God does not inspire holy wars

I have always been perturbed by the cultural practise of getting rid of evil by murdering people and then using transfer ideology to replace murder with ‘justified killing’ as an explanation for evil actions. The complex ideas that support the transfer of meaning from one word to another to explain the difference between two kinds of murder very often calls upon an entity or truth that does not exist in reality.

For example, the idea that God instructs people to murder each other in order to get rid of evil, has no basis in truth. Its not that God doesn’t exist; it’s the warped view of God that for millenniums has been instituted by man as an orthodox religion. Nor does truth sound very convincing coming from the lips of lawyers and priests who deftly argue that it is OK to murder a few people if it benefits the greater number.

With regard to the divine inspiration for murder that people believe is holy and just I regret to say this does not stack up with the revelation of God that Jesus made fully known to the world two thousand years ago Jesus Christ repudiated the source of this abominable idea in the face of those around Him whose father He described as Satan, the murderer and liar from the beginning, who believed that the divine inspiration to murder people was the truth and with this truth they believed they had divine authority to devise every tactic to get rid of Jesus because they regarded Him as evil.

The idea then that Christians can wage holy wars or crusades against evil by murdering people does not come by inspiration of the Holy Spirit but by the inspiration of the evil one who has been doing this since the beginning of time.

Satan’s time has come to an end because his lies have now been exposed.

All things have been committed to me by my Father

“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him”

The idea of knowing God by revelation is not new. It has served ancient people back in history since the beginning of time and, until Jesus came upon the scene, the reliability of the revelations about the form, character and will of God has been a somewhat contentious matter. Jesus showed to both the Galileans and the Samaritans that the conduit of the human spirit as a reliable source of knowledge was highly suspect.

For many cultures the greatest difficulty in defining who God is, in terms of specific attributes, is discerning precisely where the external nature and character of God begins and the internal projections of mankind’s imagination upon God ends. The less troublesome solution is the belief that God has no separateness but inhabits everything as an amorphous spirit devoid of a distinct and authoritative personality. Generally known as the pantheistic option it is the easiest to adopt because it requires no obedience to a higher moral authority even though it requires the ego to surrender itself to a higher consciousness of an impersonal being who/that is totally without shape, form, character, will or purpose other than being a large spiritual pool into which the collective human ego is dissolved. Cosmic consciousness does what it says on the tin, ‘Reduces the substance of God to a state of mind’

In a vacuum of identity the human spirit is capable of forming whatever picture of God suits it’s existential purpose in order to find meaning and identity beyond the material comfort of a short and meaningless existence. A myriad of words have been formally canonised by various cultures as reliable scriptures for defining who God is and a priesthood is officially delegated the responsibility of ensuring these canons are written into law and into death as the ultimate weapon of imposing conformity of thought and ideas. Both religion and philosophy have their guiding priests, whether by inspired unction or by scholarly regimes of truth, both roles are simple - to control.

Jesus comes along and turns the whole priesthood idea upside down by saying things that humans aren’t allowed to say. Doing away with priests as the vehicle of definition for the character and form of God he informs his listeners that the priest from heaven has arrived. Some took it rather well, except the priests, philosophers and lawyers. They were threatened by his outright challenge to their authority and they only wanted to see him dead as soon as possible. No man spoke like Jesus. None that have come before him nor none that have lived since can come anywhere near explaining the gravity of eternity. What compelled Jesus to speak in this manner is based on knowledge he brought with him as a person who has always existed. With this knowledge he came as the priest of a canon that is not written anywhere but in the mind of God who came as flesh to dwell among us. He referred to scriptures that his immediate hearers were familiar with and certainly he endorsed whatever agreed with his canon but whatever didn’t, he chucked into the bin. ‘You’ve heard it said, but I say to you this..’

But the priest reveals nothing without it being operated on by the Spirit of God. Jesus words meant absolutely nothing to the world that heard him then and to the world that hears the same words today there is no understanding without his Spirit revealing what the words mean. The few who understood in his time were those to whom the Spirit of God chose to reveal himself and this act of God hasn’t changed since the beginning.

In the next part I will explain exactly the reason why this revelatory understanding is necessary for a relationship with God and why the gnosis way, the way of acquiring knowledge by auditory synthesis without repentance, is an attitude that blocks the open communication channel between God and man. Predestination is a word for eternity that does not fully describe it’s prescient nature. When eternity speaks, it is with words impregnated with the fragility of the present.

The obsession with a linear existence

Atheists are obsessed with a starting point because without it there would be no progression from point zero toward a constructed world that can be boasted as entirely the product of man's efforts. For them, time has to be linear otherwise the efforts of the human species would be meaningless and it's constant struggle to shape a better future would be futile.
The alternative to a 'random' 'accidental' starting point in the formation of things is a Creator of some kind and so the question is more of a statement of belief than a rational question. It is not rational to have a starting point for existence because 'existence' by it's very nature can never be articulated as having no existence as its precursor. So the question will always be asked what came before the starting point and where did the energy come from to make the start? It is like trying to describe oblivion with words that bring into existence form and substance - the antithesis of 'nothing'. Therefore, belief in time as a linear phenomenom, has no rational basis and if the best it can come up with is the Big Bang Theory then it is probably worse than no theory at all! To describe the unknowable with such pedantic certainty, that relies on a false premise, is a sign of desparation - of clutching at straws in the face of such a marvelous and awesome creation!
What started the thing that came before the thing that ignited the other thing that created the 'spark' that fueled an explosion that flung endless galaxies into space? But what started the first thing? And, when you have worked out what started the first thing, you then have to go back a further step and ask the same question 'what started the thing that started the first thing?'
The problem is the question cannot be answered rationally and any answer has to rely on faith more than on reason, which places the person asking the question on equal footing with the believer in God who asks, 'How did God 'make' Himself'?
If only you would study Jesus' words, you'd understand eternity and how everything else perfectly fits into it.