Christ - Ideal or Reality?

The Christmas season seems to be a tough season for me.  As I talk to more and more people, I come face to face with the reality that Christmas brings out the selfish, greedy, indulgent, self-centered thinking of many people.  A recent Facebook post I saw had taken the opportunity to turn the idea of being able to lie to your kids about Santa as proof that we can simply tell our kids that gay couple are alright because they have love (I don't link it here because why would I want to give it any more places to exist?).  This post appeared on an alleged Christian's page.  I specifically say alleged because I have come to doubt the reality of belief in almost everybody I meet that claims to be a Christian.  I have no idea whether or not they are true Christians and more likely than not they are better people than I am.  But the thing I've realized is that many people tend to be fonder of the IDEA of God or Jesus rather than actually believing the reality of God's existence.  Really, when these people say they believe it is really saying, “I like the general idea of it, so I accept that position.”  However, the position is excepted on the condition that they don't have to actually believe it (which would impact their life).

I find this idea of the Christian idealist to be the most common person I meet claiming to be a Christian.  The problem is I have no idea who is sincerely chasing Christ and just failing as a sinner or who is the person attached to the idea – I don't think there is any way to tell without really getting to know the person, but even then we can't look inside their heart to see their true intentions.

  

With that said though, something strikes me; certain things flat out contradict the very thing you say to believe and so accepting those positions means you really can't believe that which you say.  Gay marriage is one of those things that is so blatantly against the Bible, one cannot possibly believe that Christ is who He claims to be and still support gay marriage as a Christian.  One cannot possibly believe Christ is who He claimed to be an still believe the only thing that matters in life is the nice car, nice cell phone, and whatever little thing fills you with happiness aside from Christ.  Materialism is a sign of those who see themselves as the center of the universe and therefore cannot be serving Christ.  Liberalism and its pursuit of murder of children, gay marriage, the suppression of religion, and conformity to social morals is against Christ and therefore supporting liberalism means you are NOT supporting Christianity.   I find that people that claim to be Christians yet support these opposing views are simply NOT Christians at all (doesn't mean they don't live better lives than me), but somebody who got attached to the idea of God rather than believed in God. 

How can you judge them, you know you aren't supposed to judge? How can I? Simple, because I know some things are mutually exclusive.  You cannot be an atheist and a Christian.  You cannot support gay marriage and serve Christ.  Simple.  But I'm not supposed to judge right?  You see though, I'm not judging here, I'm simply stating the conclusion of the truth claim.  Liberals try to find ways to reinterpret the scripture to fit their belief system but that just shows the point, they serve liberalism and not Christ. Jesus himself says you cannot serve two masters.  The idea of serving your own belief system and making it to say what you FEEL it should, means that you are serving YOURSELF and not Christ.  These are not judgments, they are simply observations based on basic rational thought.  Though I could defend being judgmental in certain circumstances, I don't even have to offer any justification for a simple statement of truth – if the two claims are mutually exclusive then one cannot accept the position of one claim and yet hold the other to be true as well. 

Christmas is a reminder that I am a disgusting sinner in need of a savior and that God graciously provided one.  I see the darkness is the people around me, everywhere I look.  It's not the unbelievers that make me sick; it's those claiming to be Christians while clearly serving the wrong master.  This Christmas season, I find myself trying to look at the mirror and make sure that I am not attached to an idea.  This Christmas, I want to find that I BELIEVE and that I'm not stuck in the pursuit of an idea – my own ideas especially.  It isn’t my goal to condemn the world, but rather to make sure we have some rational thought.  We must understand that one cannot accept all positions equally.  Naturally, if some beliefs are to be accepted others are rejected in the same action.  It is sometimes worth looking at our lives to see if maybe we've compromised a bit and have started to embrace the IDEA of God rather than the REALITY of Him.

Atheism - The "Neutral" Enemy

Is Atheism neutral?  This question arises because within politics it is often easy to find people on both sides, liberals and conservatives, that believe atheism is a neutral position.  Part of the problem comes from the effective re-branding of atheism.  The atheist movement has made an intentional effort to redefine atheism as a simple lack of belief in a deity.  This watered down definition is not really what it means to be an atheist however.  Noe-atheism, as it is called in some philosophical circles, tries to include everybody that simply lacks a belief in god.  When we talk atheists though, what we really mean are those who reject the existence of God or a god.  We don't mean the person that hasn't considered the question; we mean the person who has considered it and concluded positively that there is no god of any sort. 

This definition is important because it contains the direct answer as to whether atheism can be neutral at all.  If somebody has already drawn a conclusion then they are NOT NEUTRAL.  Most politicians or political groups that go out to try to eliminate religious belief in politics do not just lack a belief.  They have taken a position against God and rejected all religious belief.  Of this belief, the 1828 edition of the Webster dictionary has this to say, “Atheism is a ferocious system that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us, to awaken tenderness.” Do we want leaders who have rejected our belief system?  This is what gets me, politics is precisely where belief SHOULD be expressed.  Leaders should lead based on BELIEFS.  The atheist REFUSES TO BELIEVE there is a God.  It’s not scientific.  It’s not the default belief. Most of all, it IS NOT NEUTRAL.

  

So what's the point of this?  I guess the more I look at the world, the more I see believers getting sucked into the mentality that leaders should govern outside of their religion.  The assumption has become that the atheist position is not only neutral, but also the default.  These so called believers need to be slapped because this is total nonsense.  First off, as pointed out atheism cannot be neutral (I also touch on it in my other post: Is Religion Bad?).  Second, all these believers need to realize the default position is belief.  Look at the history of the world, look at the primitive tribes that exist today, look at the studies of belief, and look at the kids of the world.  BELIEF IS DEFAULT.  Atheists always try to act like belief is learned and that atheism is the natural way.  This however is complete false!  A quick look at primitive tribes or study of ancient history shows that the default has always been BELIEF in a deity.  We might learn our particular religious belief system, but we don’t have to be taught to believe.  G.K. Chesterton covered this in his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter “The Ethics of Elfland.”  Dr. Alvin Plantinga also discusses the idea of a properly basic belief frequently – he actually lists belief in God as properly basic.  My point is Christians need to wake up and stop acting so dumb about atheism.  Understand that to be an atheist is to REJECT the Christian view.  It doesn’t mean the person that never considered your position, but rather the person that considered and chose to reject belief in God.  This is an opposing view to Christianity, not the pre-Christian belief.  Those who lack belief need to be educated.  Those who rejected it need to be opposed.

When we vote for leaders, when we encounter laws, we need to reject the liberal view that religion should be separate.  Religion should permeate politics!  Governing should be done based on a belief system other than atheism.  The U.S. government cannot promote a single religion, so why do we not get up in arms when they promote the religion of atheism?  People need to be educated that atheism isn't a neutral position; it is the partner of liberalism, the enemy of conservatives, and in direct opposition to Christianity. 

That Dang Pope!

Sorry for the long delay in writing, I’ve just been very busy with work.  I couldn’t find time in my day to write anything for the blog.  Though there were a number of things on my mind like the government shutdown, the future of conservatism, and what we should aim for as conservatives in a liberal society, I just couldn’t find the hours in a day to write about any of them.  Now that the shutdown is over, I actually wanted to address another issue completely different than those I just mentioned – the Pope.

See, right now the Pope is highly controversial among Catholics and has caused quite a stir.  Some conservatives want his head while many liberals are cheering him as if he fighting for their cause.  Now, as a non-Catholic I have found that I tend to come in with a slightly different view of him.  Pope Francis has been in the media quite a bit and many of his statements seem to have been flaunted as a change in Catholic teaching.  However, what the liberals would like the Pope to say and what the Pope is actually saying are two different things.  Francis has sparked a lot of debate and I hear many conservatives bashing him as completely stupid for even talking.  So let me breakdown my perspective a little.

First though, let’s address the media.  As most people with half a brain know, the media is completely sold out to liberalism.  The news is just a propaganda machine trying to bend everything in a way that promotes liberalism.  Liberals are absolute idiots, they’re never going to embrace logic yet try to argue with logic until they get destroyed and then they argue emotions.  As far as liberals are concerned, debates are over: evolution, global warming, gay marriage, and even religion.  They are over because the liberals are so smart they don’t even argue, don’t follow science, logic, reason, or intelligent process and instead just say the arguments are over.  This approach is surprisingly effective because the news (along with essentially every TV show, except Last Man Standing, is liberal) promotes the idea that the argument is over and just doesn’t ever talk about the other view, ever.  So whenever there is a story about the Pope on the news we need to understand as non-Obamaholics that each story comes in the context of EXPANDING THE LIBERAL AGENDA.  Meaning, most likely the news will use words to skew the story, take out of context the quotes, and have some sort of bash on conservative values – very slyly over course.  If you’re a conservative and mad at the Pope because of something you heard on the news, you’re misinformed. 

However, some conservatives are well aware of the worthless news and have decided the Pope is an idiot because he even talks and should be aware that the liberal media will decimate whatever he says.  I find this a bit disturbing because it gives MORE power to the media! Should the Pope really be holding his tongue because the liberals will try to change it to fit their agenda?  Set the Pope aside for a second and ask yourself if all conservatives should be quiet in order to not give the liberal media something to talk about.  Living in fear of being taking out of context gives all the power to the liberals and we as conservatives have done their job for them.  Conservatives should be celebrating that at least the Pope is still a news story!  Make no mistake; liberals can’t wait till there are no conservatives to talk about and bad mouth.  Remember, the only compromise a liberal knows is where the other party talks, looks, eats, acts, thinks, and votes the same as them.  The Pope is a story because HE IS NOT one of them and the liberals want to make him like them. 

The second thing to take into consideration is that the Pope has successfully brought the debate forward.  Gay marriage and women’s roles have actually been talked about again and people have had the opportunity to EXPLAIN the conservative view.  For a long time the conservative view has been described by everybody else EXCEPT the conservatives.  Liberals have defined what we believe and others have accepted.  “The church hates homosexuals.” “Christians believe just being gay is a sin.” “Christians think they’re so much better than everybody else.”   When the liberals define the conservative view, then the real conservative view can never win.  All the attention the Pope has drawn has given an opportunity for conservatives to actually talk about what the REAL conservative view is.  Conversation has actually surfaced and the time for educating the liberals and other “conservatives” has started because of the Pope.  Mention “Christian” or “Catholic” and you automatically have images flood into people’s minds – many images that have been defined and establish by the LIBERALS and are therefore completely distorted.  We can win every debate against liberalism because conservatism is simply a better, rational, logical, and intelligent view of the world but many conservatives have succumb to the liberal view and have accepted the liberal media’s position that the debate is over.  Because of the focus on the Pope we have been given the opportunity to educate the world, liberals and conservatives alike, on the real beliefs of conservative Christians.  THIS IS A GOOD THING!

A third thing to realize is that the Pope has attempted to be more Christ like and less Pharisee like VISUALLY.  It’s not to say other Popes where Pharisaical, but rather that Pope Francis is specifically trying to change the IMAGE that is perceived when viewing the Pope .  Many of the conservatives remind me of the Pharisees who had their own understanding of how things should be and were unwilling to see any differently.  They held so tightly to THEIR PERSONAL beliefs that many missed the very thing they were looking for.  Often times these conservatives get so focused on their way that they believe they personally know better than everybody else.  By making many of the drastic or more subtle changes, the Pope has moved into a ministry that is much more Christ like than acting loftier and higher than everybody else.  Focusing on the poor, emphasizing love, and walking among the crowds is very much a shift in style and a great attempt at changing the PERCEPTION that exists among people.  How effective it will be in the long run remains to be seen, but the contrast is clear when compared to some previous Popes, especially those in recent memory of the people.  He has to find a way to be on the level with people because stories of the smuggling millions of dollars in or spending millions on lavish living continue to pop up.  How do we educate people and change the perception WITHOUT doing something different? I think people need to really appreciate what the Pope is trying to do, whether or not it is successfully achieved.  People expect the Pope to be in a palace.  People expect extravagance.  People expect the Pope to not talk about anything controversial.  However, what has this done for the message of Christianity and what has this done to establish the Christian attitude of serving people?  Something NEEDED TO CHANGE!  We don’t want to sacrifice CONSERVATIVE VALUES, but we need to find a way to express CHRISTIAN VALUES that effectively represents the message of Christ while at the same time shatters some of the views that the liberals have so effectively instilled in the minds of the people.

I’m not here to defend the Pope in everything he does or says.  My main point is that all this attention is good and it gives conservatives a real opportunity to educate people.  Liberalism is the enemy of reason and logic, but most of all it is the enemy of conservative Christian values.  We need to take advantage of this time to use these conversations to spread the real conservative message and dispel the liberal implanted ideas.

Is Religion Bad? (PART 2)

The second failure of the anti-religion group is its failure to understand religion.  To shed some light on this, I grabbed the definition from dictionary.com.  Here it is:

re·li·gion 

noun

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. The life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. The practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

With that understanding in place, take a look at these groups.  Notice that they all tend to be a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.  Atheism rejects the superhuman agency, but does contain its own moral code.

Notice, the subjective view takes some things from the religion group and then rejects other while adding its own.  Obviously, there can be numerous things added to the lists here and many additional subjective views offered which all contain different lists.  I think that is pretty clear.

The “Outsiders” Test

Why does this matter?  It matters because people think they can ESCAPE religion by believing what they want to believe.  However, all they have done is created a new box of beliefs “concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” You haven't abandoned religion!  All you succeeded in doing was creating a new religion!

John Loftus, an atheist, terrible debater and woefully stupid man, described what he called the outsider test.  Essentially he suggests that if you look at Christianity from the outside, you would abandon it embrace atheism.  This pathetic view ignores the fact that one is always an INSIDER to some view! There is no way to outsider test OBJECTIVELY because it will always be done in terms of an INSIDER to another belief system.  A person is always an INSIDER – ALWAYS!

Unfortunately, nobody can ever be truly objective because they always have some sort of subjective interpretation involved in the processing (it doesn't mean that if we understand our biases that we can't try to set them aside – but this is very difficult due to the impact of our worldview).  The idea of being an “outsider” and therefore seeing an objective view of is pure fantasy.  With my own experiences through Christianity, when I do the “outsiders” test on atheism (after all I am an outsider to it), it appears to be ludicrously stupid, naïve, ego-centric, hedonism.  So which “outsider” perspective is right?

For those agnostics who think they live on the outside of religion, they don't.  They have just chosen a softer and more cowardly religion.  It tries to find a box where relative understanding somehow equates to leaving every religion alone because God is bigger than that.  But by choosing this path, they have inversely shrunk God to the tiniest and most impotent being available.  Agnostics live in a religious box, where they think God lets “good” people go to heaven and doesn’t send people to Hell that don’t believe in him.  However, God doesn’t appear to have a standard for what is good, because the agnostic can’t decide what a good person is.  God also doesn’t appear to be good, because now he lets people that don’t care about Him go to heaven as well.  It’s only those that agnostic deems evil that would suffer some sort of punishment.  What does all of this equate to? A RELIGION! You are yet another insider with another biased opinion, offering your relative god based on your subjective understanding.

The Relevance of Religion

What about those that play the ecumenical card and act soft hearted and say, “Religion just isn’t needed.” If religion is not needed, then YOUR RELIGION is not needed either.  Your understanding of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe are IRRELEVANT!  So the ecumenical (cowardly) agnostic believes that HIS OWN VIEW IS WORTHLESS by rejecting all religion as wrong.  If he believes himself to be right (that all religion is wrong) then in fact he cannot truly believe ALL religion to be wrong, because he believes HIS religion to be right!  Therefore he is NOT ecumenical at all is completely exclusive, arrogant, and judgmental!  The agnostic is therefore a liar and a fraud.  His belief cannot exist within the self-defeating nature of its stupidity or it exists at the cost of the agnostic being exposed as a self-absorbed, arrogant, liar.

Picking certain aspects of religion that you like while rejecting others is simply creating your own religion that defines a moral subset based on your subjective views of morality.  However, your own religion is powerless and holds no merit because it is ONLY based on your SUBJECTIVE views – making your entire belief system relative in nature.  Truth is objective in that something either is or is not true.  If Christianity is TRUE then all other religions are FALSE.  It is the nature of truth.   To be picking parts that you like of each and trying to apply them to yourself and saying others should do the same – is to say, that YOU have found the TRUTH and others are wrong.  However, if you don’t think others should do the same and accept that others could come to different conclusions, then you are saying that you in fact believe that WHICH IS FALSE.  For if others could have differing views than you and be right - then a square is not a square indeed. 

There is no exception here.  A person is always an insider to a certain view.  The question is whether or not that view is true.  A partially true belief is in reality a false belief.  Just as a square is a square, truth is truth – you can’t have three sides and it still be a square.  If all religions are wrong, your religion is wrong.  If your religion is right, then all other religions are wrong (technically speaking they would have to CONFLICT with your view in some way – which we assume they do otherwise why not be in that religion?).  So rather than think religion is judgmental because it rejects other views, stop being so naïve and understand that if something is TRUE it must necessarily EXCLUDE certain other possibilities.  EVERY RELIGION by nature must be exclusive of other views – it's not judgmental, it’s the nature of truth.  Even your own pathetic, subjective, religion that you established IS EXCLUSIVE toward other religions and points of view if you believe it to be true.  Christianity doesn't condemn because it's judgmental – it condemns because it is TRUE.

---

On another note, if you get a chance please offer prayers for the family trying to adopt (posted on the right) and pray for the little girl.  If you feel up to it, you can always help donate as well.

Is Religion Bad? (PART 1)

Due to an influx of people talking about how religion is the bane of Christ and that loving God doesn’t require a religion; I felt it was time to address this thinking.  I guess before I lay out the errors of this thought process I should at least summarize the thought process.

Essentially people come to this conclusion from two paths. 

1.  In one path, people determine that Christ was against religion based on his opposition to the Pharisees and Jews in general.  People assume that Jesus was trying to expose religion as restrictive and he therefore was attempting to set people free from the rules of religion.
2. The second path comes more so from the ecumenical people that believe a pseudo agnostic view that there is a God (perhaps even the Christian God), but that he is ambiguous and cannot be known through any single religion.  Obviously the two paths approach God from a different way, but they both draw that conclusion that religion is bad and God doesn't require religion (or even want it)! 

Unfortunately, this lofty thought process of the ambiguous God embraced through a personal relationship free of religion is utterly stupid.  The first and greatest weakness is that the inevitable conclusion from such a view is a god who fits OUR personal view.  So rather than an objective greatness, we have a subjective impotence.  Why? Because WITHOUT clear definition of who God is and what His character and nature are like then each person is the arbiter of who God is.  This is because something that is true is OBJECTIVE.  If you believe a square is round, then you are WRONG!  Your belief is wrong, because a square is objective.  It isn’t whatever you imagine it to be.  GOD IS OBJECTIVE!  If God exists then God is by necessity, OBJECTIVE!  Why is DNA evidence so effective or fingerprinting a tool that is still used today? Because they identify a person on an objective level.  Creating an idea of who you think God is and what He is like is creating a SUBJECTIVE god.  By disregarding the teachings of a religion, you are essentially saying God isn't who they say He is but who YOU say He is – and that is a purely subjective.

FOR THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO BE AGNOSTIC

Now the natural question would be, “But people know people differently.  One man might think one a villain while the other think him a hero.  Isn't that subjective?”  Now granted, most people actually wouldn't think that and instead would run away insulting you for being a “head-thinker.”  However, let's assume somebody actually did take half a second to think and asked that question, what is the answer? Well, it comes two fold I guess.  Perception isn't reality, but only a subjective interpretation of what is there.  Grass is orange when perceived through my eyes, because I am colorblind.  So HOW we perceive a person does not mean that is WHO the person really is.  There must be a standard with which to measure a person, but that standard CANNOT be subjective and relativistic because then it cannot be a standard with which to measure EVERYBODY.  If the measurement cannot be applied to all, then it CANNOT be OBJECTIVELY applied to one!  Assuming no religion has got it right, means that we most likely don't have it right as well.  Therefore, the standard with which the agnostic assumes to measure with is subjective if they believe ONLY themselves to have it right (by saying that others are wrong), because if the standard was objective then that would mean the agnostic was almost certainly wrong in his belief as well and therefore there TRULY must be a religion that got it right.  Agnostics are cowards in thinking because they don't accept the subjective nature of their view and yet the only truth they want to accept is that all religions got it wrong.  The truth of agnosticism is that it is not ecumenical at all, but an arrogant ignorance that places their understanding that ALL GOT IT WRONG as the only the truth yet somehow reject the implications of the self-defeating nature of the creed they proclaim.

The second part would be that if God is changing then God cannot be trusted because He could change and could become weaker, less powerful, less loving, evil, and the world would suffer the consequences of those changes; therefore, God must be IMMUTABLE and therefore if something was true of Him ever it is TRUE OF HIM STILL.  Meaning, if God was ever good, God is still good.  Unlike a person who can change and making our perception the person might change.  God MUST BE immutable and therefore He does not change, only our perception of Him.  So our subjective perception cannot be the measure of God’s objective person-hood.

Let's examine the concept a little more.  For instance, imagine God had no hand in creating the universe and it was pure, unadulterated chance.  Now as time goes on God changes and begins creating ex nihilo.  Well now things would just start popping into existence within the existing universe and science would be baffled.  What if God was evil?  Would people be crying out why do good things happen to some people?  With a simple role reversal it is easy to see our perceptions fail us and that if God is anything He is immutable.  A changing god, whether or not we give him the attributes of the Christian God, would (given an infinite amount of time) become the Christian God.  If it is possible for Him to become the Christian God, then He would ALWAYS remain the Christian God, because the Christian God is IMMUTABLE!  Therefore, if God IS changing, then given an infinite amount of time God WILL BECOME UNCHANGING!

FOR THOSE AGAINST RELIGION

This is important because it reinforces that which we learn from RELIGION.  Religion teaches us about who God is.  Based on WHO HE IS, we find WHO WE ARE, objectively!  Our objective position is based on the objective God.  Defining our worth, position, status, righteousness, based on OUR own understanding or perception is simply relativistic.  If however, we define our worth, position, status, and righteousness on an OBJECTIVE reality then we find our TRUE and OBJECTIVE answer to who we are.  Christianity as a RELIGION is important because it seeks to find the objective standard with which to measure.  Unfortunately, most people are appalled by the results of such measuring and appeal to the relative measuring of their subjective perceptions.  When a person says, “I don't know why God would condemn a good person to Hell.” they are simply reflecting THEIR OWN PERCEPTION of what is good and also what a good god would act like.  Now the Christian church comes in and measures that same person with an OBJECTIVE standard and people cry out that the church is judgmental.   Why? Because when the measure is our own, we can shape it how we see fit and change how we see ourselves.  When we measure objectively, there is no lying and there is no shifting.  We land where we land and we cannot argue it. 

The doctrines that develop through religion (the perceived “rules” of religion) are the protection against irrelevance.  It is by necessity that doctrines exist.  If a person rejects certain doctrines from a religion, they reject the authority of that religion.  Religion without authority is impotent and therefore falls into relativism.  Doctrines serve as barriers or fences to prevent relativism from taking over.  Every religion needs doctrines in order to survive. Rejecting the “rules” of religion is nothing more than embracing your own relativistic rules that make you the arbiter of truth.  Those who are Catholic and reject the church’s teaching on women priests, abortion, divorce, or homosexuality reject Catholicism entirely.  Because if you don’t accept those doctrines you don't accept the authority of those doctrines.  Without that authority, you practice relativism.  Those protestants who reject the Bible's teaching about homosexuality are in fact REJECTING the Bible as a whole!  If it doesn't have authority on that issue, then YOU become the ultimate authority and therefore the Bible is SECONDARY TO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING!  This is why doctrines are important.  This is why religion demands these “rules.”  Because the consequence for rejecting them is a self-ordained, relative to you, subjective understanding of the universe, God, and humanity, that bends to the whim of each individual.

It is a false belief to think the doctrines hinder religion and therefore religion hinders our relationship with God.  Doctrines are there to define that which is OBJECTIVE and to lead us away from our subjective understanding, short sighted perceptions, and relativistic understanding of God.  Religion is the tool to lead us to the OBJECTIVE REALITY, GOD.

 

 

Mob Rule- The Liberal Plight

The tyranny of liberalism surfaced again this week.  After a regular court case, involving the now well-known George Zimmerman, we saw all the liberals come out in force.  Liberals, focused on two things: race and guns.  They are ready to overthrow our entire justice system and force somebody to suffer at the hands of a mob rather than watch our judicial system work.  I’m amazed at the level of ignorance of this generation.  Without any effort the liberals believed prohibiting same-sex marriage was being denied some kind of equal rights.  Liberals cheer every time a politician takes away guns from the people.  Now, liberals take to the streets, assaulting bystanders, blocking freeways, and holding protests.  Why? Because they didn’t get the verdict they wanted in a court case that has nothing to do with them.  Where was the uproar over the Supreme Court’s betrayal of our rights in the Obamacare ruling? Of course they don’t protest that, the liberals got what they wanted – more government power and less individual rights.   But when a man with a family, and clearly an absolute lack of evidence, isn’t convicted because there is REASONABLE doubt, these idiots protest.  Liberals should be ashamed of their stupidity, but they’re just too ignorant to even see the shame in their actions.

Let me be clear, Zimmerman is not my hero.  He doesn’t represent conservatives, he’s not a great hope, and he means nothing to me.  However, this country is important to me and the liberals destroying it are completely inept. We have a court system and we have laws.  The man was granted a trial with a juror of his peers and he was acquitted.  HOW DOES THAT IMPACT YOU OR ME?! It doesn’t.  There wasn’t chaos in the streets when O.J. Simpson was acquitted and there shouldn’t be anything now.  Or maybe the difference is because O.J. is a black man.  Is that the truth behind the matter?  Are all these liberals nothing but a bunch of racists who are so ignorant that they would abandon that which makes our country free and try to abolish our freedom through mob rule?  Apparently our president hopes so.  Because as the outrage began to fade and as the Zimmerman ruling started to not be the main headline, Obama made a point to hold a press conference on Friday and fan the flames of racism once again.  The messiah of liberalism does NOT in fact want unity, he wants mob rule with a strict divide.

Liberals are trying to force mob rule mentality down our legal system, trying to make the legal system bend to the will of people and abandon justice, due process, and protection from double jeopardy and our executive branch is HELPING!  Americans should be protesting LIBERALISM!  It is emotionalism run rampant and rational thought cannot stand with it.  These people are idiots. Liberals are joining hands to try to punish Zimmerman for that which he was acquitted of.  Trayvon Martin was not a saint!  Zimmerman is not a saint!  The justice system worked and because there WAS REASONABLE DOUBT the man was not found guilty.  Let it go liberals. This verdict has nothing to do with the thousands who are protesting; these people are just ignorant liberals, fueled by a biased media, and lead by the great ignorant leader Obama and his failed appointment Eric Holder.

  

Think for a minute, what do you want America to be?  Should we be free and let the system work (and this system was rigged AGAINST Zimmerman and yet there was still wasn’t enough evidence against him) or should we sentence and condemn people based on the feelings and emotions of a racist mob?  Protesters raided Wal-Mart, shut down freeways, beat innocent people while shouting, “This is for Trayvon!” (This is probably an accurate portrayal of what he would do, as Trayvon referred to himself as a “gangsta.”)   It seems the simplest explanation of all emotional ignorance is one thing – racism.  At the end of the day, the liberals have shown THEY are the racists and THEY are the simpletons, and THEY are party of ignorance and emotion is what they rule by and justice is nothing but what THEY FEEL should be done. 

As I said, Zimmerman is no hero of mine, but neither is Trayvon.  People should get over it and move on.  I suppose there isn’t much hope of that with the ignorant party running things and the most ignorant leader in charge of our country, but deep inside these people should know better.  Perhaps instead of listening to the liberals, they should listen to reason.

Presuppositions: Let's suppose I'm Right

After recent discussion with some people, it has come to light that people don't seem to understand presuppositions.  This becomes an issue when in a discussion with somebody, when sharing a view, or in a debate.  So because of this I decided it would be good to write a brief article about presuppositions.

What is a presupposition? It is to pre-suppose a certain idea to be true (or more technically, an implicit assumption).  It's not a bad thing, and often times not a conscious thing, but it can be a hindrance when trying to share with others.  A presupposition can lead to a belief that you suppose to be fact, but in reality it is just a belief.  We could even call them simple beliefs or basic assumptions.  With any discussion there needs to be some agreement otherwise there can't even be a discussion.  (Often times in debates I feel like no progress is made because there are too many presuppositions involved that one party takes for granted while the other party tries to expose them.)

Alright, so that explains the essence of them, but let me provide an example.  When somebody says something like, “Well I was there and I saw it, so I do know.”  This simple statement assumes a lot.

It presupposes there is such a thing as knowing.

It presupposes perception can be trusted.

It presupposes that you have a mind.

It presupposes that there is reality.

It presupposes that the whole world is not in your head.

You could keep listing out a bunch of presuppositions for this one statement.  As you can see, a simple statement ASSUMES A LOT.  Now, people might say, “Well, you have to assume those things otherwise you're just unreasonable.”  But that statement, in itself, assumes - it assumes there is something that is reason (or rational might be a better word) and it assumes we all share it.  This doesn't make the statements above any less true, it just shows we have to assume certain things in our communication.  We might not even realize we are assuming these things.  The other important note is that even though we find most of these statements true by default, some philosophers or want-to-be philosophers don't find all the above statements true.  So even though we assume that things are basic and accepted, it doesn't mean we are correct in that assumption - some people do not accept these basic assumptions.  I truly believe the people opposed are wasting their time because at some point you have to assume something in order to communicate with others, but nevertheless I need to be aware of the person's presuppositions in order to effectively communicate with them.  Something like solipsism makes it impossible to progress a conversation, so knowing the person is a solipsist would save you a massive headache later.  

Nevertheless the point remains that we assume so much when we make statements that sometimes it is our presuppositions that are actually blocking discussion.  A religious person and an atheist cannot debate science unless they agree on the presuppositions involved.  Without such agreement, an argument can't even begin to develop because people will just keep expressing beliefs and never realize the other person is disagreeing because they don't even agree with the things being presupposed. 

This topic comes up because of a recent debate I had.  To the other individual I was simply playing games because I kept pointing out that he was simply stating a belief, not a fact.  Now, the point isn't about him, but that it completely blocked communication because an argument could not even be made because there was no agreement on the presuppositions.  Rather than produce a fruitful debate where people can learn, it ends up going nowhere because people don't realize how much they assume about their position.  I can honestly say most debates make no progress and run in circles because of a lack of understanding of what each person assumes to be true when they begin.

Understanding presuppositions is really simple.  Seeing what somebody is assuming when a statement is made, doesn't always seem to be.  I find that in life, work, or debate people often don't understand the weight carried by simple statements. 

Government Scandals and Complacent Citizens

The past few weeks have revealed several scandals that are making their way through government right now.  What's astonishing is the complete lack of liberal attention.  One would think that when the government starts to abuse its power to intimidate and harass people of a certain view (the IRS scandal) that would be enough to make people doubt government.  With the release of the information about the government being involved in huge amounts of data mining on U.S. citizens living within the U.S. people should have erupted in an uproar, but they haven't.  Obama said it's about protecting the citizens from terrorists, but with how the abuse of power within the IRS came, I personally wonder what Obama’s idea of a terrorist is.  After all, this is the same president that refused to call radical Islamic extremists, terrorists.

Unfortunately, the lack of an uproar around these scandals shows the effectiveness of liberal brainwashing.  The schools have made people believe in government, the media has defended government at every turn, and the movies (and their pathetically crazy stars) all spread liberal ideals.  When government turns on the people, the people sit still because somehow they believe the lies in spite of the obvious evidence to the contrary, it shows that slowly the liberal message has began to penetrate deep into the lives of Americans.  Even if you could possibly rationalize and somehow show logically that current power grabs and oppression of government are perfectly fine, do you think you could make the next leap to say that after they've gone this far they won't go any further?  Where people fail to be outraged the government will press forward.  Governments ALWAYS try to increase their power and maintain their power, and when people don't demand the government to abide by their terms, the government will demand the people to abide by the government's terms. 

Complacency is a real threat to the American people.  By the time government pushes to an extent that outrages ALL the people, it will be too late to stop the government.  Liberals need to wake up! These aren’t just attacks on conservatives; these are advances on all Americans.   Unfortunately the Christians in this country won’t react unless it directly impacts them and their reactions will be minimal because they’ve bought the liberal lies that Christianity should not be part of government.  The liberals won’t react because they believe in government and love taking away from others to give to themselves.  Conservatives will react but with only a minimal reaction because of the divide in beliefs – where some so called conservatives have believed the liberal lies and really are doubting conservativism, others are trying to appeal to the liberals for fear of being ostracized, and therefore the few that speak out will be drowned out as extremists. 

Obama and his administration are dirty and oppressive.  They've attacked the rights of Americans and expanded the power of government.  Astonishingly, they are the people that have released the documents showing what they're doing (mostly to push other scandals out of American minds) AND yet people still somehow believe the liar.  Obama’s entire administration and the liberals in the senate (I include worthless John McCain as a liberal and his fellow worthless democrats with a republican tag) need to be cast out.  The IRS should be shut down permanently and we should begin a path of a true republic.

In one sense, this all sounds extreme.  It seems like an overreaction of sorts, but then I realize what is taking place and how silence is looked at as acceptance.  With that in view, understanding that government agencies are striking out to silence conservative groups through the IRS and that the same government was trying to get names and addresses of people with views against liberalism (and that were supporting these conservative ideals with donations), I know this government has stretched too far.  Take into account the retrieval of phone records, the collection of all data related to the internet usage of American citizens, and the looking to expand toward drone usage on American citizens living in the United States if the government deems them a terrorist, and I think the view becomes a little less extreme.  Maybe it isn't full blown big brother at this moment, but if we don't try to protect our privacy and freedoms now, it will not be long before it is.

Conservatives need to be intelligent and act on THEIR ideals instead of acting in a manner in which they think the liberals will approve or at least give the least resistance.  There shouldn't even need to be a debate about big government and how dangerous it is at this point, given the recent events, but people remain unconvinced.  I believe it's time to sound extreme, but at the same time we need to educate people on our view so they realize how down to earth and relevant it truly is.  If people are shocked, that is fine, but if we don't speak out and we don't try to educate the American people that is unacceptable.  I fear America will give up due to complacency and ignorance, but I hope Americans can still rise up like they have in the past and show what makes this country great – and prove me wrong.

Caricatures of Belief: Immature Beliefs Guiding "Mature" People

After a long vacation for Memorial Day weekend, I'm now back and ready to write again.  Over the weekend I listened to some Catholic radio talk shows (I know, boring right? It was a long drive and it wasn't actually a bad station) and it made me think about the difference between the image that comes to mind and the reality of the entity.  You see, so many of us have been raised with stories and even teachings about different ideas or theories, but so few of us ever actually investigate them.  This is true of atheists, Christians, villagers in a third world country, or basically any culture and society.  Certain ideas are passed down and images painted of a view that effectively distorts our ability to communicate with somebody from that way of thinking.  It's very apparent in the Catholic and Protestant circles.  Images of Catholics often involve people worshiping Mary and nuns smacking kids with rulers.  Now, these images and many others have been ingrained in the Protestant to a point that makes it very difficult to overcome and actually have communication.

If a Protestant hears a Catholic mention Jesus for some reason they are shocked and act as if somehow that Catholic has moved toward Protestantism by simply discussing Jesus.  The images formed from stories from long ago, some probably completely based on nothing but fairy tales and others maybe loosely on some incidents that became much bigger in the telling than they were in reality, have so overcome the mind of the Protestant that communication is a barrier.  I will say that this goes both ways though, as recent conversations with Catholics have shown that often what they believe of Protestants is not what Protestants (in general – if there is such a thing anymore for Protestantism) believe. 

Now, I'm not sure if there are other ways to break through these false beliefs that hinder communication, but I know what helped me.  For me, it was a matter of continually asking “why” until the answers began to surface and more questions that needed answers came with them.  Continually seeking out answers led to a deeper understanding of the reality of Catholicism versus the distorted caricature that I knew as Catholicism.   Now I probably haven't overcome all of the misconstrued stories surrounding Catholicism, so I'm not the perfect example of openness.  I have however spent a lot of time discussing beliefs with Catholics and asked many probing questions to get beyond the barriers that hinder us from communicating and finding the reality of the belief system.  Unfortunately, most people will probably not seek answers due to the whole stigma about intelligence and rational thought that permeates Protestant churches (see my other article here).

When you look out at the world around you, you will notice these caricatures everywhere.  The liberal media has done it effectively with conservatives.  Even conservatives turn on conservatives buying into the lies painted by the liberals.  Catholics do it to Protestants, lumping everybody into the one big Protestant lunatic bin.  Because of the prevalence of these falsities breaking through these distortions is a difficult task.  It is possible but it ONLY happens when people decide to ask questions of their OWN beliefs first.  A liberal will not be convinced by a conservative until a liberal asks the hard questions of LIBERALISM and then the lies they've been told of conservatism will be exposed.  The strongest Catholics I know are those who have questioned Catholicism, put it to the test (and some even embraced Protestantism for a period of time) and then after much investigation understood Catholicism on a deeper and more intimate level than ever before.  Most people will not take that step however; they will always scrutinize the other view and never investigate their own.  Perhaps this has to do with world views.  Maybe it's the idea that you have to be intelligent to understand answers to questions.  Or maybe, it's a fear from exposing oneself to the harshest critics and reality that comes from being the person to scrape your own beliefs across the coals.  Whatever the answer, it will take more than accepting the images as reality to communicate effectively.