Truth and Consequences

While listening to the Dennis Prager radio program today (Feb 22) I had to journal what was going through my mind. The subject matter pertained to the liberal left and conservatism. Specifically, his thesis stated that young people, particularly those older than 18, tend to lean more to the liberal left side of social issues, while older individuals lean more towards being conservative.

His thesis then moved on further to state, generally speaking, or to ask the question, why are there conservatives in the first place? If liberalism is the ideal social issue position for the young to harbor, then it goes to say liberalism should still be held in older individuals as well. What makes older individuals abandon the utopian liberal left ideals for conservative ideals?

Obviously, from the younger liberal left point of view the conservatives are stupid, or more accurate, less wise (given the attitude of the major printed news media). This begs the question, then why do individual humans evolve from young, wise, and having a liberal left state of mind to a lesser and more stupid state of mind?

The correct ideas are as follows.

• The liberal left wallows in the theoretical, while the conservative acknowledges the reality of life. The two cannot mingle.
  
  
• The liberal left feels while the conservative observes.
  
  
• The liberal left peers through rose colored lenses while the conservative cannot afford wear them.
  
  
• The liberal left wishes while the conservative is concrete.
  
  

An example can clarify the above. The liberal left theorizes that humans are basically good and it is the social climate that causes humans to become evil, or commit evil acts. Today’s news (Feb 22) Bill Bennett’s Morning in America) radio program presented that individual male students were charged with rape. These individuals were attending a prestigious school (tuition for attending listed as $32,000 per year). The social climate for these male students was cosseted, yet their act was evil.

The theoretical application of social change (progressive social engineering) comes from feelings rather than intellectual abstract thinking. It is a feel good rhetoric for the liberal left to vocalize the need for income distribution (from those accordingly to those of need), but by applying intellectual abstract thinking money distribution will not fix social problems in the poor rural areas of metropolitans.

Christianity vs. Christianity

Christianity is a religion and philosophy to some, and a whole other aspect to others. Besides being one of the oldest religions, Judaism being one of them, Christianity is well known to those that hold it personal and a mystery to those that don’t.

This blog being only a periodical diary of mine for others to read, I will not dive into theology at the deepest levels. I will only try to attempt at explaining the title Christianity vs. Christianity on the simplest terms I can muster.

Christianity to those that truly hold in their hearts that Jesus is the God of the Bible is fundamentally different than Christianity to those that call themselves Christians, yet do not hold Jesus as the God of the Bible. I am NOT talking about Christian Christianity vs. secular Christianity. I am talking about Christians proclaiming themselves Christians of Jesus and Christians proclaiming themselves as Christians, but have a different Jesus at the core of their belief system. See Christian Research Institute for a further clarification.

One such person that I am talking about is Jim Wallis of the Sojourners. One way to judge if a group of people, or a person, are Christians is to read their statement of belief. In these statements one can determine if they are Christians of Jesus, or not.

In an article written by Jim Wallis, Neither Democrats nor Republicans have a clue, in the third paragraph he states:

Thousands of verses in the Bible make poverty a moral and religious issue. The environment — protecting God's creation — is a religious matter and moral concern. Important issues of war and peace are deeply theological and just as much a “life issue” as is abortion. And human rights are rooted in the religious concept of the image of God in every person.

It is true that poverty and abortion are two, of many, moral issues that concern Christians. The question that needs to be applied here is “how” these issues are addressed, and then solved. The Christians of Jesus will address these issues amongst themselves in their churches, locally, and churches amongst themselves in a broader scale. From this facet of argument the theory is that the secular portion of the believer will attempt the influence of their respective government representative to alter future laws and policies and/or enforce existing laws and policies.

Jim Wallis takes these moral issues to the plain of employing government power. What Jim fails to realize concerning government is that government is pure power, or force, through its policies and laws. The local police and the military is a concrete definition of force. The subject matter of government power is subjective, not objective. How government addresses social issues is by applying government power, or force, to social policies. If Jim were a Christian of Jesus, government force would be the last apparatus he would want to utilize for social change.

In the Sojourners statement of belief few are listed bellow.

We believe commitment to be centrally important - to God, to one another, to our sisters and brothers on this planet, and to the Earth itself.

It is true for the commitment to God, but commitment to someone else should not be applied on the same level and degree. The NT communicates that believers ought to love God with all their heart and all their mind. This principle should not be applied, and therefore dangerous, in the same manner to other humans.

We refuse to accept structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class.

In the many years of applying government enforced social policies, the American society as risen to a level that social “structures” and “assumptions” have been literally abolished in the public spectrum. What cannot be eradicated of “structures” and “assumptions” is on a personal level. There will always be those that hold prejudices of some form. To apply a government policy that affects personal belief is treading in the wrong direction, and therefore harboring a wrong idea.

We believe that gospel faith transforms our economics, gives us the power to share our bread and resources, welcomes all to the table of God's provision, and provides a vision for social revolution.

This statement is not that of Christianity of Jesus due to the word “our.” The sharing of bread and resources is strictly individualistic and personal at a Christian level, not publicly applied and forcefully applied by government policies. Simply put, the bread and resources is an individual's given by God, not “ours” by distribution enforced through government policies. Sojourners falsely assume that the "bread and resources" is a public item to subjectively distributed by applying government enforced policies.

Again:

We believe that Jesus' way of nonviolent transformation and peacemaking is not a Utopian dream but a necessary path.

In other words, the Sojourners believe Utopia is not just a dream, but ought to be a reality, when applied by government force. Utopia cannot be realized through cooperation individually (Utopia by nature is one big human machine, there are no individuals, but human parts of a whole), but only forced upon by government power. This is not Christianity of those whom they believe in Jesus of the Bible.

Jim Wallis’ Christianity is not of Jesus of the Bible, even though he says it is in the statement of faith. He must come to understand he has the wrong Jesus.

In summation, as I have mentioned in the beginning, Christianity is not a religion by definition. Religions of the world state bulleted items for its members to follow; in other words rules and regulations. If these set rules and regulations are followed to the letter, then the follower is granted acceptance into heaven. Christianity plainly communicates that these rules and regulations are set by God of the Bible, and they cannot be followed by human application. Therefore humans are doomed to hell. Jesus came to fulfill the precepts of Judaism; in other words He is the only human that followed these rules and regulation. If a human cannot follow God’s law by his own power, then by default the argument says Jesus wasn’t just human, but God. He was fully human (born), and fully God (spirit).

Popular votes vs. the Electoral College

The liberal left rants about the prospects and reality of the popular vote of the U.S. President. What is an obvious omission on the part of the liberal left in this regard is that what they don't say is that the popular vote is meant for “their” candidate. They argue particularly that the presidential candidate should win the election primarily on what the popular vote tabulates. This notion has been raised by the liberal left due to the reality that they say Gore and Kerry won the popular vote, yet “G-dub-e-ya” won the votes of the Electoral College. They argue that this is unfair; to them.

An article, for reference, has been written to educate the liberal left for the reasons of our founding fathers having installed the Electoral College. Tara Ross wrote a fine article Hot Flash, and also authored a book entitled, Enlightened Democracy. In it she describes the error in logic the liberal left presents when arguing the point for dismantling the Electoral College in favor of the “popular vote.”

Her primary argument for the Electoral College is to prevent demagogues, i.e., Gore, Kerry, and now H. Clinton, from obtaining the office of the U.S. Presidency by placating to just a few liberal states to win the popular vote. Because there is a totally higher populations on either coast (NY and CA) of the US than the population count in between, demagogues do not have to bother enticing the least populated states with their political rhetoric. In this sense the minority states, NY and CA, total popular vote could end up dictating who will be president to the majority of states.

When unpacking the liberal left’s rhetoric of the “popular vote” argument, the result presents itself as being elitist. Due to the liberal left’s tendency to regard the conservative’s point of view as being “behind the times” is the plain reason for having the Electoral College. The Electoral College acts as a stop gate to keep the liberal left demagogues from obtaining for themselves government power.

With the Electoral College system in place as it is now, it forces presidential candidates to attenuate to “all” the states, not just a particular few. This is demonstrated by the fact that H. Clinton is manicuring her political stance, i.e., having a more moderate rhetoric, to actually attenuate to the “whole” of the US states, not just pleasing just the liberal left of herself located in the coastal states.