Some of my new post locations

I failed to sign the new agreements with ad sense in time and also let my blog be temporarily hidden for to 
long and and can not seem to fix a technical problem so I am transferring my articles to another site.  I also wrote more than 200 articles elsewhere some many years ago which I will hopefully transfer here.  If anyone knows how to switch ad sense accounts and or reactivate an old as sense account let me know.  For this blog site a specific pair of identification numbers is listed and I can not select switch ad sense accounts and I can not log into my old as sense account using my gmail email they say it does not exist.

I am going to correct old posts and after correcting typos I will try to show the original version as posted on my old account with the date it lists as posted and the edited version above with the most recent dates.

MiscellaneousPostTransfers.blogspot.com

Some of my most controversial material I will transfer to

AgsinstReligiousRacialSupremacism.blogspot.com

I am also writing a new book at
OffensiveTheology.blogspot.com

religious labels verses religious practice another section of undermining authority book introduction

Copyright 2017 December 13

This is going to be another section of a book I am writing probably in the introduction

It is not important to me what religion someone labels themselves as but what religion they think and practice.  I am not writing this book to convert someone to a new religious label.

 I am going to make a case that if there is what some people commonly call a heaven and a hell ones admittance to heaven and hell might not determined by what religion one labels themselves as but what religion one thinks and practices not however as salvation based on what set of good deeds someone did or even what knowledge they have but their underlying attitude toward sentient individuals.

I will also make a case that interfaith marriage is not necessarily morally wrong if by interfaith one means two different individuals marrying who label the name of the religion they practice with different labels.

Additionally I will make the case that changing what religion other individuals labels themselves as should not be the primary goal of sharing one's faith.  The primary goal should be providing information that may provide opportunity for someone's underlying attitude or attitudes toward other sentient individuals to improve more easily if they should so choose.  This improvement in attitude may result in learning how to practically make decisions that are more loving based on an objective standard of love that is relativistic based on each individuals perspective including the perspective of God if such a being exists or each god if many gods exist.

I will make the case that a god may exist who communicated with individuals called prophets and that the words that this God communicated to prophets maybe found in a transmitted copied and recopied form in a book frequently called the Bible as well as possibly other books.  However I will not use the Bible alone to make this case, nor will I claim the copying process that led up to today's bible is perfect nor will i claim a canonical set of books, but I will make claim of a process taught that each individual can use to make a reasonable evaluation of alleged prophecy from God that maybe used to evaluate some writings claimed to contain prophetic words.

In light of this sense I will try to make a case based on the Bible to justify many of the points I make throughout this book but it will not be an absolute definitive proof by which a individual of finite knowledge can know the truthfulness or falsity of my claims with 100% certainty.

This book will look at things primarily through a Christian worldview, an agnostic worldview and a national anarchist worldview although not as the one and only worldview labeled as each of these religions.  For two different claims can labeled as dogmatic tenets of the Christian faith by two different individuals labeling themselves as Christian maybe contradictory.  And one tenet of one person's Christianity may actually agree with a tenet of another person's Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Statism, Anarchism or yes even Atheism.

New book I am writing entitled offensive theology undermining authority and teaching love

I am going to write a book showing how religion can be used as a polemic against the allegation that any authority of social institutions both religious and secular exists to make an otherwise good action bad or an otherwise bad action good.

This polemic is not airtight for even in the existence of a hypothetical or real deity who prescribes a objective moral value system to any sentient life in the cosmos, other sentient life may have another objective moral value system, none the less those who hold certain value systems such as a goal to destroy or enslave all other sentient life in the cosmos I will not even attempt to reason with as well as those with some other value systems quite repugnant to my own.

This book when summed up to its most important point may simply be a suggestion that religious teachings may have been inspired by a real divine being to ethically influence people not to murder or at the very least that if such a hypothetical divine being does not exist in reality that interpretation of religious texts or religious teachings may be used none the less as an ethical influence against murder instead of an unethical influence in support of murdrr although there shall be much more to my book than that.

The idea that human beings should need a divine being to tell them not to murder may seem ludicrous on face value and it is but nonetheless even if a divine being has spoken in reality or has been imagined in the mind of men to persuade mankind against murder this has not been sufficient nor has mass murder ended in so called atheist states apart from the allegedly corrupting influence of so called fairy tales of the divine.  Yet there has never been an atheist state for to believe in the state is to worship an idol of mankind's imagined creation.  An imagined creation that is none the less deadly and just as real as the bullets that are used to shoot transgressors of manufactured laws, the ultimate act of worship to an imaginary god, real human sacrifice to the imagined state itself.  In light of this every day reality the far fetched idea that mankind should contemplate a religion in order to oppose murder even though they should simply reject the idea that murder is good at face value without need for a real or imagined God to give them command not to murder may start to seem more reasonable after all.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2017 December 11
Last edited 2017 December 11
Originally created 2017 December 10

Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?

Copyright

September 20, 2010

Carl Janssen

What would be a proper answer to the question, “If God is infinitely-strong can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?”

There are many ways to answer this question.  Some people might say this question is invalid because God does not have a body.  I will simply reply to this question with an allegory.

Imagine you are at a weightlifting contest between two men.  One contestant is a weak man, and the other a strong man.  The weak man cannot lift more than 20 pounds, doing a specific type of lift.  The strong man cannot lift more than 200 pounds doing the same specific type of lift.  The weak man tells the strong man, “You cannot be unable to lift the 30 pound weight doing this type of lift, where as I can be unable to lift the 30 pound weight doing this type of lift therefore I am stronger than you because there is something I can do that you cannot.”  The strong man replies, “I can choose not to lift the 30 pound weight, so this does not actually make you stronger than me.”

Which man measured strength correctly?

Christian internet outreach has certain advantages over six traditional forms of outreach.

Copyright

September 18, 2010

Carl Janssen

 

There are many different methods that Christians have traditionally used to outreach to their community including but not limited to the following.

1.    Charitable work and community service

2.    Friendship Evangelism and Discipleship

3.    Talking to strangers, such as street witnessing and door to door

4.    Books, Pamphlets, Letters and Epistles

5.    Preaching a Sunday Sermon to people in a Church building

6.    Televangelism and Radio evangelism

I will discuss very briefly advantages that internet outreach has over these six methods.  There are also advantages that at least five of these methods have over internet outreach which I will not discuss.

1. Hands on community outreach such as helping those in need with food or medical help

Is limited in that what is morally good must be determined before hands on work is done (for else the hands on work might not be morally good) the desire to do good must be developed within the heart (for many people are capable of good but few chose to do the good they are capable of) and eternal matters must be considered as surpassing temporary matter [for what good is it to eat bread in this life and go without even a drop of water on your tongue in the next life (Luke 16:24)] teaching helps overcome these three limitations.

2. Friendship Evangelism and Discipleship

Are very limited because of reaching a small number of people who may be hard-hearted (if they reject the truth today they may reject it again for the next 80 years of “friendship” or “discipleship”.)  Discipleship methods are also limited because you may find yourself repeating the same things to every person.  Internet outreach may enable you to reach a large group of people with the hope of finding someone who might not be hard-hearted.  Internet outreach is also helpful because once you have something published you do not need to repeat the same teaching again unless there is a good reason such as added detail or clarifications, etc.

3. Talking to strangers such as going door to door or street witnessing.

Are limited because people may be offended more with these methods than other methods, because you potentially have to repeat teaching the same things, and because you have to search out and find people to talk to.  Internet outreach provides an advantage in that if people are offended they can just avoid your website, you do not have to repeat the same things every day after you wrote them one time online and even if you sleep all day people can still look at your website.

4.  Books, Pamphlets, Epistles, Letters

These are very useful because you can write a teaching one time and it can be continued after you die.  They are limited because they need to be distributed, and duplicated which is costly either for the creator and or the consumers.  They are also limited because people may not even know about your books existence.  The internet is a cheaper method to instantly reach a large number of people with literature and does not have to consume paper.

5.  Modern mainstream preaching

In which the audience is required to keep silent and not ask questions until the sermon is over is not an early church practice in my opinion.  I as well as other people suspect that when preaching was originally done, the male members of the audience were allowed to ask questions (1 Corinthian 14:34) and multiple people would take turns speaking in an orderly manner (1 Corinthians 14:30-31.)  I suspect it was more of a group interaction in which the males participated together to learn.  I suspect that traditionally after learning in a group meeting the married men went home to teach their wives and children (1 Corinthians 14:34, Ephesians 5:26, Deuteronomy 6:7.)  I believe that women were traditionally allowed to attend such services but were expected to be silent or quiet more than the men (1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Peter 3:1, 1 Peter 3:4.)  Since the group interaction of questions and answers has been separated from mainstream preaching I suggest that the person who insists that the audience keeps silent, changes his ways.  In my opinion he should start recording or typing those non-interactive sermons by himself (with no audience present) and place them on the internet for everyone to see, instead of dragging in an audience who he expects to keep silent.  In my opinion he should also start having interactive sermons in which the audience members can ask questions and take turns sharing what they have learned, in an attempt to duplicate something similar to the practices in 1 Corinthians 14.

6. Televangelism and Radio-evangelism

These had an important place and time to outreach to a large number of people.  But when the internet is available today there large cost raises ethical quandaries when the same messages could be distributed over the internet at a cheaper price, which in some cases may be the difference between hundreds of dollars in a year and over a hundred thousand dollars in a year.

Moral values oppose most Democrats

Copyright

August 28, 2010

Carl Janssen

Many people think that I am a republican, or “conservative” that simply is not true.  I usually try to examine the candidates on the basis of moral principles that I believe, some of my moral beliefs are based on scripture directly and some may have other sources.

I am in many situations against racism, degradation of women, murder of those who should not be killed and stealing. 

I feel that the democratic candidates are usually racists. Programs like affirmative action are racist for obvious reasons.  Affirmative action forces people to hire on the basis of skin color and is inherently a racist policy. 

Many democrats are feminists.  I feel that feminist movement as a whole is harmful and degrading towards women.  Many feminists support the sexual exploitation of women.  For example there are strip clubs in Feminist countries but probably not all over the place in Muslim countries.  Since I am pro woman, I am anti-feminist and therefore usually against democrat candidates.  

Abortions are murders of babies (who unlike abortionists) have committed no crimes that should be punished by earthly execution.  Many democrats are in support of legalizing baby murder so I think many of them are morally bad.  If a president’s job is to protect citizens, but he wishes to legalize the murder of citizens, he is not capable of doing the most essential duty of the presidency.  Can Christians who know abortion is murder vote for pro abortion candidates?  “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”  1 John 3:15

Finally Democrats pretend to be generous to the poor, but they generally are not.  It is generous to give your own money to help someone else. 

It is stealing to use violent force to get someone else to give their money to help a non-starving “poor” person get more money.  If they really cared for the poor they would not give to the poor by taxing others, instead they would give out of their own pocket book, and suggest that others volunteer to help the poor in the proper way with their time and resources willingly not under threat of violence.  It is sometimes better to teach a man to fish, than to give him fish directly.

Voting often requires at least half of people, or the largest group of people to agree on something.  Yet many will be eternally punished and few will receive a good afterlife.  It would be shocking if voting produced good moral results when less than half of all people throughout history have been or will be “saved.”  (Few+Many=100% Mathew 7:13-14)

Social Security Failed Due to Underpopulation?

Additional Note added September 26, 2015 : I do not neccessarily agree with the phrase I put at the summary stating, "It appears as though people should get pay that may have been promised them, in turn for initially paying into the system" maybe I was summarizing what many people claim to believe or meant something else that I do not currently remember as I am writing this additional note.

Copyright

2010

Carl Janssen

Originally created September 6, 2010

Revised September 22, 2010

First I would like to point out that I am in no way shape or form endorsing social security taxes, I am simply stating how it could work and how it can fail to work when people do not have enough children.

The idea behind social security is that people in the first generation payed for people in their older generation, in turn people in the next generation would pay for the people in the first generation.

Now as I understand it the promise when the first generation payed into social security taxes is that when they get old the next generation would pay for them, thus it can make sense that some people feel entitled to getting paid, when they are ready to retire, having had payed the taxes for the very purpose of retirement (as well as the purpose to help their elders out) when they were younger.

The ethical dilemma with social security taxes is the same as with every tax.  People are forced to pay taxes or be physically attacked or imprisoned by the government.  Mandatory Non-Voluntary Taxes resembles a syndicate asking for protection money or a man mugging someone with a gun saying that the person willingly gave them money and that the presence of the gun was irrelevant.  None the less, I suggest paying taxes for purposes of safety.  I pay taxes myself for purposes of safety.  That being said I have absolutely nothing against voluntary donations to help people out.

In the following paragraphs I use the phrase goods, not money.  I use the phrase goods because they are tangible things, not a fake inflatable exchange.  I also do not endorse women being required to work for money, but simply did my calculations that way in order to make the math easier.  (If a man produces two units and a woman zero units the average number of units per person produced between the two is one unit each.)

Now imagine if each man married one woman and had two contributing children.  These two children gave their parents a total of two units of goods (the average [mean] between the two of them was one unit of goods from each of them.)  These children when they grew up marry and have exactly two contributing children each who do the same for their parents.  If this is the case with each generation what was put into their parents generation was given back to them precisely, breaking even with no more and no less.

Now imagine if each man married one woman and had four contributing children.  These four children gave their parents a total of four units of goods (the average [mean] between the four of them was one unit of goods from each of them.)  These children when they grew up married and had exactly four contributing children each who did the same for their parents, in this case the parents would have got 2 times what they initially put in (as a couple) (4 received [from 4 children]-2 donated or taxed from [both the man and woman.))

So if we assume monogamous marriages and that all people marry.  If every married couple has more than two contributing children on average in every generation they will receive back more than they initially invested when they are old enough to collect payment of goods.

If people had more children and social security was done with goods instead of inflatable currency could it have worked abundantly?

In summary

1.     It appears as though people should get pay that may have been promised them, in turn for initially paying into the system

2.     It may not be ethical to require people to pay into the system, yet forcing new people to pay into the system has been the means to repay those who payed initially.

3.    If married couples had more than two contributing children they could have got more than they put in, if goods were used rather than inflatable money.

No shortage of marriagable women with polygyny due to exponential population growth rate

Additional Note added September 26, 2015.  This work says nothing about whether or not the practice is ethical or unethical it is simply addressing a mathematical fallacy commonly made.

Copyright

2010

Carl Janssen

First created September 3, 2010

Modified September 6, 2010

Are there enough women?  Looking at the relationship between population growth rate and polygyny through basic differential equations.

I just posted this quickly.   Let me know if I made math errors or other errors.

A common statement I have seen is similar to the following, “if men start having polygamous marriages, there would be some men who would have to be unmarried, because for every one man who is born approximately one woman is born.”

I wish to show that this is not true if the average age of marriage for men is higher than the average age of marriage for women as has been practiced commonly in many cultures in which polygamy is practiced.   I will use differential equations to show that the number of women of marriageable age and older is greater than the number of men of marriageable age and older, if men typically marry younger women.

The most simplified population growth model I will start with assumes that the number of births-deaths per time is directly proportional to the population at that time

Pretend an exactly equal number of males and females are born and die

R is proportionality constant

K is a constant for the differential equations solution

T is time

Let P = the number of males = the number of females

P is to be treated as dimensionless.  That is the population divided by 1 person.

dp/dt=R*p

(dp)/p=R*dt

(take the anti-derivative that is integrate and put in a constant)

Ln(p) = Rt + K

e^(Ln(p))=e^(Rt+K)

P=e^(Rt+K)

If all men marry after age M and all women marry after age F

Then the number of marriageable men equals

e^(K+ [R*(t-m)])

And the number of marriageable females equals

e^(K+ [R*(t-f)])

So if each man is to marry exactly N women and marry all N women at the same time.  Then

Marriageable Women>= Marriageable Men*N

So

N*e^(K+[R*(t-m)]) <= e^(K+[R*(t-f)])

N<=e^(R*[m-f])

As m-f increases the highest N possible increases.  M-F equals how much older the men are than the women.

Ln(n)<=R*[m-f]

m-f=>[ln(n)]/R

notice that when n=1 the ln(n)=0

Now let us assume

That the number of births-deaths per time is directly proportional to N (the number of wives per man) times the population P.

dp/dt= N*R*P

(dp)/p=N*R*dt

Ln(p)=[T*N*R]+K

P=e^([T*N*R)+K]

Number of marriageable men

e^(K+[(T-m)*N*R])

Number of marriageable women

e^(K+[(T-f)*N*R])

At least N marriageable women for every marriageable man

N* e^(K+[(T-m)*N*R])<= e^(K+[(T-f)*N*R])

N<=e^([m-f]*N*R)

Ln(N)=[m-f]*N*R

[m-f]=[Ln(N)]/[N*R]

Note that the limit as N approaches infinity of [ln(N)]/N = 0 from above

Note that when N =1 the ln(N)= 0

For N => 2 as N increases the lowest m-f required for each N decreases. 

That is the greater the number of wives each man marries the closer in age the men can be to their wives, but the lower number of wives each man marries the greater the age gap required for each man to be able to have at least N wives.  Note also that I am talking about the minimum m-f required there is nothing to prevent a greater m-f from being used.

m-f is how many years older every man would have to be than his wives, in order for every man to be able to marry at least N wives, in the type of mathematical model described above.

Perhaps people really think murder before nine months is still murder

Copyright

September 1, 2010

Carl Janssen

If a woman has a premature baby born a great deal of medical expense is sometimes spent to take care of the baby even though it is less than nine months old. 

If someone were to shoot a baby that was born prematurely they might find themselves in legal trouble even though it is less than nine months old. 

If someone were to attack or intentionally poison a pregnant women and the baby should die, they could get in legal trouble for murdering the baby even though it is less than nine months old.

All these things indicate that people think that someone who has existed less than nine months from conception is or can be indeed alive.  If they therefore think such a person is alive before nine months old, it would make sense that aborting such a baby before it has reached an age of nine months old would be murder.  If they are wrong and such a person is not alive then perhaps they should not penalize people who injure or murder premature babies after they have been born. 

It is interesting to note that a baby born prematurely can manage to survive if properly taken care of.  Now some people in order to be consistent who are pro-abortion wish to make it legal to murder and or fail to provide medical treatment to a baby after the baby has been born.   If you believe that it is wrong to murder a baby after it is born even if it is born prematurely, then perhaps you should consider it murder to abort a baby at the same young ages that babies can survive premature birth with proper medical treatment (or possible even from the moment of conception.)  Perhaps someone is logically inconsistent if they object to women leaving babies alive in dumpsters, but are fine with people murdering the same baby.

In summary:

People are often against murdering a baby born before it reaches nine months old.  They are also against someone other than an "official" abortion provider murdering that baby before nine months old.  So they seem to think such a baby is alive.  Oddly enough even though they seem to think such a baby is alive it is often considered okay to abort it according to the same people.

Some reasons why I know abortion is morally wrong, unless it is the only way to prevent immediate death.

Copyright

August 28, 2010

Carl Janssen

Abortion is often thought of as a choice to have a baby or not have a baby.  But in reality abortion is a choice to murder a baby that already exists.  The woman has to be pregnant before an abortion occurs, so the woman already has a baby in her.  If the baby was already born, I would consider it morally wrong to murder the baby.  It is essentially the same baby five minutes before it is born, so it seems to me that it would also be morally wrong to kill the same baby.   A baby’s arms and legs sometimes develop before the woman even knows she is pregnant.  If a woman was to use drugs or drink alcohol during this initial stage the baby would potentially have no arms or legs as an adult.  Whatever is done to that baby will potentially affect that person as an adult.  If women should not drink alcohol to prevent injuring the baby and having a disabled child, why should they do something to prevent the child from having a living body in the future.  In the same way that drinking alcohol at an earlier stage of pregnancy may cause disability to a future adult an abortion at an early stage of pregnancy if done correctly seems to me like murdering a future adult.

Why abortion is morally wrong even when rape is involved in the pregnancy.

If a woman was raped and she gives birth to a child who grows up and eventually reaches the age of 35 years old.  That adult should not be murdered just because he was born due to his mother being raped.  It is the same person who was at one time inside the mother when she was pregnant.  If it is not okay to kill the adult born as a result of rape, why should it be okay to kill that person when he or she was a child?

Why abortion is wrong in the case of incest and genetic abnormalities and disabilities.

People today denounce those involved in the holocaust who murdered adults based on genetic or eugenic reasons and based on disabilities and parental origin.  Yet they support murdering babies based on these reasons.  If you should not murder an adult because of his genes, disability or parentage then you should not murder a baby based on these traits.

Some people say that abortions should be done to the disabled or those with genes predisposed to disability because life is not worth living as a disabled person.  Many disabled people, believe that life is worth living, and it is wrong to take life away from them against their will such as in an abortion or by other means, unless they have committed an actual crime for which God has prescribed death.  If those who said we should murder disabled babies openly said the same thing about those disabled babies when they grew up to be disabled adults, how would the disabled adults respond?

Why the cost of taking care of babies is not a good argument for abortion.

Those who make this argument for abortion are saying it is okay to murder for money.  Furthermore adoption has been free for the mother for centuries all she has to do is give the baby to someone else.  And childbirth has been free for the mother for centuries, it never required a massive hospital building the way it was first done in nature.  Additionally many women are trying to increase the number of calories they expend per day in America and being pregnant does that for free without having to pay for a gym membership.

Exceptions

In the case where a baby can not live, and survive through childbirth and the mother will die without an abortion, an abortion may be acceptable.  This is because the baby will die even if an abortion is not performed, but it will prevent the mother from dying.  That being said such an exception is often misrepresented.

Under many circumstances those who know abortion is murder and vote for pro-abortion candidates have committed murder.  Those who know Obama’s stance on abortion and that voted for Obama and know abortion is murder have committed murder and may not have good eternal life!

“Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”  1 John 3:15

The Parable of the colour blind manager and the shady thugs.

Copyright

August 28, 2010

Carl Janssen

A blind man was giving people a job interview and he could not see if a person had blue or grey skin colour.   He also did not ask what skin colour they were.  After the people talked to him, he decided if he would hire them based only on the conversation and nothing else.

He decided to hire the first 50 applicants who he considered to have a good conversation in the interview.

50 blue people and 50 grey people applied.   30 out of 50 of the blue people said nasty racist things about all grey people on the interview.  And 20 out of 50 of the grey people said nasty racist things about all blue people in the interview.

The blind employer hated racism and refused to hire racist people, so he refused to hire the employees that made nasty racist comments about all blue or grey people.  He hired the first 50 people who did not make racist comments.  So, in the end the blind employer hired 30 grey people and 20 blue people.

Later, one of the racist blue people who was not hired, did not choose to consider the possibility that he was unqualified instead choose to count how many blue and grey employees were hired.  He counted that there are 30 grey employees and 20 blue employees.  He then calls the blind employer a racist and tells some shady thugs who want the blind man’s money.

The shady thugs came in with guns and told the blind man, that he is required to hire an equal number of blue and grey employees and since he did not he must pay a fee.  The blind manager tried to argue, “I could not see which employees were grey and blue and besides it is my money do I not have a right to give it to who I want to.”  The shady thugs insist that he must pay a fine for his hiring practices or go to jail.  The blind manager said, “No, you do not have a right to steal my money, it is my money to hire who I want.  If I cannot spend my money how I want then I never owned the money to begin with.”  The shady thugs then beat him up took away his money and threw him in jail, for refusal to pay.

The shady thugs appointed a new manager who selected again from the original 100 applicants.  The new manager hired 25 grey people and 25 blue people.   5 of the blue people hired were racist because they could not find more than 20 out of 50 blue people who were not racist.