(Christian) Morality

(This post uses asterisk and superscript footnotes.)

At the center of the Christian Faith is the Heart itself. It is where all the big battles are fought, with the brain in the second place. Christians are what flies in the face of immoral living. We are not of this world, we do not belong to itA. We belong to God instead, and therefore we should believe in His will for us.

He has given us very clear and concise instructions on how to live. Many people quote the Bible and cherry pick, which is a big mistake. There should be an obvious reason why Christians don’t go around stoning people for Leviticus. It is because that moral system has been fulfilled and now we live by the other moral guides in the NT which are often repeats of other codes found in the OT.

Now, the objective in Christian morality is not to become a legalist and not to become lawless. Legalism is the over-enforcement of either Christian laws or abuse of authority under the Christian name. We MUST ACCEPT beforehand that obeying God is meaningless if there is no love for God (and consequently, other humans) or faith.

The line has been drawn clearly for us Christians: We must love God with all of ourselvesB, and in doing so, we offer ourselves up to become clay—to be transformed by God into something He can use. And this transformation process is permanent unto the day we die and beyond. No one gets into Heaven by simply believing and making zero effort to gain Divine Perspective (to think like Christ) or to change your ways. No one gets into Heaven by being a do-gooder and not believing. It is both and that action is verily summed in one word:

Repentance. (Such a dangerous sounding word. Trust me, it’s nowhere near as bad as it seems. It’s rather remarkable!)

Repentance is the turning away from sin, it is acknowledgement that you have done wrong, and it is the understanding that since you have done wrong, you must right it. God doesn’t want just part of youB; not on Sundays, not every night when you commit a ritualistic prayer (that God “won’t hear” if you don’t mean it), not whenever you get a five-minute revelation (which is also false revelation), He wants ALL of you. This means control over everything. God cannot be compartmentalized.

Repentance is the combination of faith and works, when considered as a whole. It is utterly importantC.

If you have the Divine Perspective, you will not ever be the same again. Your life will turn around for the better. You will not have to hold yourself to God’s Law, you will find you already obey it. This means in every aspect of life.

God has given us clear instructions on how to be better through our actions– He has given us His instructions on how to live in order that we may come closer to the Divine Perspective. Without the Divine Perspective it is utterly futile and meaningless to contend for any kind of liberty.

But all this morality stuff… It’s not all… is it? What’s it do for us?

It changes us, but not cosmetically. It changes us from the inside out. It molds so deeply it transforms all. The beauty of the world becomes evident. The worth of every being becomes evident. Every foolish thing we hold onto because of greed and gluttony… it all fades away. Hatred is swept away. Patience, love, virtue, it all becomes a part of us. Vanity switches with humility. It is a miracle of God’s Work that occurs within us all when we attain Divine Perspective!

Instead of seeing the dark around us, we begin to see the light that’s within everything. That is what we are going for: the good in it all. The love we all seek whether we know it or not. Once we attain the Divine Perspective the concepts of good and wrong aren’t just rules anymore— they describe to us the nature of God*.

Yet, this cannot be done if God has not given us the moral system to get there. There’s no condemnation here. God made it very clear that everyone can be saved. It is up to us to head down the harder road that teaches us all the valuable lessons to be learned.

* – We cannot have the Good God where Good and Evil are not permanently defined or true. In the same breath we can say that sin is a crime against the Good God and humanity. Without sin, there is no concept of Good and Evil, and without a clear cut Good and Evil morality becomes an opinion and this subverts God on every level.


Footnotes:
A: John 15:19, 17:13-16; Romans 12:2; 1 John 2:15-17 (Not of this world)
B: Mark 12:30
C: Luke 13:3; Ezekiel 18:21-23; 2 Chronicles 7:14; 1 John 1:9; Acts 3:19, 8:22; Mark 1:15; many more…


Resources:
The Divine Perspective, as discussed by Mattie Montgomery in his spoken word song “Vision” (very quick, worth a listen): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cQbjygL0QM

Bible Verses to look at (there are more that I am neglecting to put due to it being 2:44 AM; but, in a snarky manner, I suggest reading the entire Bible, along with the apocrypha for good reads):
1 Corinthians 10:24
John 14:15, 15:19, 17:13-16
The entire book of Romans
1 Thessalonians 4:3
1 John 2:3-4 (very important), 2:15-17 (very important)
Matthew 5:17-22 (very important), 15:3
Colossians 3:23

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Writing

Recently, I have no idea what had come upon me, but I have been filled with the intense desire to write. Specifically, the sci-fi story I’m working on. Now, that story is over 150,000 words and I’m not even sure how to end it. I mean, I have a very clear idea on how to end the story (save for some of the minor details), but to end the work I’ve been having to do.

There’s a process to writing:
Write
Rewrite
Edit
Rewrite
Rewrite
Rewrite
Go Agent Hunting (harder than actual hunting, I assure you)
Get published.

See, simple, easy. Well, it’s literally the opposite. After I write these last three chapters, it’s going to be the hardest part of my writing career: editing. Most authors hate their writing by the time they finish the first draft. I hadn’t Part One as I was writing it. That’s a little different. Summaries, beginnings, and editing are the hardest parts to me. It’s going to be difficult. But, for some reason, it’s a labor I love. Similar to taking scalding hot showers and peeling skin off with a cheese grater.

Eh, you know, at this point, there’s so much pseudo-blood-sweat-and-tears in this that I don’t even care if it criticized badly. All that matters is that I get a book published and get to continue on with the next. My main goal was to get published and printed in the first place. As much of a low-set goal that is, it’s entirely true. All that matters is that someone pays money for it and reads it.

If I were to become famous, so be it. I’ll have plenty of fans to talk to.

But otherwise, just getting published is enough. If I self-publish (I have the capability to), then I would have to self-advertise and try to get B&N to sell and all that garbage. And there’s nothing I hate more than liberal-democracy and capitalism (as irrelevant politics are here, aggressive people annoy me, especially people that have no qualms judging me before they even know my name).

So my goal: get published. Anything above that is being an overachiever.

Now, it’s all down to refining the story and characters.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Simple Awe

I walk around school, observing the people I see. I don’t listen to their words, I don’t do anything else but keep my eyes head-level when moving through the hallways. It’s usually packed with students, kids wearing “SWAG” shirts or other things I find to be completely ridiculous. Often, couples holding hands form roadblocks and reduce the pace to a painful crawl. I think about these organisms around me, and then I think about the organism I am.

We’re the same. All of us. All men are created equal right? …right? It would be comforting to believe that such an idea is true, but I have seen some staggering arguments against that. But, then, I differ from those points.

We’re different in that we all have different flaws. But for worth, we’re all the same. Every last one of us tormented souls. Each and every one of us entropy-defying organisms.

But, you know, it’s not hard to see the design in everything. The universe screams for this existence. I mean, it’s strange that everything in this universe has a purpose. Everything, no matter how blown up the idea is. I mean, quantum particles each have their own qualities and they set the stage for atoms, then molecules, then structures, then massive-structures like planets. It’s all a little too convenient to have a simple cop-out explanation.

I like the idea that there’s more than just the physical world, almost that ideas exist on a completely separate plane of existence. Technically, seeing how the mind generates things on what is seen and what is perceived, there must be a lot more to this existence than just what we normally think as we go through our daily lives.

I’ve mentioned before about my curiosity, and recently it has exploded in a simple adoration for God and this world that we’re given. It manifests as a desire to learn how everything works. So… as a result I started reading my textbooks at school in my free time (if I’m not too drowsy, that is). I started listening to more music and dragging apart the notes and examining the measures and pitches. I started taking apart mathematical formulas, generating proofs, and messing around with the ways numbers work. And above all, my desire to create things has overtaken me.

I don’t have any regular readers, of that I’m sure, but however, it still needs noting that it was a while since I had last written. And if you think that’s bad, you should see how my stories are going along. They’re halted. But, I still have that fire that burns inside and consumes every doubt and every roadblock there is.

I have restored my desire to build and create. It’s a great feeling, and ironically, there’s no one to share that with (long story, and I wouldn’t put that here anyways). But anyways, I envelope myself with the mysteries and the answers of this world, seeking to understand it all. Hopefully, I draw the proper lines to connect the right dots, and unlock the secrets to every bit of information there is.

Have a good life!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Curiosity

I had become bitter. I had blamed a lot of things in the past for my troubles of existence. Now, I realized that I have been wrong before and I have been wrong again recently.

First off, please know, that although my blog seems really anti-science, all I’m trying to do is preserve the original philosophy of science and keep that pure. Science in its original form doesn’t assume, it doesn’t guess, and it doesn’t claim fact. It is only a mechanism for understanding logic and design of the systems of this universe.

So I brought back my curiosity and restarted my pro-science pro-fide viewpoint on knowledge, hoping that somehow this helps bring back legitimacy to the knowledge that I can have in this world.

Ironically, my fascination has come from mathematics and other people. I’m not sure why, but whenever an idea about derivatives in my mind just clicks as I’m eating a PB&J, it feels rewarding. The strange looks I get from other students about my spontaneous spacing aren’t that good, but its worth it.

So my previous objective was that I should help people attain intellectual freedom from one specific field of thought. Previously, it was academic systems, and, realizing how futile that is, I decided to not bother with it too much. So I’m turning this blog back into it’s philosophical origins and try to fuel curiosity through literature, science, and probably psychology again.

My secondary objective is try to return some of my Faith back to the human race. Some of them have earned it, especially one of the people I’ve met recently. So that means some struggles here and there, but I think it will be worth it. I’m quite sure that I speaking to no one, and I’m very sure that my own voice is no good, but I don’t mind spewing words randomly into the empty space.

If you got this far, thanks, and have a good life.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Understanding What I Do / Faith (Final Part)

Normally, there’s a picture, there’s a quote, and then I spew logical nonsense. Sometimes it is theological, sometimes scientific, sometimes it’s about philosophy and life. But is there a reason? The “Why I Write” page gives some sort of idea of what, exactly, I’m doing. All it is, is a place to drop thoughts where people can see them. Hopefully, these thoughts are enough to get people to form their own thoughts. You wouldn’t believe how syndicated people’s beliefs are.

Especially with the other teenagers I know.

I’m no longer in college. I had to leave the program I was in because of a mixture of grades that weren’t so good and the fact that tuition increased a terribly large amount. So now, I have to go back to high school and finish my diploma. It could be worse; I mean, I get to keep that one year of credits.

Now to actually talking philosophy:

Recently, I had a discussion with some friends with about what science is according to philosophy and according to scientists. They didn’t know exactly what it was and I had to describe how those things weren’t what they were.

1) If you didn’t know this already, be ashamed. Science is a religion. It is a belief system that is as personal as you want it to be, it’s deity is a panentheological existence (meaning God is the existence of the universe and the laws that apply) OR that if God is not a panentheological belief, that you yourself are your own god. I mean, think about it: There’s a bunch of people claiming that existence came from nowhere, with no logical explanation, and that the universe had almost an infinity of perfect accidents that lead to something that is against random assortment, all the while bearing little or no evidence. Explain it.

I am a scientific person. I always have been. I’ve been reading about the creation of the universe by big bang, and reading about biology, psychology and chemistry since I was little. I picked up textbooks and started to read them. Actually, last week I started reading my literature textbook. Although that’s not a science-oriented book, it gives an idea what I do. Alright, most of the arguments I make are from science textbooks. Some people don’t realize that.

2) The first thing that I learned about science is that it is “a perceptive understanding of our reality.” After talking to some professors during my stay at college I learned what that meant. This is the basic rule that applies to all science (and anything perceptive too): “That which cannot be verified at any given moment, at any place and any time is that which is taken on faith.” Take a minute and think about that. Yeah… interesting right?

Of course, that renders about all arguments null and void, and leads me to tell what the next thing about science is.

3) There is no “fact” or “absolutes” in science except the simple things like “I woke up today” or “my dog died of spontaneous combustion yesterday after drinking six gallons of gin.” In consequence of the previous understanding, nothing is forever the way it is. One day, for all we know, gravity could invert and we start being ripped apart by our particles because of the repulsive force. Also, this means that since there is no “fact” there is a basic understanding of how severe the disinformation in the scientific community is. To see just how drastic it is, replace “fact” with “faith” next time you listen to a debate or a seminar.

I find this ironic, really. I was so disappointed whenever I heard that, because it lead me to my next point.

4) Science is immodest. I mean, my heart was crushed when I heard about this. I know of scientists who go into the field because it pays, and nothing else (I also know scientists that are to the contrary, and I support them fully). Also, the meaning of science changed over time too. It went from “a logical understanding of the perspective/perceptive reality” to the “search for truth” (Which is a glorification and only serves cosmetic purposes. It doesn’t work as truth when anything assumed by science is literally assumed.) By default, there is no truth except for the occurrence of events. And that means that you only understand what your senses have recorded.

Barely no one understands that science is a philosophy. And the science of God(s) is theology. With science being a philosophy, it means that it is a personal decision to accept it. And if you don’t, society renders you either stupid or retarded. Trust me, I’ve been on that end before, even after that person lost that debate.

5) Any argument that can be made against any normal religion can be made against science. Religion is used selectively as a weapon. Science kinda sorta has lead to the discovery and use of stronger weapons through history all the way from better swords, projectile weapons, to anthrax, neutron, and atom bombs. Also, using religion as an excuse to say it has started wars… yeah, it happened. But the total numbers of deaths by religion is only less than 3% of all atheistic wars combined.

Religion makes people do stupid things. Eh, I haven’t found any stupid things except for the Islamic marriage of a full grown adult to a nine year old. If science had it’s run of the mill, then people would be the test subjects. I mean, science is amoral. It works best when testing shampoos on humans when it would burn the hair of a rat. It would probably take the hair and skin off a human head too.

There’s ‘truth’ out there. But we aren’t going to get it from the media or from the people who over-glorify themselves. I have yet to find a conflict between true science and God.

Have a good life.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Relative Normality

A philosophy post on writing.

In every piece of fiction, there is some understanding of basic fact, an acknowledgement of logic, and then the stretching of whatever ideals the writer chose to put to the test. In non-fiction, everything is “normal,” in the fact that it is a record of real life events. Fiction, to some extent, is a falsity in nature, but can be a fact in the very fiber of all the philosophical and emotional engagements.

When we enter the universe of a story, we’re not looking to correct it or berate it for flaws; we’re there simply to explore and listen. If a reader were to try to redefine the story it’s no longer a story but a work of that specific mind making its form of a story. In other words, in order for a story to be fully used to its extent it must be recreated in the mind with as little individual editing by the psyche as possible. That means no fantasies or delusions while reading. The story has to be taken in as it is given.

With this forming the very basic of a story and idea, this is where the term [I made] “Relative Normality” comes in. This philosophy would show that each individual story has its own truths as defined by the non-real universe that it is in. Relative Normality applies to all fiction, but I’m only going to focus on written stories and literature as it is the easiest to explain, one that I can easily relate to, and it’s a broad spectrum I can pull my own examples from.

With a story’s integrity intact, the universe should form in the imagination where the subconscious and conscious minds seem to collide. The story will form itself there and it will grow with its ideas spread mainly into the conscious part of the mind. The subconscious (not being able to tell what is reality and what is not) will more than likely render the world, people, and some ideals for the conscious mind to readily intake. In short, the subconscious generates the world and its ideals and gives it to the conscious mind, which is what “we” experience.

This is where the idea that each fictional universe has a sense of normality to it that is different from the real and understood world that we live in. Each world will have a sense of what is perfectly fine and understandable. It will have an abstract form of logic to it, which readily defines what is “normal” in the story’s set of predetermined ideals.

In other words, each universe, completely independent of reality, has a sense of what is real that is entirely independent of real life and the “reality” we experience. Understandably, GXC: Starlight (a work of mine that’s nearing the end of early draft stages) works mainly upon the scientific logic of our reality, but it differs in the sense that the events that conspire, the people and things that exist there, do not exist in real life. Those inconsistencies with real life is what “Relative Normality” is. Relative simply meaning that the scope and scale of the entire situation is dependent on how much information is prepared and given to a reader. The Normality means that what exists in that fictional [non-real] reality is normal because it exists there.

The Relative Normality of our real lives would simply be Reality; what we experience through our multiple senses. The Relative Normality of my project Warriors of Chrysaal is that there’s Magick, the use of Magick, new cultures, new races, and new creatures.

What happens with Relative Normality is that in order for there to be the Normality, there has to be the existence of logical order of reality brought in. This means that it is completely impossible for us to develop a story or an idea of nothing but Relative Normality. Our brains are not capable of generating something completely out of bounds of the reality we have experienced, meaning that there has to be at least one iota of reality in there somewhere.

 

Discussing the Relative Normality of GXC: Starlight:

The main approach to Starlight that was taken was that the story was designed to be strongly scientific in its approach to everything: all the way from psychology, to social sciences, to space travel, and down to theoretical physics and abstract logics. Every single thing in there has a form of logic attached to it. For example: the biology behind most of the genetic monstrosities that are used by the main antagonist is identical to what we would experience in everyday life; there’s the DNA, the anatomy, the bodily functions… all the things like that. The way they are handled (viewed objectively, all evidence is falsifiable but there’s physical evidence pointing towards it) follows strictly what the scientific model is. But, the Relative Normality is defined as the new qualities that we humans haven’t seen before, the fact that the stuff is entirely fictional, and the fact that it is all bound within the imagination of the reader.

To sum that up we have this:

1) Relative Normality/Reality Overlap (just “Overlap” for short): The combined efforts of both the reality and the fictional one. This is the story. In the example, it would be the creatures and their qualities.

2) Reality: This is part that is from the real world that is brought into the story. In the example, this would be the scientific method and the course of logic used to create and finalize the qualities of the creature.

3) Exact Relative Normality:  Literally all fictional parts. Everything that does not exist physically in the real world as is, falls into this category. In the provided example it’s the creatures themselves; their existence.

I acknowledge that this does not address the “What is reality?” question. It would not be worth the time and effort to include it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Random Chance

This posts flame fractal!

A mere example of what chance could look like with numbers and colors.

The only thing that breaks down a mind from its own roots,
is the axe of someone else’s reasoning.”

I look around at the world and observe all the glory it has and all the beauty and extreme attention to detail. I see the blue sky, and the complex clouds compiled from millions of millions of molecules. Eventually that massive multitude of molecules would either condense or fall apart. Below them is the grass, the buildings (the constructs of creatures called humans), the trees, the vast unending oceans… This diverse biosphere called a planet is by far very advanced viewed from space. Closer up, we have the mountains, the clouds, the oceans, forests, plains. Even closer we have animals. Each of those is composed of cells, and the rest is known.

Each representative particle has its own qualities. The planet is in a solar system, at the third ring, within a certain range that’s capable of hosting the specific types of life as we know it. Meaning, the life that we know is only capable of living naturally on Earth. Closer in, the human element is capable of both logical and completely irrational (or completely justified by logic, with the same action and consequences), capable of terror and hospitality, and can control their own future. They have their literal and non-literal concepts, both of which are intertwined in the same basis of thought.

So, is this random chance or the hand of God? As per my understanding, it’s both. I see no conflict between the two. If I was a god (not God Himself), I would design certain qualities and see what would happen on its own. Example: the creation of the Universe from simple particles like atom and all of the subatomic particles smaller than those. That would explain the existence of the Universe, yes? Then, I would develop even more qualities about how these particles interact. And then, given enough time, the known Universe would begin to coalesce. And as things begin to take form, I interrupt everything and make my own imprint on something. My own image. A signature, of sorts. Not to say that this is all my creation, but rather to show that something irregular can exist in a world of regularity.

Humans are genetically the most estranged beasts on the world. Not because evolution put us this way. But because the genetic events that would surround the existence of the humans on a genetic level are statistically impossible to the point it would be ignored as possible. But that’s nonsense, right? Statistics are lies, so let’s move on to the next step. Humans are one of the most complex things, if not the most complex things, on the planet. They are constructs of biological mechanisms of remarkable resiliency. They have developed the rarity of conscious thought, which led them to question their existence.

Stop the music! What? They question their existence? What kind of Darwinistic trait would that be good for? None! Philosophical thought means nothing to nature. In fact it acts as a distraction, but it’s also a tool. But what makes conscious thought? A brain.

A neuron is a very ingenious thing. On its own, it can’t really do much. With other neurons, it forms an intelligence, of sorts. A brain that’s undeveloped, say, in the mind of a feral animal would be one that coordinates the body to make sure the basic survival needs are met. After that it’s the social needs within its population that must be met (not social as in the way it is defined to us humans). And that’s about as far as that goes but it’s different for humans. Humans demand more for their existence. They need a reason to live.

Heh, life is tricky, ain’t it? So, what the next theory that came up next was Social Darwinism. I have no use in explaining that, but I’ll move on to tell you that all the theory did was distract people from questioning the reason of their existence to closing their minds to an institutionalized thought. I said last post that science is only a way of thinking that uses logic and reasoning to define things in a way that make sense to our current ways of understanding when they could very well be completely obscenely different. Well? The population is extremely divided on this way of thinking. Both sides have their extremities that say the other is incorrect, both have middle grounds that don’t care, and each have their respective intellects that see both sides as capable of cooperating. Now, what Darwinistic trait would lead to both sides (that are still the same) to the point where people are exiled and driven to violence to prove that one way of thinking is better. No reasoning there or logic there that would develop genetics the way nature should.

Well, what are humans? Are we slaves to instinctive thought like normal animals, free thought, or are we… slaves to other human thoughts? That last one sounds perfect, and as far as I understand, completely true. Very few humans nowadays will you meet that do not come to specific archetype defined by society. We are trained to see things in black and white when our eyes are fully capable of seeing color. What have we done? Enslaved ourselves in the name of conscious thought, while someone else stands behind a glass window with a remote control. The entire purpose of my writing is to get people to think on their own without any particular way of thinking taking them over. In other words, I want them to be free in themselves without being enslaved by their desires, their basic needs, or by the hands and ideologies of others. And yet here’s my contradiction: If I want people to be free thinking, why am I telling what to think. I like to believe that what I’m saying is pushing people to think all on their own and that puts me in a paradoxical thought loop. Lovely spaces, these loops.

Per my understanding of God, He gave us Free Will. This means I can do what I want and all that jazz, but there are still consequences. Consequences are a part of life and physics, until something else arises. Well? I don’t know. Come to your own conclusions. I think that a conscious mind has Free Will. There’s a meeting point of the two ideologies.

As for the future? That’s unknown to everyone.

Have a good future then.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment