Neiswonger-ianisms

"On the atheistic political left, truth and value are whatever the community decides they are; on the atheistic political right, truth and value are whatever the individual decides they are; "true truth" as a matter of objective super-perspectival knowing is reserved to Christianity, and those that unconsciously feed from that table."

"Continuing on poverty, the causes of poverty are manifold and complicated, but there are some obvious Christian and biblical themes, such as that the causes are usually rooted in oppression and violence against the weak and the powerless, the most common means of this oppression is the abuse of state power, and that the role of mitigating the effects of poverty is a fundamental duty of the Church."

"If a state is given enough power over the lives of the citizens to eradicate poverty, it is also given enough power over the lives of the citizens to eliminate freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and the right to political dissent. This is one of the reasons that the church is irreplaceable. The church holds no civil power, and so no threat. Its tools are persuasion and accountability to charitable givers."

"If a state is given enough power over the lives of the citizens to eradicate poverty, it is also given enough power over the lives of the citizens to eliminate freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and the right to political dissent. This is one of the reasons that the church is irreplaceable. The church holds no civil power, and so no threat. Its tools are persuasion and accountability to charitable givers."

"Faith can be great or small, it can develop, it can be mixed with other things good or bad, it can be mature or infantile, but at the end of the day, it's like neuronal "all-or-none firing", you've either got it or you ain't; there is no in-between or transitional middle ground."

"Hope is established in times of joy and peace, in reserve for times of trial and ordeal. Even Jesus spent time alone in the mountains as the preparative for times with the crowds in the cities. Moses spent forty years in the desert before serving the Lord before an unruly people. To gage where we are and when we are is half the battle; the rest is having a firm grasp on unseen realities."

"Without God as the source of objective value, all the philosophies of men as so much speculation and mere preference."

"Not caring what other people think is a healthy part of taking a Christian posture toward the culture; the other part is caring what other people think."

"Once we see that being a "Follower of Jesus" holds by necessity identical ethical, practical, noetic and doctrinal formulations to the old "being a Christian" or a "member of the Church", there is not much persuasive force left in changing our self description."

"A true and lively faith will inevitably manifest itself in love and good works, not because they contribute to our justification before God, but as the reasonable response an unreasonable grace."

"The existence and common use of natural law was entirely non-controversial until the advent of rationalism, empiricism and theological liberalism; the entire western corpus of law is rooted in such."

"There are some people out there that go so far as to deny Divine providence; I wonder why He ordains that kind of thing?"

For now...

Legislate This!

It’s been said, “You can’t legislate morality!” But this is exactly what legislators and judges do when they declare by law that particular behaviors must be adopted by the broader population. Laws establish a “moral good” for a society. Laws are written to protect certain classes of people. Laws are written to provide “safety” and “access” to certain groups of people. If someone opposes these laws, they are considered “dangerous” and “harmful to the social fabric of society.” Those who oppose laws established by the government are therefore, “morally bad,” and possibly “criminal” because they object to the “good” that the government is trying to achieve. Government agencies promote their agendas by empowering publishers of school textbooks to promote alternative lifestyles as “normal” or even “exceptional.” Those who oppose these perspectives are considered “prejudiced” and “outside the mainstream.” Sure, the Amish, and others who are famously “counter-cultural” don’t need to conform to these laws because they are statistically insignificant and keep out of everyone’s way. But what about larger minorities with their own political voice and regular meetings? What about those who have financial influence and are known for not having an ultimate allegiance to the state? Will the majority continue with the mantra, “You can have your own morality and we will have ours”? Or will they, with the FORCE OF LAW, demand compliance and suppress dissent? It is important to remember, even in representative republics -- being “morally good” must be founded upon truly Moral Laws. (See Westminster Shorter Catechism: Q. 40-42)

I Was at a Funeral Today

The officiant stated that in times of grief, some people regard Jesus as a shepherd, others regard Jesus as a rock, others regard him as a refuge, (etc.)...

"May Jesus be to you what you need him to be at this time of great loss."

I noticed that he didn't call Jesus a thief.

I Wish I Would Blog More

Until then, I'll just preach!

THEY HATE PROPHETS OF DOOM AND GLOOM

What is it about the human condition?

We always long for days of progress, expansion, improvement... Yet at the same time we are a bunch of cheats, liars, and swindlers! How can we expect the first when we must depend upon the second?

AND when someone calls us on this -- they are jeered, maligned, taken for crazy.

It is so Old Testament.

It is so today...

PLEASE!! If you can spare 20 minutes, you will watch, listen, and learn!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1YhJRXqnXI&eurl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2x7R8pxUs&eurl

If these do not work for you, on YouTube, search: “Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 – 2007 (2nd Edition); and then, "Peter Schiff Predictions"

NOW, reading the comments left by YouTube viewers is always enlightening! But in view of the fact that this is just BASIC economics, (more government creates problems and can only redistribute -- and when I say "redistribute," that means people moving out of California -- and more...) and that the BEST and the BRIGHTEST LAUGHED at him, makes me bow in serious supplication!

CHANGE is Coming (which could mean, "Going.")

The word, "affair" used the mean something else.

The word, "queer" used to mean something else.

The word, "gay" used to mean something else.

The word, "marriage..."

When will we change, "change?"

Religulous: Rated "R" for Ridiculous

First of all, in the day, I was a faithful Bill Maher viewer with his TV show, Politically Incorrect. I even attended a live taping of the show! But soon, the show got predictable – it really became too PC for me.

Now Maher has a movie out where he states early on that he would, “really like to understand,” religious people – that’s what he says…

The movie opens with Maher standing on an archaeological site in Israel he calls Megiddo. He is standing on the very place where the Bible predicts the final battle to end the world and the spot where Jesus will return to earth... (He says that’s in the book of Revelation, but he also interprets the Bible in a lot of unique ways throughout the movie.)

The bulk of the movie is a dig at the Christian faith, of which he said he had his upbringing in the Roman Catholic Church; an upbringing that evidentially did not finally give his family any spiritual identity (worshipping "masturbation" was more suitable for defining Maher’s identity), as a result, the Roman Catholic Church receives repeated mocking (Except when he can find a Roman Catholic priest who would also mock religion, then he is happy to associate with a Catholic. Convenient).

The dirty trick of the movie is the editing techniques employed. Admittedly, this is where most of the humor lies. But whether it’s the “cut and paste” reconstruction of interviews to make people look dumbfounded, or the insertion of humorous (but sometimes vulgar) movie clips at just the right moment, it’s very apparent that Maher is not trying to “understand” the religious, he is really trying to make them look asinine.

Although, Maher does recount times in his own life when he “made a deal with God" -- to help him through some rough patches (once as a teen, once as a 40 year old); this type of admission indicates that Maher does in fact, relate to the inner longings of the soul -- even if he now discounts it. Still, Maher recognizes that this kind of “inner conversation” is a facet of the human condition. Regardless, he still embarks on a crusade to promote “doubt,” and the Gospel of, “I don’t know.” After all, religious faith is a “shamelessly invented standard you can’t support empirically.”

According to Maher, none of the Biblical authors were “eyewitnesses” (despite the fact that the texts say they were written by such), the Bible is “fictitious” (as he tours the various locations mentioned in the Bible which actually exist today – and as he describes their history just as the Bible says…), it's OK to interview individuals who lack any acceptable credentials (although the short segment with Francis Collins has Collins confronting Maher by saying, “With the standard YOU want for the evidence for belief, you won’t be able to prove ANYTHING.”) And the whole story of Jesus is a recapitulation of the Egyptian god Horus (which must be found on a magic website somewhere that will undoubtedly accept all ancient Egyptian writings as gospel; but not the literal Gospels themselves.)

Furthermore, Maher interviews, or makes sport of, all the usual suspects: The “faith healers,” the “health and wealth” preachers, Old Testament legalists, “Christian Nationalists,” the profiteers of “Bible entertainment,” Scientologists, Mormons, “tongues” speakers, Hallucinogenic devotees, Muslims, and those peculiar dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church (why he doesn’t bring up Fatima, I’ll never know!)

And to these groups and beliefs I say, “Fine, make them look foolish – because I think they are foolish too.” But I know that Maher has it out for ME. I believe in things that are considered foolish, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18); and, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…” (Romans 1:16).

And here is the crux of the issue isn’t it? What is Maher willing to believe and to what extent is he willing to preach it?

While trying to assert that America was not built upon a Christian worldview by quoting some Founding Fathers, he seems to ignore the vast weight of that Christian worldview in other writings of the Founding Fathers, like for example, the Declaration of Independence, which declares the foundation for “...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.”

While questioning a Jew for Jesus' salvation as being such a wonderful thing, Maher asks, “Then why don’t you kill yourself?” Shouldn't we respond to Maher in a similar manner, “If doubting is such a wonderful thing – why don’t YOU kill yourself and remove all doubt?” (Unless doubting is a smokescreen for avoiding the consequences of what you believe… Maybe you should doubt THAT most of all!)

While Maher doesn’t like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Jonah and the “whalefish,” any of the Old Testament prophets, 8 of the 10 Commandments, the Virgin Birth, or Jesus and his “suicide mission,” he would still like for God to be obviously clear in making a presentation to the world so that he could personally believe.

While Maher is repulsed by the “jealous" God of the Bible and equates this concept with an immature character flaw, Maher wants to equally deny every faith tradition -- but his own!

Maher wraps up his movie full circle back at Megiddo. And from this ancient pulpit, he prophetically proclaims, “Religion must die for people to live.” “The only virtue of faith is ‘not thinking’.” “Religious people are dangerous because they think they have all the answers, even as they push their own agenda.” Better yet, “Anti-religionists are rational,” "I have mental power and faith in it," and “Doubt is the foundation.” Again, why doesn’t he doubt all of this?

The movie ends with what must be a parody of the hell, fire, and brimstone preaching of the evangelistic days of old, because if anyone knows how to preach the consequences of false belief, it is Bill Maher! The final scene is an Armageddon-like conflagration able to strike fear into any doubter of Maher’s message!

Did Maher just work out his pathology to become the total representation of what he actually hates? I’m really trying to understand it.

I think it's called projection, and I saw it all on the screen!

NEW Guide for Voting!

It's election time again in the USS of A and that also means voting on Propositions here in the patina state.

Propositions mean that the people get to make laws without the vote of the legislature (or when the legislature doesn’t want to take responsibility for a vote), only to have the popular vote thwarted by judges who usually agree with the complaints of the side that lost. It's a grand game of, "Why do we do this again?"

Secretary of State, Debra Bowen sends all the registered voters an Official Voter Information Guide. In the year of our Lord, 2008, the month of November, Caleefornia voters may cast their vote for 12 Propositions.

So how should we then vote? I have a NEW rule to consider. The Voter Information Guide provides an "nonpartisan" description of the proposed Proposition and assesses its fiscal impact. Then there is a section for the advocates and opponents to present their cases. In the very back of the Guide is the actual text of the proposed law should the Proposition pass by popular vote.

This last section is on 8.5 x 11" paper with 10 pt. font, and is very illuminating! You get to see how much verbiage is actually required to implement each particular Proposition as law (which is, I’m sure, future fodder for lawyers and judges.)

Since more verbiage usually means more oppressive control by government to favor a multiplicity of special interest groups – I will vote for the Propositions with the least amount of printing required to enact it! I think it’s a great standard. You don’t even need to know what the Proposition is to know that you are voting for the best interest of the state! So, the survey says (and starting with the longest, most wordiest Propositions to the least…):

Prop 5 = 34 Columns
Prop 6 = 27.5 Columns
Prop 7 = 15.5 Columns
Prop 10 = 9 Columns
Prop 9 = 8 Columns
Prop 11 = 6 Columns
Prop 1 = 4 Columns
Prop 3 = 3.5 Columns
Prop 4 = 3.5 Columns
Prop 12 = 2 Columns
Prop 2 = 1 Columns
Prop 8 = 2 SENTENCES

How did your favorite Proposition do?

Now, to be fair, I still vote with some other faithful guidelines: Bonds means taxes, which means, NO. Laws that promote a proper morality for the good of the soul of the state (And YES, I DO know what is good and best for the soul of the state!) will get my support.

But with my new guide outlined above, who wins? Definition of marriage, Farm animal protection, Veteran’s Bond, Parental Notification for Abortions, and Children’s Hospital Bond.

Interesting…