Conceptual Antecedents
Part I - Absolute Existence

"There is no spoon."
-The Matrix

THESIS:  If anything exists absolutely [i.e. truly] in a finite state, it must have created by something that exists absolutely in an infinite state.

As I define it, a conceptual antecedent is a concrete or abstract, living or nonliving entity that exists absolutely.  It cannot be given a label such as a noun or pronoun, but rather a conceptual antecedent is the actual object or concept referred to by a noun or pronoun.  Anything that truly is is an example of a conceptual antecedent.

To understand this, it is imperative to think of everything as existent separate from its label.  For example, you are presumably currently reading from a screen.  However, it is only a "screen" because you call it that.  It is not actually a screen; it just is what it is no matter what you or anyone else calls it.  Outside of terminology, what it actually is is its conceptual antecedent.

Conceptual antecedents are not limited to perspectives or perceptions.  Let's take one of my hobby quandaries:  the existence of the planet Nibiru; personally, I doubt it, but I'm no expert.  However, let's look at this both ways:
1)  Nibiru does exist.  No matter how absurd the whole concept may sound, this "planet X" is out there.  You can deny it till you're blue in the face because you think it's all sci-fi fantasies, and you've never seen it nor perceived enough cogent evidence of its existence.  It still is despite your denial and ignorance.  Nibiru has a conceptual antecedent.  It absolutely is.
2)  Nibiru does not exist.  Apparently, Zechariah Sitchin is a total crackpot, and he has fabricated an amazing set of "facts" to make his case.  Even if his evidence leads people to believe in and indeed to perceive the existence of Nibiru, it is just NOT there regardless of opinion and perception.  Nibiru has no conceptual antecedent.  It absolutely is not.

Perception is reality; truth is not perception, but if you believe it, you can perceive it.  If remembered, dreams are perceptions that presumably do not absolutely exist, yet dreams can evoke/conjure/create perceptions from all five senses.  Even when they are wild and wacky, they can seem to be as real as waking existence.  Ask anyone who's ever suffered from chronic night terrors and been afraid to fall asleep if that is true.  Yet, dreams of your dog Sandy who died when you were 11 only bring back the reality of "Sandy."  The conceptual antecedent of Sandy is truly no more.

So then, how different is it to perceive existence in a dream state and a waking state?  Hardly any different at all.  It may sound ridiculous to posit this, but waking perception and dream perception are both neurological functions, so neither state can accurately predict what is truly existent.  To believe in conceptual antecedents is therefore an act of faith.  Therefore, to believe anything outside of your own conceptual antecedent [that is yourself] truly is is an act of faith.  However, if you have your own CA, there is precedent for other absolute existence beyond yourself.

Ergo, existence/nonexistence cannot definitively be adjudicated based on any quantitative perceptions or observations.  A conceptual antecedent cannot be proven nor disproven nor labeled, but if a CA does exist, it exists absolutely.

Part II will detail the differences and inexorable connections between finite and infinite conceptual antecedents.

The Demise of "Christianity"
part 2 - The rise of non-demoninational churches

This is another attempt to wake up Christians to the reality of what the church has become.  Mistakes can't be fixed before they're admitted to.  This comes as a reaction to a Feb. 25th AP article that says some things I've been saying for awhile:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

The points I will focus most are these: 
1)  "While much of the study confirms earlier findings -- mainline Protestant churches are in decline, non-denominational churches are gaining [...]"

and

2)  "The religious demographic benefiting the most from this religious churn is those who claim no religious affiliation. People moving into that category outnumber those moving out of it by a three-to-one margin."

I believe these two are symptoms of the same overall problem with the church.  As the social pendulum swings back towards the liberal side of the spectrum, the church is faced with how to handle the social trend known as "tolerance."  Though, it is my belief and has been my observation that "tolerance" is in truth hugely intolerant, that's for another discussion.  Be that as it may, church history, being what it is, is an antithesis of the current social model of "tolerance," so the church at large faces a conundrum.  How can it survive and retain relevance?

To answer this, the church so far has created a covert war on terminology.  As I detailed in my original article, the terms "religion" and even "Christian" have been or are being demonized by the church, rather than taking action to fix the socially constructed connotational problems.  The AP article shows that the terminology war has gotten worse.

There are three general reactions to realizing one's carrying of a religious terminological stigma:  1) Keep the term anyway; 2) change the term to something less stigmatic; 3) drop the term completely.  The first reaction is found by those who identify themselves the most strongly by their religious affiliations and probably won't even admit that there is a contemporary problem with the term, i.e. the older generations.  The second reaction is VERY common now, and it has given rise to the "non-denominational" churches.  The third reaction lead to the increase of church-bred atheists and agnostics.  As the article demonstrates, few still take the first, many take the second, and even more take the third.  How can the church preach evangelism when it doesn't really edify its own people?

Non-denominational churches are just a terminological reaction to denominational stigmas.  When in reality, people tend to be ignorant of what denominations are defined by what doctrines anyways (including their own, if applicable), non-denoms offer a more feel-good, anti-doctrine, pop-culture friendly approach.  I call this "disorganized religion."  In a postmodern society that is much more touchy-feely, the non-denom church is the patron savior of church relevance.

Currently, it is not socially acceptable for young people (who are the future of the church) to stand for anything that might step on the toes of "tolerance."  "If it feels good, do it."  "Carpe diem."  "Live for the moment."  "Believe in what ever you want!"  We have a church for that, and it's on the rise.  Christianity continues its stupefying and oblivious decline into worldly shallowness.

I am a Christian, and I will not just sit silently and watch this happen.

"The religious demographic benefiting the most from this religious churn is those who claim no religious affiliation. People moving into that category outnumber those moving out of it by a three-to-one margin."

Self-righteousness has been the church's answer for centuries.  What does it say now?

The Reality of Stereotypes

If society really hated stereotypes as much as people want to believe it does, why do stereotypes still exist?  Racism is of the most notable examples of stereotypes.  Do you know anyone who likes it?  If no one likes it, why is it still around?  Why is it that in a society that is trending so heavily towards individualism that we still see and use stereotypes?

Could it be that stereotypes are not as baseless as people want to believe?  Stereotypes were not just dreamed up one day by someone who didn't like black people or by someone who wanted women to look pretty and be subservient to men (arbitrary examples).  Right or wrong, stereotypes are in place because they've been perpetuated through history.  They are part of subjective reality and are as culturally defined as language itself.

It's a really nice thought to think that everyone whom you meet will understand you as an individual rather than your race, religion, gender, or any of those other things that the society tells us not to discriminate against.  Unfortunately, there is no one currently walking the earth who can rightly claim to be omniscient, so to view someone as an individual requires getting to know one as an individual first.  Until attaining a more accurate (though never complete!) view of a person, certain assumptions are inevitably made based on things such as (but not limited to) physical characteristics, exhibited behaviors, spoken language, vernacular, gesticulations, setting and reason for meeting.

For example, I'm a Caucasian male from the South.  There are all kinds of stereotypes that go along with being those that I don't even need to mention.  Anyone who actually knows me can tell you I don't fall into most of them (though, I definitely still use Southern vernacular and LOVE SEC football!).  But should I be offended if it is suggested that I'm an inbred, backwards, uneducated, tractor-drivin' hillbilly who hates black people and views his wife as his own personal maker of children and supper?  "That's so stereotypical!"  But as one who spent the first eighteen years of his life in southeast Tennessee, how can I deny that there is some actual truth to that stereotype?  That stereotype is in place because there are plenty of people in the South that are like that!  I'm not one of them, but until someone knows that about me it is not unfair to assume I am.

Stereotypes operate like language.  They carry subjective definitions that are agreed upon by the perceptions of a mass consensus (albeit unscientific and informal).  Just like language perception is based on assuming that the perceiver perceives the same definition as determined by a cultural mass consensus.  Ergo, if you hear the term "Southerner," you think of certain things.  If you meet a Southerner, you think certain things based on his being a Southerner.

Why is that so wrong?

People make judgments on others based on things they don't actually know without even realizing it.

Let me restate that:

People take guesses about others based on things they don't actually know without even realizing it.

I just said the same thing twice, but I changed the words "make judgments on" to "take guesses about" because "judgments" has a more negative and callous culturally-defined connotation.  If "judgments" was an individual human being, and you shunned him because you thought he was too condemning, but you never really knew him personally, is that not "stereotyping"?  Hence, stereotyping is just like language.  It is mass assumptive definition.

It is as unavoidable as defining any term, and of itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with stereotyping.  Trouble only comes when one refuses to let individuals transcend stereotypes.  But inescapably, people start with a base-level assumption about others who exhibit particular traits.  That assumption comes from cultural consensus.

If one seeks to change a stereotype, then one should publicly create opposing causal relationships to the terminology.  For example, "I am a Southerner; therefore, I am well-educated and accepting of all races."  That statement may sound ridiculous because it is not a mass cultural consensus, but to change the stereotype, it would need to be.  Saying "I am a Southerner, and I am well-educated and accepting of all races," does nothing to change the perception of Southerners; it only serves to change the perception of me.

I personally don't believe people really want to get rid of stereotypes.  If they truly did, they would stop acting the part that society has given them.  If there were no stereotypes, there would be no specific communities of races or religions or anything.  There would be only a community of humans, and as much as lots of people think that would be utopian, it would actually be blandly boring to not be able to set yourself apart from others.  That would strip everyone of the right to be different.

That would take away grits from Southerners, clam chowder from New England, Guinness from Ireland, brats from Germany, salsa dancing from Latinos, tiki torches from Polynesia, didgeridoos from Australia, and of course, arrogance from trumpeters.  It would make me as Chinese as someone from China.  No, the destruction of cultural identification (and therefore stereotyping) is truly an unimaginable and undesirable thought.

And some would call that a utopian society?  There are no "Southerners" in utopia.  And no matter what you think of us, I'm proud to call myself a Southerner!