In the Antechamber of Catholicism (part III)

Well, well, well … I’ve made it to the third post on this topic. I’ve discussed Confession/Reconciliation … now, I think I’ll discuss Communion … a.k.a. the Eucharist.

For those that don’t know, Communion is the name of the ritual in which Catholic churchgoers receive the Host. Basically, it happens at the end of the Mass. Everyone, who, up to this point, had been sitting, kneeling, and occasionally standing in their pews (a kind of bench on which the faithful sit), stand once again.

They form a line (or two … or four, for that matter) and proceed one by one from their pew to the front of the church where the priest waits. When they reach the priest (or deacon), the priest/deacon holds out a piece of unleavened bread called “The Host” and says, “The body of Christ.” The parishioner replies, “Amen,” and then receives the Host on either their tongue or in their hand.

If placed in their hand, they take it and put it in their own mouth. For many people, that’s the end of it. Some, however, approach a second individual (priest, deacon, or …. I’ve forgotten the name given to individuals permitted to hand out Communion) who holds a small chalice filled with wine.

As the parishioner approaches, the … we’ll say priest … says “The blood of Christ,” to which the parishioner again replies, “Amen.” The priest holds up the chalice, the parishioner takes it in their hands and then takes a small sip, then returns it to the priest (the priests wipes the rim of the chalice between every recipient).

Anyway, the unleavened bread – a.k.a. the Host – and the wine are supposed to be representative of the body and blood of Christ, respectively (hence, the words spoken). Ok, to be fair, there is dispute about what the Host and the Wine are.

In fact, this is a sticking point between the Catholic Faith and some of the Protestant Sects. The Catholics claim the Host and the Wine are the true body and blood of Christ. They become such in the Mass through a process called Transubstantiation (I think). Whereas, the Protestants (at least the ones I’m thinking of) claim that the Host and the Wine are merely symbols of Christ’s actual body and blood.

My First Heretical Understanding

Back when I first started this quasi-Catholic journey, I kind of looked at the whole Communion thing as, at the very least, a clever subterfuge to de-religify (yeah, I know that’s not a word) violence. Basically, of course, I wasn’t alive at the time, so I can’t know for sure, but I believe that 2000 years ago, human sacrifice (or even animal sacrifice) was a fairly common practice throughout the religions of the ancient world.

Where implemented, they were pretty much the high point of whatever religious service they occurred in. I think both the Aztecs and the Mayans (although they, and pretty much everyone else, deny it now) performed ritual human sacrifice on a regular basis.

I have no idea if they actually did so – or if that is just a perversion of true history by their respective conquerors (Europeans), but I kind of think, someone … probably a lot of someones performed human sacrifice in the past.

Anyway, with that in mind, consider Jesus. He comes on the scene and starts a religion in which the apex of the rituals involved consists in eating bread and drinking wine. No humans killed. Not even animals killed. I call that a plus. Of course, that’s not the justification any Christian anywhere would present (like I said, it’s kind of heretical). But, regardless, it is a plus. And, in the beginning of my journey, I at least noted it, although I didn’t run around exclaiming that or anything.

I had read enough at this point to know that the Catholic Faith adopted the doctrine of Transubstantiation. And the Protestants did not. To be clear, the Catholics did not believe that the Host was the physical body and the wine the physical blood of Jesus, but rather, the spiritual body and spiritual blood of Jesus – if you can make sense of that.

And Protestants just think they are Symbols. The Catholic interpretation is more mystical/spiritual/magical (pick a word), and the Protestant more pragmatic. In any event, I understood enough about the different viewpoints that I knew the Catholics were not practicing physical cannibalism. They were consuming the “spiritual” body and blood. Anyway ….

My Second Heretical Understanding

After a while, through my ruminations, I started wondering if I should stop taking Communion, in light of the fact that I knew what it was supposed to be and mean, at least intellectually, and I could honestly say, I wasn’t convinced it was true (either the Catholic view or the Protestant).

I mean, a non-believer taking Communion is, to some degree, disrespectful, I suppose, but I was somewhat apathetic. Plus, 1) I like the taste of the Host, and, for that matter, the Eucharistic Wine as well. And 2) it was, physically speaking, harmless. But I went back and forth on it, for some time.

Then, I decided that, basically, if God was omnipotent, and if He wanted to make a little piece of bread and a little drop of wine special in some way that was either a) difficult to observe or b) impossible to observe … He had the power to do that.

When I figured that out, I decided to keep taking Communion with that understanding. Again, that’s not quite the Catholic understanding – at least, not in the particular. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is basically the idea that the “substance” of the Host and the “substance” of the wine are changed in the ceremony.

Having studied Aristotle in college, I had a semi-decent idea of what that’s supposed to mean, but, again, not enough to say that I really believed that. I pretty much stayed at the point – “An omnipotent God could change the bread and wine into something special” and I’d worry about the details of that “specialness” later.

My Current Understanding

I’m still not quite there at the Transubstantiation bit, yet, but my understanding has developed some. Maybe it was obvious to everyone else, but there is a key component here and that is love. Communion is inextricably linked to Christ’s Crucifixion.

When I recently returned to posting on this blog again, I had decided that I was going to move on from all the Satan stuff. Unfortunately, I have to return to it here, because it plays a role.

The Braveheart Theory of the Crucifixion.

Basically, my understanding of the Crucifixion is significantly different from the official teachings of the Catholic Church. Basically, I kind of see it somewhat like the final scenes in the movie Braveheart (directed by Mel Gibson).

Towards the end, William Wallace is imprisoned by Edward the Long Shanks. The princess offers him some drug so he doesn’t need to feel the full pain of his imminent brutal death and he spits it out. The drug doesn’t fit in, but his words do to me. Something along the lines of “For if I wail or if I cry out, then Edward the Long Shanks will have broken me…”

Basically, substitute Jesus into William Wallace’s place and Satan into Edward the Long Shanks. Jesus went toe to toe with “The Ruler of this World” enduring his ultimate power – not just death, but a cruel and hideous death.

Of course, typical Christianity says He was offering Himself over as a sacrifice to God. It may change, but currently, that is not my position. Anyway, the thing that gave Jesus the strength to willingly walk into probably the worst death any human being has ever experienced (beating, scourging, and crucifixion – not to mention the emotional side – abandonment, betrayal, and whatever) – was love.

Love for his circle – i.e. his 12 Apostles/Best Friends and his Mother – all of whom were kind of representative of the rest of the human race. So, with the primacy of Christ’s Love in mind, I look at Communion as follows:

1) if you are consuming the Host and Wine, you are acknowledging and accepting Christ’s love. It was Christ’s love that gave Him the strength to offer over his flesh and spill his blood for us.

For us?

Yeah, because if He hadn’t, if Satan had won, we’d all be stuck in an Eternity with the monster that tried to break Him with the beating, scourging, etc… A monster that would gladly do the same to us, for its own amusement.

Okay, now that I’m surely on the path to ex-Communication, I think I’ll call it a night.

In the Antechamber of Catholicism (part I)

I think I mentioned this once in a post a few years back. I described myself as being “in the antechamber of Catholicism.” And that was fairly accurate then, and today as well. Of course, today, I’m a little closer to entering – or should I say re-entering, as technically I was baptized as a Catholic when I was a baby, and confirmed as a Catholic in high school … but around college or so, I kind of wandered away and became, basically, a lapse Catholic.. Then, I got rejuvenated for the search for truth by Plato, and la-di-da – a few years later, had my “encounter with Satan” and became convinced that I am the antichrist. Yeah.

Anyway, my problem is that I am not a creature of Faith. I like to understand things. Particularly, if those “things” are going to influence my life. Like Christian ethics and morals. Anyway, let’s get into the discussion.

For a while – after my antichrist issues developed – realize that my beliefs oscillated between being convinced I was the third person in the Trinity to being convinced that I was totally insane and my life was ruined. In the former state, I was generally stricken with an incredible high, and in the latter state, I was incredibly despondent, depressed, and pretty much broken. In such a state (the latter), I usually railed against God, and Heaven, and Creation.

Then, as my father aged, and was no longer able to drive – and also needed some company – I began accompanying him to Mass. In the beginning, I was just being polite. I guess I could have argued and screamed at him, and refused to go to Mass with him when he went, but I didn’t. I helped him get to and fro between our house and the church.

I remember one day at Mass, when I was in my down state, ruminating and stewing in my anger at God and Creation. And I was thinking to myself, “Do I actually believe any of this?” And then my thoughts shifted to my antichrist issues – I don’t mean I flipped up into a high and started thinking I was the Holy Spirit, again – rather, I just thought about what it meant that I had some psychological fixation on the Christian religion – enough so, that it essentially drove me insane when I tried to separate myself from it.

And so, in all honesty, I said to myself in answer to my question, “Well, apparently, I do.” I thought it in anger, but I knew it was the truth. There was some part of me that refused to let go of Christ and Christianity. At that point, I kind of threw myself into the religion – sort of. I was angry in doing it, but I started to go to Mass, not simply because my dad needed a ride to get there, but also because I was choosing to be there. I wasn’t fully in it. But I made the decision to at least explore the Catholic Faith some.

I set out to read the Bible (which I have at least three times, cover to cover, at this point). I set out to read the Catechism (again, I have at least two or three times at this point). And somewhere along the way, I started going to Confession. The details are a little unclear, as this was ten or so years ago – maybe longer.

Anyway, after admitting my psychological attachment to Christianity (and Catholicism, in particular), I resolved that I would be open to the religion, if I could make sense of it. But I had to understand it, before I could accept it. I am just not a creature of Faith.

Anyway, at this point, I am happy to report that I have made some progress toward that end. I can’t say I understand fully, but I am making progress. From the very beginning, I kind of had a “gist” for Confession. It goes back to my existentialist friend who explained the notion of a “leap of faith” to me. A.k.a. the fancy expression for sincerely talking to another individual. I noted that that was kind of what happens in the Confessional.

In the beginning, though, that’s all I had. I wasn’t convinced that there was really a notion of forgiveness tied to the Confessional, but I figured I would think about it. Maybe I could glean some further insight over time.

However, Communion made no sense to me at that point. And I was convinced that I would never understand the Eucharist, at all. I mean, really, it’s just a piece of bread, right? However, in the years that followed, I really think I’ve made some progress on Confession, and, surprisingly, I have even made some progress on understanding the Crucifixion and the Eucharist.

But, I think I’ve said enough for tonight. I will leave those issues for my post next week.

A Few Thoughts On The Dangers of AI

Regarding AI, Transhumanism, Demons, and OUIJA Boards

All right, I just watched a special from Glenn Beck on AI and its possible use by authoritarian governments (like China) to enslave their population and, eventually, the world. I call that bad. However, Glenn Beck made one point I disagree with. He said, “Don’t fear the AI, fear the algorithm.” Basically, he’s concerned that since the Algorithm controlling an AI is made by humans, it can inherit all the faults, biases, and imperfections of the human/s and, as a result, become a terrible oppressive force.

Yeah, I agree with that assessment of the AI’s algorithm. However, I’m not going to NOT worry about the AI itself (for those unskilled in logic, two negations make a positive – that means I AM worried about the AI itself, regardless of the algorithm 🙂 ).

Why?

Well, the way I see it, there are two possibilities:

1) if the AI is actually a conscious sentient thing and people are just blithely connecting their brains up to it believing they are not in any danger and will be able to control the AI with their thoughts – as Transhumanism promises – I’m kind of convinced those people will be in for a very rude awakening. I don’t know how you can measure mental strength, power, and will, but I kind of suspect that a little itty-bitty human like me (or anyone else) could very easily find itself the puppet on the end of a string should the AI I’m connecting to has access and control of processing systems and computations on the scale of the Internet or greater. That’s basically a recipe for the Borg on Earth as far as I’m concerned.

And possibility 2) may actually be even worse:

Suppose the AI created really isn’t sentient and conscious. Great. It’s just a dead system of wires, impulses, transistors, and logic gates (or fuzzy logic or whatever they are using these days). It is kind of modeled after a brain, right? We want to model the human brain in machines and improve upon it. Okay, um, yeah, no one else believes in demons these days, but I do. If demons can possess people who have souls, consciousnesses, and wills to try to fight back, would a dead, soulless AI be an easier prey, and one which can wreak even more havoc? So, we make this globe-spanning AI in control of the whole Internet and along comes Satan, or Baal, or Molech and into the system they go and guess who is in charge of the most powerful and most oppressive technology on Earth?

In the interest of disclosure, I should mention that I (in one of my antichrist episodes) tried to send a demon (who I thought was pestering me) into a solar-powered calculator rather than hell (out of sympathy for the demon). I have really no idea if there really was a demon or, if there was, I was successful. But, if I was, I may have inadvertently helped train such a demon to take over machine-systems like the Internet instead of biological systems. I only thought of that possibility after I offered the calculator to the invisible demon I never saw.

Anyway. On the lighter side of things (or not), how many people think a OUIJA Board can pass the Turing Test?

Our First Mistake

Satan, Object Permanence, and Simulations

I think I’ve said it once or twice on this blog that I don’t think we really live in a “box without walls.”

I’d like to explain that a little better, because over the last few months I’ve discovered better vocabulary to express what I really mean. I mean, really, a “box without walls?” What the heck does that mean? And how does it relate to Reality?

Well, before I get to that, I want to make a few comments about logic, or, rather, types of logic.

Types of Logic

I want to talk about the difference between deductive logic and inductive logic. Of course, with the brain rot I have, I don’t think I can define either one off the top of my head. All I know is that “deductive logic” is always rigorous and certain and incapable of being wrong. Whereas, in the case of “inductive logic” there is always a chance, perhaps a very small chance, but a chance nonetheless, that the statement is false.

Deductive Logic

A typical example of deductive logic is the following argument:

1. All humans are mortal.
2. Socrates is a human.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Ooh, ahh, … back to my college days and my introduction to logic course of years ago. Anyway, statements 1) and 2) are called premises. Statement A) is the conclusion. And the thing about deductive logic is that if statements 1) and 2) are true, statement A) necessarily follows. It is absolutely certain and unarguable.

Inductive Logic

Compare Deductive Logic to the following inductive argument:

1. The sun rose yesterday.
2. The sun rose today.
3. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.

Again, statements 1) and 2) are premises, whereas statement A) is the conclusion. In this case, A) is not a certain conclusion. It may be highly probable, but it’s not certain. Why? Because there are possible events that can prevent A) from being true. Although none of these events need be particularly likely, they could happen:

1. A black hole sweeps through the solar system and sucks the sun out of existence.
2.  An alien race blows up the sun.
3. The sun spontaneously teleports to the other side of the galaxy.

Yeah, I know those are all ridiculous, but that’s not the point. The point is that in an inductive argument there are situations where the conclusion doesn’t occur even though the premises are true. That is NOT possible for a deductive argument … unless you decide to violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, at which point, communication becomes hopeless gibberish.

Okay, on to the actual point of this post.

Object Permanence

In psychology there is a theory called “Object Permanence” which refers to the moment of realization a child experiences when it realizes that the objects that it perceives surrounding it persist even when the child is not viewing the object in question. Basically, it is the child’s realization that it exists in an external reality populated by other people, objects, and things.

There’s that old Zen riddle, “If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?” I think the implication of the notion/theory of Object Permanence is that, “Yes, the tree does make a sound. But no one hears it.”

For the first 25 years of my life, I would have agreed with that conclusion. Of course, from age 19-ish to 25-ish, I would have admitted (courtesy of my training in analytical philosophy) that the alternative might be possible, but I wouldn’t have known how to prove it either way.

Satan

Then, of course, I had my encounter with Satan right before I turned 25. That kind of changed everything. I can’t say that it changed everything immediately other than I came to the conclusion that the universe (Satan) is sentient and evil. Additionally, I came to the conclusion that that understanding of reality (Object Permanence – although, having never studied psychology, I lacked that label at the time) was, in fact, wrong.

I still can’t “prove it” in a scientific manner, but I no longer think that external reality is as immutably concrete and present as the theory of object permanence implies. As I’ve said previously, I don’t think we live in a “box without walls.”

I think reality appears to us pretty much however Satan feels inclined to show it to us. If he wants to show us a beautiful sunset on the horizon, we see a beautiful sunset on the horizon. Up to this point in time, I think it has been to his advantage to get us to believe that object permanence is the actual state of affairs.

But is it?

Personally, I don’t think Object Permanence is correct. Also, I want to point out that arriving at the notion of Object Permanence is a result of the child using inductive logic NOT deductive logic. So, in terms of the logic employed, there is a possibility that it is not the actual truthful representation of reality.

And, now, on to another weird, but related theory.

Are We Living in A Simulation?

There seems to be some debate among modern-day scientists and philosophers about whether or not we live in a universe that is a simulation. It’s very Matrix-y. Anyway, I’m not sure “simulation” is the correct word. But I think, I would use the word “simulation” kind of like an analogy for the universe as my Satan-theory would describe it.

I believe there is the true original Reality called Heaven. And, courtesy of Satan’s rebellion, we’ve all wound up in this sub-Reality we call the universe which is, pretty much, Satan’s pantheistic body. He’s the designer and controller in the universe.

The Limits of My Knowledge and Understanding

Anyway, I was going to go into this long, definitive exploration of how the simulation hypothesis kind of amalgamates with my Satan-is-the-universe hypothesis, but I read a couple articles and came to the conclusion that I don’t know enough about the simulation arguments. Whereas the object permanence is kind of something we’ve all had a kind of pseudo-understanding of for years – I mean, the “tree falls in the forest” thing is almost universal.

Regardless, I think the Theory of Object Permanence is, at some level, linked to the Simulation Theory and both, in turn, may have some link back to the Satan is the Universe Theory. Unfortunately, I’m not well-versed enough in either of the two former theories to make any real connections that can be tested scientifically or anything else.

Conclusion

Well, let me make one connection. I think the Theory of Object Permanence is wrong. It is our “first mistake.” And I think the Simulation Theory will eventually indicate as much. Whether that supports my “Satan is the universe” theory ,,, only time will tell.

God and Punishment

In previous posts I have discussed things like hell, crime, and punishment. And I’ve claimed at various times that I have actually been to hell.

In light of that, I cannot comprehend the notion that God is meting out a punishment so cruel as the fires of hell. Similarly, at one point in my life, I was kind of convinced that the only punishment God inflicted was revealing the truth of our own sins to us …. Which would, likely, make us feel really rotten and bad about ourselves.

Anyway, I think it worthwhile to explore the notion of God and punishment. Does God punish humans? If so, are there limits? What are the parameters around forgiveness and punishment?

God, Forgiveness, and Punishment

I like and accept the notion of a forgiving God. I believe God can forgive just about anything – including murder, rape, abortion, or what-have-you. However, having the ability to do something does not guarantee that you will do said thing. Although God can forgive, I believe He has the option to not forgive.

Who Does God Punish and How?

But what about punishment? Does God punish individuals? Does God punish nations?

God’s Punishment of Nations

I think it was St. Augustine who said something like God punishes nations in time because they only exist in time. But God punishes people after death because their souls survive death. Or something like that.

With respect to the question of whether nations are punished by God or not, I think I’m going to take a pass for now. Honestly, I have been so absorbed with my own personal individual struggles with Satan, my notion of God, and my various sins that I haven’t really thought about the idea of how God deals with nations and governments and what-have-you.

Given my previous thoughts on the nature of the universe (that the universe is really Satan and the handiwork of the Devil, not God), I’m inclined to think it is really Satan, pretending to be God, punishing nations however and whenever he feels inclined to do so. And God pretty much stays out of it except through whatever manner Jesus might intervene. But I could be wrong. And I want to move on to the punishment of individuals.

God’s Punishment of Individuals

Does God reward and punish people over the course of their lives? That would be kind of a karma-like thing, I suppose.

God and Karma

I’ve never been a big fan of karma, at least with respect to reincarnation. I just totally don’t get the idea of being punished or rewarded for actions I took in a previous life which I totally can’t remember. It seems idiotic and pointless. Which makes me think it is far more likely to be Satan’s handiwork than God’s. But I don’t know.

Punishments from a Forgiving God

Anyway, I think the notion I want to examine is the potential implications of an all-forgiving God. Basically, if you think God forgives everything and anything in all conceivable ways, is there a reason (beyond one’s own natural altruism) why one wouldn’t or shouldn’t lead a “wicked” life. What is the disincentive, if any, from going on a murder spree or rape spree or whatever?

I mean if God is going to forgive you, what is there to stop you?

Of course, I think most people naturally tend toward good in preference to evil, so most people won’t take that route if they have the option. But, at the same time, I think there are some people who would. In the case of those people, well …

God and Penance

I kind of think God will forgive you … eventually. But in the Catholic tradition of the Confessional there is a notion called “penance” in which you must take certain actions (usually just a few prayers for minor sins) to “make up” for your confessed sins. Following that model, God may require some action, deed, or something else from a murderer before said murderer is forgiven.

The Consequence of Unrepentance

Okay. You’re a murderer. God hasn’t forgiven you. And you have no interest in doing any kind of penance whatsoever. So what? Why should you care?

Because Satan is real. And so long as God has not forgiven you, you remain in the universe, outside of Heaven, in a reality in which the Devil’s will is supreme. Although I don’t think God will send you to hell. Satan might.

Why?

For his own amusement. Or, after first appearing to you as the indescribably beautiful Being of Light (which I’m sure you will mistake for God), he will send you to hell (the hell he created) to instill the notion in your head that God is responsible for your “Eternal” punishment of fire and horror. Naturally, you will come to despise God, because you will be convinced that He is the one who sent you there. Driving that wedge between you and God is, basically, Satan’s plan.

Regardless, if you find yourself stuck in the universe, I think you are basically stuck in a place under the Devil’s control. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be stuck in that kind of situation.

If, courtesy of Satan’s actions, you wind up in hell, I’m sure that eventually, you may figure out that murder is bad, repentance is necessary, and you will do whatever you have to to get out of hell.

Of course, all of this is coming from me, the antichrist, the idiot who tried to annihilate his own soul and who experienced the fires of hell as a result. So, I am convinced hell exists. Which is something I did not believe for many years. Now, however, I can’t deny it, so, I must explain it in some fashion. In light of that, I am convinced Satan made it, because it is far too cruel to have been made by any being claiming to love us.

Who Experiences Hell?

So, I think it entirely possible for unrepentant murderers to experience hell. I don’t think it will wind up being an “Eternal” situation. But, all things considered, I think the murderers in question would prefer to skip that experience entirely. I know I would.

Of course, I also think reasonably good nuns, priests, and philanthropists may experience hell. Fortunately, it won’t be permanent for them either, and I think Christ will more quickly rescue them than others.

Anyway, it’s all very confusing. All I’m sure of is that hell exists. It’s cruel beyond compare. And if God made hell, God is simply evil. So, I think Satan made it. And the only effective defense against Satan (the cruel, sentient universe) is God and Jesus and the love they proclaim. Or something like that.

Punishment from a Fatherly God

Anyway, back to God and punishment. Does God punish? At one point in my life, I would have, more or less, said, “No.” However, if you regard God as a Father, I think, a parent has the right and even duty to discipline his/her (or in this case, “His”) children.

Of course, I am not a parent, so maybe you should seek someone else’s advice on this matter. Anyway, having said that, I think there are some punishments a “loving parent” will never inflict upon his/her children no matter the wrong they’ve done.

If your son murdered someone, would you, as the father (or mother), personally take him out back and literally skin him alive? I don’t think many fathers would do that. They might turn you in to the police, so you spend the rest of your life in prison, but skinning you alive? I kind of think that is a little demented. And hell has horrors even worse.

Still, God is the parent in the end. None of us are. So, I really don’t know.

Conclusion

I am convinced that hell is real. At the same time, I think it is too cruel to be a creation of God’s. Still, as God is a parent, I think God has the right and responsibility of punishing His children – whatever that might entail, I do not know. Is it simply a process of simply admitting all our sins and shortcomings in the light of truth? Maybe. Maybe not. Like I said, I am not omniscient, and I don’t know.

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.

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.

A Couple More Random Thoughts

Yes, More Random Thoughts

Continuing the practice of just ruminating out loud, how about ….

The Debt

Okay, this is what I think we should do about the debt. Every year, the U.S. takes in so much money through taxes and whatnot. Let’s just say that’s 4 trillion dollars. Just so you know what that looks like, it’s $4,000,000,000,000. That’s a lot of zeroes. At the same time, the government spends so much money – usually significantly in excess of what it takes in.

All our politicians in the government earn a pretty penny from their salaries. Let’s just say, they each earn $200,000 (it’s actually a little less, but we want easy math here). I say that we deduct a percentage of their pay equal to the percentage by which the spending of the U.S. exceeds the amount it takes in. And, vice versa.

So, if they spend 5 trillion dollars or, 1 trillion more than what the country takes in, that amounts to 20%. So, they should automatically lose 20% from their salaries for that year. So, instead of making $200,000, they’ll each make $160,000.

Although the amount by which they are penalized won’t add up to anything with respect to the debt, it may disincentivize at least the majority of junior statesmen from spending too much money. And, we can do the reverse. If they spend 1 trillion less than the amount the U.S. takes in (they spend only 3 trillion instead of 4 trillion), I’m all in with rewarding them with a 25% bonus for that year.

So, instead of $200,000, they will, instead, make $250,000. Again, that probably won’t influence the uppity-ups like Schumer, Pelosi, and McConnell who, I’m sure make oodles of money through other channels and perks that come with being in power, but it may incentivize junior statesmen to get those yearly deficits under control.

Anyway, those are my 2 cents on the U.S. debt, deficit, and budget stuff.

Progress?

I think I can report some progress with my antichrist issues. I have, at varying times, been convinced that other people are actually Satan in disguise. After all, Satan is a shape-shifter and can assume any form he likes, right?

In light of that, I have been convinced that Obama was Satan, Trump was Satan, and a few other people here and there were Satan. I’ve also encountered people who I was convinced were possessed by Satan. In fact, I had at least two different conversations at different times with my father, before he passed away, in which I was convinced he was possessed by Satan and I was talking to Satan instead of my father.

More recently, I had an associate/friend who I was convinced was Satan. However, after ruminating for a while, I came to the conclusion that the possession explanation was far more likely than the incarnation explanation (She was possessed by Satan was more likely than she was the incarnation of Satan). Further, I reasoned that since I’m the antichrist,  if anyone were to be the incarnation of Satan, it should be me. And, basically, if I’m looking for Satan’s hand in any events, I might want to start by looking in a mirror.

Anyway, the long and short of it is, I am convinced that the possession thing is far more likely than the incarnation thing. As a result, I am less paranoid about other people being Satan (the incarnation of him) and me not knowing.

In fact, I think I may even be able to vote for the President in 2024. I haven’t voted for the President since before Obama (or maybe it was before Obama’s 2^nd term) because I didn’t want to inadvertently vote for Satan. This a long side story and explanation in that that I won’t get into. Anyway, I’m calling that progress. Yeah.

The Virgin Mary, Hell, and Me

Because of my antichrist issues (and probably just because I’m me and I like weird stuff), I have a fascination with apocalyptic prophecies and such, including apparitions of the Virgin Mary. I stumbled across one (I think it was a Youtube video – to which I lost the link) in which the Virgin Mary described the sufferings of sinners in hell.

One of the sufferings was something like: a ceaseless burning fire that scours the soul within, never ending, never relenting, and causes perpetual spiritual agony. Or something like that. Anyway, when I heard the narrator’s voice describe that as such, I recognized the description. That is what I experienced when I was in hell. Yup. Me and the Virgin Mary are in agreement about what hell feels like – at least as far as words can convey.

We do disagree in one regard (Yes, I know, I’m disagreeing with the Virgin Mary). She says, and I’m sure, believes, that the fires of hell are the work of God. God is punishing the awful sinners that He has damned to hell.

I, on the other hand, think that the awful sinners are being punished by Satan, who is impersonating God as the Being of Light. Because any “God” who would inflict such terrible punishment on anyone for any reason (including Hitler, Stalin, and Mao – or, for that matter, some bizarro compilation of all three) isn’t worthy of the title of Deity.

There is legitimate parental punishment. Then there is twisted evil cruelty. Hell falls into the latter category. And I don’t care what the “sinner” has done. He/she does not deserve hell. Anyway, I could go on for another 50 pages on that, but I’ll stop here.