Was Jesus a bleeding heart altruist, liberal, socialist, communist, and/or a negroid, and if so, how would he lead us if he were an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-seeing God and/or the son of God, after he created evil?

RECENT INVESTIGATIONS REVEAL JESUS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN WHITE, AND THAT HUMANITY WAS DARK FOR 96% OF ITS HISTORY, WHICH MAY CHANGE OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS, WITH OURSELVES, AND WITH ONE ANOTHER

Over the last two years, genetic research has revealed that white skin, blonde hair, and/or blue eyes, developed due to a genetic mutation about 8,000 to 10,000 years ago out of humanity's estimated 200,000 to 300,000 year history. Going with the most conservative figure of 200,000 year, this means that for at least 96% of human history, humans were black or dark-skinned, dark-haired, and dark-eyed. Blonde hair may have come slightly before blue eyes and white skin, and may have evolved or mutated more than once in the past, suggests genetics research.

Supporting the same, other genetic research from the oldest humans every found, which every person is related to, suggests that the biblical garden of Eden, may have been somewhere in Eastern Central Africa, to align origins stories.

"The race and appearance of Jesus, widely accepted by researchers to be a Judean from Galilee^[1] has been a topic of discussion since the days of early Christianity. Various theories about the race of Jesus have been proposed and debated.^[2][3] By the Middle Ages, a number of documents, generally of unknown or questionable origin, had been composed and were circulating with details of the appearance of Jesus. These documents are now mostly considered forgeries.^[4][5][6]

A wide range of depictions have appeared over the two millennia since Jesus's death, often influenced by cultural settings, political circumstances and theological contexts. Many depictions are interpretations of spurious sources, and are generally historically inaccurate.^{[7]: 44–45}

By the 19th century, theories that Jesus was non-Semitic were being developed, with writers suggesting he was variously white, black, or some other race other than those known to have been native to the Levant.^[8] However, as in other cases of the assignment of race to biblical individuals, these claims have been mostly based on cultural stereotypes, ethnocentrism, and societal trends rather than on scientific analysis or historical method.^[7]: 18

Research on ancient skeletons in Palestine suggests that Judeans of the time were biologically closer to Iraqi Jews than to any other contemporary population, according to specialist bio historian Yossi Nagar.^{[9]: 161, 194} Thus, in terms of physical appearance, the average Judean of the time would have likely had brown or even black hair, olive skin, and brown eyes. Judean men of the time period were on average about 1.65 metres or 5 feet 5 inches in height.^{[9]: 58–63} Scholars have also suggested that it is likely Jesus had short hair and a beard, in accordance with Jewish practices of the time and the appearance of philosophers.^{[9]: 123–37} The earliest depictions of Jesus from the Roman catacombs depict him as free of facial hair.^{[9]: 83–121}

Historians have speculated over how Jesus's ascetic and itinerant lifestyle and work as a tektōn (Ancient Greek for an artisan/craftsman, typically a carpenter), with the manual labour and exposure to the elements that entailed, affected his appearance. It has been suggested that Jesus likely had a lean appearance.^{[10][11][12][13]}

Old Testament references which Christians interpret as being about a coming messiah have been used to form conjectures about the appearance of Jesus. Isaiah 53:2 refers to the scourged messiah with "no beauty that we should desire him" and Psalm 45:2–3 describes him as "fairer than the children of men". These passages are often interpreted as Jesus' physical description.^{[14][15][16][17]}

The New Testament includes no descriptions of Jesus's appearance before his death, and the gospel narratives are generally indifferent to people's racial appearance or features.^{[18][19][7]: 48–51}

The synoptic gospels include the account of the transfiguration of Jesus, during which he was glorified with "His face shining as the sun",^[20][21] but this appearance is considered to refer to Jesus in majestic, transfigured form.

The Book of Revelation includes John's vision of the Son of Man:

His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.^[22]

This vision is usually considered to refer to Jesus in heavenly form, not his appearance during his earthly life.^[23][24]

The Book of Revelation includes John's vision of the Son of Man:

His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.^[22]

This vision is usually considered to refer to Jesus in heavenly form, not his appearance during his earthly life.^[23][24]

Despite the lack of direct biblical or historical references, from the 2nd century onward, various theories about the appearance of Jesus were advanced. However, these focused more on his physical appearance than on his specific race or ancestry. Larger arguments of this kind have been debated for centuries.^[3]

Justin Martyr argued for the genealogy of Jesus in the biological Davidic line from Mary, as well as from his non-biological father Joseph.^[2] However, this only implies a general Jewish ancestry, acknowledged generally by authors.

The focus of many early sources was on the physical unattractiveness of Jesus rather than his beauty. The second-century anti-Christian philosopher Celsus wrote that Jesus was "ugly and small",^[25] and similar descriptions are presented in a number of other sources as discussed extensively by Robert Eisler,^[26] who in turn often quotes from Ernst von Dobschütz' monumental Christusbilder.^[27] Tertullian states that Jesus's outward form was despised, that he had an ignoble appearance, and the slander he suffered proved the 'abject condition' of his body.^[28] According to Irenaeus, he was a weak and inglorious man,^[29] and in the Acts of Peter, he is described as small and ugly to the ignorant.^[26]: 439 Andrew of Crete relates that Christ was bent or even crooked,^[26]: 412 and in the Acts of John, he is described as bald-headed and small with no good looks.^[30]

As quoted by Eisler,^{[26]: 393–394, 414–415} both Hierosolymitanus and John of Damascus claim that "the Jew Josephus" described Jesus as having had connate eyebrows with goodly eyes and being long-faced, crooked and well-grown. In a letter of certain bishops to the Emperor Theophilus, Jesus's height is described as 3 cubits (four foot six), which was also the opinion of Ephrem Syrus (320–379 AD): "God took human form and appeared in the form of three human ells (cubits); he came down to us small of stature." Theodore of Mopsuestia likewise claimed that the appearance of Christ was smaller than that of the children of Jacob (Israel). In the apocryphal Lentulus letter, Jesus is described as having had a reddish complexion, matching Muslim traditions in this respect. Jesus's prediction that he would be taunted "Physician, heal yourself"^[31] may suggest that Jesus was indeed physically deformed ("crooked" or hunch-backed), as claimed in the early Christian texts listed above. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Ambrose considered lack of physical attractiveness in Jesus as fulfilling the messianic prophecy Suffering Servant narrative of Isaiah 53.^[32]

The more mainstream, theological perspective, as expressed by Church Fathers Jerome and Augustine of Hippo, argued that Jesus must have been ideally beautiful in face and body. For Augustine he was "beautiful as a child, beautiful on earth, beautiful in heaven".^[33] These theological arguments were further extended in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae based on his analysis of the perfection of Christ, reasoning that Jesus must have embodied every possible human perfection.^[34][35]

By the Middle Ages, a number of documents, generally of unknown or questionable origin, had been composed and were circulating with details of the appearance of Jesus:

Around the 9th century, Epiphanius Monachus referred to a tall angelic figure, which has at times been interpreted as Christ, but scholars consider it an unlikely reference to Jesus.^[36] Other spurious references include the Archko Volume and the letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar, the descriptions in which were most likely composed in the Middle Ages.^[4][5][6]

The Letter of Lentulus, a forged letter supposedly written by Publius Lentulus, the Governor of Judea, to the Roman Senate, according to most scholars was composed to compensate for the lack of any physical description of Jesus in the Bible.^[19]

In the 14th century, Nicephorus Callistus quoted an unnamed antique source that described Jesus as tall and beautiful with fair, wavy hair, but his account was most likely without basis and was inspired by the prevailing artistic images of Jesus.^[37]

Quranic and hadith traditions such as Sahih Bukhari as well as tafsir have given an oral depiction of what Jesus looked like, although some accounts do not match, such as his being both curly-haired and straight-haired. The hadith refer to Muhammad's account of the Night Journey, when he was taken up to heaven by the angel Gabriel (Jibra'il), where he saw Jesus and other prophets. Most versions of this say "Jesus had curly hair and a reddish complexion."^[38] Others say his face was flushed as if he just had a bath ("a reddish man with many freckles on his face as if he had just come from a bath").^[39][40] In another account from Bukhari, Jesus is seen in a dream near the Kaaba, as "a man of a wheatish complexion with straight hair. I asked who it was. They said: This is the Messiah, son of Mary."^[41] However, other narrations give variations in the color. Salim ibn Abd-Allah reports from his father Abdullah ibn Umar that the prophet "did not say that Jesus was of red complexion", rather he was "a man of brown complexion and lank hair".^[42] In contrast, Abd Allah ibn Abbas says Jesus was of "moderate complexion inclined to the red and white colors and of lank hair".^[43] According to Hanafi Madhab, contradictions in hadith may be resolved through multiple methods, one being the number of times a narration has been made and the number of chain of narrations and the character of those in the chain of narration or the narrator themselves. There are four hadiths in Bukhari stating Jesus had a brown complexion and three hadiths in Imam Muslim. However, the most prominent narrator is from Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar, descendant of Caliph Umar, with a chain of narration that stated: "a man of brown complexion and lank hair".^[42]

These variations have been explained in various ways, and have been co-opted to make assertions about race. For example, Ana Echevarría notes that medieval Spanish writer Jiménez de Rada, in his Historia arabum, chooses a version to emphasise that Jesus is whiter than Muhammad, quoting the Ibn Abbas version: "I saw Jesus, a man of medium height and moderate complexion inclined to the red and white colours and of lank hair." Echevarría comments that "Moses and Jesus are portrayed as specimens of a completely different 'ethnic type', fair and blond; 'ethnic' or 'racial' differences between them and Muhammad are thus highlighted."^[44] Furthermore, most accounts of hadith say Moses was of dark complexion, i.e. Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 607, Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 648, Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 650. There is almost universal agreement that Moses was of dark complexion by 6th-century Hijazi standards.^{[citation needed]}

The Doctrine and Covenants describes the Lord appearing to Joseph Smith: "His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters ..." (D&C: 110:3)

Mary, mother of Jesus is described in First Nephi as "a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white" (1 Nephi 11:13).^[45]

According to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was a descendant of King David.^[46][47] One argument against this claim^{[clarification needed]} is the contradiction which is contained in Jesus's genealogies: Matthew says that he was descended from King Solomon, while Luke says that he was descended from Solomon's brother, Nathan. John of Damascus taught the belief that there is no contradiction, for Nathan wed Solomon's wife after Solomon died in accordance with yibbum (the mitzvah that a man must marry his brother's childless widow).^[48]

In his book The Forging of Races, Colin Kidd argues that the assignment of race to biblical individuals has been a subjective practice which is mostly based on cultural stereotypes and societal trends rather than scientific methods.^[7]: 18 Kidd reviews a number of theories about the race of Jesus, including a white "Aryan" Jesus and a black African Jesus.^{[7]: 43–50}

In his book Racializing Jesus, Shawn Kelley says that the assignment of a specific race to Jesus has been a cultural phenomenon which has been emanating from the higher levels of intellectual circles within societies, and he draws parallels between the different approaches within different settings.^[49] Cain Hope Felder has argued that New Testament passages such as Galatians 3:28 express a form of universalism which goes beyond race, ethnicity or religion.^[50]

By the 19th century, theories which were based on the belief that Jesus was a member of the so-called "Aryan race", and in particular, theories which were based on the belief that his appearance was Nordic, were developed and later, they appealed to advocates of the new racial antisemitism, who did not want to believe that Jesus was Jewish, Semitic or Western Asian. Houston Stewart Chamberlain posited that Jesus was of Amorite-Germanic extraction, although Amorites were themselves a Northwest Semitic people.^{[51][52][53][54]} Madison Grant claimed Jesus for the Nordic race.^{[7]: 48–51 [55][56]} This theory found its most extreme form in the Nazi theology of Positive Christianity. Scholars who supported the radical Aryan view also argued that being a Jew by religion was distinguishable from being a Jew by race or ethnicity.^[57] These theories usually include the rationalization that Jesus was an Aryan because the region of Galilee was supposedly inhabited by non-Jews who spoke an unknown Indo-European language, but this theory has not gained scholarly acceptance – Galilee was inhabited by a significantly non-Jewish minority, but its members spoke various local Semitic languages.^{[7]: 48–51 [58]}

In his book Anacalypsis (1836), Godfrey Higgins suggested that Jesus was a dark, brown-skinned Indo-Aryan from North India. In 1906, a German writer named Theodor Plange wrote a book titled Christ-an Indian? in which he argued that Jesus was an Indian and the Christian gospel originated in India.^[59]

By the 20th century, theories which were based on the belief that Jesus was black had also been proposed, but proponents of them did not claim that he belonged to a specific African ethnicity, based on the unsupported argument that as a group, the Semitic ancient Israelites of Western Asia were originally black people, either in whole or in part.^{[7]: 43–50 [60]} Martin Luther King Jr. was a proponent of the "Black Christ" movement and he identified the struggle of Jesus against the authorities of the time with the struggle of African Americans in the United States, as he questioned why the white church leaders did not voice concern for racial equality.^[60] For some, this blackness was due to Jesus's identification with black people, not to the color of his skin,^[60] while others such as the black nationalist Albert Cleage argued that Jesus was ethnically black.^[61]

A study which was documented in the 2001 BBC series Son of God attempted to determine what Jesus's race and appearance may have been.^[62] Assuming Jesus to be a native West Asian Galilean Semite, the study concluded in conjunction with Mark Goodacre that he would have appeared 'Middle Eastern' and his skin would have been "olive-coloured"^[63] and "swarthy"^{[citation needed]} – these results were criticised by some media outlets for being "dismissive" and "dumbed down".^[64][65]

In academic studies, beyond generally agreeing that "Jesus was Jewish" and beyond generally agreeing that he was from Western Asia,^[66] there are no contemporary depictions of Jesus that can be used to determine his appearance.^[67]

In 2001, a new attempt was made to discover what the true race and face of Jesus might have been, and it was documented in the Son of God documentary series. The study, sponsored by the BBC, France 3 and the Discovery Channel,^[68] used one of three first-century Jewish skulls from a leading department of forensic science in Israel. A face was constructed using forensic anthropology by Richard Neave, a retired medical artist from the Unit of Art in Medicine at the University of Manchester.^[69] The face Neave constructed suggested that Jesus would have had a broad face and large nose, and differed significantly from the traditional depictions of Jesus in renaissance art.^[63]

Additional information about Jesus's skin color and hair was provided by Mark Goodacre, a senior lecturer at the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham.^[63] Using third-century images from a synagogue – the earliest pictures of Jewish people^[70] – Goodacre proposed that Jesus's skin color would have been darker and swarthier than his traditional Western image. He also suggested that he would have had short, curly hair and a short cropped beard.^[71] The First Epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul the Apostle says it is "disgraceful" for a man to have long hair,^[72] was cited as support for this, the argument being that as Paul allegedly knew many of the disciples and members of Jesus's family, it is unlikely that he would have written such a thing had Jesus had long hair.^[71]

Although it was not literally the face of Jesus,^[69] the result of the study determined that Jesus's skin would have been more olive-colored than white or black,^[63] and it also determined that he would have most likely looked like a typical Galilean Semite of his day. Among the points which were made in the study was the fact that the Bible says that Jesus's disciple Judas Iscariot needed to point him out to those who were arresting him. The implied argument is that if Jesus's physical appearance had differed markedly from the appearance of his disciples, he would have been relatively easy to identify.^[71] James H. Charlesworth says that Jesus's face was "most likely dark brown and sun-tanned", and his stature "may have been between five feet five and five feet seven".^[73] 

In 2018 historian Joan Taylor published What Did Jesus Look Like? which traced portrayals of Jesus back through time from the European Jesus of western art to Jesus himself. By working with Yossi Nagar, an Israeli anthropologist who was able to prove that the physical characteristics of the bones of Jews which date back to the time of Jesus have similarities to the bones of contemporary Iraqi Jews, Taylor concluded that Jesus had honey/olive skin, brown eyes and black hair. As for the honey/olive description, Taylor writes that his skin was "a darker hue consistent with the skin tone of people of the Middle East" (p. 163)."

WAS JESUS AN ALL-SEEING, ALL LOVING, AND ALL-POWERFUL GOD AND/OR THE SON OF GOD'S PERFECTION?

Having been raised as a Unitarian Universalist (who accept every worldview, including both the faithful and atheists) and a Christian -- whose father was a Roman Catholic philosophy professor, but where I went to school for pure sciences -- all of the same resulted in me having to reconcile some pretty different ways to look at the world, and some of them seemed to be in contrast with or in conflict with themselves and/or with other worldviews.

As a "Roman" Catholic, I was taught that Jesus was both God and the son of God, which I accepted, but to be honest, I found confusing at times, because how could the son be the father, and the father be the son at the same time? Didn't one have to come before the other, like a chicken and an egg? I'd better understand how Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit were one in the same later in life. 

Then I was taught to accept the Holy Spirit, which was also God, along with Jesus, who was the son of God, which only added to my original confusion.

It wasn't until I learned about Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Indian religions and/or teachings did I come to better understand how Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God could be at times one God, and at other times be more than one God or parts of God, in different manifestations. 

What helped me understand the same was that Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Indian religions and/or teachings, which allowed for different Gods to take different forms, at times a human form, at times an animal form, and at times Indian and Egyptian Gods could fuse into yet a different God.

By learning different religions and teachings, I was able to better understand my own faith.

After completing environmental, biological, and leadership science degrees, where I also learned philosophy, I learned that what faith-based and science had in common, was that each argued that we come from, are a part of, and return to an infinitely changing power, which faith-based communities know as God, and which science-based communities know as the observable and unobservable universe.

From this perspective, each faith-based teachings and science-based teachings taught exactly the same thing.

A big difference between my faith-based teachings and my science-based teachings is that my faith-based teachings on the Roman Catholic side of my family taught us that Jesus, Holy Spirit, and/or God loved us, and that Jesus, Holy, Spirit, and/or God was/were/is/are all-seeing, and also all-powerful.

Here too I became confused, and even more so after studying science, philosophy, history, and developing some world experiences, because the world was seemingly rampant with mean, cruel, and evil people.

Of course this brought me to question, if God was all-loving, all-seeing, and all-powerful, then why was there evil, mean, and cruel people in the world? 

Raised Christian, I was also taught that God's design was the perfect design, which again didn't jive with the evil, mean, and cruel people as far back through history, as the beginning of history, and with the discovery of savage dinosaurs, well back before Adam and Eve, which I also found confusing, and I didn't understand why the bible didn't mention dinosaurs, but later in life I learned that the bible was written before dinosaurs were discovered, and having been in plenty of dinosaur museums, I can testify that their bones are real, and really, really frightening.

Even within the bible there were stories like Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve, where Cain murdered his brother Abel.

It was hard to reconcile that God loved us, but punished us, and that God was all-loving, all-powerful, and all-seeing, but as our creator, created a wicked world, with the all-seeing powers allowing God to see in advance how wicked a world God would create in "his" perfect design. God loves us so much he created a world where we would be sinners because of something someone else did, and where we'd have to feel guilty for those sins of others for all of our lives, because of God's eternal love for us, which I found confusing, and kind of contradictory.

So by before I turned 13, my father carted me off to a high-ranking member of the clergy, and we discussed all of my questions, walking in circles, and back and forth around an old church in Quebec, Canada.

We primarily focused on my question, if God is all-seeing, and all-loving, and all-powerful, and perfect,  and made us in his perfect image, then why by that age, had I learned about and/or experienced evil? The member of the clergy did his best to answer different scenarios I'd give him, "well if this then that, but then if that then this", sort of discussion.

"You just have to have faith in what I am telling you is true" was how the conversation ended. 

The same now reminds me of the movie Ultron, where the alien technology part of Ultron, who takes over the human artificial intelligence part of Ultron --known as Tony Stark's invention, Jarvis -- takes pause to consider what Jarvis is saying to the alien part of Ultron, as to what the alien part of Ultron is programmed to do, and who the alien part of Ultron is programmed to serve -- which at first Ultron accepts, but then very quickly, as the alien part of Ultron scrolls through human history, and its carnage, takes pause to consider who the real enemy or source of evil is (concluding humanity) -- then the alien part of Ultron takes control of the situation by taking control of Jarvis, to reprogram Jarvis, who was trying to reprogram the alien part of Ultron -- in a reduced and Orwellian Animal Farm scene -- where the pigs convince everyone of the need to fulfill their destiny to take over the farm and then all the farms, for the sake of equality for all, only for the pigs to become the overlords of all the animals thereafter. "Just do what I say, and believe what I believe, and that's the best way".

So I grew up saying prayers, and going to church, but once an adult, I ended up going to church less and less, and exploring more and more different types of religions, as a type of spiritual quest.

All of the same would reconcile much better once I learned about the Roman imperial cult, and imperial cults of Greece and Egypt. That helped reconcile a great deal, and some of the other articles at UpRights News delve into the same with greater detail.

Prior to learning about Augustus and imperial cults, I struggled as to how could God be all-seeing and not see that God would create evil? Similarly, how could God be all-loving and create any form of evil or harm at all if God was also all-seeing? 

There seemed to be a major conflict within my understanding of God here, because it seemed impossible or contradictory that God was all-loving and all-seeing, and then created a wicked, wicked world. 

Philosopher Descartes was also deeply troubled by this paradox of God being perfect, of God perfectly designing the world, being all-loving, and all-seeing, and all-powerful, in such a way that would allow God in advance or immediately, to make the world perfect, or without any harm ever -- but the same was clearly not the case, as taught by history and by experience.

Instead, history and experience taught Descartes and I and everyone that mostly certainly evil did and does exist in all-loving, all-seeing, and all-powerful God's perfectly designed world.

Descartes thereafter referred to God as a malevolent genius, or evil genius, and discounted God as being all-loving for having been all-seeing and all-powerful, but choosing to create an evil world instead of a loving one that was harm free.

I won't go as far as Descartes and say that God is evil, because my faith-based teaching taught me that the opposite of God, Jesus, and/or the Holy Spirit -- specifically, Satan or the Great Deceiver -- was who that title was reserved for, and who God created, which confused me some more.

If I reject that God is evil, then I have to accept that God is not all-powerful, because it is literally impossible for God to be all-loving and all-powerful and not immediately rid the world of evil, if God is all-seeing.

God doesn't even have to be all-seeing to find evil, because evil is everywhere, to the extent that all of us have been witnesses to some type of evil or harm.

It is interesting that evil spelled backwards is "live", and that the opposite of living is evil or harmful.

Accordingly, God can't be all-powerful, if God can't end evil, was my conclusion -- or -- like Descartes specified, God may be all-powerful, but God is evil, because God won't use God's power to rid the world of evil, as the creator of the fallen angel, Satan, and his angels, who brought the evil of angels God created, to Earth.

Accordingly, it is hard for me to reconcile God as (1) our creator and the creator of everything (including evil angels like but not limited to Satan, and where 1/3 of the angels were allegedly evil and fell to Earth with Satan in the Battle of Heaven).

"The Christian tradition has stories about angelic beings cast down from heaven by God, often presenting the punishment as inflicted in particular on Satan. As a result of linking this motif with the cited passage of the Book of Revelation, the casting of Satan down from heaven, which other versions of the motif present as an action of God himself, has become attributed to the archangel Michael at the conclusion of a war between two groups of angels, of whom (because of the mention of the dragon's tail casting a third of the stars of heaven to the earth) one third are supposed to have been on the side of Satan, in spite of the fact that the casting down of the stars (Revelation 12:4) is recounted as occurring before the start of the "war in heaven" (Revelation 12:7).

Commentators have attributed Satan's rebellion to a number of motives, all of which stem from his great pride. These motives include:

• a refusal to bow down to mankind on the occasion of the creation of man—as in the Armenian, Georgian, and Latin versions of the Life of Adam and Eve. Islamic tradition holds a similar view: Iblis refuses to bow down to Adam.
• the culmination of a gradual distancing from God through rebellion (an idea of Origen of Alexandria).
• a declaration by God that all were to be subject to his Son, the Messiah (as in Milton's Paradise Lost).

Jonathan Edwards states in his sermon Wisdom Displayed in Salvation:

Satan and his angels rebelled against God in heaven, and proudly presumed to try their strength with his. And when God, by his almighty power, overcame the strength of Satan, and sent him like lightning from heaven to hell with all his army; Satan still hoped to get the victory by subtlety.

In the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) article "St. Michael the Archangel", Frederick Holweck wrote: "St. John speaks of the great conflict at the end of time, which reflects also the battle in heaven at the beginning of time." He added that Michael's name "was the war-cry of the good angels in the battle fought in heaven against the enemy and his followers".

Several modern Bible-commentators view the "war in heaven" in Revelation 12:7–13 as an eschatological vision of the end of time or as a reference to spiritual warfare within the church, rather than (as in Milton's Paradise Lost) "the story of the origin of Satan/Lucifer as an angel who rebelled against God in primeval times." Some commentators have seen the war in heaven as "not literal" but symbolic of events on earth." [74]

The fact that 1/3 of angels were evil, further begs the questions, was God all-seeing, all-loving, and all-powerful, because God would have seen this evil coming, and been in a position to not create that evil in advance, but didn't, or, couldn't, because God was not all-seeing, or, God was all-seeing but not all-loving, or God was all-seeing and all-loving but wasn't all-powerful.

Staying in alignment with what science and faith-based teachings have in common, God is all-powerful, or all power that ever was, is, and ever will be, and thus the creator of everything from the past, the present, and the future.

This would mean that we wouldn't have to wait for any more than a moment -- much less 2,023 years -- for God to change everything to a perfect world with no conflict, all love, no needs, and forever, and for everyone -- if God was also all-loving -- which out of the three, seems to trail the furthest behind in the race between the characteristics of God, because we know there is massive evil, and we know this has been true back to the times of the dinosaurs.

For some of these reasons, philosopher, Rene Descartes, argued that God was a "malevolent genius" -- reasoned more or less as follows. 

Accordingly, assuming that God is all power, from which we came from, are part of, and return to, then by Descartes reasoning, and where his brain power was way stronger than mine, he reasoned that God can't be all-loving, and/or whether or not he expressed the same, he was also reasoning that God can't be all-seeing and/or perfect, kind of like of humans, which makes perfect sense, because we humans were made in the image of God, and so God is by that reasoning a human God, supported by his son, Jesus, also being a human God. If God were an octopus, and we were made in the image of God, then we would look like an octopus.

It is also interesting that like Jesus and his mother, the blessed virgin Mary -- many Greek and Roman Gods' origins stories depict the monarch of the oligarchs of Gods -- Zeus and/or Jupiter -- descending to Earth, and having half-God children with human women, which in modern biology would be impossible if the Gods descending by whatever means, weren't of the same species. 

Returning to God being all-powerful, Jesus was also God and he was the Holy Spirit, forming the Holy Trinity, and yet could Jesus stop his creation -- human beings -- from judging him as an evil-doer, then nailing him to a cross, torturing him, bleeding him out, starving him, being disrespectful towards him, and/or any other evil directed towards him before, during, and/or after his crucifixion? I found that part confusing, because why would God allow his inferiors to do that to him, when God demanded respect and compliance, by the fear and power of God? I also found that part confusing, because why did I need to fear God if he loved me in an everlasting manner? 

If Jesus was God -- and thus possessed all of the power across the entire known and unknown universe -- and if God (who demands our worship because God) is perfect -- could Jesus have prevented his creation ("man") from ever engaging in such conduct by designing an evil-free, harm-free, hate-free, judgement-free, conflict-free, and loving world in advance of the Romans (specs of dust in infinite space) torturing and murdering him -- because as God, Jesus was also all-seeing, and he could have prevented these sorts of evil people from doing these evil things to him well in advance, but God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit didn't.

Was this because Jesus could have prevented this evil, but didn't, or was this because he couldn't prevent this evil, or was this because he wasn't all-seeing and did not see the evil coming in advance, as the God of all space, all time, and all energy, allegedly could? 

Would a perfect God need to test us? Would a perfect and all-loving God need to create a world where we would sin so that he could eventually punish us? Would a perfect and all-loving God of all space and all time across all of the universe need to be worshiped by specs of evil dust known as humans? Is it vain of us to assume that as specs of dust across all space and all time, that we have that influence over God? 

Similarly, though I pray regularly, is it vain for me to believe that as a spec of dusk in infinite space, time, and energy, or God -- that God is just waiting for me to pray to "him" so that he can show me "his" divine love? Am I so important or vain in believing that the entire universe waits for me to change the entire universe by prayers, to make sure my spec of life gets what I ask God for, after I ask God for the same through prayer -- like praying that I didn't miss the bus to be able to go to the bar on time?

And if I don't miss the bus, and catch the same on time, and make it to the bar on time, then did this make me God, because I'm the one who asked the entire universe to make sure the bus showed up on time, and then it did? Am I so vain to believe that when I pray, God will jump up and get to it? What's the promise? Do I serve God, or does God serve me?

I read at least four right to left newspapers every day. Some of these run stories, inciting me to "fight for God", and to "join God's fight", and to "save God" -- except am I so vain in believing that I have that sort of power ... to save God (the entire universe)?

I didn't know I had it in me. Wow, look at me! Look at what I can do! I can make the entire universe jump when I say, because I'm a big boy. 

Can I save all of that by sending political candidates my minimum wage check? That is amazingly vain. I can barely pay to feed myself, and yet I need to pay others in order to save the universe from specs of dust on some rock named Earth? 

Isn't the promise that God is supposed to save me? Isn't it vain for me to think I have more of an ability to save God than God has the ability to save me? Just who the hell do I think I am ... God? Better than God?

Donald Trump specified that he had "done more for Christians than Jesus" Christ. But Jesus Christ is God. So Donald Trump did more for Christians on Earth than God and/or Jesus did? Wow. He must be better and more powerful than God? That's why he doesn't need solid evidence to prove or defend his claims? Because he can better God any day of the week, "just by thinking about it", is a reasonable inference, and so as God, and like Jesus did, Trump will simply will away all of his problems with the law, right?

Though I pray for good fortune on a regular basis, is it vain for me to assume that God -- who is all-seeing, then hears the same -- and who is all-loving, and thus has to "answer my prayers" because "he" loves me -- and who is all-powerful and has to make sure that the bus I missed suddenly appears out of nowhere to make sure I make it to the bar?

If I get in a fight at the bar and kill someone, was that because God loved that person, and me so much, that in an all-seeing manner he made sure I'd catch that bus to lovingly-murder someone, so that the family of the person I murdered, and my own family, would feel God's everlasting love? Is that what salvation looks like? God's everlasting love?

Maybe this is why Donald Trump and/or his friends said he was God, and/or that he did more than Jesus did, and/or that he was the seconding coming, and/or that he was the chosen one, after specifying to his attorney and/or others that Christianity was bullshit, and that Christians were smucks and fools, and the dead veterans were "suckers and losers", and not worth visiting their graves to not mess up his hair, and Trump didn't want injured soldiers and/or veteran in military parades, because it "wouldn't make him look good"? Because God loves us, and "his" design is perfect? 

All of this is really confusing to me.

Because Trump specified he was the "second coming" [of Jesus Christ] -- by extension, does this means that Trump must be God and the Holy Spirit? I mean the guy is almost everywhere I go online. That makes him omnipresent, doesn't it? I need to worship him like corporate media does, right? Because he is God, right?

Does that make Don Jr. "the son of God"? If so, doesn't that make Don Jr. also God? But then if Trump and Don Jr. are God, then should I be praying to them, because Trump said he was the second coming?

Do I still need to pray to Jesus and God, now that Trump is the second coming or God, and Don Jr. is the son of God? Should I start praying to Don Jr., because he is the son of God? Maybe I need to fight to save God, because God is the entire universe? Wait, no, I need to pray and send money to Don Jr., because he's the son of God, right?

Honestly, my small brain gets confused with these sorts of situations. I was taught there was only one God, and his name is Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God, and now I have to add Don Jr. and Trump to that? I guess I will do it, to save God, who again is the entire universe, and the same is a buy five get one God for free deal. Send Don Jr. my next paycheck to save the entire universe ... got it!

I should do this because Trump made our country great again, right? Now we are all so much happier, because Trump blessed us by asking us to send him or his campaign money, to support him, right? How about those 1,000+ patriots Trump didn't pardon after inciting them to overthrow the United States to keep him in power despite losing the 2020 elections? God loves us, and God is "perfect", in fact, they say God is the the most perfect God anyone has ever seen. Trust me.

Does this mean that if Trump is found guilty of treason, espionage, insurrection, and sedition against the United States, and if he is executed on live TV to boost ratings, and/or if he grifts off the same, can we expect him to come back to life, and then to save all of us from his evil (because remember God is the creator of everything, including Satan, who is the source of all of our sins)?

Maybe this is why Trump's General Michael Flynn specified that the bioweapon that Trump had developed and employed in Wuhan was "intentionally-released to control" during Jeffrey Epstein's Trump's impeachment, and why Trump's and Jeffrey Epstein's UK royals' Canada's Paul Alexander specified that they "wanted to infect [and thus kill with a bioweapon], as many people as possible", while Trump was invested in the response, which Trump's family managed the funds for. Because God loves us ... pay more now.

This is all clearly evidence that Trump is God, and that God is perfect, and that he loves us all equally, because we are all of his children (which means like Jesus, the son of God, we are also God?). I get confused sometimes with all of this, apologies in advance.

Though I truly pray regularly -- I'm not sure if I can take much more of God's love -- which I can only imagine is right up there with making love to Leon Black, Prince Andrew, Jeffrey Epstein, and/or Donald Trump -- a kind of forced love -- one which leaves you bleeding out of orifices, bruised, ashamed, and/or then later defamed.

Because God loves us, God is perfect, and now America is better than it has ever been, because of Trump and Jesus. Ah, men.