Satan and Me, the AntiChrist

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

I’m not sure I was ever clear about this, so I figured I would just come out and say it. For the record. I may be the antichrist, but I am NOT on Satan’s side. I know what most of the prophecies say, but I’m trying to avoid the bringer of persecution and death stuff. Why? I have free will, and I don’t want to go along with what Satan wants. Regardless, since no one seems to believe me, I’m kind of waging a one-man war on Satan and his plans. I kind of view myself as the whistleblower on Satan and his plan. What is his plan? I think he wants to use the human race as pawns to get God to give him the power of true creation and true destruction. If he can do that, he will murder God and basically assume unchallengeable, indisputable control over everything forever and ever. That must NOT happen. How does he want to use the human race? He wants to get us to destroy ourselves … basically, World War III. I think. There was at least one other option for him involving the sudden shattering of the Gates of Hell, which I think I avoided at least for now. That’s two options he’s got. I don’t know how many back up plans he’s got, because, well, I’m human and he’s the universe. I think he’s got a distinct advantage.

Yeah, I know, you don’t believe I’m the antichrist. What do we know about the antichrist? He will step into hell and bow down and kiss Satan’s feet. Have I ever done that? Well, as a matter of fact, yes, I have. One terrible day in March 1997, I tried to annihilate my soul (that’s a long story I won’t share lest someone else tries to do something so foolish). What can annihilate a soul? I believe the fires of Gehenna would be up to the task, if God had made them. As it is, I think Satan, playing God, made Gehenna … but I’m getting sidetracked. Just, for now, note that hellfire is the manner by which a soul may be destroyed (annihilated from existence). So, hell is the path out of existence. So, I tried to annihilate my soul, and as a result, I felt the fires of hell in my chest. I couldn’t handle it, so I prayed to the “Being of Light” to save me. The “Being of Light” being the light people encounter when they have a NDE (near death experience), because I had one of those many years before. Anyway, I wasn’t instantly healed by the “Being of Light”; as a matter of fact, it did very little, but I did kind of crawl away and slowly fight back to pseudo health over the following 24 years. But I’m getting sidetracked again. Have you ever heard the expression “The Devil can lie and tell the truth at the same time”? Okay, now consider “The Being of Light” as the truth, and the fires of hell as the lie. From my experience, both experiences are incredibly, indescribably intense and diametrically opposed. One is the fulfillment of the deepest needs of your soul; the other is a terrible scouring away of your personality and soul. Lies and truth. Now, what did I do when I experienced the Lie? I “prayed” to the truth. Or what I thought was the truth. But which I later realized was a nearly indistinguishable facsimile of the truth. I came to the realization that the hellfire and the Being of Light were two sides of the same coin. Lies and Truth. Satan. The “Being of Light” is Satan telling the truth. The fires of hell are Satan telling the lie. I experienced the lie and prayed to the truth for deliverance. In other words, I bowed down and kissed the feet of the “Being of Light.” I kissed Satan’s feet unwittingly by unwittingly praying to him.

Yes, I really am the antichrist.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Truth and Freedom of Speech

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

I think I’ve come to a determination about truth and freedom of speech. Basically, at one point, I was convinced that the government should mandate a belief in truth … or at least I considered advocating for that position. Essentially, the existence of truth is not debatable even in the bounds of Freedom of Speech. But that is likely a mistake. Even though you can’t have freedom of speech if it is not TRUE that you have freedom speech, if you want to argue against the existence of truth, as so many people seem willing to do, you have the right to do so. I think you are an idiot. As irrefutable as an Aristotelian cabbage. And there’s a good chance you are just trying to escape some moral condemnation for having done something you think was wrong. But you have the right to do so. Even if denying the existence of truth may ultimately turn around and destroy those rights you take for granted, you are within your rights to deny the existence of truth. It is true. I don’t think you can really build a government without truth, but you can deny its existence all you want.

Coercing people to believe in truth is wrong.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

I, Coward

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

I feel I have something else to share about myself again.

Basically, I believe I am a coward. I have difficulty expressing my thoughts and opinions to people who might disagree. Particularly, those close to me. It’s my mistake. I’ve spent so long trying to “not rock the boat,” I don’t know how to rock it even when I want to. I can express things with the written word, but that’s not the same thing. That’s easy. It inherently has a certain degree of impersonal distance. Enough that I can comfortably express myself. Likewise, if someone else brings the topic up, I can engage, provided voices are not raised. But if voices raise in anger, I wilt like a flower. I’m just a big coward incapable of standing up for my own convictions. I have to change this somehow, but I don’t know how.         

I guess the problem is that I worry too much about what other people think of me. I am convinced that if someone close to me raises their voice in anger at me it means they hate me or they will never forgive me, or just think I’m a jerk. And I guess I have no self-esteem because when such things happen, I think I must be a jerk. I just wrote those last four lines. They must be true, but somehow they also seem “off”. I think the problem is that the will to speak up operates like a muscle. If you don’t use it, it will atrophy. And mine has nearly atrophied out of existence. I can’t really accuse myself of having no self-esteem as I am the antichrist. That means the only being in existence who is more arrogant than I am is Satan himself. But at some level those lines must seem true to me. At least, at certain times. So, I oscillate between too much self esteem to far too little.

I don’t know what else I should say.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Don’t Persecute Christians or Conservatives On My Account

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Ok. This is an odd post; it’s a message to the Left in the U.S. During my antichrist episodes, puffed up on my own ego, there were a number of times when I said in my thoughts, addressing “philosophers” who I had the audacity to think I could command—telepathically—“Take them!” “Them” being, generally, the religious and more specifically Christians. Given that, I think I should clarify. The only point I wanted to drive home with my “psychic command” was that Plato/Socrates had a point in their dispute with the religion of their day. Namely, the individual has the right to question religious authorities, whoever they may be, without being forced to drink hemlock. Socrates was in the right; the religious authorities of his time were wrong. That was the only point I wanted to make. As evidence to support such, I put forth the rise of rational intellectual disciplines over the past 2000 years and the general realization that none of the religions on the planet are “obviously” correct. They might be correct, but not in an obvious way. Hence, we have the right to question our authorities be they religious, governmental, or even scientific.

On the absurdly ridiculous chance that someone on the Left actually heard my “telepathic command” and thinking, somehow, that I was “Maitreya” or some other cosmic figure (like the antichrist—which I just happen to be) cheering them on to slaughter Christians and conservatives and grind them under their boot anyway they can, I want to say: The point I was trying to make was entirely intellectual; there were no intended pragmatic consequences. No boycotts. No cancel culture. No iron boot on the throat of Christians and conservatives. Particularly since I am a Christian and a conservative myself. So, if you are on the Left and you are convinced that you received a telepathic command from Maitreya to “crush” the Right, I rescind the command. Or perhaps the suggestion. Let’s not start a Civil War. Okay?

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Gathering Evidence for Satan

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

I know. Nobody else believes in Satan. But I do. And I want to expose him to everyone else. First, what is Satan? According to me, Satan is the universe. That is, the universe is sentient and totally evil. It’s a liar and deceiver. But what does that mean? And how do you prove it?

Smartphones, Relativism, and The Problem of Perception

I remember when I was a young child discussing strange philosophical topics with my siblings—at a level only children could understand. One such question we pondered was the age-old query: How do I know the red I see is the same color as the red you see? Basically, it’s the Problem of Perception from the perspective of a ten-year-old. So, is the red I see the same color as the red you see? And who cares?

Well, I care.

A year or two ago, there were some graphics circulating the web that appeared to be different colors to different people. Some people would look at a pic on the web and see a gold color, others would see a purple color. Same pic. Same screen. And yet the color appeared differently to different people. This was driven home to me quite distinctly when a health aide taking care of my father showed me a pic on her phone and asked what color it was. I said, “Grey.” She said, “No way! It’s white.” Or the colors may have been reversed. Anyway, the point is that we now have evidence supporting the answer to my childhood question that, indeed, it may be possible that the red I see may not be the red you see. Indeed, they may be totally different colors. A careful analysis of this phenomenon will show that it can be used to undermine the scientific method (via the Problem of Perception), but that is a discussion for another day.

Perception, Relativism, and Satan

Anyway, what is color? Twenty-three hundred years ago, ancient philosophers described color as an objective property that, as Aristotle put it, adhered in the substance of a thing. Color was one of many properties. Nowadays, physicists have analyzed the poop out of light and its behavior. Color is now, usually, regarded as a property of the light reflected from an object, not the property of the object itself. The smartphone pic example, however, would imply that it’s actually a mental property arising from the interplay of the brain and light … I think. That would be my guess, anyway. Okay, so color is no longer dependent upon the object. What about other properties? Can we be sure they are dependent upon the object? What about shape? Actually, from physics, shape, or at least, length is dependent upon velocity. At speeds approaching the speed of light, there is a phenomenon called length-contraction. Does that relate to this question? At the moment, I don’t know: this is stream-of-consciousness philosophy, after all. And I only took two semesters of physics anyway. Okay, maybe I should get to the point.

If color is subjective, which it appears to be, courtesy of the smartphone example, other properties that we normally assume are objective (like shape) might also be, in reality, subjective. How about number? Can I look at collection of objects and perceive only two and you look at the same collection and perceive three—disregarding perspectival differences (that is, if one of your perceived objects is, from my perspective, blocked by a tree so I don’t see it. I count only two objects, you count three–most normal people would think you would be correct. But that isn’t the situation I’m talking about). I mean, for me there are two objects; for you there are three objects. And we’re both right. Trying to imagine this should make your brain hurt. It does mine. But, courtesy of my antichrist issues, I think it is true. I believe the number of objects I see is determined by the whimsy of Satan (the universe) who easily has sufficient power to present to my puny mind two objects and your puny mind three objects—at the same time. Basically, I espouse a kind of physical (or would it be metaphysical?—I don’t know) relativism. Because the universe is lying to us with the evidence of our senses. It gets worse and more confusing. I think, courtesy of my “The universe is Satan” premise, that it is entirely possible that 1500 years ago a couple Viking ships sailed off the edge of the Earth to their demise. And Magellan only made it around the Earth because Satan permitted it as it served his purposes to instill in us the belief that Earth was a giant sphere.

Facts and Evidence and Fanciful Speculation

At this point, all this is speculation. Science is the dominant worldview of the 21^st century. So, I need some evidence. What evidence do I have to support this? Well, I got the smartphone example. At the moment, that’s about it. And I readily admit, that is insufficient. Although it is consistent with my theory that the universe is Satan, it’s likely consistent with a lot of other theories having nothing to do with Satan. Okay, I also have all my ramblings about the yin and yang being the symbol of the unification of lies and truth as the (split) logos of the universe (The Devil can lie and tell the truth at the same time), but that isn’t really measurable … it’s more of an unhappy coincidence. For more on that, read my book, “Delusions of Grandeur” (shameless plug, I know). Okay, how about predictions?

The facts for me are not the same as the facts for you. That’s one of my predictions. For example, I don’t know how Florida is dealing with Covid. One source says they’re doing great. The other says they’re doing awful. If there is an objective reality to such, at least one of my sources must be wrong. I’m of the mind, though, that they are both correct in a relativistic fashion as described above. For Glenn Beck, Florida is doing great. For Rachel Maddow, it’s a disaster.

So, if we want to be scientific about this … how do you test the theory? The theory being that the universe is sentient, evil, and based on a contradiction (Love and wrath being the contradiction in question). Since it is evil, it wants to destroy us. It can influence us, but it can’t control us fully. It can, however, use its “relativism abilities” to pit us against each other. Glenn Beck reports that Florida is doing great. Rachel Maddow reports that Florida is a disaster. Each regards the other as a despicable liar as a result. And they are driven apart. Just like the rest of our country, if not the planet. So, how do we proceed? My guess is: look for “contradictions.” Contradictions that, if explained relativistically (in terms of relativism NOT general/special relativity) cease to become contradictions. That’s all I got at the moment. Wish I had more.

Yeah, I know. If you actually read this far, you probably think I’m insane.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Donald Trump and Satan

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

In prior posts on this blog, I have accused Donald Trump of being Satan. Well, to be more precise, I have accused him of being an avatar of Satan. A few months ago, I posted a piece where I admitted I didn’t have any evidence for such a thing, but I believed it to be true because he is/was the President of the United States and, as such, he was in a position of power and authority that would attract Satan. And, as we all know—or perhaps forgot—Satan can assume any form he likes. So, taking the form of a man who was President of the United States would be easy. Actually, I’m of the mind that he’s the sentient, evil force animating the universe, but I digress… Back to President Trump. When it seemed to me that the liberals were out to get Trump no matter the cost to the country, I started to wonder if, maybe I was wrong, but the liberals had ‘heard’ my accusation and took it seriously, and were out to destroy Trump. Basically, I started to wonder if I had accused an innocent man of being Satan and the liberals, believing, I was Maitreya, or someone like that (which I did claim at one point in a private conversation), were out to destroy Trump on my say so. The result was a political mess that threatens to destroy our Constitution and our country.

I do NOT recant the position that Trump is Satan. But I will say that I do NOT know with certainty that he is. It may be just that Satan flips in and out of people at will, speaking through their mouths to foment his own designs. Transient possessions like. Anyway, to put things in perspective, I have believed/accused a number of people of being Satan or being transiently possessed by Satan: President Trump, President Obama, my psychiatrist, two mentally ill people I’ve known, one of my best friends, my own father, and there may be others. Basically, when you believe Satan is the universe and there is very little he can’t do, you tend to get a little paranoid. Anyway, for what it is worth, to President Trump, if you are not Satan, I apologize for whatever role I played in your mistreatment. Because, if I am truly insane, the liberal media and the democrats have done our nation a grave disservice.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Internet Confessions and Satan

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

A number of times on this site I have confessed different personal failings. You may be wondering why I choose to tell the world about such things. I actually have several different purposes. One of them is to protect my voice from blackmail and shame. If I confess to having looked at pornography, I can’t be silenced by somebody saying, “Be silent, or we will reveal such to the public.” Go ahead. But there are other reasons as well. There is the whole cathartic/therapeutic nature of confession which I think I’ve explained elsewhere—of course, I will still bring my full list of sins with me into the Confessional, but I’m getting sidetracked. Next, there is the whole Satan thing. Sin is the handmaiden of Satan. It is very powerful, seductive, and gradual in its application. Satan will get his nose under the tent and try to pull you into his embrace one tiny step at a time. A small sin will lead to another small sin and eventually they will grow into something truly hideous. I’m of the mind that confession, in general, weakens the grip of both Satan and sin upon your soul. Also, the more you do it, the easier it becomes. Confession is also necessary to heal your soul from sin. Anyway, to sum up, confession is a liberating act that Satan doesn’t want you to do. So, you should probably do it. Not necessarily on the Internet like loony people claiming to be the antichrist … maybe just start with a priest or do the Protestant thing and just do it amidst your prayers to God himself.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Escalations and Deescalations for Civil War

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Umm, after what happened last week, and from what I am hearing on the podcasts and such that I listen to get my news, discord and division are on the rise in this country (U.S.A.). For the record, I don’t support violence. If I had been alive in the time of the Founders, I’m not sure if I would have supported them … I tend to aim for absolutist pacificism. I’m not sure that’s correct. I’m still struggling with this issue. Anyway, in light of the “coup” I decided that it is necessary to delineate some (but probably not all) of the measures a citizen must take before resorting to violence against their own government.

First, exhaust all legal measures—This means “vote” (I actually didn’t this time around, COVID was partly to blame, although not entirely). This means also means letter campaigns. And peaceful protests. Lawsuits, even. And “The Convention of States.” And I’m sure there is more.

After a certain point, though, when it becomes evident that legal measures are not working, the next is illegal measures like civil disobedience (key word being “civil”). These, as they are illegal, although perhaps necessary, come with consequences that should be seriously considered before they are implemented:

Boycott of Government Institutions—You could organize a “drive without your license plates day” or similar such things. If you do this by yourself, you’ll likely be arrested. That’s the consequence. Be ready to accept it.

Establish Sanctuary City/State/etc…–again, this is illegal. It requires the go ahead from the entire community.

Hunger Strike—You could die. But this is peaceful, if extreme.

Protest and Block Roads—This usually just ticks people off.

Protest and Sit-in at a Government Building—This just happened and it led to violence and

five deaths. Not good.

Spray Graffiti—It makes a mess. It may make a point. But if done alone, you’ll get arrested.

Hack government computers—This requires computer skill, but it could cause chaos in the government which could lead to weakness abroad and at home. That may be very dangerous.

Withhold Taxes-economic collapse is possible if enough people do this. Everybody starves.

Secession—Last time this led to Civil War.

Take up arms—You’ll either be slaughtered, or there will be Civil War.

It is important to note, that all the above are escalations. They will likely be met with escalations on the other side. The logical end of such, unless somebody offers an effective olive branch, is Civil War. I’d kind of like to avoid the Civil War, or any sort of violence, actually, but I list all the escalations to point out that after all the legal options are exhausted, it is your duty to then exhaust the peaceful illegal/extreme options prior to taking up arms. As no one has organized a tax boycott, I take it as a given that neither armed protests nor Civil War are justified.

Anyway, in the hope that we can resolve this without killing each other, I brainstormed a list of De-escalations as well. But they are all cheesy.

De-escalations

Gifts of monetary donations to worthwhile causes supported by opposite party (I won’t be giving to Planned Parenthood, though).

March together—Trump, Nancy, Chuck, and Mitch lead a march for peace in D.C.

Praise other side’s goals—I still maintain that Democrats and Republicans agree a lot on ends, they differ largely on means.

Gift to the enemy day—belated Christmas gifts. Nancy could give Mitch a nice tie, etc…

Tweets of kindness—Liberal patriots, Conservative trendsetters, you get the idea …

Yeah, I know I’m stretching it. Like I said, they are all cheesy, but I don’t know what else to suggest. I could offer insights on how Satan may be influencing this, but I suspect no one will listen to me if I do. So, I don’t think I’m going to do that.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Lust and Morality

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Lust. That horrible evil sin so repugnant to the Catholic Church. What is there to say about it? Once upon a time, I had a friend who, trying to encourage me with my fumbling initial attempts to approach women, said, “Lust is good!” Was he right? He was right about other things, but I think he was wrong there. All adults know what lust is. Without it, procreation might be a little more difficult to initiate. Anyway, there is a moral aspect to lust, in my view. I do not think it is the sin to end all sin. But I do think it is important to recognize that lust tends to pervert one’s view of another human being to be something as simply an object and not someone to relate to.

I think it worthwhile to talk about lust because of a phenomenon I call “reverse relativism.” Yeah, that makes no sense. It’s basically this: if you talk about something (like lust), those who hear your words may identify with what you say and draw strength from your weakness (and strength in confessing your weakness) in a manner sufficient to help them with their own struggles with the same something. For example, once upon a time, as a teenager struggling with lust, I read St. Augustine’s “Confessions” and learned about that great saint’s own struggles and even escapades with lust. I drew some comfort from that, because I realized I was not alone with my struggles, that even SAINT Augustine struggled with it.

However, I think it worth noting that “Reverse Relativism” can work in two directions. You can confess a sin and, instead of helping lift someone higher when they hear your confession it can, perhaps, encourage that person to “wallow in the mire,” so to speak. I’ll just leave that there for now. I will discuss reverse relativism in a later post.

Anyway, I think it worthwhile to rank and discuss the sins of lust.

Lustful Thoughts

I have had plenty of lustful thoughts. So I am guilty of this sin. “If a man looks at a woman with lust in his eye, he has already committed adultery with her in his thoughts.” (Matthew 5:28) Why did Jesus say this? Was it to emphasize that no one could be that good and live up to the standard he is advocating for? Or is the standard fine as something to shoot for, but you must realize it convicts all of us of at least this sin. So the saying “All men are sinners” is true and this standard can be used to demonstrate that.

Masturbation

Done this, too (You probably didn’t want to know that. Of course, I am a guy so you probably could have just assumed.). Masturbation, I think, is one step worse than mere lustful thoughts. I don’t think it is a huge deal, but it is certainly gross to contemplate and probably shouldn’t be discussed in normal conversations outside the bounds of a Confessional (or a therapist, maybe) unless there is some overriding reason (a massive guilt complex or what-have-you). Should it be encouraged as I have read from some secular sources? I’m inclined to say no. Perhaps it can help improve one’s performance in bed but I still think it is a surrender to lust that is better off avoided.

Pornography

Done this, too (Again, you probably didn’t want to know that either. But again, I am a guy. And a crazy one to boot). Pornography is the next step up in severity. With the advent of the Internet it is readily available. And it can easily become addictive. Again, one of the worst aspects of this sin of lust, I think, is the objectification of the people viewed.

Fornication

Never done this. Perhaps that makes me inexperienced, but, oh well. It really wasn’t by choice. I’m just terrible with women. There were a number of years when I would have done this, but just never got the chance to because, like I said, I’m terrible with women. Nowadays, well, I have severe antichrist issues among other things, but you never know. Regardless, I would say this is a step worse than pornography. Hmmm … actually this may be a bit more nuanced. In particular, if two unmarried people are in love and have sex—I don’t think that’s much of a severe sin and pornography may be worse than that in comparison. I don’t know. Sexual hedonism, though, when sex becomes a sport? That, I think, is morally worse than pornography. Oh, if you don’t know, fornication is an archaic word referring to two unmarried individuals having sex.

Prostitution

Never done this either (although a friend of mine and myself once talked about it many years ago, we never went through with it). Again, this is a step worse than fornication. By definition, it is the paying of one individual by another individual for sex.

Adultery

Never done this either. This is basically fornication where at least one individual involved is married to someone other than the other individual. As marriage is supposed to be sacred, I would rate this as something worse than prostitution.

Rape

Never done this, either. This is basically forcing sex acts upon another individual. At this point, you’ve reached a very hideous level of depravity. Rape is an act of lust and it is purely evil. They say that there are other psychological factors like domination or what-have-you involved, but I think the root is still based on raw lust. Then again, I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist or any -ist. In the United States this is a crime, as it should be.

What Should the Individual Do About It?

If you agree that lust is a negative instinct then, clearly, one should try to control it and resist it, or whatever. As the sexual instinct is second only to the survival instinct, you have your work cut out for you. I’m still trying to figure out how to handle my own lust. Religiously speaking, as a Catholic (sort of), my options include prayer, fasting, and Confession. Thanks to Covid, and an unfortunate scheduling issue that resulted, I haven’t been able to do much in the way of Confession since this past March. Anyway, I will persevere.

What Should Society Do About It?

I think the first thing we need to do is recognize that the sexual instinct is the second most powerful instinct in the human animal. As a result, I think we should put an asterisk next to every sexual scandal that occurs and even, to a certain extent, sexual crimes. Politicians are only human, after all, and I doubt many of us would pass the litmus test if we demand sexual purity from those who wish to serve. As for sexual crimes, they are still crimes and they should still be punished, but we have to find some way to take into account the relentless drive that can overwhelm all reason and decision-making ability. Also, it is important to realize children look up to adults. At the moment, it seems our society is either glorifying all forms of sexual behavior or just being nonchalant about them. At one point, the secular standard was consenting adults, but for the past thirty, forty years it seems to have started morphing into anything goes. First, consenting adults; then, teens will have sex anyway; then, threesomes are great; then, orgies are an option for “swingers.” (To be honest, there is a part of me that finds the notions of threesomes and orgies appealing, but that part, generally, doesn’t control how I behave and I know better). Now, there are even attempts being made to legitimize pedophilia.

Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that we, adults, have to take back society. I don’t know how. But I’m quite sure pedophilia should be illegal; and, at the very least, orgies and threesomes should be discouraged. Because children, to a certain extent, will follow the path of adults. Sexual hedonism is not a morally virtuous pursuit.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Truth, Knowledge, Relativism, and Morality

A philosophy professor could probably teach a full semester on the topics I’m going to touch on here. But I have a few points I want to make related to these topics so I’m going to blather a bit. First, what is truth?

Truth-I’m not trying to quote Pontius Pilate with that last question just ask a serious philosophical question. For myself, I’m a Correspondence Theory of Truth guy. Basically, The Correspondence Theory of Truth states that a proposition is true if and only if there is a correspondence between what the proposition states and the way things are. It seems pretty straightforward to me. There are other theories: The Coherence Theory of Truth, The Pragmatic Theory of Truth, etc…. I once had a discussion with a friend who seemed to think a “truth” was synonymous with a “religious belief.” And, therefore, that makes it relative. I mean, you could define it that way if you felt so inclined, but I just don’t feel that is the most accurate definition of the term.

Knowledge-Knowledge is another philosophical concept (like truth) that is very good at evading concise definition. Philosophers have been trying to define knowledge since the time of Plato, and maybe even longer. Plato wrote the “Theaetetus,” a discourse on the subject. After much back and forth he came up with something like “justified true belief”, if I recall. His weakness was justification. He left it an open question how much justification was sufficient to meet the criterion knowledge demands. I had a philosophy professor once, who said knowledge involved the “impossibility of error.” I agree with that last.

The Relationship Between Truth and Knowledge-Of the two concepts, truth is more fundamental. A proposition can be true, without being known, but a proposition cannot be known, unless it is first true. In fact, truth is one of the criterions of knowledge as a reference to Plato’s incomplete definition above shows. They are not identical concepts and they shouldn’t be confused.

Relativism of Truth-This is a false position, at least, in a universal sense. There are some truths that are NOT relative. And those truths that are relative (Christmas is sacred {to Christians}), I’m inclined to think are less important than those truths which are not.

Relativism of Knowledge-I’m inclined to think this might be what people should be advocating for as opposed to relativism of truth. I know certain things that you don’t, and you know certain things that I don’t (and each of our bodies of knowledge are probably roughly equal). A carpenter knows how to construct wooden objects of value, a bricklayer knows how to properly lay bricks. I know neither of those things. At first blush those might seem to be instances of relativism of truth, but they are not. They are instances of relativism of knowledge. If I were to learn to be a carpenter or a bricklayer, I would learn the same truths that expert craftsmen in each field already know.

Moral Relativism-I don’t support moral relativism either. Well, let me rephrase that, given the above. I don’t support relativism of moral truth. I do support relativism of moral knowledge. That is an important distinction for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it implies that my moral knowledge is incomplete (as, most likely, so is yours). And since it is moral knowledge, I have a vested interest in learning what I don’t know. Similarly, another implication is that the moral truths that make up our moral knowledge can be transferred from one of us to the other (which flies in the face of relativism of moral truth). Although, I suppose it may be possible that some moral truths are relative and can’t be shared, but on the whole, I suspect most are transferable and NOT relative.

Reverse Relativism-I don’t know what else to call it. Basically, the process of transferring moral knowledge from one person to the next takes place in a process I call “Reverse Relativism.” Basically, you are supposed to “flip into” my perspective, look through my eyes, and try to extract the moral knowledge I have to make use of yourself. And I am supposed to do likewise with your moral knowledge and perspective. This is done through calm, reasoned discussion. Yes, I just wrote eight paragraphs on that ethereal concept known as “talking.” Hey, I’m a philosopher (well, philosophy major-once)-what do you expect?

Oh, and lest you think I’m getting on my high horse morally speaking, I’m probably one of the worst sinners on the planet. Still, I think I’m good at analyzing stuff sometimes. That’s what I wanted to say today.