Modern America is experiencing an escalating negative political environment. The words “king”, “queen”, and “emperor” causes the mind to conjure a picture of superiority and sovereignty. The title of this article communicates the connection and correlating of these words to the political party of the Democrats. Their collective rhetoric eludes to this idea. After reading the book by Kenneth R. Timmerman entitled "Shadow Warriors," he documents with factual liberal behavior the mindset they are superior with their intellect and sovereign in their insistence that it is their natural action to use government power to install their sense of social justice.
As the book documents, it seems their belief system is evidence of a commitment level far beyond nationalism and loyalty to America as a country in need of defense against an abstract enemy. On the surface it looks as though they are carefree concerning the safety of American citizens. Their quick, almost defensive, response to accusations of traitorous actions some make against their adversaries, the Republicans and the person of President Bush, is rationalized as patriotic. Their continued efforts to redefine patriotism to cover their abhorrent rhetoric is growing old and needs to stop. The democratic party, and the members themselves, have to come clean with their corrosive and destructive actions and activities and accept the fact that they are anti-American, anti-freedom, and anti-individualists.
Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Why Liberals are Murderers in Their Philosophy
As in chess, and other games, but it is not limited to the play of games, there is always a winner and a loser in the battle of how these games are played. In the Liberal thought camp everything, including opinions, is considered equal. At least this is what liberal’s desire and that is for the world to evolve to a level where there are no losers, and of course no winners. Everything’s equal so that there are no conflicts. A conflict, for liberals, is evil.
In games a natural consequence is conflict. One side holds secure a win through a belief system. The other side, offensively or defensively, responds equally. When rules of the game are respected and strictly followed, a side will be victorious. For the liberal anticipation is nonexistent. When rules of the game are known and applied equally another aspect to game playing is anticipation.
Conflict and anticipation are natural occurrences when opposing parties are engaged in game playing. Both sides anticipate what levels of skill are to be employed to secure a victorious outcome. Another facet that occurs in the play of games is obviously consequences. When conflict is applied to the play of games, and anticipation is utilized, judgments are decided upon. Consequences, positive and negative, are the natural result of conflict.
The application of anticipation (judgments), and the respect of rules, will always produce consequences. This is the part of the rule of life that the liberals choose to ignore (most are oblivious to it), they do not want the anticipation of consequences to be in existence. The desire for positive outcomes during game conflict is as natural as the sun rising in the east. Making decisions is the process of anticipating positive consequences to game conflict. This confuses liberals and therefore is considered evil.
An example of a liberal thought process is as follows: if an individual wants the latest technological advanced vehicle sacrifices future purchases due to the present desire. If that individual then anticipates that future purchases are more important than the latest technological vehicle is judging upon the consequences of the conflict, new vehicle or future purchases. To the liberal the conflict is evil therefore is discounted. To the liberal purchase the vehicle now then deal with the future purchases later. When time evolves to the present and purchases are needed, but cannot due to the past purchase of the vehicle then something else other than the past judgment is the cause of the present conflict.
The analysis of the liberal thought is that consequences confuse their desire for the world to be equal in all things. A consequence, to the liberal, is tied directly to conflict, which is evil. So, to the liberal anticipation, or judgment, is not to be employed because it is against (evil) their outlook on the world. Judging and equality are two opposites of the philosophical spectrum to the liberal.
This is why the liberals are wrong and this type of philosophy needs to be eradicated. This philosophical outlook on the world kills people. As in my other installment, liberalism murders humans. Reality of this world is that everything is a play of games. With no anticipation of consequences to the application of strategy to the rules of the game, surely there are only losers and no winners. Liberalism must be shown its “evilness” and be sure to steer away from it.
Liberalism is trying to think emotionally, which is an oxymoron. Emotion is not thinking, and when an opposing side of a game is feeling it will surely lose the game of life.
In games a natural consequence is conflict. One side holds secure a win through a belief system. The other side, offensively or defensively, responds equally. When rules of the game are respected and strictly followed, a side will be victorious. For the liberal anticipation is nonexistent. When rules of the game are known and applied equally another aspect to game playing is anticipation.
Conflict and anticipation are natural occurrences when opposing parties are engaged in game playing. Both sides anticipate what levels of skill are to be employed to secure a victorious outcome. Another facet that occurs in the play of games is obviously consequences. When conflict is applied to the play of games, and anticipation is utilized, judgments are decided upon. Consequences, positive and negative, are the natural result of conflict.
The application of anticipation (judgments), and the respect of rules, will always produce consequences. This is the part of the rule of life that the liberals choose to ignore (most are oblivious to it), they do not want the anticipation of consequences to be in existence. The desire for positive outcomes during game conflict is as natural as the sun rising in the east. Making decisions is the process of anticipating positive consequences to game conflict. This confuses liberals and therefore is considered evil.
An example of a liberal thought process is as follows: if an individual wants the latest technological advanced vehicle sacrifices future purchases due to the present desire. If that individual then anticipates that future purchases are more important than the latest technological vehicle is judging upon the consequences of the conflict, new vehicle or future purchases. To the liberal the conflict is evil therefore is discounted. To the liberal purchase the vehicle now then deal with the future purchases later. When time evolves to the present and purchases are needed, but cannot due to the past purchase of the vehicle then something else other than the past judgment is the cause of the present conflict.
The analysis of the liberal thought is that consequences confuse their desire for the world to be equal in all things. A consequence, to the liberal, is tied directly to conflict, which is evil. So, to the liberal anticipation, or judgment, is not to be employed because it is against (evil) their outlook on the world. Judging and equality are two opposites of the philosophical spectrum to the liberal.
This is why the liberals are wrong and this type of philosophy needs to be eradicated. This philosophical outlook on the world kills people. As in my other installment, liberalism murders humans. Reality of this world is that everything is a play of games. With no anticipation of consequences to the application of strategy to the rules of the game, surely there are only losers and no winners. Liberalism must be shown its “evilness” and be sure to steer away from it.
Liberalism is trying to think emotionally, which is an oxymoron. Emotion is not thinking, and when an opposing side of a game is feeling it will surely lose the game of life.
Friday, September 09, 2005
The Idea of Atruism as an Ideal
What seems to permeate the minds of most Americans today, and the rest of the world, is altruism as the goal. Altruism, for the most part, is accepted as something to be desirably achieved in the life of the world’s populous, and developed towards fellow human beings. It is one aspect of human compassion that can be measured. It culminates its reality in the actions of humans towards others in a number of ways. I will address three of many examples.
Homelessness, as altruistic minded individuals perceive it, is a social decease. At first glance of the problem of homelessness it seems sad to the senses of emotion. To be homeless is an experience that I personally haven’t felt, although there have been times in my life that can be qualified as being close.
The public use of tobacco is another altruistic example of individuals who turn to altruism for the compassionate concern of its consumption, public or private. Those who have expressed concern move in the direction of altruism to call for the end of public consumption of tobacco.
To address a more sensitive subject are the victims, and their personal situations, of hurricane Katrina in the Louisiana and Mississippi delta area. Focusing specifically, the engineering endeavors of the New Orleans dikes that were built along the Mississippi River. It can be understood, by the residents of New Orleans, and the surrounding area, that it was altruistic for the Corp. of Engineers to erect dikes to keep the waters of the river from entering the city.
Homelessness
My question addressing altruism towards the many homeless individuals in the world, and many here in the United States, is really about the application of it. There is no denying that there is a problem with people having difficulty in the arrangement of housing for themselves and their families. How private and public institutions move altruistically in remedying homelessness is where I want to focus my attention. It is one thing for private institutions to move resources into the direction of altruism, but it is quite another for public institutions to move public resources in that direction.
For private entities to act altruistically can do so with ease of financial and resource departments within these institutions has foreknowledge of what it can do. Public institutions that act altruistically do not have the same structure of resources and finance, and therefore do not have the same foreknowledge.
In light of this example there is a difference how altruism is applied to humanity. Private institutions rely on either donations or sales for their income. Public institutions rely on their capability to force the constituency to pay taxes. In this respect those that are in positions of making decisions within public institutions resort to increasing taxes when resources are low when really they should be managing how monetary resources are spent. With this mentality in the forefront decisions are not made with the institution’s existence on the balance.
Tobacco
For many years tobacco has been burned for private consumption, and it has been used as money. Lately, it is looked upon as a public nuisance. Second hand smoke has been demonized due to it being easier to advertise obscurities. To object to the so-called facts and figures rhetoricalized by the liberal left of second hand smoke is a monumental battle. All the anti-smokers have to do is wave signs and the general public doesn’t know the difference.
In this example it is not altruistic to force one section of society into behavioral modification, and to be altruistic to the other. Again, altruism is pacing upon humanity goodness as a whole. How can a particular behavioral pattern of one section of society be cordoned off and be altruistic at the same time.
New Orleans’ Dikes
Years prior to the dikes of New Orleans been erected danger of the Mississippi River flooding the area was well known. At that time it was considered to be altruistic to have the Corp. of Engineers build great walls, dikes, forcing the Mississippi River from entering the city. Now that a hurricane slammed through the area the result was that the dikes were rendered useless. Now the city is useless, and many are homeless. Instead of objectively looking at the idea to cordon off an area sure of flooding as a nonsensical endeavor, altruism was a major factor to kill thousands of people thinking they were safe from the floods.
The idea of being altruistic to others first has to be sure of not harming some for the sake of others.
Homelessness, as altruistic minded individuals perceive it, is a social decease. At first glance of the problem of homelessness it seems sad to the senses of emotion. To be homeless is an experience that I personally haven’t felt, although there have been times in my life that can be qualified as being close.
The public use of tobacco is another altruistic example of individuals who turn to altruism for the compassionate concern of its consumption, public or private. Those who have expressed concern move in the direction of altruism to call for the end of public consumption of tobacco.
To address a more sensitive subject are the victims, and their personal situations, of hurricane Katrina in the Louisiana and Mississippi delta area. Focusing specifically, the engineering endeavors of the New Orleans dikes that were built along the Mississippi River. It can be understood, by the residents of New Orleans, and the surrounding area, that it was altruistic for the Corp. of Engineers to erect dikes to keep the waters of the river from entering the city.
Homelessness
My question addressing altruism towards the many homeless individuals in the world, and many here in the United States, is really about the application of it. There is no denying that there is a problem with people having difficulty in the arrangement of housing for themselves and their families. How private and public institutions move altruistically in remedying homelessness is where I want to focus my attention. It is one thing for private institutions to move resources into the direction of altruism, but it is quite another for public institutions to move public resources in that direction.
For private entities to act altruistically can do so with ease of financial and resource departments within these institutions has foreknowledge of what it can do. Public institutions that act altruistically do not have the same structure of resources and finance, and therefore do not have the same foreknowledge.
In light of this example there is a difference how altruism is applied to humanity. Private institutions rely on either donations or sales for their income. Public institutions rely on their capability to force the constituency to pay taxes. In this respect those that are in positions of making decisions within public institutions resort to increasing taxes when resources are low when really they should be managing how monetary resources are spent. With this mentality in the forefront decisions are not made with the institution’s existence on the balance.
Tobacco
For many years tobacco has been burned for private consumption, and it has been used as money. Lately, it is looked upon as a public nuisance. Second hand smoke has been demonized due to it being easier to advertise obscurities. To object to the so-called facts and figures rhetoricalized by the liberal left of second hand smoke is a monumental battle. All the anti-smokers have to do is wave signs and the general public doesn’t know the difference.
In this example it is not altruistic to force one section of society into behavioral modification, and to be altruistic to the other. Again, altruism is pacing upon humanity goodness as a whole. How can a particular behavioral pattern of one section of society be cordoned off and be altruistic at the same time.
New Orleans’ Dikes
Years prior to the dikes of New Orleans been erected danger of the Mississippi River flooding the area was well known. At that time it was considered to be altruistic to have the Corp. of Engineers build great walls, dikes, forcing the Mississippi River from entering the city. Now that a hurricane slammed through the area the result was that the dikes were rendered useless. Now the city is useless, and many are homeless. Instead of objectively looking at the idea to cordon off an area sure of flooding as a nonsensical endeavor, altruism was a major factor to kill thousands of people thinking they were safe from the floods.
The idea of being altruistic to others first has to be sure of not harming some for the sake of others.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
People of a Different Mentality
I have spent a lot of time downloading close to a terabyte of mp3 new age music via the internet's Usenet. I observe what others post, and interpret the “general rules for posting,” uploading, for when I plan on “sharing” my collection. I have found, during this time, that there are artists and titles I have in my collection that were not posted, and feel confident that I will not post duplicates.
Since I am sensitive to the political side of people, and their relationships accordingly, I still find myself stumbling, face first, into being irritated by some, who either think or feel, they are human-kind’s savior to perfection (see Christianity, Cain, and Government). Mind you, I couldn’t care less if they preach all they want into how others have terrible characters, and need fixing. I draw the line when they actually use any kind of power to accomplish their goal.
This brings me to the title of this installment. There are two kinds of people, those that view others as goofs and need to be perfected, and those that don’t care if they are not perfect and want to be left alone. I am in the second group of people. I’ll go even further to state that I will go out of my way to let others be who they think they are. I cannot fathom the desire of the other kind to actually busy themselves into planning governmental policies to carry out their goal to perfect society into their sense of divine social behavior.
They may not know it, but some actually do, believe they actually sit in God’s chair and order human behavior according to how they understand how others are to behave. They will deny it, but they view themselves as being perfect. To them it is others that need fixing. You may even say to yourself, at this point, I am being like them wanting to fix them. Not entirely true, although I do understand where that thought comes from. What is different is that all I want is to be left alone in my imperfection. What I want fixing is the apparatus, the kind of government our found fathers built, which they have contaminated, to infect me, and the like, with their brand of perfection.
When discussing this idea with those of that other kind they become offended to the suggestion that those alike, and I, want to be left alone in our imperfection. I have been told that I must think I am better than they because of their rhetoric in response communicates that “we” are in this together, and that this is a democracy, and not individual human islands. Of course they haven’t the foggiest idea that this country isn’t a democracy, but instead a republic. Hence, there are arenas, or areas, of this free society that are off limits, and they are numerated in the U.S. Constitution.
Since I am sensitive to the political side of people, and their relationships accordingly, I still find myself stumbling, face first, into being irritated by some, who either think or feel, they are human-kind’s savior to perfection (see Christianity, Cain, and Government). Mind you, I couldn’t care less if they preach all they want into how others have terrible characters, and need fixing. I draw the line when they actually use any kind of power to accomplish their goal.
This brings me to the title of this installment. There are two kinds of people, those that view others as goofs and need to be perfected, and those that don’t care if they are not perfect and want to be left alone. I am in the second group of people. I’ll go even further to state that I will go out of my way to let others be who they think they are. I cannot fathom the desire of the other kind to actually busy themselves into planning governmental policies to carry out their goal to perfect society into their sense of divine social behavior.
They may not know it, but some actually do, believe they actually sit in God’s chair and order human behavior according to how they understand how others are to behave. They will deny it, but they view themselves as being perfect. To them it is others that need fixing. You may even say to yourself, at this point, I am being like them wanting to fix them. Not entirely true, although I do understand where that thought comes from. What is different is that all I want is to be left alone in my imperfection. What I want fixing is the apparatus, the kind of government our found fathers built, which they have contaminated, to infect me, and the like, with their brand of perfection.
When discussing this idea with those of that other kind they become offended to the suggestion that those alike, and I, want to be left alone in our imperfection. I have been told that I must think I am better than they because of their rhetoric in response communicates that “we” are in this together, and that this is a democracy, and not individual human islands. Of course they haven’t the foggiest idea that this country isn’t a democracy, but instead a republic. Hence, there are arenas, or areas, of this free society that are off limits, and they are numerated in the U.S. Constitution.
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.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
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.
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.
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.
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).
Monday, January 17, 2005
The Root of Christian Beliefs Attacks
What has bothered me intellectually for sometime now is what are the reasons for the liberal extreme left to attack the Christian belief system and the writings thereof. The evidence of the liberal left's barrage are in a number of legal cases throughout this country.
The liberal left’s fervent public irritation root point is the argument that somehow it is wrong for the collective Christian to believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation. The liberal left determines this Christian communiqué represented as being narrow minded, and therefore abhorrent to the liberal left’s particular outlook on human life in the confines of societies. Because of this struggle between the two factions, Christian beliefs vs. liberalism, the liberal left argue that due to the narrow mindedness of the Christian belief system, Christians are disqualified to politically participate in secular society.
The fundamental teaching of Christianity (to be real clear here, there are Christian organizations that are not Christian, which this concept can be further investigated at www.equip.org) is found in the fundamental teaching that the human heart is evil due to sin, and that man then requires a way to salvation. In other belief systems, excluding the Jewish religion, they hold that man can be found good only if curtain criteria (man made) are socially integrated. The problem here is there are literally hundreds of belief systems that hold this view of mankind, and therefore clash with the Christian view. The question is then, which one is the correct view (idea).
The liberal left argues that it doesn't matter which world view is correct as long as each world view doesn't judge, or proclaim, which is correct. The Christian religion communicates that it is only Jesus that can bring the human individual to salvation from the abyss of sinfulness, which is a repugnant notion on the part of the liberal left. What the liberal say in response to the Christian rhetoric is "How dare Christians believe that they have the only correct belief system, and everybody else is wrong." They will site a Biblical passage about judging others least be judged yourself. Needless to say they have this idea wrong also.
To the liberal left what does it matter to you, personally, that Christians hold an opinion that believe the only way to salvation is believing in Jesus as God of the Bible? How does this opinion hurt you personally? Yet, on the other hand, liberalism of the left hurts Christians personally because the liberal left will not allow Christians to publicly harbor a Christ centered belief within the confines of a secular society.
The liberal left’s fervent public irritation root point is the argument that somehow it is wrong for the collective Christian to believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation. The liberal left determines this Christian communiqué represented as being narrow minded, and therefore abhorrent to the liberal left’s particular outlook on human life in the confines of societies. Because of this struggle between the two factions, Christian beliefs vs. liberalism, the liberal left argue that due to the narrow mindedness of the Christian belief system, Christians are disqualified to politically participate in secular society.
The fundamental teaching of Christianity (to be real clear here, there are Christian organizations that are not Christian, which this concept can be further investigated at www.equip.org) is found in the fundamental teaching that the human heart is evil due to sin, and that man then requires a way to salvation. In other belief systems, excluding the Jewish religion, they hold that man can be found good only if curtain criteria (man made) are socially integrated. The problem here is there are literally hundreds of belief systems that hold this view of mankind, and therefore clash with the Christian view. The question is then, which one is the correct view (idea).
The liberal left argues that it doesn't matter which world view is correct as long as each world view doesn't judge, or proclaim, which is correct. The Christian religion communicates that it is only Jesus that can bring the human individual to salvation from the abyss of sinfulness, which is a repugnant notion on the part of the liberal left. What the liberal say in response to the Christian rhetoric is "How dare Christians believe that they have the only correct belief system, and everybody else is wrong." They will site a Biblical passage about judging others least be judged yourself. Needless to say they have this idea wrong also.
To the liberal left what does it matter to you, personally, that Christians hold an opinion that believe the only way to salvation is believing in Jesus as God of the Bible? How does this opinion hurt you personally? Yet, on the other hand, liberalism of the left hurts Christians personally because the liberal left will not allow Christians to publicly harbor a Christ centered belief within the confines of a secular society.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
