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. (more…)
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 (more…)
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. (more…)
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): (more…)
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. (more…)