Archive for Faith & Religion: Mixed – Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist

Bishop’s letter to the Giboff and Steve

February 7, 2012 jonathanbishop 21 comments

In response to the claims against my religion by Giboff and Steve, I declare the following:

My religion is called: Mixed – Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist. Essentially I am saying that in so far as my religious beliefs are concerned where science refutes a claim in the Bible then that claim is not valid. Equally, where science cannot refute a claim in the Bible then that claim should be considered valid (i.e. fill in the gaps) until science can refute it.

From the way I see it, I am not trying to impose myself onto others, I put my views on this site and people can use them as they see fit. They are not compelled to come on this website. The only people who think I’m trying to impose myself onto them are those who are not able to justify their own position as rigorously as I can mine. The people who say to me “I don’t do politics” were doing politics up until the point they said that!

They only moral (i.e. a attitude/value one wants others to adopt as a general principle) I have is that I am against morals and don’t see a place for them in our society. Many other post-modernists share that view. I instead have a <a href=”/1790/unplugged-and-uncut/protocols-and-commandments-of-jonathan-bishop/”>personal code of ethics</a> which I live by as others do the 10 commandments – If you look at that code you’ll see that all of the ten commandments are in there!

I feel quite sad for you both, the way that despite how educated you are, the way you are attacking me for creating a belief system, when the basis on which you are attacking it is from an opposing belief system! You both appear to me to be empiricists – That is you think the truth is in the material world and that one should access it through objective observation.

As someone who started my philosophical journey as a constructivist, I think that is delusional myself. You can’t have an idea of an external reality without constructing it! You can’t know whether something is true, without reference to something that is not true. It is you both that are deluding yourselves thinking that you are anymore objective than me.

The fact is my belief system as a scientist reflects that more of an open-minded Agnostic. My religion is essentially that of a Confirmed Anglican who lost faith in the legitimacy of the Bible and Christ after reading beyond the Gospels. With my philosophy that of a constructivist then the only option for a religion beyond being Agnostic is being Gnostic. My Gnosticism is based on building what I know about the Bible, with what I know about science, with what I know about how Equality law recognises specific aspects of religion such as choices to do with food, clothes, jewellery, etc. which are my own personal likes and dislikes in reference to the scriptures. On this basis, it is quite fun trolling people who actually believe in their religion beyond its basis as a ‘philosophical lifestyle choice’ in Equality Law, especially Atheists like Steve and those who give Solomon legitimacy, like Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

So put simply Giboff – your hunch was right. My religion is more of an instrument shall we say to make life more interesting and justify my personality, especially when it goes up against those people who don’t see themselves as religious, like Steve, attack it in such a way that exposes their religious beliefs. For instance if you look at the definition of belief in the equality Act 2010:

Religion has the meaning usually given to it but belief includes religious and philosophical beliefs including lack of belief (e.g. Atheism). Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.

On that basis, I am legally entitled to have multiple belief systems, including religious, philosophical etc. Just because some of these are based on justifying my personality, which is a manifestation of various medical conditions and experiences, does not mean it is any less valid in law, as those who actually hold their religious beliefs on par with their philosophical, political and social/personal ones, among others.

An lonely on-looker's diary - The world through the eyes of an Aspie, Faith & Religion: Mixed - Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist

Bishop’s Letter to the Giboff

January 24, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments
The Giboff asked the following questions:
  • How do you define a religion as opposed a belief system?
Religion has the meaning usually given to it but belief includes religious and philosophical beliefs including lack of belief (e.g. Atheism). Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live  for it to be included in the definition. – Equality Act 2010
  • Is every decision discriminatory against someone, or potentially discriminatory?
There will always be discrimination of sorts some my be unlawful. For instance it is discrimination for a parent to allow 14-year-old child to go out of the house if they don’t a 13-year-old one, but it doesn’t mean it is illegal.
  • In order to make an alleged non-discriminatory decision discriminatory, what must the discriminated party prove?
For me it is prejudice. If a premise in a claim is based on  prejudiced point of view then
  • Do you live with your parents?

Define “live”

  • Are they religious, or do they believe that you are akin to King Soloman?

My Father is an Atheist. My mother is a Spiritualist. We tolerate one another’s religious convictions.

  • Are your siblings part of your church?
No
  • Have you ever had sex with man or beast – I believe this is fundamental to understanding the emotional needs of others?
I recently demonstrated my solution to Solomon’s idolatory activities towards that drove him to Sin, by making her more important to him and thus God:
Jesus says that if one so as looks at another woman lustfully that you have already committed sin against her in your eyes so you should seek to gouge your eyes out.
On this basis, because I have a strong attraction torwards women then it would be impossible not to Sin, so the only solutions are:
1. Have a permanent commitment-based relationship with a man (I have in the past loved a man as much as a woman)
2. Have many close friendships with women as Solomon did
3. More important is to put myself and my education first, so neither are more important than me and thus none more important than God.
  • Have the people of Treforest seen your views on abortion?
I would hope so, but the definitely have my policies on allowing the sun tanning shop to provide ‘fake shags’ and well as ‘fake tans’!
  • Where do you drink? I drink in the Bush in Llantwit Fardre, surprised not to have heard of you before recently, I know most local polymaths, i’m one myself, the only one I thought, I have a club, its just me at the moment, you are welcome to join, fee of 50p, you get a badge.
It was a nice offer, but I’m sure you’ll understand the only clubs I want to be a member of is those who don’t want me as a member :o )
  1. Any chance of showing us the equation for gender calculations, I think i’m 50/50, but would like to see (I like Elton John)
Yes. If you go to www.eqsq.com and take the test. You will see your EQ in relation to the average man and woman and your SQ in relation to the average man and woman.
You then need to make a value judgement. Mine was that as women are higher on that that will be my ‘FemQ’. And the same for men, their SQ score will be used for my MaleQ.
So I divided 100 by the average Male SQ and them multiplied it by my SQ to get ey MaleQ
I then divided 100 by the average Female EQ and then multiplied it by my EQ to get my FemQ
These then gave me  ratio – FemQ:MaleQ
To get the percent, you add the FemQ and MaleQ together to get the MFQ. And then you divide the FemQ by this MFQ and multiply it by 100.  That will say how female you are. Then you minus that from 100 to see how male you are.
  • Explain your conception of God, what are his boundaries, and then explain how Solomon could have been anything close to this conception.

God as I define as “all knowledge that is possible to know but is not yet known”.  And on this basis:

In the beginning God create the Heavens and the Earth – In the beginning he did, because Stephen Hawking wasn’t around then.

God separated the light from the dark, he called the dark night and the light day – he did, unless/until we know who was the first human to actually observe that fact.

God knows all what we don’t know. But a philosophical question is, if we know more than what Adam and Eve knew when they committed ‘Original sin,’ then is God getting small the closer we get to him, or is her getting bigger, that is because of even all what we know there is more to know which even God didn’t once know?

An lonely on-looker's diary - The world through the eyes of an Aspie, Auto-Wiki, Faith & Religion: Mixed - Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist

Equality Training – Ethics or Prejudice?

January 19, 2012 jonathanbishop 4 comments

Richard Wiseman posts a quiz on his blog. This type of quiz is used a lot in equality training to expose people’s prejudices. Often they try to get people to support saving a woman and child over a gay man or old man, or they try to get people to choose saving a surgeon over a disabled person or politician, or similar types of discrimination. Richard Wiseman’s was:

Time for a poll.  The sinking of the Costa Concordia has made me wonder whether the old adage of ‘women and children first’ still applies.  So, if you are a guy, imagine that you were on the ship.  It is sinking and there are a limited number of lifeboats.  You are not with your partner or children.  Would you follow the ‘women and children first’ rule?  Be honest – it is all anonymous!  Vote now….

My answer is simple: save myself and the child

It would be against my religion to put the woman and child before myself. My religion is Solomonite Scientist. In my religion I aim to be equal to King Solomon, who is equal to God. Therefore by putting a woman and child before myself I am committing Sin by saying I willing put put them above God, who I am equal to. God degrees that I shall have no God above him, so that means the woman and child would have to understand that to treat me equally on the grounds of my religious belief, would mean they could not come before me.

I answered both questions by the way. Whilst my sex is man, my gender is 19% female and 81% male so I had a right to answer the one relating to females. So I voted that most men would put women and children they have no relationship with before themselves. But then most of these men are probably walkovers who are pathetic excuses for human beings.

Survival of the fittest – If there were only two spaces on the boat, I’d take the kid and let the woman drown. Neither she, nor any other person is more important than me – they are certainly not above God!

An lonely on-looker's diary - The world through the eyes of an Aspie, Faith & Religion: Mixed - Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist

Some things that people who are anti-solomonite say

December 25, 2011 jonathanbishop 2 comments

It is anti-solomonitic to say to a Solomonite in a derogatory way that they are:

Arrogant, big-headed, boastful, bombastic, cocky, conceited, crowing, egocentric, egoistic, egotistic, egotistical, exultant, haughty, high-and-mighty, inflated, know-it-all, loud-mouth, narcissistic, on an ego-trip, ostentatious, overweening. pleased with oneself, pompous, pretentious, proud, puffed up, self-aggrandising, self-applauding, self-important, self-promoting, smarty-alecky, snooty, strutting, stuck-up, swaggering, swanky, swollen-headed, too big for one’s boots or britches, vainglorious, vaunting, windbag.

Because: King Solomon had a very high opinion of himself, which Solomonites try to emulate

It is anti-solomonitic to say to a Solomonite in a derogatory way that they are:

Covetus, greedy, materialistic, possessive, superficial

Because: King Solomon was a collector of material possessions, which Solomonites try to emulate.

It is anti-solomonitic to say to a Solomonite in a derogatory way that they are:
Authoritarian autocratic, blinkered, despotic, commanding, confident, dictatorial, disciplinarian, doctrinaire, dogmatic, dominating, harsh, imperious, imperative, imperious, imposing, magisterial, officious, peremptory, rigid, self-assured, severe, strict, totalitarian, tyrannical, unyielding
Because: King Solomon was confident in his beliefs and outlook on life and presented them with authority, which is something Solomonites try to emulate.

It is anti-solomonitic to say to a Solomonite in a derogatory way that they are:

Aberrant, absurd, brainless, cockamamie, crazy, delirious, demented, disconnected, disjointed, distraught, fallacious, flaky, foolish, freaky, idiotic, incoherent, injudicious, insane, invalid, kooky, loony, mad, mindless, nonsensical, nutty, off-the-wall, preposterous, raving, reasonless, ridiculous, silly, sophistic, specious, stupid, thick, unreasonable, unreasoning, unsound, unstable, unthinking, unwise , wacky, wild, wrong.

Because: King Solomon had knowledge that many of those around him did not have, which was his wisdom. So to to assume something a Solomonite says is the case is wrong without exploring their knowledge in more depth is ignorant to a Solomonite whose knowledge is likely to be very unique and not easily obtainable by others.

An lonely on-looker's diary - The world through the eyes of an Aspie, Auto-Wiki, Faith & Religion: Mixed - Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist

My Christmas Day Message on Jesus Christ – The Pretended Saviour of the Universe

December 25, 2011 jonathanbishop No comments

For me it is clear in religious terms that Christ was a prophet. He was from the line of King Solomon, as Mohammed was, and he made claims about the origin, nature and future of the planet. In my faith – being a Solomonite Scientist – I also regard Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking to be prophets, as they made claims which on the basis of current science at the time they made them they were not entirely provable.

In is my view that Christ was not ‘crucified’. I personally think he did a deal with Pontius Pilate to pacify the Jews. Pilate said that Christ had committed no crime, and that he’d ‘wash his hands’ with the Jews.

So, reading the Gospels, there was this part where Doubting Thomas trues to prove Christ has ‘resurrected’ by putting his fingers though his hands. Thomas put his fingers through the centre of Christ’s hands and not his wrists, which proves to me Christ was not crucified the same as the others. Also, it is claimed that Christ spent 40 days in the desert, yet he only lasted a couple of hours on the Cross, so I find it unconvincing from a consistency point of view also.

It is known that the Roman’s ‘auctioned off’ all of Christ’s property between themselves. I think the purpose of this was so that when Christ was meant to have taken part in ‘assentation’, he was propertyless and therefore meek, like all those he said would inherit the earth. If he had not been ‘meek’ when he was ascended into heaven then he would have been a hypocrite.

Now turning to Paul and his conversion from Saul. I think it was Saul who wrote the letters to the Romans. It is long known that the letters were dictated. I think Christ was using Saul as a meat puppet, because as he had holes in his hands and couldn’t write, then Saul acted as a reasonable adjustment for him.

My interpretation of Romans 1 and 2 will be controversial from some, but reading them was essential to the inner-peace I find in myself today. In Romans 1, Paul has a complete condemnation on homosexuality, and in Romans 2 he defends it, saying those who condemn homosexuality will become homosexual themselves. I think this was based on Christ’s personal experiences working with Saul.

When I started having thoughts and feelings towards men, I found it completely disturbing. I thought I was becoming gay, and would therefore no longer be attracted to women, whose ‘assets’ I hold dear as desirable adornments to them, especially those which have been Photoshopped in ‘lad-mags’, but for which Photoshopping was not necessary in my first love!

So I became homophobic towards myself, but not towards other homosexuals in the way I treated them. In fact, while I was coming to terms with these experiences, I recruited the first two openly gay members to the Treforest Labour Party, and designed the discussion programme around things I thought they would be interested in, so that they felt more included and willing to participate.

My auto-homophobia didn’t reduce the thoughts they made them more powerful. And then I would have no control over them coming into my mind at times I would not want them. I have now accepted these thoughts.

So it is my view that the reason Christ wrote Romans 1, was because he was having thoughts that he didn’t want towards Saul, who he became close to, and this was his way to deal with it. So though his auto-homophobia his thoughts then increased so that he became orientated towards men, which led to him writing Romans 2, where he said condemning homosexuality will make one homosexual also.

So as you can see, I don’t think Christ had any supernatural powers. I am not willing to believe in anything supernatural until the day science can fully explain it so it can become natural. I think Christ was a very advanced psychiatrist of his days. None of his miracles including making those whose legs were amputated grow again. Most of the people he helped had neurological problems that were acute and treatable. Though talking to people at length and knowing which parts of the mind to manipulate he acted like a placebo, giving people a sense of confidence and home they had overcome their problems. Nothing is said in the Bible about whether Christ’s interventions actually had any long-term efficacy. And so called miracles like ‘walking on water’ were actually misinterpretation of the Bible, as in this case it was simply a case of when Chris’s boat approached the seashore that he walked on the wet sands, or something like that so I’m told by a Christian Minister.

I’m convinced that Christianity was created not by Christ, but by the Romans. Many stories in the New Testament have been shown to relate to local folk-law, like the rolling back of the stone to Christ’s resting place.

So even though I am willing to recognise Christ as a prophet, I give him no special place over any of the others, who I also recognise, including Mohammed. The person I regard as the Messiah, which is the anointed one of God is King Solomon, from whose line Christ and Mohammed came. I agree with Christians that Solomon turned to idolatry, which in my view is where he loved a woman more than he loved himself and God, but then so did Adam and Eve, who I think, in a religious sense, founded the human race and began our evolution, from which becoming equal to King Solomon is an important step in us knowing as much as God knew, which is why are brains have evolved so much since Adam and Eve’s day.

 

An lonely on-looker's diary - The world through the eyes of an Aspie, Auto-Wiki, Faith & Religion: Mixed - Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist, Sciences

My position on ‘Christmas’

December 24, 2011 jonathanbishop 20 comments

I have declared my religion as Solomonite Scientist. This means I regard King Solomon to be the Messiah – the anointed one of God. I therefore regard Jesus (who I will still call Christ) and Mohammed to be equal prophets of God, as they are descendants of King Solomon.

As a Scientific Solomonite, unlike say an Anglican Solomonite, I will not be willing to recognise any particular day in the year as being Christ’s actual birthday without strong proof.

On this basis I will not be celebrating Christmas for religious purposes. I will only celebrate in when in the presence of children, for who I think the fantasy of Christmas should be an important part of the innocence of childhood. Therefore I will only be sending Christmas Cards and Presents to children, such as my nieces and nephews, and my own children eventually.

Any presents I’m given for Christmas when I’m not in the company of children I will open on New Years’ day, which is more significant to me. I tend to keep all my New Year resolutions, and as the person I judge myself against and compete is myself in the previous year(s). For example, 2008 was a rubbish year compared to 2007, as in 2007 I became an LLM and Chartered IT Professional and other than gaining public office, nothing much happened in 2008. 2010 was a good year, I got my first paper on law, and I became a Fellow of BCS. 2011 was reasonable, getting my MScEcon from Aberystwyth. I hope 2012 will be even better, where I aim to complete a doctorate, become a Chartered Scientist and gain Chartership of CILIP, among others.

I don’t mind people sending me Christmas Cards and Presents or saying ‘Happy Christmas’ or any translation into their own language – I’m not too keen on ‘Merry Christmas’, because Solomon was a King and should therefore not have drank because he could lose track of his responsibilities and obligations.  I will however respond to these cards with New Year Cards, and open the presents on New Years’ Eve, so they can be used in the New Year. Anyone I buy presents for that isn’t a child will receive their present in the New Year.

An lonely on-looker's diary - The world through the eyes of an Aspie, Auto-Wiki, Faith & Religion: Mixed - Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist, Notices and Announcements

Who gives a monkey’s?

December 23, 2011 jonathanbishop No comments

I have kept this blog password protected all year, but since reading this article on The New Scientist website I feel I can come out of the cold.

When I was 21 I was sworn into the Anglican Church on the basis of a baptism and confirmation of my faith in the values and beliefs of Christianity. All I had read at the time were the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. My exposure to science was limited, but I’ve gone on to gain three science degrees – a BSc(Hon), MSc and MScEcon.

Over that period I have decided I do not wish to follow any way of life prescribed by any religion. I do however like the Christian message of tolerance and forgiveness, accept that the Old Testament’s conception of vengeance means that forgiveness can’t exist without it, like black can’t exist without white, or day without night. However, I put my faith in science so that it will be able to answer the questions about God one day, even though it can’t at the moment.

So what I am about to present may not be able to be proven or disproven by today’s science, but one day it definitely will be able to, if my faith becomes fact. When Charles Darwin wrote the “Origin of Species”, his theories were based on the best evidence available at the time, and many have been supported by modern science, others not. I think the ‘Great Flood’ story in the Bible was based on an actual event like a tsunami as historians suggest, and the writer of the story changed it to encourage people to believe in a higher power, called God.

The battle towards science and religion is on the basis that science can’t prove God, so that creates a conflict. Atheists regard this to mean God doesn’t exist. Christians, for example regard this to be that just because one can’t prove a higher power like God exist doesn’t mean it can’t – and they strongly believe God does exist and they see the prophets who gave voice the Bible as proving that. Both of these positions are protected in the UK by the Human Rights Act and Equality Acts.

I would like to suggest a consolidated view of evolution theory and creationism theory, where both can mutually exist and neither be wrong. This may be wide of the mark for devotees, but open minded scholar may find it thought provoking. I invite people to leave comments, and if they’re fair and balanced and non-offensive I will approve them.

Consider Adam and Eve. It is claimed that when they disobeyed God that he forced Eve to have more pains in pregnancy and because they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil they both had better decision-making abilities. Interestingly, scientists have discovered a biological ancestor of ours, called Lucy, who was the missing link between earlier claimed ancestors and more obvious less old findings. The difference between Lucy and primates was primarily that she had better decision-making capabilities (like post-sin Adam and Eve) and better child rearing capabilities (like post-sin Eve). Some coincidence, eh?

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve and had three sons, who both had three wives – but it doesn’t say where they came from and the vicar of the church I was confirmed at could say. It was this passage in Genesis that started the loss in faith I had, as I could only assume at the time they were their sisters, but we all know that that causes evolutionary deformities and birth defects.

However, when I read Genesis, I had this strong sense that there was life outside the Garden of Eden. What if it followed that after God banished Adam and Eve from it that with their new knowledge and breeding capabilities they created their three sons, whose wives could only have been primates?

As wild as this may sound, scientists don’t know whether our ancestors species could or could not cross-fertilise with other species. If we have the view that science and religion are both compatible, then we can’t rule this out. It could be that Lucy was the offspring of one of Adam and Eve’s sons being crossed with a primate, and could explain why we have over 99% the same DNA as a chimpanzee, as we share a common ancestor.

As a scientist I think that for evolution theory to be at least 95% provable, it needs to be repeatable. At present only ‘natural selection’ is one of the few premises proven beyond reasonable doubt. But it may be that with advancements genetic science we could one day know whether the split between the primates that led to us and the ones that led to chimpanzees was because of those primates cross fertilisation with an advanced life form?

If evolution theory is to be proven at least 95% right, we will either have to replicating our ancestral path or find examples of other evolved life on this or other planets.

We could, through ‘DNA regression’, match fossil records to a hypothesised ‘pre-human genome’ through advancing genetic research to the extent where we can generate a 3D computer model of what an organism would look like based on its DNA – as with dinosaurs in the sci-fi Jurassic Park. Then we can using this and doing the same with chimpanzee DNA, see what our common ancestor looked like. After that we could using embryonic research replicate it – then we will have the answers!

The other alternative is to find evidence of earlier intelligent life, with no links to us, from billions of years before we came into being, even before the dinosaurs, or on other planets.

An lonely on-looker's diary - The world through the eyes of an Aspie, Faith & Religion: Mixed - Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist, Sciences

The Fall and End of Man

September 26, 2011 jonathanbishop No comments

Original Sin, as it is called, says that the Fall of Man was when Adam and Eve Betrayed God. Go said to them, ‘the day that eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall surely die’.

He was not speaking to Adam and Eve as individuals, but as Man and Woman, who are our evolutionary ancestors as humans that split us off from primates.

Humans will never stop growing until they know as much as God. The Fall of Man was a mere trip over a stone on the garden path, and to think otherwise is to not see the wood for trees. It is human’s pursuit of the truth about a reality we can’t access that drives us, and will lead to the End of Man.

Money can’t grow an economy, but machines, goods and knowledge can. The servant will not become a master by wearing his master’s shoes and walking his master’s path, nor talking and feeling like him. Only by a constant revolution of developing knowledge, goods and machines that will make his master redundant will things become better for him and fellow humans, and lead to humans finding the cure for poverty and privilege.

Man has never stopped trying to know as much as God. He built the tower of Babylon, a co-operative enterprise, to be as tall as God, another fall of Man, but he kept his flag flying, knowing he is not a hopeless case, being lifted up to new horizons by humans, in the hope his dreams would one day come true.

Every thought a human has is an embodiment of the nakedness of Adam and Eve. It is only through science and technology that humans can ever know as much as God. The medicines that cure, the instruments that give precision, are human’s root to knowing all God knows. If other humans cannot see one’s knowledge, then there is no way humans as a collective can know as much as God.

Judgement Day shall not be any date on any imaginary calendar where Man will be lifted from his shadows, but the day that Man will be out of luck. He will have been over the world, and will move nowhere, as he will know so much that he destroys himself and his fellow human beings. All things will fall apart, Man will be brought down to the start, and humans will have to start again to lift Man out of the shadows.

 

Creative Writing, Faith & Religion: Mixed - Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist

My primary religious beliefs (premises)

September 24, 2011 jonathanbishop No comments

Any question the Church and Politicians can’t answer today Scientists will be able to answer tomorrow.

Any advancement towards peace among individuals, families, communities and nations today, will have been envisaged by those Prophets and Disciples who wrote the Bible yesterday.

Those who make scientific theories that can’t be proven today are the Prophets who may be proven right tomorrow. For instance, the Charles Darwin is being proven right in many of the claims he made which couldn’t be refuted at the time. One who considers the Bible to have legitimacy should only do so in so far as science has not proved to to be false. Equally, any scientific texts should be considered true only in so far as they are falsifiable by other scientific texts or processes.

Everlasting life comes after death by being in the minds of the people of the future, whether in memes such as through literary works or in physical presence, such as via cryogenic restoration.

God exists in the minds of those who know of the concept, just as Robin Hood does. Science will one day be able to measure the existence of God. Until then Go should be assumed to refer to all the knowledge there is possible to be known that science does not know.

This list is not complete and may be extended.

Auto-Wiki, Faith & Religion: Mixed - Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist, Notices and Announcements

Food and Freedom

September 24, 2011 jonathanbishop No comments

God recognises the importance of food – those who lack food are not only physically impoverished, but mentally and cognitively also.

It is suggested in Nehemiah 8 that humans must choose the food they want, and this right is dependent on free will. It would be against the spirit of God’s law to deny people the right to make choices in any area in which they could grow as humans. Whether this is choosing the best options for their healthcare or their venue for learning, or anything else, it is only by making choices for themselves on the basis of their own knowledge that they avoid the clutches of the serpent that caused Adam and Eve to disobey God’s word and start the human evolutionary journey. To do otherwise would deny them the freewill gifted by God.

To recognise Adam, one should eat spare or other ribs on a Saturday in recognition of the birth of woman, from whom Christ was destined to be created. One should also feast on Tuesday for it is the start of the week and should be used for preparing for the remainder of the week.

The farmers of the past have given away to the scientists of today. It is science that will make the meek filled with good things. By developing Genetically Modified foods they will ensure that humans get the enjoyment of food in pursuit of everlasting life in Jesus’s kingdom on Earth, where in the future there will be no starvation and no death.

 

Faith & Religion: Mixed - Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist
« Older Entries