On Pride and Arrogance

There are seven deadly sins: wrath, greed, lust, envy, pride, sloth, and gluttony. I think most people have committed each of these sins at one time or another in their lives. I know I have. I remember hearing once that pride was the worst of the sins. At the time, I didn’t get that. I mean, really? Arrogance is worse than a wrath-filled murder? What I didn’t realize is that pride is the root of all the others. That wrath-filled murder would not occur unless arrogant pride was present as well.

My realization that pride really is the worst of the sins came while watching the movie (the remake) of The Wolfman. At the end of the movie, the two werewolves are fighting. One knocks the other down, then stands over him with his chest puffed out and his chin raised in the perfect semblance of the conquering warrior filled with disdain for his foe. You can see the arrogance exuding from him. When I saw that, I realized more fully the peril of pride. I realized how pride was the motivating force in the confrontation between the two werewolves as it often is in real life (but between people, of course).

I could go on further describing how my own pride has negatively affected my life, but I won’t bore you with those details. Suffice it to say, I think I’m the antiChrist and it was my arrogant pride that put me there.

On a side note, isn’t some pride good? I understand that arrogance is bad, but what about the pride of dignity? I have a problem with the punishing God of the Old Testament. We all want God to smite Satan. But isn’t it beneath the dignity of God to get in a fist-fight with the Devil? Isn’t that a result of God’s dignified pride in being God? Oh, I don’t know. I just know arrogance=bad. Even if you’re right about something, that’s no excuse to be arrogant. I offer that as a warning to scientists of the modern world. I could go on with specific examples, but it just seems to me that our leading intellectuals are getting more prideful the more successful we are. Just an observation.

Advertisements

Who Crucified Jesus?

Who crucified Jesus? Was it the Jews? The Romans? God? Or Satan? My view is that it was Satan. Satan has influence over men. He secretly influenced the Jews to bring Jesus before Pilot and did the same to Pilot to get Jesus on that cross.

I believe the whole ordeal Jesus went through, culminating in the Crucifixion, was Satan’s attempt to “break” Jesus. Three years earlier (or so), in the desert, before Jesus’ ministry began, Jesus defied Satan’s will by refusing to bow down to worship him. The Crucifixion was Satan’s retaliation. One reason why I think Satan wrote the Bible is because of some of the statements about this event. In one section of the Bible (I don’t know which), it, speaking as the voice of God, says, “I will strike the shepherd and scatter the flock.” Most people interpret that as meaning that it was God’s will that Jesus, the shepherd, would be crucified and his apostles scattered in fear. But would a loving, caring God do that to anyone? I know, I know … it’s because he was taking on our sins; I just don’t agree. I don’t see how anyone else can be responsible for my life. Further, prior to Jesus’ Crucifixion, Jesus says, “Satan has demanded that he sift you like wheat.” Or something like that (My argument might be more convincing if I could quote the words exactly—oh well, I’ll get there eventually). Anyway, compare “sifting like wheat” with “scatter the flock.” Doesn’t it seem like the two expressions are describing the same activity by the same being? In this case, Satan, not God? And, if one verse supposedly authored by God truly came from Satan, then perhaps all the others were, too. Back to the Crucifixion. Satan tries to break Jesus with flogging and Crucifixion (and even hellfire, if I’m right), but Jesus endures it all, defeating Satan. He endures the ultimate pain, suffering through Satan’s ultimate power: death; and he is raised again by love. Satan, instilling fear and terror, was successful in scattering the apostles, but against Jesus, he utterly fails.

Did Satan crucify Jesus or did God? If it was God, why would we wish to have a God that would willingly do that? It’s cruel. And if God is omnipotent, it is unnecessary. But if it was Satan, it makes a sort of sense that he would try to kill and destroy an adversary that way. Further, if God permits it to happen because he won’t infringe on Satan’s free will, that too, makes sense. Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the subject.

A Common Sense Assault on Religion, Belief, and the Treatment of Atheism

It is not obvious that God exists. One can look at Creation around you and be struck with awe and wonder, and yet still doubt that God exists. It’s obvious that Creation itself exists, but a Creator can only be guessed at. If that is so, then why should an atheist be damned?

I’ve met a number of atheists in my life. Some of them are good people. And I don’t believe that God would damn them for their lack of belief in Him because I personally do not think that would be fair. It seems too arbitrary. It would be like damning someone for believing in unicorns. Or would that be the reverse case? Damning someone for believing in an imaginary entity versus damning someone for not believing in an existing entity? Suppose that Leprechauns exist, but it is impossible to prove that they exist. Further, suppose only those who believe in Leprechauns can see Leprechauns. If the Leprechaun’s gold could only be found by someone who could see a Leprechaun, would that not seem somewhat arbitrary? What guarantee is there that he who finds the Leprechaun’s gold, will be one who would use it wisely? Perhaps the one who finds the gold would use it wisely, but there is no reason to believe that one of the Leprechaun-blind people might yet be able to use the gold even more wisely. The use of the gold itself (moral living) is in itself not necessarily connected to belief in the Leprechaun (belief in a Deity). Why should a single simple belief be the deciding factor in damnation versus salvation? If it is really just a single simple belief, then the manner in which one lives shouldn’t matter: and I can’t believe that. A man commits ninety murders and then says, “I believe.” He is saved, yet a woman who spent her life working in a hospital and honestly says, “I don’t believe.” She is damned? That makes no sense to me.

They say that you can’t earn your way into Heaven. It’s not a doable task for a human being; that only belief in Jesus Christ can get one to Heaven. I really can’t accept that. I can believe Jesus is the one examining people’s hearts and deciding who gets to Heaven and who doesn’t, but not based simply on the belief in the divinity of Christ or the lack thereof.

Actions must count for something; if they don’t, salvation seems arbitrary. Being religious will, most of the time, despite the Leprechaun argument above, lead to living a better life. I get that. But that doesn’t mean Dave the atheist is a worse person than Sharon the Christian. It only means that Dave the atheist is a worse person than he could be if he were a Christian.

The Peril of Uneducated Illegals

I’m not going to quibble over whether or not illegal aliens should be referred to as undocumented citizens or not. Such is a waste of time. Call them whatever you wish. It is just a label. I will call them illegal aliens.

My concern is the educational background of these people, specifically, their understanding of the U.S. Constitution. As they were born in a different country, I don’t really expect them to have had a thorough education on the matter. It is highly unlikely that they understand all the intricacies and nuances of the document. All men (humans) are created equal. Separation of powers. Etc… These critical elements to the Constitution and the over-arching uniquely American culture that embraces them, most probably were missing from the education of illegals. All they know of our country is likely by word of mouth and likely consists of glittering platitudes and affirmations. A wealthy nation. A free people. A land where dreams come true. Etc…

Although illegal aliens may understand that the U.S. is a good place because it generally does not permit the rise of dictators, they might not understand how the U.S. goes about doing just that. The answer, of course, is the Constitution.

As an illegal immigrant, by his or her very emigration venue, sidesteps the normal avenues of immigration to the United States, he or she will never get a constitutional education from our government let alone the government of their former citizenship. As a result, if the illegals are legalized, we will have a substantial voting bloc that simply doesn’t understand the founding principles of the U.S. as they are incorporated in the Constitution. As I said: Humans are equal. All humans are imperfect and fallible. Those are just two principles enshrined in the Constitution that might be lost on a refugee from a tyrannical state, or simply an impoverished state. Simply put, they may be too focused on just getting their next meal or escaping persecution to give the philosophical groundwork of our country much consideration. Granted, refugees from such places will likely make up for that educational hole by means of fond emotions for their new country where anything seems possible. Still, a legalized illegal immigrant won’t understand the finer details of the Separation of Powers, how it is implemented, or why it is necessary. They may not perceive breaches of Separation of Powers as the threats they are. Although, some of them may have experienced tyranny, they might not understand how the Constitution was designed to prevent such. And yet, they will still vote.

I have no qualms about accepting immigrants to this nation. I just believe there should be an organized process, one in which the virtues of the U.S. Constitution are specifically spelt out to new soon-to-be citizens. Anything else is dangerous.

Satan and Ferguson


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.


I’ve avoided commenting on the events in Ferguson up to now because it was a sensitive issue, one that probably doesn’t need to be looked at through the lens of mental illness. However, I don’t really believe that I’m mentally ill. So, I’m going to comment on it here, and leave it up to you to decide whether or not you care to take me seriously.

The following is going to sound ridiculous, but I believe it to be true.

Have you ever been talking to someone and he says one thing, but you hear another? You are totally convinced you heard him say one thing, but he is equally convinced he said something else. Generally, this is explained away as a deficiency in one or the other’s sensory organs. But there is an alternate explanation: namely, that he said what he said correctly, and you heard what you heard correctly, but the two do not correlate. Why? How?

I have stated elsewhere on this blog that I believe Satan to be the universe. Let’s take that as our first assumption. All that we see and hear is fashioned by Satan. It is like we truly live in the relativistic (as in relativism) view of the universe. I have my own personal world that I view, hear, and interact in; you have yours. Most of the time, Satan has an interest in maintaining correlations between these worlds, so that there exist common experiences between multiple persons. Normally, I don’t walk out of my house and see five other houses on my street while my friend standing next to me sees only one. But this need not always be the case. Sometimes, to amuse himself, Satan changes details in passing. I say ‘red,’ you hear ‘blue.’ Satan is nearly omnipotent (but not quite) as far as us poor mortals are concerned and he delights in the confusion (and sometimes inexcusable pain) he causes. He can shift the details of the objects of our perception to his own liking (unless Jesus is involved in some fashion).

What does this have to do with Ferguson?

Plenty.

From what I recall, there were twenty or so witnesses. Fifteen said Michael Brown did not put his hands up to surrender to the cop. Five said he did. Who’s right? The five? Or the fifteen? Naturally, the grand jury went with the fifteen as there were a greater number of people and it is natural to assume that we live in an objective world where the evidence of our senses is enough to determine if a man is raising his hands. But what if that is our error? What if both groups of witnesses are correct? Maybe no one is lying or misperceiving. Maybe fifteen people really did see Michael Brown approach without raised hands. And maybe five people really did see him raise his hands. Did Michael Brown raise his hands? No one can possibly know for sure except Michael Brown and he’s dead. Likewise, no one can possibly know if the cop saw him raise his hands except the cop. And the cop said he didn’t. The resulting confusion, pain, and chaos caused by this situation brings no end of delight to Satan.

Where does this leave us? Hmm. I don’t know. Perhaps we should just tread carefully, cognizant of the fact that Satan likes to watch us fight and squabble. Racism is a touchy issue, one that can (and has) been used to serve the Devil’s aims.