Category: politics

Categories
atheism creative essays politics revelation Uncategorized

Why Christians are the Real Truthseekers

truth image.

I had a kind of epiphany the other night about truth and the seeking of it.

I have always felt that most believers I have known are extremely curious people, and have often considered them to be seekers of truth.

Now, an atheist hears this and maybe scorns at the idea. They think of themselves at pure rationalists, following logic and reason to their inevitable conclusions. I believe, for most of them, this is a self-deception.

I say this because you often find, especially concerning social and political issues, atheists allow emotion to override their sense of logic and reason. You often find that they believe that if a man claims that he is biologically a woman, then he just is. The traditional husband/wife/child nuclear family structure can be replaced with alternative models, and nothing of value is lost. And there many more examples such as this.

What is happening is that truth is being discarded for a false sense of self-righteousness.

I find that the majority of atheists do not believe in truth at all. They believe in good feelings, and acceptance to the point of being enablers of suffering.

Christians believe that only the truth can set someone free. It seems to me, on the other hand, that many agnostics and atheists believe that truth, in regards to social issues, such as those just proffered, should take a back seat to niceness.

The problem is, it is not nice to enable someone in their own self-destructive behavior. It is reprehensible, pernicious and evil.

Another example is the absurdity, in the atheist worldview, in being politically or socially active, at all. In a godless universe, where we are just assemblages of meaningless matter, where all morals are subjective, or a matter of cultural preference, the idea that a person should be socially or morally inclined to the point of emotionalism is absurd. In such a world, more of a selfish and self-serving moral philosophy makes sense– that is, if you determine that life is worth living out, at all.

But on Twitter and in message forums all over the internet, on any given day, you find atheists using the strongest of moral language in indignation and judgment toward those that think or believe or vote differently from them. They call their interlocutors reprehensible, racists, and even go as far as to use the word evil.

This is a great mystery and betrays an inconsistency in their reasoning processes. It is not truth that blindly follow, but their souls, in the end.

All of that said, after midnight, a couple of nights ago, I had an epiphany that put all of this together. I made two Tweets at the time to express my realization.

“Most live in a world of bad guys and good guys. Christians live in a world with all bad guys. The only natural thing left for us do is to seek truth, as we already know we won’t ever make a heaven here on earth.”

This is an important point. I’m not trying to fix the world. It is man’s heart or soul that needs fixing. I’ll leave the endless cycle of legislating morality through government to those who don’t know better. The cycle of suffering isn’t going anywhere. Governments will grow in scope and power, the people will be oppressed by the swelling power of the government, The people will either revolt or capitulate. Nothing is gained. No moral progress has been had. The world becomes no better, but more confusing to our befuddled social scientists and humanities engineers.

Believers are not sidetracked by all of this moral wrangling. We are left to seek out truth. It is all we have left to accomplish.

The other tweet:

“Being a truthseeker is what ultimately leads people to God. You can only find God by sorting through the chaos of the moral singularity inside man. But you can only find yourself there by seeking truth.“

And that is closer to the point. Unless you confront the greatest mysteries and tackle them head on, you cannot make a claim to truth. You cannot claim to be a seeker of truth. We who believe have already looked into the noisy turbulence of the cosmic eye, and found truth in it. And because the truth sets a person free, we are free of the moral and political confusion that often finds a home inside the godless man.

Categories
creative essays politics

Theory: Why Euro Nations can get away with Socialism, and we can’t.

feature image.

It has happened over and over. When talking to a democrat socialist or a liberal, they bring up the wonderful socialized health program in Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands or some other minor Eastern European country. If it can work there, then it can work here, they proudly affirm.

They never stop to really ask themselves why these countries can afford such experiments, and the United States can’t. But more importantly, they never stop to ask themselves why the world can afford to allow them these socialized institutions, but why the world cannot afford the United States taking on these kind of massive financial changes.

First, let us look at military power. The United States, at all times, is prepared to fight a war on three fronts at the same time. The US literally has a military capacity to fight 3 wars at once, with two other superpowers thrown in for good measure.

The size and scope of US military reach is astounding and mind-boggling. The US, for example, has 13, 683 military aircraft. To compare, this is more than the next 7 countries on the military superpower index COMBINED.

America has 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. The rest of the world combined has two.

The United States spends about $732 Billion on its military every year, which is almost as much as the next 10 countries combined.

These are important, if not critical facts. They are important because it is all necessary for world pace and stability. If the United States wasn’t making up this kind of slack, and if America reduced its massive military budget, western civilization itself would come into immediate jeopardy. Bad actors, with dreams of expansion and empire, like Russia and China, would seize on this weakening of the West’s defensive infrastructure and expand their global reach, either by projection or war.

In other words, the United States fields almost all of the military infrastructure of western democratic nations. They are, in some ways, the sacrificial lamb.

If America instituted the expensive and grand social experiments that others can only afford because of America’s assumed protection, who is going to pick up the slack then and stop the bad guys from destroying western civilization?

In those nations that these socialist programs exist in, do they also have the financial responsibility for a HUNDRED worldwide military bases, and a military geared for fighting 3 wars at once? Is the world looking TO THEM every time the shit break loose?

And if they don’t have those responsibilities, who–do you think, is going to take up the place of world leader once America goes into unrecoverable debt?

Certainly not China or Russia, right?

Right?

In all, these countries enjoy the capability to spend large proportions of their overall budgets on socialized medicine and free healthcare because they rely on the massive military power of the United States to ward off potential existential threats such as China or Russia. American power and projection across the globe keeps them in check. If America were to institute the same programs, they would, of necessity, have to decrease military spending and weaken the whole civilized world’s defensive posture against bad actors and nations. The rest of the free world would immediately become vulnerable and have to vastly increase their own military spending budgets. They might not be able to keep or maintain these expensive socialist programs financially.

This is one of the reasons why you generally see President Donald Trump constantly urging other Western nations to increase their overall contribution to matters of defense. He probably wants nothing more than to reduce military spending so that he can introduce Trumpcare and make his lasting mark on American history.

Categories
creative essays politics revelation Uncategorized

Why all Christians should Oppose Big Government

flag of america
Photo by Todd Trapani on Pexels.com

All Christians should oppose the rapid growth of the government that we are seeing in the United States, keeping in mind that– the larger the reach of the government into American lives, the smaller the reach of the church.

The bigger the government, the more intrusive the government, the more the people become like the government, taking on its character and its traits. We see this in nations run by tyrants, despots, and especially communist regimes, where the people seem spirit-less, the arts dead, religion controlled and suppressed, and the citizenry neutered, prone, apathetic, accepting, uncultured and reserved.

You almost never find heroism in these places. You find an emasculated citizenry, hushed up, tamped down, walking around like robots and zombies, given only to work, competition, honor and pride.

The issue is that the government is faceless, and void of what people truly need. It can offer a signed and stamped check, but can a check replace a father? Can a check replace a family unit? Can a check replace domestic tranquility and stability in the home?

The answer is in the negative. When we switched over to government itself being the social arm of the masses, we lost much, as a society. Because the government is not part of our community. The church is. The government’s face is lacking character and compassion, and the church’s isn’t.

The government can feed children, can financially support a mother, and can pay her medical bills, it is true. The government can be a provider. But it cannot be a dad, a father, a friend or a encouraging acquaintance. It cannot be a Christian friend. It cannot be a comforting and holy spirit of truth.

It cannot give truth. And only the truth leads to freedom. Jesus said: “and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” True freedom for a people or a community or an oppressed race starts with a turn to the truth. Then freedom comes. But truth must come first.

The church must come first. The gospel message must come first. Without it, freedom will die. Because freedom relies on a man knowing what is true in his heart. When a man knows the truth in his heart, he will be willing to die for that truth. A society of men not willing to die in defense of the truth is a society of speed bumps, of emasculated automatons, and nothing more.

The secular state breeds such men, nurtures and raises such men, devoid of faith, of a blessed hope, of true religion. Because the state is godless, its children are likely to be godless. Because the state is not heroic, the people are not going to be heroic. Because the state is not good, the people are not going to be good.

Government programs foster dependency, not freedom.

The citizens that are under the influence of the government, and the secular government priesthood (democrats, leftists and socialists.) all display the signs and symptoms of being alive, and growing up, but growing up without paternal instruction and wisdom. They are overemotional, always in some kind of emotional distress. Their father is faceless, nameless, and absent except for material support.

When the state transitions into a paternal role, the nuclear family suffers, and society begins to descend into violence and anarchy. Man is to answer to God. When man only answers to the godless state, man really answers to the void within himself.

The more the state becomes the paternal presence, the more its children will remain as children well past their appointed age. The state makes children of men and women. It stunts their natural growth process, and juvenile characteristics are retained in them.

They would rather be dependent, at some point, than to be free individuals. They do not know freedom, and fear it the same way a young child does his first day away from his mother at school.

The critical point is that the government is a natural competitor with the church. The vast resources of the church used to be distributed with a catch–you had to attend in order to pick it up. Your benefactor had a face, a smile, and a blessing to impart. People went to the church for help, received physical goods in their time of distress, but also a spiritual feeding.

The church was literally the center of every community once. A common counter by those who worship the state is that government can respond more efficiently and with more resources, during an emergency. But fact is, huge and unwieldy responses aren’t going to be often needed with a limited government, as the people will be more self-sufficient, and the church will reap what the governing structure leaks out.

The church has stepped up in times past. We forget this. They were the ones who raised the orphans in the 30s through the 50s. They were handing out loaves at the bread lines. They built all of the homeless shelters and women’s shelters. They ran free health clinics and immunization programs. They built a vast network of charitable organizations that kept Americans afloat during the rise of America.

In all, what we are seeing today, is the coming to fruition of a truth that Jesus spoke 2,000 years ago: Man cannot live on bread alone.

But that is exactly why this country is in the predicament we are in regarding our inner city neighborhoods and ghettos. They can only give bread, but not other types of sustenance that are just as vital and necessary. It cannot encourage with an arm around the shoulder. It cannot pray with you or instruct in wisdom. It cannot commune with you, break bread with you. It doesn’t mail you a sympathy card when a close relative dies, or call every night to check up on you. The greater the role of government, the lesser the strength of community for a nation and people.

Go Home.
Why the Left LOVES Civil Disorder

If there is No God…
Faith Keeps the Human Race Going

A Thought on White Privilege

Categories
creative essays politics Uncategorized

Rethinking Compassionate Conservatism

what is compassionate conservatism

Compassion: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. (dictionary.com)

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights. (Wiki)

When I think of compassionate conservatism, I think of the administration and personal moral philosophy of George W Bush, 42nd President of the United States. My feeling about President Bush is that he was a good man surrounded by people of questionable character. My feeling about compassionate conservatism is that it is a moral program that we need badly right now, in our current political climate.

We must not forget that this is a godless world, and most human beings live in a fallen state. Christians are called to spread the gospel, practice charity, pray for their enemies and take care of widows. We are not called to spread offensive memes, to engage in partisan warfare or to be apologists for the rich.

Now, compassionate conservatism is a Christian-influenced conservatism. It is republicanism with a christian soul. It means to help others crawl out of the ditch, instead of pouring dirt on them. It means to practice righteous charity, to be angry at sin, but love and correct the sinner.

The heart of conservatism must be compassion. It must be charity, giving, acceptance, forgiveness and mercy. Otherwise, it is not a compassionate ideology.

The alt-right is a natural reaction to the antics of the secular left. But it is not a Christian movement, and Christians should not be behind it or supporting it. It is “a form of godliness, but lacking the power thereof,” as it says in the New Testament. It is unchristian to troll others, to meme at others, to mock or berate others. Christians must reject these practices and tactics, otherwise we have not done anything to separate our behavior from that of the world.

Compassionate conservatives also should be against the growth of government:

We are against the state because the state is a natural competitor to the influence of the church.

The secular, godless state can only give bread, but not compassion, understanding, love and friendship. And that is what broken humans really need.

But there is much compassion in traditional, conservative values. What is morally good is often “good FOR you,” and so we support a certain moral principle, and teach it, it is for the benefit of the people.

We must remember that Jesus brought a rebel’s message. His gospel message offended many, offended the Roman authorities, offended the Pharisees, offended the Sadducees. Make no mistake–it was a radical group of ideas that he taught. We must always keep this in mind. We must always support the free exchange of ideas, and never authorize censorship, never take up the pitchforks against speech.

We are not at war with radical ideas, rather we are at war with the forces of evil in the world.

We must remember that it is evil we are at war with, not racism, or any ism or phobia, but old-fashioned, time-tested wickedness. We are not at war with factions, races, ideological groups or political parties.

We are not at war with people.

Jesus came to save all people.

George Bush understood this. Bush was as hated as Trump is, called a buffoon day after day in the press, as well. But he was a two term President for a reason. His message had a heart, a Christian heart.

Conservatives also need to recognize that their ideological message has a Christian origin. There is good, sound reasoning behind conservative beliefs, but ultimately, they are all Christian in design.

The problem with secular conservatism is its foundational selfishness and the lack of compassion in its tenets. We have to remember the squares of the 50s, the ruthless businessmen who polluted our lakes and rivers, who forced Jim Morrison to leave the country on trumped up obscenity charges. All examples of historical conservative overreach.

The truth is that classical conservatives will often be at odds with evangelical conservatives. A secular conservative philosophy will always suffer from the fact that its moral bedrock is a subjective one, after all; It suffers from the same troubles that secular liberal beliefs and marxist leftist beliefs are prone to-which is the pliability and looseness of its moral program, wide open to culturalist attitudes and toxic intrusions. It is open to compromise, to fraud, to being diluted. But the compassionate person has his or her compassion as a general rule, grounding them in an objective foundation which is hard to stray from without complicated ideological gymnastics.

We must always seek out the reasons why we support the ideals and values that we support, making sure they come from a place of compassion. Jesus made a powerful statement about the observation of the Sabbath day when he said that

“man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath was made for man.“

For example, a Christian’s support for traditional marriage, and the male/female dynamic is often viewed as hateful or pernicious by the world. But the truth is that Christians have the best in mind for people. The best situation for a child to grow up in is one with a mother and father present in the household, married. Our eyes are not on gay or lesbian people and what they practice in the privacy of their own homes. Our hearts are with the children.

Sometimes Christians will oppose gay marriage. They don’t (or shouldn’t) do so out of hostile feelings for people who identify as gay. Rather they believe that the best life for men and women of all colors and creeds is best represented by a relationship between male and female in the traditional marriage structure.

That best order describes compassionate conservatism, I think. We don’t point out sin in order to judge; We point out and describe the ramifications of sin, and the harmfulness of it on the sinner and his life. We understand that God wants the best for us, and that is why the best for us is spelled out in the guidelines and commandments in the bible.

It is not conservatism based on selfishness; It is not the ornery old man on his porch complaining about unjust taxes and decrying his hard-earned money being used to help others. It is not represented by flying the confederate flag, launching into screeds about taxation, and using words like “savages” to describe others.

In fact, Christianity **is** compassionate conservatism. It puts the compassion in conservatism. Our traditional values are Christian values, such as love for neighbor, personal responsibility for widows, for sin, for our family and friends.

And I think that is the point, that Christianity is compassionate conservatism, and we would do best to remember that, and a return to it, at this point in time, needs to be seriously considered.

Why the Left LOVES Civil Disorder

If there is No God… Faith Keeps the Human Race Going

A Thought on White Privilege