Conversion Theory

To the People and Missionaries
    It's not often that I speak of matters of faith, but this time there's a philosophical element to it: Why do people convert? I'm ignoring the cases of conversion for a spouse and social status as those are not true conversions. The conversion I'm referring to is the total conversion where one's life changes because he or she truly believes the faith. For this letter, I'll reference Christianity because that's what we have the most experience with, but also it's the crux of my theory.

    The first part of my theory is that people convert to a religion they see as more Christian. Consider what Jesus said to be the two greatest commandments. The first is "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." The second was "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:28-31). These practices are what people are looking for when searching for faith. You must have both.
    The interesting thing is that some faiths try to make themselves "open" by relaxing some of their practices. The result is that doing this does not attract people for the long run. In fact, it only causes more people to leave as it goes against that first commandment, which is what people are searching for when examining religions. After all, what's the point of a faith if there is none? The purpose of religion is to "give to God what belongs to God." If people see that this is not being carried out, then they see there is no real faith. At this point, these religions care more about money or influence than about a God they heard about. When groups of Christians find things they don't consider Christian, they will split and create their own denomination. To be honest, I consider each denomination to be a different religion, just as Judaism and Islam are different but believe in the same God and some of the same scriptures.
    Let me give you an analogy. Imagine there's a bird club. The participation is high and members are very active and excited. However, at some point the management decides it needs to attract new members so it decides to open up the club to dogs as well. After the initial jump in membership ends, management decides to open it up to mice. Next are fish, and eventually cats. Eventually the club is so open that birds are very rarely talked about. The bird club only exists in name. When people come to the bird club, they are seeking to share their love of birds and learn more about them, but these people see mostly cat lovers and dog lovers. "This isn't a real bird club. If I want to talk to dog lovers, I can go anywhere in the world to find them. There's no need for a club," the onlookers observe and leave.
    This is what happens to religions that relax their practices for the sake of attracting people. It doesn't work. It may attract attention of the world, but at that point, it's just a hollow institution with nothing to offer, but it will still ask for money. People should be nice to each other all the time, but people also want a place to actually praise and learn about God. That's what Religion is for.

    Consider this famous verse from Revelation 3:16. Here, God says, "So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of my mouth." To remove the practices of a faith in order to attract people is to become lukewarm. The idea is that if the people of the world are to be considered lukewarm, we need to be lukewarm as well in order to attract them. However, the people who are lukewarm want to feel cold or hot and so are looking for religions that are so. I'm not sure what the proper interpretation of this should be, but here's an idea I have. To be hot means to be energetic, singing, dancing, and praising God. To be cold means to be quiet, listening, and meditating on God. If you are lukewarm, then you are doing neither of them.
    I've observed how the youth appear apathetic in daily life but become very passionate at conferences. Why is this? The word lukewarm means to be apathetic, unenthusiastic, indifferent, etc. However, these conferences tend to be "hot" with passion and excitement. These same youths say that they "felt God's presence." However, once they return to the lukewarm society, they no longer care. If church is lukewarm as well, that explains why they leave. They want that "heat" from their church, because Heat causes the lukewarm to become hot. Likewise, a place that can encourage contemplation and prayer, such as a quiet church building, can make the lukewarm cool.
    This is how people know there is no faith in a particular church. The church is supposed to change people for the better apart from the world's evils, but instead they become part of the world's evils. Religion is supposed to counter the evils of the world. This is why "Christians" may convert to religions like Islam. They see a counter-cultural movement that condemns the evils they see. They see people willingly perform sacrifices. Many Catholics in first-world countries these days say it's so difficult to not eat meat on a Friday while Muslims go a month without food and water during the day. I found this out because I went to a theme park with a Muslim and he wouldn't even drink water during the hot day, but he did not complain one bit.

    When people say why they converted to a religion, they tend to say things like: I saw their faith; they really love God; they are so passionate. These things fall under the first commandment. Other things you may hear from converts are the following: They accepted me; I belong here; I'm welcomed. These things follow the second commandment. People are searching for these things. In fact, my boss one day told me his praise for the Roman Catholic faith despite not being one. He told me that he admired that they had not changed their core beliefs despite all of the pressure of the world. That's amazing because so many other Christian denominations alter their core beliefs so much throughout history. I would add that the constant service to society (everything that we take for granted now such as hospitals, schools, homeless shelters, orphanages, and advocating justice) is also something to be admired and why we can condemn those who murder "in God's name." Perhaps this is the key to finding a real religion. A real religion serves God and Man, but the service of Man is to convert him to Goodness and Love of God, not convert God to the evils of Man.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

Second Root of the Gay Marriage Debate

To All Sides,

    After debating with a few people, I've come to realize that there is another root to the homosexual debate. Before, I addressed one root is how someone views sex. This is still true, but there is also another one that is equally important. This root is the underlying mentality to "follow your heart."

    This idea is actually quite controversial. Even though it appears often in movies, stories, graduation ceremonies, etc., people are divided on the idea. This in turn can impact their views on gay sex (being gay is not evil in my opinion and also not important to the logical root of the debate). When I see people saying that people are "born gay," I see that they are arguing for the ideal of "following your heart is right." When people are claiming it doesn't matter how one is born, they are arguing against "following your heart is right." Which side is right? Perhaps we should investigate how both sides are propagated.

    As hinted above, culture is the one promoting the idea of "following your heart." When we see people using this idea to determine a course of action, they are the heroes and it's always right. When celebrities speak of their success, they say the same thing. Movies often promote the idea "If you you work hard, your passion will see you through against all odds." It actually sounds a lot like faith. It gives us hope and when are depressed, we want something we can hope for. Also, we tend to think of ourselves as the heroes and as good people. I believe the nature of man is good because the perfection of man is to love. In addition, we want to do what we believe in. Lastly, we don't like being wrong. If we say that we did what our heart told us to do, then we feel like that is a good excuse because we are the valid authority of saying what our hearts told us to do. So who are likely to abide by this opinion? Proponents of gay sex, artists, youth, culture, and businesses. The last two I'll explain later.

    In opposition, these people hold that "following your heart" is not a good determinant of morality. They are more likely to adhere to religious morality or the morality I proposed before about love. Now it is understandable that proponents of "following your heart" believe the one about love to be the same as their idea, and it can be. As mentioned before, we like to think of ourselves as the heroes and naturally good. It's not exactly false, but not exactly true either according to the other side. These people see that following your heart can drive to both good and evil. 

    Culture tends to promote only the heroes as following their heart, not the villains. However, the villains are doing that. Extremists and the mob are following their heart when they commit crimes. So if your heart is ordered towards love, you might go that way. However, if it's ordered towards selfishness, it's going to go toward evil. An apt analogy is fire, as passion is often described as. If controlled, it's beautiful and beneficial. It can light dark caves, cook food, fight wild beasts, generate energy, send messages, keep us warm, save our lives, etc. However, when fire is uncontrolled, you cannot do any of those things. Instead it burns like a wildfire where death is the result. That's why people say you need to guide your heart with reason and discipline.

    People on this side also see that passion is not enough to get you anywhere. I can be passionate about tennis, but without well-functioning arms, I cannot play well. Also, if I do follow my passion, I might actually waste my talents and potential. I saw a good summary of this view in a video by Mike Rowe. 

Now your purpose in life may very well be your dream. Dreams are good as they give us hope and direction in life, but I've noticed something about a dream. It can not only make you always dissatisfied by being something impossible to obtain, it can distract you from recognizing what is good in front of you. You might have a dream to marry a certain celebrity, but if you are always comparing your date with that celebrity, you're never going to develop a real bond. 

    Another example is that I used to dream of a fantasy girl who was perfectly beautiful in my opinion. Hair color, height, hair style, etc. were all determined. I found one girl who pretty much fit the description almost too perfectly. That did not work well. However, I happened to get introduced to this other girl who definitely did not fit any of the criteria except in that she was a girl my age. What I realized was that this was the girl perfect for me, and she became my wife. My love has only grown for her as time has gone on. So dreams are those hopeful goals to help us through life and develop ourselves until we find something that is truly good. Some people don't have dreams and they are content. They are happy and enjoying life. When you are satisfied, you really don't desire anything more for yourself.

    So who will hold this opinion? I assume Mike Rowe based off his video. Also religious groups that claim man is imperfect. In addition, people who believe that just following your heart will only increase your selfishness, not help your ability to love. It's not a question about whether man is good or evil, but rather that man is corrupted and can become evil if left unguided. Whether it's nature or nurture, it does not matter initially. By the time people can make choices, they are either on the selfish side of things, or loving side of things. However, whatever people are exposed to the most will impact their views. So if they exposed to selfishness a lot, they might adopt that mentality. Kids tend to imitate what they see from both parents and culture, especially the media.

    So why will culture and businesses promote following your heart? Because it's an easy sell. Not only does it sound nice, it sets the stage to sell you stuff, including things you don't need. Since it can promote selfishness, the culture of selfishness loves it. It also knows it can create "needs" and therefore force you to buy into them. Also, if you make people feel good about themselves, they tend to do business with you. Therefore, I argue it's manipulation.

    Every man has negative inclinations and we cannot let them control us. This is why people oppose the idea of following your heart. Consider what it means to follow your heart. It essentially means let your passions control you. This also means that whatever you are inclined to do is okay. So if you want something then it's okay to take it such as love (in the case of adultery), money (theft), and objects (theft). This chain of logic eventually means that greed is okay, lust is okay, envy is okay, and many other desires which increase selfishness. However, this means this is opposed to the key of morality I have mentioned before as this can hinder your ability to love. It's also not good for society at all.

    The idea of following your heart probably had a good intention. It probably had faith that the people who would act on it were the people who are inclined to do good. However, it can also result in uncontrolled and misguided hatred. Every fallen hero becomes a villain because of this philosophy. They followed their passion and got disappointed. But since they were following a passion, they weren't improving their ability to love. Passion is good, but only when controlled to increase your love. In other words, your love should not be defined by your passion, but your passion should be defined by your love.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

P. S. I didn't link to the first post above because I wanted people to read this one first. Now if you want to examine the idea of sex, you can click here. 

Condoms and Africa

To the Concerned over Africa,
    When I listen to people debating over the nature of contraception, there are a few words generally spoken by proponents of contraception with hatred. "The outbreak of AIDS in Africa is because of no access to condoms." Now I'm not an expert on AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, but I am under the impression the hatred is still in the wrong place. If my understanding is wrong, then please correct me.
    Here is what I have gathered about the nature of AIDS. It mutated from a monkey disease that somehow got transmitted to humans. Its origins are unknown and some people think it was from hunting and blood somehow infected humans. Another theory is that some guy actually tried having sex with an infected monkey, after all, it's an STD. However, it also gets transmitted through contact with contaminated blood or needle.
    This is what I found on the Aids.gov website on June 26, 2016

In the United States, HIV is spread mainly by:

• Having anal or vaginal sex with someone who has HIV without using a condom or taking medicines to prevent or treat HIV.
  • Anal sex is the highest-risk sexual behavior. For the HIV-negative partner, receptive anal sex (“bottoming”) is riskier than insertive anal sex (“topping”).
  • Vaginal sex is the second highest-risk sexual behavior.
• Sharing needles or syringes, rinse water, or other equipment (“works”) used to prepare injection drugs with someone who has HIV. HIV can live in a used needle up to 42 days depending on temperature and other factors."

So proponents of condoms argue that that condoms will prevent the transmission of the disease. That's most likely as true as that condoms guarantee no pregnancy. However, the issue here is that it treats the symptoms, not the disease. Also, it creates more problems.

If you recall how it's transferred, and how the condom debate is concerned, it's through sex. It's rapid spread is not because of people having sex though, it's people having sex with multiple people. If a person who had the disease had sex only with one person, and that person only had sex with that other person, it would not spread like it did. Now consider who is ultimately advocating condoms. They are the people who view that sex is for pleasure, and are using the negative consequences of that view to attack those who don't hold that opinion. That is unjust. Instead, those who see sex as a responsibility are trying to address the disease, not the symptom.

I mentioned there are other issues with the condom debate. One is that it does not limit sexual promiscuity, which is how the disease thrives. Two, those infected with AIDS are not going to use condoms when they want to have children. Three, condoms will cost the Africans so much money. If these people are in poverty, can they afford another necessity? Possibly four since I don't know much about the manufacturing process, the production of condoms in Africa would taint the little water supply they do have. 

Question: Does encouraging Sexual Promiscuity aid or inhibit your ability to love others?

You have to admit that the abundance in condoms only increase sexual promiscuity. However, since sexual promiscuity is the actual cause of the outbreak of HIV, they won't help in reality. The real help is to being sexually responsible. Of course, the culture today refuses that for a few reasons.

One is the sex industry worth a lot of money. By encouraging sex for pleasure, it allows businesses to operate prostitution, pornography, and make money off sex toys and contraception. Since it's worth money, they try to encourage promiscuity by creating a need that necessarily did not exist. Advocacy for responsible sex does not result in sexual crimes such as rape or cheating, but promoting sexual promiscuity does. This is because sex is no longer an act of true love, but of selfishness. The purpose of sex becomes to fulfill your passionate desires, not to increase your love for someone else.

The second reason why culture does not want to advocate sexual responsibility is because of contradiction. This is a reality. These people have accepted that sex is for pleasure and therefore do not wish to promote anything that is naturally opposed to the selfish desire. People want to do what they believe is right, but to oppose condoms would naturally condemn their opinion that sex is not supposed to be for pleasure, but instead that pleasure is a side-effect.

I hold that sex is a good thing, but it must be taken responsibly. If my wife is feeling sick, I must endure my passion and wait until she's feeling well again. This not only shows actual love toward my wife, but strengthens my spirit. If we have sex every day for pleasure, it's going to make it hard to stay faithful when we cannot do that. Therefore, the best thing to do is to advocate being responsible and oppose anything that threatens it.

To take another perspective, in an area that isn't sexually promiscuous, I don't need to worry about my wife being raped or seduced. That's a big deal and certainly an ideal. I hope this post certainly diminishes any hatred you might have for some people's opinions. We might consider them to be crazy, but they are actually thinking on a much deeper level. Also note that even if they fail to live up to the ideal, that does not mean the ideal is invalid.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

P. S. You can technically consider this a sequel to my previous post about identifying the root of the homosexual debate. There I described both sides and what they naturally mean, as well as list some concerns. Here I examine the consequences a bit more.

Now for those who are worried about getting HIV, I also found this picture on the same website.

To my understanding, as long as there is no blood contact or mixing, you are okay

Quick thoughts on Brexit

I do not know much about the situation with the UK leaving the EU and so I do not have an opinion if it's good or bad. But there are a few things to consider on the positive side of things. It should certainly impact the world.

1. Great time to invest in the Pound. I'm surprised the value of the pound dropped so soon especially since it'll probably be about 2 years before the UK leaves, if it even does. What will happen is now the EU will start negotiating with the UK, this puts the UK in a strong position as I'm sure the EU wants it to stay. If the UK does stay, then the value should go up quite a bit.
1. I'm thinking that either the market is panicking or that the EU is trying to use the market to change UK's mind, which is actually quite an evil tactic.
2. Sends a message about abuse of power. Again, I don't know much about the situation, but the feel I've gotten from reading things is the the EU has been burdening the UK without really listening to its concerns. This could impact how even Federal governments treat its member states.
3. The right to secede actually exists. That's huge. It was the foundation of the U.S. but it hasn't been very effective since then.

Those are the only things I can think of at the moment. It will certainly be interesting to watch and I don't have an opinion whether it is good or bad.

The Error in the Logic of Religious Extremists

To the Zealot and those talking with Zealots,
    The word zeal means "great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective." The problem is that this great energy often has people going to the extreme and that leads to problems. So while you can have an appropriate zeal for something good, the kind we hear about isn't always good. Today, I write to you on how to properly understand zeal in religion, as well as its proper practice.
    Religion's negative connotation in the world stems from the over-zealous behaviors of many people. However, when practiced properly, religion is a gift to the world and they stem from 2 important commandments.
    In the Judeo-Christian tradition, which I believe Islam has some respect for as well,  there are two key commandments that summarize the Law. The first is "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength (Deut. 6:5)." The second was "You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:28-31; Lev. 19:18)." Religious Zealots tend to try following the first, but ignore the second, which in turn breaks the first.
    Elsewhere in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God says, "I do not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn and change his way (Ezekiel 33:11)." If your god is Goodness and Love, this is easy to explain. In order for man to be perfect, he must grow in virtue. Since true love desires what is best for someone, Love naturally desires for a man to become perfect before he dies. Love wants everyone to love and be good, especially those who are wicked. However, if the wicked dies, then he is forever condemned to be wicked. Love would rather he live as long as possible, so that he may convert.  On the flip side, that means Evil itself is what delights in the death of the wicked. Therefore, killing for the sake of religion is wrong. It does not encourage True Love, which is the only way society can reach peace and harmony.

    So if your religion preaches to kill those it finds wicked, there is something wrong. If you believe in a god who is good and the author of life, he doesn't need you to do any of the killing. Instead, he would be actually capable of using the wicked to bring others closer to him. If your god is good, then he delights more in the wicked being able to convert than the wicked dying.

    Something else we must remember is that true conversion takes place in the heart as well as the brain. It cannot be forced by social pressure or the sword. Otherwise the result is someone who acts like a religious, but truly doesn't care. That means if you want someone to join your religion, you must convert his heart and mind, not his fears.

    Lastly, I must make a plea. Come to the Religion of True Love. Here, you will find peace and perfection. The world is certainly corrupt, but massive slaughters and violence will only create more corruption. In fact, it is not uncommon that those who order massive slaughters are actually the corrupt. Those who aren't corrupt are then lost. Honest Love for God entails Love for his creation as well.

N. D. Moharo

P.S. Whatever your religion may be, pray for me. ISIS will probably hate me for this post. At the same time, I hope this reaches to all members of ISIS

The Religion of True Love

Dearly Beloved,
    I have written to you many times about True Love and that it is the perfect Religion. I have shown that religion is often the scapegoat of politics and selfishness. I will also explain the error in the error of logic in the religious extremists, as well as why people convert in the future. So how is True Love the perfect Religion?
    When I'm talking about religion here, I'm meaning that I want for you to make True Love the most important thing in your life. We often have a habit of turning immaterial things into our idols, but they don't satisfy us. But True Love will satisfy and make us perfect, though it may take a while as selfish desires can be difficult to break.
    There are two important teachings of the Religion of True Love and they are the same two from the Judeo-Christian tradition. The first is "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength (Deut. 6:5)." When your god is True Love in its purity, shouldn't it be easy to love it? It's also easy to see that every sin is one that attacks love. It makes morality much easier to grasp again.
    The second teaching was "You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:28-31; Lev. 19:18)." However, that teaching is actually superseded and made perfect in "Love one another as I have loved you" from the Christian tradition. This might be hard to understand without background in what this meant so let me explain that to you.
    In the Christian mythology, the love of Jesus is that he willingly died for his friends and those who hated him. Even praying forgiveness for those who unjustly killed him. He's supposed to be God, but he humbled himself to die a tortuous death to show his love for everyone. I cannot find any love more perfect than that. I'm probably still at the level of "love your neighbor as yourself," but that's okay. It's a good starting point and I have the rest of my life to work towards that perfection.
    Is this perfection possible? Yes. Testimonies from many generations of peoples show that there are quite a few who reach this high level of love. You do not have to die in order to reach this level of love. But you do need to live in love. When everything you do is with true love in your heart, made greater through humility, then you've reached the highest a man can.

    Now belief in there being a god is an interesting thing. You first need to figure out the proper idea of what it means to be a god. After that, proving the existence or non-existence is almost impossible because we can doubt. However, Art, technology, and even video games show that the existence of a god is certainly reasonable while explaining why we might doubt. Of course, there are also the famous Five Proofs  that argue for the existence of a god. If anything, it is more reasonable that there is a god than there isn't. This is because you can never prove that there isn't a god, only that our concepts of god are wrong.
    Another point to consider is "who is telling you there is no god?" It is likely the corrupt world, because it knows the real belief in a good god is opposed to corruption. When your God is True Love, you will seek to become True Love itself as well. You will do everything you can to serve this Love and that can only result in us becoming better people. So even if this concept of god is a lie, it is the greatest and only lie worth believing in, because we become better people.
    Now if you are wondering which concept of god to believe in, I have two requirements. First is that the concept is logical and plausible. The second is that its nature is True Love in its purity. While the second technically does not have to be true, it's the one worth believing in. This is because it is plausible that our creator is a masochist, but that wouldn't make us better people. Also, if our creator truly was a masochist, by us being good, we'd actually be better than our creator, which is something we could be prideful for (and also happens to be the plot twist of a certain video game that got me thinking about this).
    You may wonder if I'm asking for you to convert to Christianity. The answer is I am asking Christians to convert as well as the rest of the world. Jesus preached a gospel about a God of True Love, but many Christians today have accepted a God of Selfishness. I want them to find the God who is both Truth and True Love, because Truth is only thing that is perfectly logical and True Love is the source of all goodness. That is a God worth believing in. And when you have a god that shows the best example of love possible, you cannot find anything better. When you accept this, it is the spark of a fire of love. This is the God who can inspire us to become perfect.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

Explaining both sides of the debate on gun control

To Society,
    The continued debate about gun control never seems to progress because both sides have valid concerns, but they are never addressed. The purpose of this letter is to identify these concerns so that we may be able to achieve progress.
    I encourage you to not think of these values as either conservative or liberal. These are values of people. There is some truth in all and there is stuff both sides need to do. I am only listing reasons I consider to have valid concerns inside. Reasons such as gangs want to use them to kill others are not valid.

In Opposition to "Gun Control"

• The biggest concern that I see is the lack of trust in the government. These people have a right to not trust the government because the news shows evidence of that all the time. Politicians lie quite often, they can be fickle, they are always bribed with money, and they live in the capitals, not the rest of the country. The police is always in the news for being corrupted, why let them be the only ones with guns?
• Even if you control the flow of guns within the country, if you don't secure the borders, then gangs from other countries will suddenly become too powerful. Again, people in capitals far from borders don't have this concern.
• Gun control will only limit access to people who are good. Those who want to commit a crime will always bypass the law
• Good people having guns deter gangs from attacking
• In Brazil has shown that when gun control is active, the gangs are better equipped than the police (is this true?).
• America is so independent focused that guns are needed to prevent violence. Japan is okay with gun control because they are more community focused.
• People need a right to defend themselves in order to be independent. The same applies to nations like said in Lawrence of Arabia
• News media even condemns police for using tasers
• People having guns helps deter the government from not attacking its own citizens. Therefore the right to bear arms is a check and balance on the government who can become corrupt very quickly like Nazi Germany
• People very opposed to gun control already consider America to be like Nazi Germany and therefore their guns are their only protection
• Mass shootings can be stopped by someone having a gun to stop the shooter.

For "Gun Control"

• Society has a right and obligation to defend its people, even from its own people.
• Rights of one person cannot invalidate another person's rights
• Society needs to prevent guns getting into the hands of sociopaths and those psychologically unstable
• Guns need to be kept away from children who have no training and therefore cause many tragic deaths
• Life is so sacred that even one death is tragic
• Purses are not acceptable places to hide a gun as they are easily stolen
• You cannot have both drinking and guns. 

I may not list as many on the Pro-gun control side, but they are equally balanced. Life is important and we need to let the government do its job in protecting everyone. At the same time, those against gun control have valid fears. The result is we need to impose some restrictions on guns, but not so that limits access to those who are good.

The Resolution and Compromise:

• Anyone who wants to have a gun must receive training. Not knowing how to use a gun is incredibly dangerous
• Anyone who wants to have a gun must go through some psychological examination. It is to solely focus on whether the person with a gun will only use it to defend, never attack. In this sense, even extreme patriotism can result in a negative.
• Therefore, those likely to have a strong hatred for anyone or group of people cannot have a gun.
• Anyone who even pretends to shoot someone they don't like, such as pointing a finger and saying "Bang!" to someone on the TV, should not have a gun.
• People who own guns must have a value for life and that death should always be a last resort in defense. 
• People who own guns must be subject to allowing local authorities to ensure they practice good safety standards. Examples include out of reach from children, not being loaded all the time, and safety on.
• If anyone is likely to become drunk, then he cannot have access to a gun. Japanese are able to get drunk often because they don't have to fear gun violence as well as because they use trains.
• Hand guns should be limited due to the increased security risks and ease of being stolen. Rifles, due to their heavy nature, are less likely to be stolen. Hand guns are also considered easy to use, which leads to a false sense of security
• The police are to have the same psychology exams and the same restrictions. The only exception is the handgun limitation because they can be secured to a person.
• News media should also focus on cops being good to show that most are actually pretty good people. This is to help alleviate the fear of the government
• traffic cops should probably not have guns unless dispatched to a hostile situation.
• Politicians must not accept any bribes or funding when discussing the bill.
• Politicians must keep the Bill in a state that completely covers both sides of concerns I listed. Any other compromise is evil. The point is to promote love and not allow hatred to grow.
• Guns cannot be allowed in any place where people will be drinking alcohol. Guns and Alcohol do not mix well
• If an establishment serves alcohol, then it must have a gun storage system. Guns cannot be returned to people who are drunk
• Everyone needs to know and agree to the Universal Moral Law. Otherwise we cannot trust them to handle a weapon
• People must learn to control their anger. Those who become angry too quickly cannot be trusted to reason and act in good faith.
• Gun stores cannot have their guns easily accessible
• Gun shops cannot sell ammunition at the same time as a gun
• Gun Shop owners need to pass a good exam as well to have a license to sell guns and regularly inspected. We cannot have gun shop owners who will bypass the laws for profit or other reasons
• Gun shop owners cannot sell a gun to someone until they show a valid license.
• Gun owners must register to a database which can help track if their licenses are valid or not to purchase guns.

Guns need to be controlled for the safety of the people, but also in a manner that respects the rights of people. These compromises I propose are reasonable because it requires those with dangerous weapons to be responsible and mature. This means if they hold their fears, they are valid fears and not excuses.

N. D. Moharo

P.S. My solution isn't going to be perfect and you can certainly argue for some points. However, there are certainly reasons behind each item I listed. Everything is how I believe we can secure both the rights of our citizens and our people.

The Speed of Outrage

My Passionate Child,

               I write to you to be careful about the speed of your anger. Even in the world today, people get outraged scarily fast. I can send out a message of less than 140 characters and the whole internet can be in an uproar. This is not the way of perfection.

              Consider those 140 characters. They can state an opinion, but not the context nor explanation. In fact, the outrage sometimes spreads even faster than someone can properly explain it. This means immediate outrage might seem justified from the context you infer, but it may not be true.

               Getting angry quickly is a horrible vice. It is how a mob gets created and various crimes get started. While it is right to be angry about some things, it should always be under control. Sometimes action is necessary, but you need all of the facts and still be rational. When you get incredibly angry, you cannot be rational. This means you cannot properly adhere to the universal code of morality, which centers on perfect love. Instead, we are focused solely on our emotion, and we breed it.

               When you are angry, you are hurt. If you allow that to control your mind, then you will only cause pain. You might think that following your heart is a good thing, but that’s how you become an extremist where the result is death to others. You might consider causing pain to be justified because you feel pain, but that’s not good for anyone. In fact, it can only spread it because then they will feel pain and then create more. Since pain is relative, you cannot distribute the just amount. Instead justice requires patience and forgiveness. That is how bullying can be stopped. That is how relationships can be saved.

               There are many ways you can destroy a relationship and one of those is uncontrolled passion. I can relate how when I was dating, how often that speed of outrage threatened it from both sides. I can recall how I was sick one time and she thought I had no love because I didn’t offer to help with washing the dishes. Not only was it a misunderstanding, it was a dangerous overreaction. Not only was my sickness ignored, but so were all of the acts of love that I had showed her already. Anger focuses on a very specific slice of a moment and then tries to find fuel to burn from the past. Fire is a very apt description of anger. When it’s controlled, it’s great, but uncontrolled is terrifying and deadly. The result is that you need the lifegiving water of love to stop it. Anger leads to Hatred and both are the result of selfishness. That is why true love is the cure.

               I used to have trouble with my anger as well. I got it under control by focusing on becoming sad instead of angry. However, that isn’t enough. You also need to distract yourself until the passion is gone. You need willpower to stay patient until you can find an opportunity to get a proper explanation. To help, recall your love for the person and use it to bestow the benefit of the doubt. Once you have a chance for an explanation, actually ask if your interpretation is correct and then listen to their explanation. Whether your impression was correct or not, the explanation might show that your anger is unjustified. Even if they were wrong, then you should act with love and politely explain why they are wrong. To do this, recall my words about open minds and explain where in the logic he made a mistake. When you do all of this, not only will your ability to love grow, but you will also be a good model to show you are above the influence of the mob mentality.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

P. S. Again, hatred breeds more hatred. Recently there was a story about a man who was abused at work. The result is that he went out and shot many people. Unless we counter hatred with love, this will happen again and again. Since hatred focuses on your emotions, it breeds selfishness and opposes love. But when love is shown, it can extinguish the flames of anger. However, sometimes like a uncontrollable wildfire, even love cannot stop it. Instead, time and isolation is needed to allow the passion to die down. Then the waters of love can allow the forests of our hearts to flourish again.

The Universal Moral Code Philosophically Proven

To the philosopher and society,

               I have made a philosophical claim that the key to understanding morality is if some act helps you love others. If it helps grow your ability to love, then it is good. If it instead grows your selfishness, then it is evil. You probably see that this is true, it is the duty of philosophy to explain why.

               It is very important to be able to set a moral code when dealing with philosophy, especially when discussing ethics or religion. This is because a moral code can help you debunk or prove something to be good. In the case of religion, someone argued that if you cannot prove something is true 100%, you have a moral obligation to not believe it, especially religion. His argument is that you are responsible for all of the negative effects of your belief. My counter claim is that if you cannot disprove something 100% and see the positives outweigh the negatives, you have a moral obligation to choose it. Which is correct? Both actually when you examine the moral code.

               As you can see, both sides refer to a moral obligation, but they have yet to define what that is. Generally, people turn to religion to provide this code, but since religion is in doubt, it cannot be used. True morality must exist outside of religion. That means if a religion is true, it must abide by this moral code. The amazing thing is that once we establish what the moral code is, we can see the two arguments are not mutually exclusive, but complementary.

               When the other person was talking about negatives, he was referring to something that negatively impacts others, such as mass murder by some religions. It would then be the duty of that religion to prove it wasn't murder, otherwise it is false. My claim about the obligation to choose something positive is that it positively impacts you and others. However, if there are negatives, then the positives must outweigh the negatives while still abiding by the moral code.

               The problem with the other man’s argument when it lacks my addition is that it ignores a few facts of life. Almost everything you do and believe in requires some faith. We cannot know many things 100%. If we followed that chain of logic by itself, we would never take medicine. That is because there is almost never a 100% that the medicine will work and there are always side effects, some of which can be worse than the disease it is treating. Factor in the placebo effect and most medication may only be effective 60% of the time at the highest. We just don’t know if something will be good for us or even work. However, we do weigh the risk and judge the medicine to be beneficial and so take it. Therefore it is an act of faith that we hope it will do as promised.

               We even have faith in science. We act on faith that not only are scientists right, but that did everything correctly. It’s far too common that scientists will toss out data that disagrees with their hypothesis. Even if it is done right, we occasionally see that our understanding of physics was wrong. Science is by far good, but the presence of contradictory studies show that we act on faith on whether to accept the findings or not.

              

               So you can see how when our morality is based on the good of self and others, also known as love, the two arguments I presented earlier actually fit nicely. Reject things that certainly negative for you and others, but take a chance with things that are positive for you and society. However, you probably want to see proof that this moral code is the absolute truth.

               There are actually many ways you can reach this conclusion. One way is that this code is what people instinctively call upon when making arguments like this. Whenever someone mentions a “moral obligation,” it’s almost always about what is good for someone else. The problem here is that we instinctively rely on it, without having defined it. This means that people tend to accept their moral code from others based off what sounds good. This is not the right way of doing it. It is a good guide, but we need to know why it is the moral code we depend on. We actually do have a moral obligation to learn that. When we don’t fully establish our moral code, then we play around with the rules and become inconsistent and cause suffering. To be fair, I would blame the confusion on our corrupted society that even promotes selfishness as if it is love.

               Now for the logic you have been waiting for. To show that Love is the key to morality, we need to show that the perfection of man is to love. If you believe in a certain religion, this is easy. However, that is only useful as a check to see if the religion is valid. Again, the moral code must exist apart from religion. In other words, religion must advocate it because it is true, not claim it’s true because it advocates it.

               The ultimate goal in life is to be happy. Happiness is the reason you want anything else. No one ever says why they want to be happy. In fact, some people will seek sadness in order to be happy. Happiness is the effect of perfection. There are no other needs or desires for one self. We seek happiness in many things like honor, riches, pleasure, but none will ever fulfill it completely except for giving love.

               That might be hard to understand if you have been mostly selfish. That is because selfishness cannot grasp True Love as they are complete opposites. Selfishness seeks self pleasure even at the expense of others, but True Love seeks what is good for others even at your own expense. Therefore, if you are selfish, you need to practice acts of love in order to diminish your selfishness before you can truly understand the joy from giving love.

               Even if we do not have the experience, we can see the effect of happiness in those who have had it. It is very common to hear stories about people who leave civilization to help poor countries. They claim that they were far happier then than any other moment of their life. Some people even completely abandon civilization in order to stay there. Their attempts to make a difference when stemming from love, makes them happy

               Another way of looking at the proof for love is that selfishness is the cause of misery. You are only miserable when you focus heavily on yourself. When you are loving, you may be sad, but that sadness actually does not diminish your happiness. You desire others to be happy as well, but your personal love tank is always full. It sounds weird and paradoxical, but that is the best I can explain it.

               The love tank is a clue for another proof. You may have noticed that when you receive love, you can become so elated that that you perform acts of love as well. Likewise, when you are deeply in love, almost nothing can bring down your joy. These provide hints that we are suppose to love.

               My last look is that society depends and thrives on love rather than selfishness. If two men are alone but are selfish, there is a small chance they may work together, but a guarantee one will probably kill the other. If they are loving instead, then it’s guaranteed they will work together and not kill each other.

               A man and a woman must sacrifice selfishness when having a child. Society depends on children in order to grow and flourish. Care for children also promotes virtues and us becoming better people. It was certainly common that even when an adult was doing something wrong, he may stop if he sees a child in order to be a good role model. Our heroes also happen to be that who perform acts of goodness, the greatest of heroes doing so with love and sacrifice. On the other hand, those who act without love are likely to be disillusioned and then become villains. Lastly, if everyone acted with love, we would have no fear of cops, war, divorce, injustice, homelessness, hunger, etc. Society depends on us sharing our talents with one another. Love is what makes a society great.

               One more small argument is this: Man is a social animal (Man depends and thrives through society). In order for society to be become perfect, one needs to love. Therefore man is meant to love.

               When you look at all of these arguments and more, you can see that since Love is Perfection, it is the perfect moral compass. Therefore the key to understanding if something is good is if it helps you grow in love. If it hinders instead by promoting selfishness, it is an evil. The beauty of this morality is that since human nature never changes, this morality never changes as well. It is perhaps one of the greatest anchors in life I can give you.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

Is Money the Root of All Evil?

To the Poor, Rich, and everyone in between,
    You have likely heard the phrase "money is the root of all evil." Is this true? Not of itself, but it certainly is the root of many evils. Money by its nature is good. It helps us haggle and make smooth transactions. We don't have to make too obscure contracts and complex trades for simple things. In truth, it grants power and that's where things can start going wrong.
    So money is not the real root of evil, but the love of money to the point that it becomes god is evil. Money is power, but power corrupts. Have a lot of money and you can have more corruption. The reason for this corruption is because of temptations. Temptations don't necessarily arise by what you can do, but what you think you can do. So the more power you think you have, the more evils you can think about doing. This is why people who inherit a lot of wealth suddenly have troubles. It takes a lot of virtue to be able to withstand the flood of temptations that comes with wealth.

    So that is one reason for the argument about money being evil. Another stems from a similar vein. When money is your god, you seek it by all means. You will murder, steal, and corrupt others for this gain. That spread of corruption multiplies and leads to suffering and death all around. Not only that, but you will enslave others for your own gain.

    How does money multiply corruption? It helps to recognize the true root of all evil, selfishness. Selfishness is essentially making yourself god, with the idea that everyone is to serve you. It manifests itself initially with internal conflict. By throwing your passions out of control, it promises to put it in balance, but actually makes it worse.
    So money spreads corruption by creating an imbalance of passions in everyone it can. It purposefully creates conflict in some way or another. It creates needs that didn't exist by making people selfish instead of loving. It does this through advertisements, entertainment, and societal chaos. Why does evil exist? Because it fights really hard to maintain its power. It tries to convince us that it is good, despite all of the harm it causes.

    Is there an antidote? Yes, and corruption knows about it and has tried to destroy it at all costs and by any method it can. True Love is the antidote and how society can become perfect. It's the True Religion I've advocated before. It is the perfection of all virtues and is strong enough to withstand corruption. This is how families and loved ones can not only grow, but thrive in a safe environment. It creates peace and and justice. Can you imagine the Middle East and Africa finally being at peace? True Love is the religion they need, not money. America may not be a religious nation, but the Founding Fathers did recognize that good virtues were beneficial to society. It is why we have hospitals, libraries, public schools, universities, orphanages, shelters, etc. These were advocated by those who had love for others. Let us take back control of our society and continue their legacy by practicing True Love.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

Concerning Humor

My Dearest Children,

               Laughter is a good medicine. There is nothing wrong with the ability to laugh and smile. Humor involves understanding how things are and how they were expected to be. For example, a joke I liked as a child was “What is in the middle of the world?” People may guess “the core” or “lava” or “earth” but the answer is “the letter R.” You may notice that many jokes are like this and play on the first instinct others may have. Humor is actually important as it can be a sign of wisdom. However, the development of your humor is important to take care of.

               There are quite a few forms of humor, and some are pretty bad. Americans in my day appeared to like extreme reactions, generally in combination with insults. They probably got this from the British who use “dry humor” to also insult others, but with subtle reactions instead. Either way, insulting another is never good humor as it diminishes your love and respect for someone else. On the other hand, there is “self-depreciating humor” and this is when someone is apparently insulting himself for others entertainment. This okay for a few reasons. First, the comedian is doing it willingly and is able to maintain his dignity. Second, the respect and love for the comedian actually increases. Third, it can be a sign of humility, which is possibly why our respect would grow.

               So there’s actually another reason why people may laugh or find something funny; others are laughing as well. This is why TV sitcoms use a laughtrack often. People have a tendency to laugh when others are laughing as well. This is partially how our humor is developed in the first place. If you can remember back far enough, you might recall saying the same joke over and over because maybe a family member laughed the first time, not because you understood the joke. Of course, this also means that sitcoms that use laughtracks even when people are insulting someone are partly why bullying is so profound. It is not uncommon to hear stories of a kid suddenly making an insult, sometimes not even realizing it is an insult, just because he heard it on TV and thought it was funny, most likely due to the laughtrack or others actually laughing during the scene.

               I hope you now understand why your mother and I are careful about what you watch. We hope that you grow up to have good humor, not one that laughs at the expense of others. I have personally had to stop watching some comedy pieces because I realized they were insulting. I don’t want you to become a bully, but rather a hero. A hero can laugh, but only when a joke is good, not evil. If you are able to refrain from participating in bullying, and protest the action instead, then you are hero and I will be proud of you.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

Concerning Forgiveness

To the Victims,
    What does is it mean to forgive? It's a real mystery. It's said often but never really explained. Yet it is the key to a better society and many personal problems, including bullying.
    There's a common phrase that goes like "Forgive and forget." This might indicate that forgetting is important, but then again, since it's separated from Forgive, it isn't part of it. Instead, it's more of a sign that forgiveness has taken place. I can remember your past misdemeanors, but if I bring them up again and again as something negative, then I really haven't forgiven you. On the other hand, if I bring them up as a way of showing your virtue, then it shows I did forgive. An example of this would be me saying, "Yeah, you broke my window, but I saw you were really sorry about it. You came and quickly apologized and helped me replace it."
    We tend to think of forgiveness as relieving someone of responsibility, but this is wrong. Forgiveness can relieve someone of all responsibility, but it doesn't need to. In fact, some restitution almost always required. By restitution, I mean "the return or restoration of a specific thing or condition." Consider this example:
    Imagine hitting a baseball into your neighbor's window. The window is broken. Your neighbor says he forgives you, but you still need to replace or help cover the cost of the window. Is that fair? No, because you are getting off easy. Your neighbor still has to bear the pain of having a broken window for a time. He has to suffer the inconvenience of taking care of something he wouldn't have had to before. There is a wound he has to suffer. If the window is special or unique, then the pain is even greater. That's where forgiveness comes into play.
    "Forgiveness is Divine" because it is an act of love. It's an act of mercy, and by being so, a vehicle for Justice. I mentioned about restitution being "the return or restoration of a specific thing or condition." Now that status cannot be perfectly restored as I mentioned in my example above. However, the nature of Forgiveness is that it restores the perpetrator to the good graces of the victim. Justice is about restoring order and balance. Therefore forgiveness is essential to achieve proper justice. It's link to justice also helps show why retribution is required.
      Retribution helps cover the physical burden, but forgiveness heals the emotional wound. Retribution also takes a second purpose when done properly. It shows that you accept the status of grace bestowed on you mercifully and return thanks by showing an act of love in return. By showing you are willing to bear some pain as well for the benefit of the one you have offended, you lower your pride for the benefit of someone else. The result is that Forgiveness, by being a vehicle for justice and an act of love, can actually turn a bad deed into the means of improving a relationship. That is also simply Divine.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

P. S. Due to the 2nd nature of retribution I described, it's often the case that it is absolutely required for the improvement of the perpetrator. While Forgiveness can cover everything, the act of humility required to perform restitution helps the perpetrator grow to become a better person. However, the greater the act of forgiveness, the greater of an act of love it is. This also means that unless you truly have love for the perpetrator, you won't be able to forgive without some act of retribution. And yes, practicing forgiveness makes it possible to achieve perfect forgiveness. This is due to the nature of love as being linked to humility. The more humble you are, the easier it is to love and forgive because you care about the other person more than yourself.

P. S. S. Since Forgiveness is an act of love, the greater the act, the more the recipient feels love when he accepts it. This in turn makes it so he may become generous with love as well.