God, The Fed, And The Constitution

I was in discussion yesterday with a seemingly intelligent scientist type, who proclaimed that our present economic system is capitalist because it allows a private party(The Federal Reserve) to create money and loan it to other people at a profit.

I pointed out to him that this was certainly a basic definition of capitalism for private businesses, but the essence of capitalism is that there is free competition among all businesses, and if a monopoly is achieved, it is achieved by the one that provides the best, most efficient service at the most economical prices. This means there should be more than the Federal Reserve Bank.

Continue reading “God, The Fed, And The Constitution”

“We Don’t Know What Jesus Taught!”

“Any record of the teachings of Jesus or the disciples were not kept at that time. All we know is what was written and recorded at least seventy years later”.

Is that a valid argument? of course it is. Jesus himself didn’t seem intent on having scribes follow him around and recording every word, and the disciples didn’t seem to care about laying down specific rules and regulations to pass to fuure generations.
All conclusions about what Jesus or his disciples taught would be based on human reasoning, speculation, and logic.

But if that’s the case, then anybody can derive the truth from reason and logic, and we do not need revelations from special teachers. It should be available, without doubt, to anybody who chooses to look into it.

But it’s not.

Therefore, we enter into a kind of double trap. We have no way of knowing exactly what Jesus or his discples actually taught, and we can’t put the truth together by reason or logic. Te logical result of this dual trap is thousands of different interpreations of what actally was taught.

Does this prove the New Testament is wrong? No, it actually proves the New Testament is correct! We can see this easily established by teachings which are attributed to Jesus, as in Matthew 24, for example. When Jesus’ disciples came and asked “When shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”(Matt.24:3)

If you notice, the very things Jesus said would come to pass are exactly the type of things that logically occur if there is no way of determining the true prescriptive content of Jesus’ teaching.

Verse 4: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ, and shall deceive many’ “.

If any number of people are looking to true answers to questions, but can’t locate that truth, you will see a confusion of interpretations coming from all directions, seeking as many avenues as possible to determine that truth. Evolution, for example, had many would be discoverers, until Darwin provided what looked like the most obvious answer. The theory of relativity had been proposed by a number of physicists who were very close, until Einstein developed the most plausible.

If we look at it scientifically, therefore, Jesus was merely predicting a process that had to occur if no one really knew the truth of the matter. Based on the importance of the question, competitors would emerge and propose their own theories of what is the actual truth of Jesus and the disciples. If a few of those theories were successful, socially and economically, they would tend to be copied by others who wished to share in that success. In time, christianity would discard theories that had no social or reproductive value, and absorb those ideas which produced social, reproductive, and economic value.

In short, christianity would follow the same processes of evolutionary adaptation as any system, and that process would gradually be accepted as a standard of truth for any proposed christian teacher.

In spite of all that, however, we are plagued with the same issue as the original: we don’t know what Jesus and his dicsiples actually taught, so we assume that his doctrines and ideas had to be at least parallel to those doctrines that have emerged over time.

Christianity, therefore, tends to discard the “content” of its message in favor of the “process”, which is to get as many as possible to believe the “truth”, even if we can’t clearly define what the truth is.

Yet this very process can lead us to deception! Jesus had warned us to “take heed that no man deceive you”!

How do we know that the basic “message’ of christianity, to get people “saved”, is not actually a lie? If we have no standard of truth, we really can’t know for sure, can we?

What IS the truth? If we can’t understand any prescriptive content of what Jesus taught, and if we assume that we must get people “saved” by some process, we are caught in the process of preaching an empty and useless doctrine that has no earthly purpose, except, of course, to make a lot of ministers and TV personalities rich.

it is most interesting that christianity, which remains the enemy of evolution, survives by the very tautology that drives evolution: that which survives, survives. Every species of successful adaptation adopts those processes that ensures survival, and christianiy is no exception. Stripped of evidence, christianity declares ‘faith”. Stripped of all possibility of prescriptive truth, salvation for the sake of salvation becomes the only prescription, with the demand that more and more people support the “work”, financially and prayerfully.

Yet the very things we claim as the foundations of christian doctrine are the very things Jesus told us NOT to do!

While Jesus logically showed the results of confusion, christians embrace that same confusion as the foundation of their truth. While Jesus taught scientifically verifiable reslts, christianity claims anti-scientific ideas as their proof!

Matthew 24:11: “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” For the second time Jesus showed the logical result of confusion, and clearly defined it as deception!

While christianity proclaims exactly he opposite of what Jesus taught as truth, every single one of them proclaims they are the fulfillment of Matthew 24:14:

“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come”.

Which gospel of the kingdom? One true gospel, or many confusing and deceptive gospels? it really doesn’t say, does it? yet we assume that Jesus was referring to one specific, true gospel. yet the scripture leading in to that verse says that many false prophets will arise to deceive many. The scripture after that says there will be an “abomination of desolation ” to occur.

Would there be an “abomination of desolation ” following the recognition of truth, or would it be more likely to occur after a doctrine of confusion and falsehood? I have never heard anyone consider that question. All of them claim to be the gospel of Matthew 24:14, but none have proven that they are a true gospel!

And what is the result if this claim by all these people?
Verse16: “Then let him which be in Judea flee in to the mountain”.
Verse 21: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world, to this time…”

So if all the major christian religions are preaching truh, and if millions of people are correctly following that truth, why would the result be tribulation and destruction?

That simply makes no sense! What DOES make sense is that a doctrine of confusion and falsehood will lead so many into a tailspin of despair that no one can ever arrive at truth, leading to death and destruction.

Verse 22: “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved(alive), but for the elect’s sake, those days shall be shortened”.

Elect? Who? How do we know who they are How do we prove this? of all the confusing doctrines of christianity, what is the truth?

I am about to tell you that truth. You will not believe it, but it is the only possible logical truth to believe, precisely consisent with the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 24. I wll tell you now that not one of the 38,000 versions of christianity even remotely teach it!

So what is this remarkable truth that has so eluded the whole world? And how can I hope to prove something that other religions can’t prove?

The answer to that is the most simple logic possible, and because it is so simple, no “true believer’ will ever believe it! Jesus himself plainly gave us that answer, and all I have to do is simply quote his statement, which everybody claims to believe, yet all reject the one statement that would set them free!

If 38,000 versions of christianity all argue over truth, what is this simple truth that Jesus plainly taught?

Matthew 24:23: “Then, if any man shall say unto you, ‘Lo, here is Christ, or there, BELIEVE IT NOT”.

Nothing could be simpler. nothing could be plainer, yet it the one thing Jesus told us that even the most dedicated believer refuses to believe! They won’t believe it because they are convinced it can’t be that simple!

Jesus said you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. You can’t be free if you are enslaved to doctrines of men who proclaim “works” that you must perform for them. You can’t be free if you are enslaved to a perpetual search for a truth that you can never prove, but must accept on faith in the teachings of a man. Yet people would rather enslave themselves to ideas of men, doctrines without proof, rather than simply accept the simple idea that they are free from ALL such doctrines, here and now, if they simply choose to be free! It is the one simle and truthful answer that is counterintuitive to human logic!

So, if there is an “elect” who will not be deceived, how can they NOT be deceived? Matthew 24:25 says they CANNOT be deceived! it is not possible!

Why? The simple logic of Matthew 24:23. One cannot be deceived by any person if one does not follow or believe any person!

The most dedicated and devout of christians will not believe this. They can’t believe it, because they are convinced by their leaders that works MUST be performed, people MUST be saved, christianity MUST grow to reach all the world. Yet JesusĀ  said that! After this “witness’ is preached, all hell breaks loose!

That is the logical culmination of confusion, not the preaching of truth! The “elect” of which Jesus taught cannot be deceived because they will simply refuse to get involved in the confusion. They will choose the only logical teaching that separates them from the world. They will choose individual freedom, yet the false teachers will proclaim liberty.

2 Peter 2:19: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage”!

Any doctrine, of church or state, that preaches “works” without proof, sacrifice without understanding, is a doctrine of enslavement. It will result in an end of destruction that will embrace the whole world. The solution is not to “join in”, but to “come out, and be ye a separate people”, the true art of revolution!

Germs Make Us Proselytize

“Man is a form of expression who is traditionally expected to repeat himself…” ___Marshall McLuhan, “Understanding Media”

“Man” is actually a form of expression of muh smaller life forms, that use him to express themselves. Each person is a collective expression, and therefore a collective.

Richard Dawkins made the simple connection between germs and behavior by pointing out that when we have a cold germ, we sneeze. We sneeze because sneezing is the best process by which to spread airborne pathogens to other persons. A cold germ invokes behavior from us, and therefore we are the collective form of expression of our “creator” the germ and the genes.

If we are the behavioral expression of germs, then what we call mechanization, as McLuhan points out, is, “a translation of nature, and of our own natures, into amplified and specialized forms”.

We are, in fact, amplified and specialized forms of the germs and the genes, the tiny mocrorganisms that inhabot(I inadvertently created an interesting word there by my mispelling; “inhabot”, a robot that inhabits us, composed of “in” and “habit”) our bodies. That makes us, in essence, machines. But machines in amplified and specialized forms are not alive. What seems to separate life from non-life is the urge to reproduce at all levels, and to invoke behavior that ensures such reproduction is maximized if possible. Life not only reproduces, but it reproduces by strategy, and the strategy, from amoeba to civliizations, is not all that different.

Certainly genes influence behavior, and the limited number of genes in a cold germ can hi-jack our own bodies to invoke behavor of its own for reproduction. As long as a reproductive strategy works, there is no reason to alter it.

It’s not a grand stretch from that to propose that proselytizing, and the strong zeal we feel for conversion of others, comes from those microorganisms, or rather algorithms bred into us from our evolutionary past, causing us to seek not only those that are like us, but to create a larger pool of selection by making others more like us. The more people of the opposite sex who share our worldview and opinions, the more we can reproduce ourselves. “Ourselves” in this case is not an actual description of “me” specifically, but of a pool of similar “me’s” to maintain the same gene expression.

What the germ does to our bodies by invoking behaviors, the proselytizing meme does to our mind by invoking a similar strategy. For example, the religious person is not so much convinced by truth, but by the idea that “all those people can’t be wrong”. It becomes a statistical process by which we can eliminate enough differences within ourselves that we can sacrifice our individual self for the ‘greater good”. Anything that reproduces random individuality, therefore, is selected against, and behaviors that invoke cohesion and unity for reproductive purposes is selected for.

Religion, for example, does not seek individuality, but ecumenicism, the process by which differences can be tolerated for a greater reproductive unity. The question is, toward what end? There seems to be no answer, except that unity allows more people to live, while individuality provides less certainty for reproduction.

The strategy for reproduction, however, can follow strange destructive behaviors, with a reproductive algorithm becoming of less and less use for reproductive emnlargment, often resulting in self termination, like those religions who take poisons because they are convinced that they will get their reward only by the sacrifice of their lives.

Religions, like viruses, will select strategies that allow them to live as parasites, only affecting behavior to the degree that it maximizes reproduction, while minimizing the possibility of the death of its host. In this sense, church and state are alike. Government and religion takes as much as it can safely take from you while allowing you enough to survive reproductively as an individual for the greater good.

Church anbd state, like the human body, will select and maintain a library of different members for future reference, as “junk DNA” is stored for future reference tro similar attacks. Conversion of many members, therefore, serves as a reference a junk DNA collection, Borg-like(from Star Trek) to select the best strategy for a new attack.

The language reflects this need. “I was once just like you”, “I was lost, but now am found”. Found by whom? The new collective that closely resembles the reproductive needs of that individual.

A s Hoffer points out in “The True Believer”, mass movements are interchangeable. We can select new movements that better fit our reproductrive needs and provide adaptive strategies that may create modified versions in new forms.

As Hoffer writes:

“Since all mass movements draw their adherents from the same types of humanity, and appeal to the same types of mind, it follows that (a)all mass movements are competitive, and the gain of one in adherents is the loss of all the others.(b)all mass movements are interchangea ble. One mass movement readily transforms itself into a nother. A religious movement may develop into a social revolution or a nationalist movement; a nationalist movement into a social reviolution or a religious movement.”.

Hoffer writrs that while the content of various movements are different. the actual causes of the proselytizing zeal that drives them to unite are basically the same. Another way of putting it is that if the purpose of life is to reproduce, the algorithms driving the decision -making process of life will follow a similar strategy that selects for certainty and minimizes uncertainty. The more available in the pool, the less need for careful consideration of the effects of loss. The strategy becomes tautological: “that survives is that which survives”.

If a machine-like ehavior in the face of danger had no value until men began to make war on each other, it is easy to see how a reproductive algorithm can become stressed to the point that it focuses on reproduction of one set of traits at the expense of all others. The greater the army of machines, the greater the chances of reproduction of related traits, which will be modified and selected in future generations, etc.

It boils down to algorithms, patterns of decision-making that become statistical and operate according to the same general principles. Terms like “greater good” make sense to us because we are programmed to think that way at the most basic levels.

The amplified extensions of ourselves, even computers, have no need to reproduce themselves, so we seek to reproduce ourselves through them. They are extensions of us, even to the point that we plan on “uploading” ourselves in to them at some future date.

Church and state were merely the process of “uploading” ourselves into a greater system, but now the algorithms themselves can be the driving force of a machine which is the full extension of ourselves. If “narcissus” comes from the same root as “narcosis”, the final uploading of ourselves into machines is the complete narcosis, the numbing of all response to our environement for the applications of algorithms that represent the environment to us. no more need of life, no more need of reproduction.