Thursday, March 30, 2006

Weaknesses in the Materialist rejection of Theism and Deism

Materialism, assumes that all that exists, is matter, and that there is no God. Whereas, what would be more reasonable is to think that there might or not be a God.

If there might or might not be a God, then the reasonable thing to do is to behave and think as if there was a God. Suppose there was a room, and we did not know what was inside of it, we thought that it might or might not contain a God. Would we be behaving ethically if we pumped dirty air we had farted out of our anuses, into that room?

Thus a God, would be justified to punish, those who behaved ahd thought as if they knew that there was no God, when what would have been more reasonable for them, would have been to behave and think as if they did not know whether there was a God.

If God does not exist, then it is not possible that that the sorry state should arise wherein a divine being should be offended by man or for the sake of the psychological health of the universe, take vengeance on man for dishonoring him; but if God does exist, then this scenario of a God being offended is possible.

Thus it is reasonable to live life having faith in God, because of the unacceptability of plunging into, or unreasonably plunging into the risk of entering into, conflict with deity.

This kind of faith need not force us into words and actions that contradict our conscience. Serious, rational, and actual faith in God, leads to consciencous conduct, because it is reasonable to assume that we should follow our conscience to please God, because our conscience is our idea of what God wants from us.

Materialistic observation of the world, leads to the unavoidable conclusion, judging from objects regarding which we are aware of them, and also aware of their creators, that objects that exist, are created by powers that are orders of magnitude greater than the object that was created.

A cathedral is mere stone, compared to the incredible abilities of the creatures who made it. An airplane is merely scraps of metal compared to the thinking, speaking, self-controlled, moving, talking, seeing, hearing humans who built it. A cat, when it is merely a bundle of a few cells in its mother's womb, is nothing compared to the fantastic complex creature that is its mother.

A basic problem with atheism, is that the nature of human spirituality is such, that man cannot know the facts about God, until he first has faith in God.

Someone tells you that a certain store is located on a certain street. You believe him, but you do not know that that store is on that street. Such is faith. But knowledge consists of knowing as opposed to merely believing, that the store is on the street. Materialistically speaking, the simple fact is we believe concepts are facts, but do not know these concepts are facts, until we have verified personally, based upon our actions which are based upon our mere beliefs, that such concepts are facts.

Likewise, mere faith, or belief, is like soft clay which becomes hardened into knowledge of things of God, by the heat of the oven, which is the force of epiphany. Epiphany is produced through a thirst for moving on to a higher state of mind, a contempt for the usual humdrum state of mind one usually finds oneself in, the company of special persons, self-discipline, certain type of relaxation, and other factors.

Humans beings have the ability to see the divinity, perfection, and goodness of God, in elements of nature which are like artistics creations produced by God the great artist. Yet the force of their sins bears down upon them, reducing them to the point where they are not able to see the hand of a divine master artist in honorable elements of nature such as plants, the sun, and the moon.

The materialist, is the type of person, who, in days long ago, confidently declared that the earth was flat, or that no such thing as electricity or radio waves existed, because such facts had not been discovered by the eyes, ears, and mind of man at the time.

In the times prior to the discovery of electricity, electricity still existed, albeit still undiscovered by man; yet the materialist of the pre-electricity times, would confidently declare, that no such thing as electricity existed; he would argue that the only reasonable attitude to have regarding the existence and capabilities of electricity, is, not agnosticism ie electricity might exist, and not faith ie electricity exists, but rather atheism, electricity does not exist. Why? because electricity was something that was not visible to his senses that he uses to detect material objects, such as his sense of sight, his sense of hearing, and his sense of touch.

The materialist of pre-electricity days would intolerantly and vehemently condemn those who thought electricity might exist, and those who believed electricity did exist, and at the same time he would be wrong that electricity did not exist, just as he would be wrong in declaring that the earth is flat, or that there are no such things as radio waves or nuclear power.

Progression, in terms of how through the ages things have actually turned out to be compared to how things have been thought to be at first, might when studied yield insights into how things actually are, compared to how the minds of materialists conceive them to be.

@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Indo-european origins of the so called "chosen people"

The big hoopla about the Jews being the chosen semitic people has been continuing. So I decided to re-address the issue of the origins of the ancient Israelite people, who, I aver, were not founded by flying saucers from New York.

The temple of Solomon, closely resembles temples of the Phoenician city of Tyre, and the Hebrew religion resembled the Phoenician religion. The King of Tyre helped Solomon build his temple. The Phoenicians were basically, in origin, Greek Indo-europeans. The indo-european settlement of the region containing Palestine, preceded the ancient Israelite settlement of Palestine. The Luwians, an indo-european tribe that resembled the ancient Israelites, were famous in the area directly to the north of what was ancient Israel, before the Israelites became famous in Palestine.

The Phoenicians such as the Tyrians, though indo-european in origin, adopted the local Canaanite languages when they settled in Canaan. Yet clowns talk as if the fact the Israelites spoke a Semitic language, proves that they were Semites.

The indo-european Aryans who settled in northwest India, bringing with them the Vedas, worshipped God without the use of images; the Israelite religion, in contrast to the religions of the nations ancient Israelite clashed with, abhorred the worship of images.

Christ's teachings and some of the teachings of the Old Testament, resemble the teachings of the indo-european Iranian Zoroaster who preceded Christ by a few hundred years. You could argue that Christ's teachings resembled the teachings of Zoroaster at least as much as they resembled the teachings of the Old Testament.

St. Paul's teachings, resembled the teachings of Valmiki who wrote the indo-european Indian epic the Ramayana a few hundred years before St. Paul wrote his letters. You could argue that St. Paul's teachings resembled Valmiki's teachings more than they resembled the Old Testament and almost as much as they resembled the teachings of Christ. Valmiki talks of conscience, but I do not find the word conscience in the translations of the Old Testament and the words of Christ.
The Mitanni, a group closely related to the Indian Aryans, were famous near the Palestine era about the time that the ancient Israelites colonized it.

The name of Christ as recorded in the New Testament Greek, is "Yayzoos", this was the name used by the Church prior to Jerome's translation of the Bible. Yayzoos sounds like Yes (indo-european Germanic) Zeus (indo-european Greek). His actual name may have been somewhat different, due to difficulties translating Hebrew names into Greek; nevertheless it is significant, that the inspired writers of the New Testament, wrote out his name as "Yayzoos", without making any effort to explain how his name was actually pronounced. Poseidon, the Greek God of the sea, was worshipped by the Phoenicians of Tyre who were friends of Solomon and helped Solomon to build his temple.

So my estimate is that the Israelites, branched off from the proto-indo-european group at an early time when Israel, the Vedics, and the Greeks, were all still part of the proto-indo-european group and had not yet departed it. I say an early date, because looking at the language and the genetic trees you can see that the time when Greek, Israelite, and vedic were united in one people, was a time that was the beginning of the stage of proto-indo-european history featuring proto-indo-europea breaking apart into a diaspora of tribes. The Israelites having branched off from the proto-indo-european homeland group at an early time, they were away from it for a long time, and the proto-indo-european part of their history was a classical period, a period before any of the major components of the proto-indo-european group had left their homeland.

By way of contrast, the branches of indo-european that left their proto-indo-european homeland group at a later date, spent less of their history alone away from the homeland mix of components of the proto-indo-europeans, and more of their time, in a proto-indo-european mix of component peoples, in which some of the tribes were missing because they had already left the homeland.

Thus with those who branch off early such as the Israelites, you get a mixd of isolation from brother tribes, combined with an early history featuring all the brother tribes being present. But with those who branch off at a later time in history, their history contains less time alone isolated from brother tribes, and more time spent so to speak, with a family of brother tribes from which some of the brother tribes were missing.

Thus, one would expect the tribes that branch off early from their brother tribes, to reflect the character of the confederacyt of tribes with all the brother tribes present, because they reflect a mix of time spent alone, preserving and continuing that which they already are, with an early formative history in which all the brother tribes were united.

Ancient Israel having indo-european roots, and the Jewish Christians blending into the gentile populations,are historical events that signify to those who respect Christ and the Christian religion, a pattern wherein that which was indo-european and great in ancient Israel, naturally continued on into a version of Judaism, Christianity, which one could call true Judaism, Christianity, which promoted a blending of this great indo-european element in ancient Israel, with gentile indo-europeans.

@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Friday, March 10, 2006

Re "not Christianity...they're being Arabs...Jews are great"

Someone has said, "Christians are transforming themselves into Arabs, they're being Arabs, they are betraying the great Jews in their confrontation with the sub-human Arabs, therefore Christianity should be suppressed".

For now let us avoid the question whether the Arabs having wealth is good for the world.

The statement assumes that what is good for the Jews, is good for the world; and it assumes that what is bad for the Arabs, is good for the world. It ignores the possibility that there might arise forces that are good for the world, that have some level of negative impact on the social and economic status of Jews.

The statement ignores the possibility that there might exist, forces that have a positive impact on Arabs, and that also have a positve impact on the world.

Yet, if we were to behave and think as if what is bad for a given group in the world is always bad for the world, and as if what is good for a given group is bad for the world, we would err by hyper-dogmatically favoring group A and disfavoring group B while stirring up aggression by A and aggression vs B, this in a world where aggression consumes valuable time energy and money and triggers events that can lead to catastrophe.

The idea that all that is bad for A is good for the world, and all that is good for B is bad for the world, would lead us into an unscientific blindness wherein we ignored all policies detrimental to A or beneficial to B.

The statement that Christianity is bad because Christians promote Arabism, simply assumes that the promotion of Arabism is more common or intense amongst Christians than it is amongst non-Christians. This is bad science, and bad sciience in one subject leads to bad science in other subjects. Where is the proof of this? Throughout history Jews have been persecuted by peoples who were not Christian, and did not even bear a resemblance to Christians.

The majority of the Arab oil consumed in the world is consumed by non-Christians. The more powerful the Jews have become in the USA and in the world, the larger the trade surpluses rung up by the Arab oil producers have been. This kind of person who claims that force X has caused a phenomenon when actually force Y is the cause, creates confusion; they create the kind of conditions in which men can be swindled.

Christianity is an idea, a complex idea that is hard to understand, a difficult sport that is hard to perform. Must we trash Christianity as an idea, simply because certain of those who call themselves Christians misbehave? There are those who pretend to be Christians, and those who pretend to not be Christian.

How would you feel if you wrote an inspired, brilliant book, and it was suppressed because 55 percent of those who read the book misbehaved? How can it simply be assumed, that the Christian, would be a better man if he had not been exposed to Christianity? Christianity is but one of many forces that shape a man's conduct; there is the man's free will, tnere is the man's genetics, and there are the environmental influences aside from the Christian influence.

It does not make sense to ban an idea, and to assume an idea is an evil force in the world, simply because many who profess to adhere to the idea, fall short of the high and hard to understand standards set by the idea. Should the idea the earth is round, be discarded because most evil-doers these days believe the earth is round? Should good, excellent, beautiful songs be banned because the majority of those who like these songs misbehave? Should an advanced difficult form of Karate be prohibited from being taught because only a small minority are able to master it?

The lack of logic and the leaps of faith in the slogan "not Christianity...the Christians are being sub-human Arabs...Jews are great people" are lapses of logic and dogmatic leaps of faith that can infect important subjects aside from the Christianity subject. It is alarming that Christianity should be attacked based on such dogmatism and illogic. Some weak personalities might be concerned regarding the hurt to their feelings caused by Christian scripture, but what bothers me is the damage done to their fellow man by those who despise Christian Scripture, the damage done by those who promote such scorn of scripture.

It is unreasonable to expect Christians to simply assume, that they would be better off as slaves of Jews, than they would be a slaves of Arabs, or than they would be were they to promote a balance between Arab and Jew. How can you expect Christians to assume that it would be better for them the Christians to be dead, as opposed to being alive and friends of Arabs?

@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Free Trade dogma as a threat to the world's environment

We have heard of how the environment is endangered due to the after-effects of industrial development; for example, there is plenty of concern regarding the melting of the polar ice caps, and the flooding and various climactic changes that could result. Yet, at the same time many of those in power are enthusing over the free trade doctrine, which puts into effect policies which result in the concentration of production in certain localities, and the concentration of productions in a certain few rather than a diversity of methods.

In effect the free trade doctrine says, if product X produced in area Y five thousand miles away through method Z, is one percent cheaper than product X produced in area B, the home area, through method C, then the people in area B are obligated due to free trade theory dogmas (amazing how atheists who consider themselves superior in logical skills take leaps of faith) to import product X made through method Z in area Y five thousand miles away.

The effect of such dogma, is that as opposed to a variety of methods being employed in the world to produce product X, or any given product, the method that is at the present time the cheapest is employed; and, as opposed to the production of product X being spread out throughout the world, the production of product X becomes concentrated in one locality in the world.

Thus the effect of free trade dogma is to unleash forces that are potentially catastrophic to the entire world's environment, forces that when it comes to destruction, do not distinguish between rich and poor, black and white, etc.

Any casual observer can understand how concentrating production of a given product in one locality in the world gives rise to more danger to the environment than the spreading out of the production all over the world, just as there is more danger of a drill applied to the hull of a boat penetrating the hull of the boat when that drill is continuously run in one spot, as opposed to being run a little in several different spots.

Most laymen can also see how when one method of production only is used to produce something, this portends more damage to the environment than several different methods of production, just as when an individual consumes one food only he is more liable to become sick than when he consumes a healthy variety of foods.

Yet still although the danger-to-the-environment factor is basically obvious, the free trade dogmatists insist that a nation is obligated due to dogmas arrived at through atheistic blind faith, to consume what is produced ten thousand miles away, instead of what is produced locally but is one percent more expensive.

@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

The two local Heathers -- dreams

1:16 AM 3/8/2006
I was walking outdoors on a cloudy day, it was spring or fall, the grass was green. Seemed I was trudging along in this line of people, walking along outdoors, it was kind of hard going, up-hill to some extent, the ground was a little wet and the earth somewhat sogged which slowed things down a bit. Then Heather L was walking next to me, and a little in front of me. She wore an off-white color trenchcoat. She reminded me of the Americans of times past, which seems used to be as common as dandelions, who were a friend in need, patient and helpful with a friend's faults. It was as if this was hard on me, this marching along outdoors, and Heather L was there to be helpful and friendly with someone for whom things were hard, which was refreshing seeing how so many people like to test people for whom things are hard as opposed to be helpful with people for who things are hard or difficult. So she was my friend, and whenever I looked at the back of her head, as she walked along ahead of me, she could feel it. I looked at the back of her head and she turned around to look at me, her hair was the shade of yellow close to brown, boyishly short, almost straight, her face looked refreshingly wide, wider than in real life, and I felt glad I had a friend who I could psychically keep in touch with. Something about my psychic connection with her reminded me of the intricate architecture of Mont St. Michel, which I used as a subject in this poster I made, in which through a medieval window you see the cathedral out there on a hill. Yet it seemed that there was something actually tragic about what was happening to me and to her. Seems the media would have you believe that nothing actually tragic ever happens to anyone, nobody is in danger of anything tragic happening to them, that at least nobody worth his salt is in danger of tragedy or in tragedy, yet seemed there was real tragedy involved, not overpowering tragedy but tragedy nevertheless.

5:54 PM 1/31/2006
I met Heather from Frosty's which is now the Lincoln in some other city. Turns out she was a Boston University student. But the prejudice against her in real life I guess in my own mind had been that she was low class from Frosty's. I met her in some other city and we rolled around in the grass alot and stuff.

She was like a puppy to me. She was more enthused about me than I was about her but I liked her alot, I felt emotion for her, for the first time in along time there was emotion, love, not merely physical attraction. I told her that she had an Iron Age body build, that in Bible times the dominant people were tall and strong like her.

Alot of guys seemed to be into her...but she was into the dream John Silber was a friend of mine so her being from BU meant she was connected to me...we were walking around some university campus arm in arm, she was the instigator of it all, it was like me and Anne D in real ife. She was a Catholic. I told her about how the catholics at Harvard were nice..I boasted about my car, about my Brazil national team level abilities in soccer...

We passed by my father, who let's face it is in the eyes of many unimpressive looking...I said hy to him but hurried on with her, I was afraid if she found out he was my dad our relationship would fall apart...the truth began to come out to her about my ancestry...I told her I was half India-Indian, that my mother was British, Irish, and American Indian...I boasted about how the Anglo-Indians were a special people, how they had won more Victoria Crosses per capita than any other group, how the Victoria Cross was like the medal of honor...I had not told her yet that the little Indian man we passed by was my dad, but, I thought maybe she was beginning to guess it with the truth coming out about my ancestry and stuff...

The dream was beginning to come to an end, I was getting close to the time when I would wake up...I felt like I was becoming her puppy, whereas it had started out she was my puppy, I felt I was losing my grip on her, I felt like it was us encountering my dad, or my race that was causing this loss of a grip on her...

I was walking somewhere with her, I was beginning to feel like I was following her not that we were going somewhere together...we went into this room where there were these college students, one was a woman from Harvard...Heather from Frosty's/Lincoln gave me an autographed copy of a little paperback she had written...I was beginning to panic because she had not given me her name, her contact info, I did not realize that of course her name would be in the book she had written...she sat down in these bleacher like seats in the carpeted comfy room, this white guy behind her who wore granny glasses and had bushy light brown hair began to flirt with her, he looked like this woman in the room who was from Harvard...the dream ended with me feeling like passing by my dad, the possibility introduced into her mind that that man was my dad, was something that had caused me to begin to lose my power over her...Oh, and when I woke up, the song running through my head, was "Stone love" by Diana Ross and the Supremes...When I awoke I was thinking of how it seems Harvard has acted antropomorphically with me, meaning Harvard has acted like a man without a sense of fair play competing for a woman, and how it is inappropriate for an institution to behave in such fashion with an individual.

Friday, March 03, 2006

Dream about Pres Dubya and Al Gore being Mongoloids

In the dream, I saw a group of men outside on the sidewalk. It was daylight, seemed it was cloudy not sunny. I saw them from a vantage point about ten yards away horizontally and about seven yards up vertically. It was as if I was looking out a first or second story window and there they were on the sidewalk below me. There were about eight of them standing in a circle, wearing dark suits and it seemed white shirts. They all had black hair, they were fairly stocky, they all were about five feet six inches in height. They all had black hair. Their skin color was similar to my skin color, a light brown color, a "beige" color so despised by this one female national radio announcer who used to be on the radio. They all looked the same. They were all Mongoloid. Two of them were Dubya Bush and Al Gore. Bush and Gore looked like short stocky Mongoloids with black hair in the dream.

The DCCC calls me up wanting a donation. But you can see how I feel from this dream. And if you are not abysmally ignorant or cery intellectually lazy you can understand the dream.

@2006 David Virgil Hobbs