Broken From The Sart

EVERYONE NEEDS THIS ON THEIR BLOG.

An Argument for God - The Genuine Nature of Christianity

This post is a product of a heated conversation I’ve had very recently. The argument I will present is in no way a proof, rather a compelling line of reasoning, supporting the legitimacy of the Christian faith.

First of all, religious beliefs have been present since the naissance of our race, as evident from numerous archeological findings of ritual items. Although primitive iterations of different faiths can be connected to the lack of scientific understanding. For example it could seem logical for groups of humans to praise the sun, as they had no distant idea of its inner workings, and as something beyond their comprehension, yet observably powerful, it appeared to be an entity far above them, ergo a god of sorts. Similar patterns can be found in countless natural religions, as usually their objects are things or persons of immense influence and/or outside the intellectual and physical grasp of their subjects. This mode of religious faith (or fear) is thus very natural, almost inherent to the unknowing masses of the distant past. Opposite to this, the Judeo-Christian tradition had an original birth, meaning it was not connected to observable objects, rather an entity outside of the physical and intellectual realms, through revelation through a long line of prophets and inspired people. In comparison the natural religions had an understandable reason to be invented because their objects were things overpowering humans, whereas Christianity’s roots came from a place outside of the boundaries of rationality, ergo, as far as religions are concerned, the birth of Christianity is genuine.

Secondly, in the stratum of religions from revelation, there is a great amount of corruption and an even greater amount of dubious sources. Many faiths come from the preaching of inspired individuals, who have claimed to have some supernatural knowledge, and usually these persons even had miraculous happenings in their close proximity. Whenever one such individual could amass a cult, a new religion was born and very often their teachings remained the core of their religion ever after. Now this is problematic because the only convincing power of these faiths is that of their missionary’s, the original prophet (or anyone called by any name, serving as such) is completely at the mercy of the skills of the coming teachers and preachers of given religion. Even more severely so, when history discredits the original bringers of revelation. Probably the most outstanding example of this is the case of Mohammad, the prophet of Islam. First, his first amanuensis left him. It is extremely alarming, when the person, who writes down the words of a prophet reports that he lost his faith in the prophet’s revelation’s genuineness. Second, when the prophet’s teachings became self-contradictory, evidently along the lines of personal interest, a large group of people left the prophet. Third, the prophet had to discard parts of his teachings, attributing it to deception from Satan, when its contents found no popular acceptance. Mohammad thus seems like a hardly credible source. Of course his revelations are very compelling to many people, who choose to overlook all these three discrediting instances. The Bible, at the same time, has been created in the span of thousands of years, written by many dozens of inspired people. The revelation, to be so spread out, is quite unique in this manner, unlike any other out there. It can be thus said that, in comparison, Christianity’s revelation -- again, as far as religions from revelations go -- is genuine.

Thirdly, the Judeo-Christian revelation claims to have been proven and fulfilled. Like religions in a large percentage, Christianity also operates with many prophecies. Yet, it is quite exquisite in that its prophecies have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ(1). This is some two thousand years worth of texts, which have been completed in a real persons life and death and his message. Now at this point, to accept the above sentence, it requires faith, however, the fact that the Judeo-Christian tradition counts Jesus Christ as fulfillment to its prophecies and expectations is very unique and can be counted as a genuine basis of faith.

And lastly, the inspiration behind the text is very credible. Most likely in connection with the long time span, the revelation of the Bible doesn’t follow lines of interest. Quite the contrary, often great historical influences were opposed by actual revelations and sacred guidance. Even socio-economic contexts were ignored or opposed time and time again, which again, proves that the revelations are genuine. Now whether or not to believe them still can be a question but not whether or not the claims are genuine.

Note: I’m aware of the possibility my above argumentation might be plagiaristic but as this is not published as a scholarly work I feel I don’t need to go source-hunting. Originally the basic concepts presented here are used in a novella I’m still trying to write and I put it out here in this shape and form because I’ve been deeply inspired by a personal conversation (see preface).

(1) Jesus is, historically, better recorded than Julius Caesar, so his earthly existence can be regarded as historical fact (as long as one accepts such things, since they can sometimes seem questionable), his metaphysical significance and the truth of his message is what is usually argued.

Work today

And it's been another day! (I took this phrase from POPS, which is an incredible YouTube series... just sayin') So yeah, I've been revising, grammatically, my book-to-be, which is funny cuz' this normally happens after getting a publisher. Yeah, I suck. But I'm past the half-line and the hardest part is behind me. I know I'm not a big name and not the best guy to pick to be an author of children's stories but I still live in my kid-self's magical dreamworld, so I couldn't get myself do anything else. 'Kay, maybe I lied because I enjoy practically everything and maybe next year I'm gonna start my studies as a mechanical engineer (farthest thing from any literature). BUT enough talk, cuz' it's getting out of control and it's nothing but self-obsessed, self-endearing blogging :P LOL I'm a little harsh but I consider it as a healthy sense of criticism over myself ;)

THEND (The + End = ThEnd)

I decided that this blog won't have any pretensious notion, so there you have it, no fake art, just a usual pose ;)

(via https://vine.co/v/eqZrIDZ2uUH)

Scottie Cometh

Mr Dis App had been born into a small rural community. Lived around the same several familiar cottages all his life. But he, he’d always felt, had also been born into a fate. Since early life, he had known things, understood things.

He had had intimations that perhaps he wasn’t alone with his knowledge--perhaps other people weren’t mindless automatons either but there was just no telling and also the inner voice had been impossible to ignore.

Plowing away on a piece of farmland, cognizant of the existence of faraway, opportunity-ridden places, he kept himself ready. He knew someday fate would come for him.

Laugh and scorn all you want, he thought about other people. You will ooh and ah soon enough.

And after an eternity but before you’d know it, there came fate looking. It was old Scottie, in a cheap used car.

Well fate looks off, Dis App had thought. The person is perfect but he is so dishevelled, and the car is wrong.

“You’ve been expecting me,” the sage said.

“You know it.”

“Get ready, we have to go.”

“I am. Where to?”

“There waits pain and ignorance and a shrill pang of disappointment in the city of Nuu.”

“Is it far away?”

“Why, yes.”

And Dis App was happy. Far was perfect.

Every breath is a second chance.

John Foreman

What is Brendan Eich?

Nearly everyone has heard of how Brendan Eich, Mozilla's former CEO, stepped down because of a scandal around his contribution to an organization that sought to ban gay marriage. Conservatives and liberals have been engaging in heated debates on this matter and this post isn't to determine who's right or who's wrong. What it is meant to discover is the phenomenon itself.

The interpretations I've encountered are:

#1: Opposing liberals meant that Eich made a strategically wrong step. Admitting to failure, he decided to step down.

#2: His personal standpoint went against the very mission of Mozilla, which was not creating profit but spreading openness, freedom and such with a diverse community.

These arguments. however, don't directly lead to the actual consequences. The reasons why these are misleading, inaccurate arguments are:

#1: Even though in politics and everyday life we all try to bring our own views to victory, a liberal couldn't oppose Eich. A liberal answer to his donation would have been nothing but total respect. That is because such a reply would be in favor of diversity, although all-inclusive includes the ones, who don't agree even with inclusiveness. There are many forms of liberalism but none of them would scold Eich's contribution to that organization. In summary, he couldn't oppose liberalism in a way that would lead liberalism away.

#2: Brendan Eich made his contribution as an independent individual, back in 2008. Now he spoke against everything that could oppose the gay society. He realized that holding up such views would definitely infringe Mozilla's mission. Still, his altered position promoted diversity. One could say that he is responsible for the collectivity of his actions but he actually faced this past act of his, trying to make it fit to the company's mission. Opposing Eich would actually mean failing this mission because at least toward him they close their imaginary gates and would exclude him.

What I'm trying to articulate is that there cannot be any idealistic reason to support his stepping down. On what grounds do many support it then?

(Before making my thesis, I want to note, once more that I'm not saying Eich was right or wrong when donating to the anti-gay organization, neither the same about his stepping down. Now back to the point...)

What this case tells us is that though people sympathize with liberalism or communitarianism or anything else, most of them don't actually belong to them. Eich's opposition (the kind, which doesn't only have a different view but instead is actively against him/agrees with his resignation) doesn't consist of liberals or any other group of idealists, instead of people, who may sympathize with them but they themselves are essentially different.

Carl Schmitt wrote that the main function of politics is to distinguish between friend and enemy. Schmitt wasn't a liberal--more importantly he wasn't an idealist but a realist.

Eich's opposition makes an enemy out of him. They called on Mozilla users to uninstall their browser and stop using their products. They took up a fight against him with smart methods, ones, which were enough to make the continuation of his being a CEO impossible. 

It's not a question whether or not Eich was right but whether or not he is a friend to us. Not a liberal community opposed him but rather a realist one that, at best, only serves a liberal community. They can sympathize with liberals but they can't be them.

The reason why I thought this whole matter important to see is that it's not the age of idealism any more. Of course I can't deal an absolute in regards of this because the political sphere is very mixed and while there are realists in it, we can just as easily name another huge group of idealists. My ultimate point is that this presently emerging trend is, contrary to popular statements, not liberalism, or any other form of idealism but realism instead, where one can't rely on rights or morals, only on the inclinations of those, possessing power.

Winter lights on Her face

You: I'd say it's complicated but then...