26. February 2010 by admin.

When Americans believed in Truth, they used to say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  That is to say, just because a plan of action has a noble purpose doesn’t necessarily guarantee a noble outcome, which is something a youngster like Obama would do well to recognize.  I say this because earlier this month–as well as during his presidential campaign–he spent a good amount of time talking about saving homeowners from the horrors of foreclosure, which is a noble goal upon first glance.  But when a deeper look is taken, whether due to miscalculation or corruption we find that the only people truly benefiting from his attempts are powerful bankers.

To clarify before making my point, having a banking system is healthy, but investment lending and consumptive lending are two completely different things.  While investment lending lends money for the purpose of potentially increasing the income of the borrower either through business or education, consumptive lending does not potentially increase the wealth of the borrower.  Borrowing money to go to school should result in a higher income for the borrower, after which he or she should be more financially secure than before.  On the other hand, consumptive lending for televisions has no effect upon the borrower’s income, while allowing him to buy something he couldn’t otherwise afford. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics, economy | Print | No Comments »

20. February 2010 by admin.

When I was a 19 year-old non-Christian, I argued that if the Bible was true, sin was God’s fault. At the time, it made sense to me that sin was a result of biochemical survival, in which an entire being’s existence is predicated upon—in theory—selfishness. Without the drive to eat and procreate and amass wealth for safety, the concept of sin seemed meaningless, and I was well aware that Adam and Eve had been eating in the Garden of Eden.

Of course, what eating implies is that the capability for sin already existed before Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit, since satiation and perfect circumstances prevented the need for selfishness. But when God expelled us from the Garden, that is when our real problems began, making the present-day human evils more His fault than anyone else’s. As a young socialist keen on the idea of crime reduction through government subsistence for all—an idea I now firmly reject—it seemed sensible enough to conclude that God had built us to fail, as though God should have built us differently so that sin wouldn’t have had to exist. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Theology | Print | No Comments »

11. February 2010 by admin.

Editor’s note: This article was written for a brother in Christ who’d brought this important topic up earlier.  Here’s to you, buddy. 

Oftentimes, those opposing an establishment of a so-called religiously-affiliated morality in government will argue that people who adopt and promote Christlike standards are the same kind of Pharisees who not only failed to meet God’s standards, but who ultimately killed Jesus.  Sometimes they’ll argue this point because they wish to engage in sinful behavior, and other times because they don’t believe enforcing religious morality is conducive to liberty, but the argument is always the same: people should keep their religious beliefs out of the legal system.

Either way, both parties agree on one point, which is the danger presented by a unified church/government structure like the historic Papacy or yesteryear’s Anglican church.  But whether or not the state formally declares a separation of church and state, there are only two realistic theological declarations a state can make regarding this issue.  The first is that God does exist and our entire existence is therefore predicated upon Him and His law.  The second is that He does not exist and our entire existence is futile, directionless, and entirely encapsulated in three concepts: pleasure, pain, and death.   It would be incredibly misleading to have a government which declares the sovereignty of God but does not enforce any of His principles, or a government which refuses to acknowledge His existence and yet takes stances only a theist can take. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Theology | Print | No Comments »

5. February 2010 by admin.

No American is actually a constitutionalist.

Although the kind of rights guaranteed by the federal government are hailed by both parties as essential, the truth is that they are absolutely impractical on a local level, almost everyone disagrees on their universal application, and both parties violate the constitution’s broad stance on many issues.  Conservatives, for instance, will say that freedom of speech is intended to protect political and religious speech, while Liberals say that freedom of speech is also intended for dirty language and suggestive themes on daytime television, but not “hate” speech. Both parties prosecute pedophiles for baiting children with words on the internet, you can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater or divulge your intent to kill someone, The FCC exists, it is illegal to disclose classified information, and we currently do not allow people to advertise for Christian roommates.  And even though most agree that infringement is absolutely necessary in the first five of these, these cases are all still unconstitutional infringements upon the first amendment. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics | Print | 1 Comment »

27. January 2010 by admin.

Christ is perfect, you are not.

Although easy to understand and easier to admit, the full reality of personal imperfection in the face of Christ’s perfection is incredibly difficult to live with.  In fact, as a young Christian, this is one of the most difficult and bothersome concepts to abide by, and oftentimes–if we’re being honest with ourselves–rather depressing.

For instance, in one of the Apostle Paul’s most terrifying writings, he states the following:  “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Theology | Print | 2 Comments »

25. January 2010 by admin.

I have to admit that I’m a bit jaded when media-circus disasters show their obnoxious faces.  Perhaps it’s because I don’t understand the full reality of the disasters, perhaps it’s because nobody I personally know has been affected, and perhaps it’s because we seem to have a new disaster every year, but any way you look at it I’m not the kind of guy who holds a candle-light vigil every time a tsunami comes around.  Frankly, these situations feel so far away, the people seem so foreign, and I have my own life to worry about.

Part of the reason I felt this way was due to Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath: I’d donated my hard-earned money to the Red Cross because I felt it was the right thing to do, only to be disgusted later with the media-ignored tales from people who were actually there.  I couldn’t help but feel my stomach turn into knots when listening to witnesses describe the ghettoest of the ghetto inhabitants shooting at their rescuers, trying to loot their boats.  The coast guard eventually had to tell do-gooders not to try and rescue anyone, because the heroes were being attacked.  I heard about murders, I heard about rioting and looting, and I sat back and wondered whether my money had supported a rapist, or a mugger.  I wondered how many people’s homes were broken into and their families tied up while armed burglars rummaged through their possessions.  Suddenly, I felt like what I had done out of kindness had been turned into something vile, and I was determined never to send money into a Black ghetto disaster for the rest of my life. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

23. January 2010 by admin.

Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the right to constitutional liberties, since they are run by individuals with rights protected by the US constitution (most notably freedom of political speech and the right to organize their candidates for election).  The immediate response by left-wing news stations was one of horror and disgust, with the likes of Keith Olbermann even saying that–now that corporations have constitutional access to their own funding and consciences–every conceivable science-fiction political nightmare is now possible.  Here are fourteen of the horrors Keith described, ranging anywhere from hilarious to beneficial (the latter type being obvious for those who appreciate the laws of God, and at the very least frown upon the injustices of Marxism):

1) In ten years, every politician in the US would be a corporate prostitute

2) the existence of unions (editor’s note: the organizations responsible for both a) changes in the taxation of health care plans which taxed 40% for non-union members, and b) for the collapse of our auto and manufacturing industries) would be threatened

3) taxation would become flat, and government spending will decrease Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics | Print | No Comments »

10. January 2010 by admin.

A short while ago, I found myself in a conversation with an organic soap-maker at the Pike Place Market.  To be fair, his soap was very high-quality stuff, but I found one serious problem with it: the soap was exorbitantly priced.  Since I was dealing with the soap-maker himself and had the option of purchasing a slightly lower quality soap in bulk for a far more affordable price (less than $5 a bar, thank goodness), haggling seemed my best option.  So haggle I did.

What I found was that the soap-maker couldn’t sell me on the quality of the bar at that price, and he knew this–as he didn’t put up much of a fight.  But what he then said to me has puzzled me ever since: the reason I should buy the soap, he said, was because he paid his soap-makers $18 an hour, which is more than I currently make at the moment.  Not sold on the idea, I smiled, declined, and took off.  I’d later go on to buy about 17 more bars for about three bucks more. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in economy | Print | No Comments »

6. January 2010 by admin.

In modern society, one claim to progress is the alleged triumph of reason in many realms of daily living.  But the truth is that while reason allows humans to behave sensibly according to the world they are presented with, it completely loses function and ironically presents itself as a regressive danger in one of two areas: when it is used to explain the origins of the universe, and when it is considered supreme in the dictation of morality.  This essay will focus on the latter problem.

When the “rational” person considers reason to be the foundation of morality, what they find is known as the Heinz Dilemma.  In this dilemma, a man has a wife who gets cancer, and he has the option of either stealing from a selfish person to pay for her surgery, or letting her die while not stealing from someone else.  According to the rational person, Heinz has six moral directions to compare (thanks to Wikipedia): Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology | Print | No Comments »

4. January 2010 by admin.

When people want to get something important done in a democratic republic, chances are they’re going to have to find others who feel strongly about the same issue(s) and organize, which empowers them to live freely, happily, and effectively.  An active and moral citizenry is, after all, crucial to the survival of a free state.  But after looking at Western history over the past 50 years, we find that a dangerous trend has been adopted toward the regulation of groups: the civil liberties of the individual, which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, become severely restricted as soon as those individuals join hands with others to accomplish goals according to their consciences.

For instance, the first amendment–which protects freedom of speech–is strangely absent when people organize in political action committees.  As an individual, you are entitled (for the most part) to speak your mind according to your conscience, but when people who believe in something want to make a political difference in their world, rules suddenly appear for what can be said, when they can say it, and who they can accept money from.   To our government, freedom of speech and the liberty to raise capital matter, but only when you’re alone and don’t want to affect your country. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 1 Comment »

21. December 2009 by admin.

Allow me to begin with a simple declaration: science cannot disprove the existence of God, and any attempts to do so are greatly overstepping the boundaries of science’s authority.

You see, even if we did evolve from protozoa and then mastered the sciences, modern atheists would still be using science as an authority in regard to questions that science cannot ever answer, which is ironically a very large evolutionary step backward for the human race.  It is a step backward because science only tells us “how;” it does not explain “why,” “what,” or “who.”    Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy | Print | 3 Comments »

8. December 2009 by admin.

One of the most difficult passages of the New Testament deals with divorce, and the proper application of a marriage relationship.  When Jesus was asked by Pharisees whether a man is allowed to divorce his wife, He had a seemingly cryptic answer for them: divorce is wrong all the time, and the Creator did not intend for a man and a wife to separate unless the woman was found to have some sort of “sexual impurity,” but Moses allowed the Israelites to engage in divorce.  But since Jesus also stated that the Law and the Prophets were divinely revealed by Yahweh, and Moses allowed divorce, how can we tell which parts of the Old Testament are from God and which parts are from Moses?  Without the understanding that the entire Old Testament is from God, we cannot derive moral stances on many things or be sure about the application of the Bible to modern living. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology | Print | 1 Comment »

3. December 2009 by admin.

Recently, Rachel Maddow exposed what she thought was a very clear connection between Ugandan minister Martin Sempa and American religious conservatives, stating that she believes pastors in the US were indirectly responsible for an anti-gay bill in Uganda.  The bill supposedly presents an absolute ban on homosexual behavior, going so far as to give the death penalty to people involved in homosexual acts, and even punishment for those who harbor or do not disclose the homosexual acts of neighbors.  What Rachel didn’t mention, however, is that the country is suffering so badly from an AIDS crisis that 50% of the population is under the age of 15. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics | Print | 4 Comments »

1. December 2009 by admin.

When the electoral season comes around, conservatives can always count on being called “fearful,” and being told that they employ fear tactics to win their arguments.  This is half true, and half ridiculous.

But to understand the absurdity of their statement, we must have a proper perspective on our country.  Liberals are postmodern big-government globalists who want to restructure the family, increase the oversight of government, make the United States of America subject to international forces we don’t really control, and get rid of all religion in the state (except for only when Jesus said to feed the poor and not judge, the only parts of the Bible they enjoy quoting).  As such, legislation they propose tends to threaten to upset our daily way of living, since the United States–up until these last forty years–has been almost unrivaled in its conservatism on the world scene. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 2 Comments »

29. November 2009 by admin.

Americans don’t understand how blessed they are.  We live in a country in which–for the most part–we can make our own decisions about what to say, whom to vote for, and we can make decisions based upon our religious conscience (better than in Europe, anyway).  But another thing ungrateful Americans don’t understand is that all these freedoms came only by vigilance and bloodshed, and can be taken away at the stroke of a pen.

Although a sharp reduction in liberties has been fostered by an increasingly leftist elite these past 60 years, mostly incrementally, the most dangerous restrictions on liberty and the pursuit of happiness are likely to come from major treaties signed  by our president.  This is because Article 2, section 2, clause 2 of our constitution dictates that any of these treaties become law as soon as he signs with a super-majority congressional vote, and article VI of our constitution mandates that international treaties are the supreme law of the land, enforceable through our court system.

As such, here is a list of treaties the entire world has signed and we haven’t.  This is important because each of these treaties has a different focus, but when presented in entirity the goal becomes very clear: the United States and every other country in the entire world is not to have liberty apart from their real masters: a governing body of international unelected officials. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics | Print | No Comments »