The science of unbelief

It never ceases to amaze me how much time people spend creating an identity for themselves out of a set of ideas rooted in the quasi-intellectual narrative of science. There is a scientific approach to everything these days, including toward constructing business models for exploiting the weak to make the world a playground for despots and tyrants. Behind every scientific technique of exploitation and domination one can see the indelible influence of the psycho brigade, whose construction of reality wobbles precariously on a pinhead of a premise that the narrative of cultural musings and theories is more reliable than the narrative of Jesus Christ.

Great institutions hand out certificates to their indoctrinated siblings in a vain hope that pieces of paper will equip people with enough knowledge, and therefore sufficient material means, to construct a meaningful identity regulated and maintained by self – the very core of sin and idolatry.

Sciences that work toward the goal of seducing mankind into believing it has supreme authority over its own environment and has the power to be a master of its own destiny and its future are deluded. It is a delusion back dated to the day when consciousness of God was influenced by the science of doubting the obvious, when the prototype spiritual man Adam, doubted the obvious truth that his existence was neither man–made, nor an environmental accident, but a generous gift of God. It’s all right to be a free thinker but it’s daft to use free thinking as a means to die in your sin.

I am amazed how people spend their lives enslaved to the treadmill of constructing an identity based on the lie that nothing occurs after physical death, that God is not going to do what He has always promised. The illogical belief that life will convert to oblivion has become a global trade in the certification of atheism; and along with it the certification of nihilism where the definition of right and wrong is left to the vagaries of a ruling oligarchy. God is to moral relativism what Light is to the science of ‘self enlightenment’.

What Jesus did was to make it easy for the world to believe. How odd that cultured people strove earnestly in His day, and have striven ever since, to make it difficult for the world to believe in His amazing love. You would have thought that the full weight of atheism should have succeeded by now, after two thousand years of striving, but the opposite is true.

It’s impossible to kill eternity. Eternity is a person who never dies. They couldn’t kill Him then, and no forces on this planet can kill Him now. It is logically insane to try and kill off an Eternal Being. It is this madness of unbelief that spends all its energies trying to kill off a God of love.

A standing army is a denial of the love of God

Civilisations come and go like dust blown about by storms; their protagonists and players propelled by a tempest that rages in the human spirit causes them to construct a world full of contradictions.
One of the most contrary constructions that troubles as many people today as it did in Jesus’ time is the ability of modern ‘civilised nations’ to construct two diametrically opposed social and political narratives of belief and consensus each preserved by a legal framework that preserves its bi-polar state of existence.
The legal narrative of one nation will justify to its inhabitants the righteousness of sending a standing army to wipe out the inhabitants of another nation while the same narrative will justify to its tax payers a large annual disposal of their tax to fund ‘humanitarian’ aid toward rebuilding the infrastructure of the environment that the narrative had justified destroying earlier. The atheistic belief that an act of violence is reconciled by an act of kindness is the stupid religion of Secularists and the law they rely on to support actions that cancel each other out is a pitiful joke.
Many ordinary people cannot reconcile the two faced persona of the law. On the one hand it is required by the British constitution that the Lord Chief Justice comes out of his closet and pronounces the war on Iraqi citizens as legal as specified in the highly fabricated Iraq Dossier. On the other it is required by the same British constitution to have a social conscience that defends the ideals of its socialist ideology by maintaining a foreign policy of humanitarian aid to those stricken by the consequences of war.
For their part, the British Government employ the best PR people that money can buy, like well paid journalists and parliamentarians, to make sure the public is sufficiently conditioned by fear to except the legitimisation of a schismatic and duplicitous foreign policy. The media dutifully play their nationalistic role as channels for xenophobia by using just the right level of repetition concerning a state of war; like using a commemorative narrative that portrays past British acts of war as noble; like revisiting the site of a couple of bombings by flashing pictures on the screen nearly every month or so as if we have been bombed to bits for the last 3 years; like ramping up the proud tradition of fighting battles by giving inordinate airtime and prime news space to past heroes wearing medals and to young heroes from the Royal family fighting for the great British empire in Afghanistan; like rolling out a programme schedule on TV that ensures the British public gets a regular injection of wartime memorabilia into their psyche and emotions. This is pure adrenaline, a whipping up of a war consciousness stirred up by the raging human spirit full of contradictions. The public, for their part, soak up all the propaganda and emotive images of dead heroes, and become confused by the legalese of multi-culturalism and religious freedom which grates against the state of war and the spirit of xenophobia and the fear of the foreign menace in their midst. It is the confused philosophy of humanism that seeps through all the impalpable rhetoric.
The political tension created by two diametrically opposed social positions mediated by the law lords in Government is bad enough for any would-be political idealist who harps on about a cohesive policy toward social integration. But for the youngster it is very bad. Violence is seen as something legitimised by Parliament and this surely sends deep psychological signals to the young offender that his angry violence is perhaps justified also.
The British public is exposed regularly to the same handful of pictures rotated by the media showing acts of violence perpetrated against a handful of British citizens. By comparison the massive acts of violence perpetrated by British and American forces in Iraq since 2003 has been given little or no coverage by the same media. It is filtered out by the major Western news channels who control the newswire much to the annoyance and dismay of many journalists who have risked their lives getting the pictures. The British public has become as schizoid as its Government in its attitude toward foreigners. It’s OK to kill them far away under the banner of a Righteous Nation but it’s not OK to be killed by them when they retaliate with the same Righteousness.

But Jesus Christ will have all nations come before Him at the closing of our time, where His words will stand as promised to judge all nations. All men and women who have been involved in creating a violent social order, whether as a criminal syndicate, or as servants of a violent Machiavellian realm, will face the words that Jesus spoke and He will ask,

‘what did you do in response to my Word about the love of the Father? Did I instruct you to kill and murder each other in the name of industry, nation, empire and of icons representing your sense of supremacy? No. Then depart from me and go to the place prepared for the sons and daughters of the evil one.’

You can choose life today or keep your self to your self for a short time. Choose the One who has taken away the sins of the world and who has defeated the works of evil, even while the works continue to manifest themselves in the raging spirit of those who have rejected Him; from Cain to this day.
Don’t be fooled by the rationale of atheists; it is full of false justice and duplicitous reasoning. Come to Christ while you have a chance.

War - the worship of Satan's power

The idea of giving worth to people entails making value judgements based on information that is constructed in the imagination. People use this information to justify their actions, which vary in extreme from legitimising the obliteration of millions of souls whose ‘worth’ has been downgraded to that of an expendable ‘enemy’ to commodifying groups of people as being worth more than other groups of people because their ‘worth’ is measured in materialistic terms of economic or social status. The culture of idolatry, of worshipping stuff in the imagination, produces predictable social and political attitudes that in turn develop into traditions and conventions codified by the small print of ‘great’ institutions whose remit is to use every possible evocative artifice and symbol of power to reinforce the meaning of the idols and icons they desperately need in order to reify the supremacy of the human imagination. Worship is central to human activity, an extant need greater than libido, but when the focus is intelligently carnal it becomes slavishly feral.

People without a consciousness of a Creator who live day to day without giving a single thought about the prescience of eternity are prone to give worth to all kinds of putrefying nonsense cellophane wrapped in ideological waffle. Ideology that legitimises carnage based on the worship of man’s supremacy in the universe is one that sets in concrete the framework for injustice and cruelty throughout history and is promoted by depraved minds who mock the chapter when ‘God executes His justice’ at the end of time as Mohamed Al Fayed intimated on leaving the coroner’s hearing last month.

In a world dominated by ‘professionals’ who hate the concept of the existence of a supreme God, let alone one who excludes non worshippers from an eternal purposeful existence, the scripture that has evolved out of their musings down the centuries, which they rely on for propping up their materialist view of the universe is written in the form of endless laws that not only make absolution for the hatred of God but mediate more violence and mayhem than any religious tract or holy book I know of.

Political elites always reify idols of wood and stone to give meaning and tangibility to their absolutist atheistic beliefs, which become shrines to which they pay homage every year. Jesus slammed the Pharisee for worshipping shrines, which evoked their feral spirit to use their absolute laws to justify reducing the worth of His life to that of a ‘blasphemer’ so that they could have him executed with impunity. Such is the mind of the God hater.

In ‘Manufacturing Consent – The Political Economy of the Mass Media’ Noam Chomsky shows how people are unevenly valued by a shared consensus of worth within well established political, industrial and mass media hierarchies in the modern world. He spends a whole chapter on exposing the operation of a ‘worthy and unworthy’ filter, acting like an invisible electric fence, that deflects the direction and flow of news reports away from any image or story that might damage the reputation of the US internationally. The filter operates at all levels to ensure the national consciousness of power, prestige and righteousness is preserved in print at whatever cost to humanity and in the process the use of military thugs reduces the value of one group of people to that of a dung beetle compared to others.

The dilemma of nations and therefore of the many institutions they rely on for constructing national identity is that, in their over reliance on the structural integrity of military assertion as a legitimate means to preserve collateral and material advantage over other nations, they preserve the idea of supremacy over other people using the Hitlerian model of nationhood. Hitler legitimised the slaughter of Jews in the name of National Socialism, a palatable yet pseudo humanistic label. In the name of ‘Democracy’, another nice sounding word used by the intelligentsia of the ‘Western ideology fits all’ politics, the military/media infrastructure in 2003 legitimised the slaughter of Iraqi citizens; dragging yet another Lord Chief Justice out of the closet wearing jackboots to announce human slaughter ‘as legal’. Worship of self always leads to an obsession with ego, self-assertion, which on a national scale becomes institutionalised corporate obsession with objects symbolising the meaningful lives of unbelievers who support murder to get what they want out of life, which creates a landscape of shrines hallowing destruction; war memorials, war museums, victory parades, memorial ceremonies, flags, emblems, inane slogans like ‘God, and my right’, coats of arms and heraldry. All the institutions that play their part in massaging the identity of self in this maniacal worship of mankind’s supremacy over time and space is a role filled by God haters who know nothing about the eternal Kingdom of God that Jesus Christ established even before any sludge was formed on the Earth.

Jesus Christ came to give culture an opportunity to develop an attitude of worship that guarantees a civilised use of the world’s resources but high brow intellectualism, the voice that knows better than God, that spoke through the high brow intellects of Jesus’ day, has created over time a mega narrative that secures the role of atheism in our schools, universities, political parties, military establishments, hospitals, arts foundations, media, etc which in turn guarantees the worship of men and women, of heroes of mythical proportions, of ideological claptrap that guarantees conflict of material interests between nations and armies and industries each worshipping their own identity kits.

I beg you to listen to Christ and worship the God who created you while you have ears to hear the words that offer hope today for those who turn and repent but which also guarantees loss for those who stubbornly refuse the gift of life.

God and my right - nothing to do with Jesus

As a hallmark and stamp of Crown Authority the word 'God' has been appearing within the design of a Coat of Arms on most ministerial papers issued from Royal Households since the 12th century and in a revised version from HM Government when Tax and Duty became a State office. “Dieu et mon droit”, meaning ‘God and my right’, is immortalised by HM Government as signifying rule and authority. Its meaning in the context of a modern multi-faith society that HM Government proudly boast is being shaped by their more liberal ideology has enormous implications for dotting the 'i' in identity as a nation. It is not a topic that helicopter heads in their PR and Media factories at Wapping or Fleet Street have much time for these days. So busy are they conspiring to deceive the public through propaganda and pseudo news (with the exception of Channel 4 perhaps) about the reasons for the debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for the horrific waste of life their decisions have caused, they simply don’t have time to face up to the reality of what this phrase actually means.
The God who is given such prominence in the legal and military livery of British Royalty and her two poodles, Government and Parliament, must be very proud to receive such filial duty from such loyal servants. I rather suspect though God’s feelings on the matter are probably not quite as compatible as the Coat of Arms suggest. The word ‘God’ means nothing to a race that doesn’t honour the Son and equally the word ‘civilisation’ means nothing to God who doesn’t recognise many of its violent self seeking attributes in the secular history of it’s short spell on Earth.
If ever there was a case for using God’s name in vain then the meaningless repetition of it on a gold leaf emblem topped with a crown and a lion must stand out as the most long standing example. Not only is it pertinent to the case that no-one really knows precisely who this God actually is and where He has come from but, more to the point, no-one can agree on a doctrine that clearly defines His character, nature and form even when they do. Neither can people agree on doctrines to define the precise nature and character of socialism or nationalism. In both cases the canonical narrative upon which they build their beliefs is so full of vague and abstract terms, to do with values and measurements essentially egocentric, that even the laws and regulations they imagine will homogenise people into a state of peaceful co-existence are in fact passed by Church and State to justify the ceremony of violence, fear and intimidation.
The perception of God’s character, form and nature is as laughable today as it was when it was portrayed by the imaginations of men in the Old Testament who threw out His Son using these secular perceptions.
The idea of a ‘Christian’ or ‘Moslem ‘country existing anywhere therefore in eternity, or that God specifically invests in nationhood and tribalism, comes mainly from unbelievers who project their own ignorance into the heavens by vainly associating a big name like God with reasoning and ideas that are as flawed as the big bang theory. ‘We beat the Germans, the French, the Spanish, the Prussians, God gave us victory’ is a phrase as intellectually impotent and as vain as ‘God, and my right’.
The perception of God by unbelievers is so twisted what when I hear people in this country go off in a rage about religion causing war and conflict I can't but help thinking of the great symbol of Britishness portrayed by the elements that make up the British Emblem contextualised by a phrase stamped in gold that begs the question ‘which evil religion is this then that your taxes preserve in the form of an emblem of military and political mayhem and might?’ Eh?

Unbelievers imagine love exists; believers know it does

Love does not exist except in the imagination. How we define it and then expect others to deliver that definition is in the realm of the imagination. It has never existed at all. No one can define what it is exactly, except poets and stargazers using their romantic and whimsical lyricism. Such philosophical muses and mysticism that relies on bucket loads of abstract words to define other abstract words is what professional theorists, like Foucault, use as part of their philosophical construction of meaning.

In a pivotal phrase in a discourse on origins of things like power and knowledge from Power/Knowledge p131 he says for example:
‘Truth isn’t outside power. …Truth is a thing of this world; it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth; that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true, the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned…the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true.”

Using abstract words like 'outside power' to argue perhaps that human consciousness is not subject to anything outside of its own imagination may seem an authoritative argument for the origin of truth, as part of an Open University module, but in reality it is nothing but an atheistic discourse for atheists, for people who have 'internalised' reality using a set of clapped out hand-me-downs from other people who waffled eloquently.

For example, take this line from one of Socrates many muses:

“When desire, having rejected reason and over powered judgement which leads to right, is set in the direction of the pleasure which beauty can inspire, and when again under the influence of its kindred desires it is moved with violent motion towards the beauty of corporeal forms, it acquires a surname from this very violent motion, and is called love.”

How do we translate these little expression of something that does not exist? Is he saying that love derives its power from desire that should not listen to reason or judgement and is therefore right? The premise he uses is that desire exists in some quantifiable form and the curious logic that follows leads to the conclusion that desire is right if the motion is violent enough to expel reason and judgement. So, if I was to love like this I would be right if I rejected reason and judgement and let desire, inspired by beauty, to move me violently to set myself in the direction of pleasure? Isn’t this a recipe for rape? Whichever way you look at it, this pleasure centred grasping of love is about as reasonable as imagining laws to justify carpet bombing a city full of innocent people because their ideology and religion is obnoxious to you. The reason it is laden with unreason is because the logic Socrates used in this one sentence to define love is totally bound up in trying to understand something that does not reveal itself through things like beauty, desire, corporeal forms, violent motion.

All these things are not going to help people to understand love. If beauty is the essential inspiration for the experience of love, for the transition from desire to love, then what of ugliness? This is part of nature too. Ugliness also exists in the world and in many guises, in hatred, in pride, in jealousy, in selfishness. Do these also inspire Socrates to love, or are they expunged from his version of reality? And if they are expunged, then one must expunge the people who carry and show these traits because it is they who bring these things into the world. So his love will exclude a lot of people and if everyone excluded a lot of people on these grounds, love would not spread very far. In fact love wouldn’t spread at all. Unless of course beauty is in all things, in attractive looking bodies, in attractive looking material, in attractive looking dust, as well as in things like murder, treason, hatred, jealousy, deceit, selfishness, pride and anger. But he talks of ‘beauty’ that gives ‘pleasure’ that is born out of ‘desire’ and so to avoid the paradox, the double speak, the confusion that threw Adam when God said one thing and the Serpent said another, Socrates would need also to talk of ‘murder’ that gives ‘pleasure’ that is born out of ‘desire’. From here, he would have great difficulty to show whether love was good or not.

The words that Socrates used, if you place them in any order in his statement about love, have no meaning other than the ones trapped in his mind at the moment of writing, which for students that treat his writings as some kind of canon in the development of thought alarmingly equates to the emperor's new clothes. Lecturers throughout the world who teach on the subject of philosophy and reason often give academic status to stargazers like this one. Stargazers' imagined truths about love, who for centuries have wrestled with its constraints and demands as if it were a God, has produced a mega-narrative that teachers quote from as if it were the absolute canon, a foolproof benchmark for social development and political science. It is but the fantasy of people devoid of God's Spirit.

If Socrates’ writings are construed by academics as some kind of benchmark in the development of philosophical enquiry into the nature of things that their students will find edifying I’m afraid they’re going to be more confused than he was. The methodology behind reinforcing ideas by cross referencing within the narrow field of a canonised selection of scripture emanating from one or two people’s imagination based on quantity is how indoctrination is mastered. The Jews had indoctrinated themselves with ideas about God and love that were not only entirely at odds with His Son but portrayed a cruel and unmerciful God of their imagination.

When Jesus came on the scene and started talking about the love of God He was immediately branded a heretic and a brigand. The reason for a wholesale rejection of His teaching about love that culminated in His humiliation was not only caused by the sin of corporate unbelief but by centuries of indoctrination by cross referencing within a canon of scripture deemed unquestionably authoritative as a definition of love and therefore of (God).

For only God can communicate love. The human race is incapable of communicating something that exists only as an idea in the imagination as 'they' clearly demonstrated when they hammered nails into His healing hands that had touched those they cursed and into His feet that had trodden hundreds of miles with messages of love and forgiveness.

Neither have I experienced love from those who confess it toward me, both inside and outside the church, for they too are incapable, as I am, to express something for which we have no pattern or blueprint, no form or definition, no example or standard by which to measure its height, breadth and depth other than in the life of a man who came to show it in all its fullness - Jesus Christ. No wonder 'they' wanted to kill Him. He was a light among men that exposed the substratum of lies upon which they had built their cultural edifices.

But I know the love of Christ and it is a sad thing to know Him fully in a world that does not know anything at all about love. It does not know because it worships the scriptures of men. Atheists worship their sages and intellectuals, Christians their Bible, Muslims their Koran, but few of them know the love of Christ.

"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world" Jesus prayed.

In this short age of man love is as elusive as meaning because the words that cultures have used for eons have no authority to identify what is truth; imagination has no authority other than to do good and do evil in equal measure.

Read Jesus' words, I implore you, before you die in your sin.