So?

I saw this ad from "Vote Our Future" dot com.  It's a good ad I think.  It tells the truth about what is being done to young people today... in short that they are the ones who will be paying for all the free lunches.  What I find odd however is that the ad doesn't lead anywhere, other than to encourage young people to vote.  It acknowledges that if young people vote that they can thwart what is being done to them, but it doesn't give any direction or reasoning as to who or why to vote one way or another.

Part of this I think is the thought forms of the demographic that the ad is attempting to reach.  The minute anyone mentions a political party, or a candidate, this age group is inclined to dismiss it.  After all, everyone is angling for something in life, except, of course, the person who says that everyone is angling for something.  So nothing is mentioned... only the favorite whipping boy: "the faceless, party-less "politician".

Still, I find myself watching this ad and thinking So?  Voting is what got us here.  Young people are not being stuck with the bill for our folly because of a lack of votes but a lack of a coherent worldview.  I'm not sure how much good telling young people that they are getting screwed by older people is going to do.  But it does cause me to realize the fears I've had all along.  Older people now, by handing their healthcare over to the government, are in essence handing it over to the up and coming generation, a generation that has been taught by the same older people that there are no absolutes, not even that everyone should absolutely get taken care of when they're sick or broken.

Fees To Thugs

The old story goes like this.  A young couple living in the city of Chicago decide to start a little family business.  Shortly after opening their doors a shady looking character walks in asking for the proprietor.  He then offers the couple “protection” in their business.  The couple look a little confused so the stranger clarifies.  “What I’m offering you, for a fee you see, is protection… from us”.  Now they get the picture.

These are thugs and that’s how they operate.  This tactic has been around for years and has now been  perfected to the point that people seem to accept it as good and normal.  Consider the union shop.  The person who goes to work in this shop has his “fees for protection” taken out of his paycheck every month; and it's tax deductible to boot.  If the poor worker doesn’t like what his union stands for and decides to stop paying his “fees”, then the union, backed by the power of the federal government, has him fired. Thugs you see.

On a larger scale we witnessed this year the attempt by these same sorts of thugs to oust the Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker.  All the stops were removed it seemed because Walker was actually keeping a campaign promise to stop the fiscal bleeding in his state brought about by promised fees.  The thugs in the press slandered him.  The thugs in the legislature tied the hands of their law-making colleagues by denying a quorum by fleeing the state.  The thug workers filled the capital with rebellion, hatred and spite. In the end however the people of Wisconsin won this little battle.  We will see how that goes yet.

But there seems to be another strand of thuggery on the horizon.  We have all heard the story of Chick-fil-A’s run-in with Chicago’s mayor, the thug Rahm Emanuel.  It seems that the president of Chick-fil-A has announced that his company is not paying the fee for protection...  in so many words.  So, in typical thug fashion, the mayor has informed Chick-fil-A that it will not be receiving protection in Chicago… from Chicago.

The Arizona republic, a thug rag in its own right, ran a story Saturday, the 27th of July, informing the reader of the sort of fees that are expected for this sort of protection.  It's article begins: “Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos waded into a developing corporate culture war over gay marriage Friday with a $2.5 million donation to keep same-sex union legal in Washington… Bezos joins Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates and companies like Starbucks Inc. and Nike Inc. with support to the campaign to uphold Washington’s law.“    Strangely missing in the story, for those who notice such things, is the typical 1-versus-99%-esque drivel we are accustomed to seeing when it concerns the uber-rich like Bezos and Gates, or how the low paid employees at these companies might have received raises instead, or the fact that these are very large corporations which are the nemesis of the modern day thugs--so we are led to believe anyway.  We didn’t hear any of this because they paid the fee… you see.  They are saints.

This all makes sense to us because we are tuned to it.  We are in fact living it out in the spiritual realm.  In this same fashion God offers us protection from himself.  But God is no thug.  For one, we rightly and justly deserve what God is offering us protection from… which is Himself.  Because we are the thugs in this story.  But more than this, he is offering to pay the “fee”, because it is a very expensive fee you see.  Not even Bill Gates could pay this fee.  His worldly wealth is much better squandered on worldliness.  But there again is the beauty of this fee.  Those who are oppressed by the likes of these sorts of thugs can still afford the fee, for it is paid by God Himself, and is free to all who realize their need for it and so ask for it.

An Old Post I Finally Decided To Publish

Like German tanks rolling into Poland it appears that the Government’s invasion of the health insurance industry will continue unabated. But as we, like the Poles losing their homeland, morn the closing of an era of freedom, we ought to realize that this happened as the result of a ramification of problems we refused to see, and not as a result of problems that were just too difficult to overcome. Let me explain one of them here.

One problem in particular, if one were to dig past the rocky crust of entitlement thinking and emotions, is a faulty premise concerning healthcare. Consider the following syllogism:

• Premise 1: No one ought to be allowed to die as a result of his own foolish health insurance decisions.
• Secondary premise: It is not fair that some must pay for the foolishness of others.
• Conclusion: Government must take away all people’s rights when it comes to health insurance. 

This syllogism was undergirded recently by Nancy Pelosi. On a particular day recently she blamed those horrible free-loaders (those who can afford insurance but don’t bother) for the problems with health insurance. Don’t worry about Pelosi’s change of heart though. As a democrat she can easily  forget that she ever said such a thing about her constituents so those “free-loaders” will be morphing back into victims on her lips quicker than you can say greedy, racist Republican. But on this day Pelosi actually swerved a little closer to the truth than usual in her drunken-esque ramblings. Even If only by one premise she did however avoid bashing through the rail that usually keeps her well clear of the road of reality and common-sense.

The premise of which I speak is number 1. Like the Blazing Saddles’ sheriff who gained control of a deteriorating situation by holding his gun to his own head, this premise allows that no matter how irresponsible a person may be, society must step in before that person pays the ultimate price for his stupidity. Never mind for the moment that this directly contradicts our society’s religious source for morality: evolution, the effect is that an entire society is held captive, according to Nancy Pelosi and myself, by those who think buying a Harley more important than providing for one’s own healthcare. So when they are hauled into ER shortly after they found their Harley and helmetless head bouncing down the highway, premise 1 kicks in. Since premise 1 is already accepted law, and as such constitutes de facto free healthcare, Obamacare can’t really be seen as the beginning of socialized medicine but rather only a stage in its implementation.

There have always been other options beyond letting the man die that don’t involve the coercion of those who choose wisdom over foolishness. For one he could be cared for then charged for the service. The resources could be extracted somehow.  The IRS could be consulted on this. They are masters at extracting the fruit of other people’s labor from their greedy little hands. But for the same reasons that we accept premise 1 as a given, we, as a people, will never allow for any options that might make a mom feel bad.

For those who see the 2700 pages of bureaucratic-micro-managing-tentacle law bound up inside Obamacare as an actual effort to solve health insurance issues there’s probably no hope; likewise for those who blindly see it as compassion or others yet who see it as just another means to pick their “rich” neighbor’s pocket. But for many it is a travesty. For just as throwing expensive drugs, as opposed to searching out root issues, at a sick person’s symptoms is expensive in terms of that person’s health and dollar-bills; it’s also expensive in terms of liberty and dollar-bills when higher taxes and less freedom are seen as the only acceptable medicine for maintaining the health of a free republic.

When a people enjoy the luxury, for a time, of abandoning reality; choosing instead to drink deep the wine of make-believe worlds of personal peace, affluence, and resources that magically appear at their benevolent leader’s beckon and call, they become too drunk to think. But reality has a way of catching up. It always does. And given the bar tab, and the drunken stupor that the majority of Americans appear to have drank themselves into, when it catches up this time it’s going to run us all down.

Ozzie And Harriet, Not Real Life?

How many times have I heard the criticism that the show "Ozzie and Harriet", or “Leave It To Beaver” were not real life? In answer to this criticism the networks gave us “Married With Children”. Now there’s a show that should keep the I’m-failing-as-a-parent blues at bay. But what happens when a show actually reflects real life?

 Well apparently the makers of the movie “God Bless America” don’t want to live up to this standard. Judging from the trailer, it appears that this movie allows its makers, and viewers, to fantasize about how they wish they could respond to the trials of human relations.  One of those trials is some misbehavior in a theater.  So the characters respond the way they respond to all the other things that they don't like about their fellow humans.  They shoot them… right there in the theater.

But now, since such has become real life, they are going to remove that part.  Go figure. Don’t worry though. Since no one has gone on a shooting rampage in the park, or at a protest, lately there’s plenty of opportunity elsewhere in the film to vicariously live out the fantasies of simply blowing away those wedon’t like.

Posting At Winging It

I occasionally post at Winging It.  Today is one of those occasions.  You can find it linked below if you like.

Which Judge To Choose?

This video is worth watching.  That there are no Muslim songs that sing of being put to death by Christians for preaching the name of Muhammad speaks volumes... I think.

God...? Or Science Of The Gaps?

The phrase “God of the gaps” is based on the premise that scientific discovery is slowly eroding away any basis by which our lives and existence can be explained through an intelligent designer. These gaps in scientific understanding, so it is implied, are the only remaining vestiges of man’s ignorance in which notions like superstition and supernatural beliefs can find refuge, and from that refuge exert influences on culture. Noteworthy however is the confidence found in the perspective that sees the idea of god and gods as simply “gaps” in real knowledge. The confidence is placed in the belief that science can and will eventually leave no refuge for religion and man can finally rest, assured that the days of interpreting life’s meaning and events according to a subjective template of make believe gods and goblins is fading into man’s collective memory. This, of course, is short sighted of the modern day scientist turned pontificator for such a mindset is oblivious of the inability of the scientist to remain objective in his own pursuits of knowledge.

The reality will ever be that it will be impossible to explain away religion. Science has answered difficult questions and in so doing has afforded man a more comfortable life as well as the ability to control certain aspects of his existence. While such advancements do create an allure to those who dream of science’s eventual ability to dispel notions of a “higher power”, these leaps have in reality only succeeded in misleading those who have placed their hopes in science for such ends.

One way of explaining this is by perspective. While it’s true that the number 10 is ten times the number 1, this is not the only truth about ten that should be considered. There are other perspectives. If these numbers represent knowledge and scientific advancement, then given the amount of ignorance that a tenfold increase in knowledge would have displaced, some may be apt to become haughty. But others with not so narrow a gaze will still see 10 as a hundred times smaller than a thousand, which is also true. Moreover, this will always be the case because each advancement in knowledge still succeeds also in creating an exponential increase in questions. Conclusions drawn from these advancements, whether they be, “look at what we now know”, or “look at how much we now realize we don’t know”, will depend largely on a naturalistic verses theistic perspective. One begets confidence in Man, the other an awe of the Creator.

The naturalistic viewpoint that sees only a material world is really narrow and small, no matter how large the naturalists interprets his little cocoon to be. This leads to an unfounded confidence by man in man’s ability to answer all questions, even questions that science will never be able to answer. In the end his discoveries becomes a runway of sorts for an ill-fated flight into a different realm. Science simply cannot slip the surly bonds of materialism. Once the science that gave us electricity, the automobile and cell phones begins to venture into the realm of morality it immediately runs out of runway and crashes into the chasm of subjective preference. It does not fly, indeed it cannot, for if we are constructed of something so amoral as “chance and molecules” we are by nature only machines made of material; and material is amoral. The reality of this reality, of course, is nothing new. It was pointed out quite well millions of scientific discoveries ago. It goes like this:

“The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”

Simply put, the person who sees the world solely through a materialistic lens is half blind. He can see gods as gap fillers, but he can’t see science as a gap maker. He can chide those with much wider horizons as narrow minded, but he can’t see the constrictions naturalism has put on his own views. Because of his unsubstantiated conclusions based on theories that morphed, more religiously than scientifically, into fact, his own gaps are not only larger than he realizes, he doesn’t seem capable of noticing them gaping before him. Like his “religious” counterpart, his view, though he vehemently denies it, is based more on hopes than science; the chief of these being that there is no eternal being to which he is accountable, and if there is, it is silent… and benevolent.

To peek past the thin veil of so called “science” is to apprehend the root issues that bellies the religious like credulity prevalent in this age. That root issue is good old-fashioned political power. The truth is that ultimate liberty is at stake when it comes to determining what is right and wrong, what is and is not acceptable behavior and what will and won’t be the ultimate reference point from which morality is measured. An open minded perspective therefore will reveal that the existence of a creator, to which all men are ultimately accountable, is simply unacceptable on a personal self-centered level; and there’s simply nothing scientific about that. Such an entity simply puts too much of a damper on chasing after the lusts of the flesh and so it therefore must be rejected on the best grounds available. It just so happens that right now, in this technologically advanced era, those grounds are in the realm of science; even if it has to be make-it-up-and-change-it-as-necessary-to-accommodate-real-discoveries-and-the-policial-template science.

With this in mind it might surprise many that some of the political shenanigans, like those taking place right now in response to an academic freedom law recently passed in Tennessee, that pass as science actually find more in common with the religions they malign and reject than they do science. Worse, like some of the beliefs held in some religions, many scientific theories believed to be true based on political necessity, have grown hard over time themselves. They, in a politically charged and institutionalized environment like the current American education system, become therefore unassailable in the minds of those who have put their faith in them. Their faith has then blinded them to the fact that their theories draw nourishment, not as much from empirical science as plain old political bullying.

It cannot be overcome that answers based on anything that cannot be proven or disproven by science is not science. It is religion. Such a religion, under the guise of science, begins its argument based on assumptions, one of which is that its belief in the nonexistence of a creator is rock solid. Or, on the flip side, it believes that the world as we interpret it with our five senses is all that is and so is all that can be known. Since there is no way of knowing ultimate truths in ways that satisfy both empirical science and the atheistic scientists, it therefore stands to reason that when these scientist accuse religions of filling gaps with the very thing they themselves are filling them, these scientist are simply projecting onto others their own methods and beliefs: the belief that others are filling gaps with nonsense. The accusation can just as easily be made that some of what passes for science today is nothing more than “science of the gaps”. A more opened minded approach might foster a more humble assessment of the limits of man’s knowledge by concluding that man can never know if he can know all that can be known. Perhaps then he can then realize that not only at some point, like it or not, he is operating on faith, but also that the transition has occured.

One of the more blatant examples of “science of the gaps” can be seen in the so called multiverse theory. This is a theory that basically suggests that the exquisite design of our universe… exists merely because there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in one that appears to be designed. (1) Another theory along these lines is called “Punctuated equilibrium”. This is an evolutionary theory that exists, not as much as a result of research but rather because of the lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record. As one person aptly put it, “it is like saying that elephants must run through our living room very fast because we never see them”.

These are but two theories that qualify as science, not on any scientific bases but because they reject a designer to whom the theorist might owe a reckoning. The case could be made that its only purpose is to bolster other theories that new discoveries are having the effect of weakening. The fact is that there is just too many ingredients in some “theories” that simply cannot withstand the rigors of real science but are nevertheless needed for political purposes and so remain.

Some of these theories morph into accepted fact over time by undergoing their own process of evolution and so develop more of a religious air about them because of their bases in faith. Political, as opposed to scientific, terms like “consensus” are then adopted in this evolutionary process to prop up theories since there is disagreement within the scientific community on the trustworthiness of the theories. When has anyone seen the word “consensus” used to support the idea of gravity, or the periodic table? The very word “consensus” comes through the door hauling baggage stuffed with politics. The fact is, if questions remain among those within the discipline, ignorance remains; and so should open minds. It should be remembered that ignorance in its own right is not a bad thing but a thing to be conquered; that is unless one has ordered his life around ignorance posing as fact. In that case it is the questions that must be defeated, and ignorance defended by all means.

So it comes about that antitheses to politically accepted scientific theories are rejected, not because of the scientific method, but rather according to a system of beliefs. Gone is the typical open minded curiosity that should be resident in the scientist. Belief, now posing as science, has morphed into religious fervor that has solidified theory into fact. This belief turns with its politically motivated self-righteous wrath against all who imply that the theory may not, after all, be true. Dr. Dave Pilbeam, speaking along these lines, lends some insight to this as he aptly wrote considering such mindsets:

“...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.” (2)

So how do humans view themselves? I would say, in a word: “Autonomous”. Yes, that is our ever and always goal by any means necessary, even if it means becoming slaves; a thing at which man has proven himself especially adept.

To be sure, and let me state, we are today the benefactors of scientific theory. But it is not anti-science to assert that there remains the necessity that science keeps itself corralled in the arena of science. If it is possible to test theories to render them true or false then all must be willing to accept that which is true, even the scientist. But when the ramifications of a theory are as profound as those that are based on theories that clearly exist for the purpose of dispensing with objective truth and an ultimate law-giver, let us not close our minds. Let us not muffle and oppress by outlawing opposing views without basis. In conclusion, while it is reasonable and logical that no humble person should deny that gaps exist in man’s knowledge concerning both our material and spiritual world; it is neither reasonable nor logical to throw stones at another man’s “gaps” when one’s own are made of glass.

1. From Eternity Matters

2. Conservapedia

On Karma

A friend of mine posted this on his blog "A Tiger's Got My Back" a few years ago. I've found myself thinking about it many times since so I thought I'd just post it on my blog for easy access.

Karma is ubiquitous in today's American culture. I hear this term bantered about on the radio, on TV and in conversations. For some reason that, quite honestly, escapes me, people actually believe in karma. I wish to show two reasons why the idea of karma is not viable.

Karma is the idea that moral actions are rewarded or punished through an impersonal system, whether it be some kind of law, or the universe itself, etc.* Let us note first of all that, in order to believe in good and bad actions as the inputs to the karmic system, one must hold to some standard of Good. After all, how can good behavior be rewarded--and more importantly, bad behavior be punished--if there is no standard on which to judge? Karma without the idea of the Good is like a capricious master, deciding your fate on a whim. This is hardly a fair scenario, and if karma isn't about fairness, then what is it about? But this idea of the Good must also be a universal standard, if the universe or a universal law is responsible for punishment and reward. Now, every good postmodernist knows that the first rule of postmodernism is "there are no moral absolutes." So the relativist who believes in karma (and I have yet to meet, see or hear a karma-espouser who is not a moral relativist) is faced with a contradiction--there both is and is not a universal standard of Good.

Now I myself do believe in a universal standard of Good. Should I therefore admit that karma is at least possible, given my worldview? Not quite. Karma runs into another issue when one recalls that it is believed to be an impersonal system: Put a good action into the system, get rewarded; put a bad action into the system, get punished. Here's the rub: How does an impersonal system differentiate between good and bad? Good and bad are moral categories, and only persons have an understanding of moral actions. If, for example, I were to use my computer to hack into Wal-Mart's customer database and steal all of their information, my computer would not stand in my way. It would not send me an email letting me know it disapproved of my actions because they were morally wrong. But were my wife to walk in while I was breaking into the database, she would immediately let me know that what I was doing was wrong. For her, the distinction would be immediate and obvious. For my computer, no distinction would ever be forthcoming. Karma is an impersonal agent, just like a computer. Therefore, karma is not able to know the difference between good and bad.

To reiterate, karma presupposes an absolute standard of Good, which contradicts postmodern moral theory, and it posits the existence of an impersonal agent that can differentiate between good and bad, which is another contradiction, since only persons understand this distinction. This leaves the believer in karma with an untenable assertion on two counts.

In other words, in postmodern America, karma simply cannot be.

The Unseen Holocaust

One sure-fire way of cutting taxes would be to do away with payroll deductions. There's something about writing out a check that makes paying taxes a little more painful, a little more real. Why is that?

In the same way, does anyone really believe that if we daily lined up thousands of infants and then crushed and dismembered them that abortion would be considered a right? If a small country was guilty of this, on a smaller scale of course, what would the response of the world be? If there was a church in that country, and there was a political party that wanted it to continue, and a political party that, for the most part anyway, wanted it to end, would the church in that country have an obligation to point this out by naming names?

OK, like the payroll tax deductions that move taxes from the seen to the unseen, does it make any difference that these babies being crushed and dismembered are out of sight? Does it matter that their cries are not heard?

Apparently so.

Jumping Out Of A Perfectly Good Airplane?

In my previous post I discussed an analogy of faith using a skydiving experience once upon a time. I pointed out that anytime I wanted to reflect on what it is to experience faith I simply recalled the thoughts and feelings I had had as I readied myself to jump. But as I considered these things in more depth as of late, I realized that there was more to the analogy than simply having faith that my parachute would open and thus save my body from death. The airplane began to represent this world and it’s thinking, and my life.

Paul spoke of a dividing point, or a separation that occurs in our minds. In Romans 8 he said that those who ARE according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh and those who ARE according to the spirit, the things of the spirit. In thinking back, the assurances offered by the airplane verses the lack of assurance in my parachute seemed to represent that division.

Staying with the airplane seems to be the obvious choice. The constant drone of the engine affirms my faith in the airplane. The controls affirm my faith in my will. The pilot affirms my faith in man’s ability. The airplane is safe.

When I was going through the little training course the morning of my jump the instructor anticipated the question: “What kind of fool would jump out of a perfectly good airplane”? He told us to answer the question when asked: “There’s no such thing as a perfectly good airplane”. This was, of course, in jest, but it fits well into the symbolism of this analogy. According to God, our lives are broken.

But faith is practiced. It is a life lived rather than a one-time decision to have faith. Faith is required at every turn, or, as James puts it, Faith without works is dead. It is as if we are, on a regular basis, required to make decisions in which the obvious choice, the one that feels right, the one that seems safest, the one that appears to promise us the highest level of peace and comfort is not the right choice. We generally know that it isn't the right choice, yet we experience these crises, both large and small, as we learn to trust in God instead of our own understanding.

Such crises can range from whether or not to go out on a date with someone attractive yet ungodly, to spanking one’s children, to breaking off a dating relationship, to telling the truth about something, to asking for help in an addiction, to homeschool, to not having an abortion, to trusting God to provide instead of the government with all its Satanic entangling strings attached, and on and on. In all of these, the point of decision is not the time to make up one’s mind. We must be ready ahead of time, before we are face to face with the decision, just as Joshua told the Israelites to “choose this day whom you will serve”.

I am afraid we live in a time in which many people preachers and theologians believe that we are saved by the one-time act of faith exercised when we “accept” Jesus. I am of the belief that this is a deception, and a horrible one at that, for it convinces people that faith is exercised by putting on the parachute, so to speak, then going on in life with the vain assurance that if their life falls apart or they die they have this sort-of ace in the hole. Meanwhile they never understand the One in whom they have placed their faith. Terms like joy and abundant life are interpreted as happiness because they are wholly foreign terms to the one who does not know his savior.

This is the airplane, a life that is according to the flesh. As for me, I have now begun to attempt to think and pray in terms of being both ready and able to face decisions based on a mind that is set on the things of the Spirit which is life and peace. I know I will have times of failure, but I also look forward to the times I jump, and in so doing, will KNOW my savior, and the wonderful joy that accompanies this intimacy, in new ways.