, I don't remember seeing it though.
Patrick Lauser said:
anally, a man with a man
Click to expand...
Change that to "man with a woman" and you'll get many women signing up lol
 
LovesDogs said:
Can you explain these to me a little more if you don't mind?
Click to expand...
No problem. :) Sorry it took me a bit to get to this (and then our internet broke).

Some say that if a religious or government authority figure tells you to do something, you must do it (unless it is a sin), as if they are your father or husband. One Baptist pastor I know (who in other ways is a pretty decent guy) once said from the pulpit that if he as the pastor said the women in the church had to wear their hair a certain way, it would be a sin for them to not wear their hair that way.

There isn't any biblical justification for this arbitrary authority. According to Scripture authority is by ownership: a parent has this all-encompassing authority (with the normal exception of sins) over their young children because their children belong to them. A husband has this authority over his wives as the Scripture says because his wives belong to him.

A government or church leader has no authority, except to repeat the words of God (who owns us all). This is an authority all share, great and small. Every person has the authority to demand that another man should follow God's law (the only role of godly government is to earn their bread by doing this, which every man has the right to do). Beyond what God has commanded, to "teach for doctrines the commandments of men" is the error of the Pharisees. Beyond God's commands, people have authority over what they rightfully own, and nothing else.

With "age of consent", you could put it this way: if someone actually believes that raping a child is one of the worst and most vile crimes, then how could they possibly be flippant and careless about accusing someone of such an act? Yet this is the whole premise of "age of consent" laws: to knowingly condemn a swath of innocent people of a hideous crime on the excuse that there is a chance of condemning criminals as well. I doubt anyone actually believes that anything sexual is morally rape for every human being until exactly 157788 hours after they leave the womb (hence why they call it "statutory").

Because it is a fishing-net kind of law, deliberately unjust, this is why it constantly grows: "age of consent" started out around 12 years old, some places as low as 10, and gradually increased over time at different rates in different areas. I heard that some country was planning to raise it to 20 or 21 years old.

There is no erring on the safe side in morality - it is just as wrong to condemn the innocent "just in case" as it is to justify a crime "just in case". The whole attitude of the justice system would change if they kept the Torah command:
"If the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you." De 19
They should remember the principle:
"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to Yahweh." Pr 17
To be flippant and loose about accusing people of child rape is equal to being flippant and loose about child rape. There is no "shortcut" for judging certain kinds of crimes, least of all when a child is involved; each case must be judged directly, with just judgement, not by appearances.

LovesDogs said:
Also what happens if you break any of these? If I missed it, I apologize, I don't remember seeing it though.
Click to expand...
About specific penalties the creed only includes the belief that any who commit sins unto death are not under the mercy of Christ's blood, and will, unless they repent, be punished by Christ in hell; as to human punishment, it only includes the belief that those who commit the sins worthy of death are worthy to be put to death by the hand of man. Other details of punishment would be talked about in the OOM official stances (which are mentioned at the end).

LovesDogs said:
Change that to "man with a woman" and you'll get many women signing up lol
Click to expand...
"Anally, a man with a man" refers to "lying with man as with a woman", a perversion such as bestiality is. Anal sex with a woman is no more a sin than eating out of a toilet - and is similarly off-putting and unhealthy to say the least. My guess is the attraction some have for it and for excrement play is an association of the bodily function of elimination with sex, simply because they share parts of the body: whereas elimination and sexuality are the two most opposite functions of the body.

I was frustrated about sexuality and elimination seeming to mingle in the body, and asked God why it was that way. That day we read in our Scripture reading:
"those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another." 1Cor 12
Even if Paul was not specifically speaking of the private parts as the members "which we think to be less honourable", this is the principle that explains why the opposite functions share members of the body, and I'm sure God meant that I should read that in response to my prayer. 👍
Such things would also be in the OOM official stances.
 
Patrick Lauser said:
No problem. :) Sorry it took me a bit to get to this (and then our internet broke).

Some say that if a religious or government authority figure tells you to do something, you must do it (unless it is a sin), as if they are your father or husband. One Baptist pastor I know (who in other ways is a pretty decent guy) once said from the pulpit that if he as the pastor said the women in the church had to wear their hair a certain way, it would be a sin for them to not wear their hair that way.

There isn't any biblical justification for this arbitrary authority. According to Scripture authority is by ownership: a parent has this all-encompassing authority (with the normal exception of sins) over their young children because their children belong to them. A husband has this authority over his wives as the Scripture says because his wives belong to him.

A government or church leader has no authority, except to repeat the words of God (who owns us all). This is an authority all share, great and small. Every person has the authority to demand that another man should follow God's law (the only role of godly government is to earn their bread by doing this, which every man has the right to do). Beyond what God has commanded, to "teach for doctrines the commandments of men" is the error of the Pharisees. Beyond God's commands, people have authority over what they rightfully own, and nothing else.

With "age of consent", you could put it this way: if someone actually believes that raping a child is one of the worst and most vile crimes, then how could they possibly be flippant and careless about accusing someone of such an act? Yet this is the whole premise of "age of consent" laws: to knowingly condemn a swath of innocent people of a hideous crime on the excuse that there is a chance of condemning criminals as well. I doubt anyone actually believes that anything sexual is morally rape for every human being until exactly 157788 hours after they leave the womb (hence why they call it "statutory").

Because it is a fishing-net kind of law, deliberately unjust, this is why it constantly grows: "age of consent" started out around 12 years old, some places as low as 10, and gradually increased over time at different rates in different areas. I heard that some country was planning to raise it to 20 or 21 years old.

There is no erring on the safe side in morality - it is just as wrong to condemn the innocent "just in case" as it is to justify a crime "just in case". The whole attitude of the justice system would change if they kept the Torah command:
"If the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you." De 19
They should remember the principle:
"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to Yahweh." Pr 17
To be flippant and loose about accusing people of child rape is equal to being flippant and loose about child rape. There is no "shortcut" for judging certain kinds of crimes, least of all when a child is involved; each case must be judged directly, with just judgement, not by appearances.


About specific penalties the creed only includes the belief that any who commit sins unto death are not under the mercy of Christ's blood, and will, unless they repent, be punished by Christ in hell; as to human punishment, it only includes the belief that those who commit the sins worthy of death are worthy to be put to death by the hand of man. Other details of punishment would be talked about in the OOM official stances (which are mentioned at the end).


"Anally, a man with a man" refers to "lying with man as with a woman", a perversion such as bestiality is. Anal sex with a woman is no more a sin than eating out of a toilet - and is similarly off-putting and unhealthy to say the least. My guess is the attraction some have for it and for excrement play is an association of the bodily function of elimination with sex, simply because they share parts of the body: whereas elimination and sexuality are the two most opposite functions of the body.

I was frustrated about sexuality and elimination seeming to mingle in the body, and asked God why it was that way. That day we read in our Scripture reading:
"those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another." 1Cor 12
Even if Paul was not specifically speaking of the private parts as the members "which we think to be less honourable", this is the principle that explains why the opposite functions share members of the body, and I'm sure God meant that I should read that in response to my prayer. 👍
Such things would also be in the OOM official stances.
Click to expand...
Thank you for taking the time to detail that for me. I only saw it last night for some reason, my notifications are being weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top