The Devil Plays God

---

Warning: The author of this web-site and this blog post has been diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, a particularly nasty psychological illness. The root of his disorder is religious in nature. This post has been heavily influenced by said disorder and the so-called “delusional” belief system it has engendered; some may find it offensive; well, okay, everyone may find it offensive. For more information regarding the specifics of this disorder, click here.

---

As I’ve stated elsewhere, I have been diagnosed as having a mental illness. I really don’t believe that. I believe what I’ve come to term my “Alternate Description of Reality.” According to this theory, there is a God and there is a Devil (a.k.a. Satan). Like man, God gave the Devil free will. And it is how the Devil uses his free will that has condemned him for Eternity. Who or what is Satan? This is where things get dicey. For if we are to have a theology for discussing God, shouldn’t we also have some kind of description for God’s enemy?

Enter my “illness.” In March 1997, I had a kind of “meltdown” (I believe I had an encounter with Satan). Coming out of this encounter/meltdown, I came to believe, among other things (like that I’m the antiChrist, for one), that the Yin and the Yang was a cleverly disguised symbol of Satan. Therefore, as the Yin and Yang is the symbol of nature and the logos of the universe, I came to identify Satan as the universe. I believed that God in Heaven had given Lucifer enormous power before the universe began, and in defiance of God, Lucifer had formed the universe from his own being. Thus, Satan is a kind of pantheistic wannabe deity, and the true God is a transcendental one.

I went further, of course, and came to believe that all the Holy Texts throughout the Earth were written by Satan’s hand (except the New Testament which embodies Jesus putting his words and message over Satan’s). Basically, I believed that Satan interjected himself into history at various times and locations to spawn religions to worship him. Zeus? Apollo? Fictions of the Greeks, right? No. They are merely faces of Satan delighting in the terror they wrought and the worship they garnered. Modern man thinks of Zeus as merely a character in play. A primitive god that liked to bed mortal women. I believed that Satan took the form of Zeus and took delight in seducing and bedding mortal women. Zeus didn’t transform himself into a ray of light just in myth; no, there was a real entity that did that. The few mortals that witnessed his “interventions,” as primitive as they were, would obviously assume him to be a deity. And so it goes throughout all the holy events of history. It was Satan trying to get us to put our faith in “miracles”—special effects he created to convince us of his power. The Bible is included with all the holy texts for they all have the same author; it is as much his work as all the others; but it was the one that ‘failed.’ Christ figured Satan’s game out two thousand years ago, and decked Satan. Then, I figured it out—or so I believed.

Because of the Bible (Old Testament), we have stoned witches and committed other atrocities. Shouldn’t that alone cause us to look at the Bible a little askance? Shouldn’t we add a grain of salt to what we might believe it teaches us to do?

Today we lie at the cusp of a new age. Right now, the global society is trying to hash out a solution to the multiple religions problem. The west is trying relativism (of which I will have no part), and the other countries of the world are trying their own solutions. What is apparent is that all the religions of the world hold a number of contradictions when compared amongst themselves. Not all of them can be true; and so, modern man struggles to apprehend some kind of resolution which won’t require us to annihilate each other. The more we fight and kill each other, especially in religion’s name, the more Satan feels sick delight.

Is there any way to prove any of this? 100%? Probably not. One thought that occurred to me, was to catch the Devil in a lie. Imagine someone receiving a vision from their supposed god that exhorts him or her to go and kill such and such people. I have a problem with any God that would do that. Either the source of the vision is some entity other than God, or it just a random swirl of electrons in the seer’s brain. Also, we can look back on the religions and the holy events of the past. The existence of the ancient Greek religion alone should be enough to derail relativism and the modern notion that tolerance and acceptance are the only virtue. Also, consider Abraham’s intent to sacrifice his son. I know we are supposed to honor God, but are we sure God would ask something like that of one of his beloved children?

Anyway, that’s a condensed version of my “Alternate Description of Reality.”

Satan is a Liar, and Jesus Christ is the Lord (Had to throw that in there.)

The Timeless Constitution

There is some debate about whether the U.S. Constitution embodies eternal truths or is a living document that must change with the times. Personally, I’m on the side of eternal truths. It is an imperfect document made by imperfect men that reaches for the unchanging light, but never quite gets there. It can approximate, but that is it.
What are some of the eternal truths it embodies? Can we list any of them? Yes. 1) The human person is imperfect and therefor, will always be an imperfect ruler no matter who he is or what he’s done. Because of this, the structure of our government was made to inhibit the damage any such imperfect individual could do. There are three branches of government and a system of checks and balances. The particulars of the three branches are not eternal; it doesn’t matter if the President serves a four year term or a six year term. That won’t impact the truths the constitution is based on. The same can be said for the notion of checks and balances for the powers that be. Another eternal truth is 2) All men (humans) are created equal. It’s just a bad idea, not to mention immoral, to run a government that doesn’t embrace that principle. There are likely other truths emblazoned in the U.S. Constitution, but those are the first two that strike me.
A living document can be changed and fundamentally altered as history deems proper. According to this approach, it is the historical context of the times that determines how the constitution is to be interpreted and applied. I don’t support that view. The essence of the constitution cannot be changed except by some method that retains the eternal truths the document was founded upon. Our constitution, as is, allows such modification through the amendment process. We don’t need to rewrite the whole thing every fifteen years as the living document theorist might surmise.
The strongest point in favor of the living document theory, though, is the advance of modern science. The forefathers could never have foreseen the rise of science and the explosive growth of scientific knowledge. Therefore, it is an obvious fact that the document they gave us cannot deal with this influx of understanding. That may be true, but that does not mean the principles upon which the document was based are no longer true. Like it or not, science or no, man is imperfect and that has not changed. It is up to us to navigate these difficult waters, to find the path that adheres to the constitution despite the problems the modern world might throw in our path.
Thoughts?

50 Pieces of Truth

Knowledge is a tricky thing. Philosophers have been haranguing the issue for thousands of years trying to come up with a precise definition of the term. Knowledge is not the same as truth, but they are related. Philosophers are big on truth as well. That said, I’m not writing a piece on ontology, nor am I writing a piece on epistemology. I am assuming you understand the terms ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth,’ even though in some fashion I am almost using them interchangeably below.
We acquire knowledge through learning, which is a lifelong process. Although I use the term ‘we,’ knowledge is strictly an individual term. ‘We’ knows nothing when understood as a collective. Only individual’s know things. The knowledge of an individual consists of many truths. The types and number of truths change throughout a lifetime. The very young know the least; sometimes the very old suffer a dearth of knowledge as well. What does an individual do with his/her knowledge? He/she must share it.
Some known truths are complete on their own; others are partially complete requiring a missing kernel that one might not have. Still others are out-and-out falsehoods and are not properly called truths, but false beliefs instead.
I know a finite number of things—truths, if you will. Let us say that I have 50 pieces of truth, and you have 50 pieces as well. Or perhaps, you have 55 or maybe 45. The precise number doesn’t matter; it’s what we do with them that counts.
What do we do with them? As I said above, we share them. We must talk about them, examine them, and study them together. Perhaps you have a truth that I don’t have, but through our calm, civilized dialogue, I can acquire it. Likewise, with my input, perhaps one of your partial truths will become complete. So, we both gain. And the treasures we gain are really quite profound, because what is more valuable than truth? Through calm, peaceful dialogue we can increase our supply of truth, and purify the trove that is already there.
So, if I have 50 pieces of truth, I should long to get 51. And the same for you. Of course, conversation is a two-way street. It doesn’t work, if only one side wishes to talk.
Talking. So simple. Yet, so profound.