Many people just want to side with the winning team, many even skip Church on Sundays, because the game is on, and will feel more resolve in the fleeting of sports victory rather than the eternity of spiritual victory.
Some Florida Gator fans have even seen the spiritual meaning in the Tim Tebow led victory over the LSU Tigers at night, after Tebow had been injured with a concussion.
I've been there... I'm a Raider fan. Plus, my last little league team was the Mets, from which I have photos that were taken by a sports photographer.
Team sucks, don't know why. Start wondering if God is against you, because your team can't win, but that of course, is just nonsense. It is nonsense to believe that God cares about the outcome of a game of chance, or to define your faith in God through the outcome of games of chance.
Obviously, the Mets have been technically more successful than the Raiders have been in recent years, but in terms of expectations, I believe that I'm on the same level as Mets fans. Largely because, Mets fans became Mets fans, because they were not fair-weather fans and in spite of the history of the New York Yankees. Just as Raider fans became Raider fans in spite of the history of the San Francisco 49ers.
And that's why Yankee and Niner fans laugh with sadistic glee ... because they believe that either they've been blessed by the wheel of fortune, or blessed by the ability to have no remorse about disloyalty.
But I guarantee like Joe Namath that only one "team" will win in the, "postseason."
People stick with their team, because they want to believe that if and when that team wins, it will make them feel spiritually complete.
I don't claim to be perfectly pure. I've sinned, I know that and I don't claim otherwise. That is one problem I have had with institutional religion -- many sects take the offense in trying to sell their faith to lure followers, and in order for people to have confidence in their *product* they must appear to practice what they preach and to cherry pick Bible verses. I can only act in defense of God and have the faith that I will be empowered with the right words.
I believe that a person cannot say, "Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior," (say it aloud and see what happens) without having accepted the Spirit. That is why I have wondered about Jon Stewart ever since he said on-air that, "Jesus Christ is My Lord and Savior," in the context of a joke. I do not know with certainty that a person can say that, even in the context of a joke, because even some Christians will not say it when pressed.
Many will even use hard line legalism, or people such as snake-handlers will test God's will to save them from poisonous snakes, or people will put their faith in the outcome of sporting events.
But that leads followers to look hypocritical by association, and thus impugns God. That is one reason why I seek to be a thumb in the eye to any group or inclination to be affirmed by other sinners. That is what I know from Christianity. Everyone is a sinner to some degree, thus the only One a person should want affirmation from is God.
But how would you know if you have sinned unless you read the Bible? You wouldn't. You wouldn't tell a judge, "I confess. I don't know to what, but I confess." It might be a scary process to do, but the resolve is in knowing that while you deserve death or exile, you have been given new life in Christ.
Some though claim to have been cleansed of all sin through baptism, which to an extent is true. The problem is that, acceptance of the Spirit is not a Get Out of Hell Free card. It's an admission that absolution is a daily process, and that each day is a test to overcome sin, hence, "Our Daily Bread."
It is an admission to not romanticize your failings. Everyone is a sinner, thus everyone has their failings. In God's eyes, they're all the same. In the extreme, even vicious murderers can receive absolution, but I do believe that sins against the body require more work than those who commit sins with no manifestation on themselves or others (such as lust).
Some of the problems that skeptics have with Christianity are as follows:
a) Why is God a jealous God?
b) How could people have been saved that did not live during a time of Christ or Protestantism?
c) Why do bad things happen to good people?
d) Why is God of the "Old Testament" different from Christ of the "New Testament"?
e) How can the Trinity be One?
f) Don't scientific facts and evolution disprove the possibility of God?
g) Why are there different versions of the Bible, and why were Books written but left out?
h) Have you seen the wars committed in the name of God?
i) Why doesn't God answer my prayers?
j) Why is money the root of all evil?
k) Why does the Bible "endorse" slavery?
This may in fact be a vain attempt to resolve doubt about God, but I do believe that as someone who follows God, that it is my duty to at least try to resolve the questions that cause doubt. Moreover, in attempting to answer those questions, I will not answer them in the order that I listed them, but simply as one defense.
First of all, here are a few things that I do not believe, but also believe. I don't believe that Jews or Catholics cause all the wars, humans do that from love of money. Money is a tool, and should be treated as such, rather than sought to fill a void in the soul, because money will create dependence on other sinners to buy from you.
I don't believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time as humans, but I do believe that when it comes to science and the scripture that there is more to the scripture than meets the eye.
Christ is the Conduit
Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior (say it aloud and see what happens) and that Jesus Forgives You for wandering astray to any degree, because without the Spirit as a conduit between the ways of Satan's earth and God's heaven, then humans are just awash in a sea of earthly sin and will miss the mark in their attempts to connect with God by worshipping earthly manifestations of faith such as Golden Calf’s, and even the Ten Commandments, which led to the extreme legalism that Christ impugned.
That is why I do not take inventory for the sins of others, because many people have sinned without malice, or were a product of the sins of our "fathers" or others, such as descendants of slaves through anger. Thus, to fight a person of that line will only push that person further away from the truth. White pride (refusal to acknowledge that the damage done by slavery transcends time) and black anger will only push a person astray and to the comfort of fleeting things that destroy the will to seek the Spirit.
As the Bible says, the meek shall inherit the Earth, thus no system of man can prevent a person from receiving the gift of heaven. Remember also to call no man "father," for that will empower him with a sense of delusion that will lead to sin. That is a big reason why I do not practice with the Catholic Church. If pressed, Catholic priests will even say that they don't follow the word of Christ, but insist that they have been given the keys to the kingdom.
I believe that Christ is the only conduit to God, but that there is more than one way to Christ. I don't believe that Christ died to create a *religion* unto Himself, but for followers and non-followers to learn to coexist. Traditions and heritage do not dictate whether you can be saved through Christ, and that "Christianity," itself has become its own heritage and set of traditions, but that Christ is still universal. Hence, Jews for Jesus -- they maintain Jewish traditions and heritage but recognize that Christianity is its own heritage and set of traditions but that does not prevent them from being saved by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, I believe that that belief applies to any culture.
It is a Choice, but the Desire to Choose is Not New
I believe that God gave everyone the free will to follow or not follow Him and that I can only inform a person that they have a choice and to be an example by walking the walk, but that, it is not my business if a person insists on not following, because even God does not interfere with free will.
This might sound convoluted, but I believe that it is your God given right to choose to burn in hell and that any thoughts that reject Him are not new. And that Hell is a place where your soul is incinerated and that you become nothing and remember nothing, you're merely a slave to a devil that is bound to lose in the, "postseason."
That there is nothing new under the sun, a sun which is believed to be the source of human cognition. It then seems appropriate that a pseudonym for Satan has been, "the light god," because I do believe that all thoughts are not new and that believing that you have created new thoughts or ideas is abhorrence to God.
Thus, I as a Christian must seek to resolve the sins of our "fathers" and the systems of man (slave owners) by showing mercy and apologizing for the fact that time and humanity is the, "same as it ever was," as David Byrnes wrote. The passage of time is just a perception affected by light, as we know from Einstein and the theory of relativity (whom believed in God but not the afterlife).
I do however believe that the people of today can save the souls of the dead by rectifying the earthly manifestations of past sins, so long as they did not take the mark of the beast.
I don't know what does and does not come from God. Nothing that I write or that you're thinking is truly new, because it has already been done or has already been planned. Maybe, you just haven't been exposed to it, so it is new to you. Like a rerun you haven't seen. God has seen it all before, and what we think is new, is just a rerun to God.
I say this with caution, but I imagine God looking down on wars and thinking, "This crap again. It is so cliché." Only difference is, He doesn't tune out. Sin just forces God to watch a terrible rerun, so why would you want to do that to Him?
Even The Beatles recognized that nothing is new in the song, "All You Need is Love," but knowing what I know about The Beatles, I would suspect that they were on the opposite side to the one I side with.
Let's Get Metaphysical
This might be pop-culture heresy, but I find it suspicious that the murder of John Lennon occurred after he wrote a song in response to Bob Dylan's, "Gotta Serve Somebody," called, "Serve Yourself." To me, the murder of Lennon is the devil's allegory of, 'Who do you think you're kidding?'
No one truly understands the intentions of Mark David Chapman, but in my personal opinion, Chapman acted under the force of the devil in retaliation against Lennon.
The Catholic JFK was vice versa. He attempted to expose the sinister global movements that act in the dark, and thus, Kennedy was silenced. No, I do not allege a conspiracy, it was truly a, "magic bullet," if you get my drift, and that Oswald acted under supernatural ability.
That is what I believe. Maybe, it is wrong, but it is what I believe.
Conspiracy theories only lead to anger, which is a sin. People seek to explain the acts of Satan with elaborate theories on how humans may have done it (as if we had such power). That though only pushes a person away from God.
Dylan never officially renounced Christianity, he merely stopped writing all-Christian albums, but he has written songs with Christian or Biblical themes since then. Dylan has partaken in Jewish traditions and acts of Jewish heritage since then, but I have wondered whether Dylan considers himself a Jew for Jesus. After all, Dylan recently released a non-profit Christmas album, which would seem contrary to the idea that Dylan renounced Christianity.
Even in the song "Idiot Wind" from the Blood on The Tracks album, which was released a few years before Slow Train Coming, Dylan wrote, "There's a lone soldier on the cross / smoke pouring out of the box-car door / you didn't know it / you didn't think it could be done / in the final end H/he won the war / after losing every battle."
I have interpreted that to mean, Dylan was sick of being called a prophet by the media, fans, and even his then wife, "Even you yesterday / you had to ask me where it was at / I couldn't believe after all these years that you didn't know me any better than that. Sweet lady." Dylan also depicted his wife as a lioness (a lion is a metaphor for the devil) that had led him astray with various corrupt ideas and practices and that, "I can't even touch the books you've read," and that, "I crawled past your door / wishin' I'd been somebody else instead."
As for Lennon, I can't say what his fate was, but I do believe that the devil forced Lennon's hand and had him silenced. To be clear, when it comes to many musicians, I think of them as neither "here nor there." They are like one myth of the Jack O'Lantern. Long story, but the bottom line is that, the Jack made a deal with the devil, tried to recant, but afterwards was unwanted by God and the devil.
Yes, I do believe that many rock songs are laced with ideas that will lead the listener to the devil, or the song will lead you to a different song that will lead you to the devil, such as The Rolling Stones, "You Can't Always Get What You Want," could lead you to their other songs, or the anger of U2's "Sunday, Bloody, Sunday," could lead a listener to, "God Part II," which is a song about how Bono doesn't believe in certain things but does them anyway. The first line is of course, "Don't believe the devil."
I also believe that fools seek to be affirmed by rock music that holds no truth, but merely "spins in revolution," and is laced with the lies of the devil. Therein lies an ironic truth, rock music merely exposes the devil's lies and can be used to eviscerate the devil's hold on someone's soul, once it is exposed.
For instance, the devil is, "a man of wealth and taste." That is why I believe that many conservatives (i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity) of today are the anti-thesis of Christianity and take inventory of black people under the guise of entertainment. I guarantee like Joe Namath that they will burn in hell... but I have no interest in accelerating the process. The conservatives of today preach individualism, greed, and materialism. As did Anton LaVey. There is even a website called Conservapedia.com, which argues that the Bible has a, "liberal bias," because it runs contrary with the ideals of capitalism. That though is not an insinuation that I go the other way to communism.
I do not claim that all (maybe some) musicians were malicious in writing songs, because I think many musicians are just confused dabblers mired in things that they don't truly understand, or may even view as innocuous (some songs even sound Christian), yet eventually get in over their head, and eventually can't get out without repercussions. Some even show remorse for their path that is bound to damnation (i.e. Elvis Presley). In my opinion, that explains the life of Britney Spears. She got caught-up in the path of the devil, thinking it was just an innocent adventure, but has failed to escape without humiliation and derision.
Fact is also that, many music fans spend time interpreting lyrics, and the fact is that, many of those songs can be interpreted soundly to have a Satanic meaning regardless of the person's intent. The ignorant will merely claim that songs have no meaning or that they don't pay attention to the lyrics, which is just nonsense. Music and song is one of the most powerful tools to connect or disconnect with or from God. Must be why much of the Book of Psalms is the, "Songs of David."
Why is God jealous? / Games of Chance Don't Affirm Faith
Frankly, the idea of a jealous God does not intimidate me. I believe that people are bothered by that because they feel like it means, they can't have what they want. But if you try sometime, you'll get what you need (gotta love irony). That though is why people treat God as a genie in a magic bottle and thus believe that if their wish goes unfulfilled that it means God isn't there or doesn't care. God is there and does care, but you must accept that His priorities come first.
It is also why God abhors when people look to games of chance to affirm their faith. 'If my team wins,' or if 'I win this hand of cards,' and so on. That abhorrence is from the fact that God has created a level of chaos, chance, and randomness in the world and universe, because otherwise, it would be too simple to believe in Him. You must have the desire and courage of faith. Yet, it would also be monstrous to create life that has no choice.
I see it this way: If you had created the universe, then you'd have a fat-head too. Simultaneously, the fact that God is jealous merely means that He believes in the perfection of His creation and that He wants your attention and does not want for you to destroy yourself or the Earth through manifestations of sin.
This might sound brutally cynical but: Would you want attention from something you were ashamed of? I wouldn't. Jealous parents for instance, want attention from their kids because those parents love their kids, with that said, jealously is acceptable only for God, because only He has created everything.
"Wars and Rumors of Wars"
When bad things happen, those events are caused by those who have ignorantly followed the devil, such as drunk drivers who kill others. The test however, is for the living followers to turn an act of the devil into a positive. This will sound trite but, "There are three wooden crosses on the right side of the highway, why there's not four them, heaven only knows."
An example of the negative would include terrorists and those who respond in wrath to terrorism. But world leaders betray God and lead the foolish to believe they're fighting for a higher cause such as "freedom," after God empowered those sinful leaders amongst sinful people. God also created and empowered Satan, whom betrayed God. World leaders act in the same way by taking the Lord's name in vain by waging petty wars of their ego in the name of God.
Many of these governments whom wage petty wars adopted the image of, "St. George." Britain's highest honor is in fact, "Saint George's Cross." Some banks have even used St. George as a logo. St. George though is of unknown origin, but is depicted on a white horse that slays a dragon.
Funny thing is that, the Biblical description of the antichrist is that of a man on a white horse who appears to slay a dragon. That in my mind would explain the importance of St. George to the Christians during the Crusades. For it was St. George that was adopted as the symbol of the Knights Templar (the red cross on Templar armor is St. George's Cross).
And it was the Knight's Templar whom founded the Republic of Georgia (named after St. George).
The Love of Money rather than Money
I ask, "What truly is the difference between bastardizing Christianity to justify a war to spread the imperial economy and bastardizing democracy to justify a war to spread the global economy?" (That relates to the mention that banks use St. George's Cross as their logo).
Yes, Christians were fighting despotic Muslims, but on the side of the antichrist, and thus merely forced off a system of man that would not have prevented them from the gift of heaven. As it was Spanish Christians on the side of the antichrist that committed the Inquisition against Jews and Muslims. As it was the Catholics on the side of the antichrist against the Protestants after the Reformation. As it was Christians on the side of the antichrist whom committed the systematic genocide of Africans through slavery. As it was the Muslim Ottoman's on the side of the antichrist whom committed systematic genocide against Serbs and Armenians near the end of the First World War and throughout much of the history of the Ottoman Empire. As it was the Nazi's on the side of the antichrist that committed the Holocaust against Jews, Christians, and many others. As it was the democracies of NATO on the side of the antichrist whom murdered Serbians on *Easter* Sunday in 1999. As it was, Muslims on the side of the antichrist that flew into the Trade Towers in 2001.
"Same as it ever was. Look where my hand was."
God will give you justice
Their bodies won't rise from the dead, but I guarantee like Joe Namath that they ascended to heaven. And no, I don't endorse suicide bombers, because that is intentional, not unintentional.
If one truly follows God, then only the body can be destroyed by misguided people, but cannot destroy the Spirit that he or she has accepted. Thus, if a person has ascended to heaven: Is that truly bad? I think that it just runs contrary to what people have vainly decided they want while alive.
Dr. New Life, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Truth
Technology is just the vanity of want and the idea that we've evolved. Even today, we don't really understand how ancient societies built great wonders like Stone Henge, the Pyramids, the Roman Aqueducts, and other marvels. Some say that aliens did it, but who created the aliens? At some point, a person must realize that there is a beginning and an end.
I believe that those civilizations, like ours, had advanced technologies and that the knowledge of which has been lost over time due to that level of chaos, chance, and randomness that I mentioned (I can only imagine what was lost in the burning of the Library at Alexandria).
It is just the vanity of today's society to look back and think we're more advanced or evolved, because well, people like their Black Berry, computer, radio, or TV more than the Pyramids. Thus, inventions are just the byproduct of the priorities of that society and not a reflection of full potential, so thus, thinking that today's tech is necessarily better than yesterday's tech is tinged with ethnocentrism.
Yet people have argued for the theory that humans have evolved from other species over the course of time. Here is my problem with that idea. We know today that humans are self-destructive. Look at suicide bombers or those freaks who have calculated Pi to a trillion digits. Meanwhile, human evolution argues that people have gotten stronger over the course of time and thus evolve at various precipices.
But if we know that people are self-destructive, how could we have evolved by getting stronger?
Ironically, the people who argue for human evolution are often self-destructive, and those of faith who try to adhere to morals are generally stronger and more constructive.
We are today what we were yesterday, to borrow an idea from James Hutton whom proposed the idea of uniformitarianism to explain the geological changes of the Earth, as opposed to catastrophism which argued that the Earth merely changed through instantaneous disasters.
The theory of human evolution only works if you believe that the strongest survived catastrophes such as war (Hundred Years War, Thirty Years War, etc) or disease (Black Plague, etc). In those cases, the survivors were mostly the upper-classes. In the case of the Black Plague, the rich cooked their food in silver, which diffused into their food and thus their blood and protected them from death. It also turned them blue, which is the origin of the term 'blue blood.'
Thus, the only way for humans to "evolve" is by destroying humans to see which survive.
You can see hardcore evolutionism at work in the films of Stanley Kubrick, whom could be described as a neo-con or British conservative.
2001: A Space Odyssey obviously argued in favor of human evolution from another species, but even suggests that our universe is only an infant and that technology is just vanity.
A Clockwork Orange meanwhile does not argue that humans should not be restrained, but in fact argues that man is inherently bad and must be restrained, but the question is: To what degree?
Kubrick has even stated that he was not anti-war but not pro-war. However, he did believe that there was a level of, "beauty" to war, which would explain Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket -- that war is merely a tool of human evolution: the strong will survive, the weak will crack.
I also suspect that Dr. Strangelove; or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb does not argue that atomic holocaust is the end of humanity, but merely suggests ironically that atomic holocaust is the needed catalyst to the next stage of evolution with the song, "We'll Meet Again," to the footage of nuclear explosions. The joke of the film lies in the satire that those who control the button have yet to evolve -- they have just benefited from the wheel of fortune to be in their place.
As I alluded, the theory of human evolution would suggest that each generation of people has evolved from the strongest of the previous generation, which would explain Kubrick's film Barry Lyndon, which is about a man of no status that insinuates his way through the ranks of society. Meanwhile, Kubrick attempted to illustrate in Spartacus that the low-end of society (slaves) do have beliefs and will, but not the means or strength to cast-off the system of slavery: they can try, but will fail.
Upon ascending to the top of society, one should become preoccupied with their sexual desires, no matter how twisted, and that they need to expand their gene-pool to ensure that they will evolve, as evidence by Kubrick's film's Lolita and Eyes Wide Shut.
You can even see Kubrick's beliefs in metaphysics and that people can be driven to kill by forces they underestimate or don't understand in The Shining. I should note, that Kubrick's version of The Shining was almost entirely his own, and that the book's author Stephen King had many misgivings about the film and would eventually work on a made for TV version.
I don't believe in those things, but I do believe that hardcore evolutionists do, and that those are the logical flaws of such beliefs.
Nevertheless, I do believe in intraspecies evolution (changes over time within the same species) but not in the idea that one species evolved from a different species. Even the Bible recognizes that a species can change overtime within its species.
Or at least, God set evolution in motion and that the time it took was relatively short to God, but eons to us.
More to the Scripture than Meets the Eye
Even Isaac Newton believed that science merely explained how God had worked, as did most scientists before Darwin. And even the leading scientists of evolution cannot explain how one species can genetically evolve into a different species. Amongst other ideas, they'll say that aliens did it.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth... and then said let their be light. That would suggest that the Heavens and Earth formed before light, and that the Earth was shaped at the speed of light.
See, the Bible says that God worked in six days, but does not specify how long a day is to God. Some argue that a day to God is a thousand years. I believe that there is more at play.
Our perception of time is affected by light; we are in another universe to God. Billions of years in our universe, could be only the blink of an eye to God. In that, six days to God could have spanned billions of years in our universe. Could be why He was so tired at the end.
I don't claim to know how it happened, but I do believe that God created all creatures’ even beasts such as dinosaurs. I don't believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, but as I suggested, the timeline of Earth is merely a perception. We see it as very long, to God it may have been very short.
And that, dinosaurs were part of His process which shaped Earth, but were eliminated before He created humans, but that it was unnecessary to mention in the Bible. Dinosaurs weren't a mistake, but rather, needed to determine the sustainability and habitability of the planet for humans for generations to come, but those resources have been manipulated and wrongly used.
I'm not saying that God created dinosaurs as a source for oil. I'm saying that dinosaurs, in the time before oil, were an integral part of the Earth's structure... which we've been destroying.
That leads to the development of the Bible. People often site the fact that Books of the Bible had been written and not included, and that the Bible has different versions. Firstly, if you study parallel Bibles, you'll see that the translations remain very close. Secondly, I do believe that the Bible has 66 books for a reason. The number 66 means incomplete in Hebrew, which would suggest that there is more to it, but it is all you need to know to follow God.
And that the only conduit to God is through the Holy Spirit. Logically though, you can't believe in one without the other. If you believe that God is God and sent His son to understand the sinful ways of man and returned to Him to explain why we do what we do, then you have to believe in all three, but that each one acts in a different way but all for the same goal.
Just so I know that you don't think you've outsmarted me, that does sound like, "All for one and one for all." They're just the Three Muskateers of your salvation.
God is vengeful, Christ is merciful, and the Holy Spirit is forgiving. God tells you what you deserve (death or exile). Christ tells you what you've been given (new life) and the Holy Spirit ends the human dependence on human manifestations to seek God.
I note that, Saladin of the Muslims was reportedly killed during the Crusades on March 4th... with the homonym being March Forth. I was born on March 4th. The US Constitution also went into effect on March 4th, which was also the original Inauguration Day for US Presidents.
And that my name, David Thomas Xaviel, is that of a king and a doubter and that my last name means, "New house." Xaviel was originally Xavier, but the last letter was changed for bank records. I also like to say that my first and middle name is paradoxical because I believe in my significant place, but also tell myself, "I have no clothes," for it was a doubter whom had the courage to state, "The emperor has no clothes." Of course, I believe that there is only one true king, so perhaps the aforementioned statement is the only way to reverse the curse cast on humans after Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit.
I gathered the idea that humans today are the same as yesterday from Hutton's uniformitarianism, as opposed to the catastrophism of evolution.
I learned that from rocks. Football players throw a rock, musicians play rock. And God is my rock.
Forgive me Father for I know not what I do so you have forsaken me, because I know not what I do, thus it is done.