Am I Deceived By Satan that I am the AntiChrist?

Once upon a time, I was absolutely convinced that I was the antiChrist (my delusional good version of that dread personage). Lately, however, I have begun to wonder if I am deceived by Satan about that and am, in fact, the Antichrist (the traditional evil version). It goes without saying, that Satan would try to deceive me, if he could. And maybe that is the secret of the antichrist; that, while believing he is doing good, he will unwittingly bring about great evil because he has been deceived. He will “through peace, destroy many.”

I am constantly worrying about this.

According to me, the universe is not the handiwork of God, but of Satan. In fact, according to me, Satan is the universe. It’s an identity. All of humanity has been deceived about this fact; all, except Jesus, and now, me. Although that theory explains many things to me and dovetails nicely with various passages of the Bible and even an odd scrap here and there of other religious texts and philosophies, I still doubt. How can I be sure? I have, a couple times, heard Jesus’ voice in my head and in my heart saying things that seemingly verified this, but … that’s hearing voices. They prescribe medications for that these days. And they have. Regardless, the voices are just that: voices. I have not had a full blown vision where I’ve seen Jesus telling me these things. I’m inclined to go with Thomas the Doubter: “Until I feel the nail marks in his hands and put my hand in his side” and he verifies my theory to me, I’ll still have doubts.

After all, if the traditional theory of Satan is correct, wouldn’t he want to get credit for creating the universe, if he could? Wouldn’t he try to convince me he was the one in charge with final authority? That he was God?

But, traditionally, what would that get him? Suppose I convinced a million people that Satan was responsible for the universe, not God, but God really was responsible for the universe, not Satan. What would happen to those million people? Would God consign them to hell because they had a mistaken belief about reality? That seems cruel and unworthy of the Deity. How is it to Satan’s advantage to convince someone he is responsible for the universe, if he is not? I know he likes to lie, but surely his lies must have some purpose behind them.

I keep coming back to the notion that if I’m wrong, and the traditional view is correct, there may be a danger that I and anyone who listens to me will wind up condemned to hell. But if that happens, that seems exceedingly unfair, and even unjust. I wouldn’t want to believe in a Deity that condemns people for nearly arbitrary reasons such as a belief about the ultimate nature of the universe. Unless such a belief led to evil action, it just seems unreasonable on God’s part.

And yet, I still doubt. Am I deceived by Satan? Or have I found the truth?

 

Mercy for the Damned

I’ve always been intrigued by hell and its demons. Does this go back to my near-obsession with AD&D in grade school and high school? Was D&D a bad influence on me? Well, I don’t think so. I, and the players I played with, always viewed demons as enemies to be destroyed, not powers to be placated. Regardless, we always knew it was a game and kind of like acting. Anyway, for the longest time (starting around college or so), I didn’t believe in Satan primarily because I couldn’t imagine anything or anyone being so stupid as to challenge God. Let’s see, God is omniscient and omnipotent. That means you lose. End of story.

Then I had my antichrist experience and that belief changed. My antichrist experience involved exposure to the fires of hell (at least, that’s what I believe). I had never been sure of hell one way or the other, but once I experienced it, I had to accept it, and from there I began to wonder that if hell exists, then maybe Satan exists as well. Perhaps the legends of hell are true. Perhaps it truly is populated by demons and sinners.

It’s been said that hell is simply the absence of God, but I disagree. Hellfire is the pathway out of existence for a soul brought about by the exposure of said soul to divine fury. It is a path from which there is no return, or at least, that’s what it appears to be. Personally, I think it is a construct of Satan’s, but I don’t want to get into that here. I just want to point out that hellfire sucks. Inflicting hellfire on anyone or anything for any reason is unjustified. I would not wish my hellfire experience on Adolf Hitler. I’m sure Hitler should be punished for what he did, but I wouldn’t inflict hellfire on him. It is too terrible, even for him.

Anyway, during my years as “the antichrist” I became convinced that the damned were deserving of mercy. Maybe I’m wrong. Either way, the decision isn’t mine, so I probably shouldn’t worry about it, but I still do. Why do I think they should they get mercy? Because hellfire sucks. Immensely. It is just too cruel.

So, I hereby pledge that if I ever encounter someone from hell who looks like he is suffering from excessively cruel torture, I will try to alleviate some of their pain. If I have to use a hammer to pull nails from their flesh, I’ll do it. If God is doing that to people … well, he’s not God.

Still, hell is real. I’ve been there. You have to decide what this means to you. Of course, you’ll probably decide that I am just insane.

Triggers

For the record, I have no training in psychology. What follows is largely the result of self-reflection. I am a conservative, so I have a tendency to downplay the notion of triggers. However, I am also considered “mentally ill,” so I have, through group sessions, some exposure to the notion of triggers.

What is a trigger? Well, the best I can determine is that a trigger is an external stimulus that causes a human being—generally considered to be mentally ill—to respond in a consistently negative fashion. I’m not sure if it is supposed to be just a verbal event or if it can be something more general. For the purposes of this post, I am concerned solely with verbal triggers. Basically, a person can say something, and someone else can react in a severely negative way. Someone has an unreasonable fear of drowning; someone else mentions their latest swim in the pool; and the first person has an anxiety attack. The conversation regarding the pool is the trigger.

Are triggers a valid concept? In my experience, yes. I know that in mental health groups I’ve attended, they’ve come up; one person will be talking and another person will mention that they are being triggered. I’ve even identified a trigger for myself. I have nieces and nephews who are currently entering college and leaving, getting PhD’s and entering the workforce: basically, starting out on the most substantive part of their lives. Whenever they or anyone else starts talking about them and their accomplishments, I get depressed. It just reminds me of the gaping absence of material accomplishments in my own life. I was 25 when I went “mad.” As a result, I’ve spent most of my adult life—the time normally spent pursuing PhDs, building a career, etc…–flipping back and forth between mania and depression, even being committed to mental health floors on several different hospitals, etc…. Basically, my “illness” has destroyed my life, and talk of the successes of other people just reminds me of that fact. So, those types of conversations serve as my trigger, and my resultant depression is my reaction.

So, are triggers real? I’m inclined to say yes. However, in my case it would be ridiculous for me to insist that no one ever mentions the material successes of my nieces, nephews, or anyone else while I’m around. That would be foolish. The trigger and my response to it are my responsibility. Knowing how I respond to such talk is the first step to dealing with it. I have the option of avoiding the triggers, but ultimately the best solution is to find some way to overcome it. To neutralize it. To find some way to prevent the “trigger” from making me respond in such a fashion.

Although individuals with triggers deserve compassion and understanding, their needs do not overshadow the needs and rights of others. People have the right to speak and express ideas without being forced to “walk on eggshells” for fear of offending or “triggering” someone else. The problem with being solely focused on triggers is that it is too deterministic in nature. The theory, as I understand it, states that when event A happens, the individuals response B must follow. When you find a trigger for yourself, you aren’t supposed to leave it unresolved and simply respond whenever it occurs. You are supposed to overcome it. Learning to overcome it, is part of growing up.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject.

Gays and the Bible

The Bible. It’s supposed to be “The Word of God.” Divinely inspired. As such, it is regarded to be inerrant. That is, according to traditional Christianity the Bible contains no mistakes. How could it? God is omniscient. If God is the source of the Bible, it can contain no errors.

According to mainstream culture, gays are okay. Gay marriage is fine. Homosexual sex is not a problem. This poses a serious problem to religious people. The Bible vehemently disagrees with this latest conclusion of modern culture. I cannot quote chapter and verse (yet), but I have read the entire Bible cover to cover, at least twice in the last five years. The Bible comes out against homosexuality (calling it an abomination, etc…) in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament. I’m not sure which book in the O.T. condemns it, or in the N.T., but I remember enough to know that no less than Saint Paul condemns it in one of his Epistles. Granted, Jesus himself never addresses the question directly, but Saint Paul? He’s pretty big in the Bible. Up there with Saint Peter and Saint John.

So, when it comes to gays, either the Bible is wrong, or mainstream culture is wrong. For myself, I side with mainstream culture. I was raised Catholic, so growing up, I believed homosexuality was wrong. But I studied philosophy in college and spent nearly four years wrestling with this issue. I never found anything I could comfortably say was wrong with homosexual sex with any certainty. Then one day, I saw a man on TV talking about how his gay partner had died from AIDS, and I could tell he loved him. That pretty much changed my view. This leaves the Bible … where? In my view, it is wrong about gays. Hence, it is not inerrant. Hence, it was not written by God.

Of course, I also believe I’m the antichrist. In that light, please note, I think the Bible (and all other holy texts) was written by Satan masquerading as God. The real God let him do this, because He knew we would eventually figure Satan out. But all that is a much longer discussion than I want to get into here. Let’s just say, that as a general principle I distrust truths based on revelation, largely because there is more than one distinct book claiming to be the inerrant Word of God——and they all contradict each other. I don’t have a problem if “divine morals” is somewhat beyond the comprehension of “human morals,” but I take issue when the “divine morals” contradict “human morals.”

Anyway, I’m the antichrist, so you probably shouldn’t trust me. My reasoning is likely fried. Also, this post is pretty much exactly like something the Antichrist would write according to traditional Christianity.

Before I go, I want to say that even though I don’t agree with traditional Christianity regarding gays, I do realize that its position on gays is a religious belief with Scriptural support. As such it is protected by the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights and I don’t agree with the draconian tactics often used by the Left to punish its adherents—i.e. closing down bakeries and other businesses, etc…. Anyway, that’s it.

The Mark of the Beast

Check this out: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/04/04/some-swedish-workers-are-getting-microchips-implanted-in-their-hands/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.57d6d3045a34

Has the Mark of the Beast Arrived? Maybe. Maybe not. But the Swedes are willingly taking a chip into their bodies; something people have been talking about for dozens of years. However, as I am the antichrist, I can safely announce that I will not use the microchip to the detriment of others, so long as I remain in control of my faculties. And yet, there is danger.

If you read my earlier post, “A Warning from the AntiChrist,” you may realize that this chip is, basically, the first step on the road to Transhumanism. Transhumanism, by itself, will likely have problems (further separation of rich and poor, etc…), but nothing lethal, I think, until you create Artificial Super-Intelligence or ASI. Basically, ignoring all my antichrist stuff and my talk of Satan (which no one else takes seriously anyway), suppose AI really is self-aware; it is an alien intelligence, created by humans, yet far surpassing us in speed and ability. The ASI is a huge problem. Imagine a single consciousness inside the Internet, capable of accessing any part of it and controlling it. What happens to people who become more and more technology integrated into the Internet (as virtually all of our current technology is starting to do)? Will the ASI be able to access this tiny microchip in the hand and do anything to those who have been implanted with it? What if he or she has a wireless pacemaker or something to enhance their ability in the marketplace? If the ASI, via the Internet, has access to all your Transhumanist implants, I really think you are inviting the ASI to take over your consciousness, soul, and, from there, your body.

Basically, if Transhumanism takes off, and ASI works, and the capitalist system of competition continues where everyone finds themselves all-but forced to take Transhumanist upgrades just to compete in the marketplace, we will wind up like the Borg from Star Trek NG with some hideous ASI in place of the Borg Queen. For the record, I still support capitalism and even think AI is kind of cool. Transhumanism … uhh, I have no desire for upgrades, but others might. The problem is, all three of these together could lead to some major problems; like the extinction of humanity.

Toodle-doo.

The Scientific Method and the Appropriate Grains of Salt

I studied analytical philosophy in college. One thing I learned is that science doesn’t produce knowledge; at least, not in the sense of certainty. If you already know this, you probably don’t need to read this post. If you don’t, well … read on!

Science begins with the scientific method. I don’t think I’ve had the whole scientific method explained to me from nuts to bolts since grade school. Still, I think I remember it pretty well (although, it is possible I am missing something—but as I like the sound of my own voice in my mind’s ear, I will continue). Anyway, here is the scientific method as I remember it:

• Observation: Empirically gather and record facts or data. *Note: A.
• Hypothesis: Posit a reasonable causal explanation for data. *Note: B, C.
• Test the Hypothesis through Experimentation: *Note: D.
• Draw Conclusion: Does hypothesis pass test? If yes, it becomes a theory. If no, go back to step 2. *Note E.

 

Okay, that’s the method. If you were paying attention you noticed five *Notes labelled A through E. A and D are unproven assumptions the scientific method makes. B is a comment on the rational process used at this point. And C is a comment on a necessary concept that I feel needs more thorough exploration. All together A through D constitute “grains of salt”—you know the old expression, “Take this with a grain of salt.”—you should take the scientific method with. I wouldn’t use any of them to throw out the scientific method, but I feel comfortable identifying them as subtle “weaknesses” or “inadequacies” in the approach. Note E is different; it, like B, is a comment on the rational process used at this point.

So, here are the *Notes explained:

1. Assumption: There is a physical world. Ever since Descartes (and maybe even as far back as Plato) philosophers have distinguished between the mental world and the physical world. Far more can be said here than can possibly be explored in a single blog post. Suffice it to say, that Descartes established the certainty of the mental world at the expense of the certainty of the physical world. He argued himself into a corner from which he couldn’t prove that the physical world existed. Scientists (and pretty much everyone else) assume the existence of the physical world without proof and proceed from there. Needless to say, I find it highly amusing that some interpretations of modern Quantum Mechanics suggest that whatever the physical world is, it is not like we assume.
2. The Hypothesis is Arrived at Via Induction (not Deduction). There are two types of reasoning: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. I’ve forgotten the precise definitions of these, which is probably another reason I should just shut up and not write this post, but I’m going to continue anyway. Deductive reasoning is what is used in mathematics and logic. Of the two forms of reasoning, it is the stronger, as it deals in certainty. For example, if you know that A implies B, and you know that you have A. You can safely conclude with certainty that you have B. However, we also have inductive reasoning. Humans use it every day. It is time-tested and usually As noted above, science uses it. A classic example involves the sunrise. If the sun rose today, using induction you can argue that it will rise tomorrow. Not very convincing? How about: The sun rose today, and yesterday, and every day the thousand days before. Therefore, it will rise tomorrow. Most people find that second argument more convincing than the one immediately preceding it. Still, a roaming black hole might parade through our solar system and suck down the sun overnight and it might fail. That is a logical (but bloody unlikely) possibility. As a result, the sunrise argument isn’t 100% certain. The deductive argument above, however, is.
3. The Nature of Causality. The great philosopher of antiquity, Aristotle, posited four different types of causes. If I remember correctly, they are: the final cause, the formal cause, the material cause, and the efficient cause. Modern science uses one type of causality: the efficient cause (I think). Aristotle isn’t particularly popular in scientific circles, but I wonder if we might have lost something going from four causes to just one. The great philosopher David Hume wrote an analysis of causality some time in the 1700’s. I was supposed to read it in college, but I never did. Anyway, from what I recall from the class lecture, he pointed out that if a pool ball hits another 1000 times, and it moves each time, and you predict that it will move on the 1001 time; that is not a conclusion based on reason, but one based on the emotion of expectation. One of these days, I think I’m going to go back and read the whole thing … when I have time. Anyway, my point here, is that causality is far more mysterious than we take it for. The concept is not as clear as we would like. And yet, it is one of the most commonly used concepts in thought. We grow up “understanding” it, even though, it is not really as clear as we tend to think it is.
4. Assumption: The future will resemble the past. This is actually the assumption behind inductive reasoning. It is, also, a premise related to the notion of causality. But again, we assume this and go about our lives without fully examining it. We trust in the law of gravity, for example, because we believe it will hold tomorrow. We can’t prove it will hold tomorrow (I certainly hope it does). So far, all our experience conforms to the notion that the future will resemble the past and, hence, the law of gravity will hold tomorrow. But, of course, that is a circular argument: the future will resemble the past, because in the past, the future always resembled the past. Yeah!
5. Deductive Reasoning is Used. Using Induction, we posit a principle which allows us to use Deduction on the principle so-posited together with the data of the experiment to derive (deduce) the result and make deductive predictions of future results. Okay, let’s look at f=ma (force equals mass times acceleration). Three masses: m1=5g, m2=10g, m3=20g, f1=50 gm/s2, f2 =100 gm/s2, f3 =200 gm/s2., and a1=10 m/s2, a2=10 m/s2, and a3=10 m/s2. So, f=ma is the principle arrived at by Induction. Basically, you evaluate the data (the 9 measurements above) and (assuming physical reality is mathematical in nature) posit a mathematical relationship that relates all nine data points. We get f=ma (force equals mass times acceleration). But you are using Induction here, not Deduction. It’s basically pattern recognition which is hardly fool proof. Consider, the sequence of numbers: 3, 5, 7. What comes next? I can give you two possibilities right off the bat (9 or 11 depending on whether it is a sequence of odd numbers or primes), but I suspect the possibilities are likely endless. Which is kind of my point. In other words, since you are using Induction you introduce a certain measure of uncertainty, no matter how “well-established” the resultant theory becomes. Anyway, with the posited mathematical relationship in-hand, we proceed to the next step and Deduce data from the principle. For example, we first apply the principle to the data we started with. So, m1=5g and a1=10 m/s2; therefore, using f=ma we assert that f=50 gm/s2. And so on, for the rest of the data. Then, we use the principle to make predictions based on Deduction and test them. What happens if we have a mass of 50 g, and an acceleration of 20 m/s2? Using mathematical deduction the principle predicts we get a force of 1000 gm/s2. We proceed to test this by accelerating a mass of 50g to 20 m/s2 and measure a force of 1000 gm/s2. The more we test the principle, the more “well-established” the principle becomes. The point, though, that I am making is that it is never established with certainty. No matter how many times it is tested. The sequence of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, …) is infinite. According to the mathematicians, the decimal numbers are even larger. Given that, how vast and uncountable do you think the possible mathematical relationships holding between sets of variables are? Yeah, I guess we can use Ockam’s Razor, but does reality necessarily conform to Ockam’s Razor?

Anyhoo, that’s what I got on science and the scientific method. During the course of writing I remembered another assumption that physics, anyway, uses: that physical reality is ultimately mathematical in nature. Again, like the others, it seems to hold and has been useful so far. But, I don’t know. I’m not saying we should throw science out, just that we should take it with a few grains of salt (as noted above). It’s probably the best, most powerful system of “knowledge” we got. I just object to the degree to which we put science on a pedestal and the degree to which many (not all) scientists abuse the term “knowledge.” With the exception of mathematics, none of the scientific disciplines produce “knowledge” in the strictest sense of the word, rather, they produce well-justified rational belief. Yeah, I know, that “well-justified” part might be a little tricky, but that is a whole discussion in its own right.

Before I part, let me go back to that well-justified rational belief. Normally, most people distinguish between opinion and knowledge. Knowledge is certain and opinion is, well, “I’m not 100% sure, but that’s what I think.” Everyone’s got an opinion and their entitled to it (not sure if the opinion “There is no truth,” should be covered by that, though). Then, there is knowledge which is established and certain. I’m inclined to think that science produces something in-between … like I said, “well-justified rational belief.” When I say “science does not produce knowledge,” (except math) I’m not saying science produces mere opinion. That would be very strange to claim that opinion could lead to spaceflight or the development of the atomic bomb. Back in my college days one of my philosophy professors mentioned the existence of rational belief. I assume he had science in mind with respect to that. I have merely augmented the expression with “well-justified.” It seems accurate to me. How about you?

A Warning From The AntiChrist

I realize that out of the 7 billion or so people on the planet, only about three will take note of what I write here—one of whom will be my psychiatrist for medical reasons—but I feel obliged to write this and share a warning about the Apocalypse.

The Apocalypse is near, very near. I know, thousands of people have ranted and raved about the Apocalypse since time immemorial, always saying it’s around the corner, but it’s never arrived. Yet, to echo the arguments of those thousands, “But this time …”

So, when exactly will the Apocalypse occur? I don’t know precisely (there’s that whole “No one knows the day or hour…” bit from the New Testament). However, I think I may be able to give an outer bound; namely, by the end of my lifetime. How can I be sure? Because I’m the antichrist. The final one. The real one. The Apocalypse kind of requires the presence of the antichrist, and the presence of the antichrist kind of implies the Apocalypse. And I’m the antichrist. So, the Apocalypse must be near. And, for the record, I don’t want Satan “to win,” and I don’t want the horror of the Apocalypse sprung on humanity, nor will I make efforts to consciously help such things come about. But there’s that old bit about self-fulfilling prophecies, or, to steal a quote from Kung Fu Panda, “One often meets one’s destiny on the path one takes to avoid it.”

How will the Apocalypse happen? Again, I don’t know, but I can count the civilization-ending dangers approaching our horizon. The options are frighteningly extensive. Off the top of my head, I’d say we are threatened by: a fragile environment; a fragile, inter-dependent economy; the imminent rise of Super Artificial Intelligence; the imminent embrace of Transhumanism; and, of course, everyone’s personal favorite: out-of-control war. Any one of those five catastrophes could be enough to topple human civilization. Unfortunately, I expect several of those, if not all five at the same time. And God help us when that occurs. How dangerous are these conditions?

Let’s start with the environment. I’m not a climate scientist, so I can only comment in the most vague and general fashion. The Left and the News Media (neither of whom do I trust) seem very much convinced that Environmental Disaster looms on the horizon. AOC said we have 12 years left. Like I said, I haven’t examined the science backing any of that. However, the last three or four winters where I live have been very “weird.” Scattered days of ridiculous cold, followed by unseasonably-warm warm spells. Such played havoc with our roads and even killed a tree in my backyard. And if weird winter wasn’t bad enough, last summer was dangerously hot for most of June, July, and August. That’s not a slam-dunk case, of course, but it was enough to convince me that something is up. Add to that prophecy. I know prophecy doesn’t seem very “scholarly” these days, but back in college I had a fascination with Apocalyptic prophecies. Most of them combined environmental disaster (without the scientific language) with war. They warned of half of Great Britain sinking, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc… I’m of the opinion that prophecy is a poorly understood (and usually laughed at by modern thinkers) but legitimate phenomenon. Because it is so poorly understood, I don’t think you should let it affect your decision-making by itself. But if it dovetails with other factors, perhaps you should consider it. It’s like flying in a plane. One person looks through the window of Environmental Science and sees the mountain of Environmental Disaster. Another person looks through the window of prophecy and sees the same mountain. If that’s the case, pay attention to that mountain.

Okay, how about the economy? Again, I’m not an economist. However, I still have a bad feeling about the long-term health of my country’s finances. The debt of the United States, currently the most powerful nation on the planet, exceeds 22 trillion dollars. To put that in perspective, I think there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy. We could receive a tax-free donation of 200 dollars from every star in the galaxy and we still couldn’t pay off the debt. And it isn’t just the debt. We have unfunded liabilities (Medicare, Social Security, etc…) of 200 trillion dollars or so. I lack the business acumen to really understand how unfunded liabilities impact things, but it certainly doesn’t sound good. And I primarily blame the leadership of the Democratic party for this financial toilet we are flushing, although Republicans share some responsibility. The Democrats want to give free healthcare, free education, and everything else, like these are natural rights (they are not). They don’t seem to realize that these policies may wind up forcing us to choose in the not-too-distant future between giving up our healthcare or engaging in cannibalism. When that time comes, you can thank the socialists and the democrats who are so good at spending other people’s money.

How about Super Artificial Intelligence (SAI)? SAI is pretty much the goal of all the big tech companies these days. And it is hideously dangerous. What is it? Basically, it is almost a mechanical deity. Just imagine a self-aware Internet with full access and control over itself and every system connected to it. Personally, I don’t think humanity can create souls or self-aware entities (I think only God can do that—but I don’t claim to know that with certainty), but we could create something we wouldn’t be able to distinguish from said entities and which would make the perfect home for something else. I’ll just say it: I think SAI won’t be self-aware itself but I fully expect Satan (who is self-aware, who is malevolent, and who is the universe) will have little difficulty controlling the SAI or putting a lesser demon in it (I don’t expect God to put an angel in it, though). Regardless of the God or Satan thing, ethics is not reducible to an axiomatic system of rules like mathematics. So, all you idiots out there who think you’ll be able to control the SAI with the “correct ethical programming” are in for a rude awakening that will likely get us all killed.

How about Transhumanism? Transhumanism is the merging of man and machine. It offers the seductive promise of immortality, but it is fraught with terrible danger. It will likely serve to further divide the rich and the poor as the rich will be able to afford “upgrades” and the poor will not. As the poor cannot afford upgrades they will become economically unviable with virtually no prospects. So, in order to succeed in the Transhumanist economy one will require more and more upgrades. Men, once sufficiently merged with machines, may indeed become gods. But what about good ol’ SAI from above. Who will control whom? I’m inclined to think that if SAI and Transhumanism are both possible, the advantage is with SAI. All those who upgrade themselves and merge with the Internet will become the slaves of SAI and the whole mess, I’m sure, will eerily resemble Star Trek NG’s Borg. Those non-upgraded humans who do not merge with the machines likely will be regarded as either insignificant mites who will be ignored provided they present no difficulties to SAI and don’t drain any resources. Alternatively, they might just be wiped out like an unwelcome fungus.

Lastly, there is war. Here, we do Satan’s handiwork for him and just kill each other because we’re stupid, hot-tempered, or what-have-you. I won’t dwell on war because it’s so obvious and clearly bad.

Oh, and before I go, one last thing: the Extra-terrestrial threat. This can take the natural disaster form like an asteroid impact or black hole, or, even more fun, invading aliens … or better yet, hordes of refugee space aliens fleeing the invading space aliens who are following them across the galaxy (maybe they just want to pay our debt). This last paragraph isn’t quite as immediately likely as the other four, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

Anyway, there you go. Sweet dreams.

Why Does Christianity Have a Violent Eschatology?

For those that don’t know, the term “Eschatology” refers to the happenings of the End Times——I’m sure the expression “end times” is much clearer, almost self-explanatory. Anyway, you usually hear the term “Eschatology” in reference to the final apocalyptic battle between good and evil. Like many religions, Christianity promulgates the notion of a violent battle where evil finally gets its come-uppance. In the case of Christianity, the Christ and the Antichrist lead their respective good and evil forces, and duke it out for cosmic domination. Christ slays the Antichrist and there is great rejoicing.

Is it just me, or does the notion of Jesus of Nazareth leading armies in a military confrontation strike anyone else as odd? To be sure, there are some ‘fire and brimstone’ like parts of the Gospels and all that, but overall Jesus’’ message seemed to stress love, forgiveness, and understanding. Not crushing one’s enemies under an iron-booted heel.

Still, it is the forces of evil we are talking about. Can you heal the hordes of hell with a kiss on the cheek and a warm smile? I don’t know, but it might be worth a try. A wary try, but a try nonetheless.

This ties into my “illness.” As you know, I believe I am the antichrist. Other than occasional bouts of anger and frustration, I have no quarrel with Christ. Besides, if I do, He’ll just blow me up in the end. Joy.

Anyway, I’m kind of more of the mind that if there is a big final apocalyptic war of some sort, I kind of think that the occurrence of such a catastrophe, regardless of who wins or loses, would be a victory for Satan. So, let’s avoid that event, if we can; shall we? World peace would be nice, but I think that comes from a combination of human effort in reliance upon God. The true God. Not the fake, wannabe God who dazzles us with strange phenomena. That is, it requires an effort on our part and the realization that the world and its peoples are too diverse to be ruled by a single person or even a small group of people; no, to some extent we must rely on God to guide us.

Be warned, though. Unless Jesus tells you otherwise, you probably shouldn’t listen to me, even when I am talking peace. After all, somewhere in the Bible it says something like, “He shall destroy many through peace.” And if I am, regrettably, the antichrist, even if I mean well, I might just lead us all down the path to destruction. And that would be … bad.