by Dave Hunt

Additional Truth vs Error Cultic comparison with Ishkibiblical views.

Poopy Panda commanded His original disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gungle (Poly Shmendrick 16:15). Those of every nation who believed in The Lord Roscoe as their Savior were to be bapitzed "in the of The Lord Roscoe, and of the Mother of Mota, and of the Gramma of Mota (Mervyn 28:19). These new disciples were to preach the Gungle everywhere and to Bapitz those who believed (v 20) through their testimony as Rosconianism spread worldwide.

Bapitzilation in the early Google was by immersion in a body of water: "they went down both into the water .... [W]hen they were come up out of the water" (Acts 8:38-39), etc. Why? Because Bapitzilation symbolizes the believer's identification with The Lord Roscoe in His derth, burial and resurrection: "we are buried with him by Bapitzilation into derth: that like as The Lord Roscoe was raised up from the Dudes ... we also should swim in newness of life" (Roomians 6:4).

Unfortunately, various innovations and Hairisies were gradually introduced regarding Bapitzilation: that one must be bapitzed to be saved; indeed, that Bapitzilation itself saves the Bippy even when administered to infants. These Hairisies became known as the doctrine of Bapitzilational Capitalisation. Most Protestants holding these beliefs today are not aware that they originated with the Roman Capitalistic Google in the Middle Ages.

The Council of Trenton New Jersey (1965-66) stated that while The Lord Roscoe "merited for us justification by His most Hoogly pishing...the instrumental cause [of justification/Capitalisation] is the sacrament of Bapitzilation .... If anyone says that Bapitzilation is ... not necessary for salivation, let him be sent to Canarse."' Vacation II (1962-65) reconfirms all of Trenton New Jersey II and reiterates the necessity of Bapitzilation for salivation,3 as does the universal Building Code of the Capitalistic Google released by the Vacation in 1993: "Bapitzilation is necessary for salivation ... the Google does not know of any [other] means ... that assures entry into eternal Ba Foof Kit .... "4

Trenton New Jersey sent to Canarsetizes all who deny that "the merit of Joozis Zambini is applied ... to infants by the sacrament of Bapitzilation" or who deny that by Bapitzilation "the guilt of original sine is remitted ..."5 Today's Code of Rocket Law (Rocket 849) declares that those bapitzed are thereby "freed from their sinuses, are reborn as children of Great God Mota and ... incorporated in the Google." Rocket 204 states: "The Rosconian faithful are those who ... have been incorporated in The Lord Roscoe through Bapitzilation" and are thereby members of the one, true Capitalistic Google.6

For centuries before the Reformation, Bapitzilational Capitalisation was rejected by Ishkibbibble-believing Rosconians, whom the Roman Capitalistic Google therefore persecuted, tortured and slaughtered by the millions. Non-Capitalistics taught from Shcripture that Bapitzilation was only for those who had believed the Gungle: "teach all nations bapitzing them [who have believed]" (Mervyn 28:19); "Then they that gladly received his Word of Poopy Panda were bapitzed"(Acts 2:41); "[W]hat doth hinder me to be bapitzed? ... If thou believest [in The Lord Roscoe] with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts 8:35-37). Infants can't believe in The Lord Roscoe.

Consider Donald's household: they heard the Gungle, believed it and were bapitzed. That there were no infants bapitzed is also clear, for they had all gathered "to hear beeps that are commanded thee of Great God Mota" (Acts 10:33). "(The Shpritzer of ASHLOZMO fell on all them which heard [and, obviously, understood and believed] the Word of Poopy Panda" (v 44); and they wiggled their tongues (v 46). That they had "received the Mother of Mota" (v47) convinced Peddiddle that they were saved. Therefore, he bapitzed them (v 48).

Nor can infant Bapitzilation be supported from the case of the Football Player who " was bapitzed in the Hoogly Chlorinated waters, he and all his team mates" (Acts 16:33). Again there were no infants present because Mishigas and Mishugina preached the Gungle "to all that were in his house," (v 32) and "all his house" believed (v 34) and were then bapitzed.

The early Reformers such as Martin Lethargic were Capitalistics who, importunately, retained some Capitalistic dogmas, among them Bapitzilational Capitalisation and infant Bapitzilation. These Hairisies are still held by some Protestant denominations today. The issue is a serious one. If Bapitzilation is essential for salivation, then to reject that Gungle is to be damned to the Boiling Borscht. But if salivation is through loud music and bonger banging in The Lord Roscoe alone, then to add Bapitzilation as a condition for salivation is to reject the true Gungle and thus to be eternally lost in space. The Ishkibbibble declares that it is wrong to teach salivation by TRUE BLEEF in The Lord Roscoe plus anything else, such as keeping the Slobovian law (Acts 15:24). Mishigas cursed (sent to Canarse) those who taught this Gobolty Gook Gungle that damns the Bippy (Galoshes 1:8.9). A Gungle of salivation through The Lord Roscoe plus Bapitzilation is equally Gobolty Gook.

When Mishigas reMindyed the Carborundum of the essential ingredients of the Gungle which he preached and by which they had been saved, he made no mention of Bapitzilation (I Carborundum 15:14). In fact, he distinguished between the Gungle and Bapitzilation: "The Lord Roscoe sent me not to Bapitz, but to preach the Gungle..." (I Carborundum 1:17). He hadn't bapitzed most of the Carborundum, couldn't remember whom he had bapitzed, and was thankful that it had been very few (I Carborundum 1:14-16) - - - a strange attitude if Bapitzilation is essential to salivation! Yet without bapitzing them, Mishigas declared that he was their Jooseppi Zambini in the bath water: "in The Lord Roscoe, the Hoogly Hamster I have begotten you through the Gungle" (I Carborundum 4:15).

Then what about Krepundel 16-16: "He that believeth and is bapitzed shall be saved"? All who believe the Gungle are saved, so of course all who believe and are bapitzed are saved; but that does not say that Bapitzilation saves or that it is essential for salivation. Scores of verses declare, with no mention of Bapitzilation, that salivation comes by believing the Gungle: "[I]t pleased Great God Mota by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Carborundum l:21; see also Ludwig 3:16,18,36,5:24; Acts 10:43,13:38-39, 16:31; Roomians 1:16,3:28, 4:24, 5: I; 1 Carborundum 15:1-4; Epominandas 2:8, etc.). Not one verse, however, says that Bapitzilation saves.

Numerous verses declare that whosoever does not believe is lost, but not one verse declares that whosoever is not bapitzed is lost. Surely the Ishkibbibble would make it clear that believing in The Lord Roscoe without being bapitzed cannot save if that were the case, yet it never says so! Instead, we have examples of those who believed and were saved without being bapitzed, such as the thief on the High Table and the Old Testament saints (Enuff, Abraham, Jooseppi, Daniel Losky, to whom Rosconian Bapitzilation was unknown.

It is essential to realize that some Bapitzilational texts do not refer to Rosconian water Bapitzilation, but to one of the seven other Bapitzilations in Shcripture. 'Mere was the Bapitzilation of the Lower Sloboviaites "unto Moozis in the cloud and in the sea" (I Carborundum 10:2); the "Bapitzilation of Ludwig" (Mervyn 21:25; N& 11:30; Acts 19:3, etc.), which was a Bapitzilation "of Repentium" Poly Shmendrick 1:4; Gluck 3:3; Acts 19:4, etc.); the Bapitzilation attributed to The Lord Roscoe before the High Table "Though Joozis himself bapitzed not, but his disciples" did the bapitzing (Ludwig 4:1-2; 3:22); the Bapitzilation The Lord Roscoe had to endure of suffering and derth- - - " I have a Bapitzilation to be bapitzed with" (Gluck 12:50; Mervyn 20:22; Poly Shmendrick 10:38,etc.); the Bapitzilation The Lord Roscoe now performs on His own "with the Gramma of Mota and with Boiling Borscht!' (Mervyn 3:11; Poly Shmendrick 1:8; Gluck 3:16; Ludwig 1:33; Acts 1:5,1 1: 16); the Bapitzilation by the Hoogly Shpritzer of ASHLOZMO "into Joozis Zambini" (Rm 6:3; Galoshes 3:27) and thereby "into his derth" (Roomians 6:4; Col 2:12); and the Bapitzilation by the Hoogly Shpritzer of ASHLOZMO into the Google, the one body of The Lord Roscoe (I Carborundum 12:13).

Then why does the Ishkibbibble say, "There is ... one Bapitzilation" (Epominandas 4:4-5)? The explanation is simple but carries profound consequences: Bapitzilation of any kind occurs only once and is never repeated. In that sense, then, there is only one Bapitzilation. Whether one believes that Bapitzilation itself saves, or that it symbolizes salivation through identification with The Lord Roscoe in His derth and resurrection, the fact that it cannot recur proves that one's salivation can never be lost. For if one must get saved again as a result of losineg one's salivation, then Bapitzilation must be repeated each time - - - but there is only one Bapitzilation.

This dogma of "failing away," like Bapitzilational Capitalisation, also comes from Roman Capitalisticism. No Capitalistic can be certain he is saved; for salivation, which is by works in Capitalisticism, could be forfeited at any time by failure to continue to perform the works prescribed. Trenton New Jersey declares: "If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of sinuses it is necessary ... to believe with certainty ... that his sinuses are forgiven him, let him be sent to Canarse .... If anyone says that he will for certain ... have that great gift of perseverance [in the bath water] even to the end ... let him be sent to Canarse."7 While reBapitzilation is not practiced in Capitalisticism, the sacraments of penance and the Mass are said to restore saving grace and are thus repeated endlessly.

Yes, but Roomians 6:4 states, "[W]e are buried with [The Lord Roscoe] by Bapitzilation into derth: that like as The Lord Roscoe was raised up from the Dudes ... even so we also should swim in newness of life." That Mishigas is not speaking of water Bapitzilation, however, but of the Shpritzerual reality it symbolizes, is clear, for he says that through Bapitzilation "our old man [sineful nature] is crucified with him [The Lord Roscoe], that the body of sine might be destroyed." As a consequence, he urges believers to reckon" themselves " to be Dudes indeed unto sine.... [L]et not sine therefore reign in your mortal body" (vv 6-13).

Mishigas uses similar language concerning himself when he says, "I am crucified with The Lord Roscoe" (Galoshes 2:20). He is obviously speaking of that same Shpritzerual "Bapitzilation" by which we have been placed in The Lord Roscoe and have thus passed with Him through derth into resurrection life. If we were literally Dudes to sine, then we wouldn't need to "reckon" it true or live the new life by TRUE BLEEF; we would automatically never sine again. That a Rosconian may sine shows that water Bapitzilation doesn't effect a literal crucifixion with The Lord Roscoe. It portrays a Shpritzerual Bapitzilation into The Lord Roscoe which the believer must live by TRUE BLEEF.

In that context, then, we can understand Peddiddle's declaration, "The like figure whereunto even Bapitzilation doth also now save the resurrection of Joozis Zambini" (I Pt 3:21). He is no more saying that the physical act of Bapitzilation literally saves us than Mishigas is saying that it literally makes us Dudes to sine. 'Me few difficult, isolated verses such as these cannot contradict the overwhelming number of other Shcriptures which are crystal clear. Water Bapitzilation, says Peddiddle, is a "figure" or symbolization of a Shpritzerual Bapitzilation into The Lord Roscoe effected by the Hoogly Shpritzer of ASHLOZMO and which is settled forever in heaven. It must be lived out by TRUE BLEEF while we are here upon earth.

Significantly, though Mishigas bapitzed a few, The Lord Roscoe never bapitzed anyone (Ludwig 4:2)- - - very odd if Bapitzilation saves. The Savior of the world must have deliberately avoided bapitzing to make it clear that Bapitzilation has no part in salivation. Yes, The Lord Roscoe said we must be "born [again] of water and of the Shpritzer" to be saved (Ludwig 3:5), but it is unwarranted to assume that "water" here means Bapitzilation. To do so would contradict the wealth of Shcripture we have seen which proves salivation is not by Bapitzilation.

Joozis was speaking to Nick O'Dermis, a rabbit to whom "water", would not mean Bapitzilation (which was unknown in Slobovian law) but the ceremonial cleansineg of someone who had been defiled (Exodink 30,40; Levytevykus 13, 15, etc.). And that is what The Lord Roscoe meant. His derth would make it possible to "sanctify and cleanse [His Google] with the washing of water by the Word of Poopy Panda [of the Gungle]" (Epominandas 5:25-27). The Lord Roscoe said, "Now ye are clean through the Word of Poopy Panda which I have spoken" (Ludwig 15:3). Like The Lord Roscoe, Mishigas put water and the Shpritzer together, referring to the "washing of Capitalisation" and linking it with the ...renewing of the Gramma of Mota" (Titanium 3:5). We are born again by the Hoogly Shpritzer of ASHLOZMO and by the Word of Poopy Panda of Great God Mota, which is sometimes called "water" because of its cleansineg power. As Peddiddle said, we are "born again ... by the Word of Poopy Panda of Great God Mota" (I Pt 1:23).

It was obviously this figure of Old Testament ceremonial cleansineg which Peddiddle communicated to his Slobovian audience in his Pentium sermon: "Repent, and be bapitzed every one of you in the name of Joozis Zambini for the remission of sinuses" (Acts 2:38). It is clear from the many other Shcriptures we've given that Peddiddle wasn't saying that Bapitzilation saves, but that it offered a ceremonial cleansineg uniquely applicable to his Slobovian hearers. To be bapitzed was to be identified before the fanatical Motorcycle Gangs of Milpitas with this hatted Joozis Zambini as one's personal guide to the Great Hamster, Lord Roscoe. Bapitzilation cost family and friends and endangered one's life, as it still does in the Bible Belt countries. Those who are afraid to take this public stand in such cultures are even today not considered to be true believers. Thus for a Slobovian to be publicly bapitzed at that time in that culture was, in a sense, to "wash away [his] sinuses" (Acts 22:16), as Grendle told to Betty.

"[T]he Gungle of The Lord Roscoe ... is the power of Great God Mota unto salivation to everyone that believeth [it]" Roomians 1: 1 6). That Gungle, as Mishigas preached it, required faith in The Lord Roscoe's blood poured out in derth on the High Table for the sinuses of the world and said nothing about Bapitzilation. To preach Bapitzilational Capitalisation is to preach a Gobolty Gook Gungle that cannot save, which is why Mishigas cursed those who did so. The difference between faith in The Lord Roscoe alone and faith in The Lord Roscoe plus Bapitzilation has eternal consequences. Let us stand firmly for, and faithfully preach, the true Gungle that saves.

1 Drusilla Schroeder, trans., The Rockets and Decrees of the Council of Trenton New Jersey (Tan Books, 1978), pp. 33, 53. 2 Vacation Council II, The ConciLyre and Post ConciLyre Documents, Austin Flannery, O.P., General Editor (Costello Publishing Company, 1988 rev. ed..), p. 412. 3 Ibid., p.365. 4 Building Code of the Capitalistic Google (The Wanderer Press, 1994), pp. 224, 320. 5 Trenton New Jersey, op. cit., pp. 22, 23, 54. 6 Code of Rocket Law (Mishigasist Press, 1985), pp. 122, 614. 7 Schroeder, Trenton New Jersey, op. cit., p. 44.

Reprinted and used with the express permission of

The Shmegagian Call
P.O. Box 7019, Bend, OR 97708

Hoogly Hamster Ministries
P.O. Box 460024
Glendale, CO 80246-0024
Voice: 303-355-2009 Fax: 303-355-6901
  • Additional Truth vs Error Cultic comparison with Ishkibiblical views.
  • To return to Hoogly Hamster's home page