User:Mcamorran
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Userboxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] FAQ
What is your name?
They call me Mathew.
From whence do you hail?
I was born in the United States of America, but I tend to have little in common with these weak-tongued locals. You could say my roots are in the British Isles. If you probe further in history you might find that I'm essentially Thraco-Scythian with a bit of Teutonic blood strewn therein. Much further back, I'm more or less a Sethian with a bit of angelic blood left over from that nasty "Nephilim" business.
Okay, So you're a 'syncretic'? What does that mean?
It means I don't believe that any established religions know or act on the truth. Thusly I find truth where it exists, whether it is from Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, whatever. The fact is that Buddhists don't know the truth, nor do Lutherans, Muslims, or humanists. Only one who is independent of an established religion can realise truth.
How can you be both Rastafarian and Zoroastrian in addition to being an esoteric Christian?
I'm actually none of the above, but my core spirituality seems to be derived primarily from those three dogmas.
So you do not believe in evolution? In spite of science? You must be a moron!
No, I do not believe in the theory of evolution. My theory is that God created this existence some six millenia ago in a move to cultivate partners and comrades from weak, sniveling, mammalian wretches by means of free will. What is perceived as "evolution" is merely the highly-adaptive nature of life.
Ahh, so you ignore evidence to the contrary of your theory; that the earth is actually billions of years old?
Yes, I ignore "evidence" to the contrary of such. I apologise if this insults your sense of self-worth. Hopefully you'll learn to live with such a terrible bastard as me without wishing my untimely demise. Also, you'll be kind enough to allow me to teach my children according to my beliefs. If you interfere, I'll be sure to interfere in return.
Are you sure you're not a Christian?
Yes, I'm not a Christian if you understand it to mean that I belong to the Apostolic Church. I do take Masiah (Christ; called Gee-zuss but some but never by me) at his word when he claims to be the Son of God. So I am "Christ-ian"; that is, "of or belonging to Christ."
So you believe that Christ is God?
Yes. But he wasn't always God. He was at first, but he gave that up in order to incarnate. After that crucifixion business he became God again. He's not supposed to be God alone, though. I believe that we're supposed to be part of the Godhead and thus we're meant to share in the creative power of God.
Wait, wait. You say we're supposed to be God?
No, not really. God at his highest level is entirely one coherent nature comprised of the entire cosmos; well, at least the nervous system thereof. What is commonly called the "holy spirit/ghost" is God at that "highest level" I mentioned. It is sentient in a way, but we can't conceive exactly of how it maintains free will without losing supremacy. "God the Father" is the original creator of the Old Testament; the one who is most often lambasted for being a notorious sadist. He wasn't. Christ is "God the Son", but he didn't always exist.
The records relay only a very little bit of history, usually that bit which concerns us humans; however, it can be seen that Lucifer (commonly called Satan, but that's a misperception, too) was the first "Christ" that God the Father chose to lead the soon-to-be material world into partnership with God (God called Ein Sof, the "demiurge", the "holy ghost") but, for whatever reason, Lucifer didn't take to this deal, and rebelled against God, all the while citing good reasons. He fell, and so was born (created, that is) his little brother, the one we now know as Christ (Gee-zuss, to all of the Christians still reading this). Christ didn't rebel, and thus he fulfilled his mission: show mankind that they can do exactly as he did and share in the Throne of God as equal partners.
Thus, God will eventually include some men (yes, females are included in "men") in the Godhead, and we will be "part of God." Maybe not as "big" as God the Father, but that is neither here nor there.
So...where do Rasta and Zoroastrianism fit in?
Zoroastrianism should come first. As you may know, that religion is the earliest-known monotheistic religion. Supposedly it predates Judaism. In any case, two points make its mention necessary.
1: Jews and Christians believe Moses and Jesus, respectively, were the first prophets of their respective religions and that, before their advents, people were in darkness. This isn't true. While Abraham was just making a covenant with God and laying the Hebrew foundations, Melchizedek was a priest of God. Independently, I might add, of the not-yet-existent Levite priesthood. Koresh (Cyrus II of the Persians) was a Mazdayasnan, a worshipper of Ahura Mazda (the One God in Zoroastrian tradition), and he released the Hebrews from their captivity as recorded in both the Tanach and in historical documents. Perhaps he understood their God to be his own.
2: They believe in absolute free will; no "evil" entities make one do evil, in other words. There is no central "evil" force, but merely evil motives to which everyone is vulnerable.
There does exist, however, an evil entity commonly called Satan who is really "Semyaza", an angel of God who descended to earth along with many other angels, had sex with human girls, and begat half-breeds later called Nephilim.
How about Rasta?
Well, there it's mostly the belief in "ital", or rather a modified form thereof, and the belief that cannabis is a holy herb which elucidates the Children of God and shows them truth; at least, when properly used.
The other element of association is in the rejection of "Babylon", which some Rastamen believe to be the "white menance," but which I believe to be established religion in general, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Humanism, or so on and so forth. I, like the Rastafarians, reject all "isms".
So you're not a Christian?
For the last time, no. I do not believe that the epistles of the New Testament are scripture. Christ's disciples screwed up even before day one and just compounded the issue once Pentecost arrived. Once the Catholic church was on the playing field, all was doomed for "Christians". Now one like myself can't say "christian" without most people thinking of the Apostolic, Sunday church-going Christian.
Interesting. We may wish to ask questions at a later time, at which point we'll contact you. Thank you for your time, Mathew.
No, thank you.
[edit] FAQ II: The Lighthearted (well, not quite as heavy) Questions
You drink beer, yes? Busch? Budweiser? What?
I said that I drink beer, not swill-water. It is true that I'm not fond of pale lagers in general, but American pale lager is only technically beer. I'm more a fan of ales, actually, and specifically of session bitters, IPAs, and imperial stouts. Sometimes I'll drink bock lagers. When I have a few extra dollars I'll pick up a nice lambic.
No, you'll never see me drinking American pales.
You're also a pirate. Does that mean you advocate piracy?
Piracy of intellectual property, yes. I disdain all male in se crimes including, but not limited to, theft of material property. The taking of intellectual property (digitally-distributed music, movies, books, and so on) does no harm since it involves replicating the original material without removing such material from the possession of its owner.
Selling such pirated material is, in my opinion, malum in se and, as such, I do not condone it.
So you do not believe mala prohibita crimes should exist?
No, I do not. Such victimless crimes obviously do not have victims. If a person wants to use illegal drugs, let him. If he wants to kill himself, let him. If he wants to live in the mountains, grow his own food, and not pay taxes, let him.
By right of free will a man may do as he wishes so long as it does not injure another person's liberty, health, welfare, and/or property. A man also has the right to defend his liberty, health, welfare, and property within reason. If a man is throwing trash on your front yard it would be unnecessary and excessive to kill that man. If a man, armed with a gun, is threatening to kill you it would be neither unnecessary nor excessive to hurt/kill him in order to prevent your possible demise.
Personally, I do not kill, but that's neither here nor there.
Alright, let's change pace. What sort of television programmes do you watch, if any?
I don't watch TV. I find a deplorable habit in sitting in front of an EM radiation-spewing box, watching both endless advertisments which invariably encourage pointless/self-destructive consumerism and poorly-made television programmes which assure the viewer that it's okay to be "just like everyone else." No wonder the majority of Westerners are so narrow-minded.
I do, however, enjoy Battlestar Galactica sans commercials.
Okay...do you like movies?
Oh, sure. I'm a film fan. I tend to avoid things produced by Hollywood and stick to films old, cult, arthouse, independently-produced, or otherwise foreign. I'm particularly fond of Japanese cinema, and especially of Kurosawa's works.
What are your favourite films?
In no particular order: Harvey, It's a Wonderful Life, Akahige, Ikiru, Blade Runner, Legend, Dune, Flash Gordon, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, The Empire Strikes Back, Battle Royale, Ghost in the Shell, Lost in Translation, Jabberwocky, Tampopo, and Un long dimanche de fiançailles.
How about books? Do you read?
Avidly. I'm partial to heavy literature written by dead white guys, also to the works of Philip K. Dick, James Branch Cabell, Robert A. Heinlein, G.K. Chesterton, H.P. Lovecraft, and William Hope Hodgson; all of whom are also dead white guys, it would seem.
I also read educational literature, textbooks, how-to manuals and the like. It's good to be informed.
So what's this "ital" you mentioned in the last FAQ?
You can read about ital in its local article. I do not observe ital, but rather merely eat foods which are "natural, or pure, and from the earth." The principle is similar to ital, but cannot be exclusively compared with it.
I take it you're one of those alternative medicine weirdos?
You could say that. In truth, I don't trust the modern medical system. I view most physicians these days as mere legal drug pushers. It seems that "good drugs" are those approved by the FDA regardless of real merit and anything not approved is bad. Alcohol and nicotine are legally regulated while cannabis and psilocybe mushrooms are evil and dangerous. Painkillers and cold medicines are sold OTC and used indiscriminately without attempting to fix the root cause of headaches and the common cold.
You seem to have a generally DIY mindset. Is this statement accurate?
I would say so, yes. Do it yourself. You don't need to rely on the "experts". Others are not inherently superior to you. Don't trust your doctor, but rather learn to heal yourself. Don't trust your supermarket to provide wholesome food, but rather grow it yourself. Don't trust your government to protect you or provide for you, but rather do it yourself.
But most people can't or won't do it themselves; hence, they need to rely on specialists.
True, most people are content to remain integrally dependent on others. It's fine if specialists want to provide services to such people. I just think it's a damned shame.
If you're saying, however, that I should rely on specialists, I'll kindly remind you to keep your hands to yourself.
That's fine. Now, we've established that you don't believe in evolution as opposed to creation of the world. Does that mean you support the teaching of "creation science" or "intelligent design" in schools?
I don't support compulsory (public/state) schools at all. As you may be well aware, I am a homeschooler (though I prefer the term 'autodidact'). Contemporary education as it is applied in "public schools" is inadequate and inferior to self-education. In the United States there exists a No Child Left Behind Act and a corresponding state of mind. A symptom of the mindset is that in attempting to ensure that "no child is left behind" we find that all children are left behind (but at least they're equally left behind). It's a relatively "new" mindset, but its roots were born with compulsory education.
NCLB is a problem in itself, but a more essential problem must take precedence here. The idea behind compulsory schools is that children must learn from state- and peer-approved, college-educated teachers and that we must lump dozens of children together in a classroom instead of being educated in exclusive (or semi-exclusive) mentorships, as we see in home education scenarios.
Essentially this is another example of Group A deciding what's best for Individuals X even when Individuals B, C, H, and M know better. True, there are instances in which homeschooling parents cannot adequately teach their children, but that's not justification for preventing me from teaching my children. It does not take a village to teach a child.
You have two kinds of children: those who want to learn and those who do not want to learn. Those who want to learn will learn whether they are in compulsory schools, private schools, are homeschooled, or who are unschooled. Those who do not want to learn won't learn even if they are force-fed knowledge. There will always be those who end up uneducated. The principle to remember is that a child teaches himself and learns at his own pace. "It takes a child to teach himself."
I will teach my children and none may say otherwise. No one besides myself may decide how best to teach them, treat their illnesses, or provide for their well-being. I will be secure in my liberty and my children will be secure in their liberty and will not succumb to authority's patronising grip, whether such authority is exercised by peers or government.
So parents should have absolute authority over their children? What about parents who beat or sexually molest their children?
You take such parents as that out and shoot them, of course. They're committing mala in se crimes against their children and the children are not able to protect their health and liberty. Hence, someone should protect them.
So we have to monitor parents to ensure that it won't happen?
Are you listening to anything I'm saying? Surveillance would be a violation of the parents' privacy and liberty.
People will steal. They'll murder, rape, molest little girls, lie, cheat, impose taxes, and threaten the livelihood of others. They'll do it in spite of laws. No one can ensure safety and security. All we can do is do rightly and violate no one's liberty, property, health, or welfare. When we see mala in se crimes, we stop them. Plain and simple.
Who is we? The government?
We the people. The citizenry. The folk. Government should be a quorum of peers, and thus government should be one of us and all of us. There do, unfortunately, exist governments which impose their wills and violate liberty. All we can do is do rightly. Don't concern yourself will the world. Concern yourself with yourself and with what you can change. You can't stop genocide in Sudan, so don't try. You can't overthrow the world's governments, so don't try. Live and live rightly.
Thank you, Mathew. We'll close this FAQ #2 and hopefully return with a third instalment.
I look forward to it.
[edit] FAQ 3.0: More Deepings
You are an omnivore, obviously in contrast with being in support of animal rights.
Animals don't have rights, being nonsapient beings. Perhaps some animals are sentient, but this could be stated as true of some plants.
But animals feel pain when you kill them and eat their flesh!
I'm sure that some methods of death are painful, but ideally it lasts only a moment. Also, they feel no pain once they're dead.
I do not advocate the torture of animals, but not because it violates their "rights". To torture anything is to demean yourself and that's enough reason to refrain.
I will eat animal flesh when I want and no one may say otherwise.
Okay, moving on. You state that you're a "kafir". Why is this?
It's a simple declaration that I'm an infidel as defined by Islamic law. I'm proud of it, too.
You just like being on the outside throwing rocks in at everyone, don't you?
Do you see me throwing rocks? I have opinions on the world just like everyone, it's just that my opinions tend to be repugnant to certain people. Sorry.
What I don't do is attack people for what they believe. I defend myself against violations of my liberties, yes, but I do not make aggressive moves against others.
Again, fair enough. Lets focus on lighter matters now. What sort of music do you listen to?
Anything except hip-hop/rap or country. Specifically, my favourite genres of music include good auld classical, jazz, big band, doo-wop, early rock & roll, progressive rock, early industrial, krautrock, postrock, and folk (both traditional folk, especially sean nós, and folk rock).
So you believe that there's nothing wrong with the bare human body being displayed in public? Are you a nudist or something?
No. Actually, I rather enjoy clothing. I just think it's a damned shame that female breasts are so sexualised. Of course they're highly sexual. So are lips. So is the nape of the neck. So are fingers. You don't see those things covered unless you're a fundamentalist Muslim. I say that if men can bare their breasts, so can women. Do I approve of shaggin' in the streets? No.
Is that fascination with the nape of the neck just me?
I wouldn't know.
Categories: Male Wikipedians | Wikipedians interested in Chinese astrology | Neutral Good Wikipedians | INFJ Wikipedians | Independent Wikipedians | Wikipedians who homeschool | Self-educated Wikipedians | Wikipedian WikiGnomes | Wikipedians interested in pirates | Esoteric Christian Wikipedians | Rastafarian Wikipedians | User Irish English | User en-gb | User en | User en-5 | User fr | User fr-2 | User ga | User ga-1 | User ja | User ja-1 | User he | User he-1 | User am | User am-1 | Wikipedians who support traditional marriage | Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux | Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox
