Most of what I write about is a combination of both the natural world and the spiritual world and while I agree with most of modern science to date, I do think there is also a spiritual layer to reality.

Sift through the PAGES and POSTS for more interesting information guaranteed to make you think and question.


#1 Nothing is No Information

#2 Something is Some Information

#3 NoThing is Infinite/Unlimited information

Be careful how you understand NOTHING to be and how the word is used when you read my pages and articles on the web. I hold that the true vacuum energy of our universe and of in fact everything is from NOTHING of Infinite Information, is dynamic, and full --not empty, stagnate, and of zero information.

All the information collected from this process of existence and life is also retained inside of the Nothing. Who knows how many times existence and life have happened. I don't think information is lost or destroyed, and I don't think it returns into a zero-information kind of nothing.

Both understandings of nothing look very similar. They are both undefinable, unquantifiable, immeasurable...but they are opposites. The difference between zero and infinity.

FYI: There is One thing all of life wants, even human life and that is the effects of LOVE.



Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.

Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.
Nothing is everything, but everything is not nothing.

From Spirit to Nature

From Spirit to Nature

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Why I disagree with shows like Duck Dynasty

I wanted to address the discussion many religious folk have about the good shows like Duck Dynasty do and I disagree. 

As those who read my blog know, I profess to be a Christian. This is because I agree with the teachings of Christ, but I clearly disagree with most Christians on most issues and this is one more. Below is how I see the popularizing of hunting shows. Clearly, I'd prefer more people join PETA. I don't think the Bible teaches us to eat meat  an in fact in Genesis we can see Paradise meant living vegetarian. (Biblical reference will be last in this blog). 

My biggest problem with people eating meat is that 1) We don't honor the animal's life in this country and so we have no right to take the animal's life. 2) We consume too much. We are gluttons. We drive to fast food places and with no thought have ordered a cow or chicken on the bun. Our ancestors had to work for their meat. They didn't eat meat everyday. Hunting took time and planning and one animal would suffice for a good while.
3) Christians, Muslims, Americans, the American Government, and American Farmers are contributing to this problem of over consumption because in the religions of the west we are taught that we should "populate" and then we are taught "animals are our food". This demand for meat grows and grows partly because of these two reasons. Now, I realize many non religious people contribute to this as well, but I'm concerned about those who profess to love god, to love life, to want to practice compassion. Should we be hypocrites?

 In America this demand has been met with a supply that is corrupt by our government, media and forced pressure on farmers. The government gets loads of profit from this and so they promote this eating meat on television and by forcing farmers to mass produce.

How can such a huge demand for meat be supplied? Whenever we have a huge demand for something, the care involved of that supply becomes less, because it just is not feasible anymore to take care of it properly. This is WHY chickens went from the ground to cages, because there were just too many of them to manage. This is why their treatment now, even in Europe, is disgusting!

Until our mass consumption and demand lessens, the supply will also have to be met and this inhumane range of care will be a problem.

To counter this we have to take multiple steps.

1) If you are religious, We should be teaching about the "paradise" of the Bible and that period was vegetarian. If we are going to look at the Bible for our source of answers, then we should know well enough that Biblically speaking it was God's "plan" for us to live in paradise. People screwed it up and our nature is weak, and this is why we started eating meat and "God" allowed this, just like "God" found grace over divorce. It clearly was not God's "Intention" to have us eating meat in paradise. (Find Biblical references at end of blog)

2) We have to stop demanding so much meat. If we want to look at evolution or the Bible, our ancestors did not consume this much meat. They ate meat maybe once a week at best. They may have had fish more often. If we look to our Eastern Buddhist or Hindu friends, they don't eat as much meant and they are healthier, thinner. Let's learn!

3) Health reasons tell us we should only have red meat once a week.

4) We need more education on the ill and inhumane treatment of animals in captivity and for our "food".

5) We need to talk about this to people, about buying locally and from fresh markets. NOT from mass produced meat places like Publix, Winn Dixie and other grocery stores which simply store the meat from mass farmers which have mass supplies of cows and chickens in inhumane conditions.

BUY ORGANIC or FREE RANGE chicken instead.
Our government doesn't care!

Below is my discussion with another Christian.

While hunting on an individual basis is not completely offensive to me (more humane than keeping animals locked in cages, and allowing them to grow in their natural habitat at least) ,promoting it on television is offensive to me. Promoting hunting and popularizing hunting will only make the use of guns more popular, causing many more gun problems. More accidental shootings, people not knowing how to use a gun properly and having more guns in the house causing not only hunting accidents, but home accidents as well. 

Further in hunting many people will not be responsible. People will hunt for fun, hunt animals into endangerment, and hunt illegally, and hunt babies. People do that now, this will only make the statistics higher. 

Solving the FDA problems and animal care problems of our food industry, I feel, is not in promoting hunting shows on television. 

Yes, hunting when done responsibly is more humane than the conditions we have now.  If a family wanted to teach their children how to hunt responsibly I think that may be a fine thing. But a television show is a different thing altogether.

 It is different because anyone can watch it and not necessarily learn the facts of responsibility. It is different because you don’t necessarily have a mentor like a father teaching you properly (if he even would). It is different because it popularizes an idea and doesn’t take into account other factors. Young people are easily influenced and I’m hesitate about anything mass promoting something on television and anything with tons of money behind it (because power and greed and corruption always follows), and large corporations and governments. 

We also all don’t hunt now. Many people won’t even be able to hunt, having to travel far to get to places where it would even be legal. This leaves many areas, many people who will still rely on meat bought at stores and fast foods even if once and awhile. Meats bought at markets and at fast food places and restaurants won’t stop even if hunting becomes popular. Bought Meat won’t stop. 

The problem that has to be solved is the ill treatment of animals on farms, in captivity. To honor the life of every living thing, to have respect for every living thing. 

To have more shows on caring about animals, on animal abilities, their lives, and how they learn and live would develop a sense of compassion and concern for all living things. 

We don’t learn a sense of this by teaching people it is God’s will that animals are here for us to kill and eat. Biblically, that is not even correct. Biblically speaking God created paradise where Adam and Eve would eat as vegetarians, and it wasn’t until after the fall where people started eating meat. Just because people do it in the Old Testament or New Testament doesn’t make it right. People also divorced in the Old Testament where God said he did not like that, but he condoned it because people were hard. 

This does not mean this is God’s preference.

Further, animals are not here for our purposes only. The Bible says that if we did not worship, even the rocks would cry out. So everything is a testament to God. Even animals. They are for God, not for us. 

To rule over the animals, does not mean to kill them. 

The problem even is not because of the farms that hold the animals. Even as you had said, the reason is the pressure the GOVERNMENT puts on farms. So, they fall by the pressure. 

How would hunting be governed? How would areas be legal and illegal? How would everyone keep tabs on what is killed and how? Again, the government would have to be involved in mandates and laws.

So, we are back to the same problem. The government and the people’s lack of sense when it comes to animals.

PETA is an organization that promotes the care of animals. To teach to love our fellow animals. They are very much like us in many ways. The problem is not PETA fighting against shows that promote the slaughter of animals. (Which many children watch and then only develop a sense of 'all the animals are there to serve me'). 

The problem is in people needing to fight the government or farms into providing good care for our animals. To refuse to buy from farms that don’t care about the animals OR to refuse to buy meat altogether.

There would not be a problem if farms allowed the animals to roam freely and feed them properly and took proper care of them. Avoided biological or chemical engineered products. Their lives would then be honored. 

If people did not hunt, you had said animals would increase in numbers. I also wanted to address this.   Firstly, people are numbered 7 billion. 7 Billion. Think about that number. You has said, many people get sick and die. Millions from cancer. Yes. And we still have 7 billion. 

Let us compare that to how many animals die. 

 There are only 50,000 Bonobos and 200,000 Chimpanzees left. At least 4,000 Chimpanzees are killed for their meat every year. 48% of primates are in danger of going extinct. Gorillas and Orangutans are decreasing in number rapidly. 

Big cats are endangered. Lions, Tigers, Leopards, Cheetahs and others may go extinct in the next twenty years. They rare hunted for their bone remedies and meats. 

Huge numbers of bird species are becoming extinct because hunting has become a popular sport for fun and food in the Asian continent. 

I could go on and on and on about how other animals, besides humans, are decreasing in number while humans are increasing rapidly. 

Humans are not only the LARGEST group of animals alive, even if you eliminate half of our numbers, we would still be the largest number group alive. 

Let us compare 7 billion with 50,000 Bonobos living. This is the sad reality. Just think about those numbers. 

Further, we are taking up so much space, and causing so much pollution…pushing and pushing more and more animals off land that belongs to them too that this is also causing endangerment issues for many animals. 

Further, if people did not hunt, animals would not take over the world because nature has a way of balancing things. Humans are the ones who throw everything out of order. Top predators would still eat the lower predators and herbivores. If there were more chickens roaming, more wolves and more smaller and big cats would have more food. They would keep the chicken population down by themselves even without our help. As top predator numbers increase, they then fight and kill each other off for the food that is available. Nature works fine on its own. 

The problem comes up because we kill the cats and wolves and then we over-populate the chickens to feed our over-population of people. We made the mess. Not nature, and not God. Nature can take care of itself just fine. It always does without us. It is when we step in when things become a mess. 

I cannot agree with some of your premises as an animal lover and even Biblically speaking and scientifically speaking, though I think you brought up some valid points which are very good, and on those single points I think I can agree.

Such as the FDA sucks. 
Such as the government should not be using chemicals or GMO in food.
Such that farms should be taking good care of animals. 
Such that hunting is a better alternative when done responsibly in comparison to the way the government runs animal food now. (But the solution to me is more complicated because to me the situation is much more complicated, and while I can agree on an individual level that this may be a better solution, I can't agree that on the mass scale or promoted on television that this would be a good solution and in fact would cause many more problems).

What does the bible say about this?

In paradise "Adam and Eve" ate from the trees and fruits. There was no meat eating until after the fall. Now whether you take this literally or symbolically, the spiritual lesson here is clear. Our spirit benefits from a vegetarian diet. Our NATURE is what is weak, our flesh, our bodies have evolved to eating meat and has lots of weakness. We like lots of things not good for us.  But like Paul tells us in scriptures, the spirit and flesh (nature) are always in opposition to each other. "What I want to do, I do not and what I do want to do, I don't do."
God by His grace overlooked Divorce and allowed this too, it doesn't make that God's ideal and should not be our ideal either. Likewise though we love eating meat, that should not be our ideal.

While vegetarianism is not a common practice in current western Christian thought and culture, the concept and practice has scriptural and historical support. According to the Bible, in the beginning, before the Fall, human and nonhuman animals, which are beings that have or are an ānima, Latin for soul,[6][7] were completely vegetarian, and "it was very good".[Genesis 1:29-31] According to some interpretations of the Bibleraw veganism was the original diet of humankind in the form given to Adam and Eve by God in Genesis 1:29, "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat

There is strong scriptural support for ALL animals having a soul. We see this in the 7 days of creation and also in Genesis 2.

When people bring up Peter and God telling him to "Kill and Eat" they forget some important information that this was a specific lesson for Peter to learn, to go out and convert the unbelievers. This was the purpose of the dream, not to tell him to kill animals. This was not the purpose at all. It is the question of unclean meat and clean meat being used as a symbol for gentiles versus Jews  and (early Christians).

 I'll also post here from wikipedia

Luke's Acts of the Apostles portrays a story where the Apostle Peter has a vision where God declares previously unclean meat as "clean"[Acts 10:7-16] and orders Peter to "kill and eat". Christian vegetarians maintain that "Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the dream might mean".[Acts 10:17] John Vujicic argues that "In the sheet were also so called CLEAN animals. Peter could have at least selected some sheep or cattle and killed but he didn’t. Simply because he considered all flesh defiled and unclean. Peter was vegetarian as he himself states in Clementine Homilies. […] Peter would not kill any of them because he knew that this vision had another meaning […]. Any animal which is slaughtered is defiled and its meat defiles. Peter explains this in Clementine Homilies."[19] He recognized its meaning when the gentile Cornelius invited him to dinner. Peter realized that the dream was instructing him not to go out and eat meat, but to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Jewish dietary laws should not prevent the spread of Christianity, and, at Cornelius' dinner, Peter related to his hosts, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."[Acts 10:28][20]

What about when people say Paul said those of weak faith are vegetarians. Remember Paul was talking about meat that was offered to idols and new Christians didn't want to eat something offered to an idol. It had nothing to do with compassion for animals. This had to do with Paul teaching the new Christians that eating meat offered to an idol doesn't defile you.

Wiki reference:  Within the Bible'New Testament, the Apostle Paul appears to ridicule vegetarians, arguing that people of "weak faith" "eat only vegetables",[Romans 14:1–4] But when you actually study this verse and context you can understand it doesn't have to do with meat eaters versus vegetarians. The context is Very important here. 
He also warns believers to "stop passing judgment on one another" when it comes to food in verse 13 and "[It is] good neither to eat flesh" in verse 21. Paul also said, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They […] order […] to abstain from certain foods".[1Timothy 4:1–3] 
 Paul was not referring to vegetarianism, which was not an issue in those times, but to the practice of not eating meat from the meat market because of fear that (like the above issue involving Daniel) it were sacrificed to an idol.[1Corinthians 10:19-29][20] "Wherefore, if meat [brōma, Strong's #1033,[22] 'anything used as food'[23]] make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."[1Corinthians 8:13]

Within Luke's Acts of the Apostles, he recounts that the Jerusalem Council recommended (at least for Gentile Christians) abstention "from things strangled, and from blood".[Acts 15:19–20] Vegetarianism appears to have been a point of contention within early Christian circles.

Further we have an old Testament scripture where God gave manna and it would become anything the people waned, and they lusted for meat and so God killed them.

On the other hand we do have Christ giving fish to the people. However, I would argue that fish and mammals are very different and mammals have emotional capabilities whereas fish do not. Fish do suffer physical pain though and should still be killed and live a life humanly. In my opinion fish are healthier to eat as well, than compared to chickens or cows. But this giving of fish again, needs to be taken into context. The fish were not kept in water pools for the sole purpose of being our food. They lived in the oceans, as a mutually beneficially part of nature.

1 comment:

  1. I also have to add:
    The main reason we have caged birds and other caged animals is to provide food for our massively growing populations. Once again a human created mess. If humans didn’t pollute so rapidly there would not be as much demand for the eggs and birds and there would not be a need for a massive caged system to hold all the eggs/birds.

    Simple farms would work just fine for simple populations. But the demand for eggs and birds is very high and gets higher every year with more and more people and so the only way farmers can keep up is by also having some kind of caged system.

    The cage-free system often isn’t even caged free at all really, because the are still inside of a metal cage, it is just that they have the ability to move around more inside this huge cage. It often is not even outside. But farmers have done this yes in part from governmental pressures, but this pressure comes because of the huge growing population demanding for eggs and bird meat.


What is God?

For myself, I view God as a Spirit. An infinite, illimitable, eternal Spirit. What is a Spirit? For myself, I view a Spirit as the most fundamental form, most simple form of energy.

I think to call the Spirit/God as intelligent or conscious, restricts and limits our own understanding of it. This is because we view life and nature through our own intelligence and consciousness. Ours evolved naturally from simple to complex and is restricted by body/space/time.

A God would not have these limits, would not have evolved and would not be complex. Therefore its "intelligence" and "conscious" would be nothing like we understand.

God is not a consciousness inside a brain or an intelligence inside a brain or even a mind inside a brain. Though a mind might be the closest we can think of it. God would exist outside of space and time and inside of it; therefore, its "consciousness" would encompass past-present-future and even before time. Its intelligence could be much like a mathematical genius quantum computer. Perhaps an Awakened Energy-Spirit- would be a better definition.

There are two kinds of energy in my view. Spiritual and Physical. When we understand virtual particles and fundamental particles better, I think we come closer to understanding what Spiritual Energy can do as well.

Spiritual Energy >>Withdrawal>>Space Forms>>Physical Energy Emerges>>Fields> Virtual Particles> Forces>Fundamental Particles>Everything Physical Forms.

Science examines the natural/the physical, not the spiritual.

I agree with everything from science, except when biologists (not mathematicians) use words like purposeless, without guide, directionless, without goals.

I agree with mathematicians assessment of randomness.

The reason is because in biology, we are talking about things without a consciousness -processes and mechanisms are non living things and can't have a purpose in the sense that they are using the word. They don't have a consciousness. They are not aware.

We are examining processes and mechanisms, but what is this substance (energy) that these processes and mechanisms are using. From where does this substance (energy) come?

Those are essentially the questions at the crust of the real inquiry into what is reality.

Simply because the process or mechanism is not conscious itself, does not mean they were not structured deliberately or without intent or thought, or that a spiritual energy does not exist.

This simply means that physical things and processes and mechanisms without a consciousness don't have a conscious purpose/goal.

Well, Duh.

So, I agree biological evolution doesn't have a conscious purpose/goal in and of itself -because we are examining only the physical Things, the physical processes and physical mechanisms.

This says nothing about the spiritual significance.

However, they do have a natural purpose/goal.

All energy persists toward entropy =Death.
All life persists to survival =Life

Further, all energy follows a pattern from simple>complex, chaos>order, from heterogenous>homogenous, from random>non random, from death>life>death.

These patterns are reflected in our natural laws.

So, all of energy does follow a guide or a direction. It is the direction or reflection of the natural laws.

is Nothing all there is?

Science seems to be going in the direction that true nothingness does not exist. This is because whenever you find nothing, you find virtual particles.

I would have to agree not just with the science, but with that concept in my view of life and reality.

Nothing does not exist, because whenever you find nothing--you actually find everything just in its most simple and fundamental form. Nothing is NoThing, not the non-existence of everything.

The most simple and fundamental form of reality is NoThing and this is why this happens in my opinion.

The real question for me is, how much of life experience and memories is retained in this simple fundamental form that makes up our universe and our everything?

How is it retained?

We can see cells seem to have a sense of memory and experience, but do virtual particles too?

Do all our memories and life experiences retain themselves in some fundamental form of energy?

Could what we call the soul or spirit be an echo of nature itself?

It does seem that virtual particles have to behave certain ways. It pops as a gluon only to become a photon or such...because it seemingly has to conform to the existence it pops into. Some virtual particles might pop into our existence as anti-quarks, but most have to conform and so we see the photon it is supposed to be.

Why do virtual particles conform? What rules are they following? It seems they are somehow aware of what is around them if they are conforming. (Not to imply this awareness has to be conscious.)