Visions - Tumblr Posts
Since people seem to really like my vision requirements illustrations, I figured I could elaborate on my theories/headcanons!
Anemo: Purpose.
Anemo users have been unsure or hesitant about how to live their lives or what to do at some point, but all ended up finding something to strive for. Venti found purpose in rebuilding Mondstadt after Decarabian fell, to make the nation a place that the nameless bard would've loved to live in.
Jean found purpose as the Dandelion Knight, Xiao found purpose in serving Morax, Wanderer found purpose in freedom etc. Everyone has something they find fullfilment in.
Geo: Determination.
Geo users have a set path and/or ideal they live by, something they will not budge on no matter what. Zhongli is solid on his contracts, the written word is law and cannot be allowed to go broken, regardless of circumstances. His path is one of mutual agreement and fairness, to ensure everyone and everything gets their due.
Ningguang walks the path of Liyue's pillar, Noelle walks the path of self-improvement, Itto walk the path of acceptance etc. They are determined in their ways and will not bend them.
Electro: Protection.
Electro users all have something/someone they hold dear, and will do anything to ensure it's safety and longevity. Ei loved her sister more than anything else, and would've done anything to keep her safe and alive. Her actions in Inazuma was her terribly misguided way of "protecting" it from erosion, to keep the nation her sister loved so much in prosperity in her place.
Sara wants to protect her people, Keqing wants to protect Liyue's prosperity, Fischl wants to protect her imagination and fantasies etc. They hold things close to their heart and will do anything to protect it.
Dendro: Understanding.
Dendro users are seekers of knowledge and wisdom, wishing to understand the world around them and all that lives in it. Nahida wants to understand people, for wisdom means nothing when it can't be put to practice. People aren't something that can easily be comprehended by textbook knowledge, they must be observed extensively first-hand to even begin to understand.
Baizhu wants to understand the secrets of immortality, Kirara wants to understand human society, Collei wants to understand how to help others etc. They earnestly search for ways to expand their world.
Hydro: Duty.
Hydro users tend to have a strong sense of responsibility and personal principles they live by. We don't know enough about Furina to say for sure what her deal is right now, but I speculate her duty is closely connected to the Heavenly Principles, and that she views herself as Celestia's "executioner" so to speak.
Ayato's duty is to the yashiro commision, Candace's duty is to the desert-dwellers, Childe's duty is to the Tsaritsa etc. They have solid loyalties and set principles they work by.
Pyro: Passion.
Pyro users are full of love and passion for what they do, dedicating themselves whole-heartedly to their chosen field. We know very little about Murata, so it's hard to say what she's like. As the God of War I assume she has a passion for battle? Who knows.
Yoimiya is passionate about fireworks, Bennett is passionate about adventuring, Diluc is passionate about defending Mondstadt etc. They have a profound love of life and what is in it.
Cryo: Contradiction.
Cryo users are at odds with themselves, rife with inner conflicts and clashing desires. The Tsaritsa is described as an archon with no love for her people, and has been noted to have grown cold post-cataclysm. Her harbingers, most notably Childe, say otherwise, though. She's not unloving, but she is disillusioned and vengeful. Her hatred for Teyvat and Celestia is at odds with her love of her people.
Rosaria is conflicted with her lifestyle(s), Ayaka is conflicted with her status and wants, Kaeya is conflicted with his loyalties etc. They are torn by irreconcilable opposites.
My artwork for the next collective exhibition "Twin Peaks" in Rome at Nero Gallery, opening January 27th
(sold)More original Artowrks available on-line: https://www.nerogallery.com/categoria-prodotto/virginia-mori/
When you get your Vision, do you like automatically know how to use it? Or do you struggle?
Did Kaeya freeze things on accident when he got his? Maybe Bennet burned his shoes when he took them to put them on? Maybe Kazuha accidentally created enough Wind to make him fly and then struggled to come down?
Drinking in class...
Professor Fortuna: Welcome to Divination, Students.
Professor Fortuna: In order to have visions of the future, the solution is...
James: Sirius! Are you really drinking in class now?!
Sirius: Sure. It’s just Divination, isn’t it?
James: Nah, thanks mate.
Remus: You reckon we have Transfiguration with McGonagall afterwards...
Remus: ...Don’t you, Sirius?
James: You’re screwed, mate!
Eskiden ne renkli hayallerim vardı. ama artık hiçbirine sahip değilim. çünkü bu yaşamın her zerresinden soğudum..
I can't control my heart anymore..
When I was a kid I always dreamed that aliens would have come to take me. I took this pic when I was 16 in the fields in front of my grandmas' house. The alien in the picture was a friend of mine. Useless to say that aliens never came to take me. I carry inside of me this disappointment and rage against them that will never heal. Pic by Johnny Abbate
This is the purport of that rule of our mysteries: Nothing divulged to the uninitiated: The supreme [God] is not to be made a common story, the holy things may not be uncovered to the stranger, to any that has not himself attained to see [the vision].
--Plotinus, The Six Enneads, VI, 9 [11]
On Purim (Monday March 17th), Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch, Head of the Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem, allowed a secret to slip out. He peeled back the curtain and offered a peek into a tradition handed ...
What is “Eyewitness Testimony” in the New Testament and Who Are the “Eyewitnesses”?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
It’s important to note that the gospels are later embellishments, not firsthand accounts, and their historicity and authorship are disputed. Thus, the purported author of John’s Gospel, who by the way is writing in refined Greek, couldn’t have been the alleged Aramaic disciple of Jesus not only because he wouldn’t be able to write in sophisticated Greek but also because he wouldn’t have been alive around 100 CE.
——-
So, what exactly does *Eyewitness testimony* mean in the New Testament (NT)?
——-
In the NT, the term “eyewitness” doesn’t necessarily mean witnessing physical-bodily phenomena. For example, Paul claims to be an •eyewitness• of Christ (1 Cor. 15:8), yet by his own self-confession his entire knowledge of Christ is based solely on revelations (Gal. 1.11-12; Acts 9.3-5). Scholars are in agreement that Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh.
——-
By comparison, it is explicitly stated in Luke’s gospel that the group of women at the tomb saw a “vision” (24.23–24), similar to that of the “witnesses” who were said to be “chosen beforehand” (προκεχειροτονημένοις) in Acts 10.40–41 (NASB). “Beforehand” means “in advance.” It implies a •foreknowledge• that is spiritually discerned prior to the experience of an event. In short: it represents a prophecy! But there is more.
——-
For example, in 2 Peter 1.16-19 the apostles are said to be “eyewitnesses” not of physical phenomena but rather of “the prophetic message.” Astoundingly, they’re eyewitnesses of visual and auditory messages (voices & visions) that were heard, literally, as voices, but were nevertheless part of a so-called “prophecy” or prediction:
“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been •eyewitnesses• of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves •heard this voice• come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have the •prophetic message• more fully confirmed” (emphasis added).
——-
Similarly, First Peter 1.10-11 suggests an •eschatological• soteriology (cf. Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20), that is to say, “the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” were actually “PREDICTED” in advance:
“Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he •predicted• the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” (NIV emphasis added).
(If you want to further explore the exegetical details of the aforementioned quote, click on the following link):
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184378109027/by-eli-kittim-concerning-this-salvation-the
——-
So, when John’s Gospel introduces itself as the composition of a so-called •eyewitness• to the events of Jesus’ lifetime (“who saw” something; Jn 19.35), it may be talking about •history-written-in-advance•, similar to the Book of Revelation (cf. 4.1-2), which is explicitly referred to as a Book of *prophecy* (1.3; 22.7, 10, 18-19), a book that is also believed by Christian tradition to have been penned by the same apostle, “who saw” the end of days!
Hence both 2 Peter and the Book of Revelation are two very clear examples where “Eyewitness testimony” is explicitly related to *prophecy,* that is to say, *history written in advance*! Put differently, the gospel narratives are seemingly set in a transhistorical context. Transhistoricity, in other words, is the flip side of the notion that NT meanings are restricted to their historical context.
——-
Therefore, the so-called “eyewitnesses testimonies” are actually referring to •visions• pertaining to *prophetic* events. That’s why the account or “testimony” to Jesus is NOT historical but *prophetic*:
“For the testimony [to] Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”
—(Rev. 19.10d “The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: NRSV” [4th rev. edn; New York: Oxford University, 2010], p. 2176, n.e.).
If Jesus is a historical figure, who supposedly existed prior to the composition of the Book of Revelation, shouldn’t his “testimony” be the Spirit of history? And yet, by contrast, his “testimony” is explicitly referred to as “the spirit of prophecy.” Something to think about.
——-
The argument that Jesus has not yet come is based on both the internal and external evidence
——-
The *external evidence* demonstrates that there are no firsthand accounts (the gospel writers are not eyewitnesses). There are also no independent secular accounts of Jesus until the close of the first century CE. Josephus’ “Testimonium Flavianum,” toward the turn of the century, is considered as unacceptable evidence by most scholars due to extensive interpolations. Even Tacitus’ later account represents an obvious interpolation. So, despite Jesus’ so-called extraordinary feats, no one is writing anything about him outside of the NT for approximately 65y. Not a single word is written about Jesus, there’s not even a passive reference to him, even though we have a lot of documents from that period dealing with just about every aspect of life, political and otherwise.
——-
The *internal evidence* is equally strong. Besides the *end-time* •messianic death-and-resurrection• themes that are clearly addressed in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa. 2.2, 19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7, 14-18; and Zech. 12.10), there are many such motifs also found in the NT!
——-
The evidence from the NT is sometimes rather explicit and quite compelling. For example, Hebrews 1.2 clearly states that God speaks to humanity through his Son in the “last days” (ἐπ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν). Notice that the *last days* represent an eschatological time-period that is obviously distinguished from “Long ago,” in other words, it is differentiated from the time of Antiquity in verse 1. But, even more explicit is the verse from Heb. 9.26b:
“once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (KJV).
https://biblehub.com/hebrews/9-26.htm
Proper Biblical Exegesis demands that we understand NT Greek. The Greek phrase reads as follows:
ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται (Heb. 9.26b SBLGNT).
The term ἅπαξ (hapax) means “once for all.” The Greek phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων (i.e., “at the end of the age”) is a reference to “the end of the world” (KJV) or “the consummation of the ages” (NASB cf. Dan. 12.4 LXX). Whenever this Greek phrase appears in the NT it is invariably referring to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20, etc.).
There are also parallel verses and verbal agreements in which the overall linguistic meaning of this phrase is confirmed by the Patristic Fathers of that period: τόν . . . υιόν . . . ερχόμενον ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ του αἰωνος κρίναι ζώντας καί νεκρούς (G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], p. 1340).
——-
Therefore, the eschatological phrase συντελείας του αιωνος (which is usually translated as “the end of the age”) can ONLY refer to the END OF THE WORLD! And Hebrews 9.26b tells us unequivocally and categorically that this is ALSO the TIME when Christ DIES for the SINS (εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας) of the world. The meaning is quite obvious. But that’s not all. There are many, many other NT passages that CONFIRM this view.
——-
First Peter 1.20 is a case in point:
“He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (NJB).
It is quite explicit. Once again, “the final point of time” (επ´ έσχάτου των χρόνων) refers to the culmination or consummation of the ages. And this is the time period when Christ will be initially “revealed,” according to 1 Peter 1.20 (cf. Lk 17.30; 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Jn 2.28). Then there are other passages that I can’t get into right now due to time restrictions, such as Rev. 12.5, where Christ is born in the end-times as a contemporary of the final world-empire which is depicted as a red dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns. Rev. 6.2 equally shows that the first horseman that will appear in the end times is Christ! To understand why the white horse of Rev. 6.2 represents Christ, please look at the following link from my blog:
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/168159235542/who-is-the-first-horseman-of-the-apocalypse
——-
I could cite many more examples, but I think you get the idea . . .
——-
Incidentally, the notion that Jesus will appear “once and for all” (hapax; Heb. 9.26b) in the end-times does not change anything whatsoever soteriologically speaking. In other words, it’s not a salvation issue because, according to the NT, we are saved IN FAITH as we “eagerly await a Savior” (Phil. 3.20 NIV) “for a salvation that is ready to be revealed at the end of time (1 Pet. 1.5 GW).
——-
Conclusion
This unique Biblical exegesis doesn’t change our Soteriology. But it does change our Theology. So, for example, those who think that Jesus already died will be shocked to see him coming not from the sky but from the earth. And “his own” (i.e. the Christians; cf. Jn 1.11) will eventually reject him as the so-called “Antichrist.” Christian Bible-Prophecy experts have already paved the way for rejecting the Christ through faulty and preconceived interpretations of Revelation 6.2. Even though this is clearly Christ, as I’ve demonstrated in the aforesaid essay, nevertheless the mainstream view holds that the first horseman who rides a white horse is the Antichrist . . .
So, unless you understand what’s going on, you will be very confused during the unfolding of these events in the End time!
——-
Is Sin the Cause of Mental Illness?
By Author & Psychologist Eli Kittim
——-
Christian Psychotherapy
I should frame the discussion by saying at the outset that my definition of the Christian Method of Psychotherapy is not based on organized religion or on any particular denomination. The Christian psychological approach that I am introducing is not related to any religious doctrines, dogmas, or practices. Rather, it is based on my personal understanding of the teachings of the Bible in conjunction with modern psychology and existential experience! As a trained psychologist, I see an intimate connection between sin and neurosis!
——-
What is sin, anyway?
In Biblical terms, “sin” is an action that transgresses the divine moral law and is thought to be highly reprehensible, bringing about guilt and/or shame upon the individual who commits it through the conscience (i.e. superego).
In humanistic terms, that is precisely what a clinical “neurosis” consists of, namely, conscious or unconscious feelings of guilt and/or shame that are displayed in one’s personality as symbolic symptoms, such as anxieties, phobias, compulsions, and the like. Although the term “neurosis” has been dropped since 1980 by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III), it is nevertheless prevalent in the clinical psychotherapeutic literature (e.g. it is still used in the ICD-10 Chapter V F40–48).
The point is, there seems to be a clinical connection between neurosis and sin. Some notable psychoanalysts, such as Moshe HaLevi Spero, have published academic works about this connection (see his article “Sin as Neurosis” in the “Journal of Religion and Health” Vol. 17, No. 4 [Oct. 1978], pp. 274-287).
——-
What is the Difference Between Christian and Clinical Psychotherapy?
Whereas modern psychotherapy’s goal is to make you feel less guilty about your neurosis, Biblical Christianity tries to eradicate the source of your guilt through *forgiveness*. These are two radically different approaches. One is largely devoid of any ethical considerations and basically encourages you to continue practicing your sins (as long as you’re not hurting yourself or others), while trying to persuade you not to feel so damn guilty about them. After all, this is the 21st century. People are free to do as they wish. A psychoanalyst once said to a patient——who suddenly revealed a secret perversion during a psychodynamic therapy session——“welcome to the club.”
The other approach acknowledges that something is morally wrong and says, no matter what you do, the guilt and shame will not go away unless you’re *forgiven*. Modern psychotherapy does not offer a “cure,” only a better coping mechanism based on a better understanding of your symptoms. In other words, it offers a bandaid, at best. Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, offers a “cure” based on an *inner transformation* of the mind. It may entail more risks and a far deeper understanding, but it almost always guarantees a personality change. All you have to do is to reinvent yourself. You have to become a new creature: a new creation. One day you’re this person; the next day you’re a completely different person. That’s exactly what happened to Paul in the New Testament. One day he was persecuting Christians. The next he loved and protected them. The Second letter to the Corinthians 5.17 (NIV) reads:
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new
creation has come: The old has gone, the
new is here!
The Christian process of transformation is not unlike the Buddhist or the Hindu. In fact, it is almost identical to them in the sense of self-realization and self-transcendence, the only difference is that at the center of undifferentiated consciousness is the divine Christ. The Johannine Jesus makes it absolutely clear that you cannot even see the kingdom of God unless you are born again (3.3):
Jesus replied, ‘Very truly I tell you, no one
can see the kingdom of God unless they are
born again.’
That’s precisely why the Epistle to the Ephesians 4.22-24 (NRSV) instructs us to put away the “old self” and to put on a new identity, namely, “the new self,” which is made in the image of God:
You were taught to put away your former
way of life, your old self, corrupt and
deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in
the spirit of your minds, and to clothe
yourselves with the new self, created
according to the likeness of God in true
righteousness and holiness.
So, from this perspective, you don’t need to see a psychiatrist once a week. What you need is a personality change. In other words, you don’t need a slap on the wrist; you need forgiveness!
——-
Christian Psychotherapy Not Only Cures but Also Offers Salvation
Besides this psychotherapeutic advantage that the Bible offers, in which deep satisfaction and contentment can be attained, it also furnishes some insights into unconscious motivation and human behavior. For example, it goes beyond the personal unconscious and informs us about the influences of the so-called “collective unconscious” on our psyche, as the work of Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung, has shown.
Of course, the weltanschauung of transcendental philosophy is significant here because, in the Biblical context, transcendence refers to the metaphysical aspects of nature, which are beyond all physical laws. These parapsychological phenomena can be exhibited in various “religious experiences” of the type that William James studied, which are typically manifested in contemplation, prayer, séance, extrasensory perception, clairvoyance, meditation, or paranormal “visions” and existential experiences. In short, there seems to be a link between physical and metaphysical phenomena that are played out in the psychological sphere of the individual and in the realm of the mind.
To this end, the Bible has a lot to say on the topic of how we diagnose and therefore treat certain ailments. For example, should we treat all mental health issues as matters that pertain to sin or should we consult modern psychology? According to the Bible, if anxieties, fears, depressions, and phobias are the roots of mental disturbances, then *love* necessarily cures them. First John 4.18 (NIV) says:
There is no fear in love. But perfect love
drives out fear, because fear has to do with
punishment. The one who fears is not made
perfect in love.
——-
Conclusion
The panacea for all nonbiological mental disorders is *love.* The Beatles were spot-on: “All You Need Is Love.” Second Timothy 1.7 (KJV) reads:
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;
but of power, and of love, and of a sound
mind.
Thus, from a psychotherapeutic perspective, it is precisely this *love* and *forgiveness* that equips a person to break the chains of neurosis, addiction, and fear by restoring their mind back to health!
(To read this article in Greek, click the following link: https://www.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/652363021202669568/%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CE%B7-%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CE%B7-%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-%CF%88%CF%85%CF%87%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE%CF%82-%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B8%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B1%CF%82
——-
Science & God’s Existence
By Author Eli Kittim
Can We Reject Paul’s Vision Based On the Fact that No One Saw It?
Given that none of Paul’s companions saw or heard the content of his visionary experience (Acts 9), on the road to Damascus, some critics have argued that it must be rejected as unreliable and inauthentic. Let’s test that hypothesis. Thoughts are common to all human beings. Are they not? However, no one can “prove” that they have thoughts. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have any. Just because others can’t see or hear your thoughts doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Obviously, a vision, by definition, is called a “vision” precisely because it is neither seen nor observed by others. So, this preoccupation with “evidence” and “scientism” has gone too far. We demand proof for things that are real but cannot be proven. According to philosopher William Lane Craig, the irony is that science can’t even prove the existence of the external world, even though it presupposes it.
No one has ever seen an electron, or the substance we call “dark matter,” yet physicists presuppose them. Up until recently we could not see, under any circumstances, ultraviolet rays, X – rays, or gamma rays. Does that mean they didn’t exist before their detection? Of course not. Recently, with the advent of better instruments and technology we are able to detect what was once invisible to the human eye. Gamma rays were first observed in 1900. Ultraviolet rays were discovered in 1801. X-rays were discovered in 1895. So, PRIOR to the 19th century, no one could see these types of electromagnetic radiation with either the naked eye or by using microscopes, telescopes, or any other available instruments. Prior to the 19th century, these phenomena could not be established. Today, however, they are established as facts. What made the difference? Technology (new instruments)!
If you could go back in time to Ancient Greece and tell people that in the future they could sit at home and have face-to-face conversations with people who are actually thousands of miles away, would they have believed you? According to the empirical model of that day, this would have been utterly impossible! It would have been considered science fiction. My point is that what we cannot see today with the naked eye might be seen or detected tomorrow by means of newer, more sophisticated technologies!
——-
Can We Use The Scientific Model to Address Metaphysical Questions?
Using empirical methods of “observation” to determine what is true and what is false is a very *simplistic* way of understanding reality in all its complexity. For example, we don’t experience 10 dimensions of reality. We only experience a 3-dimensional world, with time functioning as a 4th dimension. Yet Quantum physics tells us there are, at least, 10 dimensions to reality: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.amp
Prior to the discoveries of primitive microscopes, in the 17th century, you couldn’t see germs, bacteria, viruses, or microorganisms with the naked eye! For all intents and purposes, these microorganisms DID NOT EXIST! It would therefore be quite wrong to assume that, because a large number of people (i.e. a consensus) cannot see it, an unobservable phenomenon must be ipso facto nonexistent.
Similarly, prophetic experiences (e.g. visions) cannot be tested by any instruments of modern technology, nor investigated by the methods of science. Because prophetic experiences are of a different kind, the assumption that they do not have objective reality is a hermeneutical mistake that leads to a false conclusion. Physical phenomena are perceived by the senses, whereas metaphysical phenomena are not perceived by the senses but rather by pure consciousness. Therefore, if we use the same criteria for metaphysical perceptions that we use for physical ones (which are derived exclusively from the senses), that would be mixing apples and oranges. The hermeneutical mistake is to use empirical observation (that only tests physical phenomena) as “a standard” for testing the truth value of metaphysical phenomena. In other words, the criteria used to measure physical phenomena are quite inappropriate and wholly inapplicable to their metaphysical counterparts.
——-
Are the “Facts” of Science the Only Truth, While All Else is Illusion?
Whoever said that scientific “facts” are *necessarily* true? On the contrary, according to Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant, only a priori statements are *necessarily* true (i.e. logical & mathematical propositions), which are not derived from the senses! The senses can be deceptive. That’s why every 100 years or so new “facts” are discovered that replace old ones. So what happened to the old facts? Well, they were not necessarily true in the epistemological sense. And this process keeps repeating seemingly ad infinitum. If that is the case, how then can we trust the empirical model, devote ourselves to its shrines of truth, and worship at its temples (universities)? Read the “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, a classic book on the history of science and how scientific paradigms change over time.
——-
Cosmology, Modern Astronomy, & Philosophy Seem to Point to the Existence of God
If you studied cosmology and modern astronomy, you would be astounded by the amazing beauty, order, structure, and precision of the various movements of the planets and stars. The Big Bang Theory is the current cosmological model which asserts that the universe had a beginning. Astoundingly, the very first line of the Bible (the opening sentence, i.e. Gen. 1.1) makes the exact same assertion. The fine tuning argument demonstrates how the slightest change to any of the fundamental physical constants would have changed the course of history so that the evolution of the universe would not have proceeded in the way that it did, and life itself would not have existed. What is more, the cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of a “first cause,” which can be inferred via the concept of causation. This is not unlike Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason” nor unlike Parmenides’ “nothing comes from nothing” (Gk. οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Lat. ex nihilo nihil fit)! All these arguments demonstrate that there must be a cosmic intelligence (i.e. a necessary being) that designed and sustained the universe.
We live in an incredibly complex and mysterious universe that we sometimes take for granted. Let me explain. The Earth is constantly traveling at 67,000 miles per hour and doesn’t collide with anything. Think about how fast that is. The speed of an average bullet is approximately 1,700 mph. And the Earth’s speed is 67,000 mph! That’s mind-boggling! Moreover, the Earth rotates roughly 1,000 miles per hour, yet you don’t fall off the grid, nor do you feel this gyration because of gravity. And I’m not even discussing the ontological implications of the enormous information-processing capacity of the human brain, its ability to invent concepts, its tremendous intelligence in the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and the sciences, and its modern technological innovations.
It is therefore disingenuous to reduce this incredibly complex and extraordinarily deep existence to simplistic formulas and pseudoscientific oversimplifications. As I said earlier, science cannot even “prove” the existence of the external world, much less the presence of a transcendent one. The logical positivist Ludwig Wittgenstein said that metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science. Yet atheist critics are incessantly comparing Paul’s and Jesus’ “experiences” to the scientific model, and even classifying them as deliberate literary falsehoods made to pass as facts because they don’t meet scholarly and academic parameters. The present paper has tried to show that this is a bogus argument! It does not simply question the “epistemological adequacy” of atheistic philosophies, but rather the methodological (and therefore epistemic) legitimacy of the atheist program per se.
——-
Water Scrying
Water scrying is the art and practice of gazing into water to see the future or receive a vision. Water scrying is a great way for clairvoyants to develop their skills, but can also be done by anyone. -Mod J
To start, you are going to need a bowl or something that holds water. Preferably the bowl or water holding object should be a solid color inside so you don’t get distracted by patterns. Black, white, or a metal bowl are ideal because these are colors that are easy to gaze at for extended periods but any solid color should work.
Fill the bowl with water
Now set up your space. It helps to turn off the lights and have a candle or a few around the bowl giving some light but not close enough that you see the reflection in the water.
Now this is the hardest part, gaze into the water in the bowl and let your eye lose focus. Your vision might get a little blurry but try to fight the urge to look around and refocus your vision. After a while of doing this you might be able to correct the blurriness without losing focus on the water. Around this point when your gaze softens some kind of vision should appear in the water. It’s important to understand that what you see might be a real depiction of what your scrying for/about but it’s more common for you see symbolic images instead. Learning to translate these symbols takes some time and practice so keep working at it. Another thing to note is that you might feel like your mind is just making you see things in the water that isn’t there, and i guess on some level that is correct. The water it’s self isn’t what’s producing the vision, you are receiving because you asked to, and are using the water and bowl as tools to help perceive it.
Here are ways to help enhance your water scrying that i know of:
You can charge your bowl over night with tea made from certain herbs. I like to steep some mugwort and lavender in my bowl to charge it while i sleep and empty it in the morning.
You can a few drops of essential oils to your bowl while scrying, or before to help charge the bowl and water’s energy. The oily surface can also help keep you from getting distracted and gives your eyes something to focus on.
Another way to prevent distraction is to put a small crystal at the bottom of the bowl around the center. It gives you a fixed point to look at, but I’ve noticed for me that is often cut off some of the vision and everything will move around the crystal rather then appearing in the whole bowl.
Using your bowl for offerings. I find this helps charge and enhance my scrying bowl’s energy by putting offering in it when i work with other spirits and deities.
Sometimes it can also help to instead of building up the energy in the bowl do a cleansing and put some salt water in the bowl to soak.
You can also use moon water, sun water, or any magically enhanced water that might be specific to the type of reading you are doing. I find moon water is always good for all water scrying.
If you try water scrying and find it doesn’t work for you that’s alright. It’s not for everyone, and even those who do it regularly have off days where they can’t get anything to come through. So give it a few tries before you decide if it’s something for you. Good luck with your scrying! -Mod J
... –it is wonderful what stagnation there fell upon the springs of my life–wonderful how total an inversion took place in the character of my commonest thought. The realities of the world affected me as visions, and as visions only, while the wild ideas of the land of dreams became, in turn–not the material of my everyday existence–but in very deed that existence utterly and solely in itself.
EDGAR ALLAN POE, Berenice
Red Bones
In my vision I flew as I fell and rode a great gray wolf through a vortex of smoldering antlers. My beast steered my thoughts until, like water in milk, we merged and became a singular ghost rushing like wind through the dreaming wilds. I was drawn to a sullen sound and at once saw a young boy’s skull hanging from ghastly strings. There was a mournful chanting nearby, a soft feminine voice that sang wordlessly in the night. I found its source: a young girl who was rinsing her ruddy hands in a starlit pool. She was bare, save for a wooden mask, its brow carved with a pale moon. Nearby, amid the vines and briarwood, a black bear lurked, but the girl showed no signs of concern. I saw then eight arrows of yew, each with a glinting green obsidian point, arranged like the spokes of a wheel on the ground. I looked again at the boy’s skull and saw that it hung amidst his red, excarnated bones. A gentle breeze rocked his remains in the gnarled tree, each bloody bit bound there by his own sinews to its misshapen branches. It seemed to me that he sprouted like macabre fruits from the sleeping, twisted limbs. His luminous flesh caught the light of the full moon and glowed dully in the darkness as the masked girl began toiling to stretch it tightly over a simple wooden rack. With her hands, she caressed his lovely ruin, and smeared the taught flesh with the boy’s own brains. This she did to tan and preserve his hide, but also to work his memories into the skin. “I will wear you in the Spring,” she lamented, “and you will rise again as the Sun.” I think that she wept beneath her mask, though its rough wooden visage was unchanging and stern. When she resumed her singing, I heard the rough sound of ursine breath behind me. As snow began to fall, I opened my eyes. © JM Tiffany 1.2.2024
Sight|KTH - One (on Wattpad) https://www.wattpad.com/1092225815-sight-kth-one?utm_source=web&utm_medium=tumblr&utm_content=share_reading&wp_uname=listenboixx&wp_originator=Sg%2BuZs6Kbha0%2Bj7iPLWu4YTPlLPVb1%2F5RZAmaFWrDRY%2FLHgl%2FjPRXUSs5Ae4UzVSX%2FP4Cy863XWK%2BEyOA1QapB4aHdw%2FhZavbTpZpH7BJJ6qnSouCyCKTXsyUB%2F8LfsY Another fanfic that will either flop or be big. Sana is a young woman with the special gift of sight. After years of seeing for everyone else, will she finally able to see for herself?
Star Wars: Visions | 2.01: Sith
