By Donald Swarbrick.

When you look at the rituals and dress code most religions have today, you have to wonder why they continue to do so as it has nothing to to with preaching God’s word.

When Jesus and his disciples spread the word of God, they dressed in the clothes of their time, that suited the climate they were in, with no need for fancy robes or headdresses, so why do most churches of today have rituals that involve heavy robes, and attire that serve no purpose in their quest of telling us God existed?

Clothes and possessions do not make us holy, or any more of a believer in God, it is how we live our lives down here that counts, after all we will all stand naked in front of God when the day of judgement comes.

Tall hats and different uniforms for your given rank, whether in church or work, will hold no favour when it comes to judging our characters.

The churches, and their leaders seem to think that carrying on the traditions and dress from medieval times makes them more holy, and by continuing these trends will encourage us to believe what they are preaching is the be all and end all of life and death.

WRONG!

The way the churches convey the word of God in this day and age, drives away the very people they want to encourage.

In medieval times the robes and rituals were part of life then, uniforms of the rich and head of state, to separate them from the common people, giving them power to extort money through fear, from the poor under the guise of religion.

They put the fear of God into the people from all walks of life, using God’s word to better themselves, and prevent them from suffering some of the torturous fates that befell those who disobeyed the crown, which in the end gave the churches the power and wealth they wanted.

Wealth and power was the be all and end all of the church leaders in these days, grabbing religion to feather their own nests, while keeping favour with whoever was reigning monarch at the time, which all added up to a better life for them.

The churches still want wealth and power which has become more important than spreading the word of God, and prove this by interfering in matters that should not concern them, like politics, or the laws of the country.

Their faith in God overseeing these matters should be enough for them without interfering, leaving them to concentrate on what they studied for, mainly preaching the gospel.

If they were doing the job they were supposed to be doing, giving it the attention God wished them to, then we would have more people listening to them instead of facing the empty churches we have today.

All the pomp and ceremony practised in most churches are a nonsense, having nothing to do with God, and the people carrying out these rituals should get back to the basics Jesus and his disciples preached by, with the only gain being the satisfaction of carrying out God’s wishes.

Some religions do dress in everyday clothes to spread the word of God but are frowned on by the heads of churches who still dress in their ridiculous garb, and are still closely connected to the head of state, but in each and every one of them, the leaders who might thing they are superior, and the ordinary folk who attend these churches are all equal in the eyes of God, and will be judged according to their deeds down here on earth.

They are all human, and ALL have the badness instilled in them from birth, and no matter what they chose to wear, be it fancy dress or not, they are just like us, and will have their sins to answer for too when we all stand at the gates of heaven naked.

As I have said before God originated out of the same energy in the universe as we did, and it is only because he has been around much longer than us that he rules the universe, owing to the knowledge he has accumulated in his time.

As we originated from energy, that energy will always be in the universe, we will always be in the universe, so it is up to each individual to make sure we conduct ourselves in a manner that will ensure a satisfactory lifestyle throughout that journey, whatever your faith.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Explaining the Books of Gods Judgments (codybateman.org)
• The Church and Preaching (onethingiknow.net)
• N.T. Wright’s definition of evangelism (masbury.wordpress.com)

Plato on Democracy
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009

Plato is definitely a legend and one of the great achievers and sources of inspiration. He was wise and a profound individual who spoke his mind. Plato was from a wealthy and very influential family. He therefore had a large exposure to politics and the intrigue that came with it. Having been known as the western philosopher came from an Athenian family.

Plato criticized the democratic practiced in his city because, he said that under the type of leadership that was present nothing could progress, it only remained constant. Plato said that every individual was free and at liberty to do, and say, and do as they please with respect of authority. Plato stated that this democratic way of governance brought about imbalance and instability of their state and thus making it worse.

Plato continues to state that the leaders in a democratic governed city are not supposed to receive any form of training or education. He emphasizes that the only requirement a politician needs is the ability to be able to establish rapport with another person, and also be able to socialize and make friends. Plato’s words and opinions held a lot of weight regarding the democratic situation. The qualifications of a politician actually didn’t matter then.

The home city of Plato (Athens), was a democratic state all through the fourth and fifth centuries. The oligarchs succeeded and established a government in 411 BC whereby the mighty and wealthy ruled and governed over underprivileged. The oligarchic regime did not even last for a whole year. In Athens there was always misunderstandings between the oligarchs and the democrats, all of them claimed that one was conspiring against the other. Plato had a few words on this; he stated that in every city or state there will always be two people or subjects at war with each other.

Plato criticizes democracy and said that it was nothing but an unjust regime, he labeled democracy as an opportunist avenue for politicians, he said that it was the cause for the creation of confusion amongst the citizens of a country. Plato insisted that with democracy, people would never develop, the poor would remain the same and the rich would remain rich. He stated that a free country is one that people were at liberty to make their own choices. He said that everything should be done fairly including distribution of power, food resources and also other material things.

Mathematics versus Science?
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009

The field of science is wide and although Mathematics has sometimes been described as a science there are still philosophers and mathematicians who have argued against this. This is because, according to them, you cannot verify mathematics through experiments or observations hence it cannot be a science. Some people believe that there is a close relationship between pure mathematics and natural sciences.

Science can be divided into the natural and the social. The social sciences deal with people and the societies they live in while the natural sciences study natural occurrences. If you consider Mathematics under the sciences, it can be placed under the formal sciences branch that studies formal systems. Sciences include biology, engineering, computer science, physics, chemistry, geology, microbiology, psychology and astronomy. Most if not all of these sciences apply mathematical concepts in one way or another. Mathematics has four major disciplines which include arithmetic, algebra, geometry and analysis.

Philosophers have differentiated mathematics and science on the basis of abstractions and empiricism. Mathematics deals with abstract entities and most of the abstractions are absolute truths. It is also possible to form new abstractions from existing ones. Science on the other hand is based on empiricism whereby experiences form the basis of the knowledge we have. Hence there are no absolute truths in science and what has been discovered can be revoked later which is rare in mathematics.

Although it deals with abstractions, Mathematics uses scientific methods. Applied mathematics for instance uses scientific approach to solve problems by applying the mathematical concepts. Sometimes it is hard to place mathematics as a science because it does not qualify the definition of the word science but in essence, it may be a science because of its ability to produce solutions to problems.

Both mathematics and science have similarities and differences but the fact remains that there is so much use of mathematics in science. Computer science borrows heavily from mathematics so are others like actuarial science. Mathematics is however more systematic as compared to science and is based on proofs. Mathematical claims are proved easily as is its nature of having absolute truths to most of its theorems.

When dealing with sciences in general, it is difficult to avoid any mathematics at all and vice versa. Hence, in a way, the two compliment each other. Mathematics cannot stand on its own without science and science has to rely on mathematics for some applications.

 

 Rules and Exceptions
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009
 

Rules are the guiding principles which prevent one from doing wrong. What if there were no rules? Everyone would be free to do what he or she felt like and there is no doubt that society would be rotten. Crime would be like the wind which blows everywhere and about. There is no institution or organization without rules that create a streamlined system. Contrary to this concept, you will find some exceptions to the rules but then rules are made by man and he can alter them to suit his purpose as he wishes.

 

Mason Cooley, an aphorist in the United States once said that the mind demands rules but facts demand exceptions. Statutory as well as regulatory bodies express their views through rules and exceptions. In certain occasions, the exceptions are too detailed such that it inhibits the rule from being effective as intended. Other exceptions tend to favor a special group leaving the other group with no option. This is mostly applicable to makers of the rules who will exclude the impact of rules from their life’s operation.

 

Common sense rules are contradicted by exceptions which are unknown and unexpected by a large number of people. There are grammar rules for instance which facilitate the learning of students although most of these rules have exceptions. Depending on the understanding level of a child, a teacher may decide to; not teach the students about rules and exceptions, teach rules and ignore the exceptions, teach both the rules and the exceptions at the same time, teach rules first and then the exceptions or he, or she can decide to give students the assignment of making their own rules and regulations. Despite the fact that grammar rules and exceptions co-exist, the most important thing is make sure that the students understand language patterns.

 

Rules and exceptions can be pretty confusing especially when there is no clear explanation for the exceptions. An instance is the spelling rules and exceptions where you find that certain words are added certain letters when changing from one form to another and unless the exceptions are well understood, you may find yourself confusing the spelling of a word especially when it’s changing structure, for instance from the present to the past.

 

The case of the IRA retirement benefit scheme has it as a rule that no one should withdraw his or her retirement savings unless they had reached the recommended age. An exception to this rule may arise especially in a case of emergency resulting to harsh penalty charges.

By Donald Swarbrick.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why, at the time of the Egyptians, a people with great knowledge of the stars, erecting buildings of such complicated design, were so much more advanced than the inhabitants of the colder regions on earth?

Take a look at South America around the same era, and the Zapotecs, Mayans, Incas etc, the nations who appeared suddenly, who were also very knowledgable of the stars, and built buildings of similar structures to the Egyptians, but never knew of them, (that we know of anyway.)

God who created this world, would have travelled to other parts of the universe before he reached our little corner, therefore would have discovered other planets with life on them, some in need of rescue, their planet being in danger from its sun, or a more internal problem like volcanic eruptions, so is it not possible that nations from another galaxy were transported to earth?

If you believe in God, and his creation of our little part of the universe, then why should you doubt his capabilities of being able to achieve rescue missions in other parts of  the universe?

To be able to reach here, never mind interfering with our solar system, is a great acheivement on its own, and to have accomplished both, means he is capable of almost anything.

The Egyptians, and the nations who settled in South America, when brought here would have been placed in the warmer regions of earth in an attempt to educate the primitive natives of earth who lived a completely different lifestyle to these new nations, having evolved much later in the lifespan of the universe.

God himself, chose the warmer regions to spend his time here, which makes a lot of sense, as why would he want to educate people so primitive in such an inhospitable climate, making life uncomfortable for himself, and the staff he brought with him from his own planet?

The Egyptians flourished in the region they were allocated, with God, and his staff there to assist them over thousands of years, while on the other side of the world, STILL in a warm climate the South American nations were flourishing too, with God’s staff checking up on them every now and then.

The knowledge of the stars, that these nations accumulated would have been gained on their journey through space from their own planet to earth, by the people who brought them here, namely God’s people.

These nations were so far advanced in comparison to other people on earth, that there is no way they could have evolved here at the same time, or the knowledge they had, would have been spread more evenly around the globe, even in those early days.

The further the ice and snow receded the more this education spread, as the people travelled out into the new lands being uncovered, but still were never as advanced as the Egyptians, or the South American nations.

Why was this knowledge confined to these nations, and why was it not allowed to continue?

We wonder if we are alone in the universe, and are trying to discover if there is “life out there,” but we have been told in the bible of people who did great things here on earth, of angels, and miracles. Where did these people come from if not out there in space?  It seems as plain as the nose on your face that they did not come from here, or think of the advancements that would have been made by now.  ” NO WE ARE NOT ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE.”

If this is true, you ask, why did these people leave us to discover the secrets of space for ourselves, and not educate us in the way they taught the Egyptians, Mayans, Zapotecs Incas etc?

The answer is simple.

What happened to the South American nations? They were slaughtered by the invading Spanish.

What happened to the Egyptians? They were invaded, conquered and slaughtered by the invading Romans.

What is happening around the globe still? Wars and violence waged against our own kind, day in and day out.

What kind of message does that send to life forms far in advance of us out there in space?

If these people were placed here to assist in the evolution of earth and were slaughtered by the very people they were put here to help, would that not deter any peaceful nations from making their presence know on earth?

Once we evolve enough, or to put it bluntly (GROW UP) and  learn to live in peace among ourselves, then maybe we will be allowed to find out for sure, that we are not alone in the universe.

Until then we will be observed, and stay segregated from the peaceful nations out there who could so easily enlighten us, and unfold the secrets of the universe we so desperatly seek , so, taking all that into consideration, who can blame them for letting us go on wondering “IF WE ARE ALONE.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is There Gravity in Space? (space.com)
• Solar Sysem (slideshare.net)
• Titan: A World Much Like Earth (space.com)
• Hubble reawakens, snaps image of Jupiter scar (cnn.com)

The Mind-Body Problem
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009

Many studies have been carried out to explain the relationship between mental and physical phenomena. There has been no agreement on the correct answer and it is the single most important gap in the understanding of the natural world. The problem here is that every time an answer is given to the question, it appears unacceptable. Therefore, many attempts have been made to explain this relationship but at one point in time, there will be one acceptable answer.

In our mental lives, consciousness is the most salient feature. It is believed that the first concrete fact which everyone of us will affirm to belong to his/her inner experience is the belief that consciousness of some kind goes on within ourselves. Even though consciousness is believed to bring a mark of the mental in our lives, it pushes the question one-step backwards. We are rather conscious when we are awake than when we are in a dreamless sleep. We have conscious states when we are conscious therefore, we cannot discriminate at the same time, we cannot forget. Each conscious mental state is a way of being conscious.

When a person knows his conscious mental state or its qualities, the only thing in question is oneself: what he understands is the particular modification of that object, the way it is conscious. For instance, when we see a red apple, we see just the apple and not the redness as something different from it and, hence we represent the apple we see as red. When a person is conscious they will know that they are, and they will know how they are conscious, that is their mode of consciousness but they cannot infer, when they are conscious, that they are, or how they are. There is, however, some kind of relationship between our own and others’ conscious mental states. Because of our behavior, others have to infer that we are conscious but we do not have to, but they cannot know non-inferentially. Others will have to know our mental states.

In the mind-body problem, consciousness has been seen as the central mystery and is the primary obstacle in understanding the mental. Another traditional mark of the mental is what is called “intentionality”; its adjectival form is “intentions”. It is the feature of an event or the state that makes it about, or is directed to something. Beliefs are intentional states that represent words as being in a certain way. These can be true or false and it is their particular condition of satisfaction. There are no differences between the false beliefs and the true ones. Understanding consciousness and intentionality is a great step in solving the mind-body problem.

In this video Bertrand Russell gives his brief insight on mind and body problem

Aristotle on Democracy
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009

The issue of democracy has been a subject of much debate over the years and many philosophers have had something to say about it. Aristotle is one of the great philosophers from Athens whose contributions to this subject remain notable. He studied democratic governments, their compositions, variety and stability and came up with his own views which were adopted later by those interested in the theory of democracy. The design of political institutions and the welfare of the citizen was his area of interest.

Aristotle views democracy as when the poor rule exclusively in their own interest. By this, he means the rule of many as opposed to a select few and in this way, virtues prevail. According to him, political functions should be divided between the rich and the poor so that there is some balance in the two classes. This is his idea of a practicable state, one which combines oligarchy and democracy. He does not support the idea of people holding office singly or a group of people for that matter. In his search for the perfect constitution he differentiated the government that served the needs of individuals and that which served the needs of the whole nation.

On the issue of equality, Aristotle says that those who are equally free should be absolutely equal and his democracy is based on this notion. He talks about democratic constitutions and social classes and how they may prevail in the same condition. For example, democratic constitutions cannot work in anti-democratic social conditions. Aristotle’s democratic government simply takes care of the needy by letting them rule themselves.

Aristotle also describes his idea of a democratic government as a polity. His polity form of government is the one ruled by the middle class in the society. The middle class are the ones between the many poor and the few rich. Hence Aristotle does not really support democratic governments but the ones he calls polity. This polity governance is sort of a mixed ruling in that it combines democracy, oligarchy and aristocracy. This type of governance was the one that served the nation as a whole because it considered the interests of the majority.

The democratic ideas brought forward by Aristotle can be used and apply to modern forms of governance. He was a great thinker and although he was concerned with the society he lived in, his aim was not to change it but to make it better.

And this lecture of Yale University on Aristotle focuses on controlling conflict between factions. Polity as a mixture of the principles of oligarchy and democracy.