Christian Tumblr Themes

Text Post Fri, Jul. 01, 2011 43 notes


It is grief inducing that people despise their own loving Creator, granted; and their markings of ludicrous hatred and boorish selfishness is a most tragic topic. However, I am much more melancholy and even further outraged at some of the Christian reaction to such symbolism of the enemy. Although it is most terrible that Satan has greatly caught up humanity with obsession with signs analogous to most ghastly and sinful concepts, it is downright DIGUSTING! the way some Christians have responded. I am referring to those overreactionary fools who take up superstition or blind defeatism for symbolism!

Woe to you, self-proclaimed Christians, who denounce symbols. You are no more morally sound in such denunciation than the Catholics were when they considered certain musical genres and tone qualities evil or scientist condemn faith (an element necessary for any knowledge besides self-existence and absolute truth)! Wake up! God blessed us with symbolism. By regarding them as evil and/or Satanically powerful enchantments, you have (1) negated a blessing of God (inspiration drawing/calligraphy), (2) slandered our faith (because you have made us look superstitious or unwelcoming to others), and (3) you have played yourselves and non-believers into the workmanship of Lucifer.

Oppositely, symbols are neutral in and of themselves. Surely, no Christian becomes stupidly and superficially superstitious over a cross? Good lord, the idiocy God must deal with! Nay, signs and significations are absolute gray area. But here’s an idea:

Satanists think they took the pentagram; Judiazers think they have the star of David; wiccans think they have the tetragram; and many God-haters utilize the upside-down cross. SO LET’S GET THEM BACK! We are the freed ones! Non-believers are intellectual enslaved by sin. Why should they be allowed to corrupt God’s gift of cryptic analogy? We should quit worrying about the Swastika and start using it for good. We should condem the culprits who exploited the Hammer and Sickle and then return their own sign for a valiant cause. We should steal the enemy’s weapons to spit on Satan’s gates whilst armed with them. No more superstition; no more blind negligence; take up the neutral ground and make Lucifer regret his endeavors. Let us collude to rob our enemy, to beat them with their own stick.

That is the nature of Christian warefare: conform to God to rebell against Satan.

Society vs. Actuality

1 John 2:15-17 “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world - the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life - is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.”

The other day I decided I would entertain myself with the 90s comedy TV show Frasier. Unfortunately, a certain sadness struck me when the episode encroached upon a philosophical query: “What is happiness?” In the show, Frasier (a psychologist for a radio talkshow host helping listeners and callers with their life problems) sits with his brother Niles (a colleague of psychology who works privately) and is asked by Niles whether he is happy. After being mocked by Niles for excogitating the question to death, Frasier interrupts and returns the question to Niles. Of course, Niles philosophizes as well, though to a lesser degree, remarking about how he recently watched a program on TV showing the joy a poverty stricken child (in Africa) elated when that child received new shoes; thence complaining that though his new shoes were incredibly expensive and thus of superior quality, alike his house and other items alluded, they did not bring anywhere near the same amount of jovial celebration the poor youth in African received. Later in the show Frasier and his father end up quarreling about the father’s living quarters in Frasier’s house. Feeling positive after the fight is resolved, Frasier finally feels confident to answer Niles’ query about his life’s status of happiness at the end of the show: he concludes that he is, overall, happy.

This part - this episode, rather, particularly disappointed me because it showed how much of the world believes mankind’s contentedness is merely an unvoluntary reaction to circumstance. It exemplified the common thought that good events or bad events render our emotional status this way or that. Poppycock! Did Ruth or Esther whine when their worlds were so harsh? Did Job dishonor God just because of his horrid position? What was Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego’s reaction when their life was worst, when they were spent and all odds were against them, when they were about to be tossed into a furnace… FOR MERELY REMAINING FAITHFUL TO GOD?! Daniel 3:16-18 reads their reaction to such a threat, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If [we are to worship or burn in the furnace], our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.” Yes, in the face of being charred to crisp, did they bend their wills? Were they uncontent? Indeed, not! These three men even declared that should God decide not to rescue them (“But if not…”), they would still be faithful to Him.

Ladies and gentlemen, contentedness is a choice. It is the choice to be faithfully obedient and happy to serve God and mourn evil regardless of all costs, not! a simplistic and animalistic reaction to a matter of instance. Wherever you are, however you are, praise God, even if He does not save you form your earthly torment because afterwords, the kingdom of heaven is yours. Afterwards, there shall be no pain.

- Anel

Text Post Wed, Jun. 29, 2011 2 notes

Concerning Apologetics

Greetings, fellow Christians and the non’!

It is very important that we Christians view God as He is: a God of truth. Our faith is not grounded in the self-propitiation of synchronicity nor the emotional resolve of mere opinion. God makes it very clear that our faith is to be reasoned: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope you have” (1 Peter 3:15) (compare 2 Corinthians 10:4-6; Philippians 1:7, 15-17). In fact, by these verses both blind faith and unfounded assumptions are denounced by the bible. God does not expect us to be irrational; why should He, since the evidence is on our side?!

Did you know that a Supreme Being is actually provable by mere logical deduction alone? No scientific evidence or empirical implications are required - mere reasoning can prove the existence of a Supreme Being. This is argument by reason alone is known as a priori in logic, and the following proof has been entitled the ontological argument since its reasoning is based on existence of thought vs. objective entity alone:

The words “that of which nothing greater can be thought” convey an entity which can not be surpassed by other acceptable (i.e. logical; real) entities (basically infinity). Those reading “that of which nothing greater can be thought”, who comprehends those words, must understand that the entity that those same words convey must subsist as a concept (cogito, ergo est cogitatione). At this point that entity is a thought and could merely be a thought alone or might exist as a concept and an entity notwithstanding thought (e.g. I think “stone”; stones are also physical objects whether we believe them or not). However, if one assumes that “that of which nothing greater can be thought” is only existant as conceptualization, then we could think of a greater “that of which nothing greater can be thought” - namely, one that exists both as a concept and as an entity objective to opinion - and a contradiction is formed. Ergo, since it is an impossibility that “that of which nothing greater can be thought” subsists as mere cerebration, and because we already concluded that we can conceptualize that same entity, “that of which nothing greater can be thought” MUST exist as a concept AND as an entity notwithstanding thought. Thus, “that of which nothing greater can be thought” does exist outside of intellectual process.

Now, “that of which nothing greater can be thought” is, by definition, infinity. And, by definition, the Supreme Being is infinity. Ergo, this argument proves a Supreme Being.

A few problems you might encounter if you toss this proof out there occur from existentialists and empiricists (skeptics; “Hume-ians”). An existentialist might argue against the former proof with something like, “Existence is subject to cerebration/does not exist outside of the mind”. If this occurs, don’t be boggled; the existentialist has actually just contradicted himself. You see, if all existence is defined by our thoughts then that rule (absolute truth), “all existence is defined by thought”, itself would have to be defined by thoughts (“subject to cerebration” or nonexistent ”outside of the mind”); however, I think “that rule is untrue” or “existence is not subject to thought” (that is, I use the definer to nullify the definition), therefore disproving “existence is subject to cerebration” by its own nature. This sort of argument is known as a self-defeating one, since its own requisites negate it. Likewise, a empiricist (skeptic) might attempt to disprove the argument by stating something like, “Things are only true if they can be verified by sense-experience and this a priori has no empirical evidence by definition.” Again this is a self-defeating argument since the empiricist’s argument itself is not verified by sense-experience, it is but an inferred metaphysical, abstract absolute truth (one which contradicts itself) just as it claims the ontological argument is. Just ask him, is that verified by sense-experience? Both your opponents in the debate will be struck with the anvil of logic (and flattened to the humble state of truth, if your opponents are honest).

Regardless, while this is a very useful proof against those knaves disaffirming the existence of a true God (Supreme Being), it does not specifically prove the God of the bible. Advocating the bible with the evidence is the step necessary to prove thus. I shall post about that in the near future.

Until then, remember that our faith is in truth, vindicated by the word. Don’t ever be convinced otherwise and be sure to read 1 Peter 3:15 to anyone who disagrees. 

- Anel