To the Truth-seekers,
A valid concern many religions have about Christianity is the concept of "God becoming Man." How can a being, who is perfect, become man, who is imperfect? This would mean that God changed which is contrary to the nature of being perfect. When you are perfect, you cannot change. Therefore, God cannot become man, because that would mean he was imperfect to begin with.
It's an interesting paradox, but the answer makes sense when you hear the explanation, "God did not change." To properly understand this, we need to switch perspectives. To us, it appears that God changed, but not from the perspective of God. Let me bring you back to the analogy of a virtual world where you are a god.
In this analogy, you have complete control of the virtual world. You are its god. You decide to become one of your characters. Are you still the god of that world? Yes. Do you lose any of your "Divinity"? No. Do you still have perfect control and know everything? Yes. If you maintain your Divine Knowledge and stay perfectly virtuous, nothing changed. That is how it looks from God's perspective. And if God is perfect, even as a character in his creation, he would be perfect. There is no change. In fact, it is perfectly God's nature to have become man, because God is Perfect Love.
If God is Perfect Love, he would perform acts of love. A great act of love therefore is to become man, dwell among us, teach us how to love, and give us the perfect example of love. Why? Because that is what is best for us. By us having a perfect model and teaching, we are able to love more and become perfect. Also, by God becoming man, you have the most definitive authority for establishing a religion. No other man can establish a religion better than a man who is God, especially when the religion is about True Love.
With Love,
N. D. Moharo
P.S. The prompt for this topic was how last time I suggested that the mentally handicap from birth are angels incarnate. I don't know if this is true or not, but I wanted to address the argument that "Angels becoming man would lower their nature." It wouldn't because they would not lose any of their angelic nature. Instead, it'd be a perfect showing of their angelic nature as the purpose of their life on earth would be to bring people closer to God. They are God's servants and therefore would gladly accept this task. Of
course, since I am not an expert, I can be completely wrong.
To the Truth-seekers,
Hell is an interesting topic. It is a valid question people have when asking about a God who is supposedly Perfect Love. "How can an all-loving God condemn someone to eternal punishment?"
It's fairly easy to explain hell as an act of justice, especially poetic justice. Do evil and you will eventually be punished either in this life or the next. Also, if you sin against someone who is infinitely good, the just punishment would be eternal. But hell is actually the result of love.
It sounds paradoxical, but hell is an act of love for the sinner. When someone goes to hell, it is because they chose not to love. Since love must be an act of the will, and God respects our free will, God would not force us to love him. Since God is Pure Love, and the sinner chose to reject love, being with God would be worse than hell.
Hell is "Where God is not." It means there is no other love in that place beyond its existence. This also means if someone wants to hate God for eternity, they can do it. Now one may argue that it would be better for God to wipe out the sinner's existence. However, that would violate two things. First is that God sees everyone's existence as good, just like those against the death penalty see that all life is good. Second is that annihilating the sinner would counter hell being an act of love for the rest of us.
Jesus gave us an analogy. We are salt whose purpose is flavor. But if we lose our flavor, then we will be thrown out to be trampled under foot by men. This shows two things. First is that God will still use you even if you fail your purpose of love. Second, though I don't know if they did this in Israel, is to keep the rest of us from falling down. The purpose of salt on the ground is to prevent men from slipping on the ground. Salt is what you throw on ice so that men can walk. God sends people to hell so that we might not.
God wants what's best for us, and that is for us to be willingly united with him. The first step is instilling the fear of punishment. We have a free will, but we don't initially start life by loving God. When we are children, we initially only fear punishment. We don't really care for our parents. But as we grow older, what started as fear of punishment can grow into fear of offending our parents. The punishment is a seed that grows into an act of love. When we reach this stage, it means we have a true love for God. Of course, if you chose otherwise, then you will receive the punishment promised. Being removed from existence would not encourage you to chose love, but the fear of punishment might.
Another argument is that "Good parents rehabilitate their children, not condemn them eternally." This is true, and that is exactly what life is. Our life is our rehabilitation. We are here so that we may become better people by choosing to love. We receive many opportunities to grow in love for God and our neighbor. It is then our choice whether we want to stay in prison or get out for good behavior. Hell is merely the life sentence that we may choose.
Now this revelation might have brought up some concerns, especially due to our fear of wrongful imprisonment. "What about the mentally disabled from birth?" Since they cannot freely choose to love or not, technically the scale of justice is balanced. However, since God is Perfect Love and wants what is best, they will be united with him. Then why should they live on earth at all if they will go to heaven anyway? It's so that we may grow in love by caring for them. They teach us how to better love each other. They live in order that we may live with God forever. I actually wonder if they are God's angels incarnated, because they have already chose God.
So what about those who never learned about God or learned wrong about him? Actually, they can still go to heaven, though they probably would not reach the pure perfection. If they were truly ignorant through no fault of their own, and they tried their best to live with virtue, they simply unknowingly chose God, because he is the source of love and virtue. However, it is far easier for them to live in virtue and chose God if they are taught correctly. That is why I write to you about the message of True Love. It could be said that God did inspire the other cultures' great teachers in order to prepare them to receive the gospel of the Religion of True Love.
So is hell fair? Yes, in terms of Justice. No, in that sinners possibly deserved worse. It is also not fair because God gives us so much to avoid it. Since God is Infinite Love, and forgiveness is an act of love, all we need to do is repent when we are wrong. When our repentance is because of our love for god, it is a perfect act of love in itself. When it's not perfect because it's based off fear of punishment instead, God will still forgive, but we need to do whatever he commands for restitution, which is always another act of love so that we may grow in love.
Hell is the result of Love, because by its existence, we are encouraged to love. If there was no punishment, not only would that violate justice, but also allow us to not care to love. That would not only be bad for society, but also for ourselves. The existence of hell is True Love trying to call you to itself.
With Love,
N. D. Moharo
P. S. Since Hell falls in the realm of Theology, I can be
wrong. This is merely an explanation on how it would make sense, especially
given the purpose of man being to love.
To the People and Missionaries
It's not often that I speak of matters of faith, but this time there's a philosophical element to it: Why do people convert? I'm ignoring the cases of conversion for a spouse and social status as those are not true conversions. The conversion I'm referring to is the total conversion where one's life changes because he or she truly believes the faith. For this letter, I'll reference Christianity because that's what we have the most experience with, but also it's the crux of my theory.
The first part of my theory is that people convert to a religion they see as more Christian. Consider what Jesus said to be the two greatest commandments. The first is "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." The second was "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:28-31). These practices are what people are looking for when searching for faith. You must have both. The interesting thing is that some faiths try to make themselves "open" by relaxing some of their practices. The result is that doing this does not attract people for the long run. In fact, it only causes more people to leave as it goes against that first commandment, which is what people are searching for when examining religions. After all, what's the point of a faith if there is none? The purpose of religion is to "give to God what belongs to God." If people see that this is not being carried out, then they see there is no real faith. At this point, these religions care more about money or influence than about a God they heard about. When groups of Christians find things they don't consider Christian, they will split and create their own denomination. To be honest, I consider each denomination to be a different religion, just as Judaism and Islam are different but believe in the same God and some of the same scriptures. Let me give you an analogy. Imagine there's a bird club. The participation is high and members are very active and excited. However, at some point the management decides it needs to attract new members so it decides to open up the club to dogs as well. After the initial jump in membership ends, management decides to open it up to mice. Next are fish, and eventually cats. Eventually the club is so open that birds are very rarely talked about. The bird club only exists in name. When people come to the bird club, they are seeking to share their love of birds and learn more about them, but these people see mostly cat lovers and dog lovers. "This isn't a real bird club. If I want to talk to dog lovers, I can go anywhere in the world to find them. There's no need for a club," the onlookers observe and leave. This is what happens to religions that relax their practices for the sake of attracting people. It doesn't work. It may attract attention of the world, but at that point, it's just a hollow institution with nothing to offer, but it will still ask for money. People should be nice to each other all the time, but people also want a place to actually praise and learn about God. That's what Religion is for.
Consider this famous verse from Revelation 3:16. Here, God says, "So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of my mouth." To remove the practices of a faith in order to attract people is to become lukewarm. The idea is that if the people of the world are to be considered lukewarm, we need to be lukewarm as well in order to attract them. However, the people who are lukewarm want to feel cold or hot and so are looking for religions that are so. I'm not sure what the proper interpretation of this should be, but here's an idea I have. To be hot means to be energetic, singing, dancing, and praising God. To be cold means to be quiet, listening, and meditating on God. If you are lukewarm, then you are doing neither of them. I've observed how the youth appear apathetic in daily life but become very passionate at conferences. Why is this? The word lukewarm means to be apathetic, unenthusiastic, indifferent, etc. However, these conferences tend to be "hot" with passion and excitement. These same youths say that they "felt God's presence." However, once they return to the lukewarm society, they no longer care. If church is lukewarm as well, that explains why they leave. They want that "heat" from their church, because Heat causes the lukewarm to become hot. Likewise, a place that can encourage contemplation and prayer, such as a quiet church building, can make the lukewarm cool. This is how people know there is no faith in a particular church. The church is supposed to change people for the better apart from the world's evils, but instead they become part of the world's evils. Religion is supposed to counter the evils of the world. This is why "Christians" may convert to religions like Islam. They see a counter-cultural movement that condemns the evils they see. They see people willingly perform sacrifices. Many Catholics in first-world countries these days say it's so difficult to not eat meat on a Friday while Muslims go a month without food and water during the day. I found this out because I went to a theme park with a Muslim and he wouldn't even drink water during the hot day, but he did not complain one bit.
When people say why they converted to a religion, they tend to say things like: I saw their faith; they really love God; they are so passionate. These things fall under the first commandment. Other things you may hear from converts are the following: They accepted me; I belong here; I'm welcomed. These things follow the second commandment. People are searching for these things. In fact, my boss one day told me his praise for the Roman Catholic faith despite not being one. He told me that he admired that they had not changed their core beliefs despite all of the pressure of the world. That's amazing because so many other Christian denominations alter their core beliefs so much throughout history. I would add that the constant service to society (everything that we take for granted now such as hospitals, schools, homeless shelters, orphanages, and advocating justice) is also something to be admired and why we can condemn those who murder "in God's name." Perhaps this is the key to finding a real religion. A real religion serves God and Man, but the service of Man is to convert him to Goodness and Love of God, not convert God to the evils of Man.
After debating with a few people, I've come to realize that there is another root to the homosexual debate. Before, I addressed one root is how someone views sex. This is still true, but there is also another one that is equally important. This root is the underlying mentality to "follow your heart."
This idea is actually quite controversial. Even though it appears often in movies, stories, graduation ceremonies, etc., people are divided on the idea. This in turn can impact their views on gay sex (being gay is not evil in my opinion and also not important to the logical root of the debate). When I see people saying that people are "born gay," I see that they are arguing for the ideal of "following your heart is right." When people are claiming it doesn't matter how one is born, they are arguing against "following your heart is right." Which side is right? Perhaps we should investigate how both sides are propagated.
As hinted above, culture is the one promoting the idea of "following your heart." When we see people using this idea to determine a course of action, they are the heroes and it's always right. When celebrities speak of their success, they say the same thing. Movies often promote the idea "If you you work hard, your passion will see you through against all odds." It actually sounds a lot like faith. It gives us hope and when are depressed, we want something we can hope for. Also, we tend to think of ourselves as the heroes and as good people. I believe the nature of man is good because the perfection of man is to love. In addition, we want to do what we believe in. Lastly, we don't like being wrong. If we say that we did what our heart told us to do, then we feel like that is a good excuse because we are the valid authority of saying what our hearts told us to do. So who are likely to abide by this opinion? Proponents of gay sex, artists, youth, culture, and businesses. The last two I'll explain later.
In opposition, these people hold that "following your heart" is not a good determinant of morality. They are more likely to adhere to religious morality or the morality I proposed before about love. Now it is understandable that proponents of "following your heart" believe the one about love to be the same as their idea, and it can be. As mentioned before, we like to think of ourselves as the heroes and naturally good. It's not exactly false, but not exactly true either according to the other side. These people see that following your heart can drive to both good and evil.
Culture tends to promote only the heroes as following their heart, not the villains. However, the villains are doing that. Extremists and the mob are following their heart when they commit crimes. So if your heart is ordered towards love, you might go that way. However, if it's ordered towards selfishness, it's going to go toward evil. An apt analogy is fire, as passion is often described as. If controlled, it's beautiful and beneficial. It can light dark caves, cook food, fight wild beasts, generate energy, send messages, keep us warm, save our lives, etc. However, when fire is uncontrolled, you cannot do any of those things. Instead it burns like a wildfire where death is the result. That's why people say you need to guide your heart with reason and discipline.
People on this side also see that passion is not enough to get you anywhere. I can be passionate about tennis, but without well-functioning arms, I cannot play well. Also, if I do follow my passion, I might actually waste my talents and potential. I saw a good summary of this view in a video by Mike Rowe.
Now your purpose in life may very well be your dream. Dreams are good as they give us hope and direction in life, but I've noticed something about a dream. It can not only make you always dissatisfied by being something impossible to obtain, it can distract you from recognizing what is good in front of you. You might have a dream to marry a certain celebrity, but if you are always comparing your date with that celebrity, you're never going to develop a real bond.
Another example is that I used to dream of a fantasy girl who was perfectly beautiful in my opinion. Hair color, height, hair style, etc. were all determined. I found one girl who pretty much fit the description almost too perfectly. That did not work well. However, I happened to get introduced to this other girl who definitely did not fit any of the criteria except in that she was a girl my age. What I realized was that this was the girl perfect for me, and she became my wife. My love has only grown for her as time has gone on. So dreams are those hopeful goals to help us through life and develop ourselves until we find something that is truly good. Some people don't have dreams and they are content. They are happy and enjoying life. When you are satisfied, you really don't desire anything more for yourself.
So who will hold this opinion? I assume Mike Rowe based off his video. Also religious groups that claim man is imperfect. In addition, people who believe that just following your heart will only increase your selfishness, not help your ability to love. It's not a question about whether man is good or evil, but rather that man is corrupted and can become evil if left unguided. Whether it's nature or nurture, it does not matter initially. By the time people can make choices, they are either on the selfish side of things, or loving side of things. However, whatever people are exposed to the most will impact their views. So if they exposed to selfishness a lot, they might adopt that mentality. Kids tend to imitate what they see from both parents and culture, especially the media.
So why will culture and businesses promote following your heart? Because it's an easy sell. Not only does it sound nice, it sets the stage to sell you stuff, including things you don't need. Since it can promote selfishness, the culture of selfishness loves it. It also knows it can create "needs" and therefore force you to buy into them. Also, if you make people feel good about themselves, they tend to do business with you. Therefore, I argue it's manipulation.
Every man has negative inclinations and we cannot let them control us. This is why people oppose the idea of following your heart. Consider what it means to follow your heart. It essentially means let your passions control you. This also means that whatever you are inclined to do is okay. So if you want something then it's okay to take it such as love (in the case of adultery), money (theft), and objects (theft). This chain of logic eventually means that greed is okay, lust is okay, envy is okay, and many other desires which increase selfishness. However, this means this is opposed to the key of morality I have mentioned before as this can hinder your ability to love. It's also not good for society at all.
The idea of following your heart probably had a good intention. It probably had faith that the people who would act on it were the people who are inclined to do good. However, it can also result in uncontrolled and misguided hatred. Every fallen hero becomes a villain because of this philosophy. They followed their passion and got disappointed. But since they were following a passion, they weren't improving their ability to love. Passion is good, but only when controlled to increase your love. In other words, your love should not be defined by your passion, but your passion should be defined by your love.
With Love,
N. D. Moharo
P. S. I didn't link to the first post above because I wanted people to read this one first. Now if you want to examine the idea of sex, you can click here.
To the Concerned over Africa,
When I listen to people debating over the nature of contraception, there are a few words generally spoken by proponents of contraception with hatred. "The outbreak of AIDS in Africa is because of no access to condoms." Now I'm not an expert on AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, but I am under the impression the hatred is still in the wrong place. If my understanding is wrong, then please correct me.
Here is what I have gathered about the nature of AIDS. It mutated from a monkey disease that somehow got transmitted to humans. Its origins are unknown and some people think it was from hunting and blood somehow infected humans. Another theory is that some guy actually tried having sex with an infected monkey, after all, it's an STD. However, it also gets transmitted through contact with contaminated blood or needle.
This is what I found on the Aids.gov website on June 26, 2016 In the United States, HIV is spread mainly by:
Having anal or vaginal sex with someone who has HIV without using a condom or taking medicines to prevent or treat HIV.
Anal sex is the highest-risk sexual behavior. For the HIV-negative partner, receptive anal sex (“bottoming”) is riskier than insertive anal sex (“topping”).
Vaginal sex is the second highest-risk sexual behavior.
Sharing needles or syringes, rinse water, or other equipment (“works”) used to prepare injection drugs with someone who has HIV. HIV can live in a used needle up to 42 days depending on temperature and other factors."
So proponents of condoms argue that that condoms will prevent the transmission of the disease. That's most likely as true as that condoms guarantee no pregnancy. However, the issue here is that it treats the symptoms, not the disease. Also, it creates more problems.
If you recall how it's transferred, and how the condom debate is concerned, it's through sex. It's rapid spread is not because of people having sex though, it's people having sex with multiple people. If a person who had the disease had sex only with one person, and that person only had sex with that other person, it would not spread like it did. Now consider who is ultimately advocating condoms. They are the people who view that sex is for pleasure, and are using the negative consequences of that view to attack those who don't hold that opinion. That is unjust. Instead, those who see sex as a responsibility are trying to address the disease, not the symptom.
I mentioned there are other issues with the condom debate. One is that it does not limit sexual promiscuity, which is how the disease thrives. Two, those infected with AIDS are not going to use condoms when they want to have children. Three, condoms will cost the Africans so much money. If these people are in poverty, can they afford another necessity? Possibly four since I don't know much about the manufacturing process, the production of condoms in Africa would taint the little water supply they do have.
You have to admit that the abundance in condoms only increase sexual promiscuity. However, since sexual promiscuity is the actual cause of the outbreak of HIV, they won't help in reality. The real help is to being sexually responsible. Of course, the culture today refuses that for a few reasons.
One is the sex industry worth a lot of money. By encouraging sex for pleasure, it allows businesses to operate prostitution, pornography, and make money off sex toys and contraception. Since it's worth money, they try to encourage promiscuity by creating a need that necessarily did not exist. Advocacy for responsible sex does not result in sexual crimes such as rape or cheating, but promoting sexual promiscuity does. This is because sex is no longer an act of true love, but of selfishness. The purpose of sex becomes to fulfill your passionate desires, not to increase your love for someone else.
The second reason why culture does not want to advocate sexual responsibility is because of contradiction. This is a reality. These people have accepted that sex is for pleasure and therefore do not wish to promote anything that is naturally opposed to the selfish desire. People want to do what they believe is right, but to oppose condoms would naturally condemn their opinion that sex is not supposed to be for pleasure, but instead that pleasure is a side-effect.
I hold that sex is a good thing, but it must be taken responsibly. If my wife is feeling sick, I must endure my passion and wait until she's feeling well again. This not only shows actual love toward my wife, but strengthens my spirit. If we have sex every day for pleasure, it's going to make it hard to stay faithful when we cannot do that. Therefore, the best thing to do is to advocate being responsible and oppose anything that threatens it.
To take another perspective, in an area that isn't sexually promiscuous, I don't need to worry about my wife being raped or seduced. That's a big deal and certainly an ideal. I hope this post certainly diminishes any hatred you might have for some people's opinions. We might consider them to be crazy, but they are actually thinking on a much deeper level. Also note that even if they fail to live up to the ideal, that does not mean the ideal is invalid.
With Love,
N. D. Moharo
P. S. You can technically consider this a sequel to my previous post about identifying the root of the homosexual debate. There I described both sides and what they naturally mean, as well as list some concerns. Here I examine the consequences a bit more.
Now for those who are worried about getting HIV, I also found this picture on the same website.
To my understanding, as long as there is no blood contact or mixing, you are okay
I do not know much about the situation with the UK leaving the EU and so I do not have an opinion if it's good or bad. But there are a few things to consider on the positive side of things. It should certainly impact the world.
Great time to invest in the Pound. I'm surprised the value of the pound dropped so soon especially since it'll probably be about 2 years before the UK leaves, if it even does. What will happen is now the EU will start negotiating with the UK, this puts the UK in a strong position as I'm sure the EU wants it to stay. If the UK does stay, then the value should go up quite a bit.
I'm thinking that either the market is panicking or that the EU is trying to use the market to change UK's mind, which is actually quite an evil tactic.
Sends a message about abuse of power. Again, I don't know much about the situation, but the feel I've gotten from reading things is the the EU has been burdening the UK without really listening to its concerns. This could impact how even Federal governments treat its member states.
The right to secede actually exists. That's huge. It was the foundation of the U.S. but it hasn't been very effective since then.
Those are the only things I can think of at the moment. It will certainly be interesting to watch and I don't have an opinion whether it is good or bad.
To the Zealot and those talking with Zealots,
The word zeal means "great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective." The problem is that this great energy often has people going to the extreme and that leads to problems. So while you can have an appropriate zeal for something good, the kind we hear about isn't always good. Today, I write to you on how to properly understand zeal in religion, as well as its proper practice.
Religion's negative connotation in the world stems from the over-zealous behaviors of many people. However, when practiced properly, religion is a gift to the world and they stem from 2 important commandments.
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, which I believe Islam has some respect for as well, there are two key commandments that summarize the Law. The first is "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength (Deut. 6:5)." The second was "You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:28-31; Lev. 19:18)." Religious Zealots tend to try following the first, but ignore the second, which in turn breaks the first.
Elsewhere in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God says, "I do not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn and change his way (Ezekiel 33:11)." If your god is Goodness and Love, this is easy to explain. In order for man to be perfect, he must grow in virtue. Since true love desires what is best for someone, Love naturally desires for a man to become perfect before he dies. Love wants everyone to love and be good, especially those who are wicked. However, if the wicked dies, then he is forever condemned to be wicked. Love would rather he live as long as possible, so that he may convert. On the flip side, that means Evil itself is what delights in the death of the wicked. Therefore, killing for the sake of religion is wrong. It does not encourage True Love, which is the only way society can reach peace and harmony.
So if your religion preaches to kill those it finds wicked, there is something wrong. If you believe in a god who is good and the author of life, he doesn't need you to do any of the killing. Instead, he would be actually capable of using the wicked to bring others closer to him. If your god is good, then he delights more in the wicked being able to convert than the wicked dying.
Something else we must remember is that true conversion takes place in the heart as well as the brain. It cannot be forced by social pressure or the sword. Otherwise the result is someone who acts like a religious, but truly doesn't care. That means if you want someone to join your religion, you must convert his heart and mind, not his fears.
Lastly, I must make a plea. Come to the Religion of True Love. Here, you will find peace and perfection. The world is certainly corrupt, but massive slaughters and violence will only create more corruption. In fact, it is not uncommon that those who order massive slaughters are actually the corrupt. Those who aren't corrupt are then lost. Honest Love for God entails Love for his creation as well.
N. D. Moharo
P.S. Whatever your religion may be, pray for me. ISIS will probably hate me for this post. At the same time, I hope this reaches to all members of ISIS
