HOME | DD | Gallery | RSS
| ZacharyTC
ZacharyTC
[18284968]
[2011-07-12 18:39:48 +0000 UTC]
"Zachary T. Cawley"
(United States)
# Statistics
Favourites: 1166; Deviations: 38; Watchers: 48
Watching: 163; Pageviews: 22221; Comments Made: 1334; Friends: 163
# Interests
Favorite TV shows: NCIS, Dexter's Laboratory, Ed Edd & Eddy, Tom & Jerry, Swamp People, Pawn StarsFavorite books: Bible, To Kill a Mockingbird, Fallen Angels, Of Mice and Men, Farenheit 451
Favorite writers: Harper Lee
Favorite gaming platform: PC
Tools of the Trade: Pencil, Pen, paper, keyboard, printer
# About me
Just a Christian writer who loves to think and try to solve things, which is a pain in the neck. Working on a personal library to understand the culture and other related fields to the Bible.Paid Commissions: Considering it. If I do them, accepted payments will definitely be in Litecoin (LTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Bitcoin (BTC). Paypal (USD) payments are still being debated in my mind as to whether I want to accept those.
Point Commissions: Probably not.
Requests: Still working on a couple. Once they're complete, I'll open it up!
Art Trades: Maybe? Come back to me on that!
Collaborations: If you need a writer (and I have the time), hit me up!
www.16personalities.com/intp-pβ¦
:thumb482103141:
:thumb485787181: :thumb370092470: :thumb471943130: :thumb338145335: :thumb367531264: :thumb332071168: :thumb368338989: :thumb300055092: :thumb337116012: :thumb349375161: :thumb378129569: :thumb307532183: :thumb406882686: :thumb259301186:
And now, for the "fun" part of the profile called... Frequently Asked Questions! This will be updated as I put in more, as there are many that are frequently asked! Anyway...
Frequently Asked Questions
#1. "Isn't God eternal and omnipotent?"This ones gets flogged at me the most, whenever I talk about the cultural or linguistic context of a verse or passage. The question, "is God not omnipotent," is nothing more than a cop out by people -including folks on both the Christian and Atheistic sides of a debate, even!- who would rather lounge around all day and watch their favorite TV shows than actually do their homework. Because of their laziness in research, these people inevitably get backed into a corner and use this frequently-asked question as a means of making themselves feel good about their chronological snobbery at the cost of their IQ.
In other words, it is nothing but damage control in order to hide the fact they cannot think of anything better that God could have done in a given situation. They know they cannot win if they tried to give a suitable alternative, so they hide that fact by asking whether God is omnipotent instead, as if reminding people of that trait from humanity's perspective would make whatever they do not like change. Were they to employ this attitude of an ability making an obligation to matters of marriage, they would eventually be divorced when their angry spouses have finally had enough.
#2. "Who created God?"Nobody. Even the Bible tells you that, by implication, whenever it speaks of him being eternal. Not to mention, we are about as close to an alternate source for the beginning of everything as we are to pigs having jet engines to fly without killing themselves. Look up the Laws of Thermodynamics. As near as can be told, the universe is an isolated system, by your reckoning. As such, due to the aforementioned scientific laws, the universe has a beginning, thus a first cause. In short, God does not need a creator, because he never had a beginning.
I know, I hurt your brain on this one!
#3. "How can you stand for how God impregnated Mary while calling what happened a Virgin Birth!?"Because, there was no sex involved. Only a person with a completely dirty mind would say otherwise. Basically, what is going on is an act of divine fiat, seeing as this same Holy Spirit is involved in anything from creation to giving blessings. I mean, sheesh! If creating the Universe was no problem for the Lord, why should impregnating a teenage girl without having sex be any different?
#4. "So, God impregnated Mary to give birth to himself, to kill himself, to appease himself!? How does that work!?"Yeah, there is a reason the doctrine found in the Nicene Creed, which affirms the three-in-one godhead espoused in the Bible, is so important. You are looking at it in this question that was just asked.
#5. "Was Jesus promoting cannibalism?"Not in the slightest. What he was referring to was the Passover Meal, which is implied by his employment of the wine and matzo (unleavened bread) to establish a sacrament dubbed, "Communion". It is a symbolic way of saying he fulfills what Pesach pointed towards. Not to mention, it made a nice allusion to when lambs were slaughtered and had their blood used on the poles to the entryways of Hebrew homes so that the Lord would pass over them while the Egyptian firstborn died and thus convinced the Pharaoh at the time to let the Israelite nation pack up and travel out of captivity.
#6. "Was Jesus a human sacrifice?"Nope! As stated in #5, there was more symbolism involved than anything else. In this case, Yeshua HaMashiach was a sinless stand-in for mankind, thus representing us judicially at the cross. There is a reason we are said to have been "crucified with Christ". Refer to James Patrick Holding's The Atonement Contextualized for more details.
#7. "How do you tell what passage is literal and which one is more symbolic?"The same as with any other literature: figure out the genre and the author's intent by the context. You know, that thing you hate so much? There is genre, culture, history, geography, anthropology, sociology, linguistics, and literary context, among other things, to consider. Yeah, I know! You would really hate to miss the latest episode of Family Guy, the Simpsons, or whatever other show you watch! What a crying shame!
#8. "What makes your God so special when others have done the same thing?"Name the ones before Christ you think have done it and which credentialed scholars support the claims. This effectively means you cannot refer to anything from Dorothy Murdock, Zeitgeist, AronRa, Nicholas Humphreys, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Kraus, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Steve Shives, TJ Kirk, Andrew Oliver, Jaclyn Glenn, or anybody like these guys/gals in terms of their fields and education. An example of somebody who qualifies is David Ulansey, the Mithraic scholar. Look him up.
Any moments of them performing miracles is no big deal, since that is part of a deity's job description. Same as the whole birthday thing, since we do not actually have a date for Yeshua's birth. As for a virgin birth,
you'll be hard-pressed to find anything that matches! #9. "Why do Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh match the way they do in terms of story content?"That is rather easy to do when they come from the same region and source. Next.
#10. "How can you stand for a God that would resort to entrapment like in the Garden of Eden!?"Because, the legal definition of entrapment is that law enforcement entices someone whom would otherwise not be inclined to break the law. In short, what happened does not fit the bill.
#11. "What makes your religion true when there are so many others that claim to be?"
This one, unlike others, is actually a great question to ask! (Hence, why you do not see the FAQ icon next to it.) It basically boils down to whether Jesus was truly resurrected from the dead. This is where you will have to work extra hard to figure out whether Jesus' body was found. If not, and no suitable alternative to a resurrection is found, deductive reasoning dictates the Resurrection the clear option as to what happened.
# Comments
Comments: 241
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 2
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
Your signature is pretty monstraphobic. I hope that's not mean, but am I the only one who believes that monsters were real at one point in time, but monster hunters killed them all because of how people see them, therefore everyone now believes that they never existed?
π: 0 β©: 0
www.thedailybeast.com/john-galβ¦
Guy started an anarcho-capitalist compound to sell drugs, got murdered by the Mexican drug cartel because he was competition.Β
Anarcho-capitalism in a nutshell.
π: 0 β©: 1
Uh-huh. How do you think those drug cartels formed in the first place? They formed because THE DRUGS WERE BANNED. And, really? One convention counts as an anarchy? Come on! There's no way you're that stupid!
Also, nice little genetic fallacy you put in there. Even if it were true that the "compound" was set in order to sell drugs, it does not change the fact anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy is all about the abolition of government in order to allow for people to trade and associate with one another voluntarily.
π: 0 β©: 2
The drugs weren't banned in the area he was at. That's why he did it. Then the cartel killed him because he was their competition. Anarcho-capitalism.
abolition of government in order to allow for people to trade and associate with one another voluntarily
Then someone decides it's better for business to just kill their competition and form a monopoly. The NAP is an idea, and not everyone abides by it.
π: 0 β©: 1
1. Doesn't matter. The cartels still formed because of the government ban on them. Stop dancing around this fact.
2. Bullshit. If you were really against ,monopolies, you would not be defending a MONOPOLY ON FORCE. No company has come close to forming a long-lasting monopoly without government favor. And, once again, we already acknowledge not everyone abides by it. If we didn't we would not be libertarians or anarchists to begin with. Why do you think we keep defending the right to keep and bear arms, dumbass?
π: 0 β©: 1
And without the government, the cartel would have absolutely zero limits.
Β Bullshit. If you wereΒ reallyΒ against ,monopolies, you would not be defending a MONOPOLY ON FORCE.
I'm not against monopolies. There will always be a monopoly on force.
No company has come close to forming a long-lasting monopolyΒ withoutΒ government favor.
Yeah, two monopolies working together. Kind of like what would happen under anarcho-capitalism.
π: 0 β©: 1
1. Right. That totally explains why the repeal of Prohibition reduced the organized crime groups' danger levels once legal sales of alcohol came up again. π: 0 β©: 1
2. First time for everything. People thought there would always be absolute monarchs in any given location, until the Magna Carta and the American Revolution. People thought there would always be papal supremacy how politics, until it waned.
3. Again, all you are doing is projecting the faults of government onto anarchy. If
1) Alcohol is still highly regulated and controlled by a single monopoly - the state. Hell, the state owns the liquor store down the street from me.
2) Authority hasn't gone away, only changed forms.
3) Anarchism is impossible, especially anarcho-capitalism.
π: 0 β©: 1
Talk to the hand. You're clearly just throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks.
youtu.be/fRlcWVrMyAw
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for the favourite- much appreciated
π: 0 β©: 1
Hello, I have a question.
I know you have had some trouble in the past with self proclaimed satanists/luciferians, but would you oppose me or dislike me if I told you I was a satanist? Would you distrust me or believe I have followed the wrong path or that I am simply misguided?
Don't get me wrong, I am not here to start drama, get angry, seek attention or anything like that at all. I would love to hear your opinion since I am just highly interested in what Christian people think of satanists/luciferians.
I know most of the time people claim they are a satanist because of the attention they get, however, some do follow the biblical story of Samael and his fall and/or even believe in God, but rather see Lucifer as a different and less evil entity than has been claimed, since certain things like hell and death are needed to keep a balance in the universe. (Where would we leave the bad guys anyways haha)
π: 0 β©: 2
Perhaps if Satan existed, which he doesn't.
π: 0 β©: 1
Very unnecessary comment.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't care if you don't like it. Β The idea of a "Satan" is a Greek invention.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well I certainly don't care about your unnecessary comment (-:
π: 0 β©: 0
Doctrinally, Christianity states that nobody can come to the Father (the first person of the Trinity that makes God who he is) but through the Son (Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity). [John 14:6, for example] So, strictly speaking, we do think the religion of Satanism/Luciferianism is a misguided ideology that is along the wide path to damnation.
(No, I do not think hell is a place of fire and torture. I happen to be under the impresseion that such a notion is simply either blowback for the times Christians were martyred sporadically under Rome (The Church Father Tertullian says something to that effect out of spite), or a medieval invention. Hence, why I often say, "Dante Alighieri called, he wants his Inferno back." What I interpret it as, rather, is a place of shame as well as a simple separation from God. If you have very little to be ashamed of aside from not believing in the Lord, you can expect your time there to reflect that, which may end up being little different from limbo. If your sins are especially heinous, however, you can probably expect abject humiliation in some way you might have considered beneath your dignity in life. Heaven works similarly.)
(Heaven works similarly, in my view. If your sins in life were especially heinous and you happened to have accepted Jesus's covenant, your rewards are likely going to be slim, at best.)
However, I would not exactly distrust or hate you. It's just that the ones in your ideology (or, the ones that at least profess to be) that happen to be the most vocal are a real pain in the ass due to how annoying their victim complex winds up.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you and that's very interesting. Fully agree on the last part because a lot of Satanists do have this victim complex.
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't know how you have the patience with Bronze fool. He's either immune to reason or wilfully malevolent in his intentions.
π: 0 β©: 1
Only out of sheer necessity. He keeps trying to demonize me behind my back, even when I stop talking to him. He will twist my words and paint me as the bad guy no matter what I do or say, which leaves me no alternative but to fight back. Considering he consistently keeps making the same assumptions and excuses about me without variation as if a different result will magically occur, I can only conclude he knows for a fact his arguments aren't working and he is simply acting out of malice.
π: 0 β©: 2
For the record, I am not 'evil' towards any person. It's simply not in my nature. The fact is, your 'ideology' if that's what you want to call it is so utterly foreign and alien to me. And I know for a fact that if such ideology were to spread, it would be a literal hell on earth in a sense. For most people anyway. Again, countries and governments exists for a reason. It would be too much of a burden for a one man to be their own 'government'.
π: 0 β©: 1
Tell that to the Mexican town I presented as evidence to the contrary.
π: 0 β©: 0
So he's trolling. A very boring and stupid troll. That's why I blocked him ages ago most likely.
π: 0 β©: 0
Merci beaucoup, Mademoiselle Squirrel! 
π: 0 β©: 0
I didn't even know you had me blocked , lolΒ
But never the less, thank you for unblocking me!
Feel free speak your mind on my threads any time, be as bluntly honest as you like, I never report and I never blockΒ
π: 0 β©: 0
Tell me idiot did you not read the part of my profile where I said I was a Fascist and think that just because I disagreed with you on something I am a Leftist or are you even stuppider and think that us Fascist are leftist faggot?
π: 0 β©: 1
I seem to recall saying that the political spectrum is worthless, meaning I could care less if you called yourself left, right, center, up, down, east, or west. You're still an authoritarian.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hey Zachary:
I was surprised to find you here. I appreciate your well researched Q&As. Lets talk someday...
Ragamuffin900
π: 0 β©: 1
Do I know you from somewhere? There is only one other website I remember having the same username.
π: 0 β©: 1
You may, not sure. I've been around the block several times in my life. Are you familiar with the works of Brennan Manning? I relate to his Ragamuffin philosophy.
π: 0 β©: 1
Not really. If I did come across it, I forgot.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>