The book of Romans: brief summary

The book of Romans is a book encapsulated within the new testament of the Christian Bible. It is by far the longest of the Pauline letters and it, in my opinion anyway, contains a lot of fine philosophy for one to ponder upon (even if you're atheist or agnostic, this book of The Bible sure is worth a read).
The first part (refer to 1 : 1 to 32): firstly we are reminded about Paul, his position as an apostle and also about what he intends to tell the people of Rome (hence the name). Paul does not set his limit to include only the Jewish people, rather he wants the Gentiles to take note as well! Paul also tells us about what stopped him from getting to the capital city of Italy sooner than he did as well (not to mention the fact that Paul implies that Jesus' human bloodline derives from David). As we progress past verse 16, we read that Paul is not ashamed of his gospel because it has a powerful impact on some people. After verse 18 we see that Paul is not shy to tell the Roman people about the wrath of God. Basically some people had taken the whole concept of God (who exists within infinite simplicity) and made it into something finite and potent (an idol). From the aforementioned point on-wards Paul makes reference to Solomon (who overtook David as king, some say Solomon was very wise), therefore allowing Paul to draw upon the nature of unnatural sexual behavioral problems and how that can result in an unhealthy frame of mind. Paul also opposes the worship of deity-type idols (which were apparently common in ancient Rome); although Paul does advocate that righteousness from God causes itself to be distinct from the law - the law from which the prophets seek their reason to testify from (and he also alerts us about the legacy of Jesus Christ!).
The second part (refer to 2 : 1 to 4): furthermore to the point, here we read Paul calling out to the Jewish people who are hypocritical of others. Some argue that Paul was not really writing to the Jews per say but was rather addressing a "typical and boastful person." (read up on Stanley Stowers for more on that).
However from chapters 5 to 11 we are basically reassured about the concept of salvation from our original sin. Paul also writes about the casting away of Israel and the conditions that will cause Israel to once again be God's chosen nation.
Moreover, from chapters 12 to 15 we read upon the point of believers being transformed. Paul declares that as a result of the crucifixion of Christ the believers will be "dead to the law." Paul also tells us that living a Christian lifestyle in the most stereotypical, quintessential way possible (i.e. frequently studying scripture instead of giving into the procrastination that results from the urge to find yourself playing computer games or checking Facebook; you should be going to church etc...) will leave us with no desire to ever want to commit a sin, by definition. It is also stated that the law has dominion over man for as long as he lives - arguably it does if it extends from God, the thing greater than all things conceivable as not everybody would feel obligated to follow a law not implemented by something absolute and personal (even the thieves make their excuses when they steal, have you noticed that?). The opposing viewpoint here is relative morality whereby comparing moral codes is like comparing foods or films, but that is self-refuting and I write that because an individual feels the need to hold such an opinion - and that is an absolute! If the law (or rather condition or parameter) extends from people then you only feel obligated to follow it if doing x gets you y and you desire y (read up on Kant's theory of the hypothetical imperative if the philosophy here is pulling you in!!!).
In the conclusion (refer to 15 : 14 to 16 : 27) Paul notifies us of his travel agenda, his greetings and also about his salutations. It should be noted that woman (approx. one third of the 21 Christians identified here) had an important role to play from within the church in Rome at that time. It was also interesting to see that Paul made no reference to Saint Peter (he was apparently the Pope at this time), and some theologians think that this was due to an incident that occurred at Antioch between Paul and Saint Peter!
So I hope you enjoyed that and I also hope that it entices you to read the book of Romans!

Theology and time travel

Time travel is the hypothetical concept of shifting an object from one point in time to another point in time (either forwards or backwards). The very notion of one being able to move freely between the co-ordinates of time sounds rather absurd on the basis that we are constrained by general relativity (matter, space and time are co-dependent), but general relativity is the thing that may just hold the key to time travel!
Firstly, the concept of the gravitational time dilation shows us that accelerating towards the speed of light can allow us to slow the passage of time down (but I do not know if something can even travel that fast), but this happens on any scale really (never using stairs may add roughly a nanosecond onto your life span, an astronaut ages less when they are in outer space relative to what they would have done being on earth etc...) thus giving us the impression that time can be halted. To take the aforementioned concept a little further, one can take a look at hypothetical wormholing that may have been formed within the spacetime relationship. Anyway, in accordance with the mass-accepted theory of general relativity, gravity itself (you know the thing that keeps us on the earth? ;) ) is caused by the mass of an object putting it's mass on some sort of cosmic sheet, physicists probably know it better as space-time. The mass of the object shall bestow a distortion upon the fabric of space-time, ergo becoming the cause of the surrounding objects to roll around the massive object (we know this because of the earth's orbit around the sun, for example). Furthermore to the point, please know that it is not only just space that is distorted, but time as well (hence the phrase “space-time”). This means time actually slows down more drastically depending on the manipulation of the space-time fabric. Basically a gravitational field of an object that has higher gravity than that of the other entrance, thus retracting whatever enclosed item there is to a position near the other entrance - a wormhole in a nutshell!!! These wormholes can occur anywhere in space, allowing anyone or anything to pass through them and potentially travel through time. The fact that this should function is because a tear in the space-time fabric distorts reality at that point. Inside a tear in fabric, there is no fabric. There is no time, or space, in actuality there would be nothing in the most literal sense except for the wormhole portals themselves. After travelling through such a tear, the traveler will re-enter through the area of least resistance. If there is another wormhole, or tear, at another point in time, the traveler will enter at that point in time. For the method, time dilation causes the end of the wormhole that has been moved to have aged less than the stationary end, OK well as seen by an external observer anyway; however, time acts differently through the wormhole relative to that outside of it, so that synchronized clocks at either end of the wormhole will always remain as synchronized as they were when seen by an observer prior to passing through the wormhole, no matter how the two ends move around.
Secondly, a purely hypothetical "signal" that can move faster than the speed of light may emit "frames" that would be received prior to their emission. The fact that such is possible suggests that backward time travel can occur. This concept, however, is ever-so mind boggling and can result in one of two consequences:
1) a "grandfather" paradox arises, whereby either a mirror image of the time traveler existing at that point in time exists at the same point in time as the time traveler  or a relative responsible for the existence of the time traveler exists yet hasn't performed the deed that gave way to the time traveler as of yet. This raises questions about the notion of free will and that if, say, the celibate grandfather was to be killed then would the time traveler vanish in an instant? Does this presuppose that causality has already been determined and only the time traveler is able to shift the fate of the future away from what they already remember? (oh, and the earth moves so does the exit point differ from the entry point?)
2) a paralleled universe forms whereby the time traveler's actions do not apply to the universe from where they originated
You see if we were to somehow see our destinies unfold visually, then we would be given a choice to betray our chosen destinies. And the mere fact that this choice exists would make all preformed destiny halt!!!
Nevertheless, causality supports that of the first of St Thomas Aquinas' five ways to prove the existence of God a priori (the argument from first cause), the notion of free will supports that of the Cartesian dualism of the mind and matter and paralleled universes may exist as part of an intelligent design that prevents the occurrence of a "grandfather" paradox in the case of a slip back in time!
 Furthermore, the notion of time in Christian theology is acknowledged by the assumption that God exists in a form unbound by space or time. In doctrinal terms, God is said to be omniscient and omnipresent. This is supported by statements in the Bible such as Jesus's claim "before Abraham was born, I am" (John 8:58) and Peter's claim "[Jesus] was chosen before the creation of the world" (refer to 1 Peter 1:20) (assuming the creation of the world began at t = 0). These quotes simply imply that God does not occupy the same timeline that we do (in fact God exists in infinite simplicity ergo must be timeless!). This is further supported by the assertion "I the LORD do not change" (refer to Malachi 3:6), since change requires movement along, and constrained by, a temporal continuum in general relativity! However, how can something that is timeless give rise to a temporal effect? It must be personal and if it is personal then it must make choices under the auspices of its infinite wisdom (thus refuting deism to an extent!). Some things in the universe are capable of existing, but it was also possible for them not to exist. Anything that can cease to exist will cease to exist; if these things that we know in reality have the potential of not existing then it is reasonable for us to assume that at some point nothing existed within reality. Thus there must be something which has an existence outwith general relativity that does not rely upon anything to account for its existence (non-contingency) in order for everything in reality to have this property of contingency! This is an argument from necessity that supports the existence of God outwith general relativity (thus refuting pantheism to an extent!).

The purpose of prayer

To start off, if you find yourself within the grasp, or rather the talons, of a predicament - such as that of depression or grief - then please remember one thing for your own well-being: nothing, except for the creation of another deity, is impossible for God to do if you believe in Him. Now I'm not going to shove a whole load of watered-down, evangelistic theology down your trachea but I want you to at least acknowledge the stance from where Judeo-Christian philosophy roots itself from on the purpose of prayer.
Furthermore to the point, sometimes the likes of other people, and that of the current consensus that really can influence other people, can lead us to define what we need to regard as an imperative for being - say - cool, successful or even happy. Not achieving these standards can lead us to feeling chagrined, but Christ thought we were to die for (and I guess that he doesn't really care about how many hours we spend of our valuable time in the office!).
However the act of falling short of a hypothetical standard can lead us to feeling emotionally discharged; sometimes we just want to exist within that relatively transcendent void that seems to be in-between that of absolute life and absolute death - that's kind of like saying "I wish for a different kind of conditioning" as oppose to that of saying "I want to die" ad lib. The Bible teaches us to woe to those who call good evil and evil good; we Christians can take confidence in knowing that God is the dominion over all men (and the laws that they enforce) - Romans 7 is a great reference to turn to if you would like to learn more about The Lord and dominion.
Sometimes when fate is against your will, you wish for the drive (its the human norm to feel "needed") to hypothetically provision an alternative algorithm for doing the "desirable" thing - which should permit you to speculate that of your desired result a priori. Not knowing what the outcome could be because of acknowledgment of fate, sometimes you perceive such acts of fate as acts of serendipity, can lead us to make some pretty ill informed decisions, but don't rely on the fallacy of "luck" - speculate with that of the infinite entity - who "spoke the Earth into motion" ad infinitum - who will, regardless of which path you may choose to take, respond for so long as you accept Jesus as the messiah (knowing what happens in the future should really be a right observed for God alone) - and use him as a vessel for your forgiveness by God (only then you will be saved from the sins by which you were previously bound to), thus you will be able to experience the kingdom of Heaven as real once you pass away (spiritually) from this entity (what you perceive to be real right now will appear to you only as an illusion, in hindsight, once you start to regard that of a transcendent entity as real)!!

The entities of wisdom and knowledge

Whenever one reads the words of The Bible it is evident that the King Solomon, particulary within that of the Old Testament, is a highly influential character when we look to The Bible for inspiration - with specific regards to, and focus on, wisdom. There is - indeed - a difference between that of knowledge and that of wisdom as knowledge is simply the mere collection of raw, arbitrary facts whereas wisdom is the development of the ability to perceive things like people, events and situations in the same way that God would. Presumably, no topic could escape that of the scope of King Solomon's attention (I am aware of the satanic overtones concerning Solomon, however most of these conspriracies concern an aintient piece of text entitled The Goatia that was believed - by some - to have summoned satanic beings once its rules were followed) as many, many matters were brought to his attention by a wide range of people emerging from varying emotional, economical and sociological backgrounds and with that freshly laid in our minds, I will now attempt to discuss the importance of both wisdom and knowledge.

However let us not choose folly over wisdom and allow ourselves to be granted that of the will of God - when prayer, the object of communication between us and God, takes place we can use it to form a collection of concepts that can be taken into account when we cognate, and therefore act.

OK, so out of the experience of having the wisdom of the thing greater than all else conceivable (the cause of all things caused) comes the feeling of true security - as what we think is ALWAYS being challenged by our bodily desires (like libido or hunger) and also our ethics (i.e. is watching that film considered to be good?). To help facilitate us in the process of cognitional activity (which is basically the action of making up our minds!!) we can use contextually-cued knowledge (the know that, know hows and know-by-acquaintances) - which kind of forms an "indispensable map" of reality that acts as a sort of bolt-on extra for your wisdom! All in all, your present knowledge would become futile if what you perceived to be real was to suddenly become constrained by totally unthinkable laws of physics (not to mention that of your bodily desires) - i.e. the perfection of Heaven...

...lets get back to this entity, however, as the concept of Heaven is something we can savor given that we know how to be receptive to the predefined will of God (He has a plan for you - only you can choose to accept it!). God is bound by NO parameters, so it would be ever so FEASIBLE for Him to make you wise to the notion of the outcomes of events that you would not know the outcome of (wouldn't life be boring without fate?); what comes to occur within the future is for the prerogative of that which exists within infinite simplicity to know!!

Remember, God is the dominion over all men (read Romans if you would like to learn more about that) and for so long as you please Him, then no other benchmark for "how are you doing" will suffice! A man is able to measure his achievements by taking man made concepts such as time into account in relation to what he believes to be the fruit of his own efforts BUT a comprehension of the truth - by others - will always be subjective to the likes of moral ratification; the truth is able to die among men or men can die for the truth (but God is without the constraints that these men would otherwise have had - i.e. finite memories!!).

Your time here is limited; your perception of the world around you is nothing but a picture of a mere moment that will dwindle away into the bottomless pit we call the past - but remember, in conclusion the future is for discovery and you're very able to be the change you want to see in the world (with God on your side can YOU fail??)!!!!

How could one identify a miracle?

Oftentimes people attribute the term "miracle" to events such as the sunset over Goat Fell on Arran or the laptop that manages to power up despite the fact that it still runs Windows 98 - but neither of the aforementioned events are extraordinary for they have the potential to happen a lot (and I guess they do). One thing I assume that we can all agree on is that miracles are supernatural events. Miracles are not magic as any of us could perform magic just by deceiving an observant audience; they're really just part of the normal realm that point towards the supernaturally transcendent realm of God! However, part of the issue that pertains to defining a miracle comes from that of The Bible, whereby no generic, singular word is restricted to that of the English word "miracle" - although we as Christians can derive a miracle from terms such as sings, powers and wonders.

Furthermore, the word "sign" is used often in the Book of John (although it can be found elsewhere in an English speaker's Bible) for a sign is a signal that points towards something beyond it - rather like the "INVERNESS" sign on the A9 or the "CARLISLE" sign on the M74, the signs do not have to be encapsulated within the thing that they're directing people to.

Furthermore, one of the most important roles of a miracle is to attest "the receptive agents" - which Locke (the philosopher) referred to as the "credit of the proposer". God oftentimes provides signs of wonder; for example in the book of Exodus Moses not only had to convince the Pharaoh to set the slaves free from their duties, but would the Pharaoh listen to an aged shepherd? Moses also had the problem of having the slaves follow him in a mass exodus of slaves from the Egyptian desert whereby Pharaoh ruled. God's solution was to provide Moses with the supernatural ability to perform miracles - which was enough to convince Pharaoh that Moses was sent by God thus the people of Israel managed to escape from their duties in Egypt! Normally we are potent but not omnipotent. We lack the ability to perform miracles at will, but miracles are something we do not require should we be acting in the will of God. Clearly our free will is always softly determined by that of the fate that comes up against our will and being able to counteract such originates from our morals - finity wouldn't be if everyone was satisfied and owned everything but as a result of the fall and finitude we must be vigilant as to what is the right thing to do - God never forced Himself upon us, but we can choose to develop an object of communication between ourselves and God if we so wish to. By no means is God neglecting us, He answers the prayers of His people in extraordinary ways - by that token we really must be aware that miracles still do happen!

So in conclusion, I really just wanted to make a distinction between what society would consider being a miracle and also what the words and implication of scripture would declare to be a miracle.

Spirituality in the modern world

Tonight I would like to talk to you about an aspect of Christian scripture that I - personally - deem to be an important facet to the face of the UK today. Ever since the industrial revolution of the Victorian era, industrialization has been exponential within the UK - despite the efforts of the Luddites. Now I'm not advocating that this hasn't been beneficial to us as a society, but spiritually it has been detrimental; the Victorian era gave way to a new way of thinking among most of the British people, one that conditioned them to be parts within a holistic machine. The aforementioned, however, is not surprising when you consider the parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus from the New Testament,
"Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, living in luxury every day. A certain beggar, named Lazarus, was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores. It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom." (refer to Luke 16 verses 19 to 22)
This parable really is starting to show its true colours within the more economically developed nations such as that of the UK, the USA and many mainland European countries. It wasn't that long ago, I'd say 20 to 30 years, when the Ten Commandments could be located in most of the classrooms within the UK and the USA. Now you'll fail to find a mention of the Ten Commandments at all in a school, unless you look to the RMPS wall (whereby it will perhaps accompany several quotes from great thinkers such as Confucius, Plato and Socrates). Teachers are now teaching students that they've evolved from primates (goo that went to the zoo and then to you) despite the fact that evolution, unlike natural selection, has never been proven to be hard and actual science - it should stay within the Philosophy book, along with Aquinas' first mover argument and the Cartesian dualism of the mind and matter.
Furthermore to the point, Adolf Hitler was right when he believed in his quote "let me control the textbooks and I'll control the state" - it is now considered absurd to talk about God or mention your faith within the workplace, but it is acceptable - among most - to mention the latest celebrities' "baby bumps" or whatever. To me this shows that people are reluctant to becoming accountable to their creator for doing so would mean that they would probably have to give up on indulging their sinful desires, hence why it's perhaps easier to assume that we're probably articulate monkeys with no absolute moral direction or purpose within an infinite universe. 
However people, on a large scale, who are not as orientated by the material as others tend to be more inclined to be obligated to follow the absolute moral law as implemented by God, with the standard of righteousness. This is becoming evident within the economically-less developed countries such as Nigeria and Uganda whereby the potential capacities of the churches falls short of the Christian population! The upshot, however, is that this is affirmative to the parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus. Man is fallen and within finitude God is not the route of evil, and God - like the loving being He is - has backed away from our classrooms and as a result we should expect spiritual depletion to arise. 

The problem of evil?

Jesus said “pray so that you might not be put into temptation” as the devil will try and lure people onto a downward spiral of sinning.

“Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light.”

The verse is from John 3:19. Fleeing from temptation can be challenging but God can help as He, and the teachings of the son, can become your moral compass. You could try thinking of the things you don’t have, but don’t want, when you see something you would like. It’s all too easy for us of the Western world to take things like clean running water and electricity for granted. We don’t really need cars when trains and busses are abundant and cheap to board, but we still manage to get our priorities wrong – oftentimes at the expense of other people.

"Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil..." - refer to Isaiah 5:20

Just remember that the word of God has more power than that of any man alive. Help those who are "lost sheep" to calibrate their moral compass for God, as oppose to that of a false idol such as a pop star or TV icon.

"The lord is my shepherd."

It may be the trendy thing to call for "tolerance and acceptance” but God has the standard of "righteousness and holiness!" Remember, we as Christians can love the sinner but not the sin.

The Philosopher Leibniz once implied that God had created the best of all possible worlds. Leibniz, however, did not just arrive at that conclusion without stating the a priori thought process that lead him to it! He took factors such as the notion of the "possible models" considered for the creation mentioned by Moses in Genesis - that would have been rejected under the auspices of infinite wisdom, omniscience and righteousness. Furthermore to the point, it could be argued that God is perfect and it would only be possible for God to produce anything bar another God. By the very definition of God, anything that God makes must be a dependant and contingent being; the concept of omnipotence never really meant that God can do anything, as it meant that God has complete power, and control, over what was the fruit of His creation.
However as a consequence of creation, or of finitude, there has to be evil. Now, The Biblical account of creation does not state that man created evil - but what is stated is that the divine evaluation of creation is that it was good. Some Eastern Philosophies (as well as a few Christian radicals) have viewed the forces of good and evil as opposites in a constant struggle against each other; it is akin to lightness and darkness & ying and yang. In a way, this concept views Satan as a deity thus causing Christianity to be viewed as a polytheistic religion (which it is not!!!!). You really have to ask what is goodness without evil. Evil is just the reduced concentration of goodness. Saint Augustine once argued that evil is just something that a "good creature can do" and that Adam was "created good, but not immutably good." Perhaps those who complain about the "evil in this world" can only do so once they accept that there is goodness (we may have different perceptions/ideas of what is "good", but God has the standard of righteousness) as well. To say evil is good is evil in itself, as declared by scripture. As Paul was writing the letter of Romans, he declared that:
"And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (refer to Romans 8:28)
Even Paul, the apostle, declared that not all of the things that happen to us are good. By the very implication of this letter, it is normal for us to become upset every now and again. Yet all of these bad things exist for they work together for our good! Really, we should be saying that ultimately, as long as you correctly communicate with God and declare Jesus as the messiah, it is good things that happen to us.

Is denomination allowed?

Hey guys, Tonight I would like to talk to you about the church and the different denominations. Jesus tells us that "I've given them the glory You have given Me. May they be one as We're one" (refer to John 17 verse 22). In reality, Christ desires for us, as followers, to be following Him in unison. If that is so, then why are there so may different denominations in Christianity? The two main causes of the aforementioned are diversity and division.

Diversity occurs when - for example - one friend may prefer to be out on the lawn playing a game of tennis or football (an outdoor activity) whilst the other friend is partial to listening to a song or watching a film (an indoor activity), but the interest that unites the friends may be the mutual interest in say writing fan fiction, investigating the Scottish monarchy or exploring the Karst scenery that is around where they may live. Even in the church, some may prefer to make to make the spiritual world visible through the worship method of playing and listening to hymns via an organ or listening to outreach bands and organisations such as that of the Parachute Band, Upward Junction, Full Throttle or the UCB radio station. The means may be different, but the hypothetical intentions - and the ends - are the same. The syllogistic proposition of:

1) All Christians use worship to reach out to the community

2) Hymns are a form of worship

(therefore all Christians enjoy the idea of hymns)

can't always be assumed to be true as everything has the potential for beauty but not all of us are aware of that beauty. We can't please everyone  by the same token hence why so many ideas of worship exist!  Some enjoy the ideas as explored by the Westminster Confession of Faith whilst others find that they enjoy the ideas of worship as entertained by Pentecostalism - but the intentions do remain the same for all forms of Christian worship!

Division occurs when a group of people disagree on a particular point of doctrine and when this conflict can't be resolved then a split in the congregation can result. This is really how the majority of the denominations occurred in the first place - like that of the Lutheran, Baptist, Evangelical, Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches (to name a few). These church groups really came to be after Martin Luther (who should not be confused with MLK), a German monk and theologian, felt that Roman Catholicism, in some aspects, violated Christian scripture. This resulted in the formation of the Lutheran church, which transpired due to the sheer amount of people who agreed with the theology and biblical interpretations of Luther.

However, regardless of the number of denominations within Christianity, Christians must be careful to cognate that of Christ once praying and desiring that of His followers being one much rather like He and the Father are one. The trinity is the concept of the unfathomable existing in a finite number of forms - namely the Father, the Son and the holy spirit (each performing their role of providence, extending to the means but also the end, within our lives and the finite, fathomable reality). As people of God, we must realise that the well-known Christian axiom "In the essentials unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love" remains to be true to this day for us as avid subscribers of the Christian faith!!

Christianity and ghosts

OK, so it is understood that there are spiritists who are able to contact the immaterial, immortal and conscious "spirits" once decoupled from the matter that was their body in this reality, but such an act can only be performed with the providence of God as such transcends the normal capabilities of a finite human being. In the book of Samuel (refer to Samuel 28 verses 1 to 19) we see that Saul attempted to contact the recently deceased (recently at that point in time) prophet Samuel - which resulted in the Philistine Army approaching Saul and also that of Saul having no help from the providence of God. After this, Saul consulted his attendants and asked them to fetch him a woman whose job is to be a medium. One of the attendants said that there was one in Endor, so Saul disguised himself, walked out during the nighttime and asked the medium to consult a spirit for him. The aforementioned medium was successful in her attempt to contact Samuel, but the main message was very unfortunate for Saul - The Lord will now make it his will to have David obtain the land that was once Saul's land.

It is clear from the teachings of The Bible that we should not contact spirits as we could be accessing that of the evil spirits. God commands not to even seek what the future holds before it occurs for discovery, so by that token being a psychic is a sin.  Acknowledging particles in a state before that state occurs for human perception is for the prerogative of God alone - and that is all.

In the time of Jesus, exorcisms were a relatively common practice, for example in Mark 5 verses 1 to 9. However if someone, you think, is possessed by evil spirits then it would be ever-so-wise to consult the church about the problem at hand.

Furthermore, if you ever perceive a ghost then you can be sure that it is not the spirit of the person who you think it is - in most cases, ghosts are purely evil spirits that can imitate a dead person. Ghosts are not what some forms of media would have you believe as ghosts are the fallen demons that you would better off not having anything to do with. If you have not been saved, then potentially you can be part of a fallen world (well can we be born into this world without original sin?) The dead can either have their spirits exists in one of two entities now - either that of Hades (although the spirits will be transferred to Hell from there) or Heaven. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man tells us that nobody contained within Hades can warn us of the tormenting fate that awaits to collide with the will of the immaterial cognition once it decouples from the matter of this entity, we simply just have to believe the implication of the parables and trust in Christ that we are saved from eternal damnation. Remember, if our thoughts were purely chemical then why do chemicals react and not reason?

In the play of MacBeth by Shakespeare, the term "Your Highness" is attributed to people (the monarchy) as oppose to God which provides a distorted spiritual hierarchy in which affects MacBeth - as MacBeth, along with his wife who became somewhat of a convincing alibi, becomes instrumental to the ways of evil. Later on in the play, MacBeth is contacted by three apparitions which warn him about MacDuff returning to Scotland, to essentially ruin him.

Cherubim, however, are usually associated with the presence of God and following the writing of the Pseudo-Dionysius it can be said that cherubim are at the second highest ranking in the angelic heirarchy, following that of the Seraphim. Oftentimes Cherubim can be mistaken for Putti, which is the use of babies or infants in art - but cherubim can take the form of winged children on say graveyard decorations or in museums. 

Is free will a myth? Think Descartes...

So to start off I will tell you guys a little about Mark's account of Jesus' encounter with the devil; Mark tells us that the last thing Satan tempts Jesus with is the ultimate temporal power, but Jesus declines. Why? To accept such from Satan would be denying mankind free will. Really, without free will everything we do will be the result of being chemically interlocked into a system of reactions - thus we return our train of thought to the notion concerning the chemicals reacting, not reasoning!! Christians must believe that there is a dualism of the mind and matter (are we really chemically interlocked into a universal system of chemical reactions?)! In fact, the matter of reality  in itself which you percieve around yourself every day is really just the cotton wool that is pulled over your senses and reality is really just electrical signals interpreted by your cognitive faculties (it is kind of like going to the cinema in Glasgow to watch a fim filmed in London, you would become immersed in the audio and visuals of London hence you may feel as if "you're in London", but you yourself are actually in Glasgow and are being decieved - this probably isn't the best analogy one could use; your immaterial, ineffant concousness may actually be the same - you may reckon that you are at your desk reading this on the computer monitor directly in front of you, but the mind that actually is you may actually be elsewhere, perhaps in a seperate entity of reality altogether!). In order for one to acknowledge their own existence, they must be able to think (Rene Descartes once wrote "je pense donc je suis", literally meaning "I think therefore I am") and to be able to think presupposes a mind. A non-chemical, personal mind is truly what would make me I and you you (and no, the double instance of you is not a typo). If the mind were to be chemical then your thinking processes would be driven by impersonal forces, which means you can not trust your thinking (or reasoning). Put it this way: say there was a being that popped into existence not long after the birth of the universe. This being - however - was equipped with unlimited intellegence and memory, and knew about all of the scientific laws that governed the way in which the universe functions; by that token this being learned all the properties of every single particle in existence within reality. Ergo, this being can work out and therefore predict that you will be reading this article right now if you are not with free will. Another paradox that comes from being purely material is that atoms are constantly leaving and becoming part of your body as you eat, walk, run, wash, drive, study, talk, travel, play and work - but where do you draw the line? If a ship was to have its yellow sail replaced by a white sail then it would still remain a ship even though it is different now than it was yesterday; say the same ship was to have all its parts removed bar a chest of drawers and a house were to be constructed around the chest of drawers thus encapsulating it into a bedroom, would this still be known as a ship? How can someone who is without free will truly be the same person now as they were fifteen years ago? They're not, so an immaterial soul (if that is what you wish to ascribe free will to, it wouldn't be contradictory to Judeo-Christian philosophy if you did) would be the constant excluded from such a rule of physics. Believe it or not, modern science shows us that for so long as there is general relativity this will happen in some scale to some extent unless, of course, the object in question is immaterial. 
Furthermore to the point, natural selection on its own accord breeds automata for survival, but I would like to think that people can be altruistic without the ulterior motive of surivival of the fittest.
However an issue that derives from being capable of free thought is that of morality. So, where does morality come from? Is morality the product of experience or is there, even if it is to a finite extent, a moral law giver or director? The existence of absolute moral codes presupposes that there must be some divine, transcendent moral authority to grant such. Let us suppose for a moment that moral relativity is the philosophically sound way to go. Well, if it is then we must declare that:
1) no action is truly better than another, for example stealing someone's car is no more wrong than leaving them alone or treating them to a meal at Pizza Hut (or some other restaurant)
2) morality will always be a matter of opinion, regardless!
...logically it doesn't seem very robust to me hence why I believe that our God  (how can EVRYONE be obligated by something subordinate/equal to them?) is a director of morality hence why we feel guilt if we steal (there ARE exceptions, but have you ever noticed that even the thieves make their excuses? i.e. I steal food because if I didn't, I would starve!!!). Without absolute moral values society would perhaps render itself to anarchy (relative morality could work by coincidence, but who's to say that the chances to get it right are infinite?). Anyway, moral relativism is self-refuting. Why? The right reserved by one to hold such an opinion of this IS ABSOLUTE ergo we've reason to believe in absolute morality...

Is there a God?

FOREWORD: I understand that this a priori evidence is certainly not sufficient enough in order to convince one that Christianity is philosophically robust, nor is it sufficient enough to convince one that there is a God - but it provides a valid scientific grounding to monotheism (by definition God exists outwith general relativity therefore God can never be subjet to scientific scrutiny, if God could be put into - say - a test tube then this aforementioned test tube subject can not be God). I recognise that an atheist can refute what evidence I give them by saying "it's just God of the gaps", but what I ask of the atheist whom stands by such a claim is "what do you propose there is in lieu of God?" Perhaps the reason as to why so many people are reluctant to accepting the philosophical evidence of God derives from their desire to indulge their sinful natures - without an eternal consequence. What I say to you is "are you willing to risk the fate of your eternal life for a philosophical stance that can not give you any decent, sensible answers to how we came to be, what purpose we serve and if, at all, we have free will and even morality?" Think about it please. On this blog I employ no attempts to deceive you of the truth nor do I advocate that Christianity is correct.
 My personal belief lies within monotheism and Christ the messiah, however I understand that the old Confucian saying "everything has beauty but only some of us are aware of it" can remain true hence why I view what I type as "potentially refutable."  This, however, is the beauty of philosophy crystalised within the void between theology and science, we're human and we don't have all of the answers. True philosophy is enlightening yet should leave you with more questions than answers, the kind of questions that make you ponder and admit "wow, so that is possibly how it goes."  If I provoke any kind of intellectual response from you, as the reader, then I can take confidence in knowing that my work here is done.
Did the universe emerge from nothing? I reckon that nothing produces nothing. Scientifically, the existence of, say, the big bang theory, the abundance of hydrogen or the irreversible decay of the universe can back me up on this one. Can natural forces produce the universe? Please, ontologically there can't be any nature prior to the big bang (if there was then the big bang cannot be the start of causality and time, as that would mean that the universe would be and not be at the same time - that, I'm afraid, is a contradiction); the big bang must have been caused by something supernatural, unbound, unchanged and omnipotent, but if the universe was really around for infinite time, with no beginning, then surely we would have reached a cold and lifeless state of an absolute equilibrium by now. The classic paradox that comes from infinite regression can be represented by the following analogy: say I wanted to greet you, but I only could once I asked the person seated behind me for permission. Then this aforementioned person says "wait, I've to ask the person sitting behind me for permission to give you permission to greet the reader of this article. Say this went on for a infinite number of times, would I ever get to greet you? No, of course not so how can we reach this point in time if there is infinite regress on the chain of causality  But who created God? I think that no one created God, as He is eternal. By logic, every effect must have an antecedent cause (and it is perfectly acceptable to state such a priori, or through reason alone). However God is not an effect; rather He is a cause! Since something exists, and since something cannot arise from nothing, and that the universe itself is not eternal, something outside of the universe must be eternal. An infinite creator must be that something. Time and space had a beginning (the Higgs-boson particle is affirmative to this, as it is like steps in the snow that trace back to a point of literal nothing a finite time ago - but whether or not this sub-atomically regarded theory is the truth I do not know!), but God exists external to the bounds of time and space, ergo God is a non-contingent being (only contingent beings need a cause in order for their existence to be accountable).

The Bible is affirmative to this truth, that of God being independent and self-existing "from everlasting to everlasting" (refer to Psalm 90 verses 1-4, Psalm 102 verses 25-27, Isaiah 40 verses 28-31, John 5 verse 26 and Revelation, as prophesied by John, 4 verse 10). As once stated by Henry Morris, "The only answer that satisfies all the facts of science and human reason is that God is 'from everlasting.' Our heavenly father is the Creator of time as well as space and all things that exist in time and space. This is beyond our mental comprehension, but there is no other rational explanation for our existence."

However, can you point to a part of the brain that produces intellect? Why aren't we automata - I fail to accept that biology just gave rise, naturally, to intelligent, cognitive things that baffle computer scientists. For the notion of free will to be true the soul must be immaterial and we know that to be true for no tangible part of the brain produces the intellect, chemicals react because they do not reason (our will must be independant of the interlocked system of nature if we truly are able to cognate), and if we were a product of evolution (as likely as me pulling out a working watch after shaking watch parts together in a bag for a few billion years or so) then we might as well have been as conscious as a plant (really, without a God what purpose do we serve?). Evolution states that everything within our bodies happened by chance, but for that to be true the chances must be of infinite quantity; I'd be skeptical of accepting that there would have been an infinite amount of past time before now or a universe that oscillates for infinite time...

Nevertheless, your current perception is that of the particles in their current hinge, the past has dwindled away into the bottomless pit and the future remains for discovery and change. The truth can die among men or men can die for the truth but to accept the Christian God is to accept Jesus as the messiah. Read the first four gospels of the New Testament if you desire your historical proof. Or how about a Latin Vulgate as translated by St Jerome translated verbatim into English if you believe the translation you have is flawed by theological bias - I think you'll find that the diverse, historical accounts of Christ still remain to be.