Is Suicide a Sin?

Several weeks ago, I lost one of the few people whom I would consider to be my friend. I have known him for a little over a year, and thought we were in different platoons, we were in the same company while deployed to Afghanistan for twelve months. During that year, he was often in my room with my squad, and we would talk, watch movie, clean our weapons, ext. I do not normally call out to people who I know when I see them on the street, but every time I saw him I never hesitated to call out his name and take a few minutes talking to him. The last time I spoke to him, he was very happy. He told me that he was enjoying his job, and was even going to spend a few hours working after he was supposed to get off. He was also excited to hear of my recent career choices, and was glad that I was moving on for better things in life. This is the second person in my life who I lost to suicide.

After his death, I did not speak to anyone about it, but for those I worked with that also knew him. That is until yesterday. I was finally able to find some closure at a memorial service held in his honor. What I found so powerful about it was not the service itself, but its timing. For those of you who do not know, yesterday was the first Day of Rosh Hashana. Rosh Hashana is the Jewish New Year, and in Jewish culture, the next day is marked not by the sun rising, but by the sun setting. This means that the memorial was held in the last moments of the old year, and ended very close to the new one.

When I noted this on Face Book, my mother asked what the Jews believe about suicide. Well, that is an interesting question. Although I consider myself to be Jewish, and have seen Jewish funerals, I honestly did not know what they believe about what happens to suicide victims. Personally, I do not believe that it is an automatic sentence to Hell, but I have never heard what the Jews have to say about it.

So let us find out. First of all, when people think about taking life in the Bible –Yes I know that I am talking about the Jews, so I should use the Torah or Ta-NaKh, but the they are both a part of the Bible, so I am going to use the word Bible just so I can include everything- the immediately think of what is arguably the most famous of the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not kill. This passage has been used countless times for people who think that War is wrong, or are against the Death penalty. Now what they do not understand is that in Hebrew, there are two words for “Kill” I tried to find them, but I could only get the original Hebrew writing, and not a phonetical translation, I apologize. But the difference between the two words in important. One simply means to Kill, or to justifiably end life. The other specifically means “Murder.” Which would be to purposefully end a life without justification. Now the Hebrew used in the Ten Commandments properly translated would be “Though shalt not murder.” The scriptures give plenty of times where killing is justified. In times of War being one. Now this is very important to my point as Jews do not believe that Suicide is contained within the sixth commandment. This means that Suicide is a case by case basis, as there are times when it can be justified, or at the very least, understandable. I am not saying that it is ever right, there is never any excuse for taking your own life unless it would involve others being saved. -Any Law can be broken for the preservation of life- What I am saying is that there are times when the person does have reason to take their own life, and it not be morally considered Justified. You need to understand that just because something is justified, does not make it right.

Readin the Bible, you would be surprised to find that there is in fact, no scripture directly stating that suicide is wrong. Some people believe that Gen 9:5 is an indirect prohibition of suicide, but after I looked it up with context, I do not think it has anything to do with that. Most people translate it as "I will require your blood if you yourselves shed it." But the King James Versions says “but surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Now remember that special Hebrew word we talked about before? You know, Murder. That is the word it is using whenever it says “Shed Blood” so it is saying that if you murder someone, then God will demand your life in return. So this has nothing to do with taking your own life. The reason that there is no Scripture that directly states anything against suicide is most likely because it is not something a sane person would do.

As Rabbi Lewis Jacobs puts it, “It follows from this that suicide and murder are two separate offenses in the Jewish tradi­tion, as they are in most cultures. Suicide is not homicide and is not covered in the Decalogue [the Ten Commandments]. In the usual rabbinic classification of duties, homicide would be considered an offense both "between man and God" and "between man and man," whereas suicide would fall only under the former heading.
Maimonides' statement (Rotzeah, 2.2-3) that there is no "death at the hand of the court" for the crime of suicide, only "death by the hands of Heaven," is puzzling, since how could a suicide, no longer alive, be punished for the crime by the court?”

So why do we look at Suicide as a sin if it is never spoken of as such in Scripture? It is probably because by taking your own life, you are refusing God’s gift to you, and changing when God has your death planned. So you are taking God’s plan into your own hands and doing what you want instead. But that is the same as every other sin, so why are people fixated on Suicide being the ultimate crime that sends you straight to Hell no matter what you did while you were alive? Ultimately, the Jews believe

Another problem is; what defines suicide? Do you have to pull the trigger yourself? Or merely allow someone else to pull it? Would not fighting back morally be considered suicide? What if someone kills a pacifist, giving them plenty of opportunity to fight back and live? Would that be suicide? Or how about the Martyrs who allowed themselves to be murdered because of what they believed? Would that be considered assisted suicide? Who is at fault in assisted suicide? Is that considered Murder? At what point does allowing yourself to die become suicide? There is obviously a line, and I gave some very extreme examples, but that does not change the fact that when it comes to someone taking their own life, we are far too quick to judge whether they are right or wrong, or whether they are going to Hell or not. When it comes to my own life, I have an extreme faith in God. I believe that no matter what happens to me or what I do, I will die the absolute moment that God wants me to. Because of that, I tend to be extremely reckless, and do very stupid things. There have been numerous times in my life where by all rights I should have died. And a few of them could have been seen as suicide if you did not know the whole story. All of this is to say that both of the friends I lost were good Christian Men, and I have no doubt in my mind that when I die in God’s good time, I will see them both again.

Ethics of the Fathers 4:21: "Despite yourself you were fashioned, and despite yourself you were born, and despite yourself you live, and despite yourself you die, and despite yourself you will hereafter have account and reckoning before the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He."

The Batman Trasformation

Last night, someone whom I have begun to speak frequently to on Face Book asked what would have happened if Bruce Wayne’s parents were never killed. Would he still have become Batman? Or would another hero have arisen in his absence? Would there have been any heroes at all, or would Gotham have continued its fall into the depths of Darkness, Sin and Chaos? Naturally, I could not help but examine what ultimately drove Bruce Wayne to becoming Batman, his psychological influences, his family, what sort of person he could have become, ext.

Let’s begin by looking at the history of Gotham City. Gotham’s origins are shrouded in mystery, and I would heavily suggest that you read the DC wikia page (Here!!!!) as I cannot begin to include all the details I desire to. So I will skip over all the good stuff and get to the point. Ultimately, Gotham was founded by two families. The Waynes and the Arkhams. These two clans, though both rich and powerful, were very different. Whereas the Waynes were known for having a desire to help others and be incredibly self-sacrificial, spending entire fortunes to help push society into the light, the Arkhams –though not obviously so- did the opposite. In the shadows, they worked to promote chaos, and worshiped insanity. Though it is debatable where and when it started, the Arkham family passes a twisted gene down generation to generation, causing the individuals to develop some sort of psychotic illness. Many Arkhams even turned into some of the lesser known –but still vital- Gotham Villains. Amadeus Arkham was able to best disguise his family’s illness by founding Arkham Asylum. By managing the insane, they were able to hide their own insanity.

We're not crazy! I promise!

So what does all that have to do with Bruce Wayne’s transformation to Batman? Well it is well known that Bruce Wayne's Father, Thomas Wayne, was a Wayne. Obviously. But in some versions –such as Earth One- his mother, Martha, was originally an Arkham. This counted for an odd balance between the genes for Bruce. One the one side, he had the Wayne genes which gave him a kinder heart and a desire to help people. While on his mother's side, the Arkham side, his psyche was twisted, and had a more dark side. Unfortunately, before he even had the chance to grow into a man and decide who he wanted to be, his parents were murdered in front of his eyes.

Although this is obviously the most attributed aspect of the Batman Transformation, I believe that it is also the most overlooked. Although it pains me to say this, there are children that have the deep and scarring misfortune of seeing their parents murdered in front of them all the time. It is sadly not as rare of a thing as most of us would so desire it to be. So what is the difference between them and Bruce Wayne? –Apart from him being a fictional character, I mean- Some would argue that it was his fortune that was able to make him carry out the Batman Transformation. But do you honestly think that if Bruce Wayne was a poor as you or I, then he would not have ever become Batman? Bruce’s most attributable characteristic is his undying stubbornness. Once he has his mind set on something, nothing will change. He is not the type of person that would let a lack of finances get in the way of his vengeance. So what is the difference? 

Even Damian admits it.

The difference –though great and numerous- would ultimately be the malevolent Arkham gene in him. He had a desire for personal gratification through vengeance, a strong Arkham attribute, while his Wayne side would never let him leave it alone. The Wayne mentality drove him to use the skills he acquired for his own vengeance for Justice. He had to help others. In some ways he did not have a choice. Torn between the two opposing ideologies and genes, he was thrown into a downward spiral of insanity. Forever cascading farther, losing himself in vengeance and justice. It has never been denied but by the most unknowledgeable
of fans that Batman was insane. Unbelievably and undeniably insane. He has Multiple Personality Disorder, suffers from severe depression, and is a sociopath. As I previously mentioned, many of the Arkhams turn out to be just as large villains than Batman was a hero. In a lot of ways, Batman was one generation away from becoming possibly the greatest villain the DC universe has ever seen. Owl Man, anyone?
 

So all of that is to ask, what would have happened if Thomas and Martha were not killed? What if they walked out of that theater, and went home, safely? This presents a plethora of other options for young Bruce. Now he has the opportunity to peacefully explore his psyche, and discover all the hidden aspects of his mind that the Arkham family is responsible for. Now it is impossible to say what sort of person he would have become; unfortunately, no amount of research and analyzing would decide that. I will say however, that he would either have become a greater man than his father, using Wayne Industries to build Gotham unlike any era before him, or he would have used his power to support the Arkham side, and pushed Gotham farther down, becoming corrupted in the underworld. I have no doubt that either way, once Ra's Al Ghul came to destroy Gotham, Bruce would be none too happy about it. No matter which path he took, the Waynes or the Arkhams, he would not have let that threat be fulfilled. He would fight with everything he had to save Gotham, no matter his personal reasons. But if this were the case, I doubt that it would be a Batman like persona that we know so well. I believe that he would fight in a far different way than we are used to seeing. Instead of himself going on a one man rampage against his enemies, I believe he would use Wayne Industries, and all the men under him. He would utilize the police force; he would use his money to bribe people. It would be more of a political war than anything else.

Behold. The face of Evil

Another aspect we would have to look at is the question of another hero rising if Bruce's parents were never killed. I have no good answer to this either. If Bruce never became Batman, there would never have been a Robin, or any generations thereof (Nightwing, Red Robin, Red Hood, Cat Girl etc.) All of Gotham's heroes stem from Bruce Wayne, and if he never became Batman, then I don't think there would have been any others at all. Of course, that is not to say that another Hero from a different town would have come to Gotham. But that is so unpredictable, that I will not touch the subject.

Lastly, I would like to mention the Flashpoint Paradox. In this timeline, Bruce is killed instead of his parents, and Thomas Wayne becomes Batman (Who uses guns and kills people) and his mother becomes the Joker. Now something that is very different here is that Thomas Wayne is more of a Murderer than a Hero. He has no issue with using guns and slaughtering his enemies. I do not know what the difference is between Thomas and Bruce, but whatever it is, it played a huge role in determining what sort of people they were, and what tactics they used.

Back away. Very slowly.

No matter how you look at it, something was bound to happen to this family eventually. But the sheer, twisted, unpredictability of their minds makes it impossible to even guess what the outcome would be to any deciding event. Bruce was destined to be incredibly powerful, no matter what happened to his family, but the line he walked on between Good and Evil was so narrow, that it was only sheer luck that he became the World’s Greatest Detective we all know and love today.

Phineas and Ferb: Mission Marvel

Ok, so I finally watched Phineas and Ferb: Mission Marvel. I have been waiting for this for months; it is one of my favorite franchises and one of my favorite cartoons mashed together in a 44 minute special. So did it live up to my expectations? Needless to say, it did not have a snowflake's chance in Hell. There were so many things wrong with it; I don't know where to start. Actually, strike that. I know exactly where to start. 

How about we start with the synopsis? The story goes that the kids are in space surfing asteroid fields (Because Phineas and Ferb, that's why.) When Dr. Doofenshmirtz fires a Powerdraininator off into space on accident. It bounces off the space station the kids built, and into NewYork, and by the insane kind of constant series of coincidences that only exist in the Phineas and Ferb Universe, hit four Marvel Superheros. Hulk, Thor, Spiderman, and Ironman, draining them of their power. Go figure. This takes place right when they have the four villains they were fighting defeated, (Venom Whiplash, Modok, and Red Skull) But not before the villains figure it out and wipe the floor with them. The Heroes then go to the S.H.I.E.L.D Helecarrier, and find out that the beam came from Danville. They meet up with Phineas and Ferb as it was their space station that the beam bounced off of, and try to get their powers back. At the Same Time, The four villains find out that Dr. Doofenshmirtz is the one who fired the beam, and go to Danville to try and get the Powerdraininator for themselves. There. NOW I don't know where to start.

How about with my favorite Marvel Hero, Venom. The biggest problem I have with him is that the writers made Venom one of the villains. Now I can somewhat forgive them since they never specified who this Venom was. But seeing as they did not specify, I will assume that it is Eddie Brock, who is the most well-known Venom. The problem with this is that Eddie Brock Venom was known as the "Lethal Protector" He was a Hero who slaughtered anyone who wanted to harm an innocent. Yes, he killed people, but only if they were evil, or Spiderman whom he believed to be evil. He was never a bad guy, at the worst; he could be considered an anti-hero. So why did they make him one of the Villains, and not specify that it was Mac Gargan? All they had to do was refer to him as “Mac” or “Gargan” and it would have been acceptable. But since they did not call him by anything other than “Venom” the viewers are forced to assume that it is Eddie Brock. This REALLY bothers me, as Venom is being turned more and more into a bad character, instead of a misunderstood, righteous, Christian character.

Second is that there is a huge problem with the continuity. Not just on the Marvel side, but the Phineas and Ferb side too. I have no problem with the writers introducing new aspects of the characters that have never been spoken about before, but I DO have a problem with it when the new information contradicts what has previously happened. There are a few examples of this, but the one that bothers me most from the Phineas and Ferb side is their power suit.  One of the Running deus ex machine in the series, is their power suit “The Beak” originally, it was made to be the ultimate sport suit that could withstand their world’s most dangerous skate ramp or something. The point is that it was designed with the purpose of withstanding any form of elemental damage. But in this episode, it is not waterproof. There is a point where they get splashed by little more than a puddle, and the whole suit gets fried. It made no sense. They even say that they cannot go outside when it is raining. Now this may seem somewhat logical, but we are talking about bloody PHINEAS AND FERB here! They can build an entire functioning space station in under an hour, and they can’t figure out how to waterproof their super powered suit of awesomeness that was already waterproofed in prior episodes!!?? What the Bugger!!?? And the same problem happens when they rebuild the suit, they somehow don’t have enough time to fix it, even though they originally built it in less time than they had to repair the damage. This is a kids Disney cartoon, be as illogical as you want, but don’t insult your audience –no matter how old they are- by changing the rules of the universe that you wrote!

Now for the Marvel continuity issues. First of all.... All of the Hero’s powers. None of them have their actual powers. For instance, Hulk is not an anger filled mass of muscle that can’t control his rage, or a brilliant physicist. He is a green man who is super strong. In fact, they make him pretty stupid even though he knows everything that Bruce Banner knows. This further does not make any sense by the fact that once he loses his powers, he STAYS GREEN. He does not revert back to Bruce Banner –who would be overjoyed that his powers were taken away and that he can finally live as a normal human without the ever present threat of murdering a country on accident- he remains as the Hulk, who somehow is not strong anymore. Why? It makes no sense! And when Baljeet gets his powers (which by the way are never taken away or resolved) he is more like the Hulk than the Hulk is! He gets angry and becomes the green monster we all know and love, and when he calms down, he reverts back to the small Indian boy. Why did they do this? They aren’t even following their own rules!!!! WHYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!???????

Odd how with the muscle mass of a bodybuilder, he is apparently as strong as a child.

Then there is Spiderman, whom everyone tends to forget also has super strength. For some reason, they make a joke out of him accidently getting Hulk’s powers (He does not go green when he gets angry, you dirty rotten writers who are so bloody schizophrenic that udgflihulfiauscrgkbvdzyft !) He is just really strong, which they show by him lifting a huge machine. But my very first thought when I saw that was, “Spiderman could do that anyway, so how do you know that he got Hulk’s powers?” Also, his web shooters are not a power, but for some reason, he cannot use them when he loses his powers, and suddenly can again when he gets his powers back.

You aren't already?

Next is Ironman. Now I can go with the suit losing its operating power, and becoming useless, but if that is the case, why is he not dead? Or did the writers forget about the GLOWING CIRCLE IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS CHEST!!?? I mean HOLY CRAP! Doofenshmirtz should have killed Ironman! And even if this is after he resolves the whole power plant in his chest keeping him alive issue, then wouldn’t they just be able to put in a new power cell and be as good as new? Seriously, this should have been nothing more than an inconvenience to Toney.

 Actually to be honest, I kind of like the idea of them pushing a corps around all day.

Lastly is Thor. So Doofenshmirtz’s machine is the Powerdraininator. (I love his machines :3) It drains the superheroes of their power. So when Thor gets hit by it, he can’t use Mjolnir anymore. He even leaves in on the street in New York because he cannot even hold it. That makes sense. I can go with that. It would have been better if the Hammer lost all of its power as well, but I’ll ignore that. The problem is when Iron Man accidently gets Thor’s powers, he can’t use Mjolnir because as Thor tells him, “It is not about Power, it is about worthiness.” Which is all great and everything, but the machine is not called the Worthinessdraininator. It is the Powerdraininator. So if Toney Stark still cannot use the hammer, even after obtaining Thor’s powers, then why can’t Thor use the Hammer? He also indirectly, sort of claims that he has no powers without the Hammer. But they are not including that by himself, he is still the strongest of all the Asguardians, and is nearly invulnerable to physical harm, and much more. I even went to read his Wikipedia page just to be sure, and holy crap, even I did not know a lot of the things he could do! Even without Mjolnir! Also, he states that he can only use lightning attacks with Mjolnir, but that is not true. Using lightning is part of his natural Asguardian ability as being the son of Odin. He only used Mjolnir to focus his attacks. So yeah. Toney should have been just fine with Thor’s powers, instead of feeling useless.

Now on to the Villains. I already covered Venom to some degree, but I am going to go a little more in depth now with the problem of his character instead of him merely being a villain. First, as a minor issue, but still enough to bother me, is that he does not have his tongue. I understand that this is Disney and needs to have a G/PG rating, but how could they leave out his tongue? This is a central physical design! Second, he never once refers to himself as “We.” In fact, he barely has any lines at all. His whole character seems to be just the symbiote, instead of a human with the symbiotic powers. At one point, you see him step in one of Doofenshmirtz’s traps for Parry the Platypus, and the symbiote curls back out of the trap to reveal that there is not a leg there at all! What!!?? WHAT!!!!????? No one is controlling Venom!!?? Why not!? Symbiotes cannot survive without hosts! They feed off the thoughts and emotions of their hosts! It is what they live off of! Why doesn’t it have a host!!?? This is WRONG! 

AAAUUUGGGHHH!!!!!!!!

Now let’s talk about Whiplash. I’ll be honest. I had no idea who he was until Red Skull called him by name. I spent the entire time before that trying to figure out who he was. He does not look like whiplash, he does not talk like whiplash, the only similarity he has is that he uses energy whips, and those still don’t fully reveal who he is. He is just such a boring and useless character in the show, I don’t even have that much to say about him. So yeah.  On to Modok.

So Modok. Yeah. Modok. I am pretty sure the only reason they added him was so they could use ONE joke from Doofenshmirtz. He is so useless and pointless, I cannot think of anything else they needed him for. Why is he even on the team? Modok doesn’t team up with people, he is a psychic god that is nearly all powerful by himself. Why is he with these losers? Actually, that is probably why he is standing in the back ground all the time, and never says anything. He knows he is better than this, and is just waiting for his chance to take control. I also hate how Red Skull uses him like a trash can. Whenever they need to kill anyone, he says that they will just give them to Modok to destroy. Why? You can’t pull the trigger? Venom can’t eat their brains? Whiplash can’t cut them to ribbons? Why give them specifically to Modok EVERY TIME?

Red Skull is probably the only character whom I can’t say anything bad about specifically other than the fact that Captain America is not one of the Heroes, and he thinks that Modok is a living trashcan for humans. They did his character rather well, and even threw in that he knew Doofenshmirtz’s home country, which totally makes sense, seeing as Drusselstein is a parody of Germany to begin with. I liked Red Skull in this. There is one major problem, but I will talk about that later.

Another big problem with the whole show was the voice acting of the Marvel characters. It was so emotionless I found myself muttering the lines under my breath with the right voice fluctuation. Spiderman is constantly cracking quips at everyone and everything, but in a tone that makes me think he is asleep throughout the whole show. Hulk does not have that many lines, but when he does speak, it is awkward, and makes him sound stupid which bothers me. This is supposed to be the intelligent Hulk, not the brainless one. If he was the brainless version, he would be destroying Danville. And then there is the Red Skull. There is a running joke throughout the episode, that no one can understand what he is saying due to his accent. But the problem is that he has a very mild accent. If anything Doofenshmirtz ‘s accent is far thicker than Red Skull’s. This present’s further confusion as Doofenshmirtz cannot understand what Red Skulls says most of the time due to his “thick accent.” This really bothered me, and was a huge distraction while watching the episode.

Now is all that to say that I hated the show? Hell no! I LOVED IT! This is one of the best crossovers I have ever seen on Television! They had so many good jokes, and the actual plot was fantastic! The story made sense, and felt like something that would really happen in-universe! I was laughing out loud through the whole thing, and did not stop until long after it ended! I loved Stan Lee’s cameos (Yes, plural!) and his closer was phenomenal! He reminded me of the Merchant of Cabbage! XD Even that one joke I was saying earlier was the only reason they added Modok, was AWESOME, and even turned out to be a Brick Joke to add to the perfect hilarity of the first part! I loved Doofenshmirtz’s part in the story, even though it did seem like the same plot device from the Phineas and Ferb movie, it still worked out well.They even threw in a DR. Who joke that initially may seem kind of random, but actually fit the situation perfectly, and was not at all out of place.

The only problem I have with the story itself is the sub plot of Phineas and Candace. That seemed really pointless, unneeded, and maybe a little out of character for Phineas. The same goes for Isabella’s problem. But whereas we see build up to the moment with Phineas and Candace, Isabella’s issue seems to come out of nowhere. All of the sudden she is complaining ad crying about something, then she never speaks of it again, and it is never resolved. It is just a  “HI!... BYE!” moment I do not know why they threw it in there.

Overall, it is still a good show that I would suggest to anyone who likes either franchise. Watch it, laugh, enjoy the nerdgasm with me, and geek out over how awesome the story is. It has it's flaws, but for the most part, they are quite easy to overlook. I give this show an 8/10. Now go watch it. NOW.

Cause and Effect and the Point of Origin

Most of you have probably heard of the concept of multiple dimensions, even if only from science fiction movies. In nearly all cases of Sci-Fi stories involving multiple dimensions, the main point is that the other world is exactly the same except for a few slight differences. These differences usually consist of certain things being different colors than in our own, or certain characters roles and personalities being completely reversed. But did you ever stop to think why?

Some stories explain this by mentioning that the hero was put through a traumatic event that turned him evil, or some other such nonsense. The problem is that why did the event that happened in the parallel world not occur in the main world? This can be explained by cause and effect. Certain past events did/did not take place in order for the main event to take place. Of course, one would have to wonder what caused those events to/not to take place in the first place. In order for ONE thing to change, thousands to millions to billions of other things would have to change prior.

It all goes back to the Point of Origin theory. I only call it a theory because it is absolutely impossible to prove. However, it is completely valid, and entirely true. The Point of Origin Theory states that the position of all existing matter in the universe at the beginning of time predetermined all of eternity. So the only difference between the multiple dimensions mentioned above, is the first instance in time.

This may sound rather absurd, until you think about it from a non-linear timeline perspective. Instead of viewing time like a line going from origin to eternity, think of it like a single string that is so thoroughly knotted that all parts of the string are touching all at once.  All points affect all other points, but only going in one direction along the string. Through cause and effect, all matter interacts in one way or another. This is similar to The Butterfly Effect, only far more realistic. The concept that the wind of the butterfly’s wings can cause a hurricane on the other side of the world, is not only ridiculous, but breaks the Laws of Thermodynamics. However, the Point of Origin is much more realistic. Instead of one tiny event causing drastic, huge events, it is a series of billions of events all coming together in a magnificent orchestra that is eternity.

Kind of like that, only bigger. and more complex.

Of course, all of this is to say that every decision you have ever made, or ever will make, had been predetermined by God since before Creation began. Most of you are probably scoffing right now, especially if you know your Theology. I would guess that you are thinking something along the lines of, “What on earth are you talking about, guy!? If God already decided what we are going to do, then we don’t have free will, the entire point of Him creating us!” And you would be right. Along with this, as my Stepfather pointed out when overhearing me discuss this concept with my mother, it would also present a serious problem with spiritual accountability. If everything we do is predestined, and we have no true choice in our actions, then why should we be held accountable for our sins? These are all wonderfully valid points that I honestly have no answer to. However, I would ask you to NOT read that last sentence and say, “Well this guy clearly has no idea what he is talking about.” Because I do. The problem is that these are two factual concepts that are at opposition to each other. Once again, I can hear your voice through time, space, and the internet, “But not everything I do is controlled by cause and effect! What about RANDOMNESS!? The actual definition of random is to not have a reason or cause!” But you would be wrong. Even things that are completely and entirely “random” have a predetermining factor(s) behind them. Even if you never know what the reasons are, they are still there.

 I would like you to do something.  Spout off a list of 5 or so completely random words.  Now.

Now take a minute to think about what words you picked. These words are things that just popped into your head seemingly for no reason whatsoever. But there is a reason you thought of those words. Most likely, they convey concepts of emotions, recent personal events, things you can see right now, or things that you like in general. Or, if you were particularly clever, and saw though my trap, you probably spouted off nonsense words that don’t exist, there is a reason that you made those noises. Most likely because they were the most comfortable noises to make. Now that is another subject entirely that I will not delve into.

The point is that no matter what you say or do, there is a reason for it. 99% of the time, you will never even know what it is, or that there is a reason at all. But there is. And there is a reason that that reason exists. And another for that reason, so on and so forth to the beginning of time. If you really want to track down the cause and effect, think about this; you see a person walking up to the door you are about to go through. Do you walk through the door and leave, or hold it open for them? This entirely depends on several factors, a few of which are, your age, the person’s age, how your parents raised you, your relationship with your parents, your relationship with the person, your gender, the person’s gender,  ext. But let’s just take a look at one factor: How your parents raised you. If you are a boy, and your dad if from the south, you would probably hold the door, especially if the other person if female.  Why is that? Why did your dad raise you to hold doors open for females? The obvious answer is that it is polite; the not so obvious answer is because that is how his dad probably raised him.  But why did his dad raise him that way? Well, because his dad probably raised him that way too. And so on and so forth.

The problem is that at some point somebody’s father had to have not taught his son to open doors for females. So when and why did it start? Well that would be what is called a cultural concept. It is a concept that is developed by an entire culture conjunctively.  Go figure. The concept was that women were special, and needed to be treated better than men. This is commonly misunderstood as women being weaker than men, but it is definitely not true.  Well why did they think that? It comes from a verse in the Bible. “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.” 1Pet 3:7 KJV. At first glance, it does seem to call women weaker than and not as good as men, but that is not what it is saying. What it means is that women are more like fine china, compared to men who are more like camping ware. So it is not insulting women in any way whatsoever, it is telling husbands to take special care of their wives.  So people looked at that verse, and decided that young men should be taught to treat all women with respect as they should their wife, so they started raising them at a young age, to do little things for females such as open doors, out of respect. So if you are said boy, who would open the door for the person, and you have never even opened a Bible, you were in fact performing a habit that was predetermined from the moment that the scripture was written. Cause and Effect.

 

To be honest, it does not make any difference to me whether you agree with the Point of Origin theory or not. It makes no difference whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. Do you know why? Because God already decided whether or not you would agree with it. This brings us back to the contradicting facts of accountability and freewill. What you need to understand is that God in omnipotent. Omnipotent means all powerful, for those of you who do not know. A being without limits can do whatever he wants, and understands things we can never grasp. At some point, we need to simply stop trying to explain and just accept.