Why Do I Believe?

That’s actually a very good question. And I’ll tell you exactly why.

So, let’s just take it back to “I think therefore I am.” Like Descartes. And what I think, can be either true or false. I can look at a fact on the internet or in a book… what establishes said thing as a fact? Could be the book or internet are lying to me. You know? I can also be wrong about what’s on page 7, or even that the book has a page 77. So, my mind is not capable of holding together reality. And whose is? A cadre of really smart people, or extra terrestrials? They just establish the laws? Well, what if I don’t trust them to establish the laws? What if science is wrong? Or what if everything we know now is wrong, but 20 years ago it was all correct? So that’s the first reason, is to have a bedrock of reality, independent of some being that isn’t entirely good. God is Light, and God is Good and God is Love. I’d rather have Him hold together my reality, than a couple of random scientific studies or peer reviewed papers.

Another thing, the moral law that God proscribed is better than anyone else’s. What I read in Jesus, is better than ten sages, and what I read in the Old Testament, seems to be solid, and built our very first civilizations. The fact that it kills everyone is good, as God’s Ark kills by the touch. Even touching perfection, kills us. So, you have two testaments, of the Conqueror and Sentence in the old, and the Rescuer and Defender in the new. And that balance in life, of having breath, so always being enabled to cross the threshold into a righteous person, or making the decision to be bad. It makes sense. Either trusting God for our righteousness, or trusting in ourselves. Either agreeing with the Moral Law that is higher than us, or creating our own moral law, which is insufficient.

Then, I’ve seen the religion as it is authentically expressed. I’ve felt the Holy Spirit in me, and move me. I’ve known myself with the religion, and without it. And I got to say, knowing God is good, and has dominion over all things, including the evil… that nothing evil happens without God’s word, it is a comfort to me. Because it gives sense to the world, and it doesn’t just throw it all into the blender of human judgment. It doesn’t leave things under the power or jurisdiction of people who are fallible. It doesn’t leave right and wrong up to a bunch of men to create or decide upon. It’s built in nature, and designed by God, and Evil is what destroys the things that cause man to suffer, and Good is what helps those who abide in God’s authority, and choose to accept grace.

As, without Grace or Mercy, we starve. And we lose what is good in us. Like a Vine or Rootstock, it gives sap to the Scions. We need that sap, or we grow weak in doing what’s good, and we die. And that’s what happened to you. You grew weak in righteousness, because you rejected God’s law. So, it will sap you, and soon God’s divine order will be stripped from you. As for me, I hold onto that order, so I can be taken to a better world, where suffering and sin make an end. As without that new world, life is utterly pointless, and dejected, and feral. And there is no true justice because there is no truly good power to uphold it. Only man and his callous judgment.

We need a teacher. Otherwise we're lost in the weeds of our own thoughts. And my teacher is Jesus. I am also no one's teacher. Just trying to interpret what my Rabbi said.

I always say, I would be agnostic if not for Jesus. I would never be an Atheist, because I don't find their arguments satisfactory. Just everything is so contrary to good reason, that you'd have to annihilate every shred of wisdom, and never build up to a single principle again. It'd be pimps getting run over in the street, and their carcas decaying into a mass of flesh if Atheism were true. Which, it's not for that reason. I would be Agnostic, but would be a lot like my character Marc in The Fifth Angel's Trumpet.

But, it's Jesus and Jesus alone, gives me satisfactory answers to life's biggest questions. Not even Buddha, he's a little spooky and self centered and denies reality a bit. And Muhammad isn't very good. And Moses would have every man, woman and child killed down to the letter.

On Goodness and God

I believe in goodness without God. Although, it's impossible to prove good without Him. It's kind of a conundrum Nietzsche trapped the whole atheist community in, and also Hume. But, generally, they force the argument, that if you prove there's good, there ha to be a God. Because if there's good without God, then it remains subjective, and determined by human opinion, which then it can't be called good, can it? But, I think good is so self evident, that we can move up to God's existence.

But, generally, I think atheists can indeed understand it. I would be doubtful to say that they can't. We all do, that's written in the Bible. And Christ aligns with that natural conscience better than anyone else. But the danger here... and here is the true danger... is saying good is not self evident. And that's a trap both Atheists and Christians fall into. When, I'm aware that both good and evil are self evident, and necessarily proves God exists. Because it relies on superior judgment, existing outside of human consciousness. It's a Law of Nature, not a Law of Human Choice. And since nature proves what's ethical and moral, based on what will create the most beneficial society for all, and naturally create patterns of healthy attachments and material prosperity,  which God's grace will achieve, and has achieved, we move to Christ Jesus.

Censorship and The Plight of True Christians

It's both sides. Both sides do it [censor], otherwise I'd be making a living as an author.

Again, the Left uplifts Charity and Licentiousness and the Right uplifts Chastity and Greed. You can't pick a side in this. As Jesus also says, "Lean not either to the left or right, but stay on the narrow way."

Greed is opposed to Charity, and Licentiousness is opposed to Chastity. So, this is the whole issue, a true Christian holds onto Chastity and Charity and also forsakes Licentiousness and Greed. So, we're not liked by either side.

Christianity and Paul

{}"Do not sew onto an old garment a new cloth" and "Do not put new wine into old bottles," Lest "They tear and burst." I think Paul is right on track for what Christ was getting at.

Peter lived as a Gentile, that's why Paul reprimanded him for not eating with them when the judaizers tempted him. As Hebrews says, "With a change of priesthood comes a change of law."

No, because Romans is saying how yoking yourself to the Law, cannot save you. In fact, it causes you to act on the flesh, instead of the Spirit. We're to have no Judaism yoked to us, as is said by Ignatius. But, it's what Paul's epistles really mean, that covenant is over. We're not to follow it anymore, as it can't save us, and rather leads to us committing sin, because of its reliance on the flesh.

Ignatius Letter to the Magnesians Chapter 8. "Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace."

The entire message of the Gospel, is you need to be grafted into the vine to be saved. If you're not, you'll be sheered off, and wither. You can't be righteous apart from Christ. He's the rootstock; we're the branches. By living by the letter, we'll be condemned, but by living by the Spirit we'll be free to do good, because the Spirit will cause us to do it. It will be like rest. Christ is the Sabbath, and we're to rest on Him for our righteousness, not our own works.

Moral Objectivity

That morals and ethics are concrete, and can be observed.

You might ask them, “Well why do you need God?” Well… that’s a good question.

Humans are exceptionally bad at forming moral systems. They fail in ever so many ways, and there’s the written ordinance, and what actually is, that makes things even more difficult.

So, I’d think at the establishment of man’s first laws—which are in the Bible, in the Torah, in books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy—we have a record of man trying to form a basis for morality. And we see in the Torah, a rigid morality that would kill every man, woman and child on the Earth. But, then we also have the Ten Commandments. Which were scribed by God’s fingers. So, Moses broke the first tablet, and the second were made out of Sapphire, or Lapis Lazule, out of God’s heavenly temple… and God gave these Laws, the only Laws we’ve received directly from God to that point. Maybe the other laws and commandments were created by Abraham in Mesopotamia, through committee, but the Clean and Unclean were given by God’s command to Adam and Eve, but then was abolished in Christ’s death and resurrection. So, then, God in the Flesh came to Earth, and lived a perfect example for us to follow. And He taught a perfect law.

So, why do we need this example? It’s so people are capable of understanding right from wrong. Without God’s living example, or without God’s finger scribing the Law in the Ten Commandments, we couldn’t know right from wrong.

Why? Because man is a very bad authority. We confuse the most basic things like Gender, and we turn rudimentary moral laws that should be like counting, into abstract algebra and Transcendental equations.

So, this fact remains… we need God to order and provide the world with a bedrock of truth. Without which, we cannot have truth, unless God established it. Which He did twice, with Moses and the Ten Commandments, and came in bodily form through His son Jesus Christ.

Maybe it’s because, like in Trigonometry, there’s no algebraic way to get Sine and Cosine without already having the measurements and angles. You just have to have the right measurements, to do the formulas. And Christ is that measurement. He's the standard. That without, we can’t do the rest of the math. And God had to set that measurement in place, for us to do all the other more complicated things. As God had to be the measurement, so we could do the more complicated logic. Without which, we’d have nothing to measure it with, and therefore, would be without knowledge on how to do the more complicated logic.

On Christ and Moral Clarity

You kind of do need God to have a foundation for morality. And here's why.

Friedrich Nietzsche said that good and evil didn't exist. Hume said morality was made precedent on Law, and not universals.

So, in the world today, "Moral" just means what society agrees upon. That's kind of its little catch all, you're an immoral person, if you divert from the social norm. You're a moral person, if you don't.

So, this is a problem, because in societies such as Rome or the Aztecs, it wasn't uncommon for people to do the most horrific crimes, and that was a matter of custom. People did it, as often as we watch TV or play video games. And such things involved every capital offense imaginable. Even the worst ones you can imagine. Things that if someone did today, they'd be locked in jail, and the key would be thrown away. And everyone did it. So, that's kind of the problem with Hume's Argument.

The problem with Neitzsche's, is that you can objectively see patterns in the world, that affirm the good. So, like a geometric proof, the good becomes self evident, where we can observe and measure it. Things like peace, and love, and joy and kindness, and gentleness, and goodness, and self control, and patience and reliability.

So, you generally find in this, evidence for the Good, so if there's Good, that exists outside of human judgment, there must be a God. Because it's not precedent on human judgment, but something self evident, which is established in a higher orderer and establisher.

And I move to Christianity, because Christ's law is self evident. He spoke the most truth, and the gospels can be corroborated as witnesses, and He raised from the dead, and fulfilled 300 messianic prophecies or more. So, obviously, this is the true religion, based on Christ being witnessed, His deeds and moral teachings which give us clarity on what's right and wrong, and His fulfillment of Prophecies.

On Metaphysics, Logic and Descartes Argument

[ How can you have] a syllogism? What can a syllogism prove, if there are no axiomatic or tautological statements? From the foundation, you need to build and settle your logic on what's true. Having a syllogism isn't going to work, where you invalidate all true statements.

But Descartes said, that since all he could know was that he thinks therefore he is, and since he was often wrong, he couldn't be God, but there had to be a God outside of Him which ordered reality, therefore, there had to be a God to establish proof, and therefore, since God is good, He allowed us to trust our senses about that proof.

Like I said, we need tautologies and axioms to make sense out of logic. You didn't follow my or Descartes' argument.

Again, why have a syllogism in the first place, if you can never establish a truth claim?

We're arguing on the being of being, which is a metaphysical presumption, and you brought up Descartes, which his argument was that since he got things wrong, he couldn't be God, but there had to be a God to establish and order existence. Since, he found that he could make false claims, something bigger than him had to establish the truth of those claims.

And God is good, because we see there is good. Without God, there can be no good. As then it's humanity's judgment, and we've established humanity cannot be God, from even Descartes, that we get things wrong. Therefore, a being more powerful than us, i.e. God, needs to order what is Good and also what is true. But, good is self evident as is truth, as all things relate back to tautologies, of either being true or false. And I observe good, and I observe truth. And since I see good, I know God is good, and we can therefore trust our senses. Therefore, God exists, and we can know reality is real.

[If we're] basing it on the axiom that reality itself is real, then the organizational framework of reality, that it makes sense [is the proof of design]. There's a lot of structures that appear in physics and nature that are directly related to geometry--they have to be--and by number, which inherent in that organizational framework is proof of a design. And how we get to the God of the Bible, is that if there's good that can be seen outside of human judgment--and I'm pretty certain there can be--then we need to find which God best represents it. And I think the God of the Old and New Testament, reflect what we do know about the good. That ultimately there must be judgment by means of a sword, but also grace for those who truly want to receive it, and better themselves.

[I]t's just what the laws of nature prove, that there's a design. At some point, you have to look at it, and it makes sense.

I think your problem is, you want to stay at step 1 too much, and never move beyond it. But, generally, there's sense in the universe, based on the laws of physics, and their geometric construction. And X = X is the foundation of logic, so you're basically trying to undo logic, while telling me to prove something logically. So, that's kind of nonsensical, and if your doubt is like that, then that's doubly why I believe in God, so X does equal X, and so there's sense and coherence to the universe. And not my own mental faculties, or the whims of experts.

As far as the God of the Bible, like I said He is good, and sometimes there needs to be a sword to purge the Earth. It's a very dense theological argument, which I can see from the get go you're not willing to have.

But, generally, there has to be punishment for sin, and if you took the Old Testament, everyone would be put to death. If it's stoning for breaking the Sabbath or dishonoring your father, or being a part of a nation that is not Israel, that's the whole point, is that we need Grace so we aren't slain. And we need to trust on God's goodness, and His definitions and not our own, as I've clearly established--and so have you--there can be no knowledge without Him.

And you're moving to the point, where you're saying X=X can be put into doubt, and that's generally why I'm a little leery of people like you, and believe in God, because you do invalidate X = X. Which a Syllogism relies on X = X as much as anything, as if X doesn't = X you can't move to the next step of the causal chain. You're stuck in infinite loops of trying to prove ontological existence, and metaphysics. Not moving to the assumption of reality, which you need for any basis of science to begin with.

1. I think all knowledge begins with look and listen. And we draw conclusions from it, that what I see, in mathematics, and the geometry of it--and I'm not the first to say this--is a design in the inherent structure of the universe.

2. Well, x can = y. But, you need x to = x first, as that's the fundamental groundwork of logic. If it's not, then there's no way to ever move from x to y.

3. It is a dense theological argument. You're not going to understand it. But, generally, sin causes suffering, and there needs to be judgment against it. Which without God's judgment, it falls into man's hand, and man judges incorrectly. As, we're arguing the very basic basics about logic and how to prove I have hands. That's the context. Which, you can't even get there. That's utterly specious, is what I'm telling you, but also why humans cannot establish what's right or wrong, or what's good from evil, or even that there is good and evil. Which I personally observe, and see the God of the Bible best represents what I witness to be good, and has the best solution to what's evil.

4. You can call it special pleading, but it's actually your stubborn disinterest in grasping my argument.

Also, there are no universal principles, only principles drawn through context. You don't put an honorable man in prison, but you do put a murderer in there. But, you don't put a soldier who murdered in there, unless it was murdering an unlawful agent.

You understand?

So there's nothing to special plead. God destroys sinners. He gives grace to those who desire Him and want to change. And you need Him, to understand what's lawful and not. As He's smarter than we are. And His law is indeed self evident... but so are the most difficult constructs of Geometry. It can be too difficult for people to understand, so we need to trust on God.

[D]esign is [also] self evident. In the rudiments of mathematics and the way geometry fits together, it proves a design.

If x doesn't equal x, there can be no logic at all. That's what you're failing to understand.

I think in the theological world--which again, you're not going to understand because that's always been the thing you couldn't--I think there is a nuance. There is both good and evil. Humans can--the most intelligent--discern some of it. Not all of it. Just like humans can't determine all of science. But, we can understand it. And so we need God to arbitrate, and ultimately judge. Even more than that, empower His people to live according to what's right and good.

That's what God means in Hebrew is "Judge."

Why there's evil? I don't know. But there is, and the imperfections of this world are proof that it's not a safe place to put our hopes. And generally, there could only be evil, if God didn't judge. Men are awful judges of right and wrong--not all, but some people can't understand why calculus works, while some can, and others cannot understand basic empathy.

There needs to be a judge higher than man, and also a power by which Man uses to be righteous. As men cannot act righteously on their own accord. I've never seen it, actually, and the societies that least have God, seem to be the most immoral. And they lack peace. They may have pleasure, but they have no peace.

But, generally, the laws of quanta are self evident. We just don't understand it yet. And I'd say morality is also self evident--a genius like Confucius or Mozi can describe it--but say you do codify a perfect morality, what or who holds man accountable to it? That's the real trick... I do believe men can indeed form a perfectly rational moral system, but they ultimately--because of sin--will fail to do it. And also, the chances of them completing such a thing is slim to none, also.

Because men, and it's in the first three chapters, get tempted. That's why there will never be a perfect world, until God judges and uses the Torah to hold man accountable, through the Sword--Jesus is going to war at the end--and without this, without God's power, and without God's authority, man is incapable of ever arbitrating himself. Specifically, when someone does sin, who is going to forgive them? As all men sin, and naturally all men create suffering... who's to forgive these men? Who's to restore their conscience? Are you going to kill them when they make a mistake? Then you're affirming the Old Testament, which I know you don't want to do. Or are you going to just torture them in a cell? Which you essentially make hell through that edict, and I think only God should have the authority to torment someone so.

So, ultimately, it's God's judgment, not man's, that's the new dispensation of Grace in Christ Jesus, man is not the authority, man is not creating utopia, because that's a bloody endeavor on its own, that can only make suffering. Man will fail. And that's why we need God.

Daughter of Zion

Christ isn’t coming as a world leader, or as a man in government. The Antichrist is. And he’ll pose as Christ. But, Christ is returning in a unique way, described in the Book of Revelation. He’ll be born of a woman, who is called The Daughter of Zion in Eschatology, and He’ll be taken up into the clouds of heaven, after being attacked by the Dragon or Serpent which is Satan. And His mother will be given wings like an eagle, and she will fly into a wilderness habitation prepared for her, to suffer for a time, times, and half a time. As she will suffer immensely, unfortunately. As the prophecies foretell of her, her suffering is the Tribulation of all Israel and mankind. And Christ will return on the clouds of Heaven, after Babylon falls, and with an army of 144,000 saints, those sealed, as the Book of Jude proclaims, He returns with many ten thousands of His saints, and He will wage a battle, called Armageddon. And He will purge the Earth of all its sin in that conflict. Then, He will establish His Kingdom in the Temple, and resurrect the dead in Christ, to live the lives they lacked, for 1,000 years. Which Christ can control the day and night, so this 1,000 years could be a very long time. And His servants will be given wives, and children, and vineyards, and choice properties, where they’ll live peacefully. And Christ will reign the other nations with a rod of iron, and withhold the rain from them, if they do not come to Him and serve during Tabernacles. That will be the only sin one is capable of committing in the 1,000 year reign. And then Satan will be released, and muster the forces of Gog and Magog, to a final end of all sin and suffering in all of creation. And then Christ will cause to descend the New Jerusalem, which is betrothed to the Son of God, and His people will be married to the Land and call it Beulah and Hephzibah, and this will be the beginning of a New Heavens and New Earth, where all the old things are done away, and there is no tear, or fear, or suffering of any kind. It will be eternal pleasure, as we will have the mind, body and spirit like Christ’s, so we can never suffer, or choose any manner of sin ever again.

As a note, we'll be married to Hephzibah, or Jerusalem in the 1,000 year reign, too, fulfilling the command that there is no more marriage. The espousal of Jerusalem is a Mystery. Perhaps the LORD will make Jerusalem a spouse out of clay, like Adam, but she'll be our Hephzibah. I don't know, though, so don't make that into a doctrine. I just know in the Millennial Reign children will play by the adder's den, and the lion and lamb will lie down together. And a youth of 100 years old who dies, will be considered young, since everyone will be so righteous. And we'll have gold for bronze, silver for iron, bronze for wood, and iron for stone. Which shows the affluence, but even that doesn't compare to the true Eternity. That's all prophesied in Isaiah.

Buddha and Christ Compare and Contrast

Well, I have studied other religions. I don't like Hinduism because of the Caste System. I don't like Islam because it fights against the Jews and Christians. I don't like Buddhism because its founder was not perfect like Jesus was. I don't like Paganism, because I believe in one God, as it doesn't make sense that there'd be multiple gods all fighting one another. I don't like Shintoism or Zoroastrianism because they believe in Manichaeism. Same thing with Gnosticism. And I don't like the idea of Reincarnation either, so that strikes Buddhism or Hinduism out. I find it unfair to demand people live, and only suffer. I don't like the core teachings of Buddhism, either, that it doesn't express the joys of life, like Christ did, but rather derives all meaning from suffering. And I don't like Atheism, because it leaves a moral vacuum, and makes weird stuff start to appear and become normalized. And I would be Agnostic, if not for Jesus Himself, who was a superior sage to even Confucius, Buddha and Pythagoras. Which is why I believe, is because of Jesus. I think in order to know good, you need an example set, and Jesus is that Example. And you'd also need God Himself to instruct us on the right way to live and behave, which God did in the Ten Commandments and when He came in the Flesh as Jesus Christ, and taught, and lived and died.

It's also not about moral teachings. It's about Christ. Without whom, none of those other religions would even tempt me. Only Christ. Because of What He did, and Who He was. He didn't sit in a graveyard or on a battlefield, pining about life. He did something. And people witnessed this, and were willing to die for it.

It's not like Buddha didn't have some good things to say, he just didn't live the right way. Christ did, and without that example, we can't know how to live. We needed God Himself to live an example for us to follow. Without that, we couldn't know right from wrong, I'm very convinced of that. Because right now, with knowledge of Him decreasing more and more, nobody knows right from wrong. And the Gospels were witness of Him, living that life, and witness of Him fulfilling over 400 messianic prophecies. Meaning, He is the Messiah and Son of God.

Compare Christ to Buddha, Buddha was all talk. And the miracles he's said to have done are all icky, and don't have the beauty or simplicity of Christ's miracles. Christ talked, but what He did was far more glorious, and spoke more than any Sermon He preached. And the Apostles actually witnessed Christ perform those Miracles. And they died believing it. We have that accounted in history.

Comparing Jesus to Buddha, even the mythological Buddha, Buddha's kind of scary, and more like a warlock, than a genuine human being. He's more self serving than Jesus is, and doesn't pour himself out for other people. Which is the core problem I have with Buddhism, is Buddha himself. He's just all wrong, and kind of icky. Jesus, in the four canonical gospels, which we can prove came from eyewitnesses, is just more elegant. And has none of the excess that Buddha does.

I was reading the earliest Biography of Buddha, I guess the fact that it doesn't seem to have the authority of the four gospels, being four accounts by many different witnesses, all saying the same things, and then Buddha's teachings which seem to center around worldly pleasure and suffering... it's just I think Jesus avoids that topic altogether, and demonstrates a life worthy of emulating. Buddha in the biography I read, was all talk, and simply kept repeating the same thing over and over again. Jesus wasn't monomaniacal like that. He had diverse things to say, and centered His teachings around attaining full pleasure in Heaven. Which is affirming the spirit of Joy, rather than trying to inure you to life's suffering, Jesus told you to hold fast to the joys of the Kingdom, and thereby be strengthened by the pleasures of God's Kingdom and that hope.