Hypocrisy of the Aristarch

Is Anyone Else Afraid?

2008-11-03T20:57:00.000-08:00

Obama, a socialist America, relativism...

The face of America will be completely different by the year 2012. Mark my words.

Social Warfare: Formalities and Recognizing the Enemy

2008-10-27T13:47:00.000-07:00

We as a society have found ourselves smack dab in the middle of social warfare. A war fought between the traditionalists who wish to remain rooted in foundations on which this country was created and relativists who believe that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them. These are the sides and this is the war and yes, it is much, much larger than Prop 8.

Formalities of argumentation suggest reaching sound conclusions through formulated logically reasoning based on truthful premises. These premises can be based both upon artificial and real world settings. Moral acceptance and conformity have never been a formality of argumentation in which truth and enlightenment has always been the greatest reward.

He who controls the air wins the battle. To control the air you must suffocate the adversary. Those who disagree with this concept are committing a grace fallacy by serving both truth and people. ("A man cannot serve two masters," if you catch my reference.) Warriors who "people please" will inevitably end up justifying and rationalizing popular prejudice; granted, their relationship with the people is mutually beneficial, but to do this is to give up the higher pursuit of truth. This sacrifice of ultimate truth can lead to a great, painful inner conflict. That pursuit of social justice, followed by true social warriors, carries no fame and no rewards, but only suffering and sacrifice that strengthen the spirit.

Now that you understand argumentation more fully, I will supply you, who are voting Yes on Prop 8 with some information which isn't theologically based; this is important because even those who disregard theistic tradition can find this sort of information useful:

The book The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, identifies five major causes that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire:

First, the breakdown of the family.

Second, increased taxation.

Third, an insatiable craving for pleasure.

Fourth, an unsustainable buildup of armaments.

Fifth, the decay of religion.

This November we have the opportunity to stop every single one of these potential problems. Vote yes on Prop 8, and do not vote for Obama. Liberalism follows that whatever feels good must be okay. Don't be ignorant. Use good, righteous judgment.

Newton's Dissafection With the Trinity

2008-10-26T14:21:00.000-07:00

Newton's Disaffection with the Trinity
Arian doctorine is a Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by Arius of Alexandria which, based on a study of the Bible, stated the belief that Jesus was more than man, but less than God. In simplicity, they do not believe that God the father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are the same being (a trinity.) Sir Issac Newton became an Arian in 1672.

Newton believed that the Roman Catholic Church was misguided in its interpretation of Christianity. Although he partially approved of the Protestant Reformation, he felt it had not gone nearly far enough to return Christianity to its original state. Now if Newton did not believe in the Trinity, he had to consider the First Epistle of John 2:7, which reads (in the King James version):

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Newton certainly did not stop at reading the King James version of the Bible, but rather read all original versions he could, learning the necessary ancient languages. He discovered that the final phrase 'and these three are one' was not present in any Greek version that he studied. Newton concluded that it was a deliberate addition to the text by the Roman Catholic Church in order to solidify reason for the trinity.
Below is a list created by Newton furthermore explaining is Arian beliefs. Now, of course, it was not acceptable for people to hold views considered heresy by the Church, so after Newton's death this list, and his other theological writings, were marked "Not fit to be printed". They were stored and were not read by anyone until revealed in 1936.

Newton's list:

1. The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
2. The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
3. Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father.
4. When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John.
5. The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.
6. The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.
7. The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only.
8. There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.
9. It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.
10. It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives fro the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
11. The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
12. The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.

Dearest Haters...

2008-10-26T13:13:00.000-07:00

Turns out, I got a perfect score on my philosophy midterm. Suck it.

Evil Get's a Bad Rap

2008-10-07T15:52:00.000-07:00

You and you create them and then you vanish them.

Defining an Author's Oeuvre

2008-09-03T21:36:00.000-07:00

Can anyone who cares to read my blog define the line of where an Author's Oeuvre begins and ends? Should Hemingway's grocery list be considered a piece of art? Is it the responsibility of the author to decide which of his pieces are published; even posthumously? Is only published work part of an author's oeuvre?

It's 11:03 and I'm Worried About My Blog...

2008-06-16T23:03:00.000-07:00

I feel as if I've been neglecting my fans for way too long a time but more importantly I've been neglecting my blog and thus this entry is dedicated strictly to her.

Dear Blog,
I've been falling in love a lot lately. My realization s a player and then a lover seems to fluctuate back and forth constantly. Today I feel like a player. "Playa," as they like to call me. Although, I do spot the sails of love on the horizon returning once again only to board my ship and hold me captive. No bondage pun intended. Speaking of bondage, Dylan Niles and i decided that playful bondage is quite normal and very acceptable while extreme bondage which can often lead to death is definitely not ok. I hope my wife enjoys the occasional spank. I also hope my relatives who are somehow connected to me in this expanse webbing of the blogiverse don't come across this and view me any differently. I miss you blog. I promise to write again soon.

Love,
Michael Rex

Concerning My Future As A Wandering Bard

2008-01-25T14:26:00.000-08:00

While the first semester of my junior year comes to an end with, yet again, poor results due to a failing work ethic, I contemplate my future once more. I've been writing some poems lately. Yes, thats right, my own poems. Which leaves you to infer that I did not steal them. I figure if this college thing doesn't work out I can become a wandering bard. Some of the most respected people in the history of mankind have been wandering bards; Homer, Tupac, and Shakespeare are but a few examples. Some may argue that Tupac and Shakespeare weren't exactly "wandering" bards but thats only because these critics understand "wandering" in a physical sense. Mentally, these guys were confused; this is proven through their originality. Ponder on that. I'll be writing an epic 25 page poem.

Cannabilism: Why Not?

2007-12-13T14:33:00.000-08:00

Western Civilization, in an effort to put themselves above Native Americans (and Native South Americans?), have shunned and persecuted those who partake in the act of cannibalism. Society makes the practice of eating human flesh seem barbaric; something only a Native American would do. Wasn't prejudice supposed to end along with the 60's? Answer me this haters: Is cannibalism not both biologically and spiritually acceptable?

When the human body digests human flesh, the proteins you take in so closely resemble your own its much easier for the body to synthesize them. Like Gatorade replenishing the body of electrolytes better than water, human flesh replenishes the body of proteins better than a ham, thus, the consumption of human flesh in biologically acceptable.

Cannibalism is spiritually acceptable only because, as far as I know, the Bible, the Torah, the Book of Mormon, and the Koran say nothing regarding the practice. Thank goodness I'm not a sinner.

At this point in time I would like to declare myself a cannibal. Although I have yet to partake in the consumption of human flesh I would never pass up such an opportunity. In fact, I feel like taking a bite out of a succulent pectoral or thigh right now. For those concerned with their safety, there is nothing to worry about, I would only eat someone who was already dead. I am in no way murderous; that would be barbaric. Although, if you felt like murdering someone just so I could eat them, I'm cool with that. All I really need is a barbecue, some utensils, and lots of napkins; I like my A1 steak sauce.