Friday, December 4, 2015

Crazy cracker - San Bernardino

I was really struggling over whether or not I wanted to write this post.  But then I thought, my hope and aim with this blog is always to provide someone with a different perspective or to lubricate the rusty gears and maybe get someone thinking in a way they haven’t previously.

San Bernardino.  I know it is still relatively early and preliminary information is still rolling in, but if President Obama does not declare war on ISIS within the next few days, I am going to be a very upset American.  In fact, if it doesn’t happen soon, you better believe something is happening behind closed doors and insulated walls that you do simply cannot know about...or else “they” would have to kill you.  I hate to think that there is a larger more serious issue than innocent American people losing their lives, but lets face it, it wouldn’t be the first time innocent people died under cover of a secret agenda.  I get that some things must be kept dark.  I am all for classified information, intelligence, and greater good.  I also believe that a country owes a duty to its citizens to keep them safe from harm, whether the threat is foreign or domestic.

I am ashamed to admit my racism.  The very second that that dude's name was released and I read, "Syed Farook," I was like - oh he is definitely a terrorist.  This was a full 24-36 hours before they released information that the couple or the wife had ties to ISIS.  Even as I was reading the story that he was an American-born guy, had a baby and a wife and government job and was living the dream—I was like, how does anyone think that he is not a terrorist?  I mean c'mon kids.  Syed Farook.

Please accept my sincerest apology.  I am still growing as a person and racism is wrong.

This cracker infiltrated my United States, got a government job right under our noses, bought guns legally in a state with some of the harshest gun laws, traveled back to Saudi (most likely to get a crash course in urban warfare and Killing Americans 101), then proceeded to marry a true life terrorist chik and carry out a plan that I personally believe was laid out five years ago, not last year or last month or whatever it is that we are being told.

If this happens again in the next six months, I will sign the petition to deport every single person residing in the United States that has been to any country in the middle east at any time within the last five years.  Period.  White, American, Christian, Pope, child, jew, black, asian, mexican, politicians, horses, dogs, name it, I want it gone if it has traveled to Islam-town since 2010.  And somebody better find out why every single general and leader of ISIS is named Abu.  Seriously, there’s gotta be something there.  All of them.  Abu.  Look into it.  CIA FBI somebody needs to get on that.

Next, I want to talk about the gosh dang gun law cry babies.  Read this next part slowly for effect and so that it sinks in real good.  STRICTER GUN LAWS WILL NOT MAKE AMERICA A SAFER PLACE TO LIVE.  WHY DO YOU THINK THAT CHANGING THE GUN LAWS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE?  For crying out loud!  When will it end?  And if that isn’t bad enough, somehow prayer is getting a bad rap?!?!  I suppose it isn’t surprising that non-believers, aka liberals, would be shaming prayer.  Duh.  The problem is that they are doing it in an effort to make a stronger push for more gun laws.

This post is far from a finished product.  Stay tuned.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

The President's refugees

Obama might as well have ordered the hanging of all puppies and kittens for the response he received from Americans this past week.  It is downright shameful.  How dare anyone of you throw up the argument about not taking care of our own before helping others.  Do you not hear how that sounds?  You choose now to speak up for homeless people (veterans or otherwise)?  Unbelievable.  You wait until others who are running from threat of death and war, who are seeking compassion and refuge from a stronger nation, to choose to speak out for a problem you have hardly cared about in the past.  That's right, hardly cared about.  Were you out rallying for the homeless everyday for the last 20 years?  Yeah, me neither.  Were you aware of the problem and felt sad about it not being better?  Probably, but that certainly does not give you the right to blast the President and accuse him of letting murderers and terrorists run rampant in good ole US of A.  Some of you literally accused the President of inviting murder.  Clearly that part of the brain that filters the dumb stuff, broke.  In the interest of fairness I will not list some of the awesome comments I've read regarding our leadership.

If a small group of white people rob a liquor store and kill the proprietor, do we automatically jump to the conclusion that all white people are thieves and murderers?  Well according to the collective intellect of facebook, all Muslims are terrorists.  Just wait, this post gets even better!

What if I told you that 83% of Americans identify as Christians?  Does this surprise you?  It should.  I am a Christian.  I recall that we should love others more than we love ourselves.  God gave His son to save us.  What would we give to save another?  Nothing apparently.  A boot to the rear maybe?  "We don't take kindly to your kind 'round here."  Sound like a Christian?

Now I want to talk about what I think is a more serious issue.  Radical Muslim terrorists can disguise themselves as refugees.  For that reason, and that reason alone, I feel like maybe we should not provide asylum.  It is a very difficult decision, but even as a Christian I do not think it is the right thing to do to risk innocent American lives to save others.  That's bad business.  It has nothing to do with the President and it certainly has nothing to do with the homeless.  It is a matter of public policy I suppose.  I do not have a proposal either.  I hate that innocent people will die for ideology.  Because that's what terrorists are, ideologists.  It is about power and fear.  They might claim to do the things they are doing in the name of Allah, but the devil has put hate in their hearts and has deceived them to the uttermost.  If you are going to call yourself a Christian, be a Christian.  Pray for our enemy instead of spewing venom at our own leader.  God bless America.

Friday, November 13, 2015

Being tested

We are being tested.  As a nation, we are facing a very pivotal moment in U.S. history.  It would be difficult to argue that the landscape of America is not changing.  We have all but abandoned morality and sensible decision making, and in its place is unadulterated unabashed selfishness.  The reason this is so important right now is because in a few short months we are going to be voting for a new free world leader.  What are the chances people actually vote with their conscience?  Can you imagine putting someone in charge who actually cares about the state of the union or who will be proactive in matters of public policy with respect to the greater good?  The danger and probably the real reason we do not elect a president who will stand up and fight for good, is fear of attack.  A president who has a higher moral standard and is willing to die for what is right is something this country has needed for a very long time.  Of real concern is that if we elect an upright man or woman as president...someone is going to kill them.  And just in case you are mumbling about what is moral, moral standards are not subjective.  Somewhere in our collective shallow hearts and minds is a true sense of right and wrong, but because that behavior has been shunned for so long now we are all afraid to stand up.  Rather, we acquiesce for the sake of conformity.  For the last 20 years, it has been all about image and the popular majority.  It makes sense that things are in such disarray right now.  Did you know that England first banned abortion in 1803?  1803.  By "banned," I mean that it was statutorily outlawed.  It was an offense that was punishable by death.  DEATH people.  If you were found guilty of having an abortion you were put down like a lame horse.  Fast forward to 2015 and women are practically encouraged to have abortions.  Evolution of philosophy you might say?  "The doctors said my baby is sick and might have physical defects."  Abortion.  "I don't have my dream job yet."  Abortion.  "My boyfriend/husband said he would leave me."  Abortion.  "I'm still so young and there is so much I want to do."  Abortion.  "Oh my gosh, I don't even remember his name.  That was such a crazy night.  Can you imagine me with a baby?  Girl, I am not about to have no baby!"  Abortion.  Take notice of all the "I"s and "my"s.  Remember what I said about selfishness?  (Sorry, the abortion rant was not a planned part of this post, but it illustrated my point well.  :)

No, what is more likely to happen is that we are going to vote for ourselves by choosing the candidate that we believe is going to best meet our needs and who thinks most like us.  Here's why that is a bad thing (among so many other reasons).  The 2016 presidential election is drawing nigh kids and if we really believe anything mainstream media has to say on the personal character of our presidential hopeful front-runners, we are in a whole lot of trouble.  Donald Trump is a bigot, a sexist, and thinks we are all stupid.  Ben Carson has profitable financial relationships with ex-felons and is an angry maniac.  Hillary Clinton wears a wig and is a walking national security breach.  Carly Fiorina has a difficult time telling the truth about anything at all.  Marco Rubio is just glad to have banks that can count his money for him (he struggles in matter of finance apparently).  Ted Cruz is also a liar and tends to be late to work...often.  What in the world are we going to do if one of these people end up as president of the United States of America?  Well, I for one am going to vote for the one that is least likely to take my God and my gun away from me.  But seriously, given the vast amount of absolutely worthless information the media feeds us, how are we supposed to make a choice here?  Are we really supposed to be choosing the one that we hope will do the least amount of damage for potentially the  next eight years?  What a bummer.

Just be honest with yourselves people.  Read a real magazine, look at more than one news source and educate yourself just a little bit before voting.  The individuals running for president are not as bad as the media would have you to believe.  Donald, Hillary, Ben, Carly, and Ted, have donated tens of millions of dollars to reputable organizations and I think for the most part they have America's best interests at heart.  Just do a little bit of homework before voting and please don't vote for a candidate because they have good or bad hair, or because they don't smell bad, or can't count (maybe he's dyslexic).  Vote for the candidate you think is most likely to have a POSITIVE impact on our nation.  The end.

Comment at your own peril.  Better yet, just share it with others, like it, give it a thumbs up or a +1, something like that.

Friday, May 29, 2015

I had to read Moral Choices by Scott B. Rae, PhD, for my Ethics class.  Below is a paper I just finished comparing Divine Command Theory and Virtue Theory.

Comparison of Divine Command Theory and Virtue Theory

God is good.  The Scriptures confirm that God is good.  “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17)  King David wrote, “Thou art good, and doest good; teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:68)  During the various works of creation at the beginning of time, God Himself described His own works as “good”.  In Luke, Jesus declared to a certain ruler that only God was good, “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.” (Luke 18:19) (please do your research before questioning me about the deity of Jesus)
Rae defines Divine Command Theory as follows: “A divine command system is one in which the ultimate foundation for morality is the revealed will of God, namely, the commands of God as found in Scripture.”  (Rae, pg.47)  Since I am here, I will also include that Rae says this of God’s commands, “Morality is ultimately grounded in the character of God̵that is, the ultimate source for morality is not God’s commands but God’s character.” (Rae, pg.24) Now, in the very same chapter, Rae tells us that traditional divine command theory holds a slightly different view than what is advanced here in Moral Choices.  I, however, am inclined to agree with Mr. Rae on his first assessment of God’s commands, that it is not the command that makes a thing good, but the character from whence the command originates, from within God.
For as much as I have established where “good” comes from, it should also be noted that I do not believe there can be “morality” without an originating source for the same.  It certainly does not come from the trees or the mountains.  No, morality has it roots and owes its very existence
to God as well.  We have said previously that morality is grounded in the character of God.  We know from Scripture that there was nothing before God (“I am alpha and omega, the beginning and  the end”), therefore morality could not have come from man or earth or anything finite, up to and including any man-made notions, ideals or concepts, respectively.
The gist of Divine Command Theory is that a thing is good if God commands it.  I submit that this is only partially true.  A command that comes from God is good only because God is good.  That is, the command’s source is good, therefore it is good.  It is not the command itself that is good.  I wrestled with this at first because I said, “Well if God is good and the command comes from God, the command must be good.”  This is true, but again, it subtly indicates that the command is good.  Additionally, and in response to the question posed in Plato’s “Euthyphro dilemma”, things are not good because God commands them, things are good because God’s commands are derived from His character, and His character is good.
Virtue Theory is generally explained as an approach to ethics that emphasizes importance of an individual’s character rather than the basic motivational elements of the acts that an individual engages in (known as Deontology) or their consequences (known as Consequentialism).  Rae does not spend an exorbitant amount of time on Consequentialism.  “Virtue theory . . . holds that morality is more than simply doing the right thing.”  (Rae, pg.91)  We can infer that what Rae means here is that virtue is not whether the act itself is good or bad, but the source nature (or intention maybe) of the act before it is performed.  Now, sense we have concluded that God’s character is where goodness comes from, it seems prudent that we determine that our own virtue comes from within.  My personal opinion is that everyone is born with an inherent sense of right and wrong.  Yes, we learn lessons and are taught what behavior is proper and/or socially acceptable as children, but ultimately, without a pre-existing internal knowledge of good and bad, why in the world would anyone do good (even if only for personal gain)?  Why do good at all?  We do good because it feels right.  It might be confirmation from God that we are doing the right thing; that we are operating within His will.
With respect to Virtue Theory, Rae says, “. . . the ideal person will model Christ”, and “. . . the moral obligations for the follower of Jesus are subsumed under the notion of becoming like Christ.”  (Rae, pg.41, internal citation omitted)  In choosing to follow Christ, we, by default, choose to change our inner-man.  We are made new in Christ Jesus.  We are told in Scripture that we (man) have a sin nature.  This supports my previous statement, “why do good at all?”  I do agree with Rae to a small degree, that Christians ought to hold at least some level of agreement with Deontological ethics.  Even though God commands us to love our neighbor, He goes into explicit detail about why.  It is their salvation that we should be concerned about.  Similarly, we are to appreciate, sympathize, and give to the poor and needy.  Not strictly because God commands, but because it is the right thing to do and assists with securing our own place in the Kingdom of God.  From the time of Adam and Eve, our natural internal state is one of evil, greed, and biased unabashed selfishness.  The inherent sense of right and wrong that I mentioned earlier is like a “God override”.  If you consider how many people daily and perpetually seek to fulfill the lusts of their flesh and how infrequently those same people perform “good” unselfish deeds, it makes sense.
Mirriam-Webster defines virtue as: (a) conformity to a standard of right: morality; and (b) a particular moral excellence.  Both of these definitions concern the word moral which we have previously established is found in the character of God.  And if we want to go even further, it is probably no coincidence that virtue is also defined plurally as: (c) an order of angels - see, celestial hierarchy.
I would argue that Divine Command Theory is the more “right” of the two theories, primarily because I believe that humans are not naturally virtuous except for the aforementioned “God override”.  The danger for churches generally is that if a church teaches that virtue comes from within it inadvertently acknowledges that virtue does not originate from God, unless that change is initiated by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.  The Divine Command Theory likewise can be dangerous because it must be emphasized that it is God’s character that makes a command good.  God does not command a thing because it is good.  The command is good because it comes from God’s character.  The church today probably focuses more on Divine Command Theory.  Consider that most Christian denominations focus on letting Christ change us from the inside out and that as new Christians we are to obey God’s commands as they are laid out in Scripture.  Most sermons today focus on obedience to God and accepting Jesus as Lord and savior.

**I apologize for not going into more detail about the traditional philosophical arguments associated with either theory, but assignment parameters simply would not allow it.