I haven't seen the movie, "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer" but I plan to. In the mean time, I'll keep to my version of what has been called "fantastical" history. I believe the Civil War could have been averted, Slavery could have been abolished, and America could probably control most of Mexico if it had not been for one Abraham Lincoln.
Let me interject into what will sound like a sweeping condemnation of a man beloved by millions. He was a brilliant individual with a canny sense of who to trust and how to manipulate people's desires to achieve his goals. He had a strong moral fiber rivaled only by his propensity for mischief. Or, so say the historians. Please do not assume I believe I could do better, this is silly-talk. I do not criticize the NFL QB because I am a world-class athlete but because certain expectations are natural when millions of dollars of both payroll and economic impact are invested in his execution. Such is the same, lesser to greater, with our Presidents. They are in the most important position our country has, they are expected to be excellent, anything less is deserving of critique and in some cases ridicule. This is not disrespecting the office, in fact its directly the opposite.
Back to the vitriol. The country, crica 1850, was divided. Certain economic and social features lead to this widening gap and the solutions were growing scarce. Henry Clay sacrificed any Presidential dreams he might have had to maintain the uneasy balance the legislature had established. The south, controlled by "Democrats," was devoted to slave-ownership, state's rights, Jeffersonianism and their elitist traditions. Two of those are good things, I'll let you guess. The north was divided itself between various warring factions and in 1854 the Republicans were born. They were created to defeat Slavery and in an extremely bloody and costly fashion, they did. Their rapid growth to power (Lincoln in 1860) is quite remarkable. However, this brand new political party, built on the moral high-ground of abolitionism, shows its true colors as soon as it hits the national stage. In the famous 1860 race, Southern Democrat John Breckinridge (later, moderately successful Confederate General) faced off against Lincoln, but the central states went to 3rd and 4th party candidates. In particular, Bell for the Constitutional Union Party, stole 39 electoral college votes and left Lincoln with a large majority. The southern Democrats, who also lost Missouri to the party traitor Stephen Douglas, prepared for nullification and/or secession. Lincoln prepared to ignore them and abolish slavery. War happened.
How then can you not blame Abraham Lincoln? Sure, the secessionists all voted to leave democratically, so they are to blame. But they didn't start a war, they just asked to leave. Sure, the slave owners who refused to compromise are to blame, but they wanted Lincoln to work with them, something he felt morally obligated not to do. Some historians suggest the actual events leading up to Ft Sumter are somewhat trivial. War was coming, it had been coming for 50 years. I disagree. Yes, the cultures of the North and South had drifted apart. Yes, Kansas was a bloody mess when it applied for Statehood. Yes, wackos like John Brown were stirring up trouble. But war? Today, a solid percentage, I'd guess probably 42%, of the American people are against abortion. We knew, before the election, that Barack Obama was going to repeal Bush's Abortion Bill. Abortion is as horrible a moral affront as any government-endorsed action any country has ever had. I for one, was not interested in starting a war over it. Lincoln would be. Pshaw! You say in disgust! He hated the war! Sure, but he didn't hate it enough to prevent it. He wanted to push his agenda, however noble, regardless of the consequences.
I believe this is kinda boring so I'll wrap up. I was recently introduced to a blog by a Pastor/blogger named Doug Wilson. I highly recommend it, he's a genius. He proposed in his book that in order to change a society, in order to fix a society's ills, you must gradually educate and "save" the populace. (Obviously, you aren't saving anybody, "save" means witness to, get into church, assimilate into the saints). He rejects the notion that a war for a just cause is a just war. His primary example? The Civil War.
Next time, Just War Theory. What it is, why I like it and why it doesn't null this post.
Braves back on track! We don' beat "Strasburger" twice now! :)
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
The Worst of the Worst of the Worst
In keeping with my current political theme, and in response to my Tues post, "My Favorite Presidents", I will now be giving a Mt Rushmore of my least Favorites and short descriptions why. Now, these are effective, powerful Presidents that I think did it wrong, not worthless space fillers such as McKinley or Harrison, they did nothing to offend me. So, they are, in order from 4th worst to the absolute worst:
Impressive list isn't in? I'll start with the top, the least worst of the 4. Abraham Lincoln, Honest Abe (sure), possibly the greatest swindler in American History. I could write 1000 words why his name is on this list, and Tuesday's post will be devoted to a related topic (The Civil War, why was Lincoln to blame?), but I'll sum up here. He believed that He (with a capital H) could do whatever necessary to accomplish his pet goals. From inauguration to assassination, he had one driving fire - to end slavery. He knew what it would cost, but he didn't care. He believed in a lesser of two evils ethic, and it SCREAMS out from his administration.The South gave him an ultimatum before he was even sworn in, but did he listen? Did he compromise to maintain his precious "union" for which he is often credited with saving? No, he spat on their ultimatum, called their bluff (turned out they had four Aces named Robert E Lee), and presided over the bloodiest years in American History. More American soldiers died in the Civil War (counting the CSA) than Frenchmen in the Napoleonic Wars (~646,000 to ~371,000). More Americans died in the Civil War than in WWII (~417,000). Famously, at Antietam, on Sept 17, 1862, more Americans died in battle than in any day yet in American History. At Gettysburg, the turning point of the war, more than 46,000 Americans died, more than in the entire Revolution and Mexican-American War combined. This is not "good." I do not endorse slavery, I believe in equality for human kind, but did 646,000 Americans (not including the subsequent riots and unrest) need to die to abolish it? Where is William Wilberforce's body count? How many men died to help him abolish slavery? I'm rambling, let me get back to summing up. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is heralded as a hallmark of justice and equality, so will Barack's "Gun Control Proclamation" and they will be equally illegal and equally horrendous. I was pleased to find, while watching the new "Lincoln" movie last night, that Spielberg addressed my concerns. In Scene 7, Lincoln states his defense of the Proclamation. An easy to read script can be found here. The character admits that what he has done is slippery, which is a humorous way of saying its cheating. Read the argument, I think its wrong, it was a cheap trick to help the North win the war, and to keep Lincoln's power in place so he could further his agenda, however good that agenda may have been. In next week's post, I'll address the immediate response of "ask any black man if it was worth it." Enough on Abe, suffice to say, I don't like him. The movie was awesome though, go watch it.
Next worst, Woodrow Wilson. This guy was bad stuff, as Progressive as FDR and as isolationist as his times would allow. Granted, he entered WWI, but only after being reelected on the slogan "he kept us out of the war." Yikes. He signed the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act among other scary Federal Acts, in short he loved the Fed. A brilliant man, he believed that brilliant people should be in charge and take care of the not-so-brilliant. That is definitely overstating it, but you get the point. If Teddy had beaten him in '17 we might have territory in France today, which would be amazing. In all, I wouldn't have voted for him and I hope you wouldn't have either.
3rd worst, and in many ways the least likable, is Lyndon Baines Johnson. LB was a stinker if there ever was one. Once again, do not think I dislike Racial Equality because Lincoln and Johnson are two of my least favorite Presidents, I just don't like how they got it done. Johnson created the "Great Society" which is a real rip off. All those nice things that get ripped out of your check each week, I blame this guy. His handling of Vietnam was an epic disaster and he ran a campaign ad suggesting Barry Goldwater would start nuclear war (that voice sounds like Bob Uecker). His Presidency ended as Robert Kennedy and MLK Jr were shot and the USS Pueblo was captured (which interestingly, is still in captivity). In all, this guy's actions affect us more negatively than possibly any other President (although Big O is gaining fast). But, the next guy's crowning achievement is the WORST federal action in our nation's history.
The worst President is our 2nd, John Adams, always a bad decision. He was THE Federalist. The motives and actions of his administration were devoted entirely to the strengthening of the central government. While I agree that providentially this may have been critically to the forming of our fledgling nation, that doesn't mean I don't think Jefferson could've kept us together without being such a doofus. Yep, just called John Adams a doofus. XYZ, Quasi War and Fries Rebellion were all disasters. Hamilton's Bank was a disaster. In 1798 the worst law in the history of laws that have been was passed. The Alien and Sedition Acts (I'm abashed, I just spent 5 min looking for a good t-shirt with a little green guy and something funny about the laws to link to, I guess I'll have to design one) were passed and said, in Saxonian paraphrase: "If you oppose the government, or aren't from around these parts, you have no rights." Yep, he signed it, it was law, and it was NULLIFIED. BOO-YAH! But, it was still the worst law ever to be enacted, and if you're planning on trying to equate it to the Patriot Act, stop it. Yes, the Patriot Act is a bad law, but not even close buddy.
Phew, just clicked a wrong button and nearly lost every word you see above this. Relax, breathe. Ok. There you have it, numbers worst, 2nd worst, 3rd worst and 4th worst. Runners up include: FDR (I know, both lists he was immense), Obama, Monroe and US Grant. Next time, Why the Civil War is Lincoln's fault.
Braves took 2 of 3 from Colorado, next up Detroit. 14-6 looks nice...real nice.
| Abraham Lincoln |
 |
| Woodrow Wilson |
| Lyndon B Johnson |
| John Adams |
Impressive list isn't in? I'll start with the top, the least worst of the 4. Abraham Lincoln, Honest Abe (sure), possibly the greatest swindler in American History. I could write 1000 words why his name is on this list, and Tuesday's post will be devoted to a related topic (The Civil War, why was Lincoln to blame?), but I'll sum up here. He believed that He (with a capital H) could do whatever necessary to accomplish his pet goals. From inauguration to assassination, he had one driving fire - to end slavery. He knew what it would cost, but he didn't care. He believed in a lesser of two evils ethic, and it SCREAMS out from his administration.The South gave him an ultimatum before he was even sworn in, but did he listen? Did he compromise to maintain his precious "union" for which he is often credited with saving? No, he spat on their ultimatum, called their bluff (turned out they had four Aces named Robert E Lee), and presided over the bloodiest years in American History. More American soldiers died in the Civil War (counting the CSA) than Frenchmen in the Napoleonic Wars (~646,000 to ~371,000). More Americans died in the Civil War than in WWII (~417,000). Famously, at Antietam, on Sept 17, 1862, more Americans died in battle than in any day yet in American History. At Gettysburg, the turning point of the war, more than 46,000 Americans died, more than in the entire Revolution and Mexican-American War combined. This is not "good." I do not endorse slavery, I believe in equality for human kind, but did 646,000 Americans (not including the subsequent riots and unrest) need to die to abolish it? Where is William Wilberforce's body count? How many men died to help him abolish slavery? I'm rambling, let me get back to summing up. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is heralded as a hallmark of justice and equality, so will Barack's "Gun Control Proclamation" and they will be equally illegal and equally horrendous. I was pleased to find, while watching the new "Lincoln" movie last night, that Spielberg addressed my concerns. In Scene 7, Lincoln states his defense of the Proclamation. An easy to read script can be found here. The character admits that what he has done is slippery, which is a humorous way of saying its cheating. Read the argument, I think its wrong, it was a cheap trick to help the North win the war, and to keep Lincoln's power in place so he could further his agenda, however good that agenda may have been. In next week's post, I'll address the immediate response of "ask any black man if it was worth it." Enough on Abe, suffice to say, I don't like him. The movie was awesome though, go watch it.
Next worst, Woodrow Wilson. This guy was bad stuff, as Progressive as FDR and as isolationist as his times would allow. Granted, he entered WWI, but only after being reelected on the slogan "he kept us out of the war." Yikes. He signed the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act among other scary Federal Acts, in short he loved the Fed. A brilliant man, he believed that brilliant people should be in charge and take care of the not-so-brilliant. That is definitely overstating it, but you get the point. If Teddy had beaten him in '17 we might have territory in France today, which would be amazing. In all, I wouldn't have voted for him and I hope you wouldn't have either.
3rd worst, and in many ways the least likable, is Lyndon Baines Johnson. LB was a stinker if there ever was one. Once again, do not think I dislike Racial Equality because Lincoln and Johnson are two of my least favorite Presidents, I just don't like how they got it done. Johnson created the "Great Society" which is a real rip off. All those nice things that get ripped out of your check each week, I blame this guy. His handling of Vietnam was an epic disaster and he ran a campaign ad suggesting Barry Goldwater would start nuclear war (that voice sounds like Bob Uecker). His Presidency ended as Robert Kennedy and MLK Jr were shot and the USS Pueblo was captured (which interestingly, is still in captivity). In all, this guy's actions affect us more negatively than possibly any other President (although Big O is gaining fast). But, the next guy's crowning achievement is the WORST federal action in our nation's history.
The worst President is our 2nd, John Adams, always a bad decision. He was THE Federalist. The motives and actions of his administration were devoted entirely to the strengthening of the central government. While I agree that providentially this may have been critically to the forming of our fledgling nation, that doesn't mean I don't think Jefferson could've kept us together without being such a doofus. Yep, just called John Adams a doofus. XYZ, Quasi War and Fries Rebellion were all disasters. Hamilton's Bank was a disaster. In 1798 the worst law in the history of laws that have been was passed. The Alien and Sedition Acts (I'm abashed, I just spent 5 min looking for a good t-shirt with a little green guy and something funny about the laws to link to, I guess I'll have to design one) were passed and said, in Saxonian paraphrase: "If you oppose the government, or aren't from around these parts, you have no rights." Yep, he signed it, it was law, and it was NULLIFIED. BOO-YAH! But, it was still the worst law ever to be enacted, and if you're planning on trying to equate it to the Patriot Act, stop it. Yes, the Patriot Act is a bad law, but not even close buddy.
Phew, just clicked a wrong button and nearly lost every word you see above this. Relax, breathe. Ok. There you have it, numbers worst, 2nd worst, 3rd worst and 4th worst. Runners up include: FDR (I know, both lists he was immense), Obama, Monroe and US Grant. Next time, Why the Civil War is Lincoln's fault.
Braves took 2 of 3 from Colorado, next up Detroit. 14-6 looks nice...real nice.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
My Favorite Presidents (not who you might think)
If I were given the tools and opportunity and skills and equipment and space and time and etc to craft my own Mt Rushmore of American Presidents it would be as follows:
Interesting group right? They have some obvious similarities, they're all white, dead, American politicians. But even more so, all four had a particular approach to governing the country. They emphasized freedom domestically while parading American culture abroad.
Thomas Jefferson makes sense right? Father of the Constitution. Author of many a good quote about freedom, ("When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.") But he also had a low view of the central, federal system. He believed in the power of democracy. His presidency was a bit reactionary from the Federalists Adams and Hamilton, but it was essential to the progress of the nation. He fought Hamilton's bank to his dying day and my next hero dealt the killing blow (not Aaron Burr). The power of the President was an extension of America's power abroad not domestically. I think we have a pretty powerful President right now, but here at home. NOT how I think it should be.
Andrew Jackson?!?!?!? You ask incredulously, as my dad often does when I mention this affinity of mine for the old General.Yes, Old Hickory himself. Consider the momentous occasions in his presidency, all face-offs with various other members of the administration. He threatened to hang his VP, a personal hero, John C Calhoun. He virtually ignored the most prestigious Supreme Court Justice in the History of the United States, John Marshall. He un-chartered the US Bank. He signed the Indian-relocation act. He hand-picked his successor, Martin Van Buren. Other than that last one, He rocked. THE INDIAN RELOCATION ACT!!!!!????!!!! You scream in disgust. Well, yes actually. See, I believe the Indians were a conquered people group, much like the Mexicans living in Texas. I don't see many people railing on the Texans for moving the Mexicans out. Even if you are in that tiny little minority, do you think it was unjust for Israel to occupy the West Bank? Do you think it was unjust for the French to occupy Normandy? Do you think it was unjust for William to occupy London? Do you think the French or the Germans should have Alsace-Lorrain? The person who won the fight makes the rules. The Indians were treated horribly on the trail of tears (I'm actually 1/25 Cherokee) and I am not rubber stamping that with approval. However, Jackson did not march the trail of tears, he just signed a Bill and was acting in the best interests of the United States. If the Cherokee had acted in the best interests of the Cherokee, things would have worked out better for everybody. In my, not-so-popular, opinion. He acted as a symbol of power to the outside world.
Teddy! The sailing of the Great White Fleet is a high mark in American History. Was quoted as saying "In my own judgement the most important service that I rendered to peace was the voyage of the battle-fleet around the world." If you don't believe that, you've bought into the liberal, wishy-washy, tolerant agenda. (How'd that sound, convincing?) He is the shakiest member of my quad-some as he liked absconding American territory for natural conservation, which isn't ideal. But He, like the others, was a symbol of power around the globe. He negotiated a boat-load of treaties, not the least of which included the end of the Russo-Japanese War and the conclusion of the Moroccan Affair. Had he been around during any of the major international conflicts, the United States would have been at the fore-front of solving the issue (more so than we already were). Something I think any country should aspire to. If a people group is serious about peace, they have to be serious about war. (That's my own, pretty cool right?).
Finally, Mr Reagan. His excellent domestic economic policies aside. Ronald, with some help from Pope JP II and the natural results of a bad economic system, defeated Communism. 'Nuff said.
Runners up include: George Washington, Bill Clinton (ask me), FDR and John Tyler.
Next time the 4 worstest ever.
Doubleheader for the Bravos in Colorado today - in the words of the great Mr. Cub "What a great day for a baseball game, let's play two."
| Thomas Jefferson |
| Andrew Jackson |
| Teddy Roosevelt |
| Ronald Reagan |
Interesting group right? They have some obvious similarities, they're all white, dead, American politicians. But even more so, all four had a particular approach to governing the country. They emphasized freedom domestically while parading American culture abroad.
Thomas Jefferson makes sense right? Father of the Constitution. Author of many a good quote about freedom, ("When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.") But he also had a low view of the central, federal system. He believed in the power of democracy. His presidency was a bit reactionary from the Federalists Adams and Hamilton, but it was essential to the progress of the nation. He fought Hamilton's bank to his dying day and my next hero dealt the killing blow (not Aaron Burr). The power of the President was an extension of America's power abroad not domestically. I think we have a pretty powerful President right now, but here at home. NOT how I think it should be.
Andrew Jackson?!?!?!? You ask incredulously, as my dad often does when I mention this affinity of mine for the old General.Yes, Old Hickory himself. Consider the momentous occasions in his presidency, all face-offs with various other members of the administration. He threatened to hang his VP, a personal hero, John C Calhoun. He virtually ignored the most prestigious Supreme Court Justice in the History of the United States, John Marshall. He un-chartered the US Bank. He signed the Indian-relocation act. He hand-picked his successor, Martin Van Buren. Other than that last one, He rocked. THE INDIAN RELOCATION ACT!!!!!????!!!! You scream in disgust. Well, yes actually. See, I believe the Indians were a conquered people group, much like the Mexicans living in Texas. I don't see many people railing on the Texans for moving the Mexicans out. Even if you are in that tiny little minority, do you think it was unjust for Israel to occupy the West Bank? Do you think it was unjust for the French to occupy Normandy? Do you think it was unjust for William to occupy London? Do you think the French or the Germans should have Alsace-Lorrain? The person who won the fight makes the rules. The Indians were treated horribly on the trail of tears (I'm actually 1/25 Cherokee) and I am not rubber stamping that with approval. However, Jackson did not march the trail of tears, he just signed a Bill and was acting in the best interests of the United States. If the Cherokee had acted in the best interests of the Cherokee, things would have worked out better for everybody. In my, not-so-popular, opinion. He acted as a symbol of power to the outside world.
Teddy! The sailing of the Great White Fleet is a high mark in American History. Was quoted as saying "In my own judgement the most important service that I rendered to peace was the voyage of the battle-fleet around the world." If you don't believe that, you've bought into the liberal, wishy-washy, tolerant agenda. (How'd that sound, convincing?) He is the shakiest member of my quad-some as he liked absconding American territory for natural conservation, which isn't ideal. But He, like the others, was a symbol of power around the globe. He negotiated a boat-load of treaties, not the least of which included the end of the Russo-Japanese War and the conclusion of the Moroccan Affair. Had he been around during any of the major international conflicts, the United States would have been at the fore-front of solving the issue (more so than we already were). Something I think any country should aspire to. If a people group is serious about peace, they have to be serious about war. (That's my own, pretty cool right?).
Finally, Mr Reagan. His excellent domestic economic policies aside. Ronald, with some help from Pope JP II and the natural results of a bad economic system, defeated Communism. 'Nuff said.
Runners up include: George Washington, Bill Clinton (ask me), FDR and John Tyler.
Next time the 4 worstest ever.
Doubleheader for the Bravos in Colorado today - in the words of the great Mr. Cub "What a great day for a baseball game, let's play two."
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Off With His Head!
Capital Punishment. A popular topic for banner-waving, cat-calling, pistol-waving hicks in Texas but something I think we should look at more seriously as Christians. This will be an argument from the viewpoint of a believer, so bear in mind it will be a moral argument not a purely logical one.
Romans 13
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
I know, that's almost as much reading as one of my posts, but its the de facto passage to defend Capitol Punishment, particularly verse 4: "for he beareth not the sword in vain."
Before I address that, let me present my position. I believe that the Law, or Government, is designed to do two things. 1 - defend the nation from foreign threats and 2 - protect the citizens from domestic threats. Therefore, when someone attempts to kill, both me (my just war theory) and the government have the right/duty to kill that person. BUT if that person has been arrested, placed in a prison and given no option of escape or return to society, why kill them? Why end a God-given life? Is murder unforgivable? Is it impossible for a murdered to be saved? It is once they've been executed. This is entirely from the perspective of a voter decided whether or not to support a candidate. Can God saved someone who the government is planning on executing? Of course. But as soon as death comes, salvation is not an option. At least, that's what my Bible seems to say. So why support the elimination of the possibility of salvation? Once again, I understand possibilities and God's Will are not congruent. But I do not know God's Will. Why support something that demonstrates such finality, even allowing the government to act as God and condemn not just a body but also a soul? I agree, God is executing mortal judgment through the government, but does it not make sense to allow for the most amount of time/opportunities as possible? Why are Pro-Life advocates in favor of electrocuting people? So, you answer with Romans 13:4. Consider this option. The verse says, he (government), "execute(s) wrath upon him that doeth evil." It doesn't say, "slices off evil's head" or "destroys evil's body" or anything else implicitly violent. The sword, in this case, could be a symbol of military might and suggest the right of a government to suppress revolts.
The other argument I've heard is this. God loves Justice, therefore He approves when justice is served. When someone kills they deserve to die. Really? When someone lies they deserve to die. When someone ignores God's leading in their life and chooses to disobey they deserve to die. God loves Justice, but its His love of Mercy that keeps us from being fried on the spot every single day. Why can't we exemplify God's love of Mercy in the way we vote?
What do you think?
Braves LOST, 12-2 but we are still perfect when we actually score a run. 1-0 against the Royals and former Brave Jeff Francoeur both drove in the winning run and threw out a runner at the plate to preserve it. If I hadn't loved him in Atlanta I'd be really ticked at him.
Romans 13
(KJV)
13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever
therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they
that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
I know, that's almost as much reading as one of my posts, but its the de facto passage to defend Capitol Punishment, particularly verse 4: "for he beareth not the sword in vain."
Before I address that, let me present my position. I believe that the Law, or Government, is designed to do two things. 1 - defend the nation from foreign threats and 2 - protect the citizens from domestic threats. Therefore, when someone attempts to kill, both me (my just war theory) and the government have the right/duty to kill that person. BUT if that person has been arrested, placed in a prison and given no option of escape or return to society, why kill them? Why end a God-given life? Is murder unforgivable? Is it impossible for a murdered to be saved? It is once they've been executed. This is entirely from the perspective of a voter decided whether or not to support a candidate. Can God saved someone who the government is planning on executing? Of course. But as soon as death comes, salvation is not an option. At least, that's what my Bible seems to say. So why support the elimination of the possibility of salvation? Once again, I understand possibilities and God's Will are not congruent. But I do not know God's Will. Why support something that demonstrates such finality, even allowing the government to act as God and condemn not just a body but also a soul? I agree, God is executing mortal judgment through the government, but does it not make sense to allow for the most amount of time/opportunities as possible? Why are Pro-Life advocates in favor of electrocuting people? So, you answer with Romans 13:4. Consider this option. The verse says, he (government), "execute(s) wrath upon him that doeth evil." It doesn't say, "slices off evil's head" or "destroys evil's body" or anything else implicitly violent. The sword, in this case, could be a symbol of military might and suggest the right of a government to suppress revolts.
The other argument I've heard is this. God loves Justice, therefore He approves when justice is served. When someone kills they deserve to die. Really? When someone lies they deserve to die. When someone ignores God's leading in their life and chooses to disobey they deserve to die. God loves Justice, but its His love of Mercy that keeps us from being fried on the spot every single day. Why can't we exemplify God's love of Mercy in the way we vote?
What do you think?
Braves LOST, 12-2 but we are still perfect when we actually score a run. 1-0 against the Royals and former Brave Jeff Francoeur both drove in the winning run and threw out a runner at the plate to preserve it. If I hadn't loved him in Atlanta I'd be really ticked at him.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
'Merica
I'm going to change gears and talk about something else for a few weeks. Truth be told (pun intended) if you don't get what I've been saying you probably would need to speak to me in person to clear things up at this point. So, on to smaller, more specific things.
I mentioned before I am a Radical Conservative politically. Let me narrow that lens a bit. Foreign Policy-wise I would classify myself as a Neo-Reaganite. On the horizontal scale, this is very far to the right. A pithy way to sum up my political leanings in this conversation would be "Small at home, Big abroad." More elaborately, "The best thing for the World is the best thing for America." Whoa! That sounds jingoistic don't it? Of course it does, however, if I were a Frenchman I would say "The best thing for the World is the best thing for France." If every country had this approach, we'd all be doing a lot better (they don't so we're not). In my not-always-as-humble-as-it-should-be opinion. American Exceptionalism is another nice way of describing the idea which leads to a budgetary emphasis on defense, a hardline course on diplomacy and a general sense of "awesomeness." Going back through our nation's history, the Presidents that best demonstrated this mindset were, of course, Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt and way back Andrew Jackson. In a twisted sense, Abraham Lincoln's approach to the civil war could be described as Exceptionalism, but I'll not open that can of worms just yet.
My economic views would also be way to the right. I believe in the open market for virtually everything (including domestic safety, i.e. Police) and find that National Socialism (Fascism) is the most egregious economic system possible. Low taxes, low interference and a chance to fail make the country strong. More can, and will be said on these points.
My social views are also right-wing, I believe they would be nearly as far right as possible, except for my view on war. Pro-Life (in every sense of the word) is the first voting point in every election. Abortion is murder end of discussion. Marriage rights are next but the gap in importance is large. I think that homosexuals and even other "polyamorous" units should not be illegal but they should also not be treated like marriage. I'm in favor of guns and don't think legalizing marijuana will cause a massive collapse in civilization as we know it. I have come to the conclusion that Pro-Life should also refer to capitol punishment. I will write a post on this later. I mentioned war. I am a champion of just-war theory. Familial defense is the God-endorsed situation that a person may take another's life. I extend this to national defense. Another topic which will get a post.
So, there you have it. I'm a red-state radical neo-Reaganite Republican. And I think you should be too. Thursday I'll lop the head off of capital punishment.
Bravos are 11-1, best team in baseball. Guess my little man is lucky!
I mentioned before I am a Radical Conservative politically. Let me narrow that lens a bit. Foreign Policy-wise I would classify myself as a Neo-Reaganite. On the horizontal scale, this is very far to the right. A pithy way to sum up my political leanings in this conversation would be "Small at home, Big abroad." More elaborately, "The best thing for the World is the best thing for America." Whoa! That sounds jingoistic don't it? Of course it does, however, if I were a Frenchman I would say "The best thing for the World is the best thing for France." If every country had this approach, we'd all be doing a lot better (they don't so we're not). In my not-always-as-humble-as-it-should-be opinion. American Exceptionalism is another nice way of describing the idea which leads to a budgetary emphasis on defense, a hardline course on diplomacy and a general sense of "awesomeness." Going back through our nation's history, the Presidents that best demonstrated this mindset were, of course, Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt and way back Andrew Jackson. In a twisted sense, Abraham Lincoln's approach to the civil war could be described as Exceptionalism, but I'll not open that can of worms just yet.
My economic views would also be way to the right. I believe in the open market for virtually everything (including domestic safety, i.e. Police) and find that National Socialism (Fascism) is the most egregious economic system possible. Low taxes, low interference and a chance to fail make the country strong. More can, and will be said on these points.
My social views are also right-wing, I believe they would be nearly as far right as possible, except for my view on war. Pro-Life (in every sense of the word) is the first voting point in every election. Abortion is murder end of discussion. Marriage rights are next but the gap in importance is large. I think that homosexuals and even other "polyamorous" units should not be illegal but they should also not be treated like marriage. I'm in favor of guns and don't think legalizing marijuana will cause a massive collapse in civilization as we know it. I have come to the conclusion that Pro-Life should also refer to capitol punishment. I will write a post on this later. I mentioned war. I am a champion of just-war theory. Familial defense is the God-endorsed situation that a person may take another's life. I extend this to national defense. Another topic which will get a post.
So, there you have it. I'm a red-state radical neo-Reaganite Republican. And I think you should be too. Thursday I'll lop the head off of capital punishment.
Bravos are 11-1, best team in baseball. Guess my little man is lucky!
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Life is Like a Box of Chocolates
I had this thought while sorting mail Wednesday morning. I can get a lot of thinking done sorting mail, because basically all I have to do is read and count. If you think I stole it from somebody (I don't think I did) let me know.
Imagine for a second that you like chocolate. You get a sampler box and you begin surveying your options. You heard they had a caramel filled one so you start to look for it. There is no list, so after staring at the chocolates for a while you decide you need help. There are 3 ways of determining the "truth" of which chocolate is caramel. First you call over a friend who has already tried these chocolates. He points to one, and says, "I think that was it." Do you know for sure? Of course not! You merely have agreement with an equal. You are trusting a different person's experience. This is not a verifiable experiment. So, you move to plan B. You pick up that one and pop it in your mouth. Now, how do you know its caramel? The only way is to compare it to other things you thought were caramel. Do you know for sure? Of course not! You may be able to associate it with something else that you thought was caramel, but absolutely knowing it is? Nope. That would be trusting in your memory, senses and experiences. Once again, only verifiable in so much as you are concerned, not absolutely. So, now the 3rd option, you call up the candy company and ask to speak to the Maker Himself. He says, "the 3rd one from the left on the second row is caramel." Aha! The one you picked up was it! Do you know for sure? NO! The premodern Neo-Platonist would say yes, and he would be relatively correct. You have agreement with a trustworthy source, that is the most trustworthy source possible. However, you are merely trusting that source. Is the maker ever wrong? No. But believing that and any trusting of Him, is faith. That is something I can only believe, not truly know. Because if I can know it, I am something. But I am nothing.
So, the questioners are right. We can't know anything. But we can believe in something. You may be countering with "faith is rooted in facts" it is "evidence" not a "blind hoping." You are relatively correct. That is, at some point you must admit that unobservable events must be believed blindly, correct? Take that a step further because observations are not trustworthy. I believe that God is truth. That God has done real things. That God is real. But, there is categorically no way to prove that. I am not called to prove it. God does not say, "Think real hard, I'm real." He says, "I am." The burden of proof is not even considered in that statement. He does not leave his existence up to my discovering of it. It merely is. I must believe that to have anything. Epistemologically speaking, I say I'm a Christian Postmodernist. What do you think?
Next time, we'll talk about politics.
And, the Braves (8-1) have the highest run differential in the league! WOOHOO!
Follow me @PrinceofSaxony on twitter for Braves and other baseball stuff (among other things)
Imagine for a second that you like chocolate. You get a sampler box and you begin surveying your options. You heard they had a caramel filled one so you start to look for it. There is no list, so after staring at the chocolates for a while you decide you need help. There are 3 ways of determining the "truth" of which chocolate is caramel. First you call over a friend who has already tried these chocolates. He points to one, and says, "I think that was it." Do you know for sure? Of course not! You merely have agreement with an equal. You are trusting a different person's experience. This is not a verifiable experiment. So, you move to plan B. You pick up that one and pop it in your mouth. Now, how do you know its caramel? The only way is to compare it to other things you thought were caramel. Do you know for sure? Of course not! You may be able to associate it with something else that you thought was caramel, but absolutely knowing it is? Nope. That would be trusting in your memory, senses and experiences. Once again, only verifiable in so much as you are concerned, not absolutely. So, now the 3rd option, you call up the candy company and ask to speak to the Maker Himself. He says, "the 3rd one from the left on the second row is caramel." Aha! The one you picked up was it! Do you know for sure? NO! The premodern Neo-Platonist would say yes, and he would be relatively correct. You have agreement with a trustworthy source, that is the most trustworthy source possible. However, you are merely trusting that source. Is the maker ever wrong? No. But believing that and any trusting of Him, is faith. That is something I can only believe, not truly know. Because if I can know it, I am something. But I am nothing.
So, the questioners are right. We can't know anything. But we can believe in something. You may be countering with "faith is rooted in facts" it is "evidence" not a "blind hoping." You are relatively correct. That is, at some point you must admit that unobservable events must be believed blindly, correct? Take that a step further because observations are not trustworthy. I believe that God is truth. That God has done real things. That God is real. But, there is categorically no way to prove that. I am not called to prove it. God does not say, "Think real hard, I'm real." He says, "I am." The burden of proof is not even considered in that statement. He does not leave his existence up to my discovering of it. It merely is. I must believe that to have anything. Epistemologically speaking, I say I'm a Christian Postmodernist. What do you think?
Next time, we'll talk about politics.
And, the Braves (8-1) have the highest run differential in the league! WOOHOO!
Follow me @PrinceofSaxony on twitter for Braves and other baseball stuff (among other things)
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
The Law of Contradiction
I stated in an earlier post that God's truth and man's truth are different. I didn't state it that simply, but if you boil it down that's what you get. Let me express that another way to try and clear up some confusion. God views things the way they are. That is truth. Man views things, but cannot know if that is how they are without God directly revealing it to him. So far, no reasonable individual would disagree with me, according to the people disagreeing with me. ;) However, because man cannot come to truth apart from God, I suggest, this truth is not just unattainable but instead impossible. Again, to clarify, God created a universe lacking truth. You say, God is a God of order. I say, that's what separates Him from His creation. You say, God created man in His image. I say, man can order the things around him, relative to his own perspective. You say, if what God believes to be true (that is, what is true) is different from what man experiences to be true, than God is not God. I say, man's experiences are intended to reveal his need for God, not his similarity to Him.
Stop for a moment and consider the Rationalist. He believes that man can discover truth by applying his mind (and soul) and that God has given him an innate sense of logic, wisdom and spirituality which merely must be pointed in the right direction.
Sounds awfully Pelagian to me.
So, as I was saying. The "truth" of 5+4=9 is a human construct attempting to understand the universe which we can experience. It is not absolute. 5+4=8 is, according to the accepted numerology and even more the accepted logic of mathematics, false. However, that is not provably "un-true". The second equation could be as true as the first. Which brings us to the Law of Non-Contradiction. The cornerstone of Logic and Science. It is part of the 3 laws of thought which flow directly through each other and often are confused as merely parts of the Law of Non-Contradiction.
They are 1 - The Law of Identity: "that every thing is the same with itself and different from another"
2 - The Law of Non-Contradiction: "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time"
3 - The Law of the Excluded Middle: "it is impossible that there should be anything between the two parts of a contradiction."
Explained by Aristotle, and then generally accepted as descriptions of the way to communicate clearly (even further, to think clearly), these laws are the basis on which we understand the universe. I say bravo to that, they are essential to understanding each other, for the most part. I could not express my opinions without them. But this is where I diverge. They are a framework wherewith we, humanity, can make sense of most of what we observe. The universe is not symmetrical. Things possess two contradictory states; Schrödinger's cat, which was originally intended to prove the opposite, has instead lead Physicists to discover and observe things in two contradictory "cat-states". Google it. The most recent Physics Nobel Prize is also related to this. Schrödinger's cat either refutes the 2nd and 3rd laws of thought, or Aristotle was not concerned to explaining everything merely most things.
So, to avoid going long, I will sum up. Logic, Math, Physics, Truth are merely ways we (humankind) understand what we experience, and we have not, cannot, absolutely declare them to be truth. At least, relatively speaking.
Next time, what do I mean by truth?
Oh, and the Braves are 7-1. Justin Upton is a MAN and has 7 HRs in the first 8 games. This is gonna be a fun year.
Stop for a moment and consider the Rationalist. He believes that man can discover truth by applying his mind (and soul) and that God has given him an innate sense of logic, wisdom and spirituality which merely must be pointed in the right direction.
Sounds awfully Pelagian to me.
So, as I was saying. The "truth" of 5+4=9 is a human construct attempting to understand the universe which we can experience. It is not absolute. 5+4=8 is, according to the accepted numerology and even more the accepted logic of mathematics, false. However, that is not provably "un-true". The second equation could be as true as the first. Which brings us to the Law of Non-Contradiction. The cornerstone of Logic and Science. It is part of the 3 laws of thought which flow directly through each other and often are confused as merely parts of the Law of Non-Contradiction.
They are 1 - The Law of Identity: "that every thing is the same with itself and different from another"
2 - The Law of Non-Contradiction: "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time"
3 - The Law of the Excluded Middle: "it is impossible that there should be anything between the two parts of a contradiction."
Explained by Aristotle, and then generally accepted as descriptions of the way to communicate clearly (even further, to think clearly), these laws are the basis on which we understand the universe. I say bravo to that, they are essential to understanding each other, for the most part. I could not express my opinions without them. But this is where I diverge. They are a framework wherewith we, humanity, can make sense of most of what we observe. The universe is not symmetrical. Things possess two contradictory states; Schrödinger's cat, which was originally intended to prove the opposite, has instead lead Physicists to discover and observe things in two contradictory "cat-states". Google it. The most recent Physics Nobel Prize is also related to this. Schrödinger's cat either refutes the 2nd and 3rd laws of thought, or Aristotle was not concerned to explaining everything merely most things.
So, to avoid going long, I will sum up. Logic, Math, Physics, Truth are merely ways we (humankind) understand what we experience, and we have not, cannot, absolutely declare them to be truth. At least, relatively speaking.
Next time, what do I mean by truth?
Oh, and the Braves are 7-1. Justin Upton is a MAN and has 7 HRs in the first 8 games. This is gonna be a fun year.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Say What?
Now before I beat this dead horse, I want to beat around the bush till the cows come home. Maybe you won't buy what I'm selling, but I think I hit a grand salami with this song and dance. Like a steel train rolling down a steep grade, my brain processes this potato casserole of words without so much as a blink. You're no different. In fact, some of you are like Joe Montana, staring down defeat with an icy cold confidence, a strangle hold on your universe, squeezing sense out of each phrase like lemon juice from a fresh lemon. Some of you are more like a puppy, tongue waving, eating up each sensory point with just enough attention to taste before bouncing to the next. Coherence and meaning are equatable, though not entirely equal. Starting at the end and ending at the beginning is definitely impossible, that is by definition it is not possible, yet I do it every time I read a book. If you're tapped out you should probably draw better. That phrase has at least three meanings that immediately spring to mind, like a coiled viper launching toward a helpless field rat. Understanding something, anything, is akin to trying to hit a major league pitcher. Only the best square balls up and hit home runs, most of us just barely get a piece, fight off tough pitches, and occasionally get bloop hits or seeing-eye singles. Or maybe launching half-court shots - even fewer would hit nothing but net, a few would rattle them in and some would miss everything every time. How do we do it then? Some people speak six, seven even ten languages. Agreement. You understood 90%, give or take, of what I have written here. You and I both know what I mean, so you can take that knowledge and apply it to what I say. Go read a paper on Newtonian Physics by a grad student at MIT, you won't understand any of it, or very little, or possible a lot if you have a Physics degree. The lynch pin, the catalyst, the ultimate bulls eye in all this is that understanding and meaning control veritability. If you understood that last sentence you proved my point. If you didn't, let me express it again. The matter of the fact is this, the truth of a statement is not inherent within the words themselves but in the people exchanging those words. If you think your disagreement falsifies my claim, you're missing the point. You understood the claim, that proves my point.
The Braves won again, roughed up Roy Halladay, I likey! JUpton, Heyward and Even Gattis "el oso blanco" all went yicketty and a good start from Maholm. 2-0 baby.
Next week, I'll address some concerns I'm getting in feedback. As always, thanks for reading.
The Braves won again, roughed up Roy Halladay, I likey! JUpton, Heyward and Even Gattis "el oso blanco" all went yicketty and a good start from Maholm. 2-0 baby.
Next week, I'll address some concerns I'm getting in feedback. As always, thanks for reading.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Relatively Speaking
Relativity.
The foundation for all created things. First I will address what Relativity is, then I will address its purpose.
We are all familiar if, even if we don't understand, Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity. I do not pretend to have a firm grasp on the physics, but essentially Einstein suggested time and space are connected, therefore "events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another." If you'd like to read up on it, I'd recommend this. What I'm referring to as Relativity is only vaguely related to physics. The primary maxim of what I'll refer to as "Innate Relativity" is:
No one can, has or will experience anything exactly the same way as anybody else, ever.
What do I mean by experience? Anything you could possibly mean by it. You may be reading this post and getting something completely different than what I'm intending. I suggest that no matter how closely your understanding is to what I'm intending it will still be different. Because you are not me. You do not have any of the same experiences I have, because you cannot have experienced anything the same way I did. Its a grand circle, and it has massive implications.
The words I choose in this little treatise are both designed to express what I'm thinking and to connect to what you'll be thinking. Have you ever asked a question and gotten a totally unrelated answer? (A smarty pants would reply "potato") Of course you have, because misunderstanding is natural. Have you ever been asked to describe your pain? Its long been the medical profession's goal to be able to interpret a person's level of pain. This is categorically impossible. I cannot experience it for you, therefore I can only know as much as you express to me, and really only as much as I understand from your expression.
Before you start using Christ's suffering on the Cross or God's demand for human responsibility as counters to Innate Relativity, remember that those are examples of supernatural things. Innate Relativity is a way to understand the created world, not God. God is absolute. However, the church has been trying to understand God in our own terms for a long time. An honest evaluation of the development of theology allows us to consider new ways of understanding what we believe. Is the Hypostatic Union understandable in modern rationalistic terms? No. Good luck if you think it is. How about the Trinity? God's presence in Hell? An infinite Being? Sovereignty versus Free Will? Miracles?
Truth is attainable only through the Special Revelation of the Holy Spirit. Illumination. Everything else is a group of blind men feeling an elephant trying to describe it. One guy feels the trunk and thinks its a hose. One guy feels the tail and thinks its a whip. One guy feels the leg and thinks its a tree. Until the elephant makes noise they would have no clue. Why are they wrong? Can you clean something with the water from a elephant's trunk? Can you whip someone with an elephant's tail? Can you lean on an elephant's leg?
Well, that's enough words for now, thanks for reading. Thursday I'll concentrate of the Innate Relativity of Language.
Oh, and the Braves are 1-0. Homers from Freeman, Uggla and JUpton. Solid pitching from Avilan and E-Flo. Kimbrel's 2013 save count is at 1.
The foundation for all created things. First I will address what Relativity is, then I will address its purpose.
We are all familiar if, even if we don't understand, Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity. I do not pretend to have a firm grasp on the physics, but essentially Einstein suggested time and space are connected, therefore "events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another." If you'd like to read up on it, I'd recommend this. What I'm referring to as Relativity is only vaguely related to physics. The primary maxim of what I'll refer to as "Innate Relativity" is:
No one can, has or will experience anything exactly the same way as anybody else, ever.
What do I mean by experience? Anything you could possibly mean by it. You may be reading this post and getting something completely different than what I'm intending. I suggest that no matter how closely your understanding is to what I'm intending it will still be different. Because you are not me. You do not have any of the same experiences I have, because you cannot have experienced anything the same way I did. Its a grand circle, and it has massive implications.
The words I choose in this little treatise are both designed to express what I'm thinking and to connect to what you'll be thinking. Have you ever asked a question and gotten a totally unrelated answer? (A smarty pants would reply "potato") Of course you have, because misunderstanding is natural. Have you ever been asked to describe your pain? Its long been the medical profession's goal to be able to interpret a person's level of pain. This is categorically impossible. I cannot experience it for you, therefore I can only know as much as you express to me, and really only as much as I understand from your expression.
Before you start using Christ's suffering on the Cross or God's demand for human responsibility as counters to Innate Relativity, remember that those are examples of supernatural things. Innate Relativity is a way to understand the created world, not God. God is absolute. However, the church has been trying to understand God in our own terms for a long time. An honest evaluation of the development of theology allows us to consider new ways of understanding what we believe. Is the Hypostatic Union understandable in modern rationalistic terms? No. Good luck if you think it is. How about the Trinity? God's presence in Hell? An infinite Being? Sovereignty versus Free Will? Miracles?
Truth is attainable only through the Special Revelation of the Holy Spirit. Illumination. Everything else is a group of blind men feeling an elephant trying to describe it. One guy feels the trunk and thinks its a hose. One guy feels the tail and thinks its a whip. One guy feels the leg and thinks its a tree. Until the elephant makes noise they would have no clue. Why are they wrong? Can you clean something with the water from a elephant's trunk? Can you whip someone with an elephant's tail? Can you lean on an elephant's leg?
Well, that's enough words for now, thanks for reading. Thursday I'll concentrate of the Innate Relativity of Language.
Oh, and the Braves are 1-0. Homers from Freeman, Uggla and JUpton. Solid pitching from Avilan and E-Flo. Kimbrel's 2013 save count is at 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)