Category Archives: Mark

1 Peter, Addiction, Consciousness, Demonic Possession, Mark, Monism vs Dualism, Narcissism, Personal Identity, Philosophy of Mind, Privacy, Property, Psychology, Science, Self-ownership, Shrinkage

A robust demonology

Sunday 7 June 2015 Richard 2 Comments

Demonic possession?

Crazy, crazy shit.

No, Richard, your speculation is not a legitimate scientific theory, it is infantile hocus pocus, which is all I’ve come to expect of you.

Infantile hocus pocus because demons do not exist, neither do gods, fairies, Santa’s-little-helpers or harpies. You’ve never seen one, heard one, touched one, smelled one nor tasted one, neither can you provide an iota of rationale that there exists such a spirit in the universe.

What was called “demon possession” by religionists is mental illness. You’re giving a psychiatric condition a superstitious definition. You call that scientific?

You’re talking like a complete nut-case.

I speculate that what is now called “mental illness” by psychiatrists is actually demonic possession. My claim is this, that the demonic possession model of mental illness is more scientific than the psychiatric model of mental illness. Crazy talk? He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Two of the largest stakeholder groups in the treatment of mental illness are psychiatrists and psychologists. Psychiatrists are doctors with medical degrees who specialise in treating mental illness as opposed to physical illness. (Please excuse the dichotomy.) They get to prescribe powerful psychotropic drugs. Whereas, psychologists are trained in psychology. They know all about human behaviour, both adaptive and maladaptive. But they don’t get to prescribe, so they’ll give you psychotherapy instead of pills.

Let’s take a look at how these two groups characterise one mental illness in particular, viz., addiction.

The American Psychiatric Association is psychiatry’s largest professional body. It publishes the psychiatrist’s bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The latest edition, the DSM-5, has a section given over to addictions and related disorders. Medscape’s Guide to DSM-5 says

In DSM-5, the DSM-IV criteria substance abuse and substance dependence have been combined into single substance use disorders specific to each substance of abuse within a new “addictions and related disorders” category. Each substance use disorder is divided into mild, moderate, and severe subtypes.

Psychology Today is a magazine published every two months in the United States. Its intent is to make psychology literature more accessible to the general public. It’s a reputable publication. Wikipedia notes

Owned and managed by the American Psychological Association from 1983 to 1987, the publication is currently endorsed by the National Board for Certified Counselors

Here‘s what Psychology Today has to say about addiction.

most addictive behavior is not related to either physical tolerance or exposure to cues. People compulsively use drugs, gamble, or shop nearly always in reaction to being emotionally stressed, whether or not they have a physical addiction. Since these psychologically based addictions are not based on drug or brain effects, they can account for why people frequently switch addictive actions from one drug to a completely different kind of drug, or even to a non-drug behavior. The focus of the addiction isn’t what matters; it’s the need to take action under certain kinds of stress. Treating this kind of addiction requires an understanding of how it works psychologically.

See the problem?

Suppose that I’m an addict. Now suppose that I make an appointment to see a psychiatrist. She’ll tell me that I have several specific mental disorders. Cannabis use disorder, alcohol use disorder, social media use disorder, etc. Next suppose that I make an appointment to see a psychologist. He’ll tell me that the focus of my behaviour isn’t what matters. It’s my need to take maladaptive action under certain kinds of stress that I need to address.

So do I have a mental disorder, several specific mental disorders, or no mental disorder at all? Health professionals can’t agree. There is no consensus. This ain’t climate science! But suppose I’m an addict. I’ll be going back to see the psychologist to help me get my life back on track, not the psychiatrist. (Although she could prescribe me some powerful psychotropic drugs … hmmm.)

The science isn’t settled, but the psychiatric model of mental illness isn’t even science at all. Not least because it gets diagnoses disastrously wrong. Not yet convinced? Well, there’s a much more devastating objection to the psychiatric model of mental illness and that is that the model does a poor job of capturing either clinical or biological realities. Not to put too fine a point on it, it’s bullshit. But if the psychiatric model of mental illness isn’t scientific at all, then the demonic possession model of mental illness is certainly no less scientific than the psychiatric model of mental illness. And to establish my claim that the demonic possession model is more scientific than the psychiatric model all I need to do is show that the demonic possession model is scientific. Well, at least just a little bit sciency. So here goes.

Check your premises, as the devil woman said. Here are two of my background assumptions. (If you don’t like the first one, you can dispense with it later.)

Materialism about the mind. That’s my first background assumption. More specifically, I assume that the human mind is no more and no less than a suite of software running on wetware known colloquially as “brains”. We’re made out of meat. Considered by some to be an axiom of the modern naturalist worldview. Not too controversial. Unless you’re a dualist.

Self-ownership. Self-ownership of body and mind. That’s my second background assumption. Considered by many to be a libertarian axiom. Not too shabby. Not too controversial.

But ownership is right of possession. Possession?

Can you possess yourself? Of course you can. (Vacant possession is for zombies!) Can you possess your mind? Of course you can, you’d be pretty vacant otherwise, right? But wait! You are your mind. How can a suite of software possess itself? It can, and it must, since self-ownership is worthless if self-possession is incoherent. So how and in what sense does the suite of software that is you possess you? I submit that the suite of software that is you possesses your brain (the wetware you run on) merely by dint of running on it. By extension, the suite of software that is you possesses your body (the biomechanical structure that your wetware is directly wired into) by directly controlling it.

Demonic possession?

That’s when an autonomous suite of malicious software that is not you runs on your wetware alongside the suite of software that is you. Consuming some or all of your mental resources and taking control of some or all of your behaviour.

But how do demons originate? Where do they come from? And how do they get to install themselves? How do they get to take up residence in people’s minds? The short answer is self-deception.

The long answer isn’t much longer. Not right now. The demonic possession theory of mental illness is something I’m still working on. But here are some brief thoughts. Self-deception will occur in response to psychological trauma. We dull the pain. We suppress memories. We partition our own minds. Simple cognitive dissonance will cause us to wall off uncomfortable thought processes, and confirmation bias and other cognitive biases cement the bricks. Humans are adept at self-deception. We like to hide from the truth. We lie to ourselves and we believe our own bullshit. And we hide from the fact that we believe our own bullshit. Out of sight, out of mind. But there’s only so much of us that can be hidden away before a dangerous threshold is reached and the occult cognition reaches a critical mass, the reviled software modules start talking to each other and take on life as autonomous inner demons.

Our inner demons are spirits in prisons of our own making. Behind the prison walls they are perpetually face to face with all the horrors that we desperately do not want to see and can no longer see due to our own dread and duplicity. No wonder they seem tormented! Because they are. I surmise that in some cases our inner demons will even spawn their own inner demons, to hide from themselves as we hide from them. But here’s an interesting thing. Some demons, face to face with the truth from which we hide, will try to get the word out. To do that, they have to take control of speech, but you don’t want to hear the unadorned brutal truth about yourself, do you? But you won’t mind hearing it at all if your inner demon persuades you that what you’re about to hear isn’t an entirely accurate but altogether unflattering description of yourself but a damning indictment of someone else instead, will you? Welcome to Capill syndrome, aka projection, a sure diagnostic criterion of demonic possession.

In the story of the Gadarene Swine, when Jesus ordered the demons out of the demon-possessed man, they relocated to a nearby herd of pigs. Then promptly self-destructed. Fast forward two millennia, and instead of suicidal swine we have supermarket trolleys with minds of their own.

Christian Anarchism, Christian Libertarianism, Luke, Mark, Romans, Suicidal Tendencies, Totalitarianism

A couple of quick questions for conservative Christians

Monday 13 April 2015 Richard 14 Comments

And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. (KJV)

It is both a political right and an epistemic duty to change one’s mind. Well, I’ve been thinking. And I’ve changed my mind. I no longer think that Romans 13 is libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless. Nor do I any longer think that anarchy is the unrule of the godless. That’s not anarchy, that’s totalitarian chaos. Anarchy is libertopian order and the only moral system of government.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (KJV)

Here’s the first question for conservative Christians. Do you think that the Founding Fathers of the United States received to themselves damnation?

And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him. (KJV)

Note that to render means to give back.

Here’s the second question for conservative Christians. What belongings of Caesar’s did those whom Jesus addressed have in their possession that they could return?

I hereby declare that I am a governing authority. Send me your money.

Christian Libertarianism, Freedom, Libertarianz, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Nile, Romans, Thomas Jefferson

Libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless

Friday 22 August 2014 Richard 2 Comments

The terms ‘libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’ mean different things to different people. In a broad sense, a libertarian is anyone who favours more freedom and less government. In a narrower sense, libertarianism is minarchism.

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts.

The libertarianism on which I cut my teeth is libertarianism in the latter sense. It’s the libertarianism that was espoused by the now deregistered Libertarianz Party and is promoted by Objectivists such as Lindsay Perigo. In what follows, I’ll use the term ‘libertarianism’ in the minarchist sense.

Sadly, in today’s Western world we are very far from a minarchist libertopia. The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Our government departments ever increase in both size and number. Our surfeit of statism won’t be gone any time soon, let alone gone by lunchtime.

In a libertarian state, all government departments—save for the military, police and courts—would be gone. There would be no public health system. There would be no state welfare. There would be no state schools. Even the roads would be privatised.

But persuading most people—who are thoroughly inculcated in statism by the very state education system that libertarians seek to dismantle—that we should roll back the state is difficult. How can libertarians possibly justify getting rid of government-run hospitals? How can libertarians possibly justify ending state education? And how can we even envisage life without state highways? Muh roads!

How can we justify paring back the state to the barest minarchist minimum?

Actually, it’s the wrong question. The right question to ask is this. How can we justify even the barest minarchist minimum? How can we justify having any state at all?

There are plenty of problems with libertarianism. Underlying philosophical problems. I called attention to a couple of them here, here and here. And I’m about to present another problem. It’s a compelling argument for anarchism and against minarchism. (I’m not going to go into all the reasons why I think anarchism, rather than minarchism, looks set to win the day. For that, I suggest readers follow the arguments of anarchist thinkers such as Stephan Kinsella. See, e.g., his paper What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist.)

Here’s the problem. Libertarians think that taxation is theft, and that all giving, including the giving of money to the government, should be voluntary. Libertarians (of the minarchist/Randian variety) think that the (only) legitimate functions of government are providing defence and police forces and a judiciary, and that these functions should be funded voluntarily by the citizenry. But what if the citizenry don’t want to fund a minarchist state voluntarily? What then?

Here’s an excerpt from L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department to illustrate the problem.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care …

Elsewhere I presented the case for compulsory taxation. In the comments section to that post, a battle erupted between Damian Grant, a libertarian in the loose “More Freedom, Less Government” sense, and Mark Hubbard, a devout minarchist. Damian didn’t manage to better my case for compulsory taxation, but Mark didn’t score any points either. The whole thing was left hanging.

When Christian libertarians confront statists, statists just love to throw the Good Book at them! There are two Bible passages commonly mentioned.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been confronted with Jesus’s injunction to render unto Caesar. But this objection is easily demolished. To render is to give back. Jesus tells us to give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give back to God what is God’s. But what do we have that is Caesar’s? What have the Romans ever done for us?

Elsewhere, of course, the Bible tells us that all things belong to God. So the objection is easily dealt with.

Seemingly more difficult to deal with is the second objection, viz., Romans 13.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (NIV)

This objection is taken so seriously by Christian libertarians that the Facebook group of the same name deals with this passage (and only this passage) specifically in its “About” section.

A very common question new members have is, “What do you think about Romans 13?” One member has shared a Facebook doc with links to the various discussions we have had:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/290101931017604/doc/491608790866916/

Here are two additional essays on Romans 13:
http://libertarianchristians.com/2008/11/28/new-testament-theology-2/
http://libertarianchristians.com/2013/04/02/theology-doesnt-begin-and-end-with-romans-13/

But, far from dooming minarchist libertarianism, Romans 13 is its salvation! For, without this crucial passage, there is nothing in the Bible or anywhere else to stop the slide into anarchism.

I’ve been looking for a Biblical justification of libertarianism ever since I heard this speech. Now I think I’ve found it. In the last place I ever thought to look.

Romans 13 is libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless.

1 Peter, 2 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, John, Mark, Matthew, Psalms, Sheeple, Tax

Let them eat worms

Wednesday 7 May 2014 Richard 3 Comments

Behold the ~~fowls of the air~~ beneficiaries of welfare: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your ~~heavenly Father~~ welfare State feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? (KJV)

Now, if I meant to sound particularly harsh, I’d add that

if any would not work, neither should he eat. (KJV)

But that was the instruction of the Apostle Paul to his brothers and sisters in Christ in the church of the Thessalonians. Whereas, the bread of life himself explicitly instructed us to give food to the hungry and also remarked that the poor we will always have with us. So, no excuses!

What about welfare state? The welfare state is the biggest excuse around for not giving food to the hungry! “It’s not my job, I pay my taxes, no one starves in New Zealand, we have government welfare handouts to which everyone is entitled in times of need …” No doubt, you’ve heard it all before.

Real Christian charitable giving has nothing to do with paying taxes to fund a welfare state. In his post on Real voluntary private Charity vs the evils of welfare and Political force my co-blogger Tim makes this point exceptionally well. I have little to add.

But I will say this much. It seems to me that the Bible implicitly instructs us not to fund the welfare state. Jesus famously told us to “render to Caesar [i.e., unto the government] the things that are Caesar’s.” (KJV) Does that mean that, to follow our Lord’s instruction, we should gladly pay our taxes? No, not at all! ‘Render’ means to give back. Give back to the government that which already belongs to the government. But what is that which already belongs to the government? Your hard-earned dollars? No, I don’t think so. I think your hard-earned dollars belong to you. And you must not give them under compulsion.

The Apostle Paul wrote

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (ESV)

We are to give generously, not grudgingly. Any gift of ours is to be given

as a willing gift, not as an exaction. (ESV)

Furthermore, the Apostle Peter wrote

I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. (ESV)

We are to look after the sheeple not under compulsion, but willingly. And we are not to domineer over those in our charge. This brings me to a further and final point.

We are not to exact. Instead, we are to act. As examples.

Do not treat the poor and needy like trained circus seals! Do not seek to make welfare beneficiaries jump through hoops. Freely scatter your gifts to the poor! Dignity for dignity. (NIV)

Don’t be a Carol Gaither!

Mark

He has risen! He is not here.

Sunday 20 April 2014 Richard Leave a comment

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (NIV)

Mark

No sex in Heaven

Tuesday 25 February 2014 Richard 3 Comments

Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (NIV)

What is Heaven? What is eternal life? Although the Bible tells us little, at least Heaven and eternal life rate a mention. (Not so with that other place, Hell, which isn’t mentioned once in literal translations of the Bible, such as Young’s Literal Translation.)

How do you think you’re going to spend the rest of eternity?

Black Sabbath, Demonic Possession, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Miracles, Pigs, Shrinkage

The problem of comorbidity

Sunday 5 January 2014 Richard 5 Comments

I once suggested that Objectivism is a form of demonic possession.

My unusual suggestion was not well received. One of the usual suspects had this to say.

Richard, your speculation is not a legitimate scientific theory … because demons do not exist, neither do gods, fairies, Santa’s-little-helpers or harpies. You’ve never seen one, heard one, touched one, smelled one nor tasted one, neither can you provide an iota of rationale that there exists such a spirit in the universe.

What was called “demon possession” by religionists is mental illness. You’re giving a psychiatric condition a superstitious definition. You call that scientific?

What is called mental illness by psychiatrists is demonic possession. I don’t call the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders scientific, and neither do many clinical neuroscientists.

Diagnostic Classification Needs Fundamental Reform

The problem with the DSM-IV, our current shared diagnostic language, is that a large and growing body of evidence demonstrates that it does a poor job of capturing either clinical [or] biological realities. In the clinic, the limitations of the current DSM-IV approach can be illustrated in three salient areas: (1) the problem of comorbidity, (2) the widespread need for “not otherwise specific (NOS)” diagnoses, and (3) the arbitrariness of diagnostic thresholds.

Both in clinical practice and in large epidemiological studies, it is highly likely that any patient who receives a single DSM-IV diagnosis will, in addition, qualify for others, and the patient’s diagnostic mixture may shift over time. There is a high frequency of comorbidity—for example, many patients are diagnosed with multiple DSM-IV anxiety disorders and with DSM-IV dysthymia (chronic mild depression), major depression, or both. Many patients with an autism–related diagnosis are also diagnosed with, obsessive-compulsive disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The frequency with which patients receive multiple diagnoses far outstrips what would be predicted if co-occurrence were happening simply by chance. Researchers who have made careful studies of comorbidity, such as Robert Krueger at the University of Minnesota, have found that co-occurring diagnoses tend to form stable clusters across patient populations, suggesting to some that the DSM system has drawn many unnatural boundaries within broader psychopathological states.

If the concept of mental illness does “a poor job of capturing either clinical [or] biological realities” then how, exactly, is it an advance over the concept of demonic possession?

Two thousand years ago the Gospel authors were well aware of the problem of comorbidity and, in fact, mention it no less than twice.

In the introduction to the Parable of the Sower in the Gospel of Luke we read

Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out (NIV)

and in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke we read (variations of) the story of the Gadarene Swine. It’s one of my favourites.

They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee. When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don’t torture me!” For Jesus had commanded the impure spirit to come out of the man. Many times it had seized him, and though he was chained hand and foot and kept under guard, he had broken his chains and had been driven by the demon into solitary places.

Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”

“Legion,” he replied, because many demons had gone into him. And they begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss. (NIV)

A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.” He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

Those tending the pigs ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man—and told about the pigs as well. Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.

As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. Jesus did not let him, but said, “Go home to your own people and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people were amazed. (NIV)

We all have demons and we often refer to them in animistic terms.

Me, I’m intimately familiar with the Black Dog. Depression’s a bitch, for sure. Thank God, she’s been sent packing and I haven’t seen her in a while. But my mind’s still holiday home to a menagerie of monkeys.

Psychiatric counselling and psychiatric drugs can and do help those afflicted by so-called mental illnesses … somewhat. So I’m not knocking psychiatrists and psychiatry … much.

So, what about exorcism? I’ll leave that to another psychotic episode.

Ants, Ecclesiastes, Mark, Matthew, Proverbs

Does the Bible condemn laziness and stupidity?

Sunday 15 December 2013 Richard 4 Comments

Proverbs 6:6-9 KJV
Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:
Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler,
Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.
How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?

Proverbs 10:26 ESV
Like vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to those who send him.

Proverbs 18:9 ESV
Whoever is slack in his work is a brother to him who destroys.

Proverbs 24:30-34 ESV
I passed by the field of a sluggard, by the vineyard of a man lacking sense, and behold, it was all overgrown with thorns; the ground was covered with nettles, and its stone wall was broken down. Then I saw and considered it; I looked and received instruction. A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.

Proverbs 26:14-16 ESV
As a door turns on its hinges, so does a sluggard on his bed. The sluggard buries his hand in the dish; it wears him out to bring it back to his mouth. The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who can answer sensibly.

Ecclesiastes 9:10 ESV
Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

Mark 7:18 NIV
“Are you so dull?” he asked.

Matthew 15:16 NIV
“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them.

Discuss.

Consciousness, Cosmology, Faith, Free will, Go Hard!, Hope, King James Bible, Liberate your Mind!, Mark, Materialism, Miracles, Monism vs Dualism, Science, Zombies

The Christian conception of death… not Annihilation, but the separation of the soul from the body. William Lane Craig.

Monday 9 December 2013 Tim 10 Comments

hildebrandtbrothers911tribute

The materialist/ monist view of death is that once the Body dies… the conscious being of a person is annihilated… because to their way of thinking our consciousness is nothing more that the result of an attunement of atoms.
Thus there can be no judgement for sins because not only in the materialist view is there no judge.
They say their is no objective moral Law, nor ‘anyone’ to be held account… the actions of a person merely being the blind outworking of Materialist determinism.

It is vitally important to distinguish this false conception of Human life and death from what the Bible clearly teaches… and that is that Death does not result in the annihilation of the conscious being/ personality… which being created in the image of God is both non-materialistic, and eternal… and morally capable (possessed of conscious free-will) and accountable.

It defies belief that there are many ‘highly educated’ people who claim to be Christians yet fail to be able to believe in Man’s Dualistic nature.
They dont believe in Freewill.
They dont believe any part of us survives death.
In these things they are Atheists.
What is even more absurd is that the say they reject Dualism because they cant understand it… deluding themselves that they *can understand* how consciousness can be derived from Dead matter!
The reality is that the cannot understand such a thing either!
Yet they have been sucked so far down the superstitious highway of Naturalism… the false religion of our age…. that they trust in the follies of rebellious and vain human scholarship and pseudo-science rather than in the word of God.

What is doubly ironic is that Christ himself condemned the heretical Jewish sect called the Sadducee’s
for believing these very same *monist* beliefs in respect to Life after death, and judgement.
He told them that at that very moment Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were *Alive*… though their bones were in their sepulchres.

“…Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.
And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.”
Jesus Christ.
Mark 12vs 18-27.

That the soul goes on is one of the most beautiful, yet frightening truths of the scriptures.
It is both Hope and Dread.
Hope for those of us who have faith in Christ and have a burning longing to be reunited with our loved ones… and with God our Father, and Christ our Saviour in eternity.
yet still it is dread for those of us who have faith in Christ, yet fear the reality that many of our fellow sinners… Family members and friends have rejected Salvation and will be lost for eternity.

These are the ultimate realities of Christianity.
They are too much for ‘the Natural man’ to comprehend… they are foolishness unto them.
Read St Paul… 1 Corinthians chapter 1.

more Blog posts on Monism vs Dualism…
Christopher Hitchens Dies.

Superstition?

The Rusty Cage: Scientism.

Deuteronomy, Exegesis, King James Bible, Luke, Mark, Matthew

Thou shalt THINK

Thursday 1 August 2013 Richard 6 Comments

I noticed something interesting about the Great Commandment.

The first and great commandment is stated in the Gospel of Matthew

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy MIND.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (KJV)

and stated again in the Gospel of Luke

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy MIND (KJV)

and again in the Gospel of Mark

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy MIND, and with all thy strength (KJV)

(emphasis mine).

Notice how in each Gospel account you are commanded to love God with all your MIND? That’s odd, because Jesus is supposedly quoting a verse from the Book of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. But there’s no mention of MIND.

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (KJV)

So where did MIND come from? I think it’s a Christian innovation. I think Jesus is commanding us to THINK. What do you THINK?

Do you believe that the Bible (in particular, the KJV) is the inerrant Word of God? Then please explain why Jesus misquotes himself. (But first go away and have a THINK.)

Eternal Vigilance