Ramblings of Lista

MoreThoughts on Republican Primary Candidates/2012

2012-02-01T10:10:00.000-08:00

As to the Election, I am now Leaning towards Newt Ginrich and in a Minute I will explain why.

I had Initially Started this Post on the Day of the South Carolina Primaries, January 21, and I didn't even Know the Results yet. We had just recently discovered that Santorum Won Iowa, not Romney, giving One Win to Santorum (Iowa) and One to Romney (New Hampsire). For the Remainder of this Post, when I say Update, I am Referring to the Date of this Post and when I say Earlier, I am Referring to January 21, when I First Wrote this Post.

Update: Now we Know that Gingrich has Won South Carolina and Romney has Won Florida. Santorum and Gingrich have both Won One State and Romeny has Won Two.

Earlier: My Opinion at the Time of the South Carolina Election was that Romney had been coming Across as a little Arrogant and to be Honest with you, I still get that Impression at Times. He's just a little too Confident that he is going to Win and well, at the Time of the Carolina Election, he wouldn't Release his Tax Reforms. Ron Paul may be a little Embarrassed because he makes less then the others, yet Romney is Embarrassed about something too, yet we do not Know what.

Update: Did we ever Find Out what Romney was so Embarrassed about? It seems to me that there was nothing all that Surprising about his Tax Reforms once he Finally did decide to Release them. I guess he is just Afraid that People will Judge him because he Makes so much Money.

Earlier: Both Santorum and Gingrich Appear to have more Heart. Romney Appears to have more Money.

In Actuality, Gingrich's willingness to be a little Softer on Illegals that have been here 25 Years and have Roots in the Community makes sense and Romney's Approach does come across as a little Heartless.

Update: It Seems to me that there was a more Recent Debate in which Romney Defended himself a little better and did not come Across as quite so Heartless in Relation to Illegals. I Laughed when he said that the Issue is not "11 Million Grandmothers" and he Assured as that he is not Going to be Going Around Ripping Grandmothers out of their Homes.

Earlier: Ok. So Newt has had some Marital Problems and has even had Affairs as a Result. He has Married his "Mistress", so it wasn't just a Casual Thing done just for Thrills.

I Know it's hard for a lot of Hard Core Christians to Understand, but you know what? Sometimes these Things just Happen. I can Forgive him for that.

For some Reason, they Keep Referring to Newt as "the other Conservative Option" and to Romney as the One who is more Liberal, even though both of these Guys have been Criticized for ways in which they are not as Conservative as some would like them to be.

And what about Rick Santorum? Well, though I Agree with his Strong Pro-life Stand, it may be too Strong for most of the Liberals, a lot of the Independents and perhaps even some of the Conservatives. I'm Afraid that might make him Unelectable.

Michael Buckman has also said something about him During the Iowa Election Period that Unfortunately Stuck with me, for she Claims that he has a Spending Problem and I guess this is Based on him Voting a Few Times for them to Raise the Debt Ceiling. I Never did hear his Defense in Relation to this One.

And Ron Paul, well I'm afraid that both he and Santorum are Unelectable in the General Election. Ron Paul, though, has the Added Problem of being a little on the Radical Side on some of his Positions.

Yeh. I Think I'm going to go with Newt. For now that's my Decision.

Update: My Opinions have not Really Changed much after Watching the Debates Leading up to the Primary in Florida. I Wish that I had heard the Speeches that were given on that Night. I Missed them this Time. Oh well.

Thoughts on Republican Primary Candidates, 2012

2012-01-21T13:52:00.000-08:00

As to the Election, I am now Leaning towards Newt Gingrich and in a Minute I'm going to be Explaining why.

For those who Find this Page at a Later Date, I'd just like to say that this was written on the day of the South Carolina Primaries, but we won't know the results of that until tonight. We've just Recently been Told that Santorum is the One who Won Iowa, not Romney. What was Once a Romney Win by Only 8 Votes, later became a Santorum Win by 34 Votes. So here's the Story, so far... Santorum Won Iowa, Romney Won New Hampshire and the Out Come of South Carolina Appears to be either Romney or Gingrich.

In my Opinion, Romney has been coming Across as a little Arrogant Lately. He's just a little too Confident that he is going to Win and he won't Release his Tax Reforms. Ron Paul may be a little Embarrassed because he makes less than the others, yet Romney is Embarrassed about something too and yet we do not Know what.

Both Santorum and Gingrich Appear to have more Heart than Romney. What Romney Appears to have is Money.

In Actuality, Gingrich's willingness to be a little Softer on Illegals that have been here 25 Years or more and have Roots in the Community makes sense and Romney's Approach does come across as a little Heartless.

Ok. So Newt has had some Marital Problems and has even had Affairs as a Result. He has Married his "Mistress", so it wasn't just a Casual Thing done just for Thrills. I Know it's hard for a lot of Hard Core Christians to Understand, but you know what? Sometimes these Things just Happen. I can Forgive him for that and I Believe him that his Ex-Wife's Accusation against him is False.

For some Reason, they Keep Referring to Newt as "the other Conservative Option" and to Romney as the One who is more Liberal. I Guess that's because of his Tendency to Change his Mind about Things.

And what about Rick Santorum? Well, though I Agree with his Strong Pro-life Stand, it may be too Strong for most of the Liberals, a lot of the Independents and perhaps even some of the Conservatives. I'm Afraid that might make him Unelectable.

And Ron Paul, well he is Unelectable too, as well as a little on the Radical Side on some of his Positions.

Yeh. I Think I'm going to go with Newt. For now that's my Decision.

The Romney/Ron Paul Delima

2012-01-14T22:34:00.000-08:00

I'm just about Getting Ready to give in to this Ron Paul Mania. It's not Because I Entirely Trust him to Run this Country. I Think that his Cuts to Government Programs may be too Deep, too soon, and I don't Trust his Foreign Policy. Though it does sort of Appear that his Cuts are Focused more on the Military and Aid to Foreign Countries, than on things such a Social Security and Medicare. That's actually good. Romney and Santorum may Actually Cut these Things.

The Reason why I might even Vote for Paul is because I would never Want Romney to Win by as Large of a Margin as he Might. The Idea of him Winning the Electoral College Votes by a Land Slide does not at all Appeal to me. Come on, you Guys in these Other States. Vote Against him. Will ya'? I'd Actually Like something that is In-between Ron Paul and some of the other Republicans, yet such a Critter does not Appear to Exist.

Gen. News, Music Ministry, Dad with Dementia/Alzheimers

2012-01-09T10:49:00.000-08:00

As Long as there are Lurkers in my Hit Counter that I can not Identify and for whom I am not able to go to their Blog in Order to Hint that I've been Thinking about them, I feel that it's Important for me to Keep Posting Once in awhile so that they will not Lose Interest. I Try to Post at least a little something every Week, but don't always Succeed. Sometimes, though, I do better then that, so Hopefully that makes up for it. There was not as much Interest in my Previous Post as I thought there might be.

I've been Busy with the Music at our Church. We have a New Pastor. The Last Sermon of the Previous One was on Christmas Day and the First Sermon of the New One was on New Year's Day. Since the Last Pastor Plays the Guitar, he and his Wife helped me with the Music. The New Pastor Sings and has been Singing with me, but does not Play an Instrument, so I am now the Only Guitar Player and am Pretty Much the Main Praise Leader. We have another Couple that does our Music Once a Month, but other then that, I am it.

I've had Mixed Feelings about the Extra Responsibility, yet for now am not sure what to say about it. I've had another Teenager Volunteer to Help Out, but again she is just another Singer. What I really want is someone who can Play an Instrument and Ideally another Guitar so that I don't have to Necessarily be the Main Person every Sunday.

This is what has been Distracting me from my Blogging Lately. That and also, some Extra Stresses Relating to my Father-in-Law who has Dementia. I don't Really want to get into that One, except to say that he still Drives, but has to be Careful where he Drives to, cause if he gets outside of the Area that he still Remembers, he will get Lost.

More Recently, he has Gotten in an Accident and this has been Quite Confusing and Stressful. Perhaps I'll come back Later and Write more in the Comment Section about this, but for now, I just wanted to get a little something Posted for you Guys to Read.

Religious Views, World Views & Environmental Issues

2011-12-30T13:19:00.000-08:00

I guess in time, I will need to get back to the Subject I was Previously Focused on, which is Libertarianism, yet since I have such a diverse Audience, something New has come up in the Mean Time.

Since our Spiritual Beliefs have an Effect on how we View our World, this can not help but to have an Effect on our Politics. Many Environmentalists are overly Zealous in their Cause Primarily because they have a Very Different View of the Relationship between God, Man and Nature then Christians do.

First, I will Explain the Christian View on God, Man and Nature and then I will be Explaining the Political Implications. Please Bear with me as I Explain a Religious Idea, for I will not be Explaining why this Idea is also a Political One until the End. For now, let me just say that we all have World Views and that the Christians are not the Only Ones who have such World Views.

Here is the Christian View on how God Feels about His Own Creation...

"And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'" (Genesis 1:26, KJV)

According to the Bible, the Main Difference between Animals and Man is in the Fact that unlike the Animals, Man is Made in God's Image and this is the Reason why man has been Given dominion over the rest of God's Creation. There are some who have Reacted Negatively to this Verse because they Feel that it Gives us License to Ravish and Abuse the Earth, yet I do not at all believe that this was God's Intent.

In the Comment section of another Blog, I recently said this...

"Certainly Man is expected to Treat God's Creation with at least some level of Respect and not Ravish her until she is Totally Barren and Empty of her ability to Sustain Life. Such a Level of Disrespect should not even be given to that which we have been Given Dominion Over. Certainly we should be Better Stewards of that which God has Entrusted to us."

The Very Fact that Man has the Power to be so Destructive in Relation to Nature is Evidence of the Dominion that he has been Given, yet just because we are the Ones who have the Dominion does not Mean that we have the Right to Ravish and Trample on that which has been Entrusted to our care.

Here is another Verse that Shows that God does indeed Value His Creation...

"26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? 27) Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? 28) And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; 29) And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30) Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31) Therefore take no thought, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or, 'What shall we drink?' or, 'Wherewithal shall we be clothed?' 32) (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew 6:26-33, KJV)

And also...

"29) Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father." (Matthew 10:29, KJV)

If God did not Value His Creation, He would not take so much Care to Nourish her and "Cloth" her, yet...

"30) But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31) Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows." (Matthew 10:30-31, KJV)

So we are Clearly the Favored of God's Creation and are most Precious to God. Here are a few more Verses...

"35) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35, KJV)

This Exact Statement is also Repeated in Mark 13:31 & Luke 21:33. Also see II Peter 3:10, which Adds more Detail.

Which Leads us to the Next Thought...

"18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." (II Corinthians 4:18, KJV)

To Keep this in Balance, I must add that somehow there are those who have Gotten the Impression that Christians require that we "Renounce this natural world". The Word "Renounce", though, is a Little too Strong, for this Implies Abandoning and Refusing to Acknowledge. Even God does not do that. Instead He "Feeds" and "Cloths" His Creation. We are just not Supposed to Value it above other Things that are Spiritual in Nature. It is more of a Priority thing, than a "Renoucing" thing.

On the Other Hand, if we Value Nature so much, so as to View it as God and thus, Worship it, then we end up Renouncing God Instead.

The Last Couple of Verses that I want to share may come across as Confrontive to those who love Nature, yet do not Acknowledge the Creator, yet without these Last Verses, the Discussion of the Biblical View on the Issue is not Complete.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork." (Psalm 19:1, KJV)

"19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. 20) For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20, KJV)

And...

"25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 1:25, KJV)

The First two of these verses talks about how there is Evidence of God in His Creation and the Second describes the Worship of the Creation as is Viewed in Christianity as a Form of Idolatry, just as the Bible also says...

"3) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." (Exodus 20:3, KJV)

Ok, now for the Political; Like Usual, it all comes down to Balance. Protecting the Environment is Important, but not at the Expense of the Livelihood of Man. Plants and Animals are Important, but not more Important than Man.

By now, you may be saying that we should Keep our "Religious Views" out of Politics, yet in this case it is not Possible to entirely Remove our "World View" from our Political Views. Either you Believe that Man and Nature are Totally Equal, or you do not. There are no other Options, and to Believe that Man is not Created in God's Image and is nothing other then another Animal is no less a Spiritual Opinion, than to believe that Man is Created in God's Image.

There is an Inequality in this Country based on the Fact that Atheism is not Viewed as a Religious Idea, yet how can the Belief that there is no God not be a Belief about the Nature of God? So you see, Atheism is a Religious Opinion as well because it is an Opinion about God. Quite Apart from that, though, there are Religions that Teach the Belief that Animals are equal to People because of the Reincarnation Cycle, thus Making this a Religious Idea.

No matter how you turn this Issue, the Underlying Factor that Drives our Environmental Politics is Religious in Nature and to Deny this Only Confuses the Issue.

As you can see, the Christian View of the Relationship Between Man and Nature is quite Different than the View held by Buddists and Hindus, yet again we need to Understand this is Accordance to Balance, for it is not Correct to Assume that Christians do not Value Nature, cause we do and we are Required of God to be good Stewards of that which He has Entrusted to us.

Consider this, for Example, if a Dog Owner Trusts someone to care for their Dog, can the one who has been given the Responsibility for the Dog Neglect to take care of the dog? No One Argues against the Idea that People are the "Pack Leaders" and not the Dogs, yet if you Neglect to meet the Needs of that which you are in Charge of, you are Behaving Irresponsibly.

Things need to be kept in Balance, though, for Nature does not Rule over Man, and therefore, what Man Needs in order to Exist, should not be Disregarded when Making Environmental Decisions. This is Why Economy and Jobs is just as Important as the Environment and Why things must be kept in Balance when making these Decisions.

Interestingly, the Comment Section has Taken Off more in the Direction of a Validity of Scripture Discussion, rather then a Discussion about Environmental Issues.

Breaking Out of Chaotic Christmas Bondage

2011-12-28T09:52:00.000-08:00

Well, Christmas is Over and I always seem to come to the same sort of Conclusions once I have had the Time to Reflect about the Season. I think that for the Most Part, Christmas is more about Business, Expectations and the Fulfilling of Traditions, than it is about Spontaneous Giving. I just sort of Feel Like I'm on a Roller Coaster while the Holidays are in Progress and it actually Takes a Few Days after it is over with for me to get out of my Obedient Robot Mode and back into a more Spontaneous Mood Again. I can Actually Give more Freely and Spontaneously from the Heart at Times other then Christmas. It's Odd that it's this way and I've been Working on this Problem for Years and yet just don't Know how to Find Freedom from the Christmas Chaos.

I did Break One Tradition this Year. I did a Pot Roast, rather then a Turkey. I've decided that doing Turkey for Thanksgiving and then again for Christmas is just Plain Nuts and that a Pot Roast would be Simpler. Once I Broke this Tradition, I've decided that this is what I'm going to do from now on. As Crazy as it seems, Breaking Out of Christmas Bondage is Probably going to require that I Break Traditions Often. The Hard Part is getting the rest of the Family, including my Husband, to Cooperate.

I've Often Heard it said that Christmas is not about the Gifts, yet once we cut back on the Number of Gifts we bought, it became more about the Food and I resented that because I would Actually much rather buy Gifts then Cook a Turkey. When People say that Christmas is not about the Gifts, and not about the Food, and not about the Cards, etc. etc. etc., if we were to really take this Seriously, there would be very little left for us to do, other then Listen to Christmas Music, watch the Christmas Specials on TV and go to Christmas Programs. Yet we just can't seem to Resist Getting Caught up in all the Busy Expectations and Traditions.

I guess it is a Priority Thing in relation to what to Keep and what to Cut from our busy Schedules, yet the Lack of Agreement among the Family Members over what these Priority Decisions should actually be is what seems to Keep us in our Bondage.

I just Shake my Head Year after Year after Year, wondering if I will ever Resolve this Issue, for it just seems to Defy any Workable Solution.

It is Important to Remember, though, that the True Meaning of Christmas has more to do with Freedom then with Bondage, for Christ was Born on Christmas and the Purpose of His coming was to Die on the Cross, in Order to Free us from our Bondage to Sin and to Free us so that we can Experience the Joy of Forgiveness and Eternal Life.

The Heart of Christianity is based on Relationship, not Expectations Based on the Traditions Created my Man. Our Incorrect Priorities, though, do not Change who Christ, Himself, is.

Considering this, isn't it Ironic that as Christmas is Approaching, we are so Caught up in the Bondage of Expectations and Traditions. I Guess Christianity is a Mystery. There is some Very Real Life Changing Potential within it, yet a lot of People end up Focusing on the Wrong Things and this Clouds the Deeper Meaning of what Christmas, or more specifically, what Christianity actually is.

A Truce for Christmas

2011-12-16T18:09:00.000-08:00

I was Considering Ignoring my Blog and still may eventually do just that, yet there is something else going on besides just Christmas Business. I am also Getting Tired of Debating and Arguing, for it Clashes, sort of with the Mood of Christmas. So I may just Ignore the Political Part of my Blog and yet Still Occasionally Check to see if someone has Decided to just Chat.

It Seems Like there is always something going on Every Year at Christmas Time that Adds to the Business and Makes Getting Things Done Difficult. This Year it has been too many Doctors Appointments; the Regular Doctor, the Dentist, a Gum Specialist, an Endocrinologist, etc., etc.

Apparently, I've got Gum Disease and Need a Deep Cleaning. Fun, Fun, Fun. I had a Bout with Thyroiditis; could Possibly have a Connection to bringing on the Gum Problems. My Last Blood Test relating to the Thyroid was Normal, but not in time to not Intrude on the Holiday. My Husband's had some Pre-Cancer Treatments and well, you get the Idea. This is not the Way I Like to Spend the Holidays.

Just Thought I'd Share my Complaints. How is everyone else's Christmas Going?

A Very Good Link Relating to Libertarianism

2011-12-13T10:57:00.000-08:00

Well, I Considered doing a Post on the Link that was Left in the Comment Threat, of my Previous Post, by Grant Davies, yet it Contains such a Large Number of Issues that it has been Hard for me to get my Head Wrapped Around it, though, yes, I have Read it. I guess for now, I'll just Stick with what I said Briefly about it in my Previous Comment Thread, which is.

"So Far, I just Think that some of the Article that Grant Left a Link to represents Typical Libertarian Arguments and some of it represents Arguments that could have been Made by any Republican. I Agree with some of it and Find some of it to be Extreme. And then there are those Parts that are just plan Humorous because they are Nothing more then Responses to the Sort of Name Calling that could have come from anyone from any Party that is into that sort of Name Calling.

"Here's my Favorite...
"'92. Libertarians are closet secessionists and neo-confederates.

Response:
"'If anyone makes this objection to libertarianism, RUN LIKE HELL. Get out of there, before they eat your brains.'

"lol. That One Made me Laugh."
Posted by Lista, December 9, 2001, at 9:48 PM

I was going to Write more about this then that, but perhaps that is enough for now. Perhaps I'll have more Luck after Christmas. For now, I'm just Repeating Stuff that I have already said. Here is another something that I Wrote about it in one of the Comment Threads on Z-man's Blog. This Time I was Responding to a Comment of the Soapster that goes like this...

"If the people took the time to delve into libertarian philosophy and educate themselves instead of merely adopting as gospel what they hear from pundits and presstitutes they would come to realize that they themselves can place whatever restrictions and/or regulations upon themselves that they so desire.

"If, however, they wish the edicts and directives to come from on high, well then libertarianism isn't for them. They are better suited for any of other collectivist 'isms'"
Posted by the Soapster, 12/08/2011, at 3:45 PM

And Here is my Response...

"Soap,
I have not Learned about Libertarianism from Pundits, Presstitudes, Edicts or Directives. I have Learned about Libertarianism from you.

"Now that I have Read the Link that Grant Davies left on my Blog, though, I have come to Realize that not all Libertarians are as Extreme as you are, for there were a Few of your Ideas that were Listed as Controversial among Libertarians, such as Government Police Departments. In his Link, it says that 'Most libertarians believe police departments are a legitimate role of government and should be provided by the public sector.'

"The Restrictions that we are Free to Place on Ourselves is not the Issue. The Issue is the Restrictions that Need to be Placed on Others in Order to Protect us, (or Deter, if you like that Terminology Better), from the Harm and Injustice that Others may Inflict on us."
Posted by Lista, 12/08/2011, at 5:23 PM

And...

"When I Read another Link that was in the above Link and Related to Fire...

"http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger183.html

"...I found another Extreme that Libertarians are not in Agreement on. Here is a Quote from the Link about Fire Protection/Deterrence...

"'That's reason enough to reject such collectivist notions as government-owned fire departments, as well as such immoral and destructive socialist programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education grants, agricultural subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps, foreign aid, and other welfare programs.'

"The Original Link to One of the Humble Libertarian Pages, though, says...

"'Libertarians absolutely do not advocate the government ripping off people who paid into Social Security. They deserve to get back the money that they put in.'

"If the First Quote is Misinformation, then it came Directly from a Libertarian, not from any Outside, 'Pundits, Presstitudes, Edicts' or 'Directives'.
Posted by Lista, 12/08/2011, at 6:01 PM

Like I said, I was going to Write more, but there are so many Issues in the Linked Piece, that I don't Hardly Know where to Begin. For now, I just want to Point Out how Odd it is that Libertarians seem to Think that just because I do not Agree with them, that I Know Nothing about the Issue, or that what I do Know has been Picked Up from "Pundits, Presstitudes, Edicts" and "Directives" that came from someone other then an actual Libertarian. In Reality, I have very Obediently Read something now, yet though I Found some of it Interesting, I have not Changed my Opinion on most of the Issues.

For anyone who is Curious about Libertarianism, though, this is a really good Link to Check Out and Read and I do not at all Mind Recommending it.

Capitalism & Socialism, Driven by Greed & Envy

2011-11-28T12:17:00.000-08:00

Here is a Quote from the Blog of Grant Davies.

"There is no perfect society. There are no perfect people. Critics say that greed is the driving force of capitalism. My answer is that envy is the driving force of socialism. Change to socialism is not an improvement on the imperfections of the current system." - Svetlana Kunin - American Citizen - Russian Immigrant

My Complaint is not Against Capitalism and not Against Socialism, but Against the Extremes of both. There are Problems in Capitalism because of Greed and there are Problems in Socialism because....well, you Know, Envy when Taken too Far is just another form of Greed, yet Envy comes in Degrees and Envying someone who has a Roof Over their Head and Food on their Table is not the Same as Envying someone who has a Large House, Cadillac, Porch, Lincoln Town Car or Corvette, so in this Context, it Seems rather Silly to Speak of someone who has Envy towards another who actually has a House, some Food and some Medicine, as if they are Evil in some way.

In Capitalism, Big Businesses have the Power and in Socialism, the Government has the Power. I Believe in Balancing the Powers. The Answer is in the Middle. The Answer is a Little Bit of Both. The Answer is Compromise. The Answer is to allow the Powers of Free Enterprise (Big Business) and the Powers of Government (Including Benefits to the Poor) to Balance each other Out.

Without the Involvement of the Government, the Poor have no Power at all, and by Poor, I mean the Genetically Challenged. Whether it be Mentally, Emotionally, or anything else, those who Lack the Genetic Ability to Thrive in a Capitalist Society have no Power at all without the Help of the Government and this is the Real Reason why Governmental Programs Exist. It is also Important to Remember that Handicaps come in Degrees and not Everyone who Struggles more then the Others within a Capitalist Society has a Handicap that is Obvious. A Slightly Lower IQ, Low Energy Levels, ADD & ADHD, Depression & Various Emotional Problems, etc.

Happy Thanksgiving

2011-11-20T20:06:00.000-08:00

I guess I could Post something Political but I'm going to be Very Busy soon and it's usually not Best to Open your Mouth and Say Something, Unless you have the Time to Defend it. I guess that means that if you are Low on Time, then it is Best not to Open your Mouth.

This Actually isn't a Time for Arguing anyway. Instead, this is a Time of Thanksgiving and I am Truly Grateful for all of my Family and Friends. And I Thank all of you who Follow my Blog and Comment Once in awhile. May you all have a Very Happy Thanksgiving. Don't Eat too much now, ya' hear.

Is Abortion Legal in the U.S.?

2011-11-16T18:26:00.000-08:00

Yeh, Ok. Some of you who already Know the Answer to that Question are going to Think that that is such a Silly Question, yet I've just Recently been Informed that the Question "Is Abortion Legal?" is Typed into the Google Search Engine Globally 90,500 Times Monthly and Locally 60,500 Times Monthly. So there are a lot of People who do not seem to Know, so here is my Response.

Are you Kidding? Of Course it's Legal, but many People here in the United States Feel that it should not be. Here is the Story...

During Most of America's History, Abortion was Outlawed as the Wrongful Taking of an Innocent Life. In the Mid-1800s, State Legislatures began Passing Strict Bans on Abortion and by the End of the 19th Century, Nearly every State had Laws Strictly Prohibiting Abortion.

In 1973, there was a Supreme Court Case Known as Roe vs. Wade, in which the Court Ruled that State Laws Banning Abortion were Unconstitutional. This Decision was Based on the Idea that the Woman's Right to Privacy was Legally more Important than the the Rights of Unborn Children. The Supreme Court Ruled that Unborn Children were not "Persons" and thus, were not Entitled to any Rights Under our Constitution. As the Result of this Ruling, Laws Banning Abortion in 40 States were Instantly Nullified and the Rights to Life of Unborn Children were no Longer Protected. Every Year since then, over one Million Legal Abortions have been Preformed in the United States.

This is not a Court Decision, however, that all Americans Agree with. Many People, Including Christians, are Appalled by how Easy it is to Get an Abortion and by the Legal Protection of what has been Called "Abortion on Demand", which is Basically the Right for a Woman to Get an Abortion for even the Smallest of Reasons. Sure there was a Clause in the Ruling that Relates to the Woman's Health, yet the Description of what this means and the Definition of the Word "Health" was so Broad that it basically Allowed for "Abortion on Demand", as I have just Described.

Ironically, the Same Groups that now Defend the Right of a Woman to Choose, "Pro-Choice", were the Same Groups that Stood Against it just Over a Century ago. In the Late 1800s, Mainstream Newspapers, such as the New York Times, Worked to Expose the Negatives of Abortion. Early Feminists, such as Susan B. Anthany and Elizabeth Stanton Condemned the Practice as a Evil that Victimized Women. Even the Professional Medical Community Lobbied for Anti-Abortion Legislation in the 1800s.

Perhaps I'll Post more Later on Different Court Cases in our History that Relate to this Subject, yet for now, I just Wanted to Get something Out there in Response to a Question that Apparently 90,500 of you are Asking.

If you Want to Know more about the Pro-Life Side of this Issue, here are some other Posts that I have done on the Subject, with Discussions of the Subject in the Comment Sections. For the Pro-Choice Side, well....there are lots of other Web Pages, so that you can Learn Both Sides of this Issue, but Please do not Only Read the Other Side. Here is my Take on the Issue.

Abortion & Fetal Development
Abortion & Do What I Want with "MY OWN BODY"
Abortion & Rape
Abortion & State Sovereignty
Biased Science because of Politics
Abortion & Pregnancy Options Analogy
Premature Baby Fawn Survives in an Incubator

Abortion Costs, yet Information Competition is Rigid

2011-11-14T20:18:00.000-08:00

Abortion has Emotional Costs, yet these Costs are not always discussed and are often Down Played by those who Work for Pro-Choice Organizations. Unfortunately, though, there is Considerable Competition when Pro-Lifers try to get this Information Out there.

Well, I'm Still Working on how I Feel about the Web Page that I gave a Link to in my Previous Post. I Suppose that if I Use their Title, I can Help them to get more Hits. It's Called Pro-Lifers Urgently Need to Engage in the SEO War.

To Quote the Main Theme, "The pro-life movement is making great strides right now. However, there is one area where the fight for life is not going well at all, and it happens to be one of the most important arenas for evangelizing the culture: the online world."

Now that this has been Brought to my Attention, come to think of it, I've Written Several Posts on Abortion and yet they are rarely ever Hit. There is just too much Competition out there. It wouldn't be so bad if the Competition was coming from other Pro-Lifers, but it is not. There are Far more Pro-Choice Blog Posts, then there are Pro-Life Ones. I'm Guessing this is because there are lots of Abortion Clinics and Pro-Abortion Organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, that are Advertising their Pro-Choice Ideas on the Internet, so much so, that the Pro-Life Voices are being Drowned Out by them.

I Like the way that the Article puts it..."To put it bluntly: The pro-life movement is getting crushed in the SEO war." That is the Search Engine Optimization War.

Here is another Quote that I very much agree with...

"I’m guessing that one of the first places women turn when they learn of an unexpected pregnancy is the internet. And, as you can see, they are bombarded with sites that dehumanize their unborn children and paint abortion as a simple, easy option that will make their problems go away."

The Next Site that I Visited and Looked at is Entitled 5 Things Every Catholic Should Know About How Search Engines Work and from there I found a Link to Google's Handy Key Word Tool.

At First I Thought that I should Use Phrases that are Typed into Search Engines Often, such as; "Abortion Costs, Cost of Abortions, Abortion Clinics" and "Is Abortion Legal?"

Yet I Later Realized that I Might have more Luck with Phrases that have less Competition, such as: "Home Abortion Methods, Early Abortion, Abortion Risks, Abortion Pictures, Abortion Doctors, Abortion Methods, Abortion Side Effects, Chemical Abortion, Abortion Procedure, Abortion Definition, First Trimester Abortion, Process of Abortion, Medical Abortion, Anti Abortion Facts, Pro-Choice Abortion, Types of Abortions, Reasons for Abortion, Is Abortion Legal?, Abortion Timeline, Abortion Statistics, Abortion Types, Abortion Complications and Surgical Abortion."

I have Placed the ones that were Ranked Higher in the "Global Monthly Searches" then 10,000 Hits in Bold Print and the Ones that Ranked Higher then 20,000 Hits have been made Larger. The Phrase "Is Abortion Legal?" has a "Global Monthly Searches" Rating of 90,500, even though the Information Competition is Low.

Naturally, I would Like Pro-Life People to have this Information more then my Opponents, yet the Purpose of this Post is not for the Sake of Starting an Argument about Pro-Choice and Pro-Life, but simply to get you to Ask yourself, Shouldn't those who are Making this Important Decision have all of the Information and not just that which is Presented by Pro-Abortion Sources?

Before I Close, I just want to say a Word to anyone who has, by some Touch of Luck, Found my Page through a Web Search. Please do Read Both Sides of this Argument before Making any Decision about getting an Abortion, even if you have to Scan Back Several Pages in the Search Engine Results in Order to Find that which is Presented by the Pro-Life Side.

I have also done a Number of Posts on this Subject. You can Click on the Abortion Label to the Right, on those Listed below "Favorite Ramblings" or you can Go to the Next Post Down, Abortion Clinics/Should I have an Abortion?, for a Whole List of my Previous Abortion Posts.

Abortion Clinics/Should I have an Abortion?

2011-11-13T16:00:00.000-08:00

Here's a Web Page that Concerns me. It Indicates that there is a Bias in Relation to Search Engines and Abortion. If you are Considering an Abortion, Please do Read some of my Abortion Posts because it is Important to Hear Both Sides of the Issue before you Decide. I Sincerely Hope that I have Typed the Right Words in the Title of this Post, in Order to Gain the Privilege of Adding to the Information that you Need in Order to Make this Important Decision.

You can Click on my Abortion Label to the Right if you Like, yet for Easier Access, here is a List of the Titles of the Posts that I've done to Date on the Subject. This Way you can Pick and Choose the Ones that most Interest you.

Practical
Abortion & Fetal Development
Abortion & Do What I Want with "MY OWN BODY"
Abortion & Pregnancy Options Analogy
Abortion & Rape
Premature Baby Fawn Survives in an Incubator

Political
Abortion & State Sovereignty
Biased Science because of Politics

I may Eventually do more Posts on this Subject, but for now, I would Also Suggest that you Type in the Words Post Abortion Syndrome, or PAS. Somehow I haven't Got Around to Posting on that Subject, yet there Definitely is such a Syndrome and a Typical Abortion Clinic may not Necessarily Tell you about it, so it might be Good to Go Ahead and do your Own Research. If you are Reading this as the Result of a Web Search, then you Obviously are doing some Research and I Commend you for that.

For all those Lurking in the Shadows, Be at Peace.

2011-11-12T21:26:00.000-08:00

Hi,
I'm still here, but I'm Drawing a Blank. There are People Lurking in the Shadows of my Hit Counter, Some of which Visit quite Often. I can Even Think of Something that I could Post, but I'm so Tired of Arguing.

The Blogosphere is such a Crazy Place. So Often it Feels Like an Unfriendly Place. Very Possibly there are even Unfriendly People that are Reading what I am Writing Right Now. It's Ok, though, for I Know that some of them are just Frustrated, Angry or Perhaps Even Afraid.

If Someone says something that we Consider Incorrect, we become Angry. Wouldn't it be Better to just Calmly Express our Point of View. We Take Things so Personally at Times.

Here is a Point of View that is Common on the Blogosphere.... Everyone is Responsible for their Own Feelings. Hmmmmm. Interesting. What about the Verses in the Bible that say we are to Bear One Another's Burdens?

Here's what I Believe to be True. We are Responsible for Our Own Feelings when in the Presence of Untrustworthy People. It is Good, though, to Strive to Be Trustworthy, Encouraging and Helpful whenever we are able to do so.

When I Feel a Certain Way, I sometime Wonder if I should just Pray Rather than Talk...

Lord Jesus,
Please Bring Peace to my Friends on the Web. Please Calm their Hearts of all the Things that Cause them to Feel Disturbed. Please Help us to Better Communicate. Please Help us to Understand and not Misjudge. Please Help us to Speak Clearly. Please Bring Peace to the Web.

For those who are Afraid of the Truth, Lord, I Ask that you will Help them not to Run from it by Insulting, Changing the Subject, Asking Unrelated Questions and the Like. Shhhhhhh! Be at Peace. Shhhhhhh! Be at Peace. Shhhhhhh! Be at Peace. Shhhhhhhhhhh! Be at Peace.

Lord Jesus, Please Bring Peace to Those on the Web. Amen.

This Prayer was at Least in Part Inspired by a Certain Flow Chart that Explains How People Avoid Genuine Discussion and Use Diversionary Tactics Instead. Here is the Link. Those of you who do this, I Wonder if you Know who you are.

Meanwhile, I sincerely Apologize to anyone who I have Offended Lately. I Never do Mean to. It just Seems to sort of be the Way Blogging is.

Problems with Debating & even with Rules of Debating.

2011-11-05T13:52:00.000-07:00

Well, I Guess I'll do another Post because I have more to Say, even though, so far, no one appears to be Talking on my Previous Post. This is Actually just a Continuation of my thoughts from my Previous Post (the Next Post Down).

I have already Mentioned how sometimes the Rules can Create Problems because of the Subjective Nature of them. We have a Problem, though, because I have Found that the Absence of Rules can Create a sort of Chaos, in which Nothing Constructive gets done. I guess what Needs to Happen is that we Need to have a Fair, Reasonable and Unbiased Referee.

In the Comment Section of My Previous Post, I Mentioned the Problems of Preaching, or just Stating One's Opinion, or even Stating Facts, yet not being Willing to Enter into a Discussion about those Opinions, or the Validity of the Stated "Facts".

Another Thing that Frustrates me is that when I Think about how Few Comments I get at Times, I Wonder if the Only Way to Get People to Talk is to be Controversial and Opinionated and to Stimulate the sort of Debate that does not Follow any Rules and at Times Ends up being a Waist of Time. When too many Rules are Added and People are Expected to Behave, so many of them just Stop Talking. As Odd as it seems, it really does Appear at Times that People Love to Argue, get all Angry and Heated Up and Waste Time.

Perhaps some are also Unwilling to Admit the Extent to which they Love to Argue. Some will even Deny that they are Arguing or Debating or Expressing any sort of an Opinion. "I'm just Stating FACTS and FACTS can not be Debated." was the Way it was Expressed to me Recently. Never Mind, though, that the Facts Presented are all Related to Faults and Extremes Relating to the Person's Opponent and that the OPINION on what these Facts Mean is Very Strongly Implied.

Yes, I guess I am now Talking about someone and Perhaps I shouldn't be, yet somethings like this just Need to be Addressed and Corrected. In Truth, the Only way that FACTS can Truly "Speak for themselves" is when ALL the Facts are Presented and not just that which can be said that is Negative about one's Opponent. Yes, "Facts are Facts", yet they are Biased, not just Based on what is Presented, but on what has been Left Out and so this is where Bias and OPINION comes in and this is Why to Present Facts and then Deny one's Participation in a Debate is Foolishness.

Sometimes there is no End to the Number of Rules that a Person would have to Apply in Order to be Rid of all the Poor Debate Tactics that People Use. Now I am Speaking in General again.

If anyone is Listening, Please do Comment. I do so want to hear what others have to say about Debating, Civility, what is and isn't a good Debate Tactic and What, if any, Rules should be Applied. Thank you.

Rules for Debating

2011-11-04T13:58:00.000-07:00

I Wonder if I should Post Something that I Came Across Recently that is Actually sort of Interesting. It is a Debate Flow Chart that has some rather Interesting Guide Lines on it. If you want a Larger View of it, just Click Here.

This came from the Blog of someone Known as Soapbox or the Soapster. In my Initial Comments on his Post, it is apparent that I was not real Trusting at First, due to the Fact that so many of the Ideas and Rules are Subjective and thus, without a Referee, these Rules may not Work too Well. For Example, rather someone's Argument is shown to be Faulty is Often a Subjective Call, as well as Judgments about rather or not our Opponent is being Rational and Following Reason. Whether or not One Position is more Realistic then another, or the Evidence Offered is Adequate are also Subjective Judgments, as well as the Judgment about whether or not an Argument has been Resolved or not, so that the Discussion can move on to the Next Point, or even whether or not a Certain Fact Presented is Accurate or Inaccurate.

This is why I Kept saying, in the Comment Section of Soapster's Post, "According to Whom?" Because of the Subjective Nature of these Rules, without a Referee, if a Person Desires to be in Control of a Discussion, he could Use the Subjective Nature of these Rules to his Advantage.

Considering this, I decided that these Rules Really are Good, if Used in a Fair Manner, for I Find that when there are no Rules, the Discussion will Generally Degrade into Chaos, yet I also Decided to Add Two more Rules of my Own to the 4 that are Listed on the Flow Chart and here they are below.

5.) Do not Accuse Based on your Own Subjective Opinion about your Opponent's Ability to Reason.

And

6.) These Rules do Need to Apply to all Parties and not just to your Opponent.

Let me Know your Thoughts.

Also, I don't Know why this Post is Insisting on being the Last one on a Page. Please do, though, Click on "Older Posts", for more Posts and Of Course, do Read the Comments, for I have Placed more of my thoughts in the Comments Section.

What we've been doing with Our Out of Town Guest.

2011-10-25T13:54:00.000-07:00

When I'm Away from the Computer for too Long, I sort of Lose my Train of Thought. I will Probably be Rereading some things in Order to get it back again, so Please do Scan Down to see if there is any New Comments that you have not yet Read.

Since I haven't Posted in awhile, though, I thought I would share with you what I have been doing. We had out of Town Company that Stayed for Three Weeks. At First I thought that that was going to be a rather Long Time to have such Company, but Fortunately, it was only One. My Husband's Cousin from Indiana was the One who Graced us with his Presence from Saturday, October 1 to Monday, October 24. He is sort of a High Energy Person who caused me to be a little Busier than Usual. We did a lot of Fun Stuff, such as Hiking, yet I still came home feeling rather Tired and after getting the Cooking, Cleaning Up and Laundry done, I was Craving some time to myself. Being a Bit of a Loner, I Need more Time to Reflect then a lot of People do. It was Fun, though.

The First Thing that the Guys did was took a Trip Up to some Property that we Own in Northern California. My Husband had Asked his Cousin to help him Clean Up some of the Fallen Trees. Prior to that, we were just Visiting and Hiking Locally. They were gone from the 5th to the 9th. Realizing that Three Weeks worth of Company may be a little much for me, I decided not to go. Though I should have had 4 1/2 Days to myself, I Really Only had 2 1/2, for I spent the 8th and part of the 7th Cleaning House and Running Errands and on the Morning of the 9th, I Threw Something in the Crock Pot for the Guys Return in the Afternoon and Went to Church that Morning.

I was on the Computer just a Little on the 6th and 7th, but was Reluctant to start any Conversations that I was not going to be able to Finish. I Bought myself some Cloths and I don't even Remember what else, but it was good to Relax and Reflect for just a Few Days.

The 10th was a Laundry day and then from the 11th to the 16th we were Out of Town. We Traveled Up to Florence, Oregon to see my Husband's Brother and his Wife. We had a Really good Visit, saw the Beach, some Sea Lion Caves, did some Fishing and Hiking, had a Truck Ride on the Dunes, etc. We Traveled on the 11th and then were in Florence from the 12th to the 14th. On the 15th, we Traveled Down the Coast and saw the Redwoods and Patrick's Point. On the 16th, we sort of got Lost on this One Beach, (Clam Beach, Near Arcadia, California) which is another Interesting Story that I may Expand on in the Comment Section.

Once we Finally Got on the Road again, we Traveled in land, over the Mountains, and Visited the Big Foot Museum in Willow Creek. We Even Stopped for a Minute along the Stream to Try Out our Guest's Medal Detector and do some Gold Panning. No Luck. We're just Amateurs having Fun.

On the 17th, we Picked up Our Dog from the Boarding Facility, Took him for a Long Walk and then Spent the Rest of the Day Helping my Father-in-Law who has the Beginnings of Dementia and Needed Help with some things. Not too Surprisingly, the 18th was another Landry day and guess who got Elected to do it all, while the Guys Spent that Day Gold Panning? Still no Luck, even though they were Accompanied by Experience Gold Panners this time. Apparently, though there has been Gold Found in the Area that they went to, Gold Prospecting has Picked up to the Point in which it has Made Finding the Gold more Difficult.

On the 19th, we Took our Dog on a Long Hike on a Trail Near by that Allows Dogs. On the 20th, we went Gold Panning again in a Stream, yet again Found Very Little. It was Discouraging. Our Guest was Hoping for so much more then that, since there are Indeed Gold Claims Along this River, yet we are still Amateurs and it Turns Out that this is Really Hard if you do not Know what you are Doing or where to Look. Later in the Day, we Hiked Quite a Distance Along a Flume. Just in Case you haven't Guessed, Our Guest Loves to Hike.

On the 21rst, the Guys did a Day Trip up to Mount Lassen and I really should have Gone Along to this One, cause they went on some Trails that I had Never been on and it sounded really Neat. Instead, I stayed Home and did some more House Work and Landry. If Only I was more of a High Energy Person, I could have done more of this in the Evenings after returning from all our other Activities and then Cooking and Cleaning Up the Kitchen, but I have Never been a High Energy Person.

On the 22nd, we Visited a Gold Panning Museum that is not Far from here and our Guest wanted to Look at Travel Trailers, even though none of us can Afford to Make such a Purchase right now. That is unless we Find Ourselves some Gold. lol. After Church, on the 23rd, we did a 3 1/2 Hour Hike around a Lake. We were not in Agreement over rather it was 8 or 9 Miles that we Hiked. On the 24th we Took our Guest to the Airport.

Black & White, Nature vs. Nurture Debate & Sigmund Freud

2011-09-15T09:27:00.000-07:00

Well, I've gotten Side Tracked from my Swedenborg Series (the Next Two Posts Below). I guess I was going to do Three or Four Posts on him and Only Ended Up doing two. Perhaps I'll get back to that Later, yet for now, I'm Focused on Sigmund Freud and my Amazement over exactly to what Extent the People who Write about these Historical Figures are Black and White in their Thinking.

Here is the Link to the Article that I am now Responding to.

I Wonder if it will Surprise the Friend who gave me this Link, to Realize that when I Read it all the way through to the End, what I mainly saw was Bias and Black and White Thinking. I'm not even Particularly a Lover of Freud, yet I still Found the Final Conclusions in this Article to be Excessively Anti-Freud, or Actually more Specifically, Anti-Nurture in relation to the Nature vs. Nurture Debate.

In the First Part of the Article, a lot of Freud's Ideas are Explained and Only Some of them are Argued against. For Example, the Article Admits that "Most People, including many who Reject other Elements of Freud's Work, Accept the Claim that Part of the Mind is Unconscious and that People Often Act for Reasons of which they are not Conscious." The Article Actually calls Freud's Idea about the Unconscious "A Ground Breaking Idea".

The Article also says that the Idea that the Mind is not a Monolithic or Homogeneous thing Continues to have Enormous Influence on People Outside of Psychology.

Ok, so the Id, Ego & Super Ego has been Questioned and Rejected by some and Freud is Criticized for giving too much Importance to One or the other of these Factors, yet his Contributions to the Field of Psychology were Significant and can not be Discounted so Easily.

The Main Conflict has always been Relating to Freud's Over Emphasis on Sex as the Motivator of all Creative and Productive Behavior. The Fact that Freud Expanded his Sexual Idea to Include all of our Creative Instincts and the Idea that Children are Sexual Beings has been Under Attack since the Very Beginning and his Idea of the Sexual Instinct and the Death Instinct has been Challenged as well. Ideas such as the Oedipus conflict; Oral, Annal & Phallic Fixations, as well as Penis Envy (Another one that was not Mentioned in the Article) were all Controversial from the Start. Freud was just Plain too Focused on Sex, to the Exclusion of other Social Motivators and I would Add Intellectual Motivators as well. This Part of the Conflict is in No Way New. These Ideas were Rejected by Most Psychologists a Really Long Time Ago.

It also doesn't Surprise me to Read that some Guy named Lydiard H. Horton Claimed that Freud's Dream Theory was "Dangerously Inaccurate".

Towards the end of the Linked Article, the Author was quite Negative, Making all Kinds of Generalized Negative Statements against Freud's Over All Theory, Research and Practice and "a Large Majority of Freud's Work".

Freud's Model and Theory of the Mind and his Basic Methods and Theories are Rejected by Some Clinical Psychologists and by Most Experimental Psychologists and Psychiatrists. Many Clinical Psychologists, though, have Modified his Approach and Still Use it.

When the Article begins to talk about Freud's Psychological Theories being "Hotly Disputed Today", that he is Regarded as a Charlatan by some, that Psychiatry and Psychology has been "Recast as Scientific Disciplines", that his Influence is Lessening in Psychiatry and that his Theories have been Repudiated and Replaced by the Ideas of Emil Kaepelin, some of the Positives that were said earlier in the Article seem to have been Forgotten.

Come on!! What about the "Ground Breaking" Idea about the Unconscious Mind and how it Influences Behavior; an Idea that Most People do still accept? And What about the Idea that the Mind is not Homogenius or Monolithic? And What about the Fact that Some Clinical Psychologists have Modified Freud's Approach and Developed a Variety of Models and Therapies that are Similar? And What about the Fact that even many of those who have Rejected his "Model of the Mind" have still Adopted Elements of his Therapeutic Methods and that even the Use of "Talking as a Form of Therapy" is Accredited to Freud? And What about the Fact that some People, even Today, still Seek Out Freud's method of Psychoanalysis as Part of a Process of Self-Discovery? Also, What about his Research in Relation to Cerebral Palsy, in that he disagreed with William Little about the cause of it and that his Opinion is the One that was Confirmed by Research in the 1980s? Yes, Freud was the One who Discovered that Birth Complications were a Symptom, not the Cause of Cerebral Palsy.

Ok, so Most of Psychiatrists and Psychologists Today Reject Traditional Freudian Psychoanalysis the way it was Originally done, yet what about all the Positives? This Article Appears to be Throwing the Baby Out with the Bath Water. For Example, the Article Mentions how Experimental Psychologists and Psychiatrists Often Rely more on Drugs then on Talk in their Treatments and this is True, yet Considering all of the Negative Side Effects of these Drugs, the Total Emphasis on Drugs is way more Negative, than Positive. Talking has never Stopped being a Good Idea, even to those Clinical Psychologists who have Rejected Freud's Model of the Mind.

So what was it about this Article that I found to be inappropriately Black and White? Well, the Statement "Freud's Notion that the Child's Relationship to the Parents is Responsible for Everything from Psychiatric Disorders to Criminal Behavior has also been Discredited." is Only True because of the Word Everything. Never Mind, though, that the Suggestion that "Everything" is the Result of Genetics is just as Inaccurate. Ok, so maybe we shouldn't always "Blame-the-Parents" for "Eveything", yet what I've Found to be Equally True is that Continually Blaming Oneself isn't Helpful either and also, to Suggest that Genetics and Biology Explains "Everything" and that there is no such thing as the Influence of Nurture is no more Accurate than the Opposite Extreme.

Just because there were many Decades, in which "Genetic and Biological Causes of Psychiatric Disorders were Dismissed without Scientific Investigation" does not Justify now Dismissing the Nurture Part of the Equation.

Yes, it is well established that Genetic and Biological Factors have a Great Influence on Human Development and Behavior and Sure, Psychiatric Disorders are Generally Considered Diseases of the Brain whose Etiology is Principally Genetic and many such Diseases have been Demonstrated to be Impervious to Psychoanalysis, yet none of that means that there is no such thing as Nurture. Or that Nurture has no Influence what-so-ever.

To Use the Controversy Over the Excessive Sexual Focus of Sigmund Freud to Push the Idea of Genetic Influences, at the Exclusion of Equally Important Nurture Influences is Absurd.

The Only Reason that the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" or the "American Psychiatric Association" Reflects the Neo-Kraelinian Scientific-Biological Approach to Psychiatric Disorders is because Psychiatry has always been the Biological and Nature Branch of Psychology. Clinical Psychology is still alive and well, though, and is still Focused on Nurture, just as much as Psychiatry is on Nature and their Focus is on Talking, rather then Drugs.

It almost sounds as if the Author of this Article is Holding some Kind of a Grudge because Biological and Genetic Etiologies were "Largely Ignored during the Earlier Freud-Dominated Decade of the Twentieth Century".

Anyway, though this Article Mentioned a Number of Positives at the Beginning, the Concluding thoughts were Excessively Negative and made it sound as if all of Freud's Ideas are Under Attack, rather then just a few of them, and that even Believing in Nurture and not just Nature is an Idea of the Past, but such a Suggestion is not at all True.

One Last Black and White Thought is this one...

"Proponents of Science conclude that this Invalidates Freudian Theory and Proponents of Freud conclude that this Invalidates Science."

Just because Freud Claimed that many of our Conscious Thoughts and Actions are Motivated by Unconscious Fears and Desires, this does not mean that this Invalidates Science. Come On! I Hate to say it, but Statements Like this just cause me to Shake my Head. Why does it have to be One or the Other? How does the Existence of Something that can not be Directly Observed and Studied Scientifically Invalidate that which can be Observed and Studied? And how does that which can be Directly Observed and Studied Invalidate that which can not be? Why is it so hard to Imagine that both the Observable and the Non-Observable are True Realities, that that which can be Studied Scientifically and that which can not can both be Valid Realities and that both Nature and Nurture Exist and Interact with each Other and Why are some People so Very Very Blind to the Idea of NOT One of the Other, but Both?

I just don't get it. Black and White Thinking is so Prevalent on the Web that I Wonder if True Reasoning has been Totally Lost.

Swedenborg/Part 2/Christianity Intellect Compatible

2011-08-29T22:19:00.000-07:00

This Post is the Second of a Three Part Series, or actually, it may be 4 or 5 Parts by the time I'm done, on a Link that BB-Idaho Left me, Relating to Religious History, or more Specifically Emanuel Swedenborg. My Previous Post is about the Trinity, God's Wrath and God's Holiness. This One is more about the Positives in Swedenborg's Theology and how the Basics Gospel Message does not have to be in Conflict with the Intellect. The Basics are General Enough that there is a lot of Room for Various Forms of Intellectual thoughts and Ways of Understanding Things. It is Only those who are Overly Dogmatic that cause Intellectual Conflict within those who Like to Think Things Through.

I am not One to Be Dogmatic about any Particular Theology among the Various Theologies that are Debated between those who Believe in Christianity. That is as Long as there is Biblical Backing for whatever Theology is Proposed. My Thinking is that Some Things are Obvious and some are not, so let that which is Less Obvious be Decided by Each Individual in their Own Way, in what ever Manner God Leads them.

May the Calvinists and Armenians Accept each other in Love and may God Reveal Truth to all of Us in His Own Way, yet we do Need to be Sure that what we Believe Matches with the Scripture, for if it does not, then the Belief can not Correctly be Called Christianity.

Anyway, since God's Holiness and God's Love is Actually Stressed more by the Church then God's Wrath, Swedenborg's Ideas about God's Anger, just by itself, is not really that Serious of a Conflict with the Christian Church. His Idea about the Trinity and his Rejection of the"Born Again" Idea, though, are another Matter and this, no Doubt, was the Main Conflict that Caused the Lack of Acceptance of his Ideas by the Christian Church and the Trinity and Born Again Beliefs within the Church Still Stand Today. Swedenborg's Doctrine on these Issues are a Serious Diversions from Christianity. You can Read more about these Issues in my Previous Post.

I am Writing Now about some of the Positives within his Theology, though, for the Sake of Showing that the Christian Message can be Compatible with the Intellect.

So Laying that Conflict aside for Now, let's Look Now at some of what Swedenborg Said that I Find Way more Interesting than Controversial. For Example, I Really Liked this Statement from the Linked Article...

"As we grow spiritually, our will, or emotions become God and neighbor centered. Our understanding teaches our emotions how to love intelligently."

What a Beautiful Description of the Sanctification Process. The Focus is on Growth and Understanding (a Process and I have no Trouble at all Viewing that as an Emotional process). Some may not Like his Focus on the Emotions, yet I do not Find this Particular Idea to be in Conflict with the Christian Church at Large. Pentecostals are Highly Emotional and Focus more on this Aspect then Other Christian Churches. In a lot of Ways, it is much more Healthy to Focus on the Emotions, rather then on Trying to Force the Will through the Legalism of Works. That is Basically what the Mood and Spirit of the Message of Grace, rather then Works, is all about. God is Patient with the Flesh (Selfish, Unsanctified Emotions) and Offers Grace to us During the Sanctification Process. The Sanctification Process Takes Time and that is the Whole Reason Why Grace is Necessary.

So Many of Swedenborg's Ideas have more to do with Sanctification, then with the Initial Action of Conversion. The Sanctification Idea, though, is not an Original One, for it is Both Biblical and Christian. Many of his Ideas are not in Conflict with Modern Day Christianity. Here is another Good Quote from the Linked Article...

"Our rational mind is formed by study of the Bible, theology and by our life's experience. This wisdom works on our emotions and modifies them into spiritual loves."

The Focus on the Mind is not an Idea that Goes against the Scripture, for it says...

"And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2, KJV)

Also, Any Verse that Focuses on the Reading and Studying of Scripture is a Mind Focused Scripture and Here are a Few of those...

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV)

"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." (Psalm 119:11, KJV)

"This is my comfort in my affliction, for Thy word hath quickened me." (Psalm 119:50, KJV)

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." (Psalm 119:105, KJV)

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17, KJV)

"That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." (Ephesians 5:26, KJV)

"You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you." (John 15:3, NRSV)

I was Surprised in my Word Search, how many of the "Word" Related Verses that I Remember are from Psalm 119. This Fact Inspired me to Read this Psalm again and though it is Quite Long, it is also a Really Neat One, for the Theme of it is not just Love for God, but Love for His Precepts, Statures and Laws. In Other Words, the Love of Service and Obedience to God, as well as a Love for his Word. It's Like Saying, I not Only Love You, but I also Love Serving You and I not Only Love You for Who You are, but also for "Your Words", or for what You have to Say. I Love Your Laws. I Love Your Words. I Love what You have to Say. I Love what You Stand for. I even Love Obeying Your Laws. That's sort of a Paraphrased Description of the Theme of this Psalm. I Found it to be Quite Powerful and I was Moved when I Read it.

Anyway, Back to the Point, the Hearing and Reading of the Word is an Activity of the Intellect and doing this Helps us to Not Sin, Comforts, Quickens, Guides, Builds Faith, Sanctifies and Cleanses. The Love of the Law that is Mentioned in Psalms 119 Describes the Full Maturity of our Love and Yes, this Love is Emotional. This is not at all Unlike what Swedenborg said in what I Quoted above and Here are the Quotes again, with my Emphasis Added....

"As we grow spiritually, our will, or emotions become God and neighbor centered. Our understanding teaches our emotions how to love intelligently."

"Our rational mind is formed by study of the Bible, theology and by our life's experience. This wisdom works on our emotions and modifies them into spiritual loves."

I Actually Liked Swedenborg's Ideas about Sanctification Enough that it made me Feel Sad that he did not also believe in the Trinity and in the Basic Gospel Message, Including the Idea of Being "Born Again". It's too Bad that he Rejected these things because his other thoughts are Truly Excellent and not Out of Line with Christianity, or more Specifically, the Christian Idea of Sanctification. Ideas such as; Balancing Self Love with Love for our Neighbors, being Created to be Useful to the World and to our Neighbors, the Good of Working to be Useful to Society and of Loving Useful Work; are not Ideas Unique to Swedenborg. They are Very Basic Christian Ideas and Even his Ideas about Symbolism in Nature is not Out of Line with Christianity. I've Heard Lots of Sermons along those Lines.

Yes, the Sun Represents God, or sometimes I've heard the Giver of Light, Described, not as the Sun, but "the Son". That is God's Son, Jesus. And Yes, the Light Represents Truth. Jesus Compared Faith to the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32) and the Tree is a Symbol of Stability and Strength (Psalms 1) and the branches of the Vine are Symbols of something that is Connected to, Nourished by and Firmly Grounded in God (the Vine), and that can not Bear Fruit without God (John 15:1-8 and Further if Desired).

And Swedenborg is also not the Only One who has Ever Used Symbolism to Interpret the Old Testament Stories of the Bible. That's Common and Very Christian.

When I came to the Part of the Article that Talked about "Rebirth", however, I realized that there was a Fairly Big Problem, yet Perhaps that will Need to be the Subject of Part Three. For Now, I'm just Going to say that it is not about Reincarnation, but it is not about the Christian Concept of Being Born Again Either. Stay Tuned.

Can We Trust Religious History?/Trinity/God's Wrath/Holiness/Swedenborg

2011-08-28T18:05:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm now Allowing BB-Idaho to Inspire me to do a Post Based on the Last Link that he Left me and Here is the Link. It is about the Theology of Emanuel Swedenborg, which BB Claims is Quite a "Different Kind of Christianity". So Far, it Looks Like this is going to be the First in a Series of about Three Posts.

What has Frustrated me in the Past about Links that Relate to Religious History is that they Continually Give Credit to People who Hold so Called "New Ideas" that in Reality are not at all New. This was how I felt about the Previous Link that BB Gave me, in which Saint Augustine was given Credit for the Original Sin Idea, rather then the Original Biblical Writer, Paul. This Idea did not Originate with Saint Augustine, but with Paul and this Belief was Held by those in the Early church, when the Original Apostles that Knew Christ Personally were Still alive, Long before Saint Augustine was Born in 354 AD.

When I was Reading the Linked Article in this Post about Swedenborg, my First impression was that he too had been Given Credit for Some Things that may not have Really been all that New. At First, I Thought that the Ideas of Swedenborg were Actually Quite Similar to those of Christianity and In Fact, Most of them are. He may have a Unique Way of Explaining Things and he may have his Own Unique Emphasis on Certain Ideas, yet the Part of his Ideas that are not in Conflict with the Church are also not New. As I Read the Article a Second Time, I Realized that it is what he has Decided not to Accept that has Caused the Conflict between him and the church. The Conflict is not in what he has Included, but in what he has Excluded, such as the Christian Idea about the Trinity and about Salvation.

Aside from the Trinity and the Basic Gospel Message Conflicts, that which is Really Good in this Article is Good because it was already Supported by Scripture, was very Possibly already a Christian Idea and had been for Centuries. To say that all of these ideas are New, that the Modern Day Church has Rejected Every Part of his Beliefs and that Aside from the Trinity Idea and his view of the Basic Gospel Message, all of his Ideas are Unique from Present Day, or Even Traditional Christianity, is Misleading and gives Swedenborg Far more Credit then he Deserves.

You see, not all Christians are Shallow. There are some that are Thinkers and to Assume Otherwise is to Miss a Big Chunk of what Christianity has to Offer.

A lot of Historical Writings can not be Trusted because they Misrepresent the Ideas of "Modern or Contemporary Christianity", Claiming that these Wonderful "New Ideas" of the People who these Articles are Honoring were not and are not "Accepted by the Traditional or the Current Christian Church". They Confuse what is New and Controversial and what is not.

This Reminds me of a Verse in Ecclesiastes...

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV)

The Trinity, though, is an Issue of Controversy, so much so that Groups that Reject it, such as Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, are often Referred to by the Mainstream Church as Cults. There are also Other Reasons for this, yet I'm not Going to Get into that Right now. In Fact, I don't even want to Get into a Lengthy Discussion of all of the Bible Verses that Support the Deity of Christ and therefore the Trinity Right Now, Except to say that Jesus Claimed to be God Often enough that He was Accused of Blasphemy and this was the Reason He was Crucified.

This Article Confused me a Little because on the One Hand, it States that Swedenborg Rejected the Idea of the Trinity, yet on the Other Hand, it Explains Swedenborg's Belief that "God Came Down to Earth as Jesus.", that Jesus was "Fully Divine" and that "God brings Healing Love to us in our Own form." To me, this is an Unexplained Contradiction and it Makes me Wonder if Swedenborg was just Frustrated with the Way that the Trinity was Explained Specifically by the Lutheran Church that he was a Part of.

There have always been Different Theologies and Different Ways of Interpreting Things and this Includes Various Ways of Understanding the Trinity, Godhead. The idea that Christ is, In Fact, God, though, is Key to Christian Theology. The Way I Understand the Trinity is that there are Three Aspects to God, just as there are Three Aspects to every Person, that is the Mind (the Connection to the Physical Body), Soul and Spirit.

Sigmund Freud Divided the Person into the Trinity of the Ego, Super Ego and Id. This is Similar to the Soul (the Will or Ego), the Conscience (the Super Ego, the Spirit or the Part of us that can be Connected to God if we are Willing) and the Id or Flesh (the Sin Nature, which is also a Part of our Temporal, Corruptible, Mortal Body). The Descriptions of Freud of the Three Parts of the Trinity within the Person may be Different then the Descriptions of the Three Parts of the Person, as Described within the Bible, yet the Fact that they both Described a Trichotomy Indicates that there is a Trinity Reality within the Person that has Inspired Freud's Thoughts. Because of this Trinity within us, it is not Really so Hard to Imagine People Talking to themselves, nor to Imagine Jesus Talking to the Father. The Difference is that all Three of the Parts of the Human Person are Trapped Inside of the Human Body. The Trinity that Makes up the Godhead, though, is not so Restricted because God is Huge and has the Ability to be Everywhere at Once.

Since the Trinity is Hard to Understand, it is not Surprising that there are some who have Rejected it, rather than Trying to Find an Explanation that they can Wrap their Head Around. In my Opinion, though, this is Intellectually Lazy, as well as Arrogant. It is Lazy because, though Difficult, the Trinity Idea is not Impossible to Understand and it is Arrogant, because Assuming that we Ought to be able to Understand Everything about something as Massively Huge and Powerful as God is, well, just Plain Foolish.

The Next Subject in Question is God's Anger or Wrath, an Idea that Swedenborg Rejected.

When I First Read this Article, I was doing so, Giving Swedenborg the Benefit of a Doubt, and Focusing on Similarities with Christianity, rather then Differences. Because of this, I Over Looked, at First, the Fact that he had Basically Rejected the Basic Gospel Message that Christians Teach is the Key to Salvation. After Reading the Article a Second Time, I Realized that he does not Accept the Idea of Being Born Again, as is Described within the Christian Church. The Reason for the Rejection of this Idea, though, Appears to be his Aversion to the Idea of God's Wrath.

In Order to Reject the Idea of God's Anger or Wrath, One has to Deal with the Definitions of the Biblical Words that are Translated as Anger and Wrath. I don't have Time for such a Study at the Moment, yet for the Most Part, God's Wrath is not what is Stressed in Christian Churches.

My Understanding of the Basic Gospel Message is more Based on God's Holiness, then on His Wrath. Since God is Holy and Pure, He is not Able to Tolerate Impurity and that is why Sin Blocks our Fellowship with Him. Generally, the Way this is Explained is with a Picture of two Cliffs on Either Side of a Canyon. Since God is Holy and Man is not, there is a Great Canyon that Divides us from His Presence.

The Consequence of Our Sinfulness is Death, but when Christ Died on the Cross, His Blood was Able to Cleanse us and Justify us and this is why in the Picture of the two Cliffs and the Canyon, the Cross is Pictured as the Bridge that Allows us to Cross the Great Canyon that Divides us in our Sinfulness from God in His Holiness.

The Bible says, though, that...

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV)

and

"No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44, KJV)

And this is Why there are some who will Never Understand this Message.

Part 2 - Sin, Karma, Santification, Laws & Grace

2011-07-26T08:30:00.000-07:00

This is a Continuation of the Previous Post. The First was about the Definition of a Few Salvation Words and how the Focus of Christianity is not on Works, but on the Condition of the Heart. This Post will Explain Sanctification, as well as the Natural Reap What you Sow Law, Contrasted with the Law of Grace. Here is the Comment from Satyavati again that I have been Responding to. This Time, I will Quote it in it's Entirety. The Bold Emphasis was Added by me.

Satyavati devi dasi said...
"That would imply that the process is such:

"1. Admit or confess
"2. Get cleansed from sin (karma is a different thing and for me it is more accurate to use the original words)
"3. Everything's hunky dory.

"Now, this would imply that you can go on and do whatever you like now and it'll all be just washed under the bridge, no problem.

"Of course this isn't true. In fact, according to the Bible, it's basically impossible NOT to sin, if you're human, so at this point, I have to ask what happens to all those post-salvation sins? Do you just keep claiming Jesus over and over? Does he come back endlessly and wash it all up? Personally, I'd think eventually he'd get pretty tired of that; salvation is not cheap and not to be used as an excuse to go on and do whatever awful things you want to do.

"The way we view karma is as a law, independent of other things. Consider the law 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. The thing with laws is that they operate regardless of belief so that part doesn't really come into it.

"There's different kinds of karma, and they all carry their own baggage. That's too involved for here.

"There are instances in the Bible that point to a belief in reincarnation. People asked John the Baptist whether he was Elijah. Of course, Elijah was dead and gone, so that would mean that they believed that he could be reborn again in a different body. Also, the man who was born blind: they asked who had sinned, he or his parents, that caused him to be born blind. Asking whether the man had sinned would presumably imply a previous lifetime, unless you'd like to posit that he sinned whilst still in utero."

July 21, 2011 3:28 PM

To Pick Up where I Left Off, I will now be Responding to this Quote...

"so at this point, I have to ask what happens to all those post-salvation sins?"

The Process that Occurs after Salvation is Called Sanctification and is a Process in which we are Gradually Being Cleansed and Washed of our Sins. This is Illustrated in Romans “For if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are PUTTING TO DEATH the deeds of the body, you will live. (Romans 8:13, NASB)

In this Verse, Deeds or Actions are Mentioned, yet the Phrase, “Putting to Death”, is from the Greek Root, “Thanatoo”, which Means to Mortify, Kill or Put to Death, yet in this Verse, the Tense Used Contains an Implication of a Process. The New American Standard Bible is the One that the Most Got this One Right, by Using the Correct Tense of the Word, “Putting to Death”, rather then "Put to Death" (NRSV & NIV) or “Mortify” (KJV)

Quoting Satyavati again...
“Do you just keep claiming Jesus over and over? Does he come back endlessly and wash it all up? Personally, I'd think eventually he'd get pretty tired of that.”

My Response:
In a Sense, Yes. He does Keep Cleaning it up, but He doesn’t get Tired of it, because He Loves us and if we are Willing to Submit to the Sanctification Process, then Over Time, there will be Improvement.

Satyavati:
"Salvation is not cheap and not to be used as an excuse to go on and do whatever awful things you want to do.”

Me:
That is Absolutely Correct and also Biblically Accurate, just as I Explained in the Previous Post.

Satyavati:
“The way we view karma is as a law, independent of other things. Consider the law 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. The thing with laws is that they operate regardless of belief so that part doesn't really come into it.”

Me:
There is such a Law that is Described in the Bible...

“Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow.” (Galations 6:7, NRSV)

As to the Second Part of your Words, though, Satyavati, Laws do not Actually "Operate Regardless of Belief". For Example, Once when we were Shoveling Snow off of the Roof of my In-Laws, I Slipped and Feel off a Ladder. According to the Laws of Slippery Ice and Gravity, I should be Dead Right now, or at the Very Least, Seriously Injured, yet somehow, Miraculously, the Ladder was Caught on the Step. To Better Picture this, the Ladder Slipped Off the Deck and was Caught on a Step. That is, One of the Legs of the Ladder was Caught on the Step and the Other was Still Suspended in the Air. With Ice that Slippery, there is no Way that the Ladder should have Remained Up Right and yet it did. I Ended Up Up Side Down with one of my Legs Caught in One of the Rungs of the Ladder. The Ladder Remained Up Right, I did not Hit the Ground, aside from Shock and Fear, I was Unharmed.

This Experience Defied the Laws of Gravity and Slippery Ice and most Spiritual People would Consider this an Act of a God or some sort of Guardian Angel. For some Reason God Decided to Spare me.

There is another Law at Play here, which is the Law of Grace, yet Grace is not for Everyone, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5b, NRSV). For some Reason, God Extended Grace to me and Spared me from the Natural Laws of Gravity and Ice, so you see, Satyavati, it is not True that Things such as Belief and also Grace do not “Come into Play”. The Law of Reaping and Sowing is Similar, for Sometimes God Steps in and Offers Grace. Does this Always Happen? No. Sometimes God Allows us to Experience the Natural Consequences for Our Actions.

Here is another Example from my Own Life. Earlier in my Life, I was Caught up in a Certain Sin. In my Sin, I was Taking Considerable Risks that should have come with Far Greater Consequences then they did, yet Somehow I was Spared and my Consequences were Minimal. Why? I Think it was because God Knew some of the Insinuating Circumstances, as well as my Own Level of Maturity at the Time. In Time, through the Process of Growth and Sanctification, I Improved in my Ability to not Sin. There was a Time, though, in which I “Back Slid” and Regressed into some of my Old Ways. This Time, though, God decided not to Protect me from some of the Consequences that are more Serious. Why? Because I should have Known better. This was an Old Lesson that I should have Left in the Past and I was a Fool to Return to this Old Pattern of Sin.

I’ll Deal with the Reincarnation Issue Later. I’ve Said Quite a Bit for now.

Sin, Karma, Salvation Words & Condition of Heart

2011-07-24T21:12:00.000-07:00

This Post, as well as the Next One, will be Written in Response to a Comment that was Submitted in the Comment Thread of the Next Post Down and here are the First Few Lines of that Comment...

Satyavati devi dasi said...
"That would imply that the process is such:

"1. Admit or confess
"2. Get cleansed from sin (karma is a different thing and for me it is more accurate to use the original words)
"3. Everything's hunky dory.

"Now, this would imply that you can go on and do whatever you like now and it'll all be just washed under the bridge, no problem."

(The Rest of this Comment will be Addressed in my Next Post, for this will be a Two Part Response.)

July 21, 2011 3:28 PM

For now, my Goal is to Respond to Satyavati's Statement, "Now, this would imply that you can go on and do whatever you like now and it'll all be just washed under the bridge, no problem."

What she is Saying is Implying the Absence of Effort, yet the Bible Actually has Two Key Words that are Used in Relation to Salvation. One is "Confess", which is from the Greek Word "Homologeo", which not Only Means "Confess, Acknowledge and Profess", but also "Covenant and Promise".

In Part, this is just a Covenant Sealed in Christ's Blood, that if we Believe in Him, He will Forgive us of Our Sins, yet there are Other Words that Imply Man's Side of the Covenant.

The Word, "Repent", for Example, in the Greek ("Metanoeo"), is a Military Term that Means "About Face", or "a 180 Degree Turn in the Opposite Direction". "Repent" also Means to Think Differently, Reconsider or "Change Ones Mind" and in the Context of Salvation, this Means to Change One's Mind about Our Sin and Agree with God that this Behavior is Wrong.

Satyavati Requested Original Language, so here it is. Besides, my Entire Audience is Intelligent, so why not do this in a more In Depth and Intelligent Manner?

Another Word that Needs to be Defined is the Word "Believe". In the Famous John 3:16, the Word, "Believe" is from the Greek Word, "Pisteuo", which Means not Only Believe, but also "to have Faith in, Entrust or put in Trust with (espec. one's Spiritual Well-Being to Christ)".

The Truth of the Matter is that a lot of these Words have been Watered Down.

And then there is another Famous Passage in Ephesians...

"8) For by grace you have been saved THROUGH FAITH, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God--, 9) not the result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9, NRSV)

So Often the Focus is on the Words "Grace" and "Gift", rather then on "Faith".

"Faith" is from the Greek Word "Pistis", which Again means not Only "Persuasion, and Conviction of Truth", but also "Reliance Upon" and not Only "Assurance, Belief and Faith", but also Loyalty or "Fidelity".

The way I have Heard Concepts such as Belief, Trust and Faith Explained is with the Illustration of Someone with a Wheel Barrel on a Tight Rope. You Can Believe all that you Want to that this Person can Wheel the Wheel Barrel Across the Tight Rope, but you don't Really Believe until you are Willing to Get into the Wheel Barrel.

What Ephesians 2:8-9 Actually Means, though, is that it is "Faith", a Heart Attitude, not "Works", the actual Actions, that Saves us. In my Opinion, what is at the Heart of the Gospel is the Idea that Heart Attitudes are what Count, not the Perfection of our Behavior.

Other Verses that Bring this to Light are the Ones that Focus on the Mind, rather then on Behavior, for it is Impossible to Change or even Improve on Behavior in any Lasting Way without Dealing with the Condition of the Heart and Mind…

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed, by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God--what is good, and acceptable, and perfect.” (Romans 12:2, NRSV)

“To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.” (Romans 8:6, NRSV)

And the Salvation Message is not Complete without also Looking at Verses such as...

"because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9, NRSV)

It is not Correct to Focus on the Second Part of this Verse and not the First. Lord is a Title of Great Respect and Authority. Some Other Verses to Consider are in James...

"17) So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.......20) Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?.......26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead." (James 2:17, 20, & 26, NRSV)

Read the Entire 2nd Chapter of James for the Context.

Also, Even Paul Said, “1) What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? 2) By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?” (Romans 6:1-2, NRSV)

To Further Complicate the Issue there is a Group of Christians, Known as Calvinists, who Focus on Grace, as well as Predestination (God's Part) and another Group of Christians, Known as Armenians, who Focus on Faith (Man's Part). Satyavati may not have Realized that her Arguments are Mainly Against the Calvinists, not the Armenians.

Both of these Ideas Need to be Kept in Balance, for Man can not Live a Perfectly Holy and Pure Life without God's Help (God's Grace), yet God will not Force Purity on someone who is not willing to Accept His Help (Man's Choice).

More will be Coming Later in Response to the Rest of Satyavati's Comment.

Why do Bad Things & Suffering Happen to Christians?

2011-07-19T10:48:00.000-07:00

Today I'm Thinking about one of Radar's Posts again...

Do Bad Things Happen to Christians because they are Bad?

He was Trying to Lead into a Discussion that is a Little more Deep and Personal, yet the Commenters on his Blog at Times Tend to be a little Rude and Insulting and do not Appear to have the Emotional Strength and Maturity to Handle Subjects that are Deeper then that of either an Intellectual Competition or a Brutal Insulting Match. At Least that's how it Seems. You will see what I Mean, if you Read the Comments.

My Blog is Safer. I Assure you that, especially on this Post, I will not allow any Insulting. If any come in, I will simply not Post them. Discussion about Emotional Issues can not be Allowed to be Diluted in that Way.

I Liked Radar's Post and also his Closing Comment, which I will Share in a Minute. I'm Going to have to Go and Read that Post Again now, since I've Made my Own Post of it. For Now, I just Remember him saying... (The Bold Print Emphasis is Mine.)

"We live in a world that is full of sin. Because Adam and Eve sinned, then sin and death came to the world and we all must suffer from this. There will be accidents and there will be evil. There is a law of reaping and sowing - if you work hard, you most likely succeed, if you goof off, you probably don't. If you are faithful in marriage, you will not get an STD, as long as your mate is also faithful. If you drive carefully you probably won't be in an accident - unless some careless person smashes into you. Sometimes while driving down a highway, I consider that each new car coming down the road could suddenly swerve into my path and quite possibly kill me and everyone with me. Usually we all stay in our lanes and avoid smashing each other."

Here is the Clincher in Relation to the Question of Suffering. Pain is in the World because God Allows Free Choice and yet the Consequence of that Privileged is that Sometimes we Suffer Because of Someone else's Sinful Choices, Carelessness and at Times, even Cruelty. Why does God Allow Cruel People to Exist? To Really make this Question Complete, we have to Include the Pain that is caused Deliberately by those who have no Conscience, Murderers, Rapists and the Like and not just the Pain of Cruel Speech or Careless Driving.

I've often been Frustrated myself with the Fragile Way in which we are Created. Emotions are Far too Strong and Hearts are Far too Easily Broken. Why, for Example, should the Crime of another Create Scars that will Last a Life Time. Perhaps the Sexual Abuse of Children should not have this Effect and yet it does. There is Very Little that can be Said in Order to Answer this Question, except that Life on Earth is Temporary and Life in Heaven will be Eternal. I do Know One Thing. Being Continually Angry about the Issue does not Cause it to go Away.

That's what I have to say in Response to Radar's Post.

Radar's Post, itself, is Very Good and I also Liked what is so Far, his Closing Comment. Here is a Quote of the Last Four Paragraphs of this Comment, which I Felt were Truly Excellent. The Bold Emphasis is Mine and I Added Links to some of the Scriptures that he Suggested...

"So meet God while you are alive and find out how great He really is...or meet Him after you have died and find out how righteous He really is. A Just God must punish sin. You want Jesus to pay that price for you or will you take it upon yourself?

"See, the above is what bringing the Bible into the discussion is all about. Read Romans chapters 4-10 and John from the beginning to say the end of chapter 10. Consider what Jesus said in John 3:16-18 and what Paul wrote in Romans 10:9-13. What did Romans 5:1 say? Romans 6:23? How about Romans 8:1? Does the Son of God come to Earth and perform miracles, teach the Gospel, accept punishment and shame and death for no reason? Why would God's Son separate Himself from a supernatural existence and live in a human body for 33-some years unless it was critically important? We know when Jesus lived and died and we have eyewitness accounts of His miracles and his resurrection.

"Nothing is what naturalistic materialists give credit to for the existence of the entire Universe and everything in it. The concept of nothing in place of God doesn't seem reasonable to me.

"Not for nothing did God's Son die for you."

Thanks, Radar. I Could not have Said that Better myself.

Defense Mechanisms and Confusion in Debate.

2011-07-18T22:24:00.000-07:00

As I Continue to Talk about the Difficulty in Communicating on the Web, Perhaps I should Start with the Defense Mechanisms that have been Taught in Psychology Classes for Years.

Here is a Link to a Place in which they are Listed and Explained. All I'm Going to do here is List Them by Name; Denial, Suppression, Reaction Formation, Projection, Displacement, Rationalization, Intellectualization, Undoing, Isolation of Affect, Regression and Sublimation.

Sublimation is the One that is the Most Healthy, but Many of these Defense Mechanisms Hinder Communication when Debating Emotional Issues.

Projection is a Really Big One, for it Leads to Blaming Other People of the Same Faults that we Possess Ourselves, which is in Reality a Hypocrisy. It Reminds me of something that Grade School Children Sometimes say, "I Know you are, but what am I?" I used to Chuckle when ever I Heard that and yet it has Truth to it for Sometimes what Someone Accuses of is more a Reflection on the Character of the Accuser, than on that of the Accused.

Displacement is also common. I Like to Call this One, Scape Goating. That is, you Take your Feeling Out on Someone Else, rather then the One who you are Actually Mad at. If the Object of the Wrath can Realize and Remember that the Actual Frustration is Relating to something else and not Take this one Personally, then this Helps Alleviate the Problem, yet as Human Beings, we Often do React to these Things and this Makes the Communication more Confused.

Rationalization and Intellectualization is Actually a Form of Denial.

Aside from Sublimation, it is Better if we can Avoid these Defense Mechanisms while Debating Issues and Give Apologies when we Catch Ourselves doing it.

It's Funny, but it Seems to me that this List should also Include Identifying with the Aggressor. This is when we Find Ourselves Acting Like and Becoming just Like Someone who we Hate.

Anyway, these are the Defense Mechanisms and they sure do mess Communication Up. Whenever Possible, Facing and Dealing with Emotions Head on is the Best Way. The Ability to do so is a Sign of Maturity. Small Egos Require Defense Mechanisms, yet since we are Created in God's Image and He Loved us so much that he sent Christ to Die on the Cross for our Sins, we can have a Healthy sense of Self-Worth just Based on the Fact that we are Loved by the Creator of the Universe and having been Adopted as sons into God's Family, we are Royal Children of the King.

Manipulative Arguments

2011-07-11T19:19:00.000-07:00

I Guess I've Written about the Manipulator before and One Very Common Response is that if Someone is Making me not Feel so Good about Myself, or Confused in some Way, then I should Stop Interacting with him. Perhaps those who have told me that are Getting Tired of me Bringing Up the Subject, yet don't you see, I'm not Just Talking about "The Manipulator" anymore, but about those who Manipulate on the Web.

Manipulation can be Used in a Rather Cruel Way in the Context of Relationships and Friendship, yet it can also be Used in just Plain Arguing.

People Manipulate by Exaggerating the Facts, Appealing to the Emotions and Accusing and Pointing Fingers in a Hypocritical Way, when the Party (in Politics) or the Position (Everything Else), that they are Supporting is just as Guilty of the Same.

People Manipulate when they Change the Subject, rather than Talking about the Issue that is Being Brought Up by their Opponent. Or when they Insist on Focusing on the Part of the Issue that is Stronger for their Own Point of View, while Avoiding that which is Less in Line with their Point of View.

People Manipulate when they Insult or Accuse their Opponent of Motives such as the Quest for Power or Ego, Hatred (Hate Speech) or some form of Phobia or Fear, (Xenophobia, Homophobia), rather than Giving a Rational Argument for their Position.

People Manipulate when they Misinterpret what their Opponent Says, Put Words in their Mouth and then Argue against something that was Never Actually Stated, Make it appear that there is Agreement, when there is not, or Try to Make their Opponent Appear Inconsistent because of something that they Never Actually Said.

People Manipulate when they Exaggerate what their Opponent Says in Order to Make it appear Foolish or like an Agreement with something that the Opponent in no Way Agrees with or Approves of.

People Manipulate when they Lie, Misrepresent the Facts or Exaggerate the Facts, while Speaking Authoritatively about that which they have Absolutely no Evidence for.

People Manipulate when they Redefine Words, such as Marriage, or in the Case of Evolutionism vs. Creationism, Species and even Words such as Confirm, Falsify, Assumption and even Science.

Manipulators will Make sure that the Definitions of the Words Used will Fit their Own Point of View Better then that of their Opponents and will Avoid Using any Words that their Opponents Introduce. Such a Practice has Way more to do with Manipulation then with Truth.

Manipulators Apply Different Rules and Different Definitions to their Opponents, than they do to themselves. In Friendship, this is Called the Double Standard, yet People do it in Politics as well and also even in Science, just as Evolutionists Expect more Proof from their Opponent then they are Willing to Offer themselves.

There. Now Maybe I have Created a Can of Worms that will Cause my Blog to be Less Quiet, but Oh well. Go Ahead and Talk and Tell me what you Think.

Blogging and People Reflections

2011-07-08T22:26:00.000-07:00

My Blog is Often more Peaceful then the Rest of the Blogosphere and I guess you could Say that I Like it that Way. Arguing can be so Tiring at Times. And even I can be One of those who Doesn't Exactly Know when it is Time to Quit. I Wonder what the Rest of you Think. Is there an Appropriate Time to Turn and Walk Away and Stop Arguing with Idiots?

Speaking of the Word Idiot, I Used to be so Reluctant to Use that Word, but you Know what? It is Sort of Like when a Person is Pushy in some Way and Hangs Around and will not Go Away. Being Polite is not Enough, so a Person has no Choice but to be Rude in Order to Get the Message Across that I do not wish to Interact with you any more. This doesn't Apply to Anyone on the Web Right Now. It's just something that I've Come Across before in my Life.

There is Something Similar, though, that Occurs while Arguing on the Web. When a Person Keeps Repeating a Totally Ridiculous Point Over and Over Again that Makes no Sense at all, I've Actually Gotten to the Point At Times in which I Feel that I have no Choice but to Use Words Like Stupid or Idiot or BS, for this is the Only Way to Get my Point Across that I'm Really not at all Buying This and I Really do mean Really.

Sometimes I Get the Feeling that People Say the Ridiculous on Purpose, in order to Persuade People to Doubt themselves and their Ability to Reason, so that the One Speaking the BS can get the Upper Hand. I've Actually seen this sort of thing used as a Form of Manipulation. Control Freaks will do this in Order to Maintain Control Over the Situation.

Again, I am not Directing this at Anyone. I'm just Curious what People Think about what I'm saying.

There are Times in which I have Actually been Obsessed with Idiots. I don't Know What it is. Perhaps I'm Trying to Figure Something Out about them. Why don't they Get it? How can they Possibly be so Dumb? And Do they Really Think that I'm That Stupid?

There is Another Phrase that I Never Used to Say, that I've Said a lot more Recently, and that is the Phrase, "You are Insulting my Intelligence." Never Before have I ever had my Intelligence Insulted on such a Regular Basis, Prior to Entering the Blogging World. Never Before have I Met such Idiots, as I have Met in the Blogging World. At First, it was just one, yet more Recently, I've Found Out that there is an Idiotic Personality Type that Lurks in the Shadows of the Web.

People are Far more Insulting and Some of them are even Far more Cruel on the Internet than anyone that I have Ever Met in Person. If Someone Drops by and Reads this who is New to Blogging, Heed the Words that I'm now Saying. It might be Good to be a Little Less Trusting and do not Let your Guard Down too Early.

It's Funny, you Know, I'm Even Having Trouble Writing about Relationships, cause on the Internet, such is even more Difficult than in the Real World. People have no Desire to be Civil. All they want to do is Argue.

Am I Venting Right Now? I don't Know if I'm Venting or Reflecting. Perhaps it doesn't Matter. All I know is that I Don't Really Want my Blog to Always be just about Arguing the Issues. Sometimes I just Like to Talk about what Troubles me.

So What's your Story? What is Troubling you?

Baraminology, Biological Classification & Definitions

2011-06-21T13:34:00.000-07:00

I Think that my Previous Post (That is the One Just below this one) is One of my Absolute Favorites, yet it is Time to Move on.

In an Earlier Post, I Left this Link in Relation to the Change in the Definition of Species. Actually, the Conservapedia (Species) says something Similar. Let me Quote some of it for you. The Bold Emphasis in all of the Below Quotes is Mine.

"Linnaeus, who introduced the classification system in the 18th century, originally intended 'species' to refer to the biblical creation 'kinds', but the modern definitions of species do not match the biblical kinds. Despite this, many people, both Christians and evolutionists, believe that the idea of new species developing is inconsistent with the Bible. However, creationary scientists accept that 'speciation' has been observed, although they deny that speciation can lead to the development of completely new features as predicted by evolutionists."

I Found a rather Interesting Statement in the Wikipedia, Under the Heading, Biological Classification (Wikipedia). Here is the Quote...

"Modern biological classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have since been revised to IMPROVE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DARWINIAN PRINCIPLE of common descent."

Don't you see? That's just the Problem. When ever the System and/or the Definitions are Revised, it is to Improve Consistency with Darwinism, not with the Idea of Evolutionary Limits Between Kinds. The Whole Idea of Evolutionary Limits just Keeps being Pushed Aside, Mostly because that is not what the Atheists want to Believe. The Definitions are just as Biased as the Science.

This is Why the Creationists have Created their Own Classification System Known as Baraminology. The Word Baramin comes from Two Hebrew Words; Bara - Created and Min - Kind.

These Words in the Strong's Concordance are Spelled just a Little Differently, but they are the Same Words. Min is Actually Spelled Miyn; Same Word; They just Simplified the Spelling. The Literal Hebrew Meaning, from the Strong's Concordance is "to Portion Out, a Sort or Kind"

This Word is Found in Genesis 1:24, "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind (Miyn), cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind (Miyn), and it was so.'" (KJV)

Bara is Actually Spelled Bara' and it Corresponds to the Word in the Very First Verse in the Bible.

Gen 1:1 - "In the beginning God created (Bara') the heaven and the earth."

So there you have it Bara' Miyn; Created Kinds. See the Conservapedia (Baraminology) for a More Detailed Definition. I'd Like to Quote Part of it for you, though.

"Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind."

The Word Degenerative (Mutations) is Key, for Darwinists Assume that Mutations Create Something New, yet they do not. As Radar was Explaining, in Breeding, Genetic Information is not Progressive. When we Breed a Certain Pure Breed Dog, we Loose Information, we do not Gain it. In the Breeding of Samoyed's, for Example, all Genetic Information is Lost, Except for Long Hair, White and the other Characteristics of the Breed. The Only Way to Get the Lost Information Back, is to Breed the Samoyed with some other Breed of Dog, yet even this is not the Adding of New Information, cause all the Genetic Information that is Present is Still Related to Dogs and there is Nothing New Added that will Move the Dog Information in the Direction of Cat, instead of Dog. No New Information is Ever Added and this is why Evolution between Kinds is not Possible.

There is One More Word that I want to Define here and that is Macro-Evolution. The Conservapedia (Macroevolution), Acknowledges that the Idea is just a Theory and Here's more of it Quoted Below...

"Macroevolution is the theory that natural selection, mutations, and genetic drift can, given enough time, lead to the creation of new clades, which are groups of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor."

Evolutionists will Call Something as Small as Speciation (in Accordance with their Biased Definition of Species) Macro-Evolution, yet what they are Actually Hoping to Prove is so Very Much Bigger than that, since they Believe that all Organisms Descended from the Same Ancestor, the Original being the Simplest Form of Bacteria. This, however, is not what the Bible Says and the Biblical Explanation has in no Way been Disproved, for The Actual Natural Selection and Evolution between Biblical Kinds has Never been Observed.

When I Shared at Least some of this on a Comment Thread on Radar's Blog, One of the Commenters Mentioned that the Conservapedia is Biased, yet I get such a Kick Out of it when Liberals call what is Conservative Biased, but will not Acknowledge that their Sources are Biased as well. The Wikipedia is no Less Biased than the Conservapedia. The First Leans Liberal and the Second is more Conservative. Besides, since Baraminology is a Conservative Idea, I thought it much Better to use a source that was Conservative, rather than a source that was Biased against the Idea.