All physical matter is made of the same core things. Protons, neutrons, electrons ... There can be no god "of" water, for example, because said god would also have control over everything else that's made of the same things water is made of... which is everything in the physical universe.
Even if we just have a theoretical set of "gods", that don't have designated powers over any one thing, polytheism still makes no sense. These beings can't be true gods if there are several of them. There would have to be some overarching concept that would make them "gods" as opposed to being something else. Whether it's some kind of power that is bestowed upon them, something in their DNA, or anything else, the mere fact that it has the ability to make things "gods" proves that this "overarching concept" is then higher, more powerful, more purely divine than all of the gods, and if this "concept" were removed from them, they would be mere mortals.
This also means there can be no god "of" music, or war. Without a higher being (in this case the power/DNA "concept") defining music or war, these things have no meaning. At what point does a disagreement become a war? Is it when some arbitrary number of people are fighting for the same cause? Is it when there's a certain amount of bloodshed? Is a simple fistfight a "war" just because there's violent intent behind the people participating in it? Also, when would a god "of" music have authority over a sound? Is there a certain amount of melody or rhythm that would need to be present for said god to have dominion over it, or to create/inspire it? Would such a god be incapable of creating certain kinds of music (such as noise or drone) because there's no melody or rhythm? Or is a god "of" music capable of having dominion over all things perceivable by the ear, including footsteps, wind, people chewing food, and so on?
In a monotheistic belief system, a deity is both a god, and the self-sustaining, overarching concept that facilitates divinity, at the same time. Thus, said deity is godly, divine, in and of itself. This is the most logical idea of a "god". A monotheistic deity has power over all things -- not JUST a small handful of ideas or elements -- and is the highest ultimate truth. There is nothing above a monotheistic deity, in terms of power or righteousness. Otherwise, the thing above that deity would be "god", not the deity. Also, terms like "music" and "war" can be given definitions by said deity, and hold up on their own merits. A monotheistic god of war would also be the monotheistic god of fistfights, small battles, and so on. A monotheistic god of music would also be the monotheistic god of all sounds.
I'm aware these arguments don't point exclusively to Christianity, but I feel they're important to say anyway. Polytheism is still prevalent in the world, and it's still leading its adherents astray. There are tons and tons of posts on here defending Christianity itself -- explaining why the singular, overarching higher power, is the God of Christianity, as opposed to some other kind of singular higher power, and I would very strongly encourage you to read some of them. The point of this post is simply............. polytheism is invalid!
Friday, March 22, 2019
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Recreational Marijuana
Lawmakers want to legalize recreational marijuana (meaning, NOT medicinal, it CAN get you high) so they can tax it and use the money for things like "education".
If these same lawmakers, who claim to care so much about common people, passed laws that made the United States a livable country, where people weren't constantly stressed about whether they could afford food and medication; where "education" actually MEANT learning about important things that will be relevant in life instead of trigonometry and the year Columbus landed in America; where people didn't have lifelong student debt because college costs tens of thousands of dollars and simple textbooks are allowed to cost hundreds of dollars; maybe the people using recreational marijuana wouldn't need it legalized, because they wouldn't need to get high to avoid all the problems that lawmakers are putting on their backs.
Did you ever think of that?
If these same lawmakers, who claim to care so much about common people, passed laws that made the United States a livable country, where people weren't constantly stressed about whether they could afford food and medication; where "education" actually MEANT learning about important things that will be relevant in life instead of trigonometry and the year Columbus landed in America; where people didn't have lifelong student debt because college costs tens of thousands of dollars and simple textbooks are allowed to cost hundreds of dollars; maybe the people using recreational marijuana wouldn't need it legalized, because they wouldn't need to get high to avoid all the problems that lawmakers are putting on their backs.
Did you ever think of that?
Friday, March 15, 2019
Ideas (US Law)
We need to allow exceptions to the fourth amendment in court cases. There are so many criminal acts that can only be proven ["beyond a reasonable doubt"] if footage and audio recordings, created without the consent of at least one party, can be provided. Emphasis needs to be added that this would only apply in legal matters, and not any other matters (eg YouTube videos or television programs where an actor or an "unsuspecting victim of a prank" are not properly debriefed before the footage is distributed).
There also needs to be more restrictive legislation regarding pornographic audiovisual content. Given the sensitive nature of human sexuality, there needs to be power of the participants to have content involving them removed from the internet at any time. This may be difficult to explain in brief terms because of the number of exceptions and loopholes that may arise, but it is certainly possible to close these.
- Contracts by porn companies that include a clause such as, "I accept that I cannot have content in which I participate removed from websites", are rendered null and no longer legally enforceable. This doesn't necessarily need to apply retroactively to contracts that included such clauses before the legislation passed, but if it can apply retroactively, hey, go for it.
- If a participant changes their mind and wants it reuploaded, this cannot be done. It's a one-time rule: if it's removed once, it's removed forever. The decision cannot be undone. This part doesn't need to be part of the legislation, but it would be the best way for all involved to avoid a bunch of headaches where people change their minds frequently, websites are always under pressure to keep up-to-date on which films are allowed and which aren't and remove them all the time, etc.
- Yes, there must be proof that the participant in question was involved. Alibis, prior contracts that were signed, social media posts, lists of films provided on the actors' official web pages, etc.
- It may be difficult in some cases to define what does, and does not, fall under "pornographic content", because of course, not all sexual fetishes involve direct sexual activity. This ......... you know, this can be addressed some other time when I'm not half asleep! The basic idea applies though, if there is clear sexual intent behind the recordings (maybe statements/emails/etc that discuss ["beyond a reasonable doubt"] the sexual intent behind the recordings in question).
This is hardly written in proper "legalese".
It's just two basic ideas I've had.
For the time being, I just want these ideas to get out into the world somehow.
More action may be taken later, depending on a large number of things.
ADDITIONAL NOTE:
Although I am posting this on a Christian blog, this legislation does not entirely line up with my own beliefs. It should not be mistaken for me trying to push a personal, or a Christian, agenda. If it were up to me as an individual, all pornography would be banned altogether! These two ideas are ones I believe should be enforced according to the US law's portrayal of human dignity, and its portrayal of valuing justice. My own values are much more restrictive than what I've written here.
May God bless and guide all of us, according to His perfect will! In Jesus' name. Amen.
There also needs to be more restrictive legislation regarding pornographic audiovisual content. Given the sensitive nature of human sexuality, there needs to be power of the participants to have content involving them removed from the internet at any time. This may be difficult to explain in brief terms because of the number of exceptions and loopholes that may arise, but it is certainly possible to close these.
- Contracts by porn companies that include a clause such as, "I accept that I cannot have content in which I participate removed from websites", are rendered null and no longer legally enforceable. This doesn't necessarily need to apply retroactively to contracts that included such clauses before the legislation passed, but if it can apply retroactively, hey, go for it.
- If a participant changes their mind and wants it reuploaded, this cannot be done. It's a one-time rule: if it's removed once, it's removed forever. The decision cannot be undone. This part doesn't need to be part of the legislation, but it would be the best way for all involved to avoid a bunch of headaches where people change their minds frequently, websites are always under pressure to keep up-to-date on which films are allowed and which aren't and remove them all the time, etc.
- Yes, there must be proof that the participant in question was involved. Alibis, prior contracts that were signed, social media posts, lists of films provided on the actors' official web pages, etc.
- It may be difficult in some cases to define what does, and does not, fall under "pornographic content", because of course, not all sexual fetishes involve direct sexual activity. This ......... you know, this can be addressed some other time when I'm not half asleep! The basic idea applies though, if there is clear sexual intent behind the recordings (maybe statements/emails/etc that discuss ["beyond a reasonable doubt"] the sexual intent behind the recordings in question).
This is hardly written in proper "legalese".
It's just two basic ideas I've had.
For the time being, I just want these ideas to get out into the world somehow.
More action may be taken later, depending on a large number of things.
ADDITIONAL NOTE:
Although I am posting this on a Christian blog, this legislation does not entirely line up with my own beliefs. It should not be mistaken for me trying to push a personal, or a Christian, agenda. If it were up to me as an individual, all pornography would be banned altogether! These two ideas are ones I believe should be enforced according to the US law's portrayal of human dignity, and its portrayal of valuing justice. My own values are much more restrictive than what I've written here.
May God bless and guide all of us, according to His perfect will! In Jesus' name. Amen.
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
RE: "Disabling parts of the brain with magnets can weaken faith in God [. . .], study finds"
I heard about this awhile back. I really think it needs a public blog post, though.
The [study] alleges that people's beliefs can be changed by restricting parts of the brain that process "threats".
I'm not going to focus on the immigration part of it. I'm only going to focus on the "faith in God" part.
The only reason one's faith can be decreased by taking away "threats" is if one's faith is already based on threats. The fear of divine punishment is real, but it should NEVER be the only thing keeping one hanging on. In that case, it's not faith at all, but rather, fear.
Christian teachings are primarily backed by [history], [prophecy] and [facts]. Of course there will be anecdotal evidence that can't be proven with science, but that's par for the course with almost anything one experiences -- Christian or otherwise, "religious/spiritual" or mundane.
If effectively disabling one's sense of "fear" is enough to reduce their faith in God in the light of how many centuries of evidence, philosophy, archaeology and more, ............... there was never faith there to begin with.
If you truly believe in the truth of Christianity, then you won't need the emotion of "fear". You will acknowledge the truth of Christianity as you acknowledge the color of the sky; as you acknowledge mathematical principles; as you acknowledge time passing on a clock; as you acknowledge the changing of seasons; as you acknowledge anything.
Disabling parts of the brain with magnets CANNOT weaken faith in God.
May God bless you all and guide you according to His perfect will! In Jesus' name. Amen.
The [study] alleges that people's beliefs can be changed by restricting parts of the brain that process "threats".
I'm not going to focus on the immigration part of it. I'm only going to focus on the "faith in God" part.
The only reason one's faith can be decreased by taking away "threats" is if one's faith is already based on threats. The fear of divine punishment is real, but it should NEVER be the only thing keeping one hanging on. In that case, it's not faith at all, but rather, fear.
Christian teachings are primarily backed by [history], [prophecy] and [facts]. Of course there will be anecdotal evidence that can't be proven with science, but that's par for the course with almost anything one experiences -- Christian or otherwise, "religious/spiritual" or mundane.
If effectively disabling one's sense of "fear" is enough to reduce their faith in God in the light of how many centuries of evidence, philosophy, archaeology and more, ............... there was never faith there to begin with.
If you truly believe in the truth of Christianity, then you won't need the emotion of "fear". You will acknowledge the truth of Christianity as you acknowledge the color of the sky; as you acknowledge mathematical principles; as you acknowledge time passing on a clock; as you acknowledge the changing of seasons; as you acknowledge anything.
Disabling parts of the brain with magnets CANNOT weaken faith in God.
May God bless you all and guide you according to His perfect will! In Jesus' name. Amen.
Friday, December 14, 2018
Draw Near to God
It really does seem to be a common misconception. Many think that they need to improve themselves before they can turn to God. That before they can become Christians, they need to overcome bad habits, addictions, emotional problems, etc.
It's actually the other way around. Of course God teaches us to repent from sins, but this isn't something you do to be saved. It's something you do after you are saved. Turn to God and receive forgiveness through Christ, just as you are. With all your drug addictions, with your porn habits, with your anger issues, with your mental conditions, with your slothful indifference, with regrets about the past, with any other burdens you bear... and then you can worry about repentance later on.
If you see a Christian who knows a lot about Scripture, who is at a high rank in their church, who overcame a burden that you are facing....... it's because they got there over a long period of time. They didn't clean themselves up, and then turn to God. It's because God helped them where they already were. You don't need to spend years studying theology to know God. You don't need to be a pastor/priest/reverend to belong to a church. You don't need to overcome obstacles before reaching out to God.
Reach out to God, as you are. Pray, with all the burdens you carry on your back. Seek forgiveness, in the midst of all the sins and regrets you carry. God has high expectations from us, but that doesn't mean he's a hoity-toity dictator perfectionist. He doesn't want to just sit back and watch as we try to reach those heights. He wants to help us get there. He wants to carry us when we can't climb anymore. He wants to give us rest when we're exhausted. He wants to take burdens off of our backs so the climb is easier to do.
So wherever you are right now. Whether you're a one-percenter living in the lap of luxury. Whether you're a corrupt lawmaker collecting paychecks at the expense of the general public. Whether you're living a fairly normal life, and just have no idea what to do when it comes to Christianity. Whether you're a drug addict. Whether you're planning a school shooting. Whether you just got home from burying your next victim. God obviously doesn't condone murder or greed, but that doesn't mean you're doomed because you're caught in this place in life. Turn to God where you are, right now, and He will be with you. He will not turn you away. He will help you out of this place.
May God bless you all and guide you according to His perfect will! In Jesus' name. Amen.
It's actually the other way around. Of course God teaches us to repent from sins, but this isn't something you do to be saved. It's something you do after you are saved. Turn to God and receive forgiveness through Christ, just as you are. With all your drug addictions, with your porn habits, with your anger issues, with your mental conditions, with your slothful indifference, with regrets about the past, with any other burdens you bear... and then you can worry about repentance later on.
If you see a Christian who knows a lot about Scripture, who is at a high rank in their church, who overcame a burden that you are facing....... it's because they got there over a long period of time. They didn't clean themselves up, and then turn to God. It's because God helped them where they already were. You don't need to spend years studying theology to know God. You don't need to be a pastor/priest/reverend to belong to a church. You don't need to overcome obstacles before reaching out to God.
Reach out to God, as you are. Pray, with all the burdens you carry on your back. Seek forgiveness, in the midst of all the sins and regrets you carry. God has high expectations from us, but that doesn't mean he's a hoity-toity dictator perfectionist. He doesn't want to just sit back and watch as we try to reach those heights. He wants to help us get there. He wants to carry us when we can't climb anymore. He wants to give us rest when we're exhausted. He wants to take burdens off of our backs so the climb is easier to do.
So wherever you are right now. Whether you're a one-percenter living in the lap of luxury. Whether you're a corrupt lawmaker collecting paychecks at the expense of the general public. Whether you're living a fairly normal life, and just have no idea what to do when it comes to Christianity. Whether you're a drug addict. Whether you're planning a school shooting. Whether you just got home from burying your next victim. God obviously doesn't condone murder or greed, but that doesn't mean you're doomed because you're caught in this place in life. Turn to God where you are, right now, and He will be with you. He will not turn you away. He will help you out of this place.
May God bless you all and guide you according to His perfect will! In Jesus' name. Amen.
Friday, December 7, 2018
Will Animals Be in Heaven?
The Bible does not say either way. There is no verse that specifically says, "Animals will / will not go to Heaven."
HOWEVER, WE CAN DEDUCE AN ANSWER FROM SCRIPTURE.
In Genesis 2:7, it says:
then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
The expression used here is וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים -- and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
The word נִשְׁמַ֣ת or nishmat, is used to mean "breath" or "spirit". So we know that mankind has life.
In Genesis 7:15, it says:
They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.
The expression used here is שְׁנַ֤יִם שְׁנַ֙יִם֙ מִכָּל־הַבָּשָׂ֔ר אֲשֶׁר־בֹּ֖ו ר֥וּחַ חַיִּֽים -- two [by] two of all flesh in which [is] the breath of life.
The word ר֥וּחַ or ruach, is used to mean "spirit", "breath", "wind", and "... of mind", but most commonly "spirit" or "wind". Hence, animals are described as having the same life that mankind has been given.
If the redeemed souls of mankind can live in Heaven through God's spiritual means, the implication then is that animals, who did not fall from grace through sin, will receive the same thing. Hence, animals will be in Heaven.
Now like I said at the beginning, there is no verse that 100% clearly states animals go to Heaven. But if we take a serious Biblical approach to this topic, the only logical conclusion is that they do. There are some who teach that animals don't go to Heaven, and this is utter heresy. There is nothing in the Bible even IMPLYING that animals don't go to Heaven. On the contrary, the implication is that they do. Thus, according to scripture itself, is either animals do, or we are uncertain if they do. Either "yes", or "I don't know", leaning heavily toward "yes".
May God bless you all and guide you according to His perfect will! In Jesus' name. Amen.
By the way, I know there are many who doubt the account of Noah. While the infallibility of Scripture is important, it's irrelevant to this topic. What matters here isn't whether the flood happened. What matters is that the animals are described as having the breath of life. Even if we entertain the notion that the flood didn't happen, that doesn't negate the fact that those who wrote down the account did so under the teaching that animals had the "breath of life".
HOWEVER, WE CAN DEDUCE AN ANSWER FROM SCRIPTURE.
In Genesis 2:7, it says:
then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
The expression used here is וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים -- and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
The word נִשְׁמַ֣ת or nishmat, is used to mean "breath" or "spirit". So we know that mankind has life.
In Genesis 7:15, it says:
They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.
The expression used here is שְׁנַ֤יִם שְׁנַ֙יִם֙ מִכָּל־הַבָּשָׂ֔ר אֲשֶׁר־בֹּ֖ו ר֥וּחַ חַיִּֽים -- two [by] two of all flesh in which [is] the breath of life.
The word ר֥וּחַ or ruach, is used to mean "spirit", "breath", "wind", and "... of mind", but most commonly "spirit" or "wind". Hence, animals are described as having the same life that mankind has been given.
If the redeemed souls of mankind can live in Heaven through God's spiritual means, the implication then is that animals, who did not fall from grace through sin, will receive the same thing. Hence, animals will be in Heaven.
Now like I said at the beginning, there is no verse that 100% clearly states animals go to Heaven. But if we take a serious Biblical approach to this topic, the only logical conclusion is that they do. There are some who teach that animals don't go to Heaven, and this is utter heresy. There is nothing in the Bible even IMPLYING that animals don't go to Heaven. On the contrary, the implication is that they do. Thus, according to scripture itself, is either animals do, or we are uncertain if they do. Either "yes", or "I don't know", leaning heavily toward "yes".
May God bless you all and guide you according to His perfect will! In Jesus' name. Amen.
By the way, I know there are many who doubt the account of Noah. While the infallibility of Scripture is important, it's irrelevant to this topic. What matters here isn't whether the flood happened. What matters is that the animals are described as having the breath of life. Even if we entertain the notion that the flood didn't happen, that doesn't negate the fact that those who wrote down the account did so under the teaching that animals had the "breath of life".
Friday, November 9, 2018
Our Rock
I wrote this on Blackest Light a year or so ago. I found it again the other day and thought it was worth sharing here:
I don't think people really grasp what it means when we call Christ our "rock" or a "cornerstone"; if the Holy Trinity is not the cornerstone of our focus, there is no foundation for anything. It's all rendered subjective and unstable (bringing to mind that illustration of building a house on sand). A chaotic reality imperfectly perceived SOLELY by a clouded mind and a deluded spirit. Yet there are those who think that filtering things through God's word will limit our understanding. Quite the opposite - it's like sifting through sand while looking for gold; you lose the sand, but you weren't looking for sand, you were looking for gold. Likewise God removes the false from our perception.
I don't think people really grasp what it means when we call Christ our "rock" or a "cornerstone"; if the Holy Trinity is not the cornerstone of our focus, there is no foundation for anything. It's all rendered subjective and unstable (bringing to mind that illustration of building a house on sand). A chaotic reality imperfectly perceived SOLELY by a clouded mind and a deluded spirit. Yet there are those who think that filtering things through God's word will limit our understanding. Quite the opposite - it's like sifting through sand while looking for gold; you lose the sand, but you weren't looking for sand, you were looking for gold. Likewise God removes the false from our perception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)