Creator Rights

A riddle: He creates as he likes and disposes as he likes. He brings to life as he likes and kills off as he likes. He blesses as he likes and curses as he likes. He brightens the skies above as he likes and devastates the earth below as he likes. He does as he pleases and is answerable to no one. Who is he?

The Laws Of Cultural Appropriation

1. The First Law Of Cultural Appropriation states that thou shalt not wear Indian/Chinese/Etc. clothes if thou wert not Indian/Chinese/Etc.

2. The Second Law Of Cultural Appropriation states that thou shalt not eat Indian/Chinese/Etc. food if thou wert not Indian/Chinese/Etc.

3. The Third Law Of Cultural Appropriation states that thou shalt not speak any Indian/Chinese/Etc. dialect if thou wert not Indian/Chinese/Etc.

4. The Fourth Law Of Cultural Appropriation states that thou shalt not worship any diety worshipped by Indians/Chinese/Etc. if thou wert not Indian/Chinese/Etc.

The Concept Of Female Physical Perfection According To Some Health & Fitness Industry Schools Of Thought

[Russian]

[Russian]

[Russian]

[Russian / Latvian / Ukrainian / Maltese]

[Korean]

[Korean]

[Korean]

Benefits Of Home-Cooked Food Versus Outside Food (Food Obtained From Hawker Stalls / Restaurants / Etc.)

1	Salt content is controllable.						i) Home-Cooked Food			Yes / No
							ii) Outside Food			Yes / No
2	Sugar content is controllable.						i) Home-Cooked Food			Yes / No
							ii) Outside Food			Yes / No
3	Oil content is controllable.						i) Home-Cooked Food			Yes / No
							ii) Outside Food			Yes / No
3	How thoroughly vegetables are washed is						i) Home-Cooked Food			Yes / No
	controllable.						ii) Outside Food			Yes / No
4	How thoroughly the cook's hands are washed						i) Home-Cooked Food			Yes / No
	is controllable.						ii) Outside Food			Yes / No
5	Food freshness (cooked today, cooked yesterday,						i) Home-Cooked Food			Yes / No
	etc.) is controllable.						ii) Outside Food			Yes / No
6	Ingredient freshness (meat, fish, vegetables,						i) Home-Cooked Food			Yes / No
	etc.) is controllable.						ii) Outside Food			Yes / No

Why I Do Not Go To Church Anymore

...is because the Church is heading in the opposite direction the Bible points towards, which, if the Bible, generally believed to be the Word of God (emphasis, mine), is about the salvation of one's soul in the afterlife, should be in the general direction of Heaven, wherever that might be.

And this I know, how?

Anyone who reads it, the Bible, in its pure, unadulterated, literal form will come to the same conclusion. Of course, if you listen to Church elders who tell you not to take the Bible, generally believed to be the Word of God (emphasis, mine), literally (which some folk might interpret as being told by the Church not to take the word of God seriously) (seriously?), you too will brush it aside in favor of what the Church, after a heavy-duty editorial job spanning approximately two thousand years, has extracted from it for usage in its own Church Doctrine.

But, why in Heaven's name, pun unintended, would the (so-called) holy Church do such an unholy thing in the first place, you may ask?

Approximately two thousand years ago, the disciple named Peter had a revelation and saw that winning the hearts of new converts would be almost impossible if the old ways were to be followed, the old ways Moses preached about which Jesus said he did not come to abolish but to uphold, the old ways that made the road to salvation narrow and difficult to traverse. So, what the disciple named Peter did was to do away with some of the old ways to make the road to salvation wide and easy to traverse.

Approximately two thousand years later, the Church has diligently continued the legacy the disciple named Peter left behind.

Imagine, were you a die-hard purist, the amount of damage approximately two thousand years of Church-sanctioned editorial work has done to the original contents of the Bible, generally believed to be the Word of God (emphasis, mine).

On second thoughts, perhaps I should resume going to church once again. After all, the more than two billion people doing it can't be wrong, can they?

Why I Do Not Celebrate Christmas Anymore

...is because nowhere in the bible, new testament or old and generally believed to be the Word of God (emphasis, mine), is it mentioned in terms of being a religious festival or occasion that was required to be observed or celebrated in any special way or in any other context whatsoever.

So, how did it come about, in any case? Well, here are some historical snippets of interest, courtesy of Google Search, Wikipedia and History.com, to name a few.

i) Christmas literally means 'mass for the Christ', the day on
    which Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus. The date is     
    quite arbitrary. It was chosen by Pope Leo I to coincide
    with the pagan festival of Saturnalia in which the Romans
    worshipped Saturn, the sun god.

ii) The first recorded date of Christmas being celebrated on
     December 25th was in 336, during the time of the Roman
     emperor Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor.
    A few years later, Pope Julius I officially declared that the
    birth of Jesus would be celebrated on 25th December.
 
iii) The 'History Of Religions' hypothesis suggest that the
      Church selected December 25th so as to appropriate
      festivities held by the Romans in honor of the sun god Sol
      Invictus. This feast was established by the Roman
      emperor Aurelian in 274. An explicit expression of this
      theory appears in an annotation of uncertain date added
      to a manuscript of a work by 12th-century Syrian bishop
     Jacob Bar-Salibi. The scribe who added it wrote: "It was a
     custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25th
     December the birthday of the Sun, during which they
     kindled lights as a token of festivity. In these solemnities
     and revelries Christians also took part. Accordingly, when
     the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians
     had a leaning towards this festival, they took counsel and
     resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnized on
     that day."

iv) The English term Christmas ('mass on Christ's day') is of
      fairly recent origin. The earlier term Yule may have been
     derived from the Germanic jōl or the Anglo-Saxon geōl
     which referred to the feast of the winter solstice.

v) In the early years of Christianity, Easter was the main
     holiday; the birth of Jesus was not celebrated. In the
     fourth century, church officials decided to institute the
     birth of Jesus as a holiday. Unfortunately, the bible does
     not mention a date for his birth. Although some evidence
     suggests that his birth may have occurred in the spring
     (after all, why would shepherds be herding in the middle
     of winter?), Pope Julius I chose December 25th. It is
     commonly believed the church chose this date in an effort
     to adopt and absorb the traditions of the pagan Saturnalia
     festival. By holding Christmas at the same time as
     traditional winter solstice festivals, church leaders
     increased the chances that Christmas would be popularly
     embraced.

Messy origins it appears to have had, if the information available on the Internet was to be believed, but one common thread appears to link it to a pagan festival celebrating the birth or rebirth of the sun god and the winter solstice, a mid-winter event marking the reversal of the gradual lengthening of nights and shortening of days, or the return of longer days and shorter nights following a period of shorter days and longer nights in other words.

On second thoughts, perhaps I should resume celebrating Christmas once again. After all, the more than two billion people doing it can't be wrong, can they?





    

The Devil's Many Faces

It's been written,"Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming,'I am the Messiah', and will deceive many."

No one knows what Jesus really looked like. Everyone in agreement? Good. Let's proceed.

The popular visual representation of Jesus as being a fair-skinned, blue-eyed, long-flowing-haired, bearded Caucasian male is actually based on a 4th Century Byzantine artistic representation of a god-like, enthroned emperor modelled on a younger version of Zeus, the Greek god of gods, to symbolize his divine persona as exemplified below.

For all we know, according to a reverse-engineered reconstruction of a Galilean man by forensic anthropologist Richard Neave in 2001 for a BBC documentary based on an actual skull found in the region, this is what he may have actually looked like.

Worlds apart, if you ask me. In any case, we all know how great  a deceiver the devil, Satan, is, and the devil, with his legions of angels, demons more likely, to do his bidding, evil work more likely, wears as many hats as he has disguises.

And since nothing is sacred to him, this deceiver of deceivers and, quote, 'the father of lies', unquote, it is believed this Evil One on occasion assumes the popular visual image of Jesus everyone is accustomed to in order to lead the whole world astray, which incidentally is what he does best, what he was meant to do.

We all know of someone or have heard of someone saying he or she, quote, 'saw Jesus', or ' heard Jesus speak;' unquote, at some stage of that person's life. We may also know of or have heard of people claiming they saw or were visited by popular visual representations of other religious deities somewhat lesser in rank, but that's another story.

So, be warned, for, quote, 'Many will come in my name, claiming, "I am the Messiah," and will deceive many,' unquote.