Below are the 8 most recent journal entries recorded in God's Blogger's LiveJournal:

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008
7:47 pm	A quick thought for today... God is not found in the facts, rather in their arrangement. There is no such thing as a coincidence. Current Mood: thoughtful (Comment on this)
Saturday, July 28th, 2007
11:01 pm	Observant Judaism As I always try to espouse, most people are not illogical. There is always a reason for a sane person to make a decision. Assuming a certain precedent or proposition the logical process that follows is usually pretty solid in intelligent people. The thing to look at in a disagreement then is usually the underlying principle that is being assumed. When looking at the question of religious Judaism, this concept can be applied. In order to see the point in being observant three concepts must be accepted as givens: 1.) The person must identify themselves as being Jewish. 2.) The person must care about being Jewish. 3.) The person must understand that they can do anything they want but they are still Jewish in the end (the same way that they are male or female). If any of these are not relevant then there is no point in trying to discuss religion with them. Without these three principles there is no logic in being religious. Here are the possible arguments: 1.)If I don't identify as being Jewish, then any argument for observance can be responded to with a statement that being religious doesn't apply; I am not even Jewish, why should I be religious? 2.) If I am admitting I am Jewish but to me it is simply a title and I don't care about anything more of it, religious observance is again irrelevant to my state. 3.) If I admit to being Jewish but feel I can be something else as easily, why should I be observant? I'll be this, I'll be that. It is not something that inherently defines me, and therefore I do not need it to be self-consistent. Thus we see these three criteria are implicit to the discussion.   With these concepts clarified I repeat my statement, why as a Jew should I be and stay religious? This is my reason... I start out by stating that I am Jewish. If I avail myself to this concept, the imperative fact to remember is that I will always be Jewish no matter what I do in life. As essentially as I am male is the same way that I am Jewish. Acting any other way than Jewishly is like trying to get a sex-change; I don't become a female via an operation, I am a male that now resembles a female but I am still male. One can only hide what they are, not change it. With this in mind, and if I don't want to live a life of lies, the only way to be is Jewish. The question is then what is Jewish? What does it mean to be Jewish? The simplest way, I think, is to look at the thing that makes me unique as a Jew. What does the Jew have that no one else has? As far as I've been able to tell, the only thing Jews have unique in the world is the tradition leading back to Har Sinai, where the Creator of the whole system made His presence known publicly. Any Jew with a positive attitude towards their Jewish Identity looks towards the tradition. Even the most secular Jew, if they still wish to call themselves a Jew, identify as a Jew, has this on some level. The only thing is, they also have other things against which to compromise or integrate with that identity, be it greek culture, differing personal values, democracy, liberalism, communism or anything not patently Jewish Tradition. Along the Path of my Life I have found that: if A.) I am Jewish, a state that won't change, B.) I seek a positive Jewish Identity and C.) the most uniquely Jewish Identifier is the tradition leading back to Sinai, it logically follows that in order to maximize my Jewish Identity I should adhere to the tradition, to the extent that I wish to identify myself as a Jew. Now, since I have taken my Jewishness as an incontrovertible fact, then I should be as self-consistent and honest as possible, which means I should identify myself as a Jew by acting Jewish as much as possible. The way to do this, then, is to adhere to the tradition as much as possible! Honesty = face facts, fact = I am terminally Jewish, to be Jewish = Sinai Tradition, thus I should be religious and follow the tenants of Traditional Judasim! The only honest obstacle is my own free will. Do I want to act Jewish? Do I care about all of this? For me, these questions are something that I will always deal with as a finite creature that is capable of doubt. I think all Jews, even the most religious Jew has moments of doubt. It is a human trait. It is not, however, a reason to deny the facts. I know that I need to try. As R' Shlomo Twerski told my father, "I am just trying to figure out what it means to be Jewish!" (this is coming from a chassidic Rabbi with a long coat, a long beard, and long sidelocks no less). If he doesn't know, I certainly think I shouldn't worry about not having the full picture either. I am just trying to do what I can in finding out what the Jewish Concept is and following it as best as possible. Current Music: Lecture by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb: Teshuvah pt. 3 of 12 (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Monday, November 21st, 2005
9:35 am	Send this to everyone you know! Islam. Judaism. Christianity. All these religions proclaim to carry the will of God. All these religions claim theirs is the best, the only, the true. Atheists don't even think it's real at all. Everyone is so sure about what they believe, they can't listen to anyone else and this has been a source of so much strife in human history. But are we really even so sure anymore? Do we really even know what the will of this God is? What do you suppose would happen if we asked? If collectively we all said "God, what's your plan?" If that's too much maybe even ask "God, are you there?" Would it be so hard? It could be. To stop all these wars, fights, lies, and just for one time all ask whether all these things we've been fighting for is actually for the correct (if any) purpose. It would be hard because all the crazy people who like to fight, bomb, kill, will be able to wreak tremendous havoc. It would be hard because of all the ego that must be put aside. Yes it would be hard, but there's no reason not to try.  Suppose we did that though. Suppose you stopped fighting and just asked "Is what I'm doing correct?" If we all just did that one time and nothing happened, well we can then simply pick back up and keep fighting. But suppose we asked and got an answer. One way or another it certainly can't hurt too much. In all realism these radicalists (of all factions, Christians, Jews, and Muslims etc) are going to harm us anyways, whether we fight them or not. To stop fighting will hurt everyone greatly but the benefit could be immeasurably worth it. However, getting no answer, stopping the fight will harm us greatly with no amazing benefit, but it won't be any different than the harm we are feeling now. At least you'll know that you have done your part. It's time to be responsible. We don't have to be violent in order to take matters into our own hands nor do we simply have to stop everything and hope it'll work. Many seekers of peace had great ideas about peace by protesting violence. But just protesting doesn't stop anything. Nor does violence help anything. What might help is for humanity as a whole, for just one time, just for one minute, be willing to give this a chance. Just ask. You can take responsibility today. There's no money needed, no honor to owe, nothing except your willingness to make a change. This is something anyone in their right mind can do. You all have a capability to ask this question. Even if you're not sure or you don't really believe in the whole idea, just one time can't you try? Ask if there's something out there or ask what that something wants with us. So what can you do? Spread this idea. E-mail this to everyone you know, print it out, pass out copies, hang it everywhere, anywhere. It doesn't matter who listens or who cares. It matters that you tried. We are not responsible for outcomes or situations presented to us. We are only responsible for our effort and our reactions. You can only change yourself, but you can affect other people. You can affect the world with this if you try. Protesting didn't work, fighting didn't work, go the middle road. Try this more passive way of simply spreading awareness. Some will listen, some will not. But don't worry. Do your best and may true peace follow.        (9 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, November 9th, 2005
9:37 am	Wait, it has a will? I've come so far to say that Inifinity is required for the creation of finite, even though the mechanics of how that's possible quite surpass our cognitive capacities. Ok, so now what? Who cares? Infinity made finite, that's nice. On a strictly intellectual level it shouldn't make a difference. But us humans luckily are more than just intellectual. We can experience things even from emotion (although I must say, we seem do that too much, too little or at all the wrong times). So I'm going to do something and say that this Inifinite I speak of has a will. We know cognitively that there must be an infinite, but to know that it has a will...well thats a stretch. Only someone who is open-minded can feel that whatever it is that made this place has a will. I've seen many people, without any kind of religion say that it is undeniable to them that some sort of higher power is working in their lives. They know it from experience. These people have had some kind of intervention that caused them to realize that by the natural order of things they shouldn't be around, yet here they are. Things have happened to them that only if they are closeminded can they see it otherwise. Of course, feel free to disagree. For these people though, to deny it would be disasterous. I think that it's kinda like an optical illusion. If you don't look you won't see it and it's your choice not to look. But there's is more ways than one to see it and once you see it it's there. You can rationalize and whatnot but it's still there.   So these people see a higher power working in their lives. Well what does that higher power have to say, what is it's will? Certainly it's will must be precedent over my own, for being infinite it would possess an infinite knowledge of how things work etc. Thus if it had a will that was contrary to my own, I would have to admit that it's most likely more informed than I am (even if it doesn't make sense). With the knowledge that I am not perfect and that it (by definition) is, I can be confident that whatever it's will might be it too is perfect. But again. What IS it's will? And here is where religion comes in...All religion is here to do (should be here to do), is inform us about what the will of God (this infinite higher power). Obviously, any religion that isn't monotheistic here I'm disregarding as a religion. Not because I'm a closeminded elitist religious nut, but for one simple concept. We are talking about infinite here. Anything not infinte has already been disregarded through logic. There can't be more than one God. If there were two 'gods' each would be finite to complement the other, falling under the neccesity of needing something non-finite to make it. So without going comepletely off topic, suffice to say that any wiccans, satanists, scientologist, hindus, or what have you, I'm going to let you do your own thing and have a good day. Buddhists, stay on the line I haven't given up hope with you yet. Back to religion. It's purpose is supposed to be to inform us just what the will of this Infinite power is. A big problem I see, is that obviously someone must be wrong. Only one of these religions can be right, right?  So how do we tell which one it is? I've been told that these posts are too long-winded. So I'll leave a nice cliff-hanger and continue later.   (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, November 4th, 2005
9:25 am	Thoughts on True Infinity pt.2 A quick review of what we know so far: We know that finite exists because I am myself and you are yourself. True Infinite equals utterly simple. Finite has complications by it's very nature. Finiteness requires there be a beginning and an end. Each beginning needs to have another end to precede it. We gave an example of an egg requireing a chicken requiring a creator of that chicken, specifically in our case  a scientist genetically manufacturing one in a lab, who required his parents, who had all the benefits of evolution, which could only occur with a prime ingredient called time. Now, what made time? It would have to be something that was not dependant on time and indeed something wholly not from this universe for last time I checked time and space were (bendable, yes but) still very much intertwined. Find the cause of time and you will find the cause of space. As always for arguments sake, let's say it was the big bang. The first active thing in this universe, that created time (and space)! So there you have it....what's that? Another question? Oh, yes, what created the big bang? Well it was a past universe collapsing. Oh wait what created that universe and the big bang that created it? We have the chicken and the egg on a macrocosmic scale. And in the case of the chicken, there must be something that made it. Eventually you must put together two things, entropy and thermodynamics tells you that there is a finite amount of energy and energy must be expended to undoe the entropy. Finte energy + need for energy expenditure = Finite universe. So however far back you want to go, however large you want to make the universe it will still be finite. So what made it. There needs to be a maker. Luckily, if we are going to be creating spacetime, whatever it was that did it doesn't have to have the rules of spacetime apply to it. It neccessarily must be something that isn't dependant on spacetime; if it's creating spacetime it needs to be external to it or else causality itself would be violated. How can something bound by time create time? Thus whatever made time, time had no pertinance to it. This may be hard to grasp, but theres lot's of things that we have a hard time thinking of, yet they are there. Think of a sphere with no surface area or mass, but infinite (not True Infinite mind you just infinite like a number line infinite) pull. Hard to imagine but still possible. It's called a black hole. Think of a 2D object in 3D space with only one side and two edges. Didn't get it? It's a Mobius strip. Some thigs truly can't be fathomed. Imagine a 3D sphere with no inside, or a wall with no back (the latter could theoretically be a wormhole gateway but let's leave that alone, eh?). The purpose of what I'm demonstrating is that human intelligence is obviously limited. Compared to the above examples, thinking of something of which time isn't pertinant seems delightfully easy to grasp. Now, with this need for something that time has no relation to in order for time (and space) to exist, what can we find that will fit this criteria. The simplest answer will be True Infinity. Remember it is it's own thing, self contained; it needs nothing. There is nothing that can effect it, certainly not time. True Infinite would be here, there, then, and now all at once; infinity is everything. It is neccessary then, that it be the cause of time (and therefore space too). As I'm sure you've noticed, there is a Big Honkin' Problem. Infinite needs no explanation as it is self defining. Finite requires the existence of Infinite in order to exist. However, how can finite exist when there is infinite? If infinite existing precludes the possibility of finiteness (which it must in order to remain infinite) how can finite (requiring infinite as its initial cause) ever exist? It can't! Yet here we are. I exist. I am finite. Therefore I require infinite to exist. By existing I am violating the very thing fundamental to my being! An ultimate paradox. We cannot deny infinity for we are here. Yet we cannot understand how we can be here and not mess up the existence of what made us. Congratulations. You have reached the pinnacle of human logical capability. We cannot go further using logic. We have encountered something that is not bound by the linear finite rules of our universe. It is beyond our comprehension yet undeniably there. Impossible yet happening. But don't worry. Just because we can't grasp the entirety of it does not preclude it's existence. As, I demonstrated earlier we are not infallible. We have been able to see just where we can go and where we cannot go. We can find our cause but we cannot understand it's process. But we don't need to. Let's not be greedy now, getting to this point is a big enough step. See you next post everybody.  :)           (Comment on this)
12:57 am	Thoughts on True Infinity So we've established that the three major religions of monotheism have respective focuses on the ways to establish a connection to God. But what is God anyways? What does God mean, and to whom? I would like to share the logical processes by which I (not necessarily on my own, though I wouldn't accept it unless it made the most sense out of the alternatives) have come to the notions I possess about God. First I pose a question: What makes more sense, something that is finite or infinite? The average response is of course, finite. After all, I do not experience what is inside your head and you do not experience what is mine. Therefore we must be separate and thus finite in a manner. We see things linearly, for the most part, we have five senses giving us pnly a partial view of the Universe. Yes we are finite. It would seem easier to say, from experience, that finite is easier to understand. But this is silly. Many things we experience everyday feel simple to us are in fact very complex. So let's go outside the box a little bit, look at the two from a strictly analytical perspective.  Something  truly infinite is self explanatory. Unlike the infinity of a ray ( .----->), which  may  extend eternally in a direction but is  ultimitely finite in it's being a one dimensional construct and going only one out of six possible directions, true infinity is all-emcompassing and indivisible. In it's very existance it is utterly simple and singular, anything else existing in tandem with true infinity would be external to it, violating its infinite status. Inifinity is neccesarily singular and thus utterly simple. Nice and neat, easy to grasp, no? Something finite, however, has in it several disturbing paradoxes. Like the age old chicken and egg question, something finite must, by definition have a beginning (ultimately) and it must have an end (somewhere). One action taking place (the beginning of something) is the result of the end of something else. Again with the chicken and the egg (or as I'd rather say the universe and the big bang). What came first, the Universe or the Big Bang? Some would say that we are in an eternal cycle of exploding and collapsing universes. Now, as I understand it, the law of entropy simply does not allow for that without additional input. The system will have to get cold and slow to a stop. Unless additional energy is expended any system can't continue. Therefore, supposing this endless cycle would be true, even it would require an infinite source of input to continue eternally. (I would like to point out that I am making the distinction between infinite and eternal.)  Back to the chicken and the egg, we must inevitably ask, "Well, what made that?". What made the egg? the chicken. What made the chicken? and egg. What made that egg? another chicken. For argument's sake let's say a scientist genetically manufactured that chicken. So now the actions of the scientist are responsible for the creation of the chicken. What allowed for the creation of the scientist? The actions of the scientist's parents. What allowed for them? Again for argument's sake, let's say evolution did. Billions of cycles of reproduction and genetic refinement led to the spawing of this scientist who made a chicken in a lab. Great. So what made evolution? For argument's skae (yet again), let's say that time gave rise to evolution; without time there can't be evolution even according to a scientist. Now a kicker. What made time? Unfortunately (and ironically) I'm out of time for right now. As always I'll review and continue. (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, November 1st, 2005
9:04 pm	Aspects of God in Macro...pt.2 And we're back. Ok so a brief recap. There are 3 components I found in having a relationship with God: Concept, Fear, and Love. I have also found that each of the major monotheist religions, while containing all three of these, seems to each focus on one particular thing. Christianity disseminated the Concept of God (as a almighty oneness) by proselytizing to the heathen and Islam subjugated themselves to Allah bringing in the idea of serving through Fear of God. But what about of Love? Well thats the Jews (grins). Am I sounding elitest yet? Well, I discussed this idea rather vehemently through, with my mother of all people. She wanted to say that Christianity should be the holder of the title Love and Jews should be credited with the Concept part. "After all," she tells me, "the Jews were the first to bring the idea of Monotheism to the world and the New Testament even says it was from the love of God that He sent us the son jesus." Fair enough, but, as I pointed out then and will again now, all three religions have these three concepts. I'm talking about emphasis here. Besides, God sending Jesus A. sounds more like pity than love (and you can pity someone without loving them) and B. is nothing like the depth of Judaism's approach to Love of God (I will explain momentarily). Furthermore, despite the fact that Judaism did in fact think of monotheism first, who the heck was listening to us? Not the Babylonians, Persians, Medes, Greeks, Romans or really anyone. (Now the impending explanation:) Judaism did something (on a level) that noone else did. They promoted the idea of having a close personal relationship with God, more than Christianity, which by definition is the diminutive of Judaism in this respect by the very idea of jesus or any other intermediary (saints, icons, etc...); more than Islam which by definition must be diminutive in this respect too because of the emphasis placed on reverence. How can the inferior man have a two way, personal relationship with the Almighty God in Heaven? Besides, Jews have Shir HaShirim (King David's Song of Songs, the 'Love' Song between God and Israel). Noone else has any literature that expresses that on a national scale, do they... Therefore I continue to hold my opinion that Christianity (being the so widely accepted) has the emphasis of being the disseminator of Concept, Islam (with heavy focus on prostration and servitude to Allah) should be the exemplar of Fear, and Judaism taking the last with the archetypal Love. Again I stress that all three of these things are a part of all three religions. I'm just saying that each one has a greater emphasis of one over the others. Stay with me everybody cuz I'm just warming up... (1 Comment |Comment on this)
1:01 pm	Aspects of God in macro....pt.1 It seems that there are three basic components to God: Conception, Fear, and Love. Each corresponds to a certain aspect of a relationship with God. Concept meaning that we've established this idea of an almighty Higher Power, Fear meaning that God is an entity that is Ruler and thus imperative to fear and obey (to not follow the edicts of God will be calamitous to the nonbeleiver, fairly fear inspiring I'd say), and Love meaning that God can be an entity that we can establish a relationship that is more than "I'll do what You say so I'll get reward and You won't punish me"; a much more personal connection, indeed (describable only, I suppose, as Love). I will progress through these three sections in due course. In the meantime I would like to comment on the macrocosm of how nearly every religion I've looked at fits into one of these three categories (except of course the ones that deny monotheism, duh). It's interesting to point out as well, that even the non monotheistic moevements have within them aspects that apply to the God I follow. Zen Buddhism, for example, strives to become one (with what I am not precisely sure yet, everything maybe?). This fits my interpretation of God quite nicely, though my religion will say don't become one with the light (go into the light as christianity would say), implying that the light is 'up there' or something. Rather, manifest the light, experience the light. To go into the light is an attempt to become God (as it seems to me). It would nullify oneself to get that close. Jews are commanded to live with the light not be consumed by it. But I digress, on to the original point. I've found that the major God oriented religions of today are archetypal of the three major categories Conception, Fear and Love. Christianity brought God to an idol-worshipping world. Technically the Jews had it first but we don't missionize. So essentially it was Christian's role to bring the Concept of God to everyone else. Islam focuses on Fear of God. Christianity had aspects of it (vengeful God that will smite thee down and cast thee to eternal hellfire, brimstone, yadayada), but Islam really exemplifies Fear of God. Anyone can see it. Allah is a deity to be fanatically followed, prostrated to 5 times a day etc. Islam is a religion of submission. I don't know enough to honestly say, but I'm sure there is an idea of Love in Islam. It certainly is not the main focus though. The general impression I get though is that Allah is feared enough that it's worth blowing yourself up for Him. Doesn't sound like something done out of love to me. Alas my time runs short. I will recap and continue in the next installment (3 Comments |Comment on this)