Polytheism Makes No Sense

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!

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?

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.