Category Archives: Spirituality

Weekly Meditation: The Peace of God

For this week I would like to propose the following from the opening of spiritual text A Course In Miracles.

This course can therefore be summed up very simply in this way:


Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.

It’s simple. Clear. Direct. And possibly the only summary of a spiritual text I know of within the text itself. Yet despite the simplicity of these two lines there is a lot to consider.

If you haven't read it, you should.

If you haven’t read it, you should.

Nothing real can be threatened. Which means if you’re worried about something either you’re wrong that it can be harmed, and if it can’t be harmed then why worry about it. After all you are your soul, and your soul is immortal and perfect…what’s to worry about? Or if you’re right and it can be harmed then it must not be real…and well, nothing unreal exists. So why worry about it?
Most of our lives are spent worrying about things. Health? Wealth? Success? Worth? But if you assume you were created perfect by God, then how could you ever be flawed or ever have need or want or lack…which leaves so many things in this world as little more than an illusion, a dream (maybe a nightmare) and it will end as if it never existed.

And that’s only one aspect of meditation up these lines. I would recommend if you do any meditation during the day you bring these lines up this week. Anytime anything upsets you. Anytime you have a moment to think about it. And see if you find your life is more peaceful and happy…

…herein lies the peace of God.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Faith, God, Meditation, Religion, Spirituality

Weekly Meditation: How you look at Money

Our perception of things affects our actions. You don’t need be a New Ager to believe this; you just need to take Psych 101. So let’s go with that most important of tools in this physical world you live in: Money.

Beautiful, beautiful sweet wonderful money!

sign of the dollarWere you shocked by that statement? Did you think it was incorrect? Did you find it somehow sinful or greedy? Why? Money is a tool. It lets you do stuff. Money is an expression of what we have done and earned in physical form. It is an expression of the best within us and a tool to allow us to do things that make us happy. However I feel that you don’t have that feeling towards money.

Its okay, in our modern culture we don’t often look at money as a tool in helping us reach happiness and an expression of the purity of our work. But even from a psych 101 point of view if you don’t view money as a good thing, you’re going to do things that push you away from money. It’s even worse if you’re a New Ager and believe that thoughts create reality—if you don’t have positive thoughts about money in that case you will literally push money away from you.
So how do we change our perceptions of money? Mediation is good, but actions in this case are far more powerful. Now I could say every time you pay a bill don’t think about the money you’re losing, but rather the thing you bought with your money that made you happy and maybe to go out of your way everyday to buy something small for yourself and think about how money helped you buy something that made you happy. That would be good, except modern culture has probably loaded you down with a lot of preconceived ideas about selfishness and greed and guilt. So let’s start small.


Your meditation for this week is to spend a dollar a day on someone else and think about how that one dollar makes you happy. Tip the barista at Starbucks. Donate a single dollar to charity. Buy a coworker an unasked for snack when the day seems to be getting too long. Just a dollar a day. The only thing is it has to be spent in a different place on a different person each day. And with each dollar you spend think about how doing that small act allowed money to make you happy. You can’t donate a service or an object, this needs to be money, you need to see how money can be a tool to make you happy.


If you can spend more, spend more if you want to. If you’re on a tight budget and don’t feel you can spare $7, dear God you need to do this as you clearly are worried about lack of money and have negative beliefs about money. You need to change your perception of money.


If you do this and focus on the joy that using money can bring, I can promise you will find that there will be more money in your life.

 

The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life.–Francisco D’Anconia

Leave a comment

Filed under Charity, Faith, God, Meditation, Spirituality

Why is idiotic theology all the rage on the internet?

It constantly strikes me as odd how, despite the fact that the human race makes major jumps in technology, politics, economics, our spiritual growth seems to be very slow…and in some cases it appears to be making giant leaps backwards.

 

For instance over two thousand years ago in works of the Greek philosophers makes a clear point that has been the basis of correct* theology ever since. This point is that God is pinnacle of all virtues. That might seem overly obvious so let me expand on what the argument was. In a dialogue of Plato’s named Euthyphro the question is

A lot of the basis for this government is in this picture...not a lot of these people are from the Judeo-Christian background.

asked: are things just because the gods say they are just, or do the gods say they are just because they are just. If things are just only because the gods say they are just then what is just is merely the dictate of a tyrant, a universally powerful tyrant, but a tyrant nonetheless. It is to say that might makes right and the gods as the mightiest of all clearly are right because of their power. To accept the second option, that the gods say things are just because they are just, is to say that there is something called Justice higher than the gods to which even the gods have to bow down to…but then why worship the gods and not just skip to that higher thing. This can quickly fall into a series of does that higher thing say what it does because of some even higher law or just because it says so. Now no answer is reached in Euthyphro, an early work of Plato’s, but he eventually gets to the answer over the course of his works. The answer is a third option. God isn’t dependent on some higher concept of Justice, nor is Justice dependent on God, because God is Justice and Justice is God. God is Beautiful, and Beauty is God. God is Truth, and Truth is God. God is Good, and the Good is God. God is Reason and Reason is God.   God is the pinnacle of virtue in and of himself, it is not his power that dictates justice, it is his quality of justice; it is not his might that makes something good or right, it is the fact that he is good and right. And eventually this idea became so prevalent within Platonic philosophy that they gave it a single title to encompass the entire concept of a God that is the pinnacle of all virtues. And to distinguish it from the myriad of other gods wandering around the numerous pantheons of the ancient gods they didn’t give it a name like Zeus** or Apollo, but rather the title the Logos from the same Greek word that we derive the word logic from. They chose this word because this conception of God was that he was the logic, the reason, the purpose, the driving force behind the universe. And this idea of the Logos is the only logical way out of this paradox (or at least the only one I have seen proposed in over 2,000 years of philosophy and theology). Anything other than this way out leaves you with either having to search for a higher power or admission that God is God only because might makes right (in which case he is no better than any dictator).

 

And while Aristotle may have proven there is a God, his logic does not conclusively prove what that God is like, it is here that Plato shows that your only options for God are that God is the Logos or that he is a petty tyrant not worthy of worship because his only claim to power is that might makes right. And while I’m not going to unravel the problem of evil here, experience and common sense show that the petty tyrant is not a viable option in reality…but it is absolutely not something you should be arguing for. God is God not because he is subject to Reason, Good, Truth, and Justice, but because he IS Reason, Good, Truth, and Justice.

 

And for any logical person that should be the end of it.

 

But then I saw this drivel on Tumblr getting reblogged.

 

idiot theology 1idiot theology 2  idiot theology 3 idiot theology 4 idiot theology 5

 

 

So let’s break this down. You have the title card that God is Love but love is not God. Let’s leave this stupid thesis for a second.

 

The next two slides deal with the issue of the problem of evil. In a very inarticulate way these cards are showing the basic problem of people saying, “How can a loving God allow suffering to happen?” Again if I were to get into a severe deconstruction of the problem of evil (which at very least would make this post ramble on for another 10 pages…and nobody wants that) you can come to two conclusions. The first is the one first proposed by St. Augustine and has been the center of intelligent Christian theology (the person who made this little slide show is clearly not in this camp) that God allows evil because he has a plan that will bring an even greater good out of the world than would be possible without evil. It is the logic that we punish our children and sometimes force them to do things that they find terrible because it is good for them and will make them better people in the end. Or you can take the Eastern version that this world is merely an illusion and that evil doesn’t really exist, once we wake up and reach Enlightenment the evil of this world will be nothing more than the suffering of a nightmare, no real harm so no real foul, and it will be quickly forgotten. Both of these answers allow for evil to exist in the world without violating the nature of God being the Logos. And the shortest way of dealing with the objections of the first two slides is “If you could see the full plan of the universe, as God can, you would see that what you describe as something terrible is in the grand scheme of things nothing more than the cosmic version of a parent forcing their child to eat their Brussels sprouts.”***

 

But this slide then goes onto to say:

idiot theology 6 idiot theology 7

Okay the first line is fair enough. Using the problem of evil to attack the idea of God is a bad line of thought, and it can lead to some terrible theology.

 

But it’s the next paragraph where things start going off the rails into the very same bad theology that the idiot who made this complained about just a sentence ago. So the problem here is with the argument is “How dare you say God has to conform to an idea of Love” or Reason, or Justice, or Truth. Not the more rational, you need to admit that your idea of Love (or any of the others) may not be perfect because at this point you’re a human being capable of error. No we went with God cannot be judged by anything because God is beyond Love, Reason, Justice. God may have given you reason and told you repeatedly to use it but apparently it is no way a guiding light back to God. Any serious theologian would say that if that your conception of God and the facts don’t match, then we must defer to reason that either our conception of God is wrong or that you don’t have an accurate understanding of situation.

 

Or as a famous atheist who never applied her own logic to her bad understanding of theology, “Contradictions cannot exist. If you think you’ve found a contradiction go back and check your premises. One of them is wrong.”

If your idea of God doesn’t match up with your idea of love, according to reason, one of these ideas is wrong.

 

Except that this little slide show, that again I kept seeing several times so it’s not like this is just one idiot reblogging this is that your reasoning is not wrong, it doesn’t matter that there is a contradiction, but God is not subject to Reason, or Love, or Justice, or Truth. God is somehow above these things and cannot be limited by them.

 

This is terrible theology. No serious theologian of any faith remotely associated with God would make a claim this stupid.

 

But, you say, you’re blowing this out of proportion. So what if this idea is catching on, it’s not like it’s going to destroy civilization or anything. Which seems like a fair point…except that history actually demonstrates what happens when this idea is prevalent. You see this philosophical battle actually happened before around 1100 in the Islamic Empire. You had two main factions at the time the Mu’tazilite Sunni’s who believed, like Plato, that God was bound by concepts as Reason and Justice, because God was those things; and opposing them you had Ash’arites Sunni’s who believe that God was all powerful and thus could not be bound by concepts of Reason and Justice, because God was beyond those things (just like the idiot who made these slides). Long story short, had the Mu’tazilites won, Islam would have become a civilization of reason, scientific development, capitalism likely eventually…but regrettably the Ash’arites won. And it’s a strange thing when God is not bound by Reason or Justice or Truth, because if he is not those things, those things cease to be relevant to a society. A society that is run by a God whose only claim to rule is might makes right strangely tends to create governments where laws are unimportant and might makes right. A society that worships a God that is not bound by Reason doesn’t value Reason as it serves no purpose in reaching the ultimate goal of life…thus society stagnates as science, medicine, technology all become vain pursuits with no purpose. The idea proposed by these slides is actually the bane of all civilization….don’t believe me, then look at what it did to the Islamic world which is still in many ways stuck in the 6th century.

 

But then comes my favorite part of trying to justify this bullshit.

idiot theology 6

Okay let me pick up a Bible. If they’re correct there should be some very clear passages in the Bible that God cannot be bound by anything and cannot be compared to anything (thus making reason about God impossible) as you see several times in the Koran. There isn’t. But you know what there is in the Bible. The Gospel of John, Chapter 1, which actually says that the idea of the Logos , which states that God is Reason/Love/Justice/Truth and that Reason/Love/Justice/Truth in a very subtle way when it begins with

 

“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.”–John Chapter 1, Verse 1

John1_1-5

Okay yeah, really bad translators have badly translated the Logos as “the Word,” which while literally correct, misses the philosophic idea packed into that particular word. But even if you want to try and say “well they didn’t mean Logos in that sense” your case falls apart because of the clearly self-reflexive nature of the line which goes to prove that this is the self-reflexive Platonic ideal of the Logos.

 

So whoever put this together might want to actually read the Bible, not just in translation, but go back and find out what it meant in the original language. I know that’s so hard, small minded bigoted theology that requires me not to use reason is so much easier…and it will eventually lead to a justification for blowing up people in the name of my God, so win-win for idiots…lose-lose for actual civilization.

 

Please Christians, you don’t have to accept my particular New Age version of God if reason doesn’t lead you to those conclusion…but don’t think idiocy like this is in any way a legitimate understanding of God.

 

 

*Don’t get me wrong, Plato made a lot of mistakes, but this isn’t one of them.

**You really can’t because the word for God and Zeus is sometimes the exact same word in Ancient Greek.

***I’ll fully admit that I have no way of justifying any of this without the idea of Reincarnation—if there was just one life, you would have a hard time making this as a serious argument. Lucky for me science is beginning to show reincarnation is a fact.

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Faith, Fear, God, Love, New Age, Religion, Spirituality

Another look at “Heaven is for Real”, Calvinism, and Reality

 

 

Okay so this is going to be even more ranty than usual posts…but the ideas I’m about to deal with are so abhorrent that they do not even deserve treatment as valid points that need to be refuted by logic…but they seem to be held by far too many. This is going to get a little disjointed compared my usual posts, but the work I am commenting on wasn’t particularly well ordered to begin with.

 

So if you may recall my review of Heaven is For Real. I complained that the movie wasn’t very good as a movie or as a defense of near-death experiences (NDE). Now ignoring the flaws as a movie, the problems with the film as a representation of an NDE were numerous. The first was despite there being thousands of examples of NDE this film seemed to have none of the typical trademarks.

 

Some of these trademarks include the tunnel of light. Being often, but not always met by a being of light as a guide through the tunnel. A review of your life. And being given a choice whether or not to go back. (As I said in the previous review, I did not read the book and this film and what I have seen on TV from interviews makes me doubt this story in general).

 

Further, another problem I had was how Christian Heaven appeared in this film. What was depicted with a disturbingly pale Jesus (no Jew from the first century who walked everywhere by foot in the Israeli desert would look anywhere near as pale as they showed him in this film), clouds, gates and other various tropes of a children’s Bible depiction of Heaven.

 

God

And the evidence of NDE’s back me up on this opinion.

From the wealth of NDE’s out there Heaven is more intellectual and less physical than a place of pearly gates and clouds.   Also while the occasional saint, angel and ascended master does occasionally pop up the reality is that most people are not greeted by Jesus. Oh, and most importantly, this typical story is told by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus,
Buddhists, Taoists, Atheists, and any and all other groups you can think of. God doesn’t care about what name you call him by as much as most religions would like you to think. There are lots of books that prove this point, if want to see the evidence for yourself I would start with Evidence of the Afterlife and Life After Life.

 

But you know, the movie and the book were out to make money so skewing the story to their intended Christian audience can maybe be forgiven in the name of rational capitalism.

 

But then I see an article that makes the following brain dead statement:

 

“The book [Heaven is for Real] places the accounts of heaven in a firm Biblical context, with frequent references to scriptural passages. The film does not follow this practice. In addition to quite fanciful descriptions of heaven, there is the suggestion that everyone is going to end up there. There is no mention anywhere of hell or the last judgment.”

 

So the problems with the movie are the parts that actually match up to known facts about NDEs.

 

Any longtime reader of this blog knows I take a particular glee in pointing out what idiots Atheists are. And Atheists are idiots. They hold an article of faith to the point of absolute nihilistic insanity despite the fact that logic, experience and evidence points to a simple undeniable fact that there is a God. The problem however is that this does not seem to be a flaw limited to atheists.

 

So in the light of facts about NDEs:

That people from all religions seem to go to Heaven.

 

That there is a consistency in these stories across culture, generation, and religion (which suggests it’s not just people making up stories).

 

The fact that the people who report these stories have often been brain dead, i.e., their brain was incapable of encoding new memories during this time; ergo it couldn’t have been a hallucination.

 

That the incredibly rare stories of punishment or torment are virtually always included by points like ‘well they flat lined but they weren’t brain dead for more than a second’ or heavy use of drugs were involved in their being near death in the first place (or other things that a legitimate skeptic could use to throw the case out).

 

That no one has ever felt judged during their NDE, even people who lived terrible lives beforehand (most in this category have felt transformed by the love they felt and lived better lives since).

 

So these are facts about NDEs. And what do religious people complain about…it didn’t conform to my interpretation of the Bible!

 

You know I could at least respect the religious people taking the data head on and trying to prove that all these NDE’s are faulty, but they don’t do that, they would rather just shove up their Bible and act like the cast of Inherit the Wind* ignoring all evidence and simply saying they “do not think about things they do not think about” and defer to only the Bible for answers (conveniently missing the numerous times reason and logic are praised in both the Old and New Testaments).

 

But you know, if that the only stupid thing said in this article, “Popular ReligionHeaven For Everyone?”. I might have just ignored it…but not only does the article getworse, much worse, but while attempting to portray itself as an impartial reporting of the debate about the afterlife (strangely the only sides in this debate appear to be the ones who only want to use very limited interpretations of the Bible) but it frighteningly seemed to be a synthesis of numerous articles I’ve been seeing on issues such as heaven, sin, Calvinism and God. All in one place I found most of the incorrect beliefs about faith, God, the soul, and life I’ve been seeing pop up here and there with more and more regularity as this abomination of New Calvinism seems to gain force…to see them in one place was such a gift it had to be taken up and refuted.

 

“There is now a considerable controversy about the film in the Evangelical world. Grossman quotes another pastor, Tim Challies, who criticizes the film ‘that celebrates the heaven we want, not the Jesus we’ve really got who is worthy of worship and won’t allow ungodliness in heaven’”

 

Oh wow. Again I love how no one wants to actually turn to what real evidence there is, only to argue points of theology based on one badly translated book. I also love how they make no bones about the fact that mankind and any non-Christian beliefs are unholy (but let’s be honest here, it’s even more narrow than that, because this vision of God caring deeply about your denomination and if you’re in the wrong one, to Hell with you). But that’s right because we all have original sin. A guy a few thousand years ago broke a rule, ate an apple and we all have to suffer. If you went and shot the great-grandson of a Nazi because the sins of the father carry to the son so forth and so on, you would be called crazy and immoral…but apparently when God does it for all generations to the end of time, that’s a God “who is worthy of worship.” I fail to see why the worst and most immoral aspects of humanity coupled with tyrannical power is worthy of worship.

 

“Other critics have accused the film of failing to emphasize that there is no way to heaven except through faith in Jesus.”

 

Actually the film is quite biased towards Christianity…it’s the facts of NDEs that show that God doesn’t care what religion you follow. These are facts. I’m sorry if you are more comforted by believing you’re sinful and need to be redeemed. But the FACTS say otherwise.

 

 

“The debate over this film reflects a broader split among Evangelicals, which pits the vision of four-year old Colton over that of proto-Evangelical Jonathan Edwards[…]Most contemporary Evangelicals are very much in the middle between these two extremes”

 

This is the point that the article stops being just a bad discussion and becomes more of a trip through evil. But I would like to point out that the two “extremes” this author believes in are on the one hand you have Protestant Christianity and on the other hand you have Protestant Christianity and in the middle you have Protestant Christianity. I fully realize that the site I found this on probably only writes for that audience, and I realize it’s my own damn fault for trying to read other opinions and should just recognize that this is a preaching to the choir moment. But I’m not going to. I may believe that capitalism is the only system that works, and that the only rational argument is between mixed-economy conservatives (like current Republican leadership) and libertarians (like Rand Paul or John Stossel) with capitalists (like Hayek and Friedman) in the middle…but just because I believe these are the only rational options I’m not anywhere stupid enough to think that these are the extremes. There is socialism and communism and fascism on one side and there is monarchism and anarchy on the other. Those are extremes. And to call the extremes all set within a Protestant framework suggests such a limited way of looking at the world that it has challenged and shown to be the bullshit it is, even if no one who read that article ever reads this one. Ideas have power, and dangerous ones like the author of this one must be confronted.

 

Okay let’s get back to this article.

 

god's wrath

The Calvinist vision of God only belongs in Far Side cartoon…in reality it’s too preposterous to be taken seriously.

“But then there still are those who hold on to the old-time religion of fire and brimstone—and those, who having lost it, want to go back to it. The so-called New Calvinists are an interesting case in point; not suprisingly, they have made Jonathan Edwards one of their mentors.”

 

Some people have wondered why I have serious problems with Calvinism and new and vile incarnation…it’s statements like this. Why?

 

Well keep reading:

 

“He was a highly educated theologian and a stern Calvinist—the entire Calvinist package—“total depravity” (all of humanity sunk in sin), “double predestination” (God has decided from the beginning of time who will be saved and who damned), “selective salvation” (Jesus did not die for all men, only for the pre-determined elect). He preached against the Arminians, who modified Calvinism by, among other things, insisting that those who go to hell should have done something to deserve that fate.”

 

The fact that anyone can speak of Jonathan Edwards in even remotely positive terms defies reason…the fact that this author could later go as far to say that “Edwards was an intellectual” is simply preposterous. Unstable sociopath I can buy–intellectual, not so much. But this article is quite sympathetic to Edwards and his beliefs—as it seems he is to most of New Calvinism. Does it only bother me that the belief that all people are sunk in depravity because of someone a few thousand years ago breaking a rule that reason would put up there with “don’t walk on the grass,” that there is no free will and no ability to change our fate, making us not only depraved but mere automatons of a lunatic tyrant. Worse the article is very insulting to what it calls “Vanilla Evangelicals” who might have a problem with this image of God as a raving lunatic. (But then again this article also seems dismissive in one part of Thomas Aquinas for believing that babies who had not been baptized would not suffer in hell, quoting a theologian who makes it clear if you’re not baptized you burn for all eternity.) Of course one my favorite parts has to be the line “there can be no doubt that both Testaments proposed a day of judgment that would segregate the blessed from the damned”—which I’m sure comes as a shock to most Jewish philosophers for the last 2,000 years who take no opinion on the afterlife, let alone a day of Judgment; I guess the Jews just don’t know how to read the Old Testaments in this author’s mind.

 

The article even tries to portray the following piece of Edward’s philosophy as valid:

“Edwards proposes that the latter, looking down from heaven to the torments of hell, will not only do so with equanimity but with joy at the working of God’s justice. To leave no room for any misplaced sympathy, he insists that the righteous will not be moved even if among the sufferers in hell are individuals that once were loved—parents, children, spouses.”

 

There are no words of condemnation for this in the article and that is horrifying. The idea that in Heaven everyone has become a sadistic psychopath who revels in suffering of others (often for crimes such as not calling God by the right name despite living an otherwise moral life) is beyond any rational interpretation of God. If this is what Heaven is and how God behaves, then I will enjoy Hell because this sick, perverted God is no better than some of the more disturbing ancient Pagan deities. In fact, morally this vision of God is on par with Ba’al, the ancient Phoenician God whose worshippers sacrificed live infants to.

 

Thankfully I do not have a God that is this disturbed. God is not like this. Facts of NDEs and miracles and life show that God is not, and cannot be this evil; life is full of signs that are evident for anyone who would like to put to the test of reason (which the Bible actually praises)—and it tells that these that are shallowly called faith have no basis. But let’s return to one of the article’s original lines that complained about Heaven is for Real because it “celebrates the heaven we want, not the Jesus we’ve really got who is worthy of worship and won’t allow unholiness in heaven.” A God who punishes for no legitimate reason, and trust me original sin is not a legitimate reason, is not worthy of worship. Only a rational loving God is worthy of worship. What Calvinism, in all its forms, shows is not a God of reason and not a God of love. It is a sick butcher who revels in the suffering of others. And that thing which is passed off as an image of God is certainly not worthy of worship.

 

Now I’m sure someone could point out that this article which I have taken to task, only brings up the two sides and never actually says which side the author comes down on, thus I’m being overly critical, and unjustifiably so. But, that’s not a valid argument. The article is always positive, even if subtly so, of the Calvinist side and dismissive or insulting of every other viewpoint. This author may have wanted to appear neutral, but he is in no way neutral. You can’t discuss ideas this vile dispassionately because they are not worthy of even a prima facie treatment as valid ideas. And if you find them more comforting than a God that actually does love all his children, then you have issues.

 

One final point. The article closes with:

 

“But I had no intention of diverting attention from the fact that questions about heaven and hell raise serious issues for religious faith, especially for any version of monotheism. The presence of evil in the world created by God is intolerable unless there is an ultimate judgment against it. In the words of the Quran, there will be that day of judgment when every man will stand alone before God.”

 

Ignoring that there are answers to the problem of evil other than damnation, the fact that this Calvinist author sees no problem in finding comparisons between his beliefs and the Koran is abhorrent. If there is one book in all of existence that God had nothing to do with in its writing, it’s the Koran, a book of hate and violence, and the most perverted view of God around…and that Calvinism so easily finds a parallel between their view and the God of hate in the Koran, should give everyone pause given that it does appear to be on the rise.

Now, again, you could claim that this author and his bias is not symptomatic of a larger growing movement.  That would certainly be an argument against me getting this upset, but, at least personally I am seeing these terrible ideas of Calvinism begin to spread ever so slightly, and this is something I would rather over react to than be silent and let it progress unchallenged.

 

 

 

*It should be noticed that the play/movie Inherit the Wind which shows Scopes Trial to take place in a town of backward hicks and prosecuted by a zealot who knew nothing about anything and differs greatly from the real Scopes Trial where the town was somewhere between indifferent and supportive of Scopes, and the real prosecutor was against evolution not because he didn’t understand science but because at the time, the 1920’s, evolution and eugenics went hand in hand in all teachings…and he, strangely enough, had a real moral problem with eugenics—can’t imagine why.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Faith, Fear, Free Will, God, Religion, Spirituality

Weekly Meditation: Miracles

positive energy

I’ll be the first to admit, complain too much. I like to think of myself as pragmatist with a bend toward optimism, but too often I use this blog to complain about the way things are, and at most point out ways that could theoretically be better but seldom do I actually talk about more practical ways to make things better—and it could be argued that this is quite foolish of me.

 

Which is why meditation is so important to help focus us toward doing what it right, because it is right now because we win, and to help up see the small victories in our daily struggles and focus on those. To help in our goal to push us further to what I would call the New Age (you almost certainly have a different term).

 

I have to help to create more of the positive that is in the world and not just try to reduce the negative, even if it’s only in small ways. As such I think I will once again try to once week propose a meditation, thought experiment or action to perform that I will help me focus in my work to make the world a better place and I can all but guarantee, if you follow my suggestion, will not only make your own life happier and more positive, but because positive emotions and ideas are more contagious than the flu, will make the lives of everyone around you better. I promise.
I’m almost convinced one of the most important meditations I would suggest for anyone to think about for the coming week comes from the great spiritual text A Course in Miracles. A Course in Miracles is broken into three parts, the first the text which describes the true nature of the world, the relationship between God and his children, and the simple truth that there is only love in the universe, all else is illusion. The third part is a more in depth description of several deeper questions brought up in the text. But the relevant part of today’s discussion comes from the second part.

The second part of the Course is a selection of 365 daily meditations (you can guess how long it should take you to get through the whole sequence). And while they all are uplifting and peaceful when meditated upon (I personally find if I go over the whole sequence while doing a very long set of yoga exercises will eventually leave me crying tears of joy). But of all the lessons in the second part of the course, I often find Lesson 77 most comforting and uplifting.

Lesson 77

I am entitled to miracles.

 

I know your first reaction to this is “no I’m not”. I would refer you back to a quote I’m think I use a little too much, but only because it’s blatantly relevant.

 

We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. “–Marianne Williamson

I am entitled to miracles.

No, really you are. The very nature of the universe is actually a place where you should get everything you want. Think about it. Can you actually imagine a God who doesn’t want you to be happy? At every level of reason the idea that God wants you to suffer is either illogical or requires a really perverse vision of God. The problem isn’t that the universe isn’t set to give you miracles–and I don’t mean trite waking up every day, a sunrise, friends kind of miracles, I mean full blown call out the Catholic Church to just try and disprove this kind—it’s that all too often we’re not looking for and expecting those miracles. Sure, when we expect to wake up in the morning and see friends that day as a miracle that we’re entitled to, we get it. But we don’t often feel that we are deserving of the love of our life, the new job, the dream home, the spiritual revelation…and low and behold we don’t get it.
Now I’m not going to say that meditating on this idea for 5 minutes a day is going to turn you into a millionaire by next week—your ego has built up centuries worth of walls to try and make you deny this fact, and it will likely take time to tear down those walls (but kudos to you if you can to it in a week)—but it will help stem the tide against your ego’s defenses and begin to put you, your life, and hopefully the world around you on a more upward path to spiritual enlightenment.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under God, Meditation, New Age, Spirituality

Heaven is for Real…but this movie won’t even begin to convince you of that fact

Heavenreal

 

Shallow. Unmoving. Poor support of the point it was trying to make. Oh let me tell you how much I just loved Heaven is for Real.

 

In a world where there are thousands of Near Death Experiences where people who have been blind from birth can tell you what color the doctors in the OR were wearing while they had flat lined, where people come back with messages from dead loved ones with information that they could have no way of knowing beforehand, or where the person having the NDE goes completely brain dead so there is no way their brain could have just been hallucinating…we bring you a movie about a kid who never actually died and came back with information that any skeptic could tear holes in. Oh, then the movie just sucked on any standard of film making as well.

 

Let’s first deal with how bad the movie is.

 

The film follows a family, the Burpos, as they deal with the fact that their son nearly died and claims to have gone to Heaven. They deal with their own crises of faith and with being somewhat shunned by the community as others deal with their own crises of faith.

 

Well first off there are the numerous financial and personal problems the family in this film had to deal with (beside the kid almost dying). None of them get resolved

The entire film seems to be about everyone, the family, the parish, the community having a hard time accepting the concept of life after death—this does little more than to portray most Christians as shallow people who cling to the church out of fear, which I personally don’t think applies to all Christians, yeah we’ve all met some people like that…but it’s everybody in this film. It’s a little bizarre that this is what is being hyped as a faith based film given that it shows most church going folk to be hypocrites when you just scratch the surface. Yeah, real inspiring.
Also I felt that the writers didn’t even recognize their own hypocrisy in the final sermon in the film (which I’m guessing was supposed to offer some kind of catharsis, though I didn’t get any) among other things chided people for pride…even though it came from a guy who throughout much of the movie refused help from a friend even though he’s $20,000+ in debt and there was no resolution to this (except maybe the paycheck they got from writing the book but I’m trying not to confuse the movie with reality).

 

But the real problem is that none of it is all that moving. From the actors I recognized I have seen them all give better performances, and none of the crises of faith I see anyone go through in this film ever seems to fully make sense to me (I don’t get how all these people who are so active in a church can all be so full of doubts and disbelief…I understand individuals having a crisis of faith, I don’t understand a seemingly entire congregation becoming hostile to what should seemingly confirm their beliefs). No single character’s story ever seems to be dealt with in detail in the film and it just is all half-assed through the run time.

 

Oh and there’s some girl in Lithuania painting pictures…I never really got the point of this and could ponder for eons what possessed the director to put this random and pointless part in.

 

Now a lot of this could be due to the fact that as an NDE goes, this kid’s story isn’t what I’d call ironclad. He never died, his story isn’t particularly consistent, and none of the information he gives is beyond all doubt that he never heard it from other people. I believe in NDE’s the soul actually does touch the afterlife and see Heaven…but I also happen to know from research that there are cases that leave no logical explanation other than a person’s soul actually did leave their body and touch the other side. There is no such certainty here. I’m not saying the kid didn’t experience exactly what he describes (or at least as well as the movie relays it) but there are so many logical ways one could also be skeptical that the movie is only going to affect people who already believe (and in my case, not even that).  I actually am a little annoyed as you can only get so many movies with a theme like this made and distrusted to a general audience…and if you really want to get people to believe in the truth that there is an afterlife, I would not put a movie with such weak backing.  Also I’m just a tad annoyed that one of the most important facts about NDE’s: that everyone goes to Heaven, Christians, Jews, Pagans, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, everyone (because God doesn’t care about that sort of thing) seemed to get lost in a lot of talk of Jesus (I have no problem with Jesus or what he taught, but this film veered a little too much to the you only get into Heaven through Christianity bend for my tastes given that serious research into NDE’s shows exactly the opposite).

 

I have not read the book, and this movie certainly doesn’t convince me I should.
If you want a good movie that is actually moving about the life after death go watch Hereafter. If you want good well researched material about proof of life after this one I would suggest starting with Life before Life–Children’s Memories of Previous Lives or Evidence of the Afterlife.

 

 

Final Grade D-

5 Comments

Filed under Faith, God, Love, Prayer, Religion, Spirituality

Atheists continue to be very stupid…

atheists are idiots

Recent run ins around the internet have once again confirmed for me that atheists are a very, very stupid bunch. I have my issues with Christians, but none of the problems I have with them even reaches the utter contempt I have for atheists. Never in history has there been a group so stupid and so arrogant at the same time. Since in the last couple of days I’ve taken a few shots at the wacky fringe of Christianity in one blog, and at both Christians and atheists in another, let’s balance the scales and focus merely on the abject stupidity of atheism.

Not only are they a group that hold as a fact something that cannot even logically be proven (which I believe is called faith), and defend this belief with a zeal seldom seen outside of a cult, they are very adamant that they’re not a religion, that somehow their belief system* is special and should not be treated like every other religion. Uh-huh. Just because you use the word science does not make you better than anyone else…primarily because you don’t know anything about science.

Science, and the reason that backs it is actually quite clear on some things and despite what atheists like to say it does not line up with their beliefs.

Primarily it does not line up with whether God exists or not.

Reason has a very simple answer: God exists.

How do we know? Well, track the logic and science back. Everything in the universe is moving. Newton’s laws of physics (a basic framework that has not been uprooted by relativity or quantum mechanics, or any other theory Atheists want to throw at you which even they don’t understand…I love when atheists say “Well clearly you don’t understand M-Brane theory,”—like you do either—atheists just use these things to sound intelligent without understanding a very simple point that none of them have even remotely disproved the existence of God), namely that “Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.” Or in laymen’s terms: objects in at rest tend to stay at rest, and objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless they are acted upon by an outside force. Since everything in the universe is moving then the only two possibilities are that (1) that everything has always existed, nothing was ever created, and it’s simply always been in motion. (2) everything was at one point created and then put into motion.

Let’s deal with each one.

The first that everything has always existed in some form and has always been in motion and if you looked back into infinity you find that there was no beginning only an infinite stretch of moving matter and energy. This was a very popular belief with ancient cultures, notably the Greeks, even if you went back to before the Earth existed there was chaos, a churning mass of matter and energy from which was formed everything. The problem with this is not only the logical issue with an infinite series of regressions, since logic and common sense dictate that there must be some beginning to things, is another law of science: the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, like the universe, the amount of entropy (roughly speaking the amount of disorder) never decreases and will always eventually reach equilibrium. Again, in laymen’s terms, so long as there aren’t outside forces acting upon any area it will eventually settle down and become calm and lifeless. If you turn off the jets (an outside force) in the Jacuzzi (a closed system) the water will eventually become entirely calm. If you close a room eventually the air inside will stop moving and everything will settle to the floor. And if you leave the soup of the universe working for an infinite amount of time eventually every star will burn itself out, every black hole will disintegrate, every galaxy will dissipate and there will only be a fairly even spaced gas and dust all moving just above absolute zero.

So the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic says the universe can’t have just always existed.

So that’s one theory without God down.

(2)Luckily we have science and background radiation and red shift. And because of these things we know that there was a beginning to the universe so it’s not just logical deduction that tells that the universe had to have a beginning. In a fiery ball of everything, the universe suddenly exploded, created all the little bits of quantum strings which formed into atomic particles which formed into elements, and from there stars and planets and everything else. Since the Big Bang we have seen nothing but a logical and expected following of Newtonian laws of motion (that everything is moving because of the explosion of the Big Bang and interaction with everything created in the aftermath of the Big Bang) and that the universe has slowly been moving toward equilibrium.

Of course this presents it own possibilities. Either the (A) Big Bang just randomly happened when nothing exploded, (B) this version of the universe is just one of many in an infinite line of big bangs and crunches or (C) this universe exists within a larger structure.

Now when we look at option A, that in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded, common sense may simply dismiss this as silly, but on a more scientific basis this violates a scientific law called the conservation of mass which states that mass (which includes energy and mass, remember they’re the same thing, E=MC2) can neither be created nor destroyed, only change form. It’s impossible to just create something from nothing. It’s especially impossible since all science states time was always created in the Big Bang…so it would not only be nothingness exploding and forming everything, but it would have started at a specific point in time where time does not exist. Yeah, this idea is preposterous.

So we move to option B. A long line of Big Bangs and crunches. A lot of people like this. The universe explodes expands for a while, contracts again until it is too compact and then explodes again.   Like dropping a rubber ball it goes down, then up, and keeping bouncing…only the fact is that, like the ball, the laws of entropy apply. The balls transfers energy to the ground each time it hits and eventually comes to rest. Even if there was a first explosion, universe as it’s contracting would explode before it got back to the infinitely small portion it did before explode with not quite the same force, heat would not dissipate as far when the contraction beginning again causing the next explosion to not be as big…a series of Big Bangs and crunches has to be subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that eventually this process too will die out and reach equilibrium where the forces causing explosion and contraction are balanced…and if the process is infinite then we would have already reached that equilibrium and we wouldn’t be here. This is just a version of A all over again and can’t be for the same reason. So again we are left with only one option.

Option C, there must be something bigger than the universe which the universe exists in. Now either that something is (I) a larger form of the universe equally governed by rules of physics and logic and equally limited…or (II) it is something infinite.

Now if it’s option (I) a larger but still limited universe then we run into all the problems that’s we’ve been dealing with already…and keeping running through them infinitely. We keep needing a larger and larger universe. And this infinite loop is just as stupid for the same reasons we needed something larger.

Thus, whatever this larger system is it must be something that is outside of time, because time is only created with the Big Bang, but also to allow for the creation of things within time…which seem contradictory at first glance, but is certainly more logical than having to break the laws of conservation, movement, and thermodynamics. It must be able to cause movement (as it caused in this universe) without needing to be moved itself (else we find ourselves back in the infinite loop and the problems that entails). Thus it must be an uncaused cause and unmoved mover.

This we call God.

Now does this prove it’s the God of Christianity, or Zeus or Thor? Nope. It doesn’t. But it proves that there has to be an infinite cause that in not subject to cause or movement.

Now Atheists like to make to make two complaints here. The first is that since I haven’t proved even that this vision of God is even intelligent, let alone the vision of a particular religion, that I haven’t proved anything. I have. I have proved that there has to be a cause that must by definition be infinite, unmoved, and uncaused. Atheists like to say that there is just science, but saying that there is just big bangs and crunches (or worse creation ex nihilo) is actually rejecting science…but to prove the unmoved mover is a major step. It is the admission of something infinite, which they really hate because with the admission of the infinite everything they try to deny becomes possible, probable and likely even.

The second complaint is that again I’m going to use science and it really pisses them off.   In science when you have discovered something but you don’t know what it is you study it, you look for its effects, and by its effect you judge its nature. So we would then look at the effects of this unmoved mover, this uncaused cause. And what you see is a universe where the 4 forces (gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces) are all perfectly balanced so as to create matter and planets and life.   Quantum Mechanics tells us that these 4 forces could have been in a different balance had the big bang gone differently…but they are perfectly balanced. And that tells you this whatever this cause is intelligent to come up with a system that perfect. To say the odds, unless you consider the preposterous idea of an infinite number of universes**, are zero is an understatement. That then despite perfect balance more matter than anti-matter was created in the big bang and a trillion other coincidences since makes the idea that there is not an intelligent organizing power is just the height of stupidity.

Now atheists like to say that this looking at the effects and the order, the argument by design, is really just a complicated version of the argument by cause (the one I’ve been making up until this point about order). And if you used design to prove God, they would be right. But since the infinite, uncaused, unmoved, creator has already been established this is not a dressed up argument by cause but rather defining God.

They equally like to dismiss the body of evidence about the soul, life after death and reincarnation as invalid because you haven’t proven God. And then they dismiss God because if he were real we would see evidence, like proof of the soul. Oh wait, notice their nice little circular argument there. We have established the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause…at that point all the other evidence tells us that this creator is intelligent, is loving, is present in our lives.

And as the denials and circular arguments and idiocy mounts, they have to become more and more arrogant in their denial because without shouting LALALALALALALA as loud as they can they might have to reevaluate their underlying fallacies…which brings up to the nicely to why I felt the need to tear down their stupidity in the first place.

*Actually it is special. It’s stupid. It’s dumber than the religion of peace and actually has been the cause of more deaths than any other religion in history. So yes, atheists, you are special…in a truly horrific kind of way.

**If you don’t see how just saying there are infinitive number of universes which means it must be operating by the same rules of being subject some kind of mechanistic laws which just creates the same problems I have dismissed several times already, really there is no hope for you.

9 Comments

Filed under God, Religion, Spirituality

God’s Not Dead: Deeply flawed, but decent

profile

 

So I didn’t think I was originally going to go to this one before it hit the dollar theater but on some word of mouth recommendations (and the fact it is getting as much buzz as it is) this little pagan thought he would see if this was more than the typically bad Christian film.* It wasn’t, I would go as far as to say this is the best I’ve seen from this genre. It certainly was the best performance I’ve seen from Kevin Sorbo. But that is not to say that it is not without its flaws.

 

The central plot revolves around a Christian student (Shane Harper) Josh Wheaton** who is forced to either say in class that there is no God or risk his grade for the class. And as there is no tradition of taqiyya in Christianity he feels he cannot lie about his faith. This, in what I have to say is the worst teaching method I have ever seen, leads the rather pompous professor (Kevin Sorbo) to try and humiliate him by making him defend the idea that God exists before the class. What follows is his defense of God and how it affects him and those in his class…and a lot of people not in his class, and some people only connected by the most tangential lines…honestly I think they tried to squeeze way to many subplots into this movie.

 

Now his argument in favor of God takes three main points:

  • The traditional argument by cause…although Aquinas made the philosophical much better, and I’ve seen many others make the scientific argument much more clearly.
  • The argument from design looking at life, specifically he looks at the rather shaky grounding for modern evolution being set on punctuated equilibrium…rather than the stronger attacks on the fact that life could not just spontaneous come into existence, nor could sentience. But I was quite happy that the writers took the much more intelligent tack that even if evolution is true it still demands a God to work the way it has rather than the ignorant creationist or simplistic intelligent design arguments.
  • And finally rebutting the problem of evil and taking the Augustinian side that evil exists because of free will.

Regrettably the film didn’t actually use any of the names or terms I used above which would make it difficult for most people seeing this film to actually go and read the more fleshed out versions. So if the film wanted to convince people it may have whet their appetite for these ideas but it didn’t give them anything to work with from there. But overall the case presented by the student is one that is accurate if a bit over simplified.

 

Further I liked the point that behind every atheist is a very angry theist who is angry at God for some reason, which is more or less what I’ve witnessed in life…and what has at least been partially substantiated by research (it’s been shown they all fear him…and with following Yoda’s line of logic…) Although given the rather callous and shallow letter the professor’s character’s mother wrote to him before dying, I can kind of understand why he might have issues with God.

 

My biggest problem is this jump in logic the movie seems to make over and over again. If I show the arguments against God are wrong and show evidence that there is a God then it follows that a Protestant Christian interpretation of God exists.  Over and over again this movie implicitly makes this assumption.   Now to a New Ager like me this is where I have problems. If you destroy the opposition’s case and show that a God exists…that shows that a God exists. You still have a long way to go to prove that your particular interpretation of God exists. And this is the biggest problem I have both with atheists and Christians in this fight; they both seem to assume it’s either their side or the other side. It’s this one or the other. Atheists seem to feel that all Christians believe the exact same thing and can be lumped together and most Christians (or at least a very large portion of the more vocal ones) seem to feel that their interpretation of Christianity is obviously only the right one. As a non-Christian I look at this battle between these two groups with probably the same confusion that America looked at the side war between Finland and the USSR in the early 40’s: Guys you do know there is much bigger battle going on that doesn’t just involve your own petty differences? Right? Honestly as someone with many Thomist sympathies, I don’t think even Catholics would be particularly thrilled with the defense of Christianity in this film (but I could be wrong).

 

But I think this shows a larger problem that is not just specific to Christianity (nor do I think all Christians suffer from it). This film, which ostensibly should have been there to try and offer arguments for atheists and agnostics to give up their beliefs and accept God, does a poor job of it because it implies that if you believe in God you must be a Protestant. You would do a much better job by just proving that a God exists. Once that door has been opened philosophically then if you truly believe in your interpretation you should trust free will and faith (which was a central part of the argument in the movie) to bring people to the truth. By saying that if you have to accept everything or nothing you’re committing just as egregious a logical sin as atheists, and tactically making a very poor move. And I say this is a larger problem because you’re seeing the same problem in a larger political sense, where populists are currently demanding that all who are in the Republican party must be ideologically pure or we can not have them at all…and it is this attitude that drives voters away and keeps the party from winning time and time again…and if Christians* like the producers want to make a case for God they might do best to just try and prove the existence of a God by itself before they make the case for their interpretation of a God as making someone accept both at the same time might in many cases be a bridge too far.
One of the most jarring things of the whole film is that near the end one of the atheist characters in the film is confronted with death and makes a death bed conversion. Luckily there is a minister there to help guide this character back to the faith in their last minutes…and it’s not too subtle that God had a major hand in making sure the minister was there at that place in that time to help save that soul. Even as a pagan I didn’t have a problem with this because I do believe this is how God works…what I had a problem with was that between the writing and directing the scene comes off in a very cold and callous way. Immediately he begins preparing this character for death even though the correct thing for someone to do would have been CPR to save the character’s life. It comes off a little heartless. The fact the very next scene has the cast of Duck Dynasty insulting this character after they’ve already died is possibly one of the worst directing calls I have ever seen (honestly if you just flipped the order of the scenes it wouldn’t have been as bad) but apparently the director felt like insulting the dead.

 

 

On a final note I did appreciate the film showing that China is a repressive tyranny and the religion of peace is anything but.

 

If you’re a Protestant you’ll probably be able to overlook some of the glaring philosophical problems and downplay the bad writing and actually enjoy the film (again I’m not entirely sure how much the Protestant interpretation will grate for non Protestant Christians)…if you’re not a Christian that philosophical jump between God’s existence and Jesus died for you might be a bit much to overlook and ruin the enjoyment.

 

I give the whole thing a C-.

 

*That is not an insult to Christianity…that is an insult to the absolutely pathetic writing and production values faith based movies have had for the past couple of decades. Let’s be honest, Lifetime laughs at the production values of faith based films.

**I still am not sure if the fact that his name bears a great deal of resemblance to a very famous atheist is intentional or not.

***Again certainly not the entirety, but an awfully large number with access to mass media.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Movies, Religion, Solar Plexus Chakra Willpower, Spirituality

Some in the conservative movement seem to be out to destroy Republicans with their closed minded behavior

 

Lately I have noticed a very strange resurgence, once again in an election year, of the most idiotic branch of religious closed mindedness popping up in political forums.  And it seems to keep coming from the right…do these people want to lose or are they just too stupid to realize that this constantly hurts the party and actually getting anywhere with any of their ideals?

 

Let me start off by saying my problem is not Christianity, Christ, or organized religion in general. I may have a few issues with some of the core metaphysical concepts within Christianity, but there is nothing in the ethical code of Christ (at least in the way I read it, some others, say Calvinists or Liberation Theology reads it in a truly abhorrent way, but that’s part of what this column is about).

 

What my problem is that not only are the craziest forms of Christianity making a very vocal comeback, but they’re doing it in a way that is distinctly political. And as this is coming out on what should be conservative outlets (really they’re being rank populist outlets).  But let’s go over a few of these highlights I’ve found (really for everyone I point out here there are at least 10 other articles in the last 3 months I could point out, which suggests a much larger groundswell of the dumbest of the dumb).

 

The first I would like to point out is an article titled 7 Reasons I’m A Conservative, Not A Liberal. Among the many reasons, some of them quite valid, he gives the idea that he is a Christian as a reason why he is a conservative. I hate this point mostly because it exhibits such an ignorance of philosophy that while I try to be articulate on the blog, it leaves me a sputtering mess of anger and outrage in real life.  Note to all Christians, it is not Christianity that gives conservatism its moral back.  Christ may give you many of your moral codes, but his words can be equally interpreted towards socialism as towards capitalism (as has been done by many liberals). It is Aristotle and Aristotle alone who gives conservatism the virtue based backing that makes it the only successful belief system in existence.  Just take a look at history. Before Aquinas grafted Aristotle onto Christianity you had the Dark Ages, after Aquinas showed us that Aristotle was the way, you had the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and the spread of liberty throughout the world. When was the very brief Golden Age of Islam that you hear about (but never see its effects in modern culture) it was the 90 or so years that the Mutalizite Sunni’s grafted Aristotle onto Islam. Why is Europe failing…just find for me an Aristotelian idea anywhere on that god-awful failing continent…or anywhere in the Democratic Party for that matter. Granted those are only two examples…but just wait for the day India, China or Japan grafts Aristotle onto their culture and watch the world take off in a way you’ve never seen. You’re a conservative because of Aristotle not Christ. Please have even a basic understanding of philosophy before you feel the need to state things.  Second, yes you do need the religious backing of Christianity to make Aristotle’s philosophy work. Specifically you need the idea that the human soul contains a spark of divinity (found in the Holy Ghost and the idea that man was made in God’s image).  But this is not an idea that is unique to Christianity. It’s actually found in every single belief system that is not atheism or Islam.  So please don’t act like Conservatism is only a Christian thing, it’s not.  It never has been.  Most of Founding Father conservatives you admire and respect (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton) were deists who tended to doubt (Washington, Hamilton, Madison) or outright deny (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin) the divinity of Christ. We need to accept that conservatism has little to anything to do with Christianity because all this belief does is drive away people who from other religions who would otherwise agree with us on everything. But, way to go. Putting out an article that I can only assume you believe will convince people they should be conservatives…and only accomplishing the exact opposite.

Then of course I saw this one also from the supposedly political Townhall.com We are not all the children of God.  Because that’s right let’s attack random pieces of theological doctrine on a political website, I’m sure that will do wonders to help this make us a big-tent party centered only around conservative principles. Let’s also ignore such statements as “Adam, which was the son of God” (Luke 3:38) and “Blessed are the peacemakers:for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew 5:9). No, no, only the narrowest most closed-minded interpretation of Protestant belief must prevail in our party…are you people intentionally daft or do you not realize you have become your own worst enemy.

But speaking of the worst aspects of Christianity, let’s talk about this little article.  Resurgence of Calvinism.  Dear God in Heaven?  Really?  The most idiotic, anti-Conservative, anti-individual, anti-libertarian philosophical movement in history is making a comeback. You know I used to debate a rather useless and idiotic atheist and his main point was always to attack Calvinism as proof the religion was stupid and among my many points of why he was wrong was that Calvinism wasn’t exactly a major theme in modern Christianity (my other points that he was tumblr_m9ut29DAnM1r1x0cco1_500debating a Christian and that just because one subsection was dumb doesn’t mean that all forms of religion are still valid and a strong plank in my point that this particular atheist was a waste of space and volume), but it still hurts that this rise in this idiotic strain of religion is on the upswing.  And I don’t care what the differences are between the old and new versions of this belief, because at their heart they still both deny free will, a cornerstone belief for any conservative, any republic and any successful free society. To deny free will is to deny the very thing that makes America: the natural rights of liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  But when you look at the people championing this new Calvinism it’s people who claim to be conservatives.

 

Now these are just three examples.  But I’ve seen more.  A lot more. It’s just becomes repetitive and boring to go over all of them.

 

Now it may be that I’m just seeing what I want to see, a general rise in the stupidity of social conservatives, and the confirmation that bias is making me select the information that supports my thesis and ignore everything else…but I’ve looked and between the Tea Party shifting from a purely small government, pro-liberty, low taxes party to one that wants to rail about social issues at every turn, from the endorsement of social conservative loons like Cruz and Palin, from DeMint’s almost psychotic pivot at Heritage from a economic and foreign policy think tank to one that focuses on social issues as it’s primary concern…I’m not seeing anything to disprove my thesis that there seems to be a distinct rise of the vocal closed minded social conservatives who act as if their way is the only way and all who disagree with them to even a minor degree are somehow not conservatives when conservative philosophy should deal with fiscal matters, property rights concept and foreign affairs doctrines only when it comes to politics….conservatives believe in the power of faith and God and the necessity for them in society but we also should believe that we never put them in a position where government has any power over them.

This is dangerous.  This is supposed to be big tent party. We’re supposed to be the party of small government. Of personal liberty and responsibility. Of capitalism.  And these are values that exist not only on the brand of Christianity but in almost all religions.   These statements only drive away the people we should be reaching out to and showing your personal ethics match up with the GOP. It’s not a problem to hold deep religious convictions, it’s in most cases admirable…but while those convictions may drive you, you can convey them in a way that doesn’t turn away people who do not share your exact brand of convictions.   And these people who feel that conservative politics is only for their particular brand of religion need to shut up, because they are hurting the politics they claim to support, or they just need to go away because their bigoted ‘my way or the highway’ attitude is far more in line with liberalism that believes it’s perfectly okay to use any and all means to force people to agree with you.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative, Religion, Spirituality

Monthly Meditation: Learning to Focus

I realized that while in my previous meditation I have focused on some of the more spiritual sides of meditation in the past meditations I have suggested I have just glossed over some of the basics.

One of the most basic and pragmatic benefits to meditation is that it allows you to improve your concentrations skills. By focusing a few minutes everyday on one thing.  By focusing one thing–a mantra, an image, a flame–it allows us to not only focus our mind during the meditation, but to keep our mind focused on things well after our meditation is through.  It also allows for our subconscious mind to sift through the vast amount of information it’s been sorting through all day without having to worry about new information.  This has multiple positive effects on your psychical and mental health.

But sometimes it’s hard to find a mantra that we feel comfortable with (as word have that sneaky tendency to cause us to actually think about the meaning and what it means to us and who said it and and and…the questions and the answers can be the very opposite of the single focus you want in a meditation). The same can be said of focusing on a picture.  And finding time to light a candle can be equally problematic (especially some of the time we need to focus are at work or while standing in a line or various other places that starting a fire might be looked down upon).

So I find that one of the easiest things to focus on is abstract shapes.  There is little to worry about or analyze so they don’t have much deeper meaning and they’re easy to manipulate in your mind (spinning them, changing color or size) so that you can still be focused on them without giving into the boredom that often ruins a good meditation session for those just starting to meditate.

So what I suggest is to either focus on a three dimensional figure (a sphere, a cube, anything you want) and just focus on it from various angles or distances in your mind.

If you want something that might take a little more mental power.  Start with a point.  Focus on it for as long as you can.  If you feel your mind veering off stretch the point out into a line.  Rotate the line the line on any of the three axes for as long as you can.  When that gets dulls  stretch the line into the a square.  Again look at if from all angels.  And when your mind starts to wander again stretch the square into a cube.

tumblr_mteejvVdU31s9jjn1o1_400

 

And then after you’re done looking at the cube take back to down reversing the order.  From a cube to a square, from a square to a line, from a line to a point.

This will help keep your mind focused. It will offer new stimuli as you think about the object you’re focusing on, but still keep you mind on a single object.

Ten minutes a day at the beginning or end of your day (or more if you like) and you’ll be amazed at how much more you’ll be  able to get done in a day.

Incorporate it with a daily more spiritual meditation and you’ll find you’ll get the best of both worlds.

And if you feel that you can stay focused enough, you might want to turn that cube into a tesseract:

240px-Tesseract

 

 

 

Or you could a triangle up to a merkabah like this:
002

Or whatever this is if you’re feeling very focused and just a bit over eager:

tumblr_muyv98xNXT1r1t8a3o1_400

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Meditation, New Age, Spirituality

Why I’m A New Ager

So the other day I was asked by a friend “what does a New Ager believe?”. And I gave my usual piss-poor answer of “It’s kind of hard to explain. It’s a mix of a lot different beliefs.” And while this is true, it’s still not a great answer. Not that other religions are easy to explain, they’re not, every religion is complex and difficult to understand…however, those other religions have these useful books or pre-vetted collections of belief or maybe one or two major beliefs. “What does a Buddhist believe?” You have an answer “The teachings of Buddha and reincarnation and the releasing of karma.” “What does a Christian believe?” “The teaching of Christ as reported in the New Testament, love and forgiveness for all.” Now different denominations have variations, but those variations can be summed up in a sentence or two.

I’ve tried explaining my beliefs before to people, but have often come up to immediate challenges. There have been a lot of challenges involved with this before I even answered: If I didn’t believe in the Christian God how did I explain the problem of evil? If you believed in a more active God than eastern traditions why didn’t God just wake us up from this nightmare that is reality? If I wasn’t a Christian how come I still talk about the father, son, and Holy Spirit? How can I believe in any of the things I do since it was all contradictory? As you can see I do not always run into friendly audiences. So, I realize that as very few are going to initially agree with this interpretation, but before you raise

Who are you?  What do you believe in?

objections, read the whole thing.

So here goes trying to describe my beliefs of what it is to be a New Ager (and I fully acknowledge that other New Agers out there may have different takes on this). Now if you know me I would say the most important distinction of religion is the acts of the its followers, but since in the broad strokes almost all religions advocate for the pretty much the same external actions (with only minimal differences–and I’m excluding the act of fanatics here)–thus the ethical differences between New Age belief and more traditional beliefs is probably not the most efficient way to distinguish New Age belief. So let me go to the more useful metaphysical relationship of God to Mankind.

The first is if you were a parent and your small child was having a nightmare so powerful that they couldn’t wake up, you have two options. Either (1) you can slap your screaming crying child to wake them up or (2) you can hold them, rock them, and speak to them soothingly hoping that your voice will lead them out of their nightmare. Now most parents will probably choose option 2. Option 1 might be faster, but it certainly isn’t all that humane.

The second thing I want you to consider is that in dreams time and identity doesn’t quite work in the traditional sense. I think it’s probably safe to say we’ve all had a dream that seemed to last for days, maybe even weeks, but our perception of time was only part of the dream. A dream that lasts ten minutes in the physical world seemed to drag on in our mind for days. Also we’ve probably all had a dream were there is more than just ourselves in the dream. Our dreams often have a quite large cast, but really all of those people in our dreams are nothing but images of us taking a different form. Some of us may even have had a dream where we perceive the actions of two characters in our dreams at once.

The third idea I would like you to hold in your mind is the Christian relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If you live in the Western world you should be familiar with this relationship…and since I don’t think I have too many readers in Outer Mongolia I’m going to just assume you already know this idea.

Now with those three ideas in mind let me tell you a story. God created the Son. You know this story up to this point. But then the Son had this terrible idea…God might not love him. This is a preposterous idea because God is an infinite being contemplating and giving love. But where the Son should have laughed at such a strange idea, the Son instead fell into a deep sleep (or the equivalent on an infinite non material universal scale). Now in this nightmare that the Son slipped into a whole universe was created with the pieces of the this infinite consciousness of the Son splitting apart into billions of pieces. Just as we may perceive more than one role in our own dreams, the infinite mind of the Son was able to perceive from billions of perspectives. The problem was that this fear that God does not love us latched onto each and everyone of those pieces and formed what New Agers call the ego. The ego is an embodiment of that base fear that we are separated from God, and it is attached to each piece of the Son’s consciousness, what we call the soul. This world is nothing but a nightmare in the mind of the Son (kind of like the Hindu belief that this world is a dream of the Brahman).

Now many complain that a loving god would not allow his Son to experience such a nightmare. But remember, as I pointed out in my first idea, a loving parent doesn’t just smack their child until they wake up. They hold them and speak to them, hoping that voice will bring their child out of their nightmare. In this case that voice appears in this nightmare as what is common called the Holy Spirit. Further as I pointed out time can get awfully fuzzy in a nightmare–What appears as thousand of years here is barely a moment in the reality of true existence. From God’s perspective this nightmare lasted barely a moment in eternity.

At this point the I think most people will understand when I say each of these pieces of consciousness, i.e. humans, are trying to free themselves of their egos and fear and reach a level of Enlightenment a la Hinduism or Buddhism. Ideally, of course the ultimate goal is for everyone to shed their ego/fears and return to the level of being an awakened Son of God. This might engender a idea that we must think collectively and put our own well being second to the good of the whole and others as our goal cannot be reached until all beings reach enlightenment…but that’s actually a false line of logic, as you can’t help anyone else until you yourself reach enlightenment. As such New Age belief requires not only the follower to not give into fear (i.e. you absolutely can’t be a “God-fearing” person as other religions might ask of you) nor can you ascetically withdraw from the world and condemn all the world’s pleasures as sin because that is also giving into the ego’s false belief that sin exists. What you say, of course sin exists! Not really, if this world is only an illusion there can’t actually be anything that God condemns us for, because to God doesn’t admit this world exists, thus there is nothing to condemn and nothing for God to forgive. Yes there are terrible things that happen in this world, but it’s acts of violence against ourselves, or actually against illusions we have created, certainly not against God or God’s laws. But the ego uses your guilt to keep your soul tied to it. I could go on, but to cut this short (and give me future blogs to deal with) the New Age belief is that Enlightenment will only be achieved through the full expression of ourselves and realizing that we are the Son of God and have a infinite power and nothing to feel guilty about because God loves us and anything contrary to that though (fear, guilt, uncertainty) is what keeps us in this nightmare.

Leave a comment

Filed under New Age, Religion, Spirituality

A Meditation for the New Year

So recently I saw on Facebook a friend post an idea about how to treat the new year. This was such a good idea I thought I should share it with everyone because it works as a wonderful year long meditation.

Positive thoughtsTake a jar, preferably a clear one so you can see how the things will pile up, and every day write down a list of the good things that happened to you that day. Big things, small things, totally inconsequential things from ‘got a raise’ to ‘Starbucks was really fast today’ and everything in between. Keep it somewhere you can see. For instance I put my first one in at midnight last night–“It’s not 2013” (godawful year, I’m glad it’s over).  Even if it’s something that happens everyday, put it in there, everyday.  Anything positive is good and it must be put in there.

Since, due to the law of attraction, our thoughts create reality, focusing on every positive thing again will help reinforce the positive thoughts and emotions in our life.  Seeing the jar fill up will help keep us in a good mood as it will be a visual cue to think about all the good things that happened to you over the year.  And, if worst comes to worst, then you can empty  the jar on the ground and read every single one as you put them back into the jar, until the memories of the joy brings you back to happiness (or at least out of depression).

thoughts create reality

Now, I assume like all of us, there are going to be things that seem so terrible that we can’t just give them up.  Which is why I bought a second jar.  Whenever I won’t be able to completely push aside one of those negative ideas, I am going to also write it down, (and probably just spend a quick minute to think of any other negative things that are haunting the peripherals of my mind and put them in too) put them in the second jar and light them on fire.  (Please only do this if you can do it safely.)   Even if it doesn’t get rid of them it will be a wonderful cathartic experience to see that which I don’t want in my life burn and go away.  (I find asking the Archangel Michael to cut all chords of energy to that which I find negative also helps.)

Happy New Year

Leave a comment

Filed under Faith, Meditation, Spirituality

Monthly Meditation: Pray that everyone reaches enlightenment

 

Enlightenment If you have to pray for something, pray that you and everyone you know reaches Enlightenment as quickly as possible.

Wish everyone the best. At all times in all circumstances. Wish them what is best for the development of those souls.

Every person you meet, without exception.

 

Yes I know this sounds overly simplistic, but it’s not.

 

This point came to me recently when my best friend applied for an internship on the other side of the country. An internship that could very well lead to a full time position. Now while I want the best for my friend, it’s just a little hard to pray that someone you care about moves away.  So at least at a surface level there appears to be a Contradiction. Hence my resolution that I will pray for what is best for her path toward Enlightenment.

 

By praying for this I do not face the contradiction of having to choose between praying for my friend’s happiness or her company.   I don’t have to feel guilty about the very human desire to want to spend time with those you care about. I don’t even have to worry about the outcome, or judge it as good or bad because I have prayed for the best of all possible ends for my friend and be comfortable in any outcome because I know enough to know that no matter what happens in the next day, week, year, or even lifetime I know that minor setbacks or victories can always be necessary steps toward ultimate bliss.

And as an added bonus it works as a prayer for people you dislike as much as ones you care for. If there is a truly terrible person in your life pray that they reach Enlightenment quickly as well. Think about it, if your assessment of a person is accurate and they are as terrible as you think then the only ways for them to reach Enlightenment is either they will experience some kind of spiritual revelation that will radically change their outlook and behavior…or what is far more likely for this kind of wretched person to get closer to Enlightenment is for karma to come calling to collect on all those terrible things they have done. Let the joy of the Schadenfreude wash over you for a second…and now realize you never wished them harm or discomfort, only Enlightenment…so none of the negativity that would come from wishing harm to another is attached to you, if harm befell them it’s their own damn fault for incurring that karma, you merely wished them to progress on their journey.  By focusing on the final end you don’t have to worry about the intermediary stops, and you never have to be worried about whether or not your prayers have been answered or not as you can merely assume that they are being answered and you just can’t see far enough down the road to see how the pieces fit together.

 

If you only pray for yourself and that for others what happens is in the best interest of everyone reaching Enlightenment as quickly as possible (actually the universe already tries to do this but because people become fixated on wrong ends they make the journey unnecessarily longer and more complicated) we never have to be worried about  how everything turns out, we never have to give into our egos and wish ill on others, and we can rest assured that no matter what, we wish the absolute best for those around us.

 

I pray that whatever events occur it is the best interest of you reaching Enlightenment with as little delay as possible.

Leave a comment

Filed under Faith, God, Meditation, New Age, Religion, Spirituality

Monthly Meditation: Long Term Goals

Looking to goal

It is the long term goals that should hold your attention.

 

So it has been a while since I’ve put up a meditation.  I’m sorry, but nothing has been coming to me on this front and I feel nothing is better than something that is halfhearted and forced out.  So I’m now going to title these monthly meditations, and hopefully will have something come to me at least once a month.

 

However, something has come to me at last.

 

There is an expression by the Dalai Lama:

“If there is no solution to the problem then don’t waste time worrying about it. If there is a solution to the problem then don’t waste time worrying about it.”

 

This is an excellent thought and a variation in sentiment on the Serenity Prayer.

 

However, this or the serenity prayer isn’t always appropriate because sometimes, regrettably, we don’t always have the wisdom to know whether something can or cannot be done.

 

For instance a few years ago I was unsure if I should focus on my writing or use my time to find a new job as I was very unhappy in my job at the time.  Or should I split my free time between the two? At the time I made the correct choice and focused on writing, although at the time I probably didn’t consciously realize why that was correct decision.   But it was the correct decision because it focused on the long term problem and not the short term.

 

There have been other instances in my life that were like this, and when I reflect on them, when I focused on the long term problems and working to resolve those things tended to work out (as they did with my job…although admittedly not in the way I would have planned).  And when I focused on the short term problems, problems just kept piling up.

 

And suddenly in the last week I have realized that it is always the long term issues that need to be focused on.  Always.  It’s not enough to look toward the future, you have to look to an actual long term goal.

 

It’s ironic that I didn’t see this sooner as this has been my complaint about politics for so long, that our elected officials only see the immediate problems and their immediate solutions to an immediate problem which in turn only causes long term issues.  But this is true of personal lives and problems as well as in politics.

 

You need to focus on the long term issues, the long term problems and the long term goals first.

 

If you are directed toward the long term goals, the small things work themselves out either because you don’t focus on them as much or because God (or whatever name you want to use) tends to help you get over the small crap of the short term issues.

 

So the thing to focus on for this meditation is, as I’ve suggested before, make a list of what you really want in life.  Now prioritize them—what you want the most at the top, the lesser things at the bottom. (Hint: Happiness should be at the top, and the next few should be exactly what you need to have Happiness)   Now circle the top five or six.  And now forget about the rest.  Focus on those. Figure out what you need to do to get those, figure out what you need to learn, to find, to create to achieve those top three (four if you count Happiness, which your other things should all lead to).  Forget about everything else.  Every free moment you have should be focused on those things.

 

All the other small stuff will take care of itself, just keep focused on the long term goals.

 

The meditation for this month will be in training your mind to ignore all the smaller issues and stay focused on the major things.  Have a little faith, that if you are directed toward your ultimate goals, everything else will sort itself out to help you reach those goals.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Chakra, Faith, Free Will, God, Long Term Thinking, Meditation, New Age, Prayer, Religion, Spirituality

Evolution, probability, and the first cell…

Evolution is a miraculous and wonderful thing.  It literally describes how everything from the first cell division to a highly evolved erect ape came to be.  Every adaptation, every change, every little small piece of growth from single celled organism to problem solving primates.

The problem is what is on either side of that string of beauty.  Evolution cannot begin to describe the jump from highly evolved chimp to self aware human.  No other animal other than humans has ever been shown to ask questions or contemplate abstract ideas (and we’ve tried to get chimps and gorillas taught to use sign language to do just that).  The jump from animal to sentient human is an infinite jump that evolution doesn’t quite explain.  But more than that evolution has a problem explaining the beginning of the chain.  A big problem.

Now the usual argument is that random amino acids just luckily formed together to form a DNA strand that not only included the information to create a cell, but also all the cell structures necessary to have read that and replicate that information at the same time (Like having a biological CD with the information to build the first biological CDR and luckily also having a biological CDR to read it, which is lucky since the information to build that first CDR had never been read before then).  And let’s ignore the improbability of that situation or the pure luck that the first cell also had the needed building blocks around to form more cells.  That first cell just hit the cosmic lottery.

DNA

Because in universe where the laws of physics dictate that things get more chaotic not more orderly as time goes by, stuff this complex just forms by chance.

Let’s just look at that DNA strand.  Now one of the smallest DNA strands known for a basic prokaryotic (it has no nucleolus) cell is about 490,000 base pairs in length.  But you know that’s pretty long as it is.  And that’s the shortest one we’ve found after billions of years of evolution, the first cell must have had a much shorter DNA strand (let’s ignore that at 490,000 base pairs the cell doesn’t have all the processes to sustain life and such a cell needs to live off other cells to provide it certain necessities in life).

Now the most basic cell we can find performs well over two hundred processes (unzipping DNA, processing chemicals, building cell walls, letting certain amino acids in, copying DNA and RNA, etc., etc.).  Yes, yes the high school version of the cell seemed so neat and clean…but so did the high school formula to figure out the velocity of a falling object, but we all know the equations necessary to figure out air friction and the influence of various forces on a falling object would drive us insane with the advanced Calculus needed, so we’re just happy with 32 feet per second per second.   So it is with the cell. Even the most basic cell is like a Cray Supercomputer in its complexity, and certainly much more complex than the simple diagram you learned in high school.  But for sake of argument let’s say that the least number of processes needed to sustain life and reproduce a new cell is 150.

And let’s say that each of those functions only require one amino acid chain (which is what DNA actually creates) of only three amino acids in length.  Now to create an amino acid chain DNA must have a start and stop code in the DNA as well.  So any amino acid chain needs 3 lines of DNA to start the process, 3 for each amino acid (so 9 in our example) and 3 to stop the process or 15 base pairs in length. So you need 15 bases pairs for each amino acid chain, multiplied by 150 processes.  Giving you a needed 2250 bases pairs needed.   This number is preposterously low, but go with me on this.

Now each of those 2250 base pairs needs to be the right amino acids to get the function correct.  Now there are only 4 possible base pairs (represented by the letters G,A,T, and C). And they need to be in the right order so that each line in the base pair has a one in four chance of being the right one.  And you have to do this 2250 times over.  (Now I’ll admit that there are base pairs that produce the same chemical in the amino acid chain, TAT and TAC, but given how ridiculously low my number of base pairs is, let’s just say it balances out…you could also argue for filler code as all life now has…but keep in mind that such code is also given to harmful mutations…let’s just go with the hideously low number as it is).  So we have a one in four odds, 2250 times over…or 1 in 4 to 2250 power.

1:42250

That’s the odds of the most basic DNA strand forming.  But let’s say I’m still over shooting the odds even with my hideously short DNA strand.  Let’s say it’s just 1:42000 is equivalent to 101204  (there’s a decimal in that power, but let’s just round it out…in fact let’s round it to an even 1200).

1:101200

 

Basic Cell

It’s more likely that a land slide would produce a BMW than this thing would just randomly form.

So how likely is that?

Well I could tell you that it’s close to 1:108 when it comes to odds of winning the lottery. But I don’t think you fully understand the difference between 108 and 101200 and I can’t blame you.  A 1 with 1200 zeroes after it is something you don’t often consider.

But let me give you some general figures to give you an idea of the size of this number.

The US National Debt: 1013

The number of seconds between the Big Bang and the present: 1016

The number of protons and neutrons in all atoms in the visible universe 1080

 

Okay maybe I can’t give you a way to conceive that number.

Let’s be honest if the number of protons and neutrons in the visible universe is only to the 80th power (and if the whole universe was a trillion times as big as the visible universe then it would still only be to the 92nd power) then I can safely say that the number of times you’ll have to conceive of anything to the 1200th power is probably pretty low. You have better odds of winning the lottery twice a week every week of your life.

I’m sorry if you can sit there and tell me something that is so improbable that isn’t just effectively zero, it is zero, happened by chance, you’re insane.

Now those who believe that there was no hand of the divine in the creation may say I just don’t understand science…and it may be true I don’t have the firmest grasp on all aspects of science…but I can safely say that anyone who thinks the first cell just happened by chance clearly doesn’t have the foggiest concept of math or probability.

Leave a comment

Filed under Faith, God, Spirituality