On Rotatory Sermons

“Like it or not, Christian believers are embroiled in a titanic intellectual clash quite unlike anything the church has faced. “—Michael O’Connell, Finding God in Science

The Corrosive Agent

Is it not the human body when faced with an infection who stands guard? Is it not the human body that seeks out this destructive agent, to ensure survival? Yes, that is precisely such. If such is true of the physical body, then what of the spiritual one? Or rather the spiritual bodies, joined as one–then too in the Church, it is imperative to identify corrosive agents, these are that which corrupts the Church and causes it to slowly disintegrate before the World. When speaking of the Church, there comes to mind vines —or tree branches, that are called to do a splendid work, producing fruits. In growing a tree, one needs supplies in order for it to be sustained –in nurturing a child, one (speaking of the child) needs to be fed certain things, in such doing, the child will have matured, the tree will have matured, leading to a harvest, a plentiful one. This corrosive agent, like many others–for the Church faces many ailments–sees the church slowly withering away, ridiculed and pummeled. It is as a man being beaten, and his protectors stand by to watch —oh no, they rather are the ones beating the man to a pulp. Such is the sad case of the Church, where those leading it are the very ones pummeling it, disfiguring it —causing it to be an icon of weakness, which leads to the lions feasting, the hyenas laughing and the vultures rejoicing.

In a universe of infinite knowledge, where there is much to learn about existence and all that it contains, the Church has adopted finite knowledge. By finite knowledge I speak of limiting that which one is capable of knowing –or rather should know, for knowledge is key to survival. In the adoption of such, the Church then becomes dull, weak and easily preyed upon. Finite knowledge is the antithesis of knowledge, for it restricts that which is natural, standing in direct opposition to it. It is like imprisoning an innocent person, charging them with the crime of being human, by human I speak of their natural state of being curious, questioning the world at large, philosophizing and creating; for these are the mark of a human. Finite knowledge thus, has to be limited and in such limitation, one will then be free to roam the pastures of knowledge. One then has a burden to figure out how to limit finite knowledge. But just how is finite knowledge propagated? Thence cometh the corrosive agent, that which limits knowledge, that which causes the Christian to be ridiculed, that which causes many to fall from the faith. Rotatory sermons like all things are able to be characterized. As follows, it lacks instruction, for such sermons focus on a sole topic. In such, one learns nothing, for rotatory sermons simply repeat the same idea continuously; oftentimes these sermons have no substance. –if an astrophysicist is constantly being “taught” that 2 plus 2 is 4, he will regard such knowledge as nothing, for not only does he know such, but rather he understands much more complex knowledge than such, it is nothing of novelty. Nothing that allows him to learn a new thing.

Rotatory sermons, it could be said, follow the nature of being dogmatic –or rather spreading dogma, for they are simply declarations, rudimentary declarations. They simply say a certain thing which is spewed by the preacher and as a result, churchgoers digest such, and regurgitate it. On being dogmatic, many know not why they believe, nor the good it does, they know not the application of such knowledge, if one can call that knowledge at all. Using these characteristics, it is alarming that most sermons today are rotatory, in fact such is all sermons have come to be now. It is rather upsetting how what is being spewed from the pulpits have no substance, it is like smoke being blown, after a while it disappears. Yet, if one notices when a person smokes a cigarette, they are always blowing smoke, when one has disappeared another reappears, such is with rotatory sermons. They appear this weekend and are forgotten during the weekday for they have no substance; yet appear the next week and the process repeats. Rotatory sermons teaches not, it prepares not the Christian to answer in a way that stimulates the mind of the unbeliever, it prepares not the Christian to deal with life, it prepares the Christian not with hope; thus, the Christian is always in a state of despair, the churches reek with melancholy, for all that is uttered is babbling smoke, which clouds the minds of many–church is then hazy and gloomy, dull and boring; thus there is a stripping of humanity and limiting what can be known. Such a doing leads to a state that renders the Church to be stagnant, or rather devolved. For if one learns not, encapsulates knowledge not, then how can growth be? Yet one devolves because in the state of knowledge being infinite, if one seeks not to know more, then more will be to be, of which he will linger behind, when compared to his compatriots. In the World at large, numerous countries acquire armaments, which gets more complex and destructive with each new discovery and the passage of time. If a state acquires not such then to the world he would have devolved. For each nation has the capability to better defend, yet as they grow, they far out shadow such puny nations. With every advancement in knowledge of armaments, that nation will devolve just a bit, for he is more unable to defend his nation, for the weapons are more destructive and his are rendered less destructive. It would then come to the point where he brings a knife to a gunfight –no rather, sticks and stones to a gunfight. That nation then is easily taken over, its inhabitants ridiculed and labeled as backwards –oh, do you still think I speak of a nation?

There then is a mass exodus. When a nation has captured one it disperses the inhabitants, they are exiled from their homeland, in such detachment they forget their culture and by culture all knowledge supposedly held. Then, wherever they are situated, they adopt that culture –over time they would have assimilated so much as to not exist as their natural selves yet are a superficial person of that nation they have assimilated into. With the passage of time, after engaging in the act of generation, their offspring would have no clue of that unique culture, for then they would be slaves in a nation, indoctrinated at every point. –oh, do you think I still speak of a nation?

The Nature of a Sermon

A preacher gets up from his seat, gets on the pulpit and sermonizes. What does he? A sermon is not a simple speech, nor is it an opportunity to gloat about a certain thing. Yet that is just what sermons are now, the Church has misunderstood what a sermon is, such is dangerous, for then anything spewed; so long as it is behind a pulpit is nowadays a sermon —if I were to stand behind a pulpit and for forty long dull minutes utter “COME GET SAVED,” such would not be a sermon, it's simply rambling. The nature of a sermon is as such, it is a lecture, it must teach a certain thing. Suppose now I say, “COME GET SAVED for your soul is at risk of burning.” Such is still not a sermon, it's simply enthusiastic rambling. For the soul being at risk of burning is not a sufficient reason for one to be saved, for any given person can preach such for their religion. Moreover, one may ask “what of this soul? How do I know it exists” or rather they may ask further, “what does it mean to be saved and from what?” if they continue further, “Who is this that will save me?’ –rightfully so, they may ask, for most religions teach and spew the same. In the act of saving a soul, one must know whom it is they owe the soul to. For one cannot willingly give their soul to an unknown entity; much less how one cannot love–or give their heart to a person they know not. Thus, such a thing is still not a lecture, for one learns nothing. A sermon then teaches substances, it delves and seeks to answer questions relating to that which puzzles man, it seeks to deeply encourage the human, and instructs him fully. If not, such is not a sermon but rather meaningless babbling. A sermon then must not focus on a certain type and even within the type should not focus on a sole topic. For such a thing is contra naturam, it violates the very being of a sermon, thus, being mere babbles. A sermon must instruct the congregation fully, it must branch out into various topics, even the realm of the human life which we deem to be separated from the spiritual; sex, friendship, finance, and mental health issues. If that is not done, the world will teach the believers such things. With the world being under the control of Satan, as we claim, then what it teaches are contrary to what God wants us to know. The Church has an obligation to teach the believers on how marriage is to be, how sex should be done and how to better defend the faith. Granted, all sermons must have a common theme, Jesus Christ, not all sermons have to share a common format, and message. One can argue that Jesus being the theme would become rotatory, however that is not the case, Jesus being the theme means that, all sermons help us grow close to him, though not overtly (as in the message specifically), but what is learned are to be practical, allowing us to–without realization—adopt habits and a wide array of knowledge that further help us in our walk with Christ. There then, it is said, to be present three types of sermons; Moral, Theological, and Scriptural.

A moral sermon speaks of the being of the person and instructs him on ways to live, it admonishes him, or rather causes him to fight his sin. For a moral sermon does not merely bring to light sin, it does not merely bring awareness to sin –rather it allows one the ability to fight such. It is as a soldier thrown on a battlefield, when he is made aware of an enemy he seeks to fight, to overtake him by any means necessary. In such, this determination fuels him, for he fights with rigor. He plans and analyzes, strategic in his ways. Sermons pertaining to morality thus do the same, it aids the Church in fighting sin, in persevering and having the courage to stand up against that enemy that robs him of all that he has. It is however sorrowful to see how moral sermons do nothing but call out people and sin, yet leaves them stranded —for the very being of the sermon is not to expose sin, but to equip one with the ability to fight sin. Thus, we can identify three things a moral sermon must do, and if it checks two boxes and the sole is left out, it is not a true sermon —as to whether it should be discarded, I leave that to the masses, for there is knowledge to be gained everywhere, as to whether it should be discarded, I leave that to myself in dealing with my individuality. Moral sermons must simultaneously exhort, instruct, and encourage (A concept from Paul Washer). Imagine one who struggles with porn addiction and masturbation; in dealing with such sin, he must be exhorted, called out for his sin and made aware of what it is and how vile it is. Such exhortation allows him to ponder about what he is doing or rather what he struggles to not do. Yet, because he struggles with sin he needs to be encouraged. For sin is that which separates man from God, and if exhortation dwells long with no encouragement, he will have gone down the road of falling into shame and guilt, leading to debasement. In encouragement, he is told that there is hope, that he is not lost and that he can overcome. It is these that fuels him, that makes him ready to bash such addiction; to utterly weed it out of his life. He then is instructed as to how to overcome it. For it may be true that he is encouraged to act, yet how can he act if he knows not how to do such. One may be encouraged to lead a revolution, yet how can that be if he has no armaments? In the same way, the man must be instructed –he must be told that such addiction will not go away overnight, that he will have to fight, that he will have to analyze the self; for the sin is but a symptom of a larger issue. In such, he will have dug deep into his past and see vividly how certain traumas are causing him to act a certain way, he then with the tools given him, will begin to overcome —but ever slowly, yet surely. Such then is a moral sermon, bitter to hear for it calls out sin, yet sweet as it gives hope and instruction. If a moral sermon is but bitter solely, then such is not a true sermon, for it lacks.

A scriptural sermon is one that teaches on what the scripture says. In such, it explains a text that can be used to encourage a believer, such is essentially the main goal of a scriptural sermon. For the scripture is merely God’s words given to man, in such, the man directly hears from God. Scriptural sermons allow the believer to grow in the faith. In growing in the faith, they learn and discover much about God. A scriptural sermon thus, touches solely on God and his message to mankind, or rather the Church at large. In times of trouble, it is the scripture that encourages, in times of doubt it gives hope, in times of joy it gives more joy. Thus, scripture is an important part of the life of a believer, or rather one can say it is the key, the foundation of a Christian, that foundation from which the Christian builds on daily. Imagine one building a house, he lays not the foundation with straw– or plastic, he rather uses concrete for in such he is able to build that which he wills. The scripture thus, is all that is used, it is the foundation of belief, for from it stems moral sermons and theological ones. It is all that breathes life into the other sermons and thereby into the lives of the Christian. If the sermon that utilizes scriptures teaches nothing, then such is not a sermon. For the nature of scriptural sermon TEACHES. When one learns anything, they are capable of building on such, connecting it and applying it to their lives. In learning about what God says speaking of one's worth, one then has a renewed image and from that image they build on it, realizing that they are more than they think, more precious than they realized. In such knowledge one can then build and improve. Such then is a life giving for it allows one to learn and since learning involves application, one can then self-improve, becoming a much better Christian and human overall.

A theological sermon seeks to instruct the believers in the faith. It is the bread and butter, the day to day living of the Christian. For if the Church has many enemies, it is in the nature of enemies to attack, for they seek to overpower one –to utterly destroy him who they contend with. Thus, in this antagonistic world, of which we are attacked daily, it is imperative that the Christian is well defended against attacks, relentless attacks made against his faith. A theological sermon must not limit knowledge, but rather should teach fully a subject, not withholding even the slightest detail. In defending the faith, one has a reasonable reason to believe, in having a reasonable reason to believe, such belief is strengthened and the foundation from which one believes is strong, thus, when the Church is attacked it is able to withstand, for the wind may blow and topple down the house made of straw and the one of sticks, yet the one made of bricks falleth not. Suppose a nation is at war, what do they? Do they simply hide and avoid conflict? NO! Such is FOOLISH, for they are at war. No nation will willingly hide and avoid conflict, for if one is in conflict there is no way to avoid–in the events leading to war yes, one may take precautionary measures to avoid conflict, but once the drums of war have been sounded, there is no room, no possibility for peace, no road to which one can avoid conflict; it is either/or. Either they fight and overcome their enemy. Or they cower and die. Such are the only two options. This is what theological sermons do, they arm the nation, giving its citizens armaments –instructing them on how to wage war, ensuring their survival.

In seeing the three types of sermons, when one focuses solely on a type, that is, when one goes to Church every week all they hear is either scriptural or moral or even theological, they lack a thing. Such is contra naturam to the Christian being commanded in “ lacking nothing.“ A sermon that constantly touches on scripture yet does not touch on theology sees a Church that becomes incapable of defending their faith. A sermon that focuses on moral and not scriptural sees a pious Church and seemingly Holy Church that has a weak base, for to grow as a Christian one needs scripture as its base. A sermon that focuses on moral sermons and not theological sees a Holy Church that is easily preyed upon. They are like sheep who are constantly devoured by wolves. Such focus on particular types and topics within types, is why we now see a Christianity that is ridiculed, mocked, easily defeated in debates. All due to believers using scripture to respond to philosophical questions. All because Christians answer “Does God exist and prove such,” with a verse from the bible, yet can they be blamed? For they know not —it's as if one is questioned about Particle Physics and respond with things pertaining to Biology, such a person would be laughed at and devoured –oh, you think I speak of a person?

In preparation for answering

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” —1 Peter 3: 15

A man is asked “Why are you a Christian” –he staggers for he was never ready to respond to such, in his mind there springs up bible verses, yet such is not a reasonable answer; for many religions have verses that can be drawn from their holy book. He thinks of his testimony of how he was once a drunkard, but Christ has freed him –such seems like a great reason, but wait…how many drunkards have become sober without the help of Christ? So testimonies then worketh not, for everyone; Christian or not, Theist and Atheist alike have a testimony. He then realizes he has no reasonable basis for his belief, and so how will he answer? He may give one of the two answers above, yet that would not suffice, for the person who asks him such a question will not be swayed; perhaps he too was a drunkard and was set free without the help of Christ. Perhaps he too is religious and has a book, a book filled with holy verses. Yet whichever answer he gives, it can be concluded that he has not an answer. One may give an answer, but it could be total rubbish –oh, you think I speak of a man?

How then can a Christian be prepared to answer, when they know not? Can one answer a thing they have never learned before? Can one go on a test and be comfortable with answering a question they know not? I say no, and absolutely no! The Christian is called to defend his faith, yet he is not able to do so for he knows not the intricacies of his religion, independent of scripture. He is a theist but knows not why he is a theist, he is no more atheist than atheists, he is merely cloaked with theism. He is an atheist masquerading as a theist. I say that if that is such, if he is incapable of proving his theism nor his Christian belief, he is no more solid in his religiosity than water vapor is. On the topic of defending the faith, it is impossible for one to state reasons for God’s existence if they were never informed on how to respond to such. Thence, if we are to follow the Apostle’s command to answer respectfully then we are to know what we speak of. We are to have a reasonable foundation for believing. If that is not such, when the great wind blows, we falter, each to their house. If one answers, “Does God exist?” with scripture it is not respectful, for such an answer is not from a point of objectivity, rather is from subjectivity. I’m deathly afraid, for how many Christians would give such an answer to a question as such. It is a thing of worry–worrisome, the fact that none seem to speak on such, none seem to see the issue with such, it is depressing.

Arguments from Learning

If knowledge is infinite in nature, and as man, we are constantly learning then with such understanding, the World and the Church alike grow in knowledge –for they are of the same nature, human. To further explain such, let us ponder on the concept, Eadem Essentiam Per Diversam Naturam, which simply means: same essence via a different nature. Though the Church is of the same essence as the world, man, yet there is a sharp difference in the way they think and thereby act–we can then conclude that the Church has a different nature than the world. Thus, the distinction we have, that being the World and the Church. If we do fight the World, then we cannot allow the world to overpower us in knowledge, for such an act of “fighting” entails war–an enemy seeks to overpower his opponent and likewise his opponent. Therefore, the Church is to be the one overpowering the world, constantly formulating arguments for our faith and against theirs. If we stop growing in knowledge, then the arguments formulated against us by those not of the faith gains momentum, eventually overpowering us. Said arguments are adopted by the weakest among us, and as a consequence they are led astray. What we are left with is a dying Church, slowly losing its members to faulty knowledge, and baseless arguments, knowledge that seems hard to refute because we are incapable of battling them. As believers we have to be in a constant state of learning about our faith, knowing the very inner being of our religion. In learning we are well equipped and confident–confident not only in where we stand, but also confident that we are capable of repelling all attacks. It is as a battalion at war, as confident that they are, equates to the degree that they fight. S0 too, the more confident we are as a church, the more we are strengthened to fight and repel attacks.

I have discovered that if one cannot prove their truth, then what they believe is simply not true; yes, truth is objective, but if it can't be proven then how do we know it's true? If one cannot prove a truth, then they do not believe in it. In continuously learning about our faith, we better prove it true. Our religion is constantly being tested, arguments are being raised and sent against us; In learning constantly about our faith, we are better able to answer them. In such we are proving that what we believe in is objectively true–or rather stands on a strong foundation. In doing so, the more easily defensible our truth becomes, and the harder it gets for the opposition to disprove it. It is as a wall filled with holes, from which water leaks out of–the more holes one covers, the less water that spews; such is how our religion becomes harder to disprove, for the arguments used against us become weak and useless. Going against such principle, leads to believers being incapable of defending their truth, hence they become susceptible to all truth and as the saying goes, they're like “grass in a field, swaying back and forth to whatever, not having a concrete foundation from which you can observe every belief, heresy or not” (Clifton David). Rotatory sermons do not enable the believer to cover holes, to defend their faith and strengthen their religiosity. However, they leave members vulnerable to vultures, easily preyed upon, and swayed, all while we (Preachers) willingly and ignorantly lead them to be devoured and witness the weakening of their mental faculties, withholding knowledge from them. If the opposite were done, the likelihood of our church members falling to certain arguments would be slim–for they would stand on a solid ground, a high ground from which they can observe and deconstruct arguments.

As soon as we cease to learn, we cease to be. With rotatory sermons, we now have Churches that have long ago ceased to exist, where the members go in once a week to be fed the same thing. In the same way our diet needs to be diversified; Grains, Fruits, Vegetables and Protein, so too, our sermons need to be diversified, satisfying every aspect of our lives. Rotatory sermons are not teaching us novel knowledge, so, how can growth happen in such a condition? Learning entails the introduction of novelty; a mode of thinking, way of being, and so on. In contrast to popular belief, learning is not meant for solely the intellectual, it is an innate part of us, it is what makes us human, it gives life. In Churches where we do not learn, we are nothing but empty vessels; walking carcasses, rotting flesh, presented before a living God. With God being the pinnacle of knowledge, we go against his will when we do not learn. For he gives us life to everything: yet to man he endowed us with the ability to think, for we are created in the image of this Mighty God; and with thinking, the capability of understanding complexities. He desires for us to constantly learn, a learning that must be, even in the Churches. Suppose a man is dropped on an island filled with delicacies, yet he restricts himself to a minute part of it, what shall we say of that man? He is a FOOLISH man, for he can enjoy more than he has, and he has the capacity to–yet why in the Churches do we limit what can be known of existence? Such is truly foolish, for knowledge is what drives the man, if he learns not then what drives him? I'll tell you this, he is not driven, and if he is not driven then he is stagnant, what else is stagnant? “Nothing” is stagnant, for that is its state and therefore is the state of a man that learns not, the same is with a Church that learns not, it is reduced to nothing.

Argument from Reasoning

“An organ that is of no use, an arrangement that does not achieve its purpose, are contradictions in the teleological theory of nature.” —Immanuel Kant, Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View

It has been concluded that the nature of knowledge is as such, it is infinite. Therefore, in this realm of things being, there is always a thing to know, for if that were not such then we simply would not be —or rather we would be dullards and would have met our deserved end. For in this realm, knowledge is the key to survival. Yet, the very reason why man has continued and will continue to exist, is because knowledge from one generation is passed to another, with the next generation building on such knowledge. Improving it as they wish, for the benefit of society at large –knowledge that aids them in defending against predators. Speaking of such, Immanuel Kant Says, “he should bring forth everything out of his own resources. Securing his own food, shelter, safety and defense (for which nature gave him neither the horn of the bull, nor the claws of the lion, nor the fangs of the dog, but hands only).” Knowledge is central to the human; unlike beasts it is his defense mechanism. In such, since the inception of man he has been devoured by beasts. Yet over time he uses knowledge gained to form weapons capable of self-protection. Thus, knowledge is innate in man and such separates him from beasts by an immeasurable distance. For then, he is capable of self-improvement (a thing noticed by Rousseau) in self-improvement he is capable of becoming the apex predator, he alone stands at the top, incapable of being devoured. From knowledge held he is able to gain new insights–such then is reasoning, for we use what is known to create a new thing. It is as a man who knows that rocks can be thrown, and from other knowledge he has (the existence of a string and sticks), he uses such to build a slingshot. Such is the history of mankind summed up, with all knowledge held we use our reasoning abilities to discover more…and more; constantly inventing and propelling the race forward.

In comparing the beast and the man, one finds many similarities and yet as well countless differences, almost innumerable. Yet, what truly separates man from all beasts is the ability to reason. Stripped of reason man would simply be another species–he would be like all animals, no different than a lion and zebra, who are two distinct creatures yet are driven by instinct, hence why they are beasts. Yet with reason the man is elevated, he is a noble beast –a beast with the capability of thinking and processing information. With reasoning we are able to learn much, and are rendered able to achieve many new things. It is likewise with the Christian, with reason we grow in faith, we grow in Christ –for one can argue that God is the epitome of reason and therefore those who are partakers of his nature MUST be reasonable creatures. Yet reason is merely a tool, like any tool it must be used, or it will serve no purpose. One may have a hammer, but if it's not used then it is useless. Immanuel Kant speaking of such faculty states the following, “Reason itself does not work instinctively, but requires trial, practice and instruction,” Reason then needs to be sharpened, much like a blade needs to be sharpened or else it loses its function. Thus, rotatory sermons allow just that to be, it causes churchgoers to simply become dull in the matters of God, they sharpen not the mind –which is contra naturam to the being of the human. In learning there needs to be collation, where one contends with an information in the mind and reason with it, yet how can that be? One is not able to reason with a single information but rather requires novel information. If one believes that 2+2 =5 then constant repetition of such leads to nothing of novelty, yet when he is introduced to the possibility that 2+2= 4, he then contends, for he pits these two knowledge together; from there he finds evidence to prove one or the other. It is either/or; either he collates (which happens when he encounters new information) or he does not (when he does not encounter). Rotatorism leads to a lack of collation(for such is needed to improve reason), there is no new information that the listener is able to think about, no new knowledge that he must contend with. This is all contrary to what God wants, the very same God that calls for us to reason with him, us lowly beings being called to reason with he who is the embodiment of reason. Reasoning is sharpened by being tested and there needs a friction present. It's like a muscle, without exercising it one is rendered immobile and weak, incapable of doing certain things. Likewise with this faculty of ours, which I must say is key to surviving. Drawing from an earlier concept, finite knowledge, such allows the believer to dull his reasoning ability, for what does he think about? What information does he go home to ponder about? Rotatorism gives him information that he already knows, information that does nothing but corrupts his mind, not because they are information but rather because it is all that he hears –it is all that is hammered into his mind.

If man is governed by reason, then rotatorism (or rotatory sermons), it can be argued, causes the de-evolution of man. Jean Jacques Rousseau himself noticed that “the beast chooses and rejects by instinct,” such means that in the case of a cat it would rather die than nourish himself with fruits and vegetables –for instincts govern it, and his instincts state that such doing would not satisfy his hunger. Likewise in man (or rather on the contrary) we are governed by instinct, yet it is controlled (partly) by reason. If a man is starving, almost to the point of death, though he craves a plate of rice and poultry, if he finds before him fruits and vegetables he will gladly nourish himself. For he realizes that the key is in having a filled stomach, or satisfying his hunger. Thus, spiritually, rotatory sermons cause us to be like the cat. We are not taught things that can nourish us, information that helps us defend the faith –for it perhaps seems unnecessary or rather does not “satiate” the mind of the Christian. Thus, we degrade the human faculty of reasoning, given to us by none other than God–we forcefully starve ourselves, leading to eventual death. In the case of the man, when one is taught a certain thing and solely such, he may live for 80 years, yet overtime he devolves, becoming a shell—simply a vessel for dogmatic beliefs. In such a case, he ceases to be human.

Argument from the nature of God

God is the supreme being, and in such cases, it is necessary for him to have certain qualities; qualities that he must have, or he simply is not God. Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence are simply traits that simplify one thing: God being infinite. In the case of omnipotence his power is limitless, thus, he is capable of creating a certain thing out of nothing, and from that thing brings about many different things. Though, I personally hold to the view that God is not omnipotent, but rather metapotent; for I believe omnipotent refers to God able to do that which he could do in a given universe. For example, questions such as ‘can God create a rock that he cannot lift” limit his omnipotence—besides, omnipotence simply states that a being is above their creation and are able to manipulate as they see fit that creation, within its laws. Yet, in metapotence God is able to do whatever he so wishes, however paradoxical and bizarre it may seem. In the case of omniscience, he knows all; all that is and isn't as well as all that could and couldn't be, in God he knows all possibilities that could ever be, including a possibility where I were to be born during the time of Caesar. In the case of Omnipresence, he is capable of being everywhere at once, for he is above creation–and yet, also within his creation, rather not because he is limited, but because by nature of being omnipresent he must be everywhere; even in the realm of ‘nothingness’, that realm that we imagine as nothing, God is in fact there.

Thus, with God being infinite it also means that when we don't seek to know more of him, his qualities or physical manifestation of his intellect, we limit him to the highest degree. If we truly are created in his image, then our very nature has to be geared towards knowing, for God always knows –and of knowing it entails knowing God, for naturally that is what the man seeks to do. On the infinite nature of God, why focus on one part of him when he calls on us to know him fully (though we will never know him because he is eternal, which is the beauty of God). If God then being infinite, with man’s reasoning abilities (as stated above) being likewise, and knowledge itself being infinite (because if knowledge were not infinite neither God nor reasoning would be) then why do we limit what can be known about an eternal being. Rotatorism leads to a drop in curiosity because our reasoning is thus dull, and our drive to learn decreases because, without curiosity one is incapable of learning. So, our God infinite and mighty, is now finite and obsolete, our God being marvelous and strange-fascinating, is now nothing to marvel at, common. Hence, we do not really truly believe in God with all of our mind, because the mind is a place where the man gains knowledge, constantly at that. How then do we gain more knowledge about he who we see as finite, about he who we limit? We can't find beauty in God’s words (physical manifestation of his intellect) when a sermon is the same, day in and day out. Rotatory sermons focusing on a certain aspect of God does nothing to help us know God more. If anything it causes us to know God less for we limit him, in such, creating a new God; one that is finite, for any limited thing is FINITE. Woe to those Churches who hold such knowledge from their believers. Complain as you wish, but the Church is held responsible for the souls lost, those who the argument of this world conquers.

On The Imminent Return of Christ

Since the inception of Christianity, there is a notion that Christ is soon to come–such is the mark of Christianity, the coming of the Prince of Peace. If that is such, why must we hammer such thought into the minds of believers, who I must say are fully conscious of the matter that Christ is soon to come? Some would argue as Peter did, “Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:3-4) in response to me and may go far to call me a mocker and blasphemer, amongst other pejoratives. However, I'm in no way denying the return of the Lord, nor do I doubt. However, it fills me with burning anger when a church inserts such things into the mind of the believers weekly. One can argue that rotatory sermons (or rotatorism) deter many from the way. With its nature of lacking novelty and being dogmatic, many simply believe the Lord is coming because that is all they hear. Yet if posed the question of how they know for sure, it would be rather difficult for them to give a real-concrete answer. Much less a convincing one. Such sermons deal only with one aspect of Christ, solely his return, yet I ask again, what else is there of this eternal savior? Because, if we believe him to be eternal then why do we limit what can be known about him? What of Jesus? Who is this person that is soon to return?

Overtime because of a lack of learning about this savior, there awaits a scary fate, believers lose interest in this Christ and with that a grim possibility presents itself, the coming of Christ has no effect on the believer; since there is no concrete evidence as to why they believe, it was merely pummeled into the mind. Hence, one can say, doubters are a product of our very own action, or dare I say inaction. These doubters are a product of the Church constantly feeding the same type of food, which over time is not nutritious due to it not being diversified. When we are full, do we not stop eating? Likewise, drawing back on Christ’s infinite character, why must we force feed believers a portion of Christ weekly? What more can be digested about this Christ that we have not known before. If man's reasoning ability is infinite, why do we limit it and make it finite? Infinite in nature it may be, but if constrained and contained in a box, we can't continue to be. We then feel frustrated because this faculty of ours is not exercised, we then become angry because we are bound in chains, we then hunger because we are not fed, and it is in this hunger (Or state of hunger) that many leave the Church for novel knowledge, seeking places that expand the mind, and fill it with overtly good, yet inertly corruptible things. In such, we ourselves, to reiterate, produce mockers and doubters of the faith. Many will doubt Christ (that is natural) yet we are to be held responsible for many who doubt, because it is on account of our inaction that they act as they do. Hence the Christian Church breeds doubters, both within and without.

The rotatory sermon of the imminent return renders the believer lost and incapable of wants, leading them to, in some cases, be stagnant in their overall being. This is supported by a mindset of gloom, and a dark-cloudy understanding of the present life and all it entails. The believer questions the meaning of life, since what then is the point of living if Christ is set to return at any moment? Immanuel Kant in speaking on the natural drive or goal of man imposed by nature states that "He (The Man) should work himself upward, so as to make himself, through his own actions, worthy of life and well-being." This stagnant idle waiting for the savior contradicts nature's (God given) desire for us to make life worthy of living. He who forms us wants us to live a life of purpose and accomplishment. At the end of a human life, we look back on life and judge it as successful if and only if we have accomplished certain goals, as well as if we left a legacy behind, something independent of us. There are felicities of life, of which many are God given, therefore we should chase and seek them out. The believer is (when compared to the world) able to enjoy the felicities of this life to the fullest extent, since we chase natural felicities and from them, we find true joy, as well as being given joy from God. The believer does not need to follow the world in drinking alcohol, and partying. On the other hand, the believer does not have to be a philosopher, nor a poet to enjoy the said felicities, since each is an individual, with God given inclinations and desire to certain things. To one it may be studying nature, to another studying the self, to another cooking, another writing, another content creating and another weightlifting. The Christian by all means should indulge in the felicities of this life, so long as they don't harm the self and degrade the character, so long they don't make it a god, so long they are fully conscious of who they owe both felicity and drive of such to, and so long as they burn with hope for the life to be.

Rotatory sermons of the second coming can cause many to not identify with the world, as in humanity; we separate ourselves and act mighty. This fuels our intolerance for the world, building hatred towards them. We are called to love the world, all sinners. That does not mean we congregate with them in evildoing, nor do we accept and partake in their debauchery, but we are to recognize that there is virtually no difference between us and them. They are as we are, feeble, broken, and all human. All in need of love and a guiding light, because if not us then who? Our religion is special because in it we are taught to love all, even those we hate, even those who loathe us. We must have a mind set on Christ and a heart opened to our fellow men. The minute we don't identify with those in the world, there is a drop in altruism and love, we then violate God’s law of being in service to others, which is the essence of life itself, a natural law.

Is it entirely injurious to speak of the imminent return of Christ? No, it is not, it is meant to encourage the believer and solely the believer. When we use it to admonish non-believers it can be harmful. How can we admonish those who know not of this person? To them it would be like saying "The spaghetti monster is coming." You can't really fear something that you have convinced yourself is not real. Can one be afraid of Freddy Krueger? a fictitious character? For the believer it is another thing, since we believe in Christ, we can then encourage each other to persevere for the coming City of God. The imminent arrival of Christ is something that should inspire us to work. Yes, he comes, but we work as if he will come in a millennium, we dream as if he's already come and we love as if we are already in the kingdom. In the church, there should be no reason as to why we preach a sermon of imminent return to a congregation that is fully aware of such return, rather a weekly sermon on the imminent return of Christ.

The imminent return of Christ should boost the morale of the believer. There is joy in being in the midst of like-minded people, joy in longing together for a hope to be, there is ever present, a passion, a peace, and with such a contagious disease, laughter and calmness of heart. The benefits thus can't be ignored, the believer joys together and in such fulfills God's law of loving the neighbor as the self. In this joy and hope, this constant contentment, the believer is then a light to the world. It is said that a nice smile brightens up a room, the smile of the believer thus (we can confidently say) lights up the world. In the sense of, no matter how destroyed, broken, lost and disassociated they may be (the world), they (on account of the believer) are made unaware of their state or current situation. They then gravitate towards the believer. The world is in need of joy, and it is joy that springs forth from hope, from the hope of the believer, which stems from Christ. In such the world does not marvel at the believer, but marvel at none other than God, and is slowly gravitated to him. We (Christians) are the imitators of Christ, and they (the world) imitators of us which inevitably leads them to imitating Christ.