From the beginning of human history some individuals are born with the predisposition to discount others in their humanity. How the characteristics of this attitude are recognized is by the perpetrator’s dismissal of the importance of individualism. The name of the attitude is grounded mostly in pride, but other facets of this attitude are also found in arrogance.
Those individuals who discount other’s humanity do so without knowing this fact. It is natural for them to treat others as insignificant. When confronted with their attitude some are humbled and transcend their behavior with repentance. These are real Christians that follow the guide of Jesus’ philosophy, which they see in themselves what others see. Those who do not repent of this character flaw are the epitome.
Christianity is not only a religion, but also mostly a philosophy of living life as God would live it. Because Jesus’ life was, and is, the reflection of God, the Bible is the very word that was spoken throughout the spectrum of human history.
Cain was the first prototype of a human being. Adam and Eve were created from dust of the ground, but Cain was created from birth of the first human beings. Cain was also the first human being to act upon the attitude of dismissing other’s humanity. Able became the casualty of Cain’s attitude of dismissal. Cain saw in himself as being more important than Able. Cain found in Able approval where disapproval was festering in Cain.
Christianity should be teaching through philosophy the guidance of Jesus’ life that all humans are equal in each individual’s humanity. When so called Christians discount the individual, he then is committing the same act that Cain foisted upon Able. Christianity that is found in the halls of modern churches is not teaching this destructible facet of human behavior because the real Christianity is not easily found.
There are those who have in abundance this type of attitude who hold government office. Furthering a focus of governmental office holders is found declaring themselves as Christian and outright discounting some of their constituents. Reverend Jackson is a name that comes to mind that exemplifies this type of attitude. These individuals are recommitting Cain’s act. Instead of substantiating the humanity in all individuals, they only entertain the constituents who substantiate them. The American government was not originally designed in this way, it is quite the other way around.
Therefore, ideas have consequences, and the idea that those who seem to have disrupting opinions and ideas are really treating everyone’s humanity in equality. It is those who discount ideas that are seemingly disruptive who are murderers of humanity.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Principles of Society
The liberal left has attacked the premise that the Constitution of the U.S. does not allow for the acknowledgement of any religion within the operational confines of this country’s government. Of course this notion is completely false, and the liberal left knows this to be true. So, the question then is what is the unspoken agenda that the liberal left harbors to its collective chest. The conservative opposition to this idea can only be speculated upon and leave the defense to the liberal left. What they do not verbalize within their obnoxious rhetoric is that they do not want the religious Christians and Christian politicians to enter in governmental debates. In other words what they contend silently is that they are the only philosophical apparatus to formulate government laws and policies. The pathology of the notion that government laws and policies should be deliberated without involving religion is preposterous.
Society in general, and especially a free U.S. society, operates on principles that philosophers, economists and, heaven forbid, politicians confer and deliberate with each other to establish laws and policies. Then government power upholds and initiates these laws and policies for citizens to conform to and modify their behavior accordingly, with consequences installed. The end result of all this quagmire is the intention that a free society will morph into a better social atmosphere for all humans to enjoy their lives.
What I just wrote has been hashed out before and is obviously not new to any intelligent reader. What I think is new is that our founding fathers did not intend for religion to be eliminated from the governmental sphere. Citizens, within the confines and principles of human relationships, practice religion, whether they know it or not, since the time man became aware of himself and his surroundings. Our founding fathers saw this social religious principle and found that it could be applied in a different way from all the other societies which used it in human history. These other societies always have established religion as a part of government, and of course excluded all others. The liberal left is doing the very same thing, only excluding Christian social philosophy.
This argument then is the reason for this blog edition.
The mere fact that humans are aware of themselves and others makes all humans religious. Humans cannot eliminate religion from their existence; it is innate. There are some that would argue that since they are atheists they have no religion. Bunk. Atheism is a religion. Notice the word “belief.”
For those that have a Christian background, but not limited to them only, have asked the question what is man’s purpose on earth. Before man’s spiritual fall, humans were to live their life that God gave them. The purpose of one’s life then was to proclaim, through behavior, the character of God within man towards other humans, which had the same goal.
For God’s character to be proclaimed within the behavior of man towards other humans, negotiations ought to be conducted between men to develop a compromise. That compromise then proclaimed the character of God. Adam and Eve destroyed completely, in all humans, the capacity to behave God-like. The first result of the fall was for Cain to murder Able, so much for human negotiations and compromises ending in the culmination of the character of God. The rest of human history is man’s wrestling with other humans dictating human behavior using the power of government. Now the liberal left insists Judeo-Christian religion is to be eliminated from this process. For them to say that it will improve society?
Society in general, and especially a free U.S. society, operates on principles that philosophers, economists and, heaven forbid, politicians confer and deliberate with each other to establish laws and policies. Then government power upholds and initiates these laws and policies for citizens to conform to and modify their behavior accordingly, with consequences installed. The end result of all this quagmire is the intention that a free society will morph into a better social atmosphere for all humans to enjoy their lives.
What I just wrote has been hashed out before and is obviously not new to any intelligent reader. What I think is new is that our founding fathers did not intend for religion to be eliminated from the governmental sphere. Citizens, within the confines and principles of human relationships, practice religion, whether they know it or not, since the time man became aware of himself and his surroundings. Our founding fathers saw this social religious principle and found that it could be applied in a different way from all the other societies which used it in human history. These other societies always have established religion as a part of government, and of course excluded all others. The liberal left is doing the very same thing, only excluding Christian social philosophy.
This argument then is the reason for this blog edition.
The mere fact that humans are aware of themselves and others makes all humans religious. Humans cannot eliminate religion from their existence; it is innate. There are some that would argue that since they are atheists they have no religion. Bunk. Atheism is a religion. Notice the word “belief.”
- Hindus believe in reincarnation.
- Muslims believe in Allah.
- Jews believe in man’s creator, the one God.
- Christians believe in God, who illuminated Himself throughout human history in three personalities, Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), humanly understood as in one God.
- Atheists believe no God.
For those that have a Christian background, but not limited to them only, have asked the question what is man’s purpose on earth. Before man’s spiritual fall, humans were to live their life that God gave them. The purpose of one’s life then was to proclaim, through behavior, the character of God within man towards other humans, which had the same goal.
For God’s character to be proclaimed within the behavior of man towards other humans, negotiations ought to be conducted between men to develop a compromise. That compromise then proclaimed the character of God. Adam and Eve destroyed completely, in all humans, the capacity to behave God-like. The first result of the fall was for Cain to murder Able, so much for human negotiations and compromises ending in the culmination of the character of God. The rest of human history is man’s wrestling with other humans dictating human behavior using the power of government. Now the liberal left insists Judeo-Christian religion is to be eliminated from this process. For them to say that it will improve society?
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Freedom and Oppression
The word “freedom” conjures the soul of images of social grandeur. It also is used to paint both political and religious abstract pictures. The liberal left uses the word to describe a Utopian social dream, while the conservative right conjures a social reality.
From the political arena freedom denotes the absentee of oppression, while in religious terms it also denotes the lack of oppression. When talking and discussing the attributes of freedom one also cannot keep from discussing oppression. In simple terms the antonym of “oppression” can be construed with freedom. Strictly speaking the antonym of freedom is confinement and imprisonment. So, when discussing what freedom really means it must be applied correctly within the confines of the subject matter.
Both the liberal left and the conservative right use the word freedom within their own confines of demarcation, and both wants the use of the word to describe what either desires from the other. The liberal left wants freedom from the oppression of the conservative, really they mean the religious, right. Yet the conservative right wants freedom of the confines of taxation, for example, that the liberal left would like to impose on the so-called “rich.”
Here, I would like to dwell on the correct meaning of the word freedom. From the Christian perspective (correctly) God declared the “truth will set you free.” So, to get at the meaning of freedom one ought to know the “truth.” As this blog centers on, correct ideas vs. incorrect ideas, the idea of “truth” is paramount to knowing freedom.
What is the meaning of “truth,” or what is truth? This question was asked of God when he was standing in front of Pilate. In summation of the New Testament Jesus, alone, is the embodiment of truth. He, alone, represents what truth is in its purity. So, when the statement is said that the truth will set you free, knowing what truth is will set one free of falsehood. In other words God means truth, and “man” means falsehood. Relying on the truth of God is setting oneself free from the falsehood of man.
From this perspective, then, when assessing which political attraction those applying the real meaning of the word freedom the conservative right is closer to being correct. The liberal left is using “man” as the giver of freedom by politically abolishing what the conservative right wants to imposes on society. If those that know the truth, that man’s heart is evil, then imposing “reality checks” on the liberal left is closer to the correct usage of the word “freedom” than what the liberal left does by imposing “dream world theory” upon society and calling it “freedom.”
Finally, and in clarification, the meaning of the word “freedom” is the application of self-government by “knowing” the truth of oneself. “Knowing the truth,” that the individual human is evil, will apply self-government to be free from the liberal left’s imposition of falsehood. Furthermore, knowing the truth that everyone is not completely knowledgeable of the correct meaning of the word freedom, government impositions through democratically creations by the conservative right is more correctly applying the word freedom than the liberal left falsehood by desiring the utilizing of power of government to impose oppression and then calling it freedom.
Post script:
As Lord Acton correctly applies, “Liberty (freedom) is not the power of doing what we like, but the right (the gift of God, not of man) of being able to do what we ought.” – Lord Acton, parenthesis mine. It isn't freedom that is of want expression by unknowledgeable left liberals, more correctly it is the application of self-government by knowledgeable religious conservatives that obtains freedom.
From the political arena freedom denotes the absentee of oppression, while in religious terms it also denotes the lack of oppression. When talking and discussing the attributes of freedom one also cannot keep from discussing oppression. In simple terms the antonym of “oppression” can be construed with freedom. Strictly speaking the antonym of freedom is confinement and imprisonment. So, when discussing what freedom really means it must be applied correctly within the confines of the subject matter.
Both the liberal left and the conservative right use the word freedom within their own confines of demarcation, and both wants the use of the word to describe what either desires from the other. The liberal left wants freedom from the oppression of the conservative, really they mean the religious, right. Yet the conservative right wants freedom of the confines of taxation, for example, that the liberal left would like to impose on the so-called “rich.”
Here, I would like to dwell on the correct meaning of the word freedom. From the Christian perspective (correctly) God declared the “truth will set you free.” So, to get at the meaning of freedom one ought to know the “truth.” As this blog centers on, correct ideas vs. incorrect ideas, the idea of “truth” is paramount to knowing freedom.
What is the meaning of “truth,” or what is truth? This question was asked of God when he was standing in front of Pilate. In summation of the New Testament Jesus, alone, is the embodiment of truth. He, alone, represents what truth is in its purity. So, when the statement is said that the truth will set you free, knowing what truth is will set one free of falsehood. In other words God means truth, and “man” means falsehood. Relying on the truth of God is setting oneself free from the falsehood of man.
From this perspective, then, when assessing which political attraction those applying the real meaning of the word freedom the conservative right is closer to being correct. The liberal left is using “man” as the giver of freedom by politically abolishing what the conservative right wants to imposes on society. If those that know the truth, that man’s heart is evil, then imposing “reality checks” on the liberal left is closer to the correct usage of the word “freedom” than what the liberal left does by imposing “dream world theory” upon society and calling it “freedom.”
Finally, and in clarification, the meaning of the word “freedom” is the application of self-government by “knowing” the truth of oneself. “Knowing the truth,” that the individual human is evil, will apply self-government to be free from the liberal left’s imposition of falsehood. Furthermore, knowing the truth that everyone is not completely knowledgeable of the correct meaning of the word freedom, government impositions through democratically creations by the conservative right is more correctly applying the word freedom than the liberal left falsehood by desiring the utilizing of power of government to impose oppression and then calling it freedom.
Post script:
As Lord Acton correctly applies, “Liberty (freedom) is not the power of doing what we like, but the right (the gift of God, not of man) of being able to do what we ought.” – Lord Acton, parenthesis mine. It isn't freedom that is of want expression by unknowledgeable left liberals, more correctly it is the application of self-government by knowledgeable religious conservatives that obtains freedom.
Monday, February 14, 2005
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
