Category: Cultural

Shaping Our Future

Language Development, Scientific Thinking, and Human Independence

October 19, 2026

The better we understand our history, the better we understand how things work. And the better we understand how things work, the better equipped we become to shape our future.

But how much do we really know about ourselves?

How many of us understand that our evolutionary ancestors existed for millions of years before the emergence of language based on meaningful words?

How many of us understand that the development of language represented one of the most consequential turning points in human evolution?

And how many of us have ever seriously investigated the extraordinary role language has played in transforming human existence?

These are not insignificant questions. They are fundamental questions about who we are, how we became who we are, and what we are capable of becoming.

1. Before Language, and After Language

Animals communicate. Our evolutionary ancestors communicated long before the emergence of the sophisticated linguistic systems that characterize human societies today.

But communication and language are not necessarily the same thing.

The emergence of meaningful words fundamentally transformed the possibilities of human existence.

Through language, human beings progressively developed the capacity to describe events beyond their immediate surroundings, preserve experiences, transmit knowledge across generations, construct explanations, formulate hypotheses, and organize collective action around imagined futures.

Language did not create every form of intelligence or learning. But it dramatically expanded humanity’s capacity to understand, predict, plan, and transform its environment.

Consider the numbers. Our species, Homo sapiens, is about 300,000 years old. Genetic studies suggest that the capacity for language was present at least 135,000 years ago, and human beings have been speaking to one another for at least 100,000 years. Writing, by contrast, appeared only about 5,200 years ago. If the history of our species were compressed into a single day, writing would appear at about 11:35 p.m., and the printing press less than three minutes before midnight.

Then came a second turning point. More than 5,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia, human beings invented writing. Unlike speech, which every child acquires from the community around them without formal instruction, writing is a technology. It must be deliberately taught, and when a society stops teaching it, it can disappear, as it did in Greece for roughly four centuries after 1200 BCE. The first writing was used to count grain, record taxes, and track debts. It was an external memory. Later, it preserved myths, epics, and sacred texts, in which fiction and history were often blended.

A third turning point came with the printing press and the scientific revolution, about four centuries ago. Writing became more disciplined: shared definitions, standardized spelling, and precise terminology allowed scientists to record observations, replicate experiments, and build on one another’s work across distances and generations. Writing freed knowledge from the limits of a single human memory.

But that precision has remained largely the privilege of those who read and write at a high level. As recently as 1820, only about 12% of the world’s population could read, and by 1900, barely 21%. As we will see, a fourth turning point may now be within reach.

Think about that!

If language played such a fundamental role in transforming humanity’s evolutionary trajectory, why is advanced language development not among the highest priorities of every educational system on Earth?

Why do we spend so much time teaching people what to say, what to remember, and what to believe, while often devoting insufficient attention to teaching them how to examine the meanings of words, investigate propositions, and discriminate between competing explanations?

2. Language Development Is More Than Speaking

Having the ability to speak does not necessarily mean having a highly developed language repertoire.

A person may possess thousands of words and still lack the conceptual understanding necessary to evaluate what those words represent.

Consider words such as:

Freedom. Liberty. Free will. Truth. Justice. Democracy. Rights. Beliefs. Morality. Well-being.

How many people use these words every day without being able to define them precisely?

How many defend ideas they have never critically examined?

How many make consequential decisions based on concepts whose meanings, implications, and practical consequences they have never investigated?

And how many believe they are exercising independent judgment when their responses are largely influenced by verbal environments constructed and reinforced by others?

This is where language development becomes a fundamental question of human independence.

The objective is not merely to acquire more words. It is to develop increasingly sophisticated repertoires for understanding meanings, identifying relationships, evaluating evidence, and discriminating among the conditions and consequences those words represent.

Without these abilities, individuals become more vulnerable to misinformation, unsupported assertions, and manipulation.

3. When Language Becomes an Instrument of Manipulation

Consider a phenomenon that continues to characterize human societies in the twenty-first century.

Highly educated religious authorities may use sophisticated language, philosophical arguments, and even scientific terminology to present literal creation narratives as established historical or scientific facts.

Some continue to teach that the universe, Earth, living organisms, and human beings were created within six literal days.

Yet extensive evidence from cosmology, geology, genetics, archaeology, and evolutionary biology contradicts such a chronology.

It is worth understanding how such beliefs arose. For most of human history, our ancestors faced the sun, the rain, the stars, illness, and death without any knowledge of their causes. Human beings readily detect intention and agency in the world around them, so explaining these forces through powerful beings made complete sense. It was a reasonable response to the evidence available at the time, not a failure of intelligence.

Today, the situation is different. Every phenomenon that has been carefully investigated has turned out to have a natural explanation, and no supernatural claim has withstood rigorous testing. The questions that remain unanswered, such as the origin of the universe or the nature of consciousness, are reasons to investigate, not gaps to fill with the supernatural.

The issue is not whether someone has the right to believe a religious narrative.

Freedom of religion protects the right to hold and express religious beliefs. It does not establish the empirical truth of those beliefs.

A religious narrative may have theological, symbolic, philosophical, or cultural significance. But presenting an account as a scientifically established historical event requires evidence appropriate to that claim.

How is humanity helped when individuals are taught to accept unsupported empirical assertions as demonstrated facts?

How is humanity helped when children are not systematically taught to distinguish fiction from nonfiction, theological propositions from scientific explanations, or personal convictions from empirically supported conclusions?

How can people shape their future if they have not developed the repertoires necessary to investigate the explanations they inherit?

These questions are not attacks on the right to believe.

They are questions about which claims can count as established facts, and about the conditions necessary for intellectual independence.

4. The Scientific Community Reveals Something Even More Important

Consider an observation frequently discussed by astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson.

A 1998 survey of members of the United States National Academy of Sciences found that approximately 7% of responding scientists expressed belief in a personal God.

Many would emphasize the 93% who did not. Dr. Tyson asks a more revealing question: among the most accomplished scientists in the nation, why is the figure not zero?

The 7% demonstrates that advanced scientific expertise and religious belief can coexist within the same individual.

But it also raises a more fundamental behavioral question:

Does the acquisition of highly developed scientific repertoires in one domain necessarily produce scientific discrimination across every other domain of human life?

Apparently not.

A scientist may demonstrate extraordinary analytical abilities when investigating physical phenomena while continuing to maintain religious beliefs acquired through an entirely different learning history.

The question is sharper than it may first appear. A personal God, as commonly described, acts in the world: answering prayers, performing miracles, intervening in human affairs. Those are claims about events, and claims about events are precisely what scientific methods are designed to evaluate. By the standard this essay defends, such a belief is irrational: it is not based on objective evidence. It is maintained by a learning history, not by data. This is not a judgment of anyone’s character or intelligence. It is evidence that the same standard of evaluation has not been applied across every domain.

Above all, the phenomenon illustrates something essential:

The development of sophisticated language and scientific repertoires does not guarantee that those repertoires will generalize across all situations.

And that is precisely why systematic training in conceptual discrimination, evidence evaluation, and scientific reasoning is so important.

5. Political Behavior: When Words Pull Votes Away From Stated Preferences

Now consider political behavior.

Let me state my own standard openly: I support whatever the evidence shows will benefit the great majority, beginning with those who have the least. That is a value commitment, not neutrality. What I ask of every reader, and of myself, is to apply that standard through evidence, not labels.

Millions of Americans express support for policies associated with progressive political agendas, including expanded healthcare coverage, affordable education, and stronger economic protections.

Yet their electoral decisions do not always correspond to those expressed policy preferences.

Consider Bernie Sanders and his proposals for healthcare, education, wages, and economic inequality.

Or consider Florida in 2020. Voters approved a $15 minimum wage, a policy Sanders had long championed, with about 61% of the vote. Yet the same electorate also chose the presidential candidate whose party opposed raising the federal minimum wage to $15. Stated preference and vote, side by side.

Whether a particular policy benefits an individual must be established through careful analysis, not political affiliation. Nevertheless, the discrepancy between people’s stated policy preferences and their electoral behavior raises important questions.

Why might someone support a particular policy but reject it when associated with a political label?

Consider the word SOCIALISM.

A person may support public education, Social Security, Medicare, and other publicly financed programs while reacting negatively to a proposal described as socialist.

Why?

What behavioral histories have established the functions of that word?

What happens when the emotional response to a political label becomes more influential than an examination of the policy’s actual consequences?

The same process operates across the political spectrum. Words such as “GMO” or “nuclear” can trigger strong rejection, including among many progressives, regardless of what scientific assessments have found. In a 2015 Pew Research Center survey, 88% of scientists in the American Association for the Advancement of Science said genetically modified foods are generally safe to eat, compared with only 37% of the general public. A label can override evidence for anyone.

The same questions arise in political campaigns involving religious language.

Consider the 2026 U.S. Senate race in Texas. Democratic candidate James Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian, has made his faith central to his campaign. Opposing campaigns and PACs have run ads built around short clips of his past remarks on religion and gender, in one case using an AI-generated likeness of him. Talarico has acknowledged that some of his past comments “missed the mark,” while his campaign argues that others were stripped of context. Talarico, in turn, has run an ad accusing his opponent of violating some of the Ten Commandments.

Both sides are drawing on voters’ religious convictions.

When political messages invoke people’s previously established religious beliefs to influence their evaluation of a candidate, an important behavioral process may occur.

Instead of examining a candidate’s proposals, qualifications, and anticipated policy consequences, individuals may respond primarily to religious associations evoked by the political message.

Of course, religious convictions can legitimately inform political preferences. The concern arises when statements are distorted, context is removed, or emotional associations replace accurate information.

The scientific question is not whether people should support a particular politician. It is whether they possess the conceptual and analytical repertoires necessary to evaluate political propositions independently of misleading verbal stimuli.

This applies to every political party, ideology, and candidate.

The issue is not whom people vote for.

The issue is whether they understand what they are voting for, what they are voting against, and the likely consequences of their decisions.

6. Artificial Intelligence: Another Turning Point in Human History

Today, humanity has developed Large Language Models (LLMs), extraordinary technological systems capable of processing and generating language at an unprecedented scale.

These systems can facilitate research, explain complex concepts, translate languages, support education, and assist with increasingly sophisticated problem-solving activities.

Yet, at the same time, hundreds of millions of human beings still lack adequate opportunities to develop advanced literacy, conceptual understanding, and scientific reasoning. UNESCO estimates that roughly 750 million adults cannot read at all.

What sense does that make?

How can we celebrate the extraordinary development of artificial intelligence while failing to prioritize the systematic development of human intellectual capabilities?

And who will benefit most from these technological advances?

Those who can formulate precise questions, evaluate explanations, identify contradictions, and discriminate between reliable and unreliable information may be better positioned to use these technologies effectively.

Others may become increasingly dependent on explanations they cannot independently evaluate.

But this outcome is not inevitable.

Artificial intelligence can also become a powerful instrument for expanding educational opportunities and developing human language repertoires.

I have been drawn to writing, to working with words and concepts, since I was a child. I have kept a personal blog since 2014, yet only about 30% of what I draft has ever been published. I also have hundreds of other texts, along with studies and research. Thanks to AI, I can now review and polish them faster, and make them more accurate, more factual, and more precise. But I do not simply accept whatever AI tells me. I am a scientist, an expert in Applied Behavior Analysis, a researcher and a writer, and I hold a PhD in Education. I use AI as a tool, and I keep full control over my work. AI never decides or dictates what I write; every suggestion passes through my own judgment. Like any other source, AI can reflect biases built into it, and it makes mistakes. AI will benefit the great majority to the extent that we learn to use it to develop the very skills this essay is about.

This may be that fourth turning point in the history of language. For thousands of years, precise knowledge has lived mainly in writing, and therefore mainly among those who read well. Today, voice technologies and artificial intelligence make it possible to bring that precision back to the spoken word, the form of language every human being already masters. English is increasingly becoming the world’s common language, but the great majority of humanity still lives, thinks, and learns in its own languages. The goal is not one universal language. It is a universal spoken culture of precision, in every language, accessible to every human being, whether or not they read well.

Consider this: of the roughly 7,000 languages spoken in the world today, nearly half still have no writing system at all. Every one of them is spoken.

The fundamental question is whether we will use these technologies to expand humanity’s intellectual independence or allow existing inequalities in knowledge and critical reasoning to become even more consequential.

7. The Ability to DISCRIMINATE

This brings us to the most important concept in this entire discussion:

DISCRIMINATION!

In behavior analysis, discrimination involves responding differently under different stimulus conditions as a result of learning.

In the context of language development and scientific reasoning, increasingly sophisticated discrimination allows individuals to identify meaningful differences among concepts, propositions, evidence, and consequences.

It helps us distinguish:

  • What we know from what we merely believe.
  • What has been demonstrated from what has only been asserted.
  • A scientific explanation from an unsupported speculation.
  • A fictional narrative from an empirically documented event.
  • A correlation from a causal relationship.
  • A persuasive argument from a valid argument.
  • A political slogan from an evidence-based policy analysis.
  • A person’s conviction from the accuracy of that person’s claim.

But discrimination must be learned, practiced, reinforced, and generalized across different environments.

It does not automatically emerge simply because someone becomes older, earns academic degrees, acquires professional credentials, or develops an extensive vocabulary.

8. Can We Really Shape Our Future Without Advanced Language Development?

Our evolutionary ancestors influenced their environments long before the emergence of complex language.

But there is an extraordinary difference between influencing one’s environment through immediate behavior and deliberately constructing a future through systematic investigation, conceptual reasoning, scientific prediction, and coordinated action.

The emergence of meaningful words dramatically expanded that second capacity.

And the continued development of language, conceptual understanding, and scientific reasoning remains fundamental to expanding it further.

A person who cannot adequately evaluate competing explanations is more vulnerable to accepting conclusions supplied by others.

A person who cannot identify the practical implications of political or economic propositions may struggle to determine how those propositions relate to their interests.

A person who has not learned to distinguish evidence from assertion may become dependent on authorities whose claims have never been independently examined.

And a society that fails to systematically develop these repertoires across its population risks allowing its collective future to be disproportionately shaped by those who control information, institutions, and persuasive language.

This is not an inevitable limitation of human beings. It is an educational challenge that humanity has the capacity to address.

9. The Scientific Thinkers Circle: An Invitation to Shape Our Future

If you want to become increasingly capable of shaping your future, begin by studying one of the most consequential developments in human evolution:

LANGUAGE!

Learn about its origins.

Investigate how it develops.

Expand your vocabulary.

Study how words acquire meanings.

Learn how concepts are formed and how verbal relationships influence behavior.

Develop your ability to examine propositions, identify contradictions, evaluate evidence, and distinguish scientific explanations from unsupported assertions.

Above all:

LEARN TO DISCRIMINATE!

Not merely between words, but between the conditions, relationships, and consequences those words represent.

Because the ultimate objective of advanced language development is not simply to speak eloquently, argue persuasively, or accumulate information.

It is to understand reality more accurately, reason more effectively, make increasingly informed decisions, and participate more independently in shaping the conditions of our existence.

This is the educational vision behind the Scientific Thinkers Circle.

We are committed to making the foundations of language development, conceptual discrimination, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning understandable and accessible to every human being.

We believe that these capabilities should not remain privileges associated with academic institutions, professional credentials, or socioeconomic status.

They should become fundamental educational opportunities available to everyone.

I must also be honest about this essay itself. It is written at a high language level, and that creates a contradiction I cannot ignore. The people who most need these skills are often the least likely to read a text like this one to the end. If I write only at this level, I speak mainly to those who already have the repertoires I am advocating for.

I have seen this contradiction firsthand. I recently shared a short video in which Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson and his colleagues discussed artificial intelligence in an elegant and familiar way. I asked five people to watch it and tell me what they understood. Four of them told me it seemed very interesting, but that they understood little of it, because the vocabulary and concepts were not part of their repertoire. Around the same time, I asked about a dozen leaders of the Hayti de Demain movement, committed and capable people, to translate a short French text I had written into Kreyòl. Most of them could not translate one of its central sentences. Not because they lacked intelligence, but because they had learned in a language they do not live in every day. Neither experience was a formal study. Both showed me the same thing: when the words are not part of our repertoire, the message does not reach us, however simple it may seem to the person who wrote it.

The answer comes from my own discipline. In behavior analysis, we do not demand the final behavior at the start. We begin where the learner is and reinforce each step toward the goal. That process is called shaping, and it is what we mean by shaping our future.

This essay is written for those who can carry the message further: teachers, parents, clinicians, and community leaders. The Scientific Thinkers Circle will reach everyone else in the ways people actually learn: plain-language versions of these ideas, spoken explanations, short videos and audio messages, materials in Kreyòl, Spanish, and other languages, and trained facilitators who bring these skills into schools, homes, and neighborhoods. Used well, artificial intelligence can help adapt the same message to every reader’s level and language.

This matters especially for Hayti. Our culture is largely oral. Nearly all Haytians speak Kreyòl, while only an estimated 5 to 10 percent are fluent in French, yet most of our children are still taught in French. Precise knowledge delivered in spoken Kreyòl may reach the great majority faster than any campaign that first requires them to master reading in a language they do not speak every day.

Kreyòl itself shows both the problem and the opportunity. It is a young language, born about three centuries ago in colonial Saint-Domingue. Most of its vocabulary comes from French, with contributions from African languages, from the Taíno heritage of the island’s first inhabitants, and from Spanish and English. Its standard spelling was officially adopted only in 1979. Because Kreyòl has rarely been used in science, law, or higher education, many of the words in an essay like this one have no established Kreyòl equivalent. That is not a weakness of the language itself. Every language builds its technical vocabulary by borrowing and adapting words; English took much of its own from French and Latin. Kreyòl can do the same, sounding new words the Kreyòl way and writing them consistently. Developing a writing system, a dictionary, and a scientific vocabulary once took generations and great expense. Today’s technologies can make that work faster and far less costly.

A message about language development that only the highly developed can understand would fail its own test. We intend to pass it.

Because humanity’s greatest achievement should not be measured solely by the sophistication of the technologies we create.

It should also be measured by the extent to which we develop the intellectual capabilities of the human beings who create, use, and live with those technologies.

And now, as artificial intelligence introduces another major transformation in human history, we face a fundamental responsibility:

To ensure that human intellectual development advances alongside technological development.

We can learn to question.

We can learn to investigate.

We can learn to discriminate.

We can learn to understand.

And through these capabilities, we can become increasingly effective participants in shaping our present and constructing our future.

Michael Jackson called on all of us, in his song “Heal the World,” to build a better world for everyone. That is the collective consciousness we are working to develop: one powerful enough to transform how humans live on Earth.

THE FUTURE SHOULD NOT SIMPLY HAPPEN TO US. WE SHOULD DEVELOP THE CAPABILITIES TO SHAPE IT.

WILL YOU JOIN US?

Dr. Ash

Scientific Thinkers Circle

Shaping Our Future Through Language Development, Scientific Thinking, and Human Independence.

Ideology, is it the real source of our challenges?

One may try to share his views on the world status-quo and express, like I do, his concerns and wishes for a better world, more just, more joyful for all.
In fact, maybe we have not been able to collectively identify the real source of the issues we are facing as human beings. I am inclined to suggest that the concept of “Ideology“, could be that source.

Look, we all agree on it, no one has ever questioned the problem posed by it, how it separates humans legally, normally. We understand Ideology to be okay regardless of its impact on reality unless it comes from an extremist view, correct?
Is there any ideology that promotes the well-being of all human beings, regardless of their ethnicity, origins, status, level of intellectual development, and scientific literacy?
Of course, there is.

Does the whole world know about it? Of course not.
The whole world population is not even fully aware of its own existence, much less its miserable reality. The level of self-awareness, self conscientiousness, is still very low. The great majority of human beings are still living at the animal stage of development, with the exception of the ability to say and repeat words as a form of communication.

In most parts of the world, the educational system is still based on belief systems which, although with some openness in some places, tacitly continue to feed the brains on that respect.

Think about it: The whole world still has never learned about Socrates, Plato, and yet most people know about Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Shiva, Jehovah, Allah…
Again, the whole world doesn’t know about Galileo, Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Carl Sagan, Nikola Tesla for what they brought to humanity, they do know about what they believed in, as a way to validate belief systems. Believers are prompt to quote Einstein when he said: ‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind’ but you barely find them quote him saying: “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology.“

The whole world doesn’t know about most of those whose critical thinking skills help differentiate truth from lies, reality from fiction, knowledge from beliefs, science from spirituality, evidence-based cause-effect relationship from an imaginary cause-effect relationship, among those we can mention Friedrich Nietzsche, for example.

I wonder why…

Why did the human society not only chose that path, but still chooses to promote it even under the Freedom promotion umbrella? Freedom of speech, religious liberty, freedom of opinions…

unfortunately today, in the 21st century, of course if we want to play in people’s mind, it is still feasible. Talk therapy still works in taking people away from reality, but is it fair to do so when knowingly their reality will not change? On the contrary, the probability for their reality to change is significantly higher if they are taught the truth. Men have the natural ability to cope with their reality, to understand it even if they are unable to change it in the moment. I empathize with those who thought otherwise, thus creating this conditioned response (human dependency) contingent upon the fictional stimulus. Consequently, it has become almost impossible to educate human beings on cause and effect based on functional relationship principle.

Let me give a clear example:

When we mention Nelson Mandela, do we question why in the 20th century, the human society allowed him to spend 27 years in prison? And yet we repeat so, we celebrate his accomplishments… My point is, we know we cannot change the past, but if we keep losing focus on the real cause of our challenges, we risk to spend another thousand years or more with the same type of status quo.

Nelson Mandela was not put in jail by extraterrestrial beings, and even when this act was being denounced, the society didn’t act to have him liberated until 27 years later. Mandela is a single example out of millions throughout human lifetime experience on planet earth. The fact that we have legalized the theory of Ideology as the basis of everything we do on earth and beyond in order to promote and to maintain the status quo, but not to promote the truth, has jeopardized and compromised any attempt to spread truth based information, knowledge and even beliefs.

Behind the theory of free ideology which serves the function of a distraction, there is the law of eternal and continuous unfairness where the oppressors always get away with injustice and lies and fictions are always 100 light years ahead of truths, making it materially impossible for truths to catch up with them, much less to move pass them. If you want to understand this law, think of slavery, racism, colonialism, segregation, etc. Will there ever be reparation? restitution? We know the answer: “Never”. What we always get is: Slavery has ended, Racism has ended, Segregation has ended, colonialism has ended… I mean, officially, legally…

Do you have any idea of how long will it take to make things even for all?

It may seem utopic to promote, even to talk about a universal ideology, but rest assured that this is the road for a better society, for a more humanist society. An ideology that is based on truth, meaning objective truth, knowledge, meaning evidence-based knowledge, tolerance, fairness, dignity, scientific thinking and communication. An ideology that will not bar personal opinions, but that will be guided by facts, truth, data. An ideology that will promote individual liberty while securing the collective welfare as its main mission, an ideology that will always take into consideration individual differences, limitations and disabilities but will consider every single living human being as part of the same species.

How to make Injustice, Discrimination, Poverty, and so on, a thing of the past? The murder of George Floyd, another stimulus to awaken the people

Today, Saturday, May 30, 2020, is a date that I remember well since it was a day like this that my father died when I was only 13 years old. I will turn 48 in just 10 days. As I am listening to young folks, to my daughter who is 14 still, the other one who is 11, I cannot stop being hopeful about the future of this world, like my father was about mine. He told me, just two days before he was gone: “I know you will be fine.” That was the last time I spoke to him.

I know there will be a better tomorrow for our world because we have come from so far. From the day when slavery was normal, conquering others’ land was normal, showing no concern for human dignity was normal, extinguishing some animals, to watching the former police officer, Mr. Derek Chauvin, kill George Floyd as if it was still normal to him, and to the other 3 police officers assisting him to commit murder while being recorded knowingly…, I cannot be more than hopeful that normal is a concept which meaning is yet to be understood.

I cannot be more than hopeful, when I watched Governor Cuomo say: “Violence is not the answer”, and then quoted Dr. King saying that “only love can drive out hate”, and later on, to watch LZ Granderson in the situation room with Wolf Blitzer respond to him saying: I always hear that in relationship with people protesting, sometimes rioters, following an act of violence. I never really hear “violence is not the answer” before that. I don’t hear it directly towards the police department.”

I cannot be more than hopeful when I watched a protester this afternoon from LA say: “The power is with the people, the power is with the numbers” and then he added: “ the truth is, it is not the people who rise up out of anger, righteous anger, who chose the path or any kind of violence, it is the state that is for centuries got on and done whatever they wanted, and then let us just protest and be critical of it.”

The truth is there is no violence that can equal the violence humanity has gone through as a whole…So whenever you hear them talk about a reaction being violent, or that it includes some violence, which we might wish weren’t, let’s take some time to ask: How is it, that we don’t hear that before, when it is still occurring from the system? How is it that people want us to believe in the so-called “normal” when it is in fact “uneasy quiet”? I heard LZ say that we don’t want normal, we want better than normal, although he clearly differentiates the term from uneasy quiet, the problem is people will still misunderstand what normal is since they never experience it throughout their whole lives.

This world has never been normal, and it is not normal. Normal will be when we make injustice, discrimination, poverty, scientific illiteracy, around the whole world, a thing of the past. We need to acknowledge that this is not normal in any way, shape, or form. The people have the real power to make that happen, and until they realize that they have the numbers to outnumber those maintaining this broken system ongoing, I am afraid it will still look unachievable. However, thanks to technology, people can feel, experience the injustice as it is taking place. And hopefully, collectively, they will come together and overturn this broken system along with all its subsequent systems.

The broken system is well represented by those 4 former police officers. Let us look at the one preventing the witnesses from getting too close to the one murdering George. His role was to make sure; no one disturbs the system. He was like a subsystem within the big system. How many are playing this role now? There is a reason why he has not been charged yet. We barely accuse the accomplices of the system. Sometimes we focus only on the perpetrator as if he would be able to it all by himself. We must accuse all of those supporting this broken system, and wanting to make us believe in the so-call “normal” or the so-call “justice is impossible”, “we will never get there” etc.

It is a pattern; we have the other two police officers helping the murderer by making sure George’s mobility is limited. How many of those we have now playing this role for the system not to be overruled, nor overturned, making sure that the people’s reaction is limited and controlled, or even manipulated.

Hopefully, technology can allow people to understand the game that is being played. Young people with high critical thinking and scientific skills are no longer buying it. Although it will take time, energy, and effort to overturn the status quo, along with its normal way of leading the world, we will surely, at some point in time, talk about injustice as a thing of the past.

When the governor of Minnesota is able to say out loud, firmly and with certainty of power behind him, that the entire weight of the United States government will be brought to restore order in Minneapolis, I can feel the fear of those playing their role in keeping this system in place. The governor had only one thing to say: Charge those 3 other officers with the evidence we have to calm people down, he could also say we are going to use the entire weight of the Federal and state government to end police and white supremacy terror, to end this injustice in the Criminal Justice that is “Abhorrent”  according to Governor Cuomo’s own description of the criminal justice in the US.

Of course, the system has its way to distract us from the cause of the problem, which is the same system, and those who infiltrated it to pursue their objectives; like those officers, who knew they were being recorded but still didn’t care, because they will find their way out. They had no fear at all, no empathy, no decency for the victim claiming, “I can’t breathe” and kept their cool even when paramedics arrived and said: “You are killing this man.” The system has its way, like always…distraction. The life of George didn’t merit the governor or the County Attorney to act quickly, claiming there was not enough evidence to bring charges against those former police officers, but yes, there is enough evidence to use the entire weight of the government to restore order. This is the way out of the system. The focus is on allowing people to protest because they have the right to do so, not because their protest matters, not because they want to follow up, but they want to restore order, their way, the system’s way.

Although we are seeing protests almost everywhere, we are still far from making injustice a thing of the past. When Dr. King said: Returning Hate for Hate multiplies Hate” and that “Only love can drive out Hate” because according to Dr. King, “Hate cannot drive out Hate”, he was day dreaming, because historically, that has never proven true. When and where has “Love” ever driven out “Hate”? To affirm this kind of statement, one must do so about some kind of overwhelming evidence. 60 years after his assassination, we still do not have any evidence of what he said as true. While I can agree that maybe hate cannot drive out hate, because of lack of evidence that supports otherwise, I must disagree with his conclusion as well. There is no such thing as Love that only can drive out Hate. Maybe he was being optimistic about an idea or a belief that he had about “Love and Hate”.

The point here is, Dr. King said it, and because of what he meant for the civil rights movement (obviously after his assassination), it must be true. And others are quoting him, conveniently I shall say. We need to raise the level of our understanding of the terms and concepts we use, or we repeat in the 21st century. We should not refer to human behavior (observable, measurable event) because of some internal/spiritual/magical power call Love or Hate. We should study human behaviors as they are, the result of effect of some identifiable variables in their environment. I do not know if there is hate or love in people’s heart, and I do not care. I need to understand and look at how people behave and look for the why but objectively. Talking about love or hate is, merely put, subjective. Finding the Functions of any type of human behavior, and act upon those facts to promote and create behavior change is so far, based on evidence, the right thing to do, objectively talking.

Although we are talking about a systemic problem, we should clarify that the system does not behave. However, the ones working for the system, behave. They behave a certain way because those behaviors have been reinforced, one way or any other way. The behavior of Derek Chauvin, the former police officer, who is now charged with third degree murder, has been reinforced in the past through the system. The structure of the system is reinforcing to the behaviors of those in it.

The system is reinforcing Donald Trump’s behaviors, and he is the President of the United States. He reinforces the behaviors of Derek Chauvin, as well as the other 3 former police officers along with the thousands that keep behaving the same way. The protests, alone, have not been able to shape the structure of the system, in the sense that it does and clearly include aversive consequences to those behaviors. The protests are not part of a systematic approach, they are sporadic, and they evaporate quickly. We need more than just protests! If we keep being emotional, sporadic, we are simply being played, meaning, the system is the one controlling our behaviors. In other words, the system is also reinforcing our passiveness most of the times.

But, again, this is a pattern from far and almost everywhere in the human society.  A thorough approach is needed from the people, the system has proven its inability to restructure itself from the inside. Keep in mind, that the system, is a whole, every single institution that is part of it, is playing the sole role to preserve it. Numerous Non-Governmental Organizations are accomplices. Other Associations, Fundations, as well. Religions play a major role. This is where it gets the most out of its stability, because, religions’ views or beliefs, keep people busy thinking about GOD and gods. They distract people from developing scientific thinking, they are not sporadic, they are constant, they even became a way of being for most people still in my generation.

Nevertheless, I cannot be more than hopeful, the millennials, the Y generations are divorcing from almost everything we inherited from our ancestors, mostly their belief systems. Obviously, this is becoming more real every day after, thanks to technology. They are convinced by evidences, objective truth, not by dogmas or subjective views about the world, the universe, life, etc. They are showing the entire world that they have the power to change its course.  However, the ones in the system, are also making sure this does not happen. Just imagine, how the president of the United States, Donald Trump, is pushing people to go to Church amid the Pandemic Covid-19. Trump is the representation of the Status quo. He works for the system that has always protected his interests. Once he was out physically, but he was still manipulating those working in it. Now he became the Executive Chief, he can really do whatever he wants as he, himself, said. And make no mistake, he is not alone.  He did not get there by himself, and if he is still president, it is because he has a lot of accomplices. They are doing their work as well to keep things the way they are.

Now, let us look at the big picture of the state of the world. Yes, we want black lives, all lives to matter in the US and around the world, but this is simply a tiny aspect of the big picture. By focusing on it, every time there is an overwhelming violation, like the most recent one in Minneapolis, we are playing the game of the system. Occasionally, those things will happen, and we want to make sure there are protocols in place to take care of them. But, to get there, we cannot lose focus on the big picture, the real state of the world. We need to start a permanent movement that will end when Injustice, Discrimination, Scientific illiteracy, Poverty, are only mentioned in the history books our grandkids will be reading, or from the memory of those who live after it ended to tell it to their kids.

While we watched on video the murder of George Floyd by an unworried man, along with his accomplices, thousands are being dead away from the cameras of our smartphones, millions are being killed because of hunger, non-access to health care, etc. While we successfully watched SpaceX along with NASA launching the First-Ever Human Rocket Launch to International space, which was exciting and encouraging, in the US soil, 40 million Americans are living in poverty. The system is reinforcing to those that lead it, and they are not the majority.

The power is with the majority, the power is with the numbers, the power is with the people. And those working for the system are afraid that you know just that. We must overturn the system and design it the way it works best for the majority, meaning, “normal”. And for that to happen, we need not only to outnumber those whose behaviors are maintained by the system but most importantly, we need to outsmart them. We need to use technology to do so. Technology to spread not only the news but mainly knowledge. We need to spread scientific thinking so that we, the people, be part of the change of our reality, and proactively. Being proactive means to reach full control of the system, through a thorough approach that is conceived and implemented on evidence-based.

This implies looking back at the basis of the legal system. What makes a law, normal? So many laws are in place just to protect the system, so we need people with critical thinking skills combined with scientific thinking to review the philosophy, the objectives behind so many laws in our legal system. That goes from the global legal world view to the office of the mayor in the city, to the school in the community, to the traffic system. Some attempts have been made with the Justice Reform initiative by President Obama, but what has the Trump administration done with it? They took us back. Do the People know that information? Have the people read the final report on 21st Century Policing, submitted in May 2015? Did the people know that this Reform could be compromised if they elected Trump? When the governor of New York publicly acknowledged today that the Nation’s history of discrimination and racism are dated back to hundreds of years, I fully appreciate his honesty as governor. And when he said: “I share the outrage at injustice”, I could not be more than hopeful. However, when he added that violence is not the answer, never is…and then quoted Dr. King; then I realized we could be in this circle another hundred years. Like everyone who commented on his statement, violence was the answer then, how is it that it is not the answer today? And by the way, there is this paradox here- isn’t violence what keeps this system in place? Because, when the governor of Minnesota said he is going to send the national guard out, isn’t that a form of violence? Or does violence only occur when civilians are protesting, or anything that doesn’t come from those in the system? When Trump tweeted “When the looting starts, the shooting starts” isn’t that violence? I am going to have to return on the question of what is or is not violence.

Again, let us go back to reality. For example, I share the passion to go to Mars. I, myself, would like to go there one day, but I share double, triple passion to see this world a better place for all of us, living beings and living things, included but not limited to the ones very smart, with high IQ,, low IQ, as well as the ones with severe developmental disabilities. The people have the sole power to make this world a better place. They first need to be aware of that. Second, they must learn how to use that power to make that happen effectively. That is the reason why they need to have access to scientific knowledge and technology. Third and lastly, they need to decide to make it happen and act accordingly.

And then, only then, we will make injustice, discrimination, poverty, scientific illiteracy… each one, a thing of the past.

Who really has Faith in God?

When someone tells you about his faith in God based on his personal experiences, simply ask him the following question:

How do you really know you have faith in God?

You will be surprised to discover that not only can that person not tell you how he knows he has faith, but worse, that that person has no faith at all.

First and foremost, what is faith?
According to the dictionary: “Complete trust or confidence in something or someone”; in a religious sense: “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”

Now, if we look up in the Christian Bible:
According to Hebrews 11:1 “Faith is is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
In the same passage, there are many references of what faith really is about; for example: ” By faith the children of Israel passed the Red Sea as by dry land… By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days.”
Furthermore, in James 2:26, explicitly, it is said: ” Faith without works is dead.”

Saying you have faith in God is actually meaningless, and the only way you can say you have faith is by acting first and then concluding: “By faith, I did this, by faith, I did that”, while no other logical explanation stands, as mentioned above.

The problem anyone claiming faith in God has, is that the only references of what faith really is, are those mentioned in Hebrew 11.
In other words, what do the people saying they have faith in God today do by faith? “Nothing” No one does anything by faith; please note here that I am being absolute in reference to what Faith is, not to what it is not, such as a “try” to see if something works. When we know the laws and technology, having faith should disregard the logical explanations of events and make them happen, for example let’s say: “By faith, I am going to have my car driven without combustible; by faith, I am going to make a phone call when my cell phone has no charge, or is dead; by faith, we are going to build roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, etc. By faith, we are going to eliminate cancer; by faith we are going to have our countries well developed; by faith, no one is going to die from malnutrition, from cancer, from not having access to health care where it is lacking (i.e., Haiti…)”

If someone tells you he has faith in God, just ask him what has he done by faith that should never be obtained otherwise. The truth of the matter is, the only way to say that one has faith is by showing what has been done by faith; if someone is not living a life based on faith, then tells you he has faith, you know he is either lying or he doesn’t know, or he never learned, what having faith means.

By the way, sometimes, we hear people referring to unique coincident scenarios as a proof of faith, such as: “I had nothing to eat, I prayed, and someone brought me food” or “My car broke in the middle of nowhere at night, and all of the sudden someone came to my rescue because I prayed.” And why not: “I had a terminal illness, my doctor said I had 6 months to live, I prayed, and 6 years later, I am still alive”; I was abandoned by my family, my friends, and I called upon God by faith, then He rescued me and now I can tell you my story”; “My family is not broken because of my Faith in God, I have a job because of Faith”, etc…  

I believe if we could live this life abundantly by faith, that would be great, and I would not only take advantage of it, but also make sure the whole world, meaning those having nothing on this earth, does the same as well. But the evidence we have for the known period of human history as of today, doesn’t align itself with that imaginary probability.

The Jesus the Christian Church Doesn’t Talk About

Jonathan Merrit on his blog “Faith and Culture” wrote an article titled:  “Setting the records straight on Jesus, the Friend of Sinners”. Lots of opinion, studies including from columnists, Bloggers have been done on the matter.

Although some of my Christian friends have already categorized me as confused, I want to, once again, challenge what Christians have been promoting about Jesus, and how they have avoided showing the world who Jesus really was.

If a member of the Christian church questions the way things are being held in the said church or a passage from the called Bible, this person will most likely be isolated because the status quo of any church will never acknowledge anyone who wants to highlight its wrong side. Doesn’t this characteristic seem familiar with what happened with the status quo of the Jewish leaders back in Jesus’s time?

The purpose of this lecture is to emphasize the reason why Jesus, the one the Christian church doesn’t talk about, is actually the one that really matters.

Let’s analyze.

Who was Jesus? Why was he killed?

Let’s understand that many things that we are told about Jesus from the new testament, especially the 4 gospels, have the purpose of justifying the idea they wanted you to believe about Jesus. In other words, those things may have been exaggerated or fabricated. I am going to put them into context and try to seize the essence of the information they provided, taking into consideration other historical documents about what happened in Israel, 2000 years ago.

because I may refer to these writings doesn’t mean I am promoting everything they reported; among those things, we have stories such as his birth, his resurrection, etc.

John the Baptist was leading a movement, and Jesus took over when John was killed. Actually, that is what eventually occurred without interpretation. Jesus could be easily identified as a revolutionary man, who thought that Israel was suffering because the Jewish leaders weren’t complying with God’s will. They were hypocritical, judgmental, selfish, pretentious, and overall false people preaching one thing but doing the complete opposite. He was a dreamer of a better world and he wanted to show that it was possible if men could simply love each other, instead of preaching or pretending that religious beliefs could turn this world into a better place. Jesus, without denying his Jewish identity, stood up against the Jewish establishment as well as the Roman empire that was not working in favor of humanity, in favor of the poor, the women, the oppressed, etc.

If Jesus didn’t promote a religious way for this world to be a better place, why then, do Christians do so in his name?

Don’t you think that if Jesus was alive today, he would stand against the Christian churches, preaching one thing but doing the complete opposite? Why with so many Christians, there is no real love between men? Christians among themselves don’t even love each other.

The best part of Christianity is that Christian leaders and followers are most likely ready to die for saying that they believe in Jesus or for talking about Jesus than to simply be like Jesus.

It has been proven that whoever records occurring events they have been part of, are unable to take away their own way of thinking from their writings- meaning that they cannot distinguish the difference between their own thoughts, and their recounts of that gathering. We are going to dig deep into the thinking of those who wrote about Jesus and convey that somehow their writings are connected to their Jewish perception of reality.

First and foremost, supposedly, they were all Jews. Jews do have a traditional view of people: righteous vs. wicked, where the first are the ones observing/following God’s law, and the second are the ones violating it, also called sinners.

That is exactly the reason why we found many people called “sinners”  throughout those writings; and while Jesus basically associated himself with “sinners” according to their view, they emphasize their writings on the sinners’ need to repent in order to receive grace through Jesus, whether to simply show that Jesus made no such distinction. Any bible scholar will have difficulty in proving otherwise.

Again, the actual/historical Jesus made no such distinction, instead, he was fighting against this type of distinction: Jesus’s main message was that all men are equal regardless of their status, beliefs, origin, race, gender, etc. However, those writers were not able to reproduce the full Jesus because they kept believing in such distinction; keep in mind, that when the Gospels state: “Jesus associated himself with the wicked, the sinners,” that was their own understanding. In fact, Jesus himself considered these people just as valuable as anyone else.

All the new testament writers were forced to report some of Jesus’s acts that are against their beliefs, but in the end, they twisted their conclusion to their original Jewish belief. By calling Jesus the “friends of sinners” the writers of the new testament found a way to twist Jesus’ work. But it is clear when we dig into the events, any simple observer would conclude that is not how Jesus saw these people they called sinners.  The best way to understand my point is to look at Jesus’ actions as a human who simply cares for his brothers, not with the eyes of a Jew. We all know that the immediate disciples of Jesus after His death didn’t have the same perception of Him which was manifested through their writings. This is clear evidence of why there are multiple interpretations of the same writings that give us so many doctrinal views. However, the predominant view is that God loves us all, but we are all sinners and we need to repent in order to benefit from God’s grace through Jesus. The only fact here is that No one, not the disciples, nor the Vatican or the other denominations did or are doing what Jesus did. Am I wrong, bible scholars?

If any Christian leader talks about the woman caught in adultery, he/she would end up quoting Jesus saying to her: “Go and sin no more”; actually there is no proof that Jesus actually said that since all of them left, including those writing the event. How did they get what Jesus told this woman? Oh please, don’t come with the inspiration part. That was something that actually took place at a certain place and time with people witnessing and among them those who wrote the story. The only person that could report the story to the end is either Jesus or the woman. As we know, Jesus didn’t write, and we don’t know if this woman wrote the story or not, exactly because the early church leaders wouldn’t promote any female writing as normal.

If you ask the Christian church leaders what would Jesus do with gays, they will soon refer to some writings of Paul or others to show you that it is unacceptable, but if we go back and look at the Historical Jesus, we would clearly see a Jesus that embraces them like his brothers, eat with them and show them, love. He will not condemn them nor ask them to be different so that they may receive his grace. What matters to Jesus is the fact that we love each other with no set pre-concepts as it has been the case with the Jewish establishment.

Of course, the Jewish establishment would never accept someone of Jesus’ type who also pretends to be the way, the life, and the true saying that no one gets to the Father but through Him…Somehow, Jesus placed himself in a bad situation, according to the writers.

Nevertheless, let’s not focus on whether or not Jesus is the Messiah, in fact, according to a deep and accurate presentation of The Real Messiah part 1 and 2  by Dr. Michael Brown ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBSRiwy4T7k), the Messiah as it is announced to the Jews cannot be Jesus.  Anyway, Judaism doesn’t promote Jesus at all. The Muslims don’t believe he is the Messiah either, nor do they believe he was resurrected. The only people who promote Jesus are the Christians but their focus is anything except on what Jesus really stood for. For example, they introduced the concept of eternal life only through Jesus when he comes back, the forgiveness of sin only through his blood.

I deeply believe if the focus was on what Jesus stood for and how to keep it up, the Christians who have decided to promote Jesus would have done a better job in this world, and the world would have been a better place.

Now let’s look at the reason why Jesus was killed.

Jesus’ revolutionary movement against the Jewish establishment forced them to go after Him. His rhetorical responses to each of their questions when they wanted to use scriptures and laws ashamed them as well. Obviously, Jesus was a martyr. In addition, there are other facts that without any doubt give Jesus the number one in this world: His birth divided the two historical periods of time, lots of miracles have taken place in his name. Anyone who truly puts his faith in Him and claims His name may see answers, deliverance, healing, etc. Anyway, this is not surprising since miracles take place in the name of many other historical figures. People who face persecution from other wicked spirits may find lots of blessings through Jesus. I personally have great references.

But again, if individually, few people can benefit from the spiritual claims of Jesus’ power, it is also true that the majority don’t.

The Christians who have had and continue to have the desire of being like Jesus, the majority of them, wouldn’t even try to become the friends of sinners, at the same time they are claiming to be followers of Jesus, I simply don’t get it.

If  Jesus was killed because of his vision for humanity by religion, why did they create another religion on his name? The reason is simple, since the beginning, the same disciples didn’t want to understand Jesus’ vision, they would have to do what he was doing which they never wanted. So it was easier to use the name of Jesus to establish a new religion than to simply do what Jesus was doing such as becoming “friends of sinners”.

The fact that they called Jesus “a friend of sinners” is a sign that they don’t want to be like Him. They were the ones looking at it that way, Jesus was being normal with human beings as his equal, but in their eyes, there was a distinction, those human beings were sinners, not equal with them, not entitled to the same privileges. Now, after Jesus died, they are the ones representing Him, they are free to interpret Jesus’ actions their ways. They don’t want to be friends of sinners, they want the sinners to repent, to accept Jesus, etc…Keep in mind, bible scholars, throughout Jesus’reported actions, He was associating himself with sinners, (That is how the Jews usually call those who supposedly don’t behave as they should, according to the law of Moses) not asking sinners to repent nor to accept him. Anyone claiming to follow Jesus has no other choice than to do what Jesus was doing.

So Jesus was killed because He was a sinner according to the law of Moses, and one of the sins he committed was Blasphemy. He was claiming He was God or the Son of God, that is blasphemy and the sentence for this sin was death. The death of Jesus was legal,  according to the law of Moses. Christians don’t want to say that because they built their religion on the death of Jesus as a sacrifice. What matters to Christians is the way they interpret the death of Jesus, not the work of Jesus, simply because they don’t want to be like Jesus, they don’t want to be “friends of sinners.” The message of Christians is that Sinners have to repent, but that has nothing to do with actually what Jesus was doing and what He stood for.

In other words, if Jesus was alive TODAY, surely he would stand against Christianity, the same way he stood against Judaism, he would call Christians leaders ” hypocrite” the same way he called the Jews leaders, preaching one thing but doing the exact opposite.

Surely, the Christian leaders would react the same way the Jews leaders reacted against Jesus, maybe the Christian leaders won’t kill Him the same way because there is no such law, but they would call him “false prophet” ‘Antichrist”.

For Example, Jesus would never wait for Obama to be president to facilitate equal sex marriage right. Jesus didn’t wait for the feminist liberation movement to have women with the same right as men, Jesus didn’t wait for the UN to declare that slavery was a crime against humanity to show that the real master should rather serve than wait to be served. Jesus made it clear that the only reason why we have poor people is because of rich people that somehow had stolen from others.  The Christian church leaders stood against all these examples unless they were forced to accept some of them.

The Jesus they don’t talk about is the Jesus we should call ” friend of humans” based on everything he did and stood against. Jesus is the friend of anyone whom the right has been violated one way or another. Can we say the same for Christians? What role are Christians playing in the suffering, the misery of the people besides giving them “hope” when they are not the ones violating those rights?

As I said earlier, Jesus until his last breath was a Jew, although he stood up against Jewish oligarchy. I have been a Christian all my life, and I do identify myself as a disciple of the real Jesus, the one Christians don’t want to talk about. Although like Jesus as well as all other martyrs before or after him, I am not able to change this world, I am still promoting that it can be a better place if collectively we embrace this road. If Christian leaders want to do a better job, they simply have two things to do:

a) Change the focus when it comes to talking about Jesus. It really doesn’t matter to talk about his birth, his resurrection, his second coming, at the end of the day, he was killed for a reason. Also, the entire world would never unite around those beliefs. The focus on who he really was based only on his retold actions taken without any oriented interpretation, and what he stood against are the unique things that matter and can bring unity around the world.

b) If Christian leaders want to promote Jesus’s values, first they have to show the example by selling everything they have and distribute to the poor and then encourage everyone else to do the same. When we look at the assets of the Vatican along with other Christian denominations, it is obvious that they don’t want to be like Jesus. They need first to convert all these assets into help for the poor; they need to tell the richest people in this world that what they have doesn’t belong to them, no matter how they have gained them. They need to be a defensor and a protector for the oppressed, the abused, the orphans, the disabled, the weak, the unfortunate, the rejected, etc. They need to show respect to anyone’s right to be and then promote the same respect and tolerance.

If another world is to come, let’s make this one a better world first. The best life one can have is the one he/she has, it cannot be the one that he/she will have in a certain future. And Jesus didn’t stay at one place saying to people: ” Wait until I come back I will help you” Noooo, He helped everyone he could when he was on earth. We know Christian Leaders are wrong when they focus on when Jesus comes back instead of doing and promoting exactly what Jesus was doing. A real God should be a God of logic, this world becoming a better world for all makes more sense than to promoting and/or talking about another futuristic one.

UNDERSTANDING THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION FOR ALL (Part 1)

 

Do you really want to hear about this topic from a different view?

Well, Well, Well… Of course, it goes beyond all kind of imagination.

I will never be able to separate myself from my original belief throughout my writings which is: I am a Believer in GOD, in Science and technology. I Know that God exists, He is Real, All Powerful. However, I also believe that our lack of knowledge is what separates us from knowing Him fully. That is why I believe the more Science and Technology grow, the closer we are to Him.

As we know, there are many views and interpretations of the human origin. As of today, I still believe that Man was created, as well as the Universe. I already established the fact that if someone else believes otherwise, it is fine. What I am about to elaborate on as a result of my belief in GOD and the human creation will bring hope to the human race  totally.

No one on earth has ever lived in a different world than this one, where there is only good and no bad. It is quite foolish to even think about a world where there will be only “good” and that “bad” would have disappeared. We have no evidence, no reference from someone who had lived in a world without the “bad”.  Some even said that it won’t make any sense, a world without one of these two. Keep in mind that the term “good” or “bad” isn’t only referred to man. We can also refer to good or bad weather for example. The only reference the human race has about the origin of the good and the bad comes from what supposedly happened in the garden of Eden.

According to this reference, everything was simply “good” at the beginning.  The only first two human on earth, Adam and Eve have tasted for a very brief period of time what living in a world only good means. But everything changes as soon as they ate the prohibited fruit. Okay.

As vague and simple it may look like, that is the only tangible and sustainable explanation we have, historically talking. No one has to believe in it as true, literally or symbolically, the fact is: we live, since then, in a world with good and bad.

I know, the Seventh Day Adventist church will never accept and support the theory that I am about to promote in relation to the Mystery of Salvation for All, nor will any Christian Church. Although Dr. Elizabeth  Talbot, a Seven Day Adventist Pastor is promoting the Mega News from the book of Luke: Salvation for ALL, it is not quite an idea that the Church is willing to join fully. She said clearly that according to the Gospel of Luke, Salvation has been secured  for ALL.

What I am saying  that I don’t know if she would say is that ALL means everyone: the religious and the non religious, the believers and the non believers, each and every single human being has been granted salvation without having to believe it. That is my full interpretation of Salvation for ALL.

First statement: No one has ever fully understood God’s Nature:

When someone talks about God, he/she refers to what supposedly God is to him/her. Human beings as we are, the more we get to understand and to know the world we live in on a daily basis, the more we will understand and know GOD, as a result, the closer we will be to Him. I want to establish this view before moving on because some of us will try to talk about God as He is in reality, when in fact, they will be talking about Him according to what He is to them.

Nowadays, what sense does it make to someone, hearing about Salvation if this person has no idea about its origin?

Christians established the fact that Salvation is for All but at least only those who accept it will get it. In other words, if you don’t accept it, you will be lost.

Common sense: Why do I need to accept Salvation if I don’t know when and why I don’t have it. I don’t even know its purpose.

Let’s look at the Christian interpretation about Salvation:

Adam and Eve were created perfect to live eternal life, but they failed to obey God and committed sin, consequently, God punished them to death, as a result, they became impure, imperfect, sinners and the whole human race carries the same consequences. Since Adam and Eve are our first ancestors, because of what they did, no human being can be perfect anymore, we are all lost. We have to suffer in this life and die. Now, Jesus Christ Came on earth and gave His life to rescue humanity from death and give them eternal life back. But, we still have to suffer and die in this life, if we accept His sacrifice, then when He comes back, He will give us (those who believe and follow Him) eternal life and everything will be perfect again. Meanwhile, we still can feel His presence, His help when we seek Him.

My problem with Christians’ view:

Christians are “stealing” Israel’s God (They use the history of God with Israel, first testament) and they add the history of Jesus the Messiah also God to them, and they have their Holy book called the Bible. Now they are trying to expand and to make Israel’s God, the world’s God. I really don’t mind, in addition, thanks to them, I got to know God.

They want the world to  believe that we are lost and we will be lost when the end comes if we don’t believe and accept Jesus as our Savior. They have introduced  the Concept of Salvation for All, but they put a price on it. They basically gave up on this world (to them nothing good can come from it) and only a few will get to the other world. Christians like other religions, forget above all and after all we are all human with the same problems, and that our first concern should be the well being of humanity.

In all four Gospels they use in the Bible, it is clearly shown that Jesus’ first concern was the well being of the humanity: justice, tolerance, respect, equality etc.

Christians have failed to look at the big picture:

If we are to believe in what is reported as the Origin of Man: then, God is the Creator of Man, God is the God of Man, not the God of a pre-selected nation called Israel, He is the God of the Egyptians who kept Israel in captivity for 400 years, He is the God of Buddhists whom we have no sign in the Bible and all other surrounding Nations to Israel and to the whole World historically and geographically.

While all human beings are in the same mess because of what one and the first man did, if this is true, why do Christians pretend that what they call Salvation can’t be for All through the One they said, came to save the whole word? In other words, why if it is true that we are all lost because of one and the first man, without us choosing it, can’t we be all rescued the same way, without choosing it, because Jesus Christ decided voluntarily to offer himself in sacrifice to rescue us? Adam, being the first human,  had so much power that what he did affected humanity in full, and we are not able to change it, but, isn’t Jesus Greater than Adam? In that case, why can’t Christians understand that Jesus’ sacrifice should not be anyway exclusive, whether one believes or not.

If another world has to come to substitute this one, shouldn’t it be because the Creator has found a way to fix the problem from its origin? If one man can enter to the new world, all human should because we are not the ones who originally mess this one up, why should some of us be excluded?

In order to fully understand the Mystery of Salvation, we simply need to understand the Mystery of being lost.

Even before we are born, we are already lost –  because of what happened in the garden of Eden. We don’t need to choose it, the devil is inside us,  each man carries a beast inside, a spirit that leads us to hate, to be bad to ourselves and to others. The fight in between ourselves is the greatest one ever. We don’t have it all to the same degree, but we all do at some level.  How Am I responsible for the bad spirit I carry inside when I have not chosen it? My point here is simple: God has taken full responsibility for what happened in Eden.

Human have been able to overcome a lot of differences such as Slavery, discrimination, tolerance etc. Although Christians and other religions are to promote all good manners, human rights, including tolerance according to their Holy Book, bizarrely, civil rights movements are the ones that have been pushing towards those goals. As times pass by, human beings are getting to understand each other more, tolerate each other more, and even love each other more.  Although much more need to be done, we are happy to live in a better world today than two millennium ago, and for sure, two millennium after, the world will be much better.

Now, let’s go back on our topic: If Salvation is for All, that means, it is not only for Christians, obviously we can’t all be christian, nor it is only for Jews.  If Christians want to keep promoting Salvation for All, they need to start promoting the fairness of God: God is fair enough not to let perish the whole humanity, nor part of it because of what happened at the very beginning of human’s life.

The same way we couldn’t change our destiny when one and the first man committed sin, neither can we change the redemption that was brought to us through One Man, even Bigger and Greater than the one who committed sin, the Son of God, also God.

Only when we get to understand the Mystery of Salvation, we will realize that it is no longer an issue, it is really secured for all and that our focus should be to get the whole human race  ready to live with each other without any type of injustice, intolerance, and discrimination while we are transiting through this world.

Part 2 is coming.

 

 

 

 

 

Your Belief, Your Truth.

 

Born and raised as a Seventh Day Adventist, I think  it is surprising to advocate for any type of faith.  In fact, I truly believe in my God, The One  I walk with every day, the One Who lives in my heart; The One Who listens and answers me whenever I seek Him.

Of course, I believe the seventh day is the day set a part to praise and adore Him completely. I train my daughters in the same path. I praise God Jehovah, as well as Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I also believe that I am saved because of the sacrifice of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

I have seen miracles done in my own life and others’ lives. The way I believe, is the truth for me. I am a follower, I belong to a Christian Church,  created by a group of men and women 170 years ago. I can’t even imagine that I could change to a different doctrine/religion because  The way I believe has always worked for me.  Whenever I get stuck in  this life, my Lord has been there to deliver me no matter what.

From where I came from, there is no other way on earth I could be that successful in this life without my Lord, my Savior and that is my belief, the way I was taught about Him since I was born. I have seen His Hands taking  me out of difficult times. Being the oldest child, when I  turned 14,  I was already an orphan, but I never felt alone, He was always with me,  guiding me surely: studying and working  while taking care of my 2 youngest sisters. We were going to church every Sabbath, we were praising and praying our Lord at home as we were taught to, and this worked perfectly for me.

Even now, more than ever, I feel Him closer to me, when most of the times I don’t even act properly. He has blessed overwhelmingly my family. Very deeply, I have always believed that if God is real, He has to be real  in my life. Whatever I have heard or learned about Him is good to know, but what is really great is the fact that He is real in my life.

Who can tell me that my way of believing is wrong? How on earth someone would be able to show me something different?

And of course, I wanted to believe that was the only way, I tried to convince others to be like me, to  be Seventh Day Adventist as well.

I have come to discover that the way people  believe doesn’t matter at all. There are so many ways…From Seventh Day Adventist to Atheist: Which one is truth? One of them or none of them? Why not all of them?

Why should that matter if all of them work for some of those that follow them: Miracles happen everywhere for those who believe and even don’t believe in miracles. Some people truly believe in “Saints” because they have had results or they know someone who had been blessed that way. I don’t believe in “Saints” and why should that matter to convince them that they are wrong, simply because it is not my belief? It has worked for them, this will be always true (to them).

I don’t believe there is any absolute truth about the way ones believe or not. What is the Religion that works 100% for its followers? NONE.

Most people die with the hope to have a better life, to be cured from a certain disease, etc… That’s the truth about religions, none of them work for all their followers.  However, I was tempted to believe that my own experiences with my God were directly linked to my religion, when unfortunately few people in my religion can refer to their own experiences like me, while surprisingly people from different beliefs are having  the same type of experiences.

Every believer representing a doctrine or a religion has been making the attempt to say that they have the truth which is actually their truth based on their own understanding, What proof can I have, can you have about our beliefs that would make any change to the ongoing way of the world? NONE.

Each one will continue to fight, to sustain their own belief, besides the economical and social power/interest we have behind each one. Since the beginning, God has been a Mystery.  Each individual has been having his own and personnel experience with HIM, so we will always have our interpretation of God. I believe that GOD Himself understands this fact and that is okay with HIM. The Day HE wants us to have the same view of HIM, He will reveal Himself to everyone, the same way.

If we can live in this time where technology is growing significantly, we are not to simply repeat things that are no longer sustainable. The concept of God, only, refers to Superpower and I understand that, before, people couldn’t have a clear view of what a Superpower could be. Also, God should be someone practical, pragmatic not theoretical. And if we refer to the creation of the universe for which He takes credit, we can see that He is Logical: everything works perfectly.

In my opinion, Technology is helping us to understand GOD. No one has ever seen INTERNET, but everyone believes in Internet TODAY.  Now, did the entire world believe in Internet 50 years ago?  NO. Fifty (50) years ago, that means,  year 1966, Internet was starting to exist in about 3 countries: USA, Great Britain and France. I can even imagine if those professors working in these science laboratories could believe in what Internet is TODAY and the Power that goes with it. Maybe the time hasn’t come yet for us to have a clear and common understanding of God; so why fighting with someone to believe in God your way?  Why even fighting with someone to Believe in God? This is not necessary, we can simply accept these facts as temporary. If God is True, at some point, He will be true for all of us because no one will ever question His existence. The Truth is absolutely true only when it becomes unquestionable.

Of course you need “Faith” to believe in things you can’t see or things that will happen when you don’t see how.

God has to be Bigger than any type of technological revolution, in other words, Technology will bring humanity to GOD and then the view of God will be the same. (That’s my own projection)

Ash

 

I wanna be a source of blessings to you

I WANNA BE 2

                        I WANNA BE

 

I may be going through a hard time;

Like everyone else, I may be having a bad day;

But, as soon as you get in touch with me,

I wanna be a source of blessings to you.

 

I may be feeling pain or facing a serious illness;

I may be in prison, or sentenced to death;

I may be living my last minute on earth;

But as soon as you get in touch with me,

I want you to see hope through my eyes.

 

I may be feeling depressed, not having a job;

I may have just lost a loved one,

But as soon as you get in touch with me,

I want you to get the best of this moment.

  

 

 

You may have hurt me, betrayed me;

You may have put me in trouble,

You may not like me, covet what I have, You may even want me dead;

But as soon as you get in touch with me,

I still wanna be a source of blessings to you.

 

What if I am  the one, who betrayed you, hurt you, put you in trouble, wanted you dead,

Coveted what you had, didn’t like you at all?

Just know  that today, I want to reach out to you,

And be a source of blessings to you.

 

 

 

 

Dr. Ashley Pierre,

05/31/14

Ash

Just be a Human

I don’t need to  think like you;  I don’t need to believe like you;                                    I don’t need to behave like you;  To be a good man, I only need to be a Human.

I don’t need to be  a Christian; I don’t need to be a Jews;                                                    I don’t need to be a Muslim;  To be a good man, I only need to be a Human.

I don’t need to be an American, I don’t need to be an European; an African,            I don’t need to be a Hispanic or an Asian;  To be a good man, I only need to be a Human.

I don’t need to be Black; I don’t need to be Yellow;                                                              I don’t need to be White;  To be a good man, I only need to be a Human.

Dr. Ash