Wednesday, 24 June 2020
My argument to prove God exists (IIc.)
3. Polytheists/Pagans in general - I don't know if I can accurately say
that polytheists/pagans believe in one God but address it through
different aspects.
Much like the God aspects found in the sephiroth on the Tree of Life or even the Father, Son, Holy Spirit combo in the Trinity, however this cannot be said to be polytheism because both Judaism/Kabbala and Christianity in that God despite the different aspects has a unity of one. It is more to do with differing personality aspects which people can relate to and approach rather than God creating these aspects so it can relate to people. So there are so called polytheists who are actually monotheists, they just haven't examined their actual beliefs and 'gods'
If a polytheist does actually worship different gods, then do they hold them all as equal? If not, then can they explain why this isn't the case? After all if they are viewed as a god wouldn't this make them all equals? But as we examine any particular branch of mythology we will see these 'gods' do things like marrying, having children, engaging in personal beefs and indeed all manner of emotional based behaviour commonly associated with humans.
We can look at the likes of the ancient Egyptian gods which had animal heads as well as other non-human forms (you know Kek). Does the polytheist actually believe these gods were actually partly or wholly the creatures they have been depicted as?
Some probably would but mostly polytheists would accept the paintings and other artworks depicting these gods as symbolic. Ancient Egyptian art was symbolic, in addition the pharaoh was held to be a descendant of the gods but should he not have had an animal head or something? And why do bloodlines come into it.
I believe that the different gods were different human families and that the head of a family was portrayed in artwork with an animal head so that when that person died they could be replaced with little effort. Indeed as we have seen in all manner of polytheistic and occult rituals the leader of a coven or temple had their face covered. Did wearing a mask give them super dooper powers? No. In searching for where they got their occult knowledge inevitably leads back to the nephilim/djinn/demons/rogue angels/etc.
Again staying in ancient Egypt we see that its occult influence lingers today, Moses was an Egyptian prince and would have been taught the occult practices that were the domain of the 'god' families and bloodlines. We also have to list Rosicrucianism, Enochian magic, Thelema and I very strongly suspect Freemasonry. I was a Rosicrucian (AMORC) and the more you get into it you see the ancient Egyptian factor and it cannot be denied. Enochian magic does reference ancient Egyptian 'gods' as a factor in various practices, Thelema is just ancient Egyptian magical practices mixed in with yoga and was cooked up by Aleister Crowley. Freemasonry does have a 'god' but it is a syncretisation of Jah, Bael and Osirus, its name is Jahbulon. Syncretisation of gods is an ancient Egyptian practice, although some will say that the followers of these gods would agree to syncretise them if the numbers dedicated to these gods fell away due to other gods gaining more popularity. But I would tend to say that it was the intermarriage of certain bloodlines which caused the syncretisation as no one wanted to relinquish their bloodline name. Much like the way when upper class members intermarry, so if let's say a member of an elite family with the surname of Jones marries a member of an elite family called Smith then the surname that the couple will use is Jones-Smith.
So far I have been referring to ancient Egypt, but what of ancient Rome, Greece and other groups such as the Etruscans, Vikings and Celts. What differentiates them from the Egyptians is that they largely portrayed their gods as human beings, sure they were portrayed as above average humans but humans never the less. But these mythologies were also known to clone each others gods, all they did was rename them in their language and nothing else. The occult aspect was rather poor and was easily swept away by Christianity.
I will mention Hinduism which to me comes across as a free choice polytheism, you can add or subtract gods. Even Jesus Christ is accepted as a god by some Hindus but not especially a prominent or highly ranked one. I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has been factored into not Hinduism per se but into the cultural beliefs/practices of the Indian sub-continent. This is because of the 'lost' years of Jesus Christ where it is believed that he travelled to India and took in the culture before returning to ancient Israel/Judea. Some say that he was close to Krishna but I never was concerned about this and I don't have an opinion either way.
With voodoo although we have the loas/lwas who interact with humans there is an actual chief God called Bon Dieu or some spell it Bondye. Bon Dieu has nothing to do with humans but will do on occasion, so it has delegated things concerning humans to the loas. I suppose it could be said that the same situation exists with the Holy Trinity, Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah delegating certain responsibilities to the various rankings of angels. The same should also be said for the God of Deism as well.
The real nutjobs concerning polytheism are the likes of Wiccans, chaos magicians and eris followers.
All wicca is just bits and pieces of magical beliefs and superstitions picked up by Gerald Gardiner, it was Aleister Crowley who formulated these bits and pieces into a basic occult system......of sorts. Crowley only met Gardiner once, so apart from setting up a bare bones system for occult practice it was Gardiner and his nutjob followers who tacked on all sorts of crap and make believe to produce the instant insanity that is called wicca today. Oh... it was Gardiner who introduced the 'skyclad' practice, yes he was just a dirty old man.
Chaos magic? Along the same lines of wicca, you can add or subtract gods from anywhere on earth or in history and mix them together and just add ritual. You can throw eris worship into the mix, although eris and discordianism is just a joke even to its 'followers' the same cannot be said for chaos magic 'practitioners'.
Atheist? Solipsist? Hardcore nutjob? Doesn't matter chaos magic can cater for anyone because (in the words of Hasan of Alamut) nothing is true; all is permitted.
Much like the God aspects found in the sephiroth on the Tree of Life or even the Father, Son, Holy Spirit combo in the Trinity, however this cannot be said to be polytheism because both Judaism/Kabbala and Christianity in that God despite the different aspects has a unity of one. It is more to do with differing personality aspects which people can relate to and approach rather than God creating these aspects so it can relate to people. So there are so called polytheists who are actually monotheists, they just haven't examined their actual beliefs and 'gods'
If a polytheist does actually worship different gods, then do they hold them all as equal? If not, then can they explain why this isn't the case? After all if they are viewed as a god wouldn't this make them all equals? But as we examine any particular branch of mythology we will see these 'gods' do things like marrying, having children, engaging in personal beefs and indeed all manner of emotional based behaviour commonly associated with humans.
We can look at the likes of the ancient Egyptian gods which had animal heads as well as other non-human forms (you know Kek). Does the polytheist actually believe these gods were actually partly or wholly the creatures they have been depicted as?
Some probably would but mostly polytheists would accept the paintings and other artworks depicting these gods as symbolic. Ancient Egyptian art was symbolic, in addition the pharaoh was held to be a descendant of the gods but should he not have had an animal head or something? And why do bloodlines come into it.
I believe that the different gods were different human families and that the head of a family was portrayed in artwork with an animal head so that when that person died they could be replaced with little effort. Indeed as we have seen in all manner of polytheistic and occult rituals the leader of a coven or temple had their face covered. Did wearing a mask give them super dooper powers? No. In searching for where they got their occult knowledge inevitably leads back to the nephilim/djinn/demons/rogue angels/etc.
Again staying in ancient Egypt we see that its occult influence lingers today, Moses was an Egyptian prince and would have been taught the occult practices that were the domain of the 'god' families and bloodlines. We also have to list Rosicrucianism, Enochian magic, Thelema and I very strongly suspect Freemasonry. I was a Rosicrucian (AMORC) and the more you get into it you see the ancient Egyptian factor and it cannot be denied. Enochian magic does reference ancient Egyptian 'gods' as a factor in various practices, Thelema is just ancient Egyptian magical practices mixed in with yoga and was cooked up by Aleister Crowley. Freemasonry does have a 'god' but it is a syncretisation of Jah, Bael and Osirus, its name is Jahbulon. Syncretisation of gods is an ancient Egyptian practice, although some will say that the followers of these gods would agree to syncretise them if the numbers dedicated to these gods fell away due to other gods gaining more popularity. But I would tend to say that it was the intermarriage of certain bloodlines which caused the syncretisation as no one wanted to relinquish their bloodline name. Much like the way when upper class members intermarry, so if let's say a member of an elite family with the surname of Jones marries a member of an elite family called Smith then the surname that the couple will use is Jones-Smith.
So far I have been referring to ancient Egypt, but what of ancient Rome, Greece and other groups such as the Etruscans, Vikings and Celts. What differentiates them from the Egyptians is that they largely portrayed their gods as human beings, sure they were portrayed as above average humans but humans never the less. But these mythologies were also known to clone each others gods, all they did was rename them in their language and nothing else. The occult aspect was rather poor and was easily swept away by Christianity.
I will mention Hinduism which to me comes across as a free choice polytheism, you can add or subtract gods. Even Jesus Christ is accepted as a god by some Hindus but not especially a prominent or highly ranked one. I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has been factored into not Hinduism per se but into the cultural beliefs/practices of the Indian sub-continent. This is because of the 'lost' years of Jesus Christ where it is believed that he travelled to India and took in the culture before returning to ancient Israel/Judea. Some say that he was close to Krishna but I never was concerned about this and I don't have an opinion either way.
With voodoo although we have the loas/lwas who interact with humans there is an actual chief God called Bon Dieu or some spell it Bondye. Bon Dieu has nothing to do with humans but will do on occasion, so it has delegated things concerning humans to the loas. I suppose it could be said that the same situation exists with the Holy Trinity, Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah delegating certain responsibilities to the various rankings of angels. The same should also be said for the God of Deism as well.
The real nutjobs concerning polytheism are the likes of Wiccans, chaos magicians and eris followers.
All wicca is just bits and pieces of magical beliefs and superstitions picked up by Gerald Gardiner, it was Aleister Crowley who formulated these bits and pieces into a basic occult system......of sorts. Crowley only met Gardiner once, so apart from setting up a bare bones system for occult practice it was Gardiner and his nutjob followers who tacked on all sorts of crap and make believe to produce the instant insanity that is called wicca today. Oh... it was Gardiner who introduced the 'skyclad' practice, yes he was just a dirty old man.
Chaos magic? Along the same lines of wicca, you can add or subtract gods from anywhere on earth or in history and mix them together and just add ritual. You can throw eris worship into the mix, although eris and discordianism is just a joke even to its 'followers' the same cannot be said for chaos magic 'practitioners'.
Atheist? Solipsist? Hardcore nutjob? Doesn't matter chaos magic can cater for anyone because (in the words of Hasan of Alamut) nothing is true; all is permitted.
My argument to prove God exists (IIb.)
2.) Satanists
- The irony and hypocrisy of the majority of those who call themselves
"satanists", is that they are not satanists but are atheists who use
that description. There are Theistic Satanists who do worship the
'Satan' (Satan is actually a title not a name) and actually believe in
the existance of God. Their aim is to reverse the roles and the titles
that the other holds at the current time. Essentially they want Lucifer
to be the new 'god' and the one we call God would be the adversary of
the 'new order'. The 'atheist satanists' actually be default serve the
other contender of the title of Satan, that being Moloch (and I believe
Lucifer has lost the title).
Just as there is the Tree of Life, there is a Tree of Death. It has sephiroth like the Tree of Life but the virtues and vices have been reversed. Example: In the sephira of Malkuth the virtue is 'discrimination' and the vice is 'inertia'. As we see today discrimination is outlawed and inertia is an enforced lifestyle, and there will be people reading this going on about racism, homophobia, etc. But discrimination is also to do about who you decide to associate with, who you choose to have sex with, who you choose to work for, etc. And we have inertia as an accepted mindset; don't aim high, go with the flow, you can't change anything, why bother, and so on.
On the Tree of Death the highest sephira is 'Thaumiel' in which both Lucifer and Moloch are joint rulers and the 'first among equals' holds the title "Satan". The Tree of Death only exists in Assiah, aka the 'world of action' which is the physical realm of existance which consists of both immanent and transcendental properties. Seeing as the immanent is the non animated (such as rocks, concrete, etc) and the transcendental is animated (humans, djinn, NB.-Angels are not native to Assiah), if the transcendental aspect is lost to the Satan then it is fair to say that the Earth is lost. Now you know where the phrase "Hell on Earth" comes from.
But how does Moloch come into this and how can it be the Satan? Easy... if you look into the ancient practices concerning Moloch you will find that the acceptable form of worship was child sacrifice. This involved sacrificing one of your children and in return you would get material gain. The method of sacrifice was to incinerate children alive in a furnace shaped like Moloch or else dedicated to it. The ages of the sacrificed children were approximately 2-5 years old. But how is that relevant today? Simple... "post-birth abortion", there are those who wish to impose this practice. The "rational" being that this is acceptable because children are not self aware until the ages of 5/6 years old. There are only 3 groups of 'people' who have this 'logic', the 1st is those who adhere to the Urantia Book (seriously cracked and perverted people) and the 2nd are atheists (such as Peter Singer) then there is Moloch worshipers. We see constant protests, marches, and demands from the pro-abortion lobby. People seem to think the aborted babies are put into sweet, loving graves with pretty flowers growing on top of them.
Nothing of the sort! If they are not being chopped up for Planned Parenthood to sell (you can find clips on YouTube doing undercover stings), then they are incinerated (a hospital in Britain was caught incinerating aborted babies to 'heat the hospital'). The same M.O. from ancient times, a roundabout but acceptable sacrifice. Moloch has every reason to assume the title "Satan" because whether by design or default people are serving and sacrificing to it. A state that allows this sort of practice can be said to be at best practicing 'moral relativism' and even that description is being charitable.
So from the categories I listed at the beginning of "Argument from opposition"
1. Atheists
2. Satanists
3. Polytheists/Pagans in general
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill
5. Undefined
6. Non-Theists
In this section on Satanism have dealt with;
1. Atheists (Some may use the term 'satanist' but they are atheist)
2. Satanists (atheists who call themselves satanists, Moloch worshipers whether bt design or default)
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill (what else could you be if you are into this???)
5. Undefined (the urantia book is something that resulted from 'mental health professionals' using some guy is a sanitarium as a channel of some sort... oh just check it out... rich, elite academics from the 1920s and 30s.)
I could throw in 3. Polytheists/Pagans in general but in regards to Theistic Satanism this is actually not the case, much like in voodoo the 1st respect has to be given to Papa Legba and then you can act with your preferred loa/lwa.
And how do I know all this?
I was one of the black faithful.... and we hated atheists too, they can call themselves 'satanists' as much as they want it makes no difference.
We found that quite insulting actually.
Just as there is the Tree of Life, there is a Tree of Death. It has sephiroth like the Tree of Life but the virtues and vices have been reversed. Example: In the sephira of Malkuth the virtue is 'discrimination' and the vice is 'inertia'. As we see today discrimination is outlawed and inertia is an enforced lifestyle, and there will be people reading this going on about racism, homophobia, etc. But discrimination is also to do about who you decide to associate with, who you choose to have sex with, who you choose to work for, etc. And we have inertia as an accepted mindset; don't aim high, go with the flow, you can't change anything, why bother, and so on.
On the Tree of Death the highest sephira is 'Thaumiel' in which both Lucifer and Moloch are joint rulers and the 'first among equals' holds the title "Satan". The Tree of Death only exists in Assiah, aka the 'world of action' which is the physical realm of existance which consists of both immanent and transcendental properties. Seeing as the immanent is the non animated (such as rocks, concrete, etc) and the transcendental is animated (humans, djinn, NB.-Angels are not native to Assiah), if the transcendental aspect is lost to the Satan then it is fair to say that the Earth is lost. Now you know where the phrase "Hell on Earth" comes from.
But how does Moloch come into this and how can it be the Satan? Easy... if you look into the ancient practices concerning Moloch you will find that the acceptable form of worship was child sacrifice. This involved sacrificing one of your children and in return you would get material gain. The method of sacrifice was to incinerate children alive in a furnace shaped like Moloch or else dedicated to it. The ages of the sacrificed children were approximately 2-5 years old. But how is that relevant today? Simple... "post-birth abortion", there are those who wish to impose this practice. The "rational" being that this is acceptable because children are not self aware until the ages of 5/6 years old. There are only 3 groups of 'people' who have this 'logic', the 1st is those who adhere to the Urantia Book (seriously cracked and perverted people) and the 2nd are atheists (such as Peter Singer) then there is Moloch worshipers. We see constant protests, marches, and demands from the pro-abortion lobby. People seem to think the aborted babies are put into sweet, loving graves with pretty flowers growing on top of them.
Nothing of the sort! If they are not being chopped up for Planned Parenthood to sell (you can find clips on YouTube doing undercover stings), then they are incinerated (a hospital in Britain was caught incinerating aborted babies to 'heat the hospital'). The same M.O. from ancient times, a roundabout but acceptable sacrifice. Moloch has every reason to assume the title "Satan" because whether by design or default people are serving and sacrificing to it. A state that allows this sort of practice can be said to be at best practicing 'moral relativism' and even that description is being charitable.
So from the categories I listed at the beginning of "Argument from opposition"
1. Atheists
2. Satanists
3. Polytheists/Pagans in general
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill
5. Undefined
6. Non-Theists
In this section on Satanism have dealt with;
1. Atheists (Some may use the term 'satanist' but they are atheist)
2. Satanists (atheists who call themselves satanists, Moloch worshipers whether bt design or default)
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill (what else could you be if you are into this???)
5. Undefined (the urantia book is something that resulted from 'mental health professionals' using some guy is a sanitarium as a channel of some sort... oh just check it out... rich, elite academics from the 1920s and 30s.)
I could throw in 3. Polytheists/Pagans in general but in regards to Theistic Satanism this is actually not the case, much like in voodoo the 1st respect has to be given to Papa Legba and then you can act with your preferred loa/lwa.
And how do I know all this?
I was one of the black faithful.... and we hated atheists too, they can call themselves 'satanists' as much as they want it makes no difference.
We found that quite insulting actually.
|
Sunday, 21 June 2020
My argument to prove God exists (IIa.)
The argument from opposition
Some people would classify this as under an "argument from popularity" case, but usually such arguments can be used by either side in a subject as "arguments to present proof of God". Rhetoric aside, we should examine the parties, the aims and the methods used. As I do believe that there is God, I will present an argument that part of the evidence that proves Gods' existance is the opposition to the concept of God as an independent entity.
But first I will put forth my definition of God;
I believe God to be the highest intelligence and the infinite power, God has no exclusively set form and yet can change form as it wants because there is nothing to prevent that. As it is of infinite power and intelligence there is nothing that can force or compromise God into deviation of its plans or adopting that of another. The only God I know and accept can be best simply described as the Abrahamic God, however this can come into the category of deism. Myself, if I was to apply a label to my beliefs it would be Transdeist. God can take a physical shape if it wishes and form whole or part of a seperate individual but cannot seperate from itself (think the Holy Trinity of Christianity or the God aspects of the Kabbalistic 'Tree of Life'). We have to bear in mind what was said to Moses when he asked "Who shall I said sent me?" The answer is unfortunately simplified to "I am" or "I am what I am", but the answer in Hebrew is "Eheieh Asher Eheieh" which is translated to "I am what/that I am". However it is more correct to transliterate the name as is the usual practice in Arabic and other middle-eastern languages which results in "I am what I will be".
There is no doubt that this single God is the God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Deism as well as their splinters, factions, and variations. There may be various personalities or sides of the one and only God but its unity is one and only. But who could possibly oppose God? Let's list the categories;
1. Atheists
2. Satanists
3. Polytheists/Pagans in general
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill
5. Undefined
6. Non-Theists
Now let's examine each listing;
1.) Atheists - If we use the 'Dawkins scale' using the levels of belief for each person (1 being true theist and 7 being utter atheist) we will see that most "committed atheists" are a 6. That is they are practicing (defacto) atheists but will not rule out the possibility that God does exist, even Dawkins himself rates himself as a 6. So that is a 14.285714% chance as far as he is concerned that there is a higher entity than mankind, or what we commonly refer to as God. Those like him are not saying that the existance of God is impossible but only improbable.
One has to question the atheist obsession with God, it does seem as though they do have a private relationship with an entity which they publicly claim does not exist. On top of that they hold a hatred for those who do believe in God, but that hatred is the same as someone who hates and is resentful of someone in a relationship with a love interest. An example would be a fat, ugly girl who hates a pretty girl because 1) She is pretty and 2) She is the girlfriend of the boy who the ugly girl wants to be hers. You could go a step further and say that the atheist has a "treat them mean to keep them keen" attitude to God, they for some unknown stupid reason believe that the more they hate and deny God the more likely it will present itself to them to prove it exists. Atheists view God as some sort of lazy butler whose first priority in existance is to pander to them above everything else.
And this isn't as far fetched as you might imagine, if the atheist is a solipsist or otherwise mentally ill there is every possibility that they have this crackpot view. Remember that an atheist sees themself as the highest form of life in their 'world' of existance. They cannot and will not see themself as a 'lesser' being, they see God believers as 'lesser' beings and they see their so called 'fellow atheists' as lesser beings. An atheist cannot see anyone else (whether they are atheist or not) as the same as themself because they see themself as a "first among equals". An atheist might be living in a rubbish tip but they will continue to see themself as 'first among equals' even though they cannot (and nor care to) explain how they are living in a rubbish tip. The belief they have that their situation is just a part of 'THEIR' greater plan simply points to delusions of grandeur and/or solipsism.
They are the worst hypocrites in addition, for as much as they will ramble on about witch burnings, persecutions of gays, etc. They never mention anything about the persecutions that occurred in marxist run nation states. Nothing mentioned about the League of Militant Atheists in the Soviet Union and similar groups in other combloc countries. State sanctioned genocidal murders (and marxist states are not fond of witches or gays).
Q.) Why did the state commit these murders
A.) Because the state was atheist.
Wherever atheists take control of the state murders inevitably follow, let's exam a list of atheist headed regimes and see for ourselves;
Stalin, Pol Pot, Ali Soilih, Mussolini, Calles, Ceausescu, the Kims of North Korea, those of Communist China, etc and those who didn't care either way and are atheist by default Hitler and Castro and others like them whether capitalist or marxist.
Q.) What explains their behaviour?
A.) Moral relativism
They could not see any entity higher than themself, not even the state because as far as they were concerned they created the state. They and they alone.
But a major question to be asked is what is the atheists' definition of God? What is their concept of it? For the most part they will simply refer to the Abrahamic notion of God because of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and their derivatives), but would the likes of atheists from hinduism, zoroastrianism, deism and other non-Abrahamic beliefs/faiths hold the same definition or concept?
For as much as atheists like to 'pad up' their numbers by claiming deists, buddhists and jains under the atheist umbrella, they also have the aim of exterminating these beliefs. You could even go as far to say that the atheist end game is actually Satanic.
Some people would classify this as under an "argument from popularity" case, but usually such arguments can be used by either side in a subject as "arguments to present proof of God". Rhetoric aside, we should examine the parties, the aims and the methods used. As I do believe that there is God, I will present an argument that part of the evidence that proves Gods' existance is the opposition to the concept of God as an independent entity.
But first I will put forth my definition of God;
I believe God to be the highest intelligence and the infinite power, God has no exclusively set form and yet can change form as it wants because there is nothing to prevent that. As it is of infinite power and intelligence there is nothing that can force or compromise God into deviation of its plans or adopting that of another. The only God I know and accept can be best simply described as the Abrahamic God, however this can come into the category of deism. Myself, if I was to apply a label to my beliefs it would be Transdeist. God can take a physical shape if it wishes and form whole or part of a seperate individual but cannot seperate from itself (think the Holy Trinity of Christianity or the God aspects of the Kabbalistic 'Tree of Life'). We have to bear in mind what was said to Moses when he asked "Who shall I said sent me?" The answer is unfortunately simplified to "I am" or "I am what I am", but the answer in Hebrew is "Eheieh Asher Eheieh" which is translated to "I am what/that I am". However it is more correct to transliterate the name as is the usual practice in Arabic and other middle-eastern languages which results in "I am what I will be".
There is no doubt that this single God is the God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Deism as well as their splinters, factions, and variations. There may be various personalities or sides of the one and only God but its unity is one and only. But who could possibly oppose God? Let's list the categories;
1. Atheists
2. Satanists
3. Polytheists/Pagans in general
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill
5. Undefined
6. Non-Theists
Now let's examine each listing;
1.) Atheists - If we use the 'Dawkins scale' using the levels of belief for each person (1 being true theist and 7 being utter atheist) we will see that most "committed atheists" are a 6. That is they are practicing (defacto) atheists but will not rule out the possibility that God does exist, even Dawkins himself rates himself as a 6. So that is a 14.285714% chance as far as he is concerned that there is a higher entity than mankind, or what we commonly refer to as God. Those like him are not saying that the existance of God is impossible but only improbable.
One has to question the atheist obsession with God, it does seem as though they do have a private relationship with an entity which they publicly claim does not exist. On top of that they hold a hatred for those who do believe in God, but that hatred is the same as someone who hates and is resentful of someone in a relationship with a love interest. An example would be a fat, ugly girl who hates a pretty girl because 1) She is pretty and 2) She is the girlfriend of the boy who the ugly girl wants to be hers. You could go a step further and say that the atheist has a "treat them mean to keep them keen" attitude to God, they for some unknown stupid reason believe that the more they hate and deny God the more likely it will present itself to them to prove it exists. Atheists view God as some sort of lazy butler whose first priority in existance is to pander to them above everything else.
And this isn't as far fetched as you might imagine, if the atheist is a solipsist or otherwise mentally ill there is every possibility that they have this crackpot view. Remember that an atheist sees themself as the highest form of life in their 'world' of existance. They cannot and will not see themself as a 'lesser' being, they see God believers as 'lesser' beings and they see their so called 'fellow atheists' as lesser beings. An atheist cannot see anyone else (whether they are atheist or not) as the same as themself because they see themself as a "first among equals". An atheist might be living in a rubbish tip but they will continue to see themself as 'first among equals' even though they cannot (and nor care to) explain how they are living in a rubbish tip. The belief they have that their situation is just a part of 'THEIR' greater plan simply points to delusions of grandeur and/or solipsism.
They are the worst hypocrites in addition, for as much as they will ramble on about witch burnings, persecutions of gays, etc. They never mention anything about the persecutions that occurred in marxist run nation states. Nothing mentioned about the League of Militant Atheists in the Soviet Union and similar groups in other combloc countries. State sanctioned genocidal murders (and marxist states are not fond of witches or gays).
Q.) Why did the state commit these murders
A.) Because the state was atheist.
Wherever atheists take control of the state murders inevitably follow, let's exam a list of atheist headed regimes and see for ourselves;
Stalin, Pol Pot, Ali Soilih, Mussolini, Calles, Ceausescu, the Kims of North Korea, those of Communist China, etc and those who didn't care either way and are atheist by default Hitler and Castro and others like them whether capitalist or marxist.
Q.) What explains their behaviour?
A.) Moral relativism
They could not see any entity higher than themself, not even the state because as far as they were concerned they created the state. They and they alone.
But a major question to be asked is what is the atheists' definition of God? What is their concept of it? For the most part they will simply refer to the Abrahamic notion of God because of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and their derivatives), but would the likes of atheists from hinduism, zoroastrianism, deism and other non-Abrahamic beliefs/faiths hold the same definition or concept?
For as much as atheists like to 'pad up' their numbers by claiming deists, buddhists and jains under the atheist umbrella, they also have the aim of exterminating these beliefs. You could even go as far to say that the atheist end game is actually Satanic.
Sunday, 14 June 2020
Saturday, 13 June 2020
My argument to prove God exists (I)
I am starting a series to show proof that God exists, although there may be many examples of cases on the internet to show proof or at least a just cause to believe there is a God I am looking beyond the usual philosophical realm. So what I will be doing is taking a look at all factors, factoring in probabilities much in the same way as gambling odds etc. Once I cannot continue further (or simply run out of ideas) I will place all that I have come up with on a MS Word document or PDF for you to download and hopefully inspire you to type down your concepts to display for others.
And hopefully we can cure atheism which is the most horrid, evil mental illness known to mankind.
Praise be upon the only God whose unity is one by all without exception. Amen
The Argument From Anthropology
(this is probably not strictly anthropology in relation to the accepted purely scientific understanding)
Although with society today we see the likes of identity politics, in that people will categorise themselves into categories not of their own choosing or creation. But rather that of the political and social establishments of the day which are not concrete, but rather temporary. They do this to be politically correct and socially compliant even though they may not personally approve of the groupthink or hivemind of these categories and their actions.
It is fair to say that all humans have a complex and individual personality, but it would be absurd to say that such a complexity could have emerged from nothing and with no cause. The atheist would claim that personalities are formed through environment, circumstances, experience and DNA, but if that was truly the complete case then personalities could be manufactured according to the states' needs and wants. And if that was the case would the individual personality simply approve of its use by the state and be in full agreeance with it? If the answer uniformly is "yes" then we are seeing slavery and moral relativism as factors. While we cannot erase the factor of fear in relation to politics (of violence and other physical harm) or social (abandonment and isolation) realms, the reality is that moral relativism cannot be enforced. Yes you can force people to obey, but you cannot force them to approve.
Whether they are bribed or whether they are terrorised they will mostly hold the same opinion, there is an individuality within them that is not a result of mental and physical circumstances, but spiritual. Whether you wish to call that factor spirit or soul it is not self made and the only reasonably logical explanation to me is that it is the result of a higher entity. Some may say that our individuality is a result of our parents along with environment, circumstances and experience but if that was the case we would be clones of our parents and indeed to an extent everyone else in our society. And indeed it would be the groupthink/hivemind society which would be continuously replicating because everyone would be predisposed to replicate their parents. There would have been no great thinkers or doers because the level of education or free thought would have never risen. Nor would the level of aspiration or even imagination, people would still believe the Earth is flat (if they had the concept of a planet) and the inventions we take for granted in modern life would never have been invented.
If the atheists and evolutionists had their way we would be still living in caves...but under their control. In fact we would be little better than baboons and feral dogs.
As we have seen in history (and indeed today) people can be compelled to act against their own beliefs, opinions, and wishes due to physical acts (whether it be of bribery or terror) but control of ones' thoughts as an individual being can never be enforced or known to be enforced. But we are seeing attempts at that with various pharmaceuticals and police looking for "thought crime". It is not the individuals' belief that is being curtailed but rather their ability to act on their individual belief.
It can be said that the human personality (that being the result of spiritual, mental and physical factors) would need to be made by an entity or being with the same and actually greater, complex personality which would have factored in autonomy. As we are created in the image of God and have the ability to aspire we would have to look at examples of a 'greater whole' of the personality of God that we can comprehend.
An example can be found on the 'Tree of Life' which gives us 10 aspects of God, there are 10 sections (or sephiroth) and each individual section is overlooked by an aspect of God. The reference to the Tree of Life can be found in Kabbalah teachings, and there are four worlds regarding the Tree of Life in the Kabbalah
They are;
Atziluth (Emanation)
Briah (Creation)
Yetzirah (Formation)
Assiah (the world of action, what we refer to as the physical)
But Assiah has Tebhel (Immanent) and Cheled (Transcendental)
There is no doubt that we are born with unique personalities, though we may have them altered or changed by the likes of environment and the people we associate with. Or else things such as mental illness, drug addiction and even peer pressure or coercion. The fact is we are born with a unique personality which existed before we were exposed to various elements which we may of interacted with. The uniqueness of the personality comes from our soul, regardless of our external appearance we will hold true what we 'feel is right' or else what our 'gut instinct' says. We all hold some thought of intuition but whether we enact on it or not is another matter depending on circumstance, but circumstances regarding our physical and mental factors can be altered.
The circumstances of spiritual factors regarding our soul cannot, even if you look at atheism you will see people hating God. The atheist will proclaim that God does not exist and yet have a hatred for this great being, this can be only said and seen in a personal relationship. To hate God makes as much sense as hating Mickey Mouse.
And yet atheists will accept Mickey Mouse as an animate being because to them Mickey Mouse can exist in psychological, aesthetical, emotional and even physical (like some guy in Disneyland dressed up in an outfit, although it cannot be THE Mickey Mouse it is a suitable proxy). But all these facets of Mickey Mouse can only be symbolic, this is because these facets do not come from or are even created by a single independant animated entity. If you examine it, the existance of Mickey Mouse came into being through the emanation, creation, and formation in the mind of Walt Disney before it 'came' into the physical realm. You also have to factor in consultants and staff who helped fine tune the final but yet evolving product.
You might argue that the existance of God came about through a simular measure, to that I would say that the existance of religion and denominations can be said to have come about through similar measures. But you cannot forget about the consultants and staff required to propagate and 'sell' the religion or denomination. A church without clergy and parishioners could not open, but a church without the support staff (whether paid or voluntary) could not survive. There would be no one to help or aid the clergy, parishioners, or maintain the church and its grounds. A belief in the existance of and in God does not require actors or an audience or stagehands or even a theatre. It does not require these things because God is infinitely greater than mankind and its inventions (whether they are psychological, aesthetical, emotional or physical).
Mankind may have a concept of something, it may visualise how that concept may look like, and it may even draw up plans on how this concept will come into the physical realm. But the reality is that these plans fail or distort from the original concept. Essentially they are plans from other plans which were from other plans. Mankind cannot create nature, yes it may corrupt, distort, imitate and re-invent nature but it cannot create nature. Mankind has yet to create a new species with an amount of chromosomes that no other species has, this shows that only a greater entity could have brought the concept of the universe into physical reality. A greater entity with greater intelligence and greater experience. Even if all the thinking abilities and intelligence of all humans were to be collectively contained within a single brain, mankind would be no better off than it is today.
Unless mankind realises that itself is a creation, indeed a self replicating creation like other mammals then it will ignore the very thing that differentiates us from the other mammals besides our physical attributes. And that thing is our soul, if we had no soul then we all would be sociopaths. And if that was the case then you and I would not be here as history would have gone extinct and disappeared some time ago.
Existance does have an "order of things" and we can see this in nature, it is mankind that is increasingly collectively seeking to alter this. In fact what we are seeing today is the collective attempt to install a new collective 'god' under the title of "humanity" and applying labels to its methods such as 'evolution' and 'progress'. But words like 'evolution' and 'progress' have been redefined into different contexts much like the word 'racism'. What is written in an English language dictionary may not be the same as taught in a university because the context has changed, their definitions may come from a political dictionary or a psychological dictionary and even then the definitions may be differing in each subject due to the vested interests. Much like the different denominations in the various religions will push their own specific beliefs, if these beliefs were not so separately specific then there would be no need for separate denominations.
A demonstration is the word "transsexual", what is its definition? Is it someone who "identifies" as the opposite gender? Is it someone who has had surgery to 'be as' the opposite gender? Or is it something different? People can make as many lofty pronouncements and definitions as they want, but at the end of the day you cannot change your sex/gender. You can have surgery, hormones and various forms of 'counseling' to help you identify as the opposite gender, but if a clone was made from your DNA it would be the same gender as you were born. In the same way that whatever lifestyle you choose to live or else are caught up in, you will have a sense of right and wrong that cannot be altered.
However that does not mean that 'mankind' will not try to 're-invent' itself, but this is not actually the case. When people scream and wail "for humanity!!!" they are only reflecting an extreme minority of human beings at any given time. As for 're-inventing'? You can only re-invent what you, yourself have actually invented. That is everything from concept to physical reality, everything from emanation to creation to formation to physical action (whether it be producing a product or implementing a method). It is easier to redefine language than to re-invent that of the physical, and that is what we are seeing today. We have no right and wrong, instead we have moral relativism which is not about "the greater good of humanity" but rather a comfort blanket for solipsists.
People whether they be of various racial groupings, ethnicities, or bloodlines will be judged to be civilised, uncivilised, or 'evolving'. However this is not likely to be a judgment based on their intelligence but rather their material gain, a city full of skyscrapers will be deemed to be more civilised than a village full of huts. Even though the city will be overpopulated, have high levels of crime and suicide in addition to isolation with the mandatory loneliness. The city will be deemed more successful and more civilised than the village, but it is the village from which the basis of civilisation came from. In regards to religion the more people that are adherants of that religion, the more prone that religion is to dissent, apostasy, fragmentation and splintering. In relation to God the best mindset is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid), short, sharp answers will give people something understandable to work with as they begin their own quest or own research. I started this project to present an argument that there is a God. I do not care about how many aspects it has, how many people view God or don't view it. I suppose one of my main motivations to write this are the repeated worn out arguments used by those faithful to God in the hope of converting others to their particular faith.
To that I say:
No.1 - You are serving God, not your sect.
No.2 - Don't do something because others are doing it. I especially see this among Christians handing out CHICK Tracts on the street, don't bother because everybody has seen then, they convince no one because they are the sort of comics written for 5 year olds and you come across as arrogant because it makes it look like you think everyone is as stupid as you.
You can do better than this, did God give you a brain? THEN USE IT!
*i think im done with anthropology*
And hopefully we can cure atheism which is the most horrid, evil mental illness known to mankind.
Praise be upon the only God whose unity is one by all without exception. Amen
The Argument From Anthropology
(this is probably not strictly anthropology in relation to the accepted purely scientific understanding)
Although with society today we see the likes of identity politics, in that people will categorise themselves into categories not of their own choosing or creation. But rather that of the political and social establishments of the day which are not concrete, but rather temporary. They do this to be politically correct and socially compliant even though they may not personally approve of the groupthink or hivemind of these categories and their actions.
It is fair to say that all humans have a complex and individual personality, but it would be absurd to say that such a complexity could have emerged from nothing and with no cause. The atheist would claim that personalities are formed through environment, circumstances, experience and DNA, but if that was truly the complete case then personalities could be manufactured according to the states' needs and wants. And if that was the case would the individual personality simply approve of its use by the state and be in full agreeance with it? If the answer uniformly is "yes" then we are seeing slavery and moral relativism as factors. While we cannot erase the factor of fear in relation to politics (of violence and other physical harm) or social (abandonment and isolation) realms, the reality is that moral relativism cannot be enforced. Yes you can force people to obey, but you cannot force them to approve.
Whether they are bribed or whether they are terrorised they will mostly hold the same opinion, there is an individuality within them that is not a result of mental and physical circumstances, but spiritual. Whether you wish to call that factor spirit or soul it is not self made and the only reasonably logical explanation to me is that it is the result of a higher entity. Some may say that our individuality is a result of our parents along with environment, circumstances and experience but if that was the case we would be clones of our parents and indeed to an extent everyone else in our society. And indeed it would be the groupthink/hivemind society which would be continuously replicating because everyone would be predisposed to replicate their parents. There would have been no great thinkers or doers because the level of education or free thought would have never risen. Nor would the level of aspiration or even imagination, people would still believe the Earth is flat (if they had the concept of a planet) and the inventions we take for granted in modern life would never have been invented.
If the atheists and evolutionists had their way we would be still living in caves...but under their control. In fact we would be little better than baboons and feral dogs.
As we have seen in history (and indeed today) people can be compelled to act against their own beliefs, opinions, and wishes due to physical acts (whether it be of bribery or terror) but control of ones' thoughts as an individual being can never be enforced or known to be enforced. But we are seeing attempts at that with various pharmaceuticals and police looking for "thought crime". It is not the individuals' belief that is being curtailed but rather their ability to act on their individual belief.
It can be said that the human personality (that being the result of spiritual, mental and physical factors) would need to be made by an entity or being with the same and actually greater, complex personality which would have factored in autonomy. As we are created in the image of God and have the ability to aspire we would have to look at examples of a 'greater whole' of the personality of God that we can comprehend.
An example can be found on the 'Tree of Life' which gives us 10 aspects of God, there are 10 sections (or sephiroth) and each individual section is overlooked by an aspect of God. The reference to the Tree of Life can be found in Kabbalah teachings, and there are four worlds regarding the Tree of Life in the Kabbalah
They are;
Atziluth (Emanation)
Briah (Creation)
Yetzirah (Formation)
Assiah (the world of action, what we refer to as the physical)
But Assiah has Tebhel (Immanent) and Cheled (Transcendental)
There is no doubt that we are born with unique personalities, though we may have them altered or changed by the likes of environment and the people we associate with. Or else things such as mental illness, drug addiction and even peer pressure or coercion. The fact is we are born with a unique personality which existed before we were exposed to various elements which we may of interacted with. The uniqueness of the personality comes from our soul, regardless of our external appearance we will hold true what we 'feel is right' or else what our 'gut instinct' says. We all hold some thought of intuition but whether we enact on it or not is another matter depending on circumstance, but circumstances regarding our physical and mental factors can be altered.
The circumstances of spiritual factors regarding our soul cannot, even if you look at atheism you will see people hating God. The atheist will proclaim that God does not exist and yet have a hatred for this great being, this can be only said and seen in a personal relationship. To hate God makes as much sense as hating Mickey Mouse.
And yet atheists will accept Mickey Mouse as an animate being because to them Mickey Mouse can exist in psychological, aesthetical, emotional and even physical (like some guy in Disneyland dressed up in an outfit, although it cannot be THE Mickey Mouse it is a suitable proxy). But all these facets of Mickey Mouse can only be symbolic, this is because these facets do not come from or are even created by a single independant animated entity. If you examine it, the existance of Mickey Mouse came into being through the emanation, creation, and formation in the mind of Walt Disney before it 'came' into the physical realm. You also have to factor in consultants and staff who helped fine tune the final but yet evolving product.
You might argue that the existance of God came about through a simular measure, to that I would say that the existance of religion and denominations can be said to have come about through similar measures. But you cannot forget about the consultants and staff required to propagate and 'sell' the religion or denomination. A church without clergy and parishioners could not open, but a church without the support staff (whether paid or voluntary) could not survive. There would be no one to help or aid the clergy, parishioners, or maintain the church and its grounds. A belief in the existance of and in God does not require actors or an audience or stagehands or even a theatre. It does not require these things because God is infinitely greater than mankind and its inventions (whether they are psychological, aesthetical, emotional or physical).
Mankind may have a concept of something, it may visualise how that concept may look like, and it may even draw up plans on how this concept will come into the physical realm. But the reality is that these plans fail or distort from the original concept. Essentially they are plans from other plans which were from other plans. Mankind cannot create nature, yes it may corrupt, distort, imitate and re-invent nature but it cannot create nature. Mankind has yet to create a new species with an amount of chromosomes that no other species has, this shows that only a greater entity could have brought the concept of the universe into physical reality. A greater entity with greater intelligence and greater experience. Even if all the thinking abilities and intelligence of all humans were to be collectively contained within a single brain, mankind would be no better off than it is today.
Unless mankind realises that itself is a creation, indeed a self replicating creation like other mammals then it will ignore the very thing that differentiates us from the other mammals besides our physical attributes. And that thing is our soul, if we had no soul then we all would be sociopaths. And if that was the case then you and I would not be here as history would have gone extinct and disappeared some time ago.
Existance does have an "order of things" and we can see this in nature, it is mankind that is increasingly collectively seeking to alter this. In fact what we are seeing today is the collective attempt to install a new collective 'god' under the title of "humanity" and applying labels to its methods such as 'evolution' and 'progress'. But words like 'evolution' and 'progress' have been redefined into different contexts much like the word 'racism'. What is written in an English language dictionary may not be the same as taught in a university because the context has changed, their definitions may come from a political dictionary or a psychological dictionary and even then the definitions may be differing in each subject due to the vested interests. Much like the different denominations in the various religions will push their own specific beliefs, if these beliefs were not so separately specific then there would be no need for separate denominations.
A demonstration is the word "transsexual", what is its definition? Is it someone who "identifies" as the opposite gender? Is it someone who has had surgery to 'be as' the opposite gender? Or is it something different? People can make as many lofty pronouncements and definitions as they want, but at the end of the day you cannot change your sex/gender. You can have surgery, hormones and various forms of 'counseling' to help you identify as the opposite gender, but if a clone was made from your DNA it would be the same gender as you were born. In the same way that whatever lifestyle you choose to live or else are caught up in, you will have a sense of right and wrong that cannot be altered.
However that does not mean that 'mankind' will not try to 're-invent' itself, but this is not actually the case. When people scream and wail "for humanity!!!" they are only reflecting an extreme minority of human beings at any given time. As for 're-inventing'? You can only re-invent what you, yourself have actually invented. That is everything from concept to physical reality, everything from emanation to creation to formation to physical action (whether it be producing a product or implementing a method). It is easier to redefine language than to re-invent that of the physical, and that is what we are seeing today. We have no right and wrong, instead we have moral relativism which is not about "the greater good of humanity" but rather a comfort blanket for solipsists.
People whether they be of various racial groupings, ethnicities, or bloodlines will be judged to be civilised, uncivilised, or 'evolving'. However this is not likely to be a judgment based on their intelligence but rather their material gain, a city full of skyscrapers will be deemed to be more civilised than a village full of huts. Even though the city will be overpopulated, have high levels of crime and suicide in addition to isolation with the mandatory loneliness. The city will be deemed more successful and more civilised than the village, but it is the village from which the basis of civilisation came from. In regards to religion the more people that are adherants of that religion, the more prone that religion is to dissent, apostasy, fragmentation and splintering. In relation to God the best mindset is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid), short, sharp answers will give people something understandable to work with as they begin their own quest or own research. I started this project to present an argument that there is a God. I do not care about how many aspects it has, how many people view God or don't view it. I suppose one of my main motivations to write this are the repeated worn out arguments used by those faithful to God in the hope of converting others to their particular faith.
To that I say:
No.1 - You are serving God, not your sect.
No.2 - Don't do something because others are doing it. I especially see this among Christians handing out CHICK Tracts on the street, don't bother because everybody has seen then, they convince no one because they are the sort of comics written for 5 year olds and you come across as arrogant because it makes it look like you think everyone is as stupid as you.
You can do better than this, did God give you a brain? THEN USE IT!
*i think im done with anthropology*
|
Friday, 12 June 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)