The Coming Food Crisis

Is Nourishment Necessary?

Don’t read this unless you are an adult.

I’ve pretty much been expecting a food crisis. So, I figured I’d dedicate a post on how to cope with it. I’ve been attempting to prepare for it an unusual manner.

By giving up food (and water, eventually).

Yeah, I know, the scientists will tell me it is impossible. In regards to that, I refer you to my previous epistemological discussions on the difference between well justified rational belief and knowledge. You can figure out the rest.

Satan, the Universe, and Hunger

Anyway, this is what I’m working with. Satan is the split logos of the Yin and Yang. He is in control of everything in this universe except Jesus of Nazareth and your free will, and hopefully, mine. Your hunger comes from Satan. Your thirst comes from Satan. He’s convinced us all that we must eat and drink to survive.

If you understand that, I think you have a chance of weaning yourself off food and drink entirely. I think that understanding is what allowed Jesus to go 40 days in a desert without food or drink (although I have heard from some sources that He ate bugs and honey – I can’t really know for sure unless I get a chance to ask him).

Anyway, obviously nobody believes this. However, there is on record at least one Saint in the Catholic Church who went without food (and maybe drink, too) with the exception of Communion for 17 years before her death. And I don’t think she was hanging out in her room eating hundreds of hosts and getting drunk off Sacramental wine every day.

She may have had communion every day, but that little bit of sustenance shouldn’t, according to science, be enough for her to last 17 years.

Of course, I could be totally wrong. The scientists could be right.

The Process of Giving Up Food

Realizing that, I have tried to give up food (starting on solid food seems more appropriate than water) in a rational way about twice now. I’ve failed both times.

Basically, I set a weight limit. For me, it’s 220 pounds. I try to eat less and less food in a gradual manner. If I go below that weight limit, though, I start eating normally again until I gain a few pounds back. I don’t want to become anorexic or develop other health issues.

I am concerned about my excretory system, though. What would happen to it if I went 6 months without pooping, then ate some food, and started pooping again? I don’t know.

Giving Up Food and the Assistance of the Supernatural

Anyway, I throw that out as a possible avenue for Christians to take. I recommend accompanying that with prayers directed to Jesus and the Transcendental Father. I don’t recommend it to non-Christians like new-Agers, Wiccans, Pagans, or what-have-you. Simply put, I don’t trust the things your prayers are targeted at. Nothing personal, I think most of you are reasonably decent people, but Wicca is a nature religion, New Agers are convinced the universe is everything, etc….

Even if this doesn’t work, it should at the very least prepare you for dealing with hunger and may reduce your food consumption so the amount you have will last longer.

Then, there is the love factor. If God is love and love is God, you might be able to nourish yourself on pure love and replace food with the energy of love. The greatest source of love you’ll probably have access to would likely be Jesus. And those around you, of course. That might be worth a shot, too.

However, to quote a book I have yet to write, “A host of special powers does not a deity make.” God is about love and open communication not miracles or rituals. Satan is all about special effects and miracles. Feeding on love may be your best bet as opposed to praying for miracles. Not sure.

Again, I want to point out, I am NOT omniscient. I could be totally wrong. If you try to give up food and water, however you do it, do so at your own risk.

New Age Stuff, Maitreya, the AntiChrist, and Pedestals

A Couple Strange Things

I’ve had a couple strange antichrist experiences that I feel I should share and warn about. Under the assumption that I am kind of the focus of strange stuff going on, I want to warn about putting me on a pedestal (yeah, I know that’s pretty arrogant. But hey, arrogance is one of the major flaws of the antichrist – guilty).

Regarding Omniscience

Anyway, when my father was in a nursing home, on one of my visits to him for a nursing home church service, my father was surprised to see me. He said, “How did you know?” And one of his CNA’s said, “Oh, he knows. He knows.” Another one chimed in, “He knows everything.”

This was a real experience I had. It may have been all in my head as the product of mental illness. It may have been a auditory hallucination created by Satan, or it may have been the voices of real sincere people. However, I feel obliged to point out that, I am NOT omniscient. The second CNA was just wrong. It was very flattering that someone might think that about me. But, no, I do NOT know everything.

I know (okay, the philosopher in me still has doubts) that God is a perfect Transcendal Deity. Satan is an evil pantheistic wanna-be deity. And Jesus of Nazareth decked him through the floor 2000 years ago, six ways to Sunday. I know a few other things, like talking (reverse relativism) and repentance are very important instruments on your path to Jesus and Heaven. Oh, and I want God and Jesus to win instead of Satan.

Regarding Dreams

Growing up, I, like everyone, had dreams. Maybe not every night, but often enough. The character of such dreams was such that the other people in the dreams were kind of strangely sluggish – I wouldn’t say zombified, but not totally present mentally/emotionally. Occasionally, I would have a lucid dream and, whereas I knew I was dreaming, the rest of the people still seemed a little off.

After my antichrist experience, the character of other people dreams changed. Most of the time, they seemed more there and aware. Kind of like I was intruding on their lucid dreams. Anyway, last night I had a dream like that. Most of the details of the dream aren’t particularly important.

However, at one point, I was with a couple people. A woman was nearby and said, “Do you realize you are talking to the Messiah?” Or something like that. I thought she was referring to Jesus, but I don’t remember seeing him around there. So, I realized she was talking about me and thought I was the Messiah and then I woke up.

To be perfectly clear, I am NOT the Messiah. Jesus Christ is the Messiah. NOT me. I’m just the antichrist. The woman in the dream may have been a New Ager expecting Maitreya and confusing him with the Messiah. Again, I’m only the antichrist. Jesus Christ was the one true Messiah.

He figured out Satan first. He refused to bow to Satan (I kissed his feet – of course, I didn’t realize he was Satan at the time I was kissing his feet). So, on the chance that the woman in dream was not a mere figment of my unconscious, but it was a kind of shared dream or astral projection thing with a New Ager, I want to emphatically state to her and everyone else, I am NOT the Messiah.

Basically, I want to warn against putting me on a pedestal (in the unlikely event that you actually think there is something unusual about me and I am not insane). I am a flawed individual. One of my flaws is my enormous arrogance. It would be very easy for me to lose control because of my arrogance and become the Antichrist (see elsewhere for discussion of Antichrist, antichrist, antiChrist, and AntiChrist).

Other people telling me that I am omniscient or the Messiah would likely pump my swollen head full of even more arrogance than is already there.

To Sum Up

I am the antichrist. I am NOT the Messiah. I am NOT omniscient. I have a whole host of horrible sins I have to wade through and deal with. I am arrogant, awash with lust, and a little whacked out. And I believe in truth.

Relativism, Truth, and Knowledge

Yeah, I Know … More Epistemology

Years ago, I had a college roommate who was a relativist and I was not. And we spent many long hours arguing back and forth. It took five years, but eventually, we kind of had a realization that he was arguing for relativism of knowledge not relativism of truth (actually, I pointed that out to him – and he agreed).

Anyway, let’s start there. What is the difference between relativism of truth and relativism of knowledge?

Relativism of Truth

I used to hear it all the time. “It’s all relative.” “Truth is relative.” Etc… The basic tenet of relativism of truth is that truth is dependent upon the believer. So, if you believe “Christmas is holy,” it is true that “Christmas is holy FOR YOU!” That is probably the strongest case for relativism of truth and it may actually be true for that particular truth.

But how about if you believe “2 + 2 = 45”. By the relativist account, it should be “2 + 2 = 45 FOR YOU.” Well, you can believe that all you want, but I don’t think actions based on that belief will work out. You won’t be able to buy a $45 bag of groceries by giving the cashier $2 followed by another $2. It’s (barring Satanic intervention) NOT GOING TO WORK!

And my personal favorite, I happen to believe “Mortals are NOT omniscient.” You may reply to me that “Mortals are NOT omniscient FOR YOU.” But that seems kind of ridiculous. Are going to propose that “Some mortals are omniscient FOR YOU?” Even Jesus said, “No one knows the day or hour but the Father, not even the Son.” I don’t know enough about Buddha or the others, but I’m confident none of them were omniscient either.

Relativism of Knowledge

Relativism of knowledge is a somewhat different animal than relativism of truth because truth is a somewhat different animal than knowledge. Truth is what makes knowledge knowledge. Knowledge is about truth. Truth stands alone.

The statement “100 x 100 = 10,000” is true whether or not there is a knower on the planet who knows such. If all the humans on the planet were wiped out and only animals remained, the truth of that statement would still remain. But no one would know it to be true.

Relativism of knowledge is just the point that knowledge consists of a body of information that is attached to a particular knower. And knowers are individuals NOT collectives. I suppose you could say that the human race collectively knows such and such, but that’s not true knowledge that’s recorded knowledge which is a subtle difference.

In any event, as my old college friend said, “If you are a bricklayer, you know about bricklaying. If you are a stonemason, you know about masonry. Etc…” Which encapsulates the notion of relativism of knowledge fairly well. I hope I explained that well enough.

Reverse Relativism

Reverse relativism is just a fancy term for talking. The idea is that person A has a body of knowledge A’ and person B has a body of knowledge B’. Through the magical mystery process of “talking” person A tries to flip his perspective into B’ and person B does the reverse into A’.

Hopefully, as a result, person A will gain a little bit of info from B’ and increase his knowledge to A’B’. And similarly for person B.

The only reason I bring this up is that the concept of reverse relativism is applicable (and comprehensible) when it is applied to knowledge and NOT truth (when you talk you should talk truthfully, but you are limited to the truths you know). Because truth stands alone. Truth is not a process. Reverse relativism is.

Reverse relativism is a path. When you say all truth is relative or “You have your truth and he has his truth,” you have eliminated any reason or means of exchanging “truths” (actually, that should be read as “knowledge”). Relativism of truth ends discussion and prevents learning. It is static an prevents any two knowers from ever bridging the gap between them. Relativism of knowledge, on the other hand, does not. Reverse relativism allows you to increase your knowledge and learn more truths.

I hope the average reader can wade through all that.

A Few Parting Points

If relativism of truth were true, the following would be true:

• The truth of a 5-year-old is indistinguishable from the truth of a 30-year-old or older.
• The truth of a serial killer is as equally valid as the truth of Mother Theresa.

If relativism of knowledge is true, the following would be true:

• The knowledge of a 5-year-old is differentiable from the knowledge of a 30-year-old
• The knowledge of a serial killer is different from the knowledge of Mother Theresa

I’m sure there are more, but those should demonstrate which position is the superior one.

Reflections On Knowledge (Part III)

And Yet More Epistemology

Again, this is a discussion of Epistemology and how it relates to science. I left off saying that there are degrees of certainty in science in two different ways. First, based on the complexity of the subject matter so that simple objects of study like atoms are more likely to yield more certainty. Whereas complex objects like human beings are likely less so. And I threw in a scale to boot (Yeah, I know … QM).

Next, I pointed out that science proceeds through a process of progressive approximation increasing its reliability and accuracy through time.

Now, I’m going to talk about something entirely different: not just the “knowledge”, but the knower. And this is something I’ve written about before, but I think it bears repeating: relativism of knowledge.

Relativism of Knowledge

This is probably one of the most pertinent points to the Covid situation. When it comes to human “knowledge” there is no such thing as collective human “knowledge” as far we know. There is no mass-mind we have access to. There may be recorded human “knowledge,” but every bit of true knowledge out there is contained in a particular knower’s mind.

Furthermore, regardless of whether the “knowledge” is useful or not, the amount of “knowledge” each person has is probably pretty close to the amount of “knowledge” any other person has. Well, you may have to expand the notion of “knowledge” to skills or capacities and such, but that’s another discussion.

Anyway, the point is that if we restrict the discussion to just medical doctors, not one doctor in the entire medical field has possession of the medical knowledge extant. In a simplified example, we represent the collection of medical knowledge by the alphabet from A – Z, where every letter is some bit of knowledge.

If we consider, someone like Dr. Fauci, we could say something like, he possesses tidbits A-F and Dr. So-and-so possesses tidbits D-I, and so on. Eventually, we’ll exhaust the entire medical field of knowledge, but no single individual will possess it all.

It’s also worth pointing out, that sometimes these tidbits conflict and Dr. So-and-so may disagree with Dr. Fauci. In such situations, who gets to decide what treatment should be used? Dr. Fauci? Or Dr. So-and-so? My answer is: neither. It is the patient. The Dr’s should merely inform to the best of their ability.

Basically, in the case of multiple experts (or even just one), because of relativism of knowledge, I support the notion of informed consent.

Experience vs. Experiment

Lastly, I also want to point out that because we are a tad too infatuated with science, we tend to neglect the notion of experience. Some things science and experiment are useless for, and only experience will serve.

For example, if you are trying to teach an infant how to walk, most people probably wouldn’t hand that infant a physics book to teach it about the laws of motion, matter, and energy. An adult outsider might gain some insight from physics to help the process in some way, but in the end, the infant must do the work itself to really learn how to walk. And, as it likely can’t read, the physics book is useless to it.

As for Covid, clearly science helps – it gave us a vaccine and a number of treatments – but, via experience it is entirely possible you know something about yourself relevant to the medical situation that the doctor does not know. Which is another situation of relativism of knowledge, but that’s beside the point.

Anyway, I was going to continue with another post on epistemology dealing with scientific totalitarianism and why it should be avoided, but I think I’m going to conclude this post here. And move on to other subjects.

Reflections On Knowledge (Part II)

More Epistemology, Science, and Covid

As before, I am discussing Epistemology, its relationship to science, and its relationship to the Covid epidemic. I left off saying that science produces “well-justified rational belief” not “knowledge.” I further indicated that I really don’t think either “knowledge” or “well-justified rational belief” permits a scientist to force his decisions upon another person. But “well-justified belief” even less so than “knowledge.”

Degrees of Certainty

Let me go further and suggest that not all forms of “well-justified belief” are equal. They come in varying degrees of certainty. At least, this is my sense of the situation – I certainly don’t think I have the final word here.

My inclination is that some fields of science are more certain than others. Once, for my own amusement, I wrote a brief paper where I ranked several different fields of science in degrees of certainty. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being absolutely certain, I ranked math as 10, physics as 9, and the social sciences as 7.

I put math as 10 because it has the certainty of pure deductive logic. I put physics as 9 because, as a science, it requires some logical induction, but its subject matter seems reasonably basic. Quantum Mechanics aside, I tend to expect all atoms and matter to behave pretty much in the same way.

Social sciences, however, involve people. People may or may not have free will. And science just can’t handle free will. Regardless, no two people are perfectly identical (whereas the constituent parts of matter are usually believed to be so – according to my high school education of 30 years ago).

Anyway, that’s how I ranked a few sciences a number of years ago. Take it for what you will.

Anyway, for the rest of this discussion I will use “knowledge” (with quotes) instead of well-justified rational belief for simpicity’s sake and to save space.

Progressive Approximation

Now, looking at things from a different angle, it’s worth considering how scientific “knowledge” advances. In that regard, I’d say it advances by way of progressive approximation. That is, there is the true nature of reality and science’s description of it. The scientific description isn’t perfect or complete but is merely an approximation of the way reality truly is.

As science advances, that approximation becomes a more and more accurate description of reality. Always falling short to some degree, but always improving. Well, I suppose it’s possible it finishes the job and produces a complete and perfect description of reality, but (ignoring my antichrist issues) that may be somewhat problematic.

As a philosophy professor of mine pointed out many years ago, measuring your advance from your beginning is easy. Determining how far you have left to go is far more difficult. And that question of “how far more there is left to go” has implications for how valid a claim to true knowledge science can make.

If science has completed only 1% of the journey to a perfect description of reality, 99% of the journey remains. In such a case, I think a scientist’s claim he/she has the right to compel others to obey them is weak.

On the other hand, if science has completed 99% of the journey only 1% of the journey remains and the scientist’s claim is much stronger. But even then, it is compulsion we are talking about, not persuasion. Regardless, there is no way for us to measure the journey ahead of us before we’ve completed it. So, we have no idea whether we’ve completed 1% or 99% of the journey.

So, honestly, when it comes to compulsion, I don’t think “because the scientists say so” is a foolproof justification. In fact, I’m inclined to say that it is insufficient. But, of course, there is more to say. And I’ll leave that to the next post.

Reflections On Knowledge (Part I)

Thoughts on Knowledge

If you follow this blog, you might know that I studied philosophy back in college many, many years ago (I also claim to be the antichrist – but we’ll ignore that last bit for now). For those who know very little about philosophy, there are basically three general areas of philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics.

My concern in this post is the area of Epistemology or Theory of Knowledge as it is also called. Outside of philosophers themselves, few people pay much attention to philosophy these days. I suppose that’s no surprise as a number of philosophers get caught up in discussions about whether or not there really is an external world – or is that stuff you see outside of you really just inside your head?

Anyway, whereas, in my opinion, Metaphysics is likely impossible for humans, and Ethics has lots of room and I don’t think is reducible to precise axiomatic principles with the clarity of mathematics, I think Epistemology is not only interesting but critical in this day and age.

The Relevance of Epistemology to Science and the Modern World

Science, which was once called Natural Philosophy, is kind of like philosophy’s child. A lot of scientists think very little of philosophy (in my experience, that is usually because the scientists don’t understand what the philosophers are saying, or trying to say to them … but I think that’s largely the fault of language specialization – kind of a modern day Tower of Babel type of thing).

Most scientists, regardless of field, when there is a discovery will say such things like: “And now we know this …”, “And now we know that …”, etc…. Most non-philosophers won’t dissect such statements and will take the scientists at their word. Philosophers, however, get caught up on the use of the word “know.” And that is where Epistemology comes in.

If you define “knowledge”, and I think you should, such that it includes as a criterion “The impossibility of being in error,” then every time the scientists says that “They know such and such” they really are mistaken. Why?

Science, Knowledge, and Rational Belief

In science (excepting mathematics, I think), there is always a possibility of error. A scientific statement should always include the addendum “as far as the current evidence indicates” – or a similar qualification. Often, that addendum is simply dropped. And, usually, that’s not a problem.

Back when I was in college, one of my professors (who may have been paraphrasing someone else – I don’t know) used the phrase “rational belief.” I suspect he was referring to science with that term. I’ll do him one better and use the phrase “well-justified rational belief.”

Obviously, science produces results. As a result of that, I can understand why someone might think it strange for a philosopher to claim that science doesn’t produce knowledge. But I don’t think any philosopher out there thinks science is insignificant, irrelevant, and simply a book of fantasy.

If you polled the community of philosophers, I suspect they would, if not being simply contrarian, likely say something like “well-justified rational belief” is probably somewhere in the ballpark. But I don’t know – philosophers are notorious for disagreeing. About everything.

Science and Compulsion

The relevance to modern society is that the notion that a scientist has the right to force you to comply with his/her view is on far shakier ground when one realizes he/she is operating on “well-justified rational belief” and not “knowledge” (Although, in my opinion, even if it was knowledge, you should still have the right to voice disagreement).

Science has reversed itself numerous times. And it has revised itself numerous times. And it has gone through massive revolutions as well. All three of these facts indicate there is some difficulty associating science with knowledge if knowledge implies the impossibility of error.

Still, in the case of Covid, lives are/were on the line. Trying to reduce the vaccine issue to a calculation may be misguided. If a mandate can save 5 lives, is it justified? Does that mean we should have speed limits of 5 mph for the same reason?

I’m kind of thinking that the second of those two examples is blatantly ridiculous. And … yeah, I think the first example is also ridiculous. But if you increase it to 5000 lives? 10,000? At some point, it starts to seem less ridiculous.

There are, however, a few more points to make, but I will leave those for my next post.

The End of My Mantra

I Think I’m Going to End My HTML-Like Mantra

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?

After a long implementation, I think I’m going to end using my little beginning and ending mantra “Satan is a Liar… etc…”. Not because it isn’t true. It is true. I just feel that I can move on. Instead, I will make the Sign of the Cross over my computer whenever I write a post or post it on this site.

My original intent for the mantra was to preserve the words I wrote on my screen so that Satan couldn’t change them for other viewers. You know, have him alter the words originating from my screen so that they would say different words depending upon which computer screen they might be on at a time or which person was viewing them. I type ‘red,’ he changes it to ‘blue’ for other people (but leaves it at ‘red’ for me). That sort of thing.

So, this is the last time I’m using my mantra. I wonder if Google will start boosting my rankings again … now that I’m not using repetitive phrases anymore. Doesn’t really matter… much.

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’m Going To Try To Get An Exorcism

I’m Going To See About Getting An Exorcism

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?

Seeing as I’m the antichrist, if there is anyone in the world who cannot be Exorcised, it would be me. But as I am NOT particularly fond of Satan (and that’s an understatement), I’m thinking it would be a good idea to get one.

A ways back, I contacted a Catholic priest I knew growing up and sent him a series of email letters all about my antichrist issues and such. I didn’t hear from him for a very long time. I thought he had dismissed me and forgotten all about me.

As it so happened, his mother was in town a few months back and she gave me a small medallion with an exorcism on it, that the aforementioned priest put on it (or had some other priest put on it – I don’t remember). Anyway, I wear that amulet all the time (plus a few other trinkets), but I kind of figure, to be safe, I should go and get the full ritual in person.

Anyway, now that I’ve made that decision, I just have to work up the courage to ask a priest to start the process. I know enough to know that it’s a long process that requires a lot of preliminary steps and screens and such. And it requires the permission of the bishop.

Of course, some of that must have already been done to get the exorcism on the medallion. Honestly, I didn’t even know you could do an exorcism like that – on an inanimate object. It makes it seem like a magic spell to me. But, I’ll give it a go. Like I said, if I can find the courage to ask.

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?

Tackling the Debt Monster

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?

And so it begins. I just sent in my first extra $20 check to the IRS (maybe I should have sent it to the Treasury? – I don’t know) to start paying off the hideously huge debt. Anyone else want to join me in this endeavor? So, if there are 100 million taxpayers (I don’t know how many there actually are), if everyone pays $20 (feel free to pay more, if you can afford it), that’s $2 billion. Plus, if the government does what I asked and cuts the deficit by $30 billion, that’s a whole $32 billion. And we’ll only have about 100 years to get to a surplus.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Lovely.

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?

Confession, Communion, and Other Rituals

Confession and Such

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?

Just to preface what I’m about to say: I am NOT omniscient. I am a sinner (probably the worst in the universe). And, unless Jesus of Nazareth verifies what I say, you should probably ignore me. With that said, let’s proceed.

Of course, tonight all the following is largely just intellectual meandering.

So, tonight I’m going to give some advice to Christian churches of various denominations. Actually, I’m going to just compare a couple traditions/rituals type of things.

Let’s talk about Confession. Catholics confess to a priest. Protestants confess directly to God. Is there a difference? If so, what is it? Is either method preferable?

I think Protestants are correct in saying that God has the final say on who is forgiven and who is not. However, I may have said this elsewhere, but I really think it takes more humility to confess to a present, physical human person (or maybe even a group of people if some sects do that) than it does to someone you merely have to address with your mind. So, insofar as Confession is concerned, I think the Catholic method is preferable and superior to just addressing God in your head.

How about the Eucharist? Is it truly the transubstantiated body and blood of Jesus Christ as the Catholics believe? Or is it just a symbol of Jesus’s body and blood as the Protestants believe? In this case, I think I’m siding with the Protestants. Although it is possible for an omnipotent God to transform a common piece of bread (or bit of blood) into something special, I just don’t see the point.

As far as rituals go, the ritual of the Eucharist (regardless of how you interpret it) is far less of a moral problem than something like human sacrifice. Not sure I worded that right, but you probably know what I mean. Basically, consuming a bit of bread and wine has virtually no immoral connotations whereas driving a dagger through someone’s stomach to appease the Lava god surely does.

As far as other religions go, I think they would be well-advised to incorporate something like Catholic Confession in their traditions, but it is not up to me to reorganize everyone else’s religion (although commenting on them is fair play). As for the Eucharist, if you incorporated that, you’d basically be Christian – which is fine, but at that point you might as well just convert.

One parting analogy about religious ritual. I’m not really big on ritual much, I kind of see rituals as kind of like Christmas presents for Dad (God). I’m sure they please Him to a certain extent like gifts given to Him by His children. He likes the thought, I’m sure but some rituals, like, say, performing human sacrifice would be like giving your father a dead rat for a gift on Christmas. He may know you intend well, but in all reality a dead rat doesn’t compare to a nice tie. Does that make sense?

Anyway, those were my random thoughts on Confession, the Eucharist, and other rituals. Let me make a minor correction. I think Confession or whatever equivalent you have for it is very important (as my other posts on the topic have discussed), I’m kind of up in the air on the Eucharist in some ways, and as for other rituals … with the exception of things like animal sacrifice or human sacrifice, I don’t see the harm in them. Well, okay, maybe some Satanic orgy would be kind of a bad idea, but, as I began this post, I am NOT omniscient.

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?