My God
My God is not a mysterious person in the sky... my god is called Logic.
When I disobey my God, and act illogically, there are consequences to my actions. I do not reach my goal(s) and as a result, my life suffers a temporary or permanent set back.
My God can be proven; that is, its essence is with us every day. If it were not, you would have no understanding of the words written here... heck, you probably would not be alive if you were completely without logic.
My God is simple. "If A then B" is a great starting point for following my god.
My God has never killed an innocent person... although people have died as a result of not following my god in some cases... but Logic itself is incapable of killing anyone.
My God does not require me to believe many things which I know are non-sense, such as talking snakes, in order to believe its narrative. The narrative is simple; if you want to live, follow Logic. If you don't, and you decide not to eat when you need food or drink when you need water, you will not make it. In fact, my god demands that I question things that sound unrealistic.
My God does not need big buildings or men and women dressed in goofy outfits to get followers. It gets followers on its own merit.
Unlike any other God, if children were indoctrinated with a belief in my God, there would not be such resistance as there is with the mystical person in the sky, and children would actually benefit... for raising children with a foundation in Logic may actually be useful for them their entire lives, and does not require threatening their soul with eternal damnation.
My God does not require any other God to not exist in order to be proven. It simply says "Ok, show me some proof of that." while other Gods(?) say "Following me is of the utmost importance, and no, I will no prove myself to exist to you, you simply must believe it."
I am not always the best follower of My God, for I am human and prone to err. But that does not invalidate the authenticity of my god... if anything, it reinforces it... for it takes following Logic to prove someone has acted illogically.
My God is the most powerful force known to man. Without him we may not have ever come out of our caves. and yet, unlike other gods, it does not require money... Logic does not demand you to give any percentage of your income to anyone. Rather, it would ask you to question who it is you give your money to and determine if it is what you really want.
You may say you choose not to follow my god, but we both know that to be a lie. You follow logic when it suits you and perhaps use energy rejecting logic when that suits you... no doubt to gain some end that you have in mind... which in and of itself is an act based on logic... it is to say "if i question this or look at it logically, I may not believe it, so I won't." Now, there are reasons which you may do this... I am not here to question the why, but to point out the action. See Cognitive Dissonance.
Thank You for reading about My God.
Showing posts with label Spirituality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spirituality. Show all posts
Friday, April 4, 2014
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
If shoe fits, wear it...
For me, the road to becoming an anarchist had many turns and twists. I started out what people refer to now as a moderate. Moderate meaning someone who takes on conservative ideas on some issues, liberal ideas on others. I was more conservative on foreign policy issues and liberal on domestic policy issues. In other words, while I thought of myself as a moderate, and was called a moderate, I was a full blown statist. So as you can imagine, becoming an anarchist is not something that happened over night. Since I discovered the ideas of liberty I have sought a way to describe my experience in simple terms, but that proved more difficult than I imagined it would be, despite the simplicity of some of the ideas (i.e. freedom means the absence of force; the state is the monopoly of force). However, I think I have found a suitable analogy.
Imagine you are poor and you stumble upon a job that requires you to wear dress shoes. Someone lends you enough money to buy whatever dress shoes you think are necessary and you begin to shop. Out of nowhere you spot the perfect pair of shoes. As you approach these shoes, you become more and more humbled by their appearance. You decide to hold them and begin to think: these shoes will be perfect for my new job. Absolutely perfect. But before you give them the automatic A, you begin to question the idea of perfection. Surely we have all heard the expression "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is." You begin to wonder if these shoes will last long, or fit right, or match your clothes in just the right way, etc. This point is crucial because it defines the point and basis on which you will make your decisions. There are some people who put the shoes back just because they seem a little too good (too good to be true), but others will try the shoes on. At first the shoes seem constricting. It may even hurt different places of your foot at first, or it may fit perfectly right off the bat. After walking in the shoes for a while, you realize that the shoe begins to conform to the shape of the foot. Your found the perfect looking shoe, tried it on, and now it is changing for comfort as well.
This has been my experience dealing with becoming an anarchist. The idea of non-aggression sounds really good, but would it actually work? Would things such as road building get done? But ultimately I took the plunge because the non-aggression principle is not about building roads or schooling children, it is about how we treat our fellow human beings. I simply could not accept the idea of legitimized aggression simply to have roads or to have schools... especially since so many other services don't require aggression.
Now that I have gotten over that barrier (the idea that it must not be too good to be true since it seems that way; it meaning the rejection of legitimized force) and have worn the shoe for a little while, I have found that it is easier to describe the ideas and think them through. The term "anarchist" is not a term that any longer sounds extreme or negative in any way.
Be that as it may, there still are some parties that I do not come right out and tell I am an anarchist the first time I meet them. Co-workers who are retired-detectives and current military members can be tricky, since teamwork and trust are so important. But that is to be expected in such a statist world. But all-in-all I am proud of my new shoes and anxious to show them off, even to my co-workers :)
Imagine you are poor and you stumble upon a job that requires you to wear dress shoes. Someone lends you enough money to buy whatever dress shoes you think are necessary and you begin to shop. Out of nowhere you spot the perfect pair of shoes. As you approach these shoes, you become more and more humbled by their appearance. You decide to hold them and begin to think: these shoes will be perfect for my new job. Absolutely perfect. But before you give them the automatic A, you begin to question the idea of perfection. Surely we have all heard the expression "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is." You begin to wonder if these shoes will last long, or fit right, or match your clothes in just the right way, etc. This point is crucial because it defines the point and basis on which you will make your decisions. There are some people who put the shoes back just because they seem a little too good (too good to be true), but others will try the shoes on. At first the shoes seem constricting. It may even hurt different places of your foot at first, or it may fit perfectly right off the bat. After walking in the shoes for a while, you realize that the shoe begins to conform to the shape of the foot. Your found the perfect looking shoe, tried it on, and now it is changing for comfort as well.
This has been my experience dealing with becoming an anarchist. The idea of non-aggression sounds really good, but would it actually work? Would things such as road building get done? But ultimately I took the plunge because the non-aggression principle is not about building roads or schooling children, it is about how we treat our fellow human beings. I simply could not accept the idea of legitimized aggression simply to have roads or to have schools... especially since so many other services don't require aggression.
Now that I have gotten over that barrier (the idea that it must not be too good to be true since it seems that way; it meaning the rejection of legitimized force) and have worn the shoe for a little while, I have found that it is easier to describe the ideas and think them through. The term "anarchist" is not a term that any longer sounds extreme or negative in any way.
Be that as it may, there still are some parties that I do not come right out and tell I am an anarchist the first time I meet them. Co-workers who are retired-detectives and current military members can be tricky, since teamwork and trust are so important. But that is to be expected in such a statist world. But all-in-all I am proud of my new shoes and anxious to show them off, even to my co-workers :)
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Is the United States a "Christian Nation"?
My opinion on this debate is explained here without going into the fact that nations don't really exist, nor do they have any characteristics of their own.
There seems to be a disagreement between plenty in the politically active as to whether the United States is a Christian nation. In my opinion, this is not a productive debate to have, and here is why.
If this is a "Christian Nation", then passing laws forcing people to behave in a "christian" manner is unnecessary. People will voluntarily choose to live their lives in such a way if that is where their faith lies. If the U.S. is not a "Christian nation", passing laws will only lead to behavioral control efforts, and not a change in faith. Non-believers will be pushed away from christianity, since members of the church would be seeking to control them, rather than win over their minds and hearts.
So regardless of whether the United States is a christian nation, laws passed to promote christian values can only have negative effects, no positive. I'm sure there are some who would say that laws against murder are inspired by christian values... but that is also irrelevant. Murder, theft, and other acts of aggression are not solely christian issues, they are universal issues.
It is easily understandable why this debate evokes such passionate feelings. Some people want Christianity taught in schools and that sort of thing, while others don't want their kids being taught such things. Then there is abortion... but what people have to realize is the real problem is whenever government gets involved, you only have one way of doing things. Only in free markets can parents really choose what kind of education their child receives. So the solution to this problem is to get government out of education... that way some parents can send their kids to christian schools and others won't have to. Sure, christians teach religion outside of school, and it is very likely that non-believers who are forced to pay for schools teaching religion (and as a result can't afford to send their kids to any other school) will simply tell their kids that the religion aspects of their education are completely illogical and lack any real proof.
The same thing goes for abortions. Experience has shown that abortions, like drugs, simply get pushed to back alley deals and black market operations rather than truly being dealt with.
If you are pro-christian-values, I leave you with this bit of common sense: the government is not going to pass some magical law that makes everyone behave how you want, and agree with everything you believe. It never has happened and it never will happen. If you want to drive people away from your religion, strive for the passage of any law necessary... that is one sure way to turn people off to christianity.
There seems to be a disagreement between plenty in the politically active as to whether the United States is a Christian nation. In my opinion, this is not a productive debate to have, and here is why.
If this is a "Christian Nation", then passing laws forcing people to behave in a "christian" manner is unnecessary. People will voluntarily choose to live their lives in such a way if that is where their faith lies. If the U.S. is not a "Christian nation", passing laws will only lead to behavioral control efforts, and not a change in faith. Non-believers will be pushed away from christianity, since members of the church would be seeking to control them, rather than win over their minds and hearts.
So regardless of whether the United States is a christian nation, laws passed to promote christian values can only have negative effects, no positive. I'm sure there are some who would say that laws against murder are inspired by christian values... but that is also irrelevant. Murder, theft, and other acts of aggression are not solely christian issues, they are universal issues.
It is easily understandable why this debate evokes such passionate feelings. Some people want Christianity taught in schools and that sort of thing, while others don't want their kids being taught such things. Then there is abortion... but what people have to realize is the real problem is whenever government gets involved, you only have one way of doing things. Only in free markets can parents really choose what kind of education their child receives. So the solution to this problem is to get government out of education... that way some parents can send their kids to christian schools and others won't have to. Sure, christians teach religion outside of school, and it is very likely that non-believers who are forced to pay for schools teaching religion (and as a result can't afford to send their kids to any other school) will simply tell their kids that the religion aspects of their education are completely illogical and lack any real proof.
The same thing goes for abortions. Experience has shown that abortions, like drugs, simply get pushed to back alley deals and black market operations rather than truly being dealt with.
If you are pro-christian-values, I leave you with this bit of common sense: the government is not going to pass some magical law that makes everyone behave how you want, and agree with everything you believe. It never has happened and it never will happen. If you want to drive people away from your religion, strive for the passage of any law necessary... that is one sure way to turn people off to christianity.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
A Little Something To Consider About Jesus
At best I consider myself to be a Quaker. I believe there is goodness in each and every person, and following that goodness is a simple decision. But since the dominant religion in the United States is Christianity, and the story of Jesus, whether true or not true, holds an enormous value to me, here are my thoughts.
Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now." or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..." and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen. (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.)
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?
Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.
Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:
After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes? The answer is hopefully obvious at this point. That particular method of solving problems is wrong.
So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state?
I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus. This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified."
In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!! Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"? The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way.
If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy? Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process). If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace.
I just want to wrap this up by being clear: it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity. I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable. My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.
Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now." or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..." and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen. (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.)
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?
Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.
Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:
- Turning Water into Wine
- The miracle of draught of fishes
- The Feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000 men
- Walking on water
- Transfiguration of Jesus
- Calming the storm
- Finding a Coin in the fish's mouth
- The Cursing of the Fig Tree
- He knew he was going to be betrayed
- Raising of Lazarus
- His own Resurrection
After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes? The answer is hopefully obvious at this point. That particular method of solving problems is wrong.
So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state?
I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus. This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified."
In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!! Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"? The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way.
If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy? Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process). If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace.
I just want to wrap this up by being clear: it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity. I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable. My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)