Acceptance, Forgiveness, and Crime

Acceptance and Forgiveness

Acceptance seems to be the watchword of the day. The Left preaches acceptance of all religions, all lifestyles, and all people. For the record, I want to go down as saying that I don’t think “acceptance,” by itself, is the ultimate moral criterion.

What should you accept? And what should you not accept?

All Men Are Sinners

Okay, we are all sinners. I accept that. Put another way, I think, “Above all else, one thing is certain, men are not gods.” Same basic point, I think. Don’t need to belabor it anymore.

However, does the fact that we are all sinners mean that we must accept all sins? What does that mean? That we accept all sins without judgment, without condemnation, and without rebuke?

Prerequisites for Forgiveness

I don’t think that’s a good idea. Although I am sure that God can forgive any sin ever committed with the possible exception of maybe one or two things, I think there are a few preconditions to that forgiveness being given.

Specifically, the sinner in question must ask for forgiveness and be legitimately repentant. They must actually regret committing their sin. And, as I can’t read the heart of any individual other than myself, I as a mortal human can’t tell if another human is legitimately repentant and is therefore forgiven by God. Well, maybe I can tell in some cases, but definitely not in all. I can usually tell with people who are close to me, but strangers I’ve never met? Not so sure about that.

Forgiveness versus Punishment

Another question: what about penance and punishment? If someone is forgiven, is there a need for them to do penance or to be punished? Does forgiveness consist in the washing away of sins without the sinner experiencing any consequences?

Two Cents from Jesus

I believe it was the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus says something like, “You’ve been told to love those who love you, but I say, what is the virtue in that? Even the Pagans do as much.” Yeah, I think I butchered that quote.

Anyway, “What is the virtue in that?” I used to interpret that kind of like: If you are going to forgive someone, then why not let them off the hook entirely? Don’t exact a price of retribution or what-have-you. Just walk away and let it go.

Is Forgiveness Without Consequence the Best Solution?

My view on that is currently changing, I think. Whereas you can easily forgive little sins like a lie, an insult, or even a slap in the face, some big sins, however, give me pause:

• Murder
• Rape
• Pedafilia

First question: Can God forgive such sins? I think my answer to that is yes. However, what about the question: Should we forgive such sins? That’s a little bit more difficult.

Does Society or the Individual Forgive?

Why?

Because I don’t think it appropriate to forgive someone for such sins if they are not repentant. And as I said above, I have no empathic/telepathic/whatever ability to read someone’s heart and determine if they are truly repentant or not.

And, I kind of think this is where the Left is going wrong. I keep hearing stories where Leftist governors or judges or whatever are letting out violent criminals and such or giving them sentences that are too light.

Who Forgives Whom?

I kind of see the quasi-Christian mentality about it. You’re a Christian. That means you should forgive, right? Here’s someone who’s committed murder. Shouldn’t we, as Christians, forgive them? And let them out?

Um, my inclination when it comes to forgiving crimes, particularly serious ones, is that the crime shouldn’t be forgiven unless the victim of said crime is the one doing the forgiving. In the case of murder, the victim is dead and can’t forgive. Failing communication from the dead person’s spirit, the next ones up to forgive the perpetrator should be the victim’s family – NOT the State/society at large.

Maybe that’s just me. But I don’t think I have the moral authority to forgive someone for what they did to someone else. I can’t speak for someone else in that way. Well, maybe to the extent it affects me – I don’t know. But it just seems odd. If someone wrongs someone else – shouldn’t the forgiveness that person should seek come from the person wronged? And God, of course.

Conclusion

And all of that doesn’t even address or discuss the interest of society in deterring, at the very least, serious crimes. But that last is a discussion for another day.

My Thoughts on the Protests in China

Protests in China

As I live in the U.S., I always kind of feel like I lack sufficient information to really weigh in on the innerworkings of another country. This includes countries, like China, that the U.S. typically regards as our adversary.

In any event, I kind of feel that if a significant portion of a country’s population is upset with the actions or policies of its leaders and government, they usually have good reason to be so upset. As a result, I think the government in question is obligated to, at least, recognize and try to address the concerns of the people. I agree with the founding philosophy of the U.S. that asserts that, ultimately, the government is answerable to the people – not the other way around.

In the case of the protests in China, given my limited information, I just want to say that I support the protesters. Further, should the government start “disappearing” protesters or their leaders or whomever, that will make my support of the protesters that much more determined (not that anyone cares what I think).

Relativists, of course, will probably say that the situation is an internal security matter and the Chinese police have every right to apprehend and punish “lawless protesters.” Or something like that.

I don’t agree.

In spite of the massive countrywide Leftist protests across the U.S. during Trump’s Presidency, to my knowledge, the U.S. did not make it a practice of “disappearing” BLM or Anitifa members/leaders. The closest the U.S. has come to doing anything like that, as far as I know, was in response to the Jan. 6^th riot when the government was basically under the control of the Left. But even that, I suspect is not at the same level of, well, evil, as what the Chinese government, given their past history, plans to do with the protesters in their country.

So, I just want to say: I support the right of the Chinese people to protest their government, their leaders, and their policies. I wish them success at, at least, getting the ear of the government and the courage to withstand whatever harsh response said government might reply with.

And, if I were to compare the morality of the corresponding responses by the Chinese government vs. the U.S. government (using the “unfortunate” black and white color analogy) – I would say that the Chinese response will likely be a far darker shade of grey than that of the U.S. They are not morally comparable.

A Different Jesus Preached by the AntiChrist

A Different Jesus

None less than Saint Paul warns against those who preach a different Jesus and the preaching thus provided. The relevant quote is this, “For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough” (2 Corinthians 11:4).

Well, as I am the antichrist, it is only natural that I have a different notion of Jesus than pretty much every other Christian on the planet. So, be warned about that. I think I’ve discussed this elsewhere on this blog, but let’s go over it one more time.

First, though, let’s briefly summarize my understanding of the Jesus that Paul preached: the Traditional view of Jesus.

The Traditional Jesus

The usual understanding of Jesus is that He was the Messiah. He was perfect, sinless, and the incarnate Word of God. He is the 2^nd person in the Trinity.

His crucifixion served as a sacramental offering to wipe away the sins of all those who believe in Him (Jesus). The shedding of blood was necessary, according to Jewish law, for sacrifices that served to atone for sins.

Prior to Jesus, such atonement was “bought” by the sacrifice of animals like unblemished lambs and such. Then along comes Jesus. He serves as the unblemished (sinless and perfect) Lamb of God who is sacrificed on the Cross to purchase forgiveness for us.

What Strikes Me as Odd

Okay. God the Father is perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent. He created us, a bunch of imperfect sinners knowing full well that we would fail Him. Further, He will not forgive any one of us imperfect sinners (who He created as imperfect) unless our souls are “washed clean.” Our souls must be perfect and spotless before God will let us into Heaven. And the only way we can be made so clean is by our willingly accepting the washing of our souls with the “Blood of Christ.” Basically, we accept Christ as our Savior and His sacrifice on the Cross washes away our sins so that we can be allowed into Heaven.

Does an omnipotent God NOT have the power to mercifully let someone into Heaven who has not accepted Jesus as his Savior?

God is supposed to be merciful and forgiving. Yet, He won’t let someone into Heaven unless that person is perfect? Doesn’t that really imply that He is an unforgiving perfectionist? He won’t forgive us for failing to live up to a standard He created knowing full well we could never live up to it. Really?

My “Different” Jesus

I understand the crucifixion of Jesus totally differently than how the Catholic Church (and every other Christian Church) does. Of course, to begin, I don’t think Jesus was the incarnate Word.

The Word is, basically, the Christian equivalent of the Logos. The Logos is the foundational principle of the universe. In my twisted Theology, Satan is the Yin and Yang which is basically the Logos (it’s just split in two). So, traditionally, Christ is the foundational principle of the universe. I, however, think Satan is the foundational principle of the universe.

That’s kind of a big difference.

I understand the crucifixion as Jesus (the Son of David) defeating the ultimate Goliath (Satan, a.k.a. the universe) by confronting and overcoming Satan’s ultimate power – Death (a very painful death, at that). If you’ve ever seen Mel Gibson’s movie “Braveheart” (which you should because it’s a great movie), I kind of think the relationship between Jesus and Satan is kind of like that. That is, the part of Satan will be played by King Edward the Long Shanks and the part of Jesus will be played by William Wallace. The crucifixion is much like the ending death scene of William Wallace.

Wallace has been captured by King Edward the Long Shanks. He is going to be eviscerated the following day, but he won’t ask for mercy or anything from Long Shanks – “Because if I wail or if I cry out, Long Shanks will have broken me.” The princess offers him poison to provide for him a quick, easy death. She leaves, and Wallace spits the poison out.

The vicious, cruel death of evisceration/crucifixion isn’t an altar of pure, unblemished sacrifice to appease God, but the battlefield between Jesus and Satan in which Satan (the universe) is trying to break Jesus. Basically, get Him to cry uncle and beg Satan to remove the pain.

And, honestly, that makes for more sense to me than the other explanation.

A Warning

Of course, my understanding of the Crucifixion is blasphemous, sacrilegious, and heretical (or, at least one of those three, I’m not sure which) to pretty much every Christian religion on the planet. As I’ve said before, don’t listen to me unless Jesus backs me up. Because if I’m wrong and the traditional view of Jesus is correct, I, and everyone who ever listened to me, will wind up in the Lake of Fire/Gehenna – which is the 2^nd death, a.k.a. spiritual annihilation (my great sin that I committed when I tried to annihilate my soul).

Well, that’s enough for tonight. Merry Christmas. Happy New Year. And everything else!

Thoughts on Proselytizing

Proselytizing to Witches

I saw a post on my Facebook Timeline the other day saying something like “We are Witches, Pagans, and Wiccans. We are people of the Earth who worship nature, yada yada yada.” The rest was kind of directed, I thought, at Christians. Basically, something along the lines of “We are good people. Stop annoying us and leave us alone.” I briefly contemplated responding to the post but decided against it. I didn’t know the person who posted it. And I kind of knew how any pro-Christian post would be received.

General Thoughts on Proselytizing for Jesus

Yeah, proselytizing in Jesus’ name is, and probably always has been, unpopular because most people find it annoying. Very annoying. I’ve had people proselytize to me a couple times in my life. I’ve always tried to be respectful. The first time it happened it was in a downtown bar-scene type area. I wasn’t rude, but I didn’t listen. This was before my encounter with Satan.

The next time it happened it was on a beach somewhere. This was after my encounter with Satan. This time I politely listened and …. Well, I don’t remember all the details. I think I was polite and stuff, but just self-absorbed with my Satan issues. Too much so to get into a really in-depth conversation. And, honestly, I don’t think many Christians would want to get in an in-depth conversation with me about Satan and Jesus and such.

Witches, Pagans, the Universe, and Nature

Anyway, back to the Witches and Pagans (Does anyone know if there is a meaningful difference between Wiccan and Witch? I always thought they were the same thing. But the Facebook post implied otherwise).

I sincerely considered putting up a pro-Christian message as a reply to the Facebook post, but I couldn’t think up anything that I felt would not just be rejected out of hand. The first things I thought of were on the lines of:

“Satan is the universe. You worship nature. Therefore, you worship Satan.” Probably not good. It seems to accuse them of being evil right off the bat. Honestly, I’ve met a few New Agers, Pagans, and Witches in my life. There was a time I even dabbled in New Ager psychic development myself, although I was never an advocate of New Ager philosophy. Since college, I’ve been kind of a pseudo-Platonist with a dash of existentialism and Christian influences. And then I encountered Satan – but I’ve discussed that in other posts.

Proselytizing to Witches, New Agers, and Pagans

Anyway, as I was saying, most New Agers, Pagans, and Witches that I’ve met are, as far as I can tell, reasonably decent and moral human beings. Probably the biggest difference between those individuals with traditional Christian ethics would be, by my guess, those beliefs revolving around sex, sexuality, homosexuality, and transgenderism. But I could be wrong.

Anyway (I keep saying “Anyway”), after I had left the Facebook post behind, wondering if I had, once again, failed Christ in my mission to expose Satan, I figured that I should come up with something that I can use in the future to proselytize to Witches, Pagans, New Agers, etc…. Not that I verbally proselytize to anyone. Most of my proselytizing is on-line, specifically, on this blog which, I’m sure, no one really takes seriously – except me. Everybody else assumes I’m mentally ill. I may be insane. But that’s only because my encounter with Satan drove me insane.

A Softer, Gentler Proselytizing?

Anyway (again, “Anyway”) here is what I should have put on the Witches, Pagans, etc… post:

“I realize you have the right to believe whatever you want. However, that does not mean that what you believe comports with the truth of the matter. I know you probably don’t want to hear a word about Jesus, because you are probably sick of Christians hassling you about Him. Regardless, I just want to say that I had an experience once that convinced me that the universe was sentient and evil. It may look pretty, but it is not friendly – as the phenomenon of death suggests. You can call it Satan, Mara, or Santa Clause … I really don’t care. But I would advise you against worshiping it. It does not mean you well.”

Conclusion

That’s probably a bit wordy for a Facebook comment, but I think it would have served me better than my first instinct which would have struck all the wrong nerves. Not that that one won’t strike its own nerves. But hey, I think it’s a little better.

Getting a Bit Carried Away

Driving A School Bus Through a Crack In a Wine Bottle

Yeah, okay, it’s the same thing as the camel and the eye of a needle bit. Anyway, on to my point. I have been diagnosed as schizoaffective. I also happen to be the antichrist (Hence, the diagnosis). Anyway, I have a tendency to, sometimes, make a point and then kind of blow it out of proportion concluding grandiose things from the seemingly most trivial of beginnings.

For example, a few months back (shortly before being hospitalized), I stated that it might be possible to go without food and survive. And I used as justification a few epistemological points I’d made against science. Basically, that science doesn’t produce knowledge but well-justified rational belief, and the difference between those two was sufficient to allow for a person to go without food, living, instead, on love. Although, I think that’s actually true and technically possible, but, as a brother of mine recently said in a different context, it’s like a tornado blowing through a junkyard and producing a functioning Lamborghini – or something like that.

I do maintain that it may be technically possible to go without food indefinitely, but I suspect the probabilities are not in your favor. To the say the least. I kind of sort of tried a few months back, and it didn’t really work out well.

But, anyway, a number of Catholic saints have, supposedly, done it (not that I’m a Catholic saint). Does that count as making it possible? Did the saints only do that courtesy of divine intervention? If it requires God for something to happen, are you still justified in saying it is possible? I would answer that last question with a “yes.” However, then, what can be said to be impossible? Not much. Maybe my personal favorite: Euclidean round squares. But that’s just me.

Anyway, that’s all I got for tonight.

Truth, Morality, and Law

Taking Truth Too Far

I’m a big fan and supporter of truth. I despise relativism (statements advocating “my truth” and “your truth”) and I’ve given plenty of reasons why in prior blog posts. I find the claim “There is no absolute truth” to be, at best, misguided. And I’ve dealt with that in other posts, as well.

Having said that, I recognize a danger in believing in truth and advocating for it. Just because there really is “truth,” doesn’t mean you should never compromise or agree to disagree. Of course, at the same time, the idea that you can find situations in which to comprise and agree to disagree, doesn’t mean that you have that option every single time. Let me explain.

Basically, I think that sometimes you can compromise and agree to disagree, and sometimes, you really can’t.

It is often said, “You can’t impose your beliefs on other people.” However, if you follow that out to its logical end, it ends in anarchy – if you realize that any and every law ever passed is, to a certain extent, the imposition of someone’s belief on someone else.

The speed limit is 65 mph. If you can’t impose that belief on me, then I have no reason to obey that law, and you have no justification in forcing me to. And you can make the same statement about any other law.

Having said that, let’s focus the discussion a little. I’m inclined to think that the beliefs referred to in the above statement are religious beliefs. And, for many religious beliefs, I would agree that they shouldn’t be imposed on others.

Sunday is a holy day. Unless you are Jewish, then it’s Saturday. Unless you’re Muslim, then it’s Friday. I think it’s kind of silly to think that the government should impose recognition of Sunday as a holy day on the entire population of the country. Of course, Christmas would be a whole discussion in its own right as the founding documents of the U.S. are rooted in Judeo-Christian philosophy. Still, at the end of the day, I don’t think the government should have the right to force a Muslim, for example, to honor Christmas.

Anyway, my main point, though, is that not all beliefs are innocuous in a secular sense. Elsewhere, I’ve talked about my notion of Moral Minimalism. This means that at some point, the government does have the right to impose recognition of some kind of moral minimum regardless of the religious beliefs of the individual. The place I would draw the line at is life and death decisions, and physical cruelty.

For example, I have no problem with the government passing laws against murder, rape, slavery, human sacrifice, honor killings, and … yes, abortion. Because of my principle, or whatever you want to call it, of moral minimalism. In contrast, I do take issue if the government tries to force acceptance of homosexual unions, transgenderism, or sexual liberality upon any religion whatsoever. 

For the record, personally, I am totally fine with homosexual unions. Likewise, if an adult wants to go the transgenderism route, I’m not going to argue with him/her. If someone wants to organize a sexual orgy, I might state that I think such is morally pathetic, but I don’t think I, or the government, or anyone else should use force to stop them … unless they are dragging children into the mix. That changes things.

Anyway, there is a danger involved with “believing in truth.” This is most evident when you take as an example a large body of beliefs, which you believe are true, and you feel inclined to impose on someone else regardless of the relevant moral dimensions of each belief. Let’s just take, purely as an example, the body of Roman Catholic beliefs.

Catholics believe murder is wrong. Most civilized people agree with them on that. As it is a life and death issue, I think “imposing that belief” on a population is perfectly justifiable. In contrast, the idea that eating meat on Fridays (in Lent or throughout the year, for that matter) is wrong is, quite obviously, not nearly of the same significance as murder.

In the case of murder, I don’t think you can “Agree to disagree.” In the case of eating meat on Fridays, I think “Agreeing to disagree” is the way to go. You don’t eat pork? Yeah, that’s fine. I don’t care. You do you. You want to go do an honor killing? That, I’ve got a problem with. And for that, like murder, I will invoke my principle of moral minimalism to justify my imposition of my belief on someone who supports honor killings.

Like I said: life and death, and physical cruelty. Beyond that, I think you should let most religions alone 99.9% of the time. I don’t support animal sacrifice, but I know that some religions (Voodoo) incorporate that practice. My efforts to change such behavior will be limited to attempts of verbal dissuasion.

As far as forcing Christian bakers to bake wedding cakes for homosexual marriages … I’m siding with the baker on that. Not getting the cake you want from the individual you want ranks up there with eating pork or meat or whatever. Not worth a fight.

Otherwise, you’ll run the risk of instigating a moral tyranny across a society – or, the more likely outcome, a relentless never-ending clash about trivial moral concerns. I mean, we can at least agree about murder, can’t we?

Christian Nationalism might be a problem if it insists everyone take Sundays as a day of rest during which they must attend Mass whether they want to or not. That seems to me to be obviously problematic. But, I think an issue like abortion is morally weighty enough that legal restrictions are at least worth discussing.  At least, that’s where I am as a believer in moral truth.

Anyone who believes in truth, has the moral obligation to sort through their own beliefs and figure out which ones are significant enough to inject into the legal system and which ones are not. Some won’t make it. Some will. Just be cautious about being carried away by a moral “crusade.” Prohibition was reversed because drinking alcohol isn’t really a huge deal compared to something like murder.

So, at the risk of sounding repetitive, here are a few things I’m fine with imposing my beliefs on: murder, rape, cannibalism, human sacrifice, honor killings, abortion, etc….

Too-da-loo.

Thoughts On Truth – Again

Ruminations on Truth

I’ve written numerous times on this blog a number of arguments against claims of relativism as well as claims that “There is no absolute truth” or, even more horrific, “There is no truth.” Nowadays, my first rebuttal is no longer “So, you’re saying ‘It’s true there is no truth’ or ‘It’s absolutely true there is no absolute truth.’” Both are obvious contradictions. But that only impresses logicians. Nowadays, I say, “I am absolutely 100% certain that I am NOT omniscient.” Refute that.

Anyway, with respect to the claim “There is no absolute truth” I want to list a few possible “Translations.” Because I think that the non-absolutist may be saying something, but he/she is just using the wrong words (Yeah, that’s a bit arrogant of me, but, hey, I’m the antichrist. I’m supposed to be arrogant).

Translation #1: There is no “One true religion.” Comment: I might actually agree with that, depending upon my mood. Supporters of this translation would probably say all religions are equally valid. That I disagree with. Plato’s/Socrates’ criticism of ancient Greek religion is spot on. An actual divinity would not punish a mortal by sleeping with his wife. Just saying.

Translation #2: Morality is NOT a strictly axiomatic exercise. Comment: Basically, this means that morality isn’t like mathematics. It doesn’t permit systematic rigorous deductions in a way analogous to Euclidean geometry. I actually agree with that translation, too.

Translation #3: Nothing is true or can be known to be true. Comment: Disagree. See my above statement about NOT being omniscient. And, so as to prevent being accused of circular reasoning, I know, at least, what I think my name is.

Translation #4: There is no one political ideology suitable for all members of any society of suitable size. Comment: This would be another statement I would agree with. Basically, it means that given any one political ideology (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Conservative, Capitalism, Socialism, whatever), you will never get the entire population (assuming they number above like 3) to agree. I’m not sure Capitalism and Socialism are political … maybe it’s economic … regardless, the same principle holds, I think. So, the problem becomes, “How can you get ideologies as opposed as Capitalism and Socialism are, to coexist? Well, I don’t know. I’m only interested in truth and absolute truth in this post. The point of this statement is that politics is messy and there should be room for considerable disagreement. Probably not unlimited disagreement – as that would end in chaos and probably destruction – but learning to “agree to disagree” is a virtue. Most of the time (I would make exceptions for human sacrifice, cannibalism, and a few other things).

Translation #5: Science is never finished.  Comment: I can’t claim to know this with certainty, but I find it highly probable. The scientific process has been advancing since the scientific method was first established. Although it is possible that tomorrow (or the next day, or whatever) the final Grand Unified Theory of Everything (Assuming you don’t accept the notion that Satan is the yin and yang and he is, in fact, the Theory of Everything you’re looking for – although that is, unfortunately, totally non-mathematical in nature), I don’t expect that to happen. The history of science is that it is a continuous process of disproving earlier theories. Well, perhaps, “disproving” is a bit misleading. Maybe more like “continually refining” with occasional upheavals here and there.        

So, do I have a point in all this? After all, I probably agree with four out of the five statements? Why not just say, “There is no absolute truth most of the time?” Well, I really do want to be a stickler for details. And I would much rather my adversary make a clear statement instead of using words in a way that does not express what those words actually mean.

This is a nuclear age. Notions of truth are usually associated with moral claims. Trying to build a society that doesn’t believe in any kind of moral truth when we have nukes, biological weapons, and chemical weapons – all of which can kill everyone on the planet – sounds like a terrible idea to me.

Further, it is logically possible that (Translation #1) there is one true religion. I find it unlikely, but it’s possible. It is also possible, and I think quite likely, that even though there are many different political ideologies (Translation #4) that (like religions) not all of them are equal or, at the very least, none of them contain falsehoods. And it is our responsibility to try to deal with those falsehoods. Additionally, I commented that it is logically possible that science will, one day, become complete.   

Misinformation: I just want to say (I don’t have room in this post tonight to explain why) that I don’t support laws against “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or other infringements on freedom of speech. Also, the above list is, probably, not exhaustive.                                   

More Strange Thoughts

Just a little more food for thought for anyone taking me serious which is probably, maybe even hopefully, no one.

Satan and Relativism Weaponized

Somewhere in the Acts of the Apostles (I think), there is a scene where the Apostles receive the Holy Spirit from Heaven in the form of tongues of fire (a.k.a. receiving the Paraclete on Pentecost Sunday). There was a rushing wind. The Apostles began “speaking in tongues.” That is, there were people from different nations and places. These people spoke a variety of tongues amongst themselves: Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc…

And regardless of what language each person on the scene spoke, that person heard the Apostles’ words in his own tongue. That is, if he was Greek, he heard the Apostles speaking Greek. If he was Jewish, he heard the Apostles speaking Hebrew. And so on. And so on.

A baffling miracle. Unless you look at it as a form of relativism. In this case, a kind of physical relativism. The physical reality and its corresponding words differed relativistically from person to person. Christians typically attribute this event to the intervention of God.

Of course, me being the antichrist, I’m actually convinced it was the result of the intervention of Satan. Of course, that leads to a lot of questions like: Why would Satan do that? And a host of others. I’m going to ignore those questions in this and just get to my point.

The Pentecost miracles, in my view, can be understood as a kind of relativistic phenomena (in terms of (physical/metaphysical) relativism, NOT special/general relativity from physics). Relativism, in Christian circles, is usually attributed to Satan. Satan is a relativist.

So, could he be responsible for a Pentecost-like miracle (Ignore Pentecost itself, for now. Maybe it was the Holy Spirit, maybe it wasn’t, I don’t know)? Imagine that Satan has a relativistic ability like that portrayed in Pentecost. What could he do?

Lies, Lies, and More Lies

Basically, an evil force with Pentecost-like relativistic abilities (i.e. Satan), could really screw over the workings of any country, society, or collection thereof. It would be easy for Satan to confuse people and increase tensions across any society.

He just has to make subtle alterations to communications. One person says, “How are you, my friend?”, but the person he is speaking to hears, “How are you, jerkface?” And so, Satan stokes the potential for confrontation. Similarly, data  and “facts” become suspect.

A conservative does some Internet research and finds a source on-line that the U.S. achieved energy independence in 2020. A liberal looks at the same page on the same site and learns that the U.S. was NOT energy independent in 2020. Other than the obvious disagreement between the two people, what is the result?

The conservative is convinced the liberal is lying. The liberal is convinced the conservative is lying. Satan has successfully turned the liberal and conservative against each other to the extent that they both think the other is lying. Trust diminishes. Anger and hatred increases.

How long using this “weaponized relativism” will it take for Satan to foment actual violence in the U.S.? What about across the globe?

So, to reiterate this point: here in the U.S., are the Democrats all lying to the Republicans? Or are all the Republicans lying to the Democrats? Or, is Satan interfering with the honest communication of each party and its members to the other?

 I think it is the last of these, although I’m sure there is a certain level of actual lying and deception going on in politics. I just don’t think it is as extensive as it seems to be coming across. I think Satan is stoking disagreement and argument.

Is there a remedy? I honestly don’t know. Try to be patient with your political adversaries. And double check and triple check everything everyone says particularly when you think they are lying. It may be the case that, thanks to Satan, you are not really hearing the words they are really saying.

Should You Listen To Me?

If Jesus is not backing me up on anything I say, stay away. Ignore me. Burn everything I write. None of this stuff is inspired by divine vision or what have you. It’s mostly the result of “reasoning”, if you can call it that, based on my experience of “hell” and such.

Anyway, my best wishes to all.