Entry 980 - Entry 986
Entry 980 - December 17th 2021
It's never about the situation itself but rather your beliefs about it that make the grandest difference.
Entry 981 - October 20th 2021
“The Way” Jesus taught was extraordinarily different than “The Way” Paul of Tarsus taught. First of all, Paul never actually met Jesus in the flesh. His vision was by himself and therefore, with no witnesses, we can only assume:
A: He saw Jesus and interpreted his message correctly.
B: He saw Jesus but misinterpreted Jesus' message. Instead of listening to Jesus’ message of simply stopping persecuting his people, he did so, BUT THEN he went on to create a very organized and established religion all over the area.
C: He didn’t see Jesus and was simply delusional.
D: It was a foreign negative entity pretending to be Jesus that had the desire to establish a new organized religion that would help them get what they want. They found an influential Jewish man that would blindly follow with passion, his edict, in order to make it the most convincing to the public so the most amount of people would join this new religion.
What we do know for sure is Jesus’ message vs. Paul’s message are not always the same, and I’ll go into detail as to why:
When people accused Jesus of calling himself God, Jesus showed how their own scripture says they are God. When they tried to deify him, he would show their own divinity, as in how we are all one with God.
Paul, on the other hand, deified Jesus and then wrote about how everyone was sinful and needed Jesus to die on the cross in order to be saved.
When Jesus healed people, he wasn’t about making a show. He actually told people to be quiet about it and go about their business. He didn’t go around and establish his own new religious churches. He attended and taught within Jewish synagogues to his people. He wasn’t focused on dividing the community into two distinct religions but rather on uniting them and taking them beyond any potentially limiting or dogmatic doctrines within Judaism.
Meanwhile, Paul of Tarsus not only made Jesus’ teachings very public, but he established new Christian churches that were separate and distinct from the Jewish synagogues. I understand that it was not conducive for him to stay at the Jewish synagogues, but it also wasn’t conducive for him to establish public churches that deviated from the oneness Jesus was clear on sharing.
There was a reason why Jesus had his 12 disciples and why he didn’t have thousands of them. He wanted to teach a few close friends these very high concepts so that they were not twisted out of their original form to be used for harm. He was more focused on a few getting it really right than thousands barely latching on. He wanted to impact the system from within with very qualified disciples rather than break the religion in half by creating a new religion that one day would have its followers murder the Jews in the name of their religion.
Paul, on the other hand, had a different perspective than Jesus. Since he wrote in such a way that conveyed that everyone is born as wretched sinners in need of a savior, his goal was for the public to be saved, regardless of if they were spiritually mature or not. His goal was to convince them to believe his story… To convince them to believe in Jesus' divinity and to continue to not believe in their own divinity.
He was bent on sharing this particular one-dimensional belief until as many people as possible would believe in it. Now don’t get me wrong, I think he genuinely believed it. But even people with great intentions can misinterpret ghost personages without ever testing to see if they truly are who they say they are or truly understanding the message they were trying to convey.
How many foreign negative entities would benefit from a new organized religion that would do its bidding? How many foreign, negative entities would seek a susceptible person who does not question where this “supposed vision” is truly coming from?
So in short, my question is: Are you practicing the Christian religion established by a man, or are you following the mystical teachings of Jesus?
Entry 982 - June 2020
When I think of Christianity, it's like I'm looking from the outside in. As if the Christmas story where everyone is inside enjoying Christmas, opening presents, and I'm outside the window viewing it. Not necessarily missing it, but not not missing it. Just being, watching, observing. And I can go in whenever I want, but it doesn't own me. The religion does not govern me in any way, shape, or form. Only God is my identification, my everything. I feel liberated from all forms of religion and completely released unto God.
I feel like I've hit a dangerous level of freedom in God. Beyond anything I've experienced before. I feel free from unnecessary guilt, I attribute much more mercy and grace to God than I did before, and I feel like I can see the bigger picture much more than before.
While inside of Christianity, I often felt narrow-minded, confused on which doctrine was right, how no one knew for sure which one was right but everyone was okay with that and still made it a thing to push the doctrine that we don't even know for sure is right down other people's throats in the most non-volatile way possible. It's almost like the message was more about making it to heaven than it was about establishing and celebrating a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. Or maybe that was just my experience.
I feel free from a possible collective egoistic perspective. Free from the perspective that because they don't wear the name Christian and don't believe our beliefs, they are destined to hell for eternity. Freed from the way of thinking where there is no forgiveness for unbelief and there is no forgiveness for wrong belief. That even your perception or denial of the Trinity is enough to land you in hell for eternity.
This idea that even the way you think about God is enough to grant you a lifelong imprisonment in hell never seemed like the type of God I loved and put my hope in. I started to realize that God must have more love and mercy than to send souls into hell for eternity for failing to believe the exact way the churches want us to believe even though we all don't know for sure what is the absolute correct way to believe.
Entry 983 - December 25th 2021
With the whole Rittenhouse case, here is the problem: whether he was found guilty or not, this is the issue at hand. This Rittenhouse boy came with a huge gun “to protect businesses from being vandalized.” First of all, when was it ever a good idea for a small boy with a bunch of other small boys to go where there are a bunch of people protesting police murdering marginalized Black people who aren’t committing any crimes? Here Rittenhouse came to “save businesses” in the midst of people who are hurt, broken, and crying desperately for a change in the police system and, most importantly, asking that they stop being murdered for no reason.
BLM is literally asking the police for the bare minimum… To not be afraid to go down the street, worried if they are going to come home that night or not because some police officer thought they were holding a gun when they were holding a purse, a burrito, or a toy. What Rittenhouse did was like if someone went to a funeral where a man was murdered by a communist party and then supporters of that communist party came over with their guns and said, “We’re just here to make sure they don’t vandalize any buildings.”
Like, what the heck? How does that make any sense? They are grieving for this man who was murdered. Yes, there are going to be idiots everywhere who make people who have nothing to do with the police killings suffer by vandalizing their property and breaking in and stealing stuff, but again, that’s just stupid people being stupid. They’re taking advantage of the mob herds because they know the police are less likely to catch them since they are in the masses, and they are using it as a time to do what they already wanted to do before—steal and destroy.
To them, it just provides more protection because it’s harder to catch 100 criminals in the night who are vandalizing and stealing rather than one random idiot on the street who is doing it. Criminals are taking advantage of the BLM peaceful protests by saying they are “BLM” and then using it as a scapegoat for their own foolish gain. Leave protecting the city to the people who are supposed to be protecting the city: police officers.
If people don't want their personal business vandalized, then they themselves can choose to set up extra precautions. But beyond that, there isn’t much more we can do if the first and second line of defense are already torn. Damage from criminals sadly happens inside and outside of riots and protests. We can try our best to prevent it, but there will be times when these idiots work in numbers to hurt people and their businesses that had nothing to do with police brutality in the first place.
Unfortunately, there are people who use protests as a way to create chaos out of other innocent people who come to the streets as a plea for change. It's sick that criminals take advantage of these innocent people's platform for change. It's disgusting, and those criminals should be ashamed of themselves for hurting small businesses that have nothing to do with the police murdering Black people unjustly.
But also, on the other side, I think it was beyond stupid for Rittenhouse and his other 14-year-old buddies to try to take matters into their own hands instead of leaving it to the police and small business owners. To go into an area where criminals are using BLM protests as a scapegoat for illegal and harmful behavior, and to try to stop them with lethal weapons, was foolish.
What did they think? “Oh, if I see someone hurting a small business, I’ll just threaten them with my gun and then they’ll stop?” Or, “Oh, worst case scenario, I’ll shoot him in the foot and they will leave the small business alone?” If the police are not there, then why the hell would he go with a bunch of kids with guns? How did they ever think that was a good idea in the first place? Not only that, but this ironically showed how white people are treated with privilege in relation to how Black people are treated.
After Rittenhouse shot people, the police shouted for him to move out of the way and then just kept going, even though he was armed. If it were a Black person, even without a gun and without killing anyone, he could already be dead. Black people have been shot for the strangest reasons. So if anything, Rittenhouse served as another clear-cut example of the issue with racism. White people are not seen as threats in our society, even when they shoot people. Even if it’s for self-defense, there are PLENTY of other non-lethal ways he could have protected himself in the midst of this situation.
He could have brought stun guns, pepper spray, a helmet, and pads. He could have just stood there with everyone and, if he saw suspicious or criminal behavior from people taking advantage of the pain, he could’ve called the cops and reported it without drawing unnecessary attention to himself. Or better yet, he could’ve never gone in the first place, and two people would still be alive.
But to go in the midst of a bunch of random people where some are protesting and criminals hide, waiting for chances to cause trouble… To bring his little friends and walk in with guns… Did he really assume that wouldn’t incite any violence? Did he really assume that bringing a gun was going to make everyone behave? Did he really think that wouldn’t instantly draw attention from any potential criminals who are using these protests for personal gain rather than supporting our Black brothers and sisters?
If anything, this shows that this young man lacks enough empathy to properly understand why his actions were not smart. He should have reached out to the police if he really wanted to help instead of taking matters into his own hands. He should have thought of non-lethal ways to help instead of going from zero to “you’re dead” mentality. Yes, I understand self-defense is a thing, but he is the one who willingly put himself into that position. He is responsible for inciting violence by bringing loaded, lethal weapons to try to protect buildings when people are protesting, and where criminals hide, waiting for chances to cause trouble.
Entry 984 - December 30th 2021
A question I have for myself... If you love women, then love the women. Why do you have to make all these extra labels beyond gay, bisexual, or straight?
I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but rather it has the capacity to create limits when they aren't necessary. There are open-minded labels, but that's still bounded by a definition.
If I want to eat a cake, I can declare to myself and everyone else that I'm going to eat a cake and then eat a cake. But who cares? Why not just eat the cake, and people who care will notice, and people who don't, won't.
Entry 985
So you're telling me that you believe that we only have one life and then we never get to experience Earth again? You're telling me that you mastered life on Earth completely to the point where you're able to reach the epitome of God, and you don't ever want to come back and challenge yourself again?
First of all, there's so much to explore. Are you really content with just experiencing what it's like being a mother of five and nothing else? You aren't curious what it would be like to be a mother of one? Or a Caucasian lady somewhere in Europe? Or an African woman? Or a rich man in charge of a huge corporation that spans multiple continents? You really only want to experience one life of challenges?
I don't buy it for me because I would not want to experience just one lifetime. Who just plays Sims over and over as one avatar and never experiences multiple careers, multiple relationships, multiple homes, and multiple situations? We aren't geared toward a static and boring experience. We are geared to exploring Life and all that is.
Entry 986 - July 25th 2021
First of all, I am not pro or against religion; I simply am pro-questioning and using critical thinking skills for all systems of thought, including religion. A lot of people have been conditioned by religion to only use questioning and critical thinking skills within the boundaries that a particular denomination has allowed. Then that church may use scare tactics, such as the fear of hell, to keep you from questioning beyond their biases and “approved areas of use for critical thinking skills.”
What I mean by this is, within our megachurch denomination, we often would get these books which would stimulate and cause us to consider one topic, such as our current state of “hope,” or, as they liked to put it, our Hope Quotient. Or they would give us other books to stimulate and question our current relationships with our family members and friends. When it came to apologetics, they had already pre-packaged, pretty print answers that “defended the faith” but, more so in actuality, dealt with any questions that did not support the growth of their denomination and Christianity in general.
So in short, when it did almost touch the boundaries they set, they gave you the answer to the question rather than considering all the different vantage points of the question. Your questions and the answers given to you were already carefully considered so that it may have seemed like you were questioning and critically thinking about all sides, but truly your questions and answers were already biased toward the religious denomination before you even asked the question.
I’ll give an example. Within the grand megachurch Bayside, I went to their expensive apologetics conference in some rich suburban area. I was super excited as a high school student to learn proper rebuttals against those who didn’t believe in our faith and went to as many sessions as possible. There was a session on the accuracy of the Bible, which now makes me laugh, but back then I didn’t realize how the way they set this up was to shepherd me to the questions they wanted to answer for us so that they could critically think for us according to their biases.
For example, when it came to the validity of the scriptures in the Bible, they only mentioned how it is most likely accurate because we have so many copies, and all these copies give us this pretty statistic that shows that it was most likely true. However, they used much more biased terms, such as, “With these statistics and how many copies we have, we know it is true and God did preserve his word.” Then any questions revolved around their biased belief that it was true based on a statistic that only considered copies of copies but absolutely no originals.
However, if they actually allowed a discussion for people to critically think and analyze beyond the boundaries they had created, we would’ve had an atheist there as well as a Christian in order to have a wider perspective on the topic. The atheist would’ve shared all the contradictions he found, and the Christian would be trying to find ways to show how maybe it wasn’t a contradiction.
The atheist would’ve pointed out we have no originals whatsoever, which means we cannot properly conclude they are correct. The Christian would say God still would preserve his word. The atheist would point out the jealousy, wrath, anger, genocide, slavery, and unequal laws that supposedly the Creator enacted, while the Christian would ignore those instances and focus on the verses where it talks about how God is love and loves everyone.
This type of format would actually challenge the audience to consider more than one point of view, more than one bias, and help everyone expand.
So with this, I know that many of my friends follow this format for questioning and critically thinking about their religious denomination within Christianity. They will only read “pre-approved church material” or biased books that support the religious denomination’s viewpoint on the Bible and its approved interpretation of that denomination.
When I ask if they read books from other people’s perspectives, from other religions, or from an atheist perspective, they say no. Why am I not surprised? Because that’s how they’ve been conditioned by their religious denomination, and they did a darn good job of it too because most of them are scared out of their minds to go beyond the boundaries that religious denomination has drawn for them to stay within. I only know this because that was me too.
Comments
Post a Comment