There is a question as to what heaven shall entail. Will it be all matter being reshaped into the chosen ones who shall receive new bodies and thus is materialistic? For if this is to happen, only those chosen to be reincarnated in matter will materially exist. This does not mean that things cannot be perfect. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so all matter is preserved until the end of time and even then it is just eternally present. Even now all that is to happen is eternally present, it is just future turning to past, energy exchanges, that occur which constitute change. This might mean truth to the Hindu idea of reincarnation in the preservation of mass and energy. It also might mean eternal recurrence in that creation resets itself to the beginning of creation. The conservation of mass and energy seems to create the environment for positive existential feedback so long as it is set in motion by god setting existence in a unstable state that must equalize. It is said that there shall be a new heaven and a new earth. But are these merely new conditions or new existent things? In the face of religion my whole theory might be unbiblical, but whose to say it's wrong just because it does not line up with popular interpretations of the biblical truth? One might argue consensus among those with the holy spirit to guide interpretation is what is truth biblically, but cannot man collectively deceive himself as he does singularly? And what if it's merely that god has yet to fully reveal a truth scratched upon by my interpretation? And who is to say to god that he has not more prophets to speak through? One might argue that this is because the bible claims to be the finisher to scripture, but could it not be that god is waiting to open his mouth again just as he declared it closed? And what are the apostles themselves to think of their contributions to scripture, the word of god. Would Paul call his letters to churches words of god? And how is god not speaking  now physically, but only in our hearts? I know god uses us for unequal purposes, but how are we to interpret our various purposes amongst each other? I feel like religion and doctrine are   

Used as an outlet. This itself is a theoretical doctrine, an outlet for me to personally insert my sense of intrinsic atheistic value into existence by claiming it is the will of god. I hold on to my value by valuing my authority in making this claim. It is near inescapable, the weight god bears in his sovereignty that we try so desperately to bear. It is like a rock does not bear the weight of it's existence if it is to move, a mover must bear that for him, yet a rock in it's movement cannot claim it's weight in existence if it is to move for a rock cannot move it's weight itself and must either bear is weight immobilized or move as its weight is bore by another on no part of the rocks assistance. Again though, my own thought on how we are to interpret our purposes, for we are not static, but dynamic, moving according to them; is by faith. Faith in the one bearing our weight in his movement of us. Faith is not an act of us though, for we must be free of our weight for faith, just as weightlessness is required to walk on water, for in weightlessness, we defy the understood laws of nature as he defines them through us in our very existence, just as “rocks can't float” is redefined to “rocks can float”. This is only done through gods word becoming flesh. Christ was the first fruit of gods harvest, his redefinition, restoration, revelation of the truth hidden within his creation awaiting the moments of fulfillment that come about only in his presense as the rocks cry out his glory, and he is omnipresent, thus so also is his declaration of his glory, for the very creation is his declaration and it is present, though we do not see it fully in our limited finite perspective of his infinite sovereignty that penetrates us even in our most hidden subjective existence, in the presence and lack of presence of faith active upon our hearts.  Yes even in the lack of faith his sovereignty is inescapable, for it is only due to that faith that it is recognized, so in lack of faith one’s recognition still rests under the sovereignty of God.  But again, faith does not justify my judgement, only His, for he judges us based on our faith.  I may empirically observe what appear to be signs of faith in others, but this is an apperance and I cannot make of the real thing only by the indistinguishable counterfiet representation of reality from within my mind.  That said, faith is what God gives us in bearing our weight, he gives us nothingness not non-existence, but nothingness meaning we are light enough to walk on water because Christ bore the weight of creation as he walked on water and made it.  The difference between those who live in faith and those who live in law is that in law they float in the water only by boat.  People craft boats of moral legislation so that they can float, but due to the law of thermodynamics, that things decompose and lose their ability to bear weight by breaking from potiential into kinetic energy, they sink and drown in the ocean because inevitably their ship leaks.  They try patching the leaks, but they sink.  We die by the law, for we are our laws, the foundation of them as we originate them from broken hearts.  We die, but in the ocean we are softened and pulled up by Christ to be refashioned out of clay into men who can walk upon water like Christ, for Christ took upon the weight of us and the water for us.  He holds us up upon the surface of the water, holding it together in tension as he walks with us stride for stride in our sin.  This tension, this relationship, is faith, it is the expression of God’s endless love for us, that Christ bears our weight from under our sin, that our sin of infathomable depth is conquered by Christ in his infathomable strength.  We are so weak, but can only walk upon the water through Christ’s strength extended to us in the gift of faith.  Only in this manner do one’s beliefs float, for only through the foundation of Christ upon which the foundation of our existence rests upon, are we capable of beliefs, for we now float in faith.  The boats of ourselves that were former foundations of our beliefs appear to float, but in the end they giveway to their weight in weakness and sink.  There is no way to hold off the inevitable wrath of God for our sins no matter how long we seem to float and God sees right through our “strength” and “moral integrety” the whole time, for he created us and knows our hearts as they exist temporally and spacially, and spiritually( which might be existence in general).  It might be that spacial-temporal existence, physically/mentally, is the manifestation of spirituality.  Just a thought, I doubt its true though theoretically plausible.  -In vein of everything being spiritual.  It would be monistic spirituallism as opposed to typical dualism and trism.  All different ways of seeing the same coin of existence in that only one idea is true (which might not be around yet ie revealed), but considering there is only truth and a lie is just a perversion of the truth, maybe existential dualism or pluralism gives way to a monism and that is the true state of things.  There must be pluralism of some kind though or else all things in the end are one which is plausible, though does not seem biblical.  I think there are different degrees of states of things that make up the complexity of creation.  So Christ had to die once for the redemption of the monistic category called creation and as redemption plays out in creation, we see it in all the diverse states within creation.  Now whether God must be apart of the category to interact with it is a different story.  He entered creation as Christ in a certain state of man to redeem the entire category that is creation.  In a way it is interesting that man be made the pinicle of creation.  And that man be the stewards of it.  He made man the pinicle so that through Christ he could redeem creation and complete his will unfolding in creation.  Again, Christ is God’s hands and feet.  I think God is separate from creation and is only linked to it under the category of relational existence.  He is self-suficient in relation with the trinity, but through salvation, that communion expresses itself in creation and thus involves it in that communion.  Yet creation is not made an equal to it, it is just used by the trinity to express it’s communion in existential medium.  This is just as I use pen upon paper to express my singular relation to creation within it.  My existence is within the ideas expressed existentially upon paper in ink, but this does not contain me nor does it control me, though it does reflect me as creation does God.  In this way I know concretely Ideas I have abstractly and thus like mud makes bricks, I build a house of Ideas upon the page.  I don’t think like Hegel, that creation was so that God might know his relational or existential essence.  He is quite concious without us, for I feel you must be a concious being to create truth and your selfconciousness does not just generate out of your creation.  This may apply to man because he is conciously incomplete though he maybe existentially complete.  This transition occurs as his future becomes past for him to see his reflection through; but for God, his existence and relation is already complete prior to creation.  We will only know the complete purpose when creation is temporally complete.  Till then, we again only have faith in Christ to stand on, thus we cannot know for certain our best courses of action, we can only act on faith, and faith is the only way we can act.  When we act without faith we truly just drown like dead men.  Now this may open the door for some compatibilism in that an action is free, but by an act that requires faith; I mean a determined action outside of one’s existential volition.  It might work.....But I feel as though sin inhibits action of any kind, so not only are we existentially damned in sin in our identity, our volition and manueverability which are how we come to understand our identity are also damned in sin.  Maybe it is Kantian; we are immobile against our inclinations unless Reason(or in this case God) jumps in and by either revelation showing us in spirit the objective choice(compatibilist morality in that we have free will, but can only do good because of God, yet can still choose good in face of bad because revelation pertains only to conciousness not action.) (It could also be more strict in that when the objective is revealed, we cannot choose otherwise which seems like Kant’s misarticulation of freewill in that Reason is free to will itself and according to itself and only in this is it free; but it is obvious to reason that the rational and thus only thing to do is something one can wish all to do in that moment,) (which is another word for situation as one exists in a moment temporally and spacially and thus in a conditional, making the whole basis of Kant’s unconditional law only feasable by one non-existent rational being, or the moment clause is meaningless.) (Meaning one is only morally bound to the universal possible actions that one’s own actions would justify.  This sounds hypothetical and not intrinsic to me.)  Thus Kant’s categorical imperative still is subjectively based or is abstractly based on a hypothetical thought experiement regarding not existing or universally existing, as a basis from which one can derive morals.  The universal existence being his intended direction is ironic for he inadvertently arrives at the sinful state of man and justifies it’s moral authority.  Imagining one’s self as a lawgiver for all rational beings constitutes the basis for all moral maxims by which the will determines itself?  Yes, I will agree that human reason does determine itself by a subjective thought experiement that attempts to project a hypothetical universal conscience as it’s moral basis for action, but this is the mere ghost of God’s image of reason reflected in us that is appealed to, not God himself.  So either This is all we have and God is either our imagination or agnostically impossible to obtain moral direction from, and therefore this foundation of morality which is mere subjectivism guised under the projection of universalism,

OR

Kant merely(intentionally or inevitably inadvertently in his quest for moral basis outside of an external foundation “in itself” has come upon the foundation of sinful nature in that by projecting a universal conscience hypothetically to judge our actions, we attempt and try in more ways than just Kant’s categorical methods, to make imperatives for ourselves based in the scewed reason within our hearts that makes us inevitably believe we need no God for morality, for we can rationally derive morality from the universal condition of reason that resides in us all, justifying us all in existing as gods of ourselves.

Kant and everyone falsely assumes we can derive morality from our reason, for our existence is not but an apparition; the world is just an apparition to the subjective reason, so he can merely reshape its appearance as he sees fit.  This merely leaves us all in a state of irrational moral babel as we all subjectively project the universal world hypothetically drawn by our incomplete rationale and from our fragmental expression of God’s image in our subjective existence we create a whole world where we are gods, centering the moral condition of the world upon ourselves, for we have the strength of reason.  And because of this I appeal to faith, for it is from an external source though experienced subjectively.  The two look the same, for Kant’s is a counterfeit, a mother nature, to the reality of God, external of His creation, but expressing His communal existence within it.  Kant, your freewill is a slave to reason or inclination either way and your reason is only as true or tangible as the facts through which you represent it.  Meaning that only until you have all the facts you have not the means to express your reason to yourself accurately.  In essence Kant, I am free, for unlike you I am not bound to my existential weight drowning in the sea of my sin, but I am weightless, floating upon the surface of the water blown by the Breath of God, and like an apparition my “will” directs me as he adjusts my will in accord with his through faith in his love and because of this I have hope, a hope that extends beyond my immediate subjection, a hypothetical projection of the universal as an apparition of my subjective existence; Yes I have a basis for my faith and it is based in Christ, who was sent into the world by God in himself and descended to earth as Christ, then to me subjectively through the Holy Spirit.  This Holy Communion expressed within his creation is the basis of my faith, for without Him I would have no faith, and no way of distinguishing my existence as concrete from mere apparition, for I would be but a subjective perspective out of any grasp of the truth, for it is given to me in graceful love, through faith, so that I might have hope, a hope whose basis transcends my existence and is an authority in and of itself:

GOD

The Death of Smell is in the Air

The Death of Smell is in the Air

The scent filled air enters my nostrils, but reaches not my senses for I am sick.  I am broken and cannot engage in sensory; I am left in destitute, utter misery.  A fly pesters my snout as I breathe in but not out.  I feel as though I am one fifth a dead man, for the roses have as much scent as the sand.  I am only four fifths alive, as I cannot engage in what brings bees out of the hive.  I am lost in this garden unable to be affected, for this world is invisible in lack of scent sensory.  Oh I can hear, I can see, but what good is that to me if I cannot see, with my nose.   Oh flower’s scent is in vain as it grows, fainter in my present perception, Oh how I ask for resurrection, of my nasal sight, so that I can see aromal light.  I can see, but then I cannot, for a flower is but black and white without the color of it’s scent.  Oh where oh where is my precious nose went?  On what has my aromal awareness been spent?  It is gone and it shall not be long until the end of the four that are still alive.  Smell is the first dead in my sensory made up of five. Until then I wait for resurrection into blissful recollection of what I once knew as smell.  My nose now of smell knows not.  The difference between rose and rank odor forgot.  Oh my sense of smell is none but rot.  Oh the bitter despair, my nose for no purpose but air.  I look into illness’ dulling stare, and cannot do so with a care, for sickness cares not none for me. 

Eco Nihilism

The Atheistic religion of science and the Theistic religion of the spiritual escapism both may conflict over the origin of the universe, but both are ideologically parallel in their Ecologically Nihilistic ramifications. Atheism strips the soul out of ecological science and therefore the purpose and necessity of integration with nature, for in technological progression rest the hope of man's escape from his essential dependence upon natural resources. Ecological preservation becomes nothing more than Sisyphus's absurd attempt to restore the rock of man's existential impact upon it's natural place upon the hill and in doing so trying to erase his existence using his existence in futile absurdity until he simply dies. What of the Sun? How can man replenish that resource? How can man escape the entropy that ensnares us all into absurd existence? Spiritual escapism on the other hand justifies it's ecological destruction in the name of a Deity. One that created something in order that it might be destroyed. In this the ecology also has no purpose other than being a means to an end that results in its destruction. The science of ecology has nothing on the escapist promise of another world after death. It cannot sway to its cause one who must reject the world in order to avoid being destroyed along with it. What then is the purpose of life now here on earth? Why not just hasten the arrival of the new earth in the act of destroying the old? Why even be placed upon the earth if the soul is all that matters?

The ideology of Ecological preservation gives rise to the necessity of a new religion to sustain it, for left man's own devices he moves into polarities of Atheism and Theistic spiritual escapism. For it to persist it must have a purpose that transcends the immediate reality we know on earth. This is why there is a great awakening of new age religion that focuses on oneness with the universe, for passion requires a soul, which Atheistic science lacked a belief in. It requires also identification with one's surroundings which spiritual escapism alienates itself from. The Ecological argument requires more than Atheist realism and Theistic idealism to sustain it, it requires spirituality. A spirituality of pantheistic form that sees purpose, or a god in nature and not outside of it, whether it is believed to exist or not.

This new form of spirituality comes out of eons of agnosticism whether that be saying there is no way to prove there is a god or that events unfold as a means to an unknowable end of god's. Man is finally in blindly just accepting that he can know the purpose of the universe through knowledge of his inner self and thus can arrive at a harmony with his surroundings. For what he is seeing he needs no eyes, for empiricism and rationality inhibit him from the truth. And the gospel of this new movement is universal harmony and the works of this movement come in the form of ecological preservation. They hide among the rational Atheists by focusing on the science behind Ecologicalism and they hide among Theists passionately enticing them with the idea of accepting rather than rejecting the spiritual reality of nature. Their eyes may be open, but what's to say that this isn't merely an illusion of spirituality like all the other religions atheism has crushed with science? Whose to say this new spirituality is not an evil attempt to deceive the souls of many away from the old views of Theism? The Atheists and Theists both retain their agnosticism in relation to the Ecologicalist, but they find ways to relate in doing so, by playing with the new rational ways to explain the spiritual in quantum physic and by explaining the history of Theism as a vein of the grander scheme of human spiritual expression.

My question is why are both opposing sides finding middle ground with this new breed? It is either that is true, which being a skeptic I doubt is the case, though there must as always with any lie be some true within it that is corrupted in order for the lie to exist. Or it is that this is simply man's natural response to a nihilistic world devoid of a full grasp on the truth. That man must in absurdity, find his purpose by creating it, but must insulate himself from the knowledge of his authorship by penning the story in pseudonymious form of spirituality. For only then can he come to terms with life's unquenchable search for purpose being insignificantly cut short of enlightenment.

My Dream of Solitude

I Wish my dreams did not change with each new awaking. I'd like to have just one dream for the rest of my life so that I could make at least one come true. I do dare insist as an excuse that I am a reinasance man in the making, for from each dawn until every dusk I am in racing, after dream after dream, I pursue, all a new fresh path ripe for the taking. Oh the journey of Sisyphus alongside of him I ensue, with the everlasting plight of rolling rock upon a hill, this very trek mine the same I am making. I set my fate and merely wait to be forced back down against my will, and back down I will turn up to go yet again. Oh what sorrow, such bleak sadness in all my future days that follow closely as they be shaded by the days past that foreshadowed me. Oh the burdensome weight of life in it's absurdity, seems now to be my sole, single and only friend on my voyage with no sight of an end to see.

To My Future Wife Whereever and Whomever She May Be

I don't love you....God does. Our marriage is merely a reflection of how God loves the both of us in that the love comes not from us but Him therefore it is unshakeable and unstopable. May we remember that God loves through us and that it is not we who love in and of ourselves, lest we be discouraged by our inability to truly love outside of the pure love that only is of God. May we thank God everyday for the love He gives us for one another, for without His love we would have nothing, we would be nothing, two incomplete people on their own attempting to fashion together two broken hearts as one when only in His love can our hearts melt together as one.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Art and It's Relation to the Human Quest of Classifying Reality.

Art is simply the act of taking fragments of one's life experiences and editing them together to constuct a new whole, with a new meaning and purpose. Thus all men are artists for we all only have fragments, and from that we create an incomplete perspective that we believe to be a whole. We are artists simply because we cannot grasp things in their entirety and must methodically disassemble things into fragments them reassemble them back together in our head. Thus we have a subjective understanding of things because everything we experience goes through this filter. The evidence for this is seen in the fact that people break ideas down into more manageable and manuveable parts.....for example we use individual symbols in sequences to create words and use words to collectively comunicate ideas....this process subjects the overall idea being communicated to degeneration as the details of the idea slip thru the gaps in language both nationally and individually, for even within the same language words can have different conotations to different people based upon their prior experiences with a word. Just for clarification subjectivity does not mean no universal truth. Anyone assuming that merely proves my point about the subjectivity of word meaning due to prior experiences......I'll explain that if anyone does try to counter my claim that universal truth and subjectivity can coexist. All I can say is it is much like the blindmen and the elephant.......just three subjectively misinterpret the identity of the elephant, yet the elephant is still an elephant no matter how far from that truth the blindmen are due to their fabricated perspective of the entire elephant which is founded upon merely a fragment of the whole. The men in this situation may be able to grasp the whole eventually if they collectively orient each other with the part of the elephant they understand, but even still they have not universal experiences but subjective ones as individuals, thus this method will fail, for they will not be able to traverse the barriers set upon them by their individualized internal languages that are based upon the human act of dividing and categorizing experinces, editing them together into new sequences which are organized according to the structure of an individual's mind. This structure develops from birth as the result of the brain actively processing experiences in life. Experiences shape how we organize future experiences. Just as one places the word ant near where one formerly placed an A. Our structures are similar due to language, but even then not identical, for we all to not share the exact same experience with anyone. We may have the same experience externally, but internally they differentiate, for interpretation is part of the process of experience as an experience never reaches us without first being processed throught the filter of our past experiences. Art therefore is our attempt to communicate our experience with others.What ends up happening is we try to recopy our mental record of an experience into a physical record. I forgot to add back when I spoke about how the brain develops Its organizational structure that the structure is like the format as in like a computer harddrive. This format of the brain is constantly updated with each new addition of an experience, thus it is difficult again for communication, for things can take on new meanings over time. So back to art. This physical record is then art, which we issue to others as an attempt to recreate the internal experience of an external event in life. This then is interpreted thru the same process that recorded the original experience of the actively artistic individual, therefore the meaning degenerates even further just as film degenerates each time the negatives are reprocessed. The means erodes even more as the receiving individual views the physical record through the internal record of their experience while externally experiencing the physical record. This event allows for external interference with the individuals external experience. And now I Have exhausted all that is currently on my mind about this subject and must allow the process of experience to restore the reserves of mind. It's all art......it's all human expression......modern art is merely testing the boundaries of visual communication, but it's all the same. Some experiences are very close to being universal, but all are subjective. There is no way for two men to see life from the same mind, although that is the primary endevour of art. See the older art primarily used structures that are more on the universal side of the spectrum. The more specific and detailed the more universal, for that makes it easier for one to identify what one is and isn't familiar with. With abstract, everything is not exactly specific, thus the meaning is not really what is on the canvas, but how the individual organizes the structures presented within the picture inside his mind. This therfore is why modern abstract art seems more subjective. Also it is why artists strove to capture things abstractly, for it left their interpretation of the experience as far out of it as possible, for it is impossible to view anything outside of ones individual perspective completely, but one can try with different methods that came about during modern art. This lead to questions of whether artists were even to be called artists anymore, for sometimes they were so removed from their perspective in a record that it was more like it was just an event that was experienced by an audience rather than an actually human to human communication. Thus some art merely is a record of natural events. An example of this is a guy who hung paint cans from a ceiling to paint. Even then though it is still art, for the artist is communicating his experience with the impurity of human communication and as a result communicates his ambition to achieve communication that is free from subjectivity impurities. The only thing that can express objective truth is existence, but even that is interpreted thru our subjective eyes, thus we cannot be certain as to whether our existence has any solid objective backing or is merely an ungrounded false assumption founded upon our sujective interpretation of our internal experience of existence which is compiled from a collection of external experiences carried to to our brain by electrical impulses thru the nervous system. For all we know the nerves that give us a reason to believe we exist may not exist themselves. This really obliterates the entire structure of human logic when the rest of the order behind human interpretation and experience follow the path that the nonexistence of our nerve endings forms. All our logic is founded upon the structure that we form when we use our nerve endings to gather experiences outside of the interal world that is our minds. Thus if it turns out that our nerves do not exist, we potientially might not exist, for everything which we believed existed based upon evidence collected thru the nonexistent nerve endings is questionable, for something non existent cannot be used as evidence to prove the existence of anything else. This means everything we have ever experienced externally is potientially non existant and everything we have internally experienced is potientially non existence, for internal experiences are based upon external ones. Even if they are purely internal like thoughts, they still are based upon some kind of externally absorbed idea. One cannot think of something that to him does not exist, and since we test existence with external experience, all that we think about has some form of external origin. This means that if the external origin of something is in question pertaining to the matter of existence, then the whole structure that is based upon that external thing is in question of not existinig, therefore even the presence of thoughts cannot be used to indicate one exists. Eventually this destroyed every belief one had as the foundation is first destroyed, thus the very soundness of ones logic is brought into question which is uncertainy and essentially destruction. It's like a domino effect. If ones own ability to reason is in question based upon the fact that ones reason was entirely based upon an internally created perspective of external data coming from the nervous system that has been proven to be potientially nonexistent, then ones entire web of reason left unfounded and uncertain and potientially false, thus one potientially is non existent since the web of reason from which one declares the logical argument in defence of their existence is potientially founded upon experiences that occured through something that may not even exist. For that matter everything one has ever known may poteintially be nonexistent under these conditions.

True love must be grown into

True love is a mold that two must grow into, like a funnel blending them together as one. They start out separate, but thru the funnel of true love come out as one.....a child is the resulting concoction of two seperate solutions blended together down the funnel of true love.