There are a lot of people, especially in Seattle, who like to pretend that the Old Testament and a lot of God’s laws don’t matter to modern people. They say this for many reasons, but mostly because they believe that they themselves are somehow morally advanced beyond Biblical law, and as such, the Bible is oftentimes culturally irrelevant. Aside from the problems which accompany this kind of thinking (like how nobody can really be sure which portions of the Bible are divinely inspired), Christians employing this kind of “logic” generally forget about someone. He’s called the Devil. You may have read about him somewhere in the Bible.
If Yahweh is the author of truth and the Devil is partially defined as the author of lies, then anything in the Bible which we suggest is false or evil is from the Devil. This includes “culturally irrelevant” stances on gender roles (oppressive and unloving!), ideas about submitting to authority (unAmerican, of course!), and keeping the Sabbath holy (before the modern consumptive economy!). But the most important thing “modern” Christians enjoy painting as the Devil’s work is Levitical law, as they claim it is archaic and oppressive, having completely unacceptable standards for treating women, or unacceptable intolerance of idolators, homosexuals, and false prophets. These people would claim that when Jesus arrived, suddenly God changed His mind about standards and started preaching a philosophy of hugs while throwing any sort of orderly function–and justice–out the window (“love your enemies” apparently means letting them do whatever they want). (more…)
Everyone knows that liberal politicians get into power by promising to fight the rich for the sake of the poor, which is known as populism. Modern liberals like Barack Obama tell us they want to jump start the economy with government spending, which will create more jobs. They promise to increase forms of public welfare and expand things like health-care for everyone, because it’s going to benefit you–the little guy–mostly at the expense of the bourgeois. Of course, anyone with at least a little economic common sense knows this is a bunch of bunk. In fact, by looking at numbers we can find their policies are helping few other than the rich, especially in the long term.
A) The Liberal Flat Tax
Because the government doesn’t actually have the money to support the entire economy and pay for social entitlements and two occupations, liberal economists like Paul Krugman claim the answer to our problems is quantitative easing, or the government’s inflation of the dollar to jump-start the economy and pay for socialist programs like health-care. This, he claims, would circumvent the problem of debt, as any reasonable person understands that debt ruins financial entities, and moral people realize that funding today’s poor with the future poor’s money–also known as putting it on the baby’s tab–is fundamentally unjust. It places our needs above theirs. (more…)
As a youngster, I was once convinced that imagining God’s existence as an explanation for the universe was silly, as it made the already unexplainable phenomenon of existence even more complex. But in retrospect, I had already made one assumption that flowed concurrently with proper theology: that there must be an existence beyond time and space itself.
For instance, no reasonable person has ever read anything about physics and time and determined that the flow of time isn’t malleable, or that it has always existed. Einstein’s theory of relativity showed us that time could be slowed, and good old-fashioned logic showed us that the flow of linear time necessitates a beginning, or we could not have arrived at the present point. Those ideas being clear, we must all be in agreement that if these statements about time and space are true, then something must exist beyond time and space, mostly because matter and space don’t create themselves, they don’t come from nothing, they aren’t universally constant, and time cannot exist without space. These are logical conclusions of our existence, and the basis for any reasonable hypothesizing about reality. (more…)
A lot of talk has been given in the last century about non-violence, the Left being particularly enamored with the concept of a peaceful and gentle existence in which violence is far removed from everyday life. But one thing the Left forgets is that violence and government are intrinsically intertwined. As the state and its institutions are the Left’s primary tools for social change, it becomes very important for thinkers to question the pacifistic nature of policies that solely rely on the state for their enactment.
It is not difficult to understand that violence (or the threat thereof) is the tool the state uses to achieve all its goals. For instance, if a person breaks any law, that person is subjected to fines or jail time. But what if the person refuses? Since the government cannot enforce such a policy when a person refuses to comply, their only option is to use violent force to subdue those in rebellion. And this displays a fundamental point: there simply is no such thing as a non-violent government policy. If you refuse to pay taxes, the government will come for you with force. If they weren’t able to forcefully subdue you, our government wouldn’t be able to do anything. (more…)
“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” -Matthew 18:5-6
It would be safe to say that since the Human Rights Campaign is one of the largest and best-funded homosexual lobby groups in the US, that they would have the resources to comprise the best case for “Biblical” homosexual advocacy. As such, we can assume that this training course for their Biblical homosexuality seminar “For the Bible Tells Me So” is the best that their community has to offer. (more…)
A couple of weeks ago, I had a conversation with a very sweet and well-intentioned lady about racial bias in the American justice system. Due to some personal experiences she’d had, she wholeheartedly believed that Seattle’s police force was full of “racist pigs,” and that they weren’t worthy of respect. But although I can–with all of my being–agree with her that police officers without a sense of justice are dangerous, and that a person should be judged according to their deeds and the contents of their heart, the insult levied against our boys in blue was slanderous enough to warrant a rebuttal.
But before proceeding, it must be noted that this woman isn’t the only person on the planet who holds those views. A common goal of all leftists is the reform of what they see as an incredibly racist judicial system, which preys upon people of color and throws them in jail without probable cause. Barack Obama himself stated during his campaign that America greatly needed a civilian oversight panel in every city, which would follow our police officers around and threaten to punish them if their actions were seen as racist. (more…)
The funny thing about national unity is that both sides of the political spectrum implicitly agree on one thing: that keeping society unified is a good idea, and that the dissolution of political powers is a painful, cumbersome, and oftentimes violent process that’s worth avoiding (this is unless, of course, that radical is an anarchist or a separatist, but both of these groups are minorities of minorities). The disagreement between Left and Right on social cohesion occurs because, just as with pleasure and peace and wealth, how you pursue unity defines whether or not you reside in the camp of good or evil. But despite the fact that both sides have completely different approaches to unity, both sides claim the other violates civil liberties in the pursuit thereof, and reality will always attest that no two political stances offend liberty with perfect equality. As such, it is our duty to determine which pathway is more destructive to the cause of freedom.
While true liberalism demands that political unity must be attained through institutionally-based equality, those on the Right maintain that unity under a government should be pursued by a people with sense of cultural and theological belonging. It is this, conservatives argue, which grants legitimacy to the democratic republic, with the people deciding who they are and why they belong together. Anything else would be contrary to the very idea of liberty itself: just ask someone from a Soviet satellite republic. (more…)