Sunday, June 23, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Paradigmagogues
Like it or not, I've invented a new word. I like it.
Paradigmagogue is a portmanteau of paradigm and demagogue.
Some invented words are silly, tongue-in-cheek puns or something, but this word has purpose. I invented this term to warn you of those to whom it best applies: politicians.
Politicians differ from statesmen or patriotic laymen in that they have one goal: winning elections. Statesmen understand the workings of governance and economics, studying and applying principles to circumstances and situations that would otherwise pose a puzzling conundrum; politicians differ from the blue-collar worker in that the politicians are willing to grab that shovel, rake, or pull knobs and switches on a tractor only if a camera is pointing at them. They aren't interested in work or progress, they are interested in their own personal success. There is nothing real to them but filling a suit and holding down a chair. Bearing the title of an office gives them some degree of dignity that they otherwise wouldn't have. And they must hold that title or lose that dignity. Holding the title requires votes, so they go about getting votes.
This is where an industry is born.
The most worthless of men - the lazy, uninspired, unskilled - when given ample opportunity for education, will tend to learn the trade of politics. Politics makes for a tremendously lucrative career. Moreover, it is luxuriant, glamorous, and generally a class within itself, an attribute shared by only a few professions. So you can see why it is so important to hold on and never want to let go once you've become inducted into the "Order of the Parasites." In many cases, the benefits of being a public leech carry on for the rest of your life, including lifetime healthcare, retirement benefits, and even Secret Service (depending on how large a vampire you are).
Now, the question, again, comes down to votes and how to get them.
Republicans are conservatives. Supposed to be, anyway. Confusion and chaos ensues when someone forgets that fact and behaves no differently than their Democrat counterpart. Democrats are supposed to be statist, so there are few issues with their idiot constituents when they behave as such. When statists make up the majority of both parties, and few apparent differences beside a color code and a different letter after their names make deciding between them a matter best settled by eeny-meeny-miney-moe, there needs to be conflict.
There are two categories of rhetoric a paradigmagogue wants to hear.
Category 1: Calls for Compromise.
"Washington can't get anything done!"
"Gridlock is hurting the economy!"
"When are they going to compromise?"
"Do-Nothing Congress needs to stop the bickering..."
MUSIC to a paradigmagogue's ears!
It makes their job so much easier to just go along with the statism that they probably would rather see implemented, anyway, than to actually stand for something. Standing up for convictions requires a spine, and the paradigmagogue is an invertebrate of the highest class.
Category 2: Hegelian Dialectic.
"The [other party] is [saying or doing something you don't like], and we need to do something about it!"
This sums up all that is the paradigmagogue.
The classic "problem-reaction-solution" routine that has empowered (R)'s and (D)'s for decades.
The other party has said something with which you really disagree, because the media told you to disagree. Now, your party has this guy running, and it didn't seem like he really cared about much of anything before, but now he's running ads and such against the party-puppet that said that disagreeable thing. This pleases you. This soothes that feeling of needing to do something to "get" that other party, right? You're gonna vote "against" that other party, right?
You are empowering parasites. They only get to the top by climbing on top of the one above them. They place themselves in batting orders to load the bases and make a grand slam without having to try too hard.
Voting against someone is a vote that is thrown away. It is a vote that says, "The system is so broken, I'm just going through the motions to make it look like I care." To vote against someone without inherently wanting the man you're voting for to win is to promote a false choice. It is to tie your own, preferred number of wraps around the noose that will hang you.
Sure, I sound all dramatic comparing an election and politics to being killed... but elections and politics do kill.
Politics have murdered, maimed, and destroyed lives, relationships, families, houses, cities, and entire countries for millennia. Think about it. It matters. Act like it.
Stop empowering people who are only empowered because they present themselves to you as a less painful option. Stop the pain. If it matters enough for you to notice and/or vote, it should matter enough for you to make an adult decision to think for yourself. Stop the paradigmagogues from telling you to decide between two evils.
"Never give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it." ~Motto of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Paradigmagogue is a portmanteau of paradigm and demagogue.
Some invented words are silly, tongue-in-cheek puns or something, but this word has purpose. I invented this term to warn you of those to whom it best applies: politicians.
Politicians differ from statesmen or patriotic laymen in that they have one goal: winning elections. Statesmen understand the workings of governance and economics, studying and applying principles to circumstances and situations that would otherwise pose a puzzling conundrum; politicians differ from the blue-collar worker in that the politicians are willing to grab that shovel, rake, or pull knobs and switches on a tractor only if a camera is pointing at them. They aren't interested in work or progress, they are interested in their own personal success. There is nothing real to them but filling a suit and holding down a chair. Bearing the title of an office gives them some degree of dignity that they otherwise wouldn't have. And they must hold that title or lose that dignity. Holding the title requires votes, so they go about getting votes.
This is where an industry is born.
The most worthless of men - the lazy, uninspired, unskilled - when given ample opportunity for education, will tend to learn the trade of politics. Politics makes for a tremendously lucrative career. Moreover, it is luxuriant, glamorous, and generally a class within itself, an attribute shared by only a few professions. So you can see why it is so important to hold on and never want to let go once you've become inducted into the "Order of the Parasites." In many cases, the benefits of being a public leech carry on for the rest of your life, including lifetime healthcare, retirement benefits, and even Secret Service (depending on how large a vampire you are).
Now, the question, again, comes down to votes and how to get them.
Republicans are conservatives. Supposed to be, anyway. Confusion and chaos ensues when someone forgets that fact and behaves no differently than their Democrat counterpart. Democrats are supposed to be statist, so there are few issues with their idiot constituents when they behave as such. When statists make up the majority of both parties, and few apparent differences beside a color code and a different letter after their names make deciding between them a matter best settled by eeny-meeny-miney-moe, there needs to be conflict.
There are two categories of rhetoric a paradigmagogue wants to hear.
Category 1: Calls for Compromise.
"Washington can't get anything done!"
"Gridlock is hurting the economy!"
"When are they going to compromise?"
"Do-Nothing Congress needs to stop the bickering..."
MUSIC to a paradigmagogue's ears!
It makes their job so much easier to just go along with the statism that they probably would rather see implemented, anyway, than to actually stand for something. Standing up for convictions requires a spine, and the paradigmagogue is an invertebrate of the highest class.
Category 2: Hegelian Dialectic.
"The [other party] is [saying or doing something you don't like], and we need to do something about it!"
This sums up all that is the paradigmagogue.
The classic "problem-reaction-solution" routine that has empowered (R)'s and (D)'s for decades.
The other party has said something with which you really disagree, because the media told you to disagree. Now, your party has this guy running, and it didn't seem like he really cared about much of anything before, but now he's running ads and such against the party-puppet that said that disagreeable thing. This pleases you. This soothes that feeling of needing to do something to "get" that other party, right? You're gonna vote "against" that other party, right?
You are empowering parasites. They only get to the top by climbing on top of the one above them. They place themselves in batting orders to load the bases and make a grand slam without having to try too hard.
Voting against someone is a vote that is thrown away. It is a vote that says, "The system is so broken, I'm just going through the motions to make it look like I care." To vote against someone without inherently wanting the man you're voting for to win is to promote a false choice. It is to tie your own, preferred number of wraps around the noose that will hang you.
Sure, I sound all dramatic comparing an election and politics to being killed... but elections and politics do kill.
Politics have murdered, maimed, and destroyed lives, relationships, families, houses, cities, and entire countries for millennia. Think about it. It matters. Act like it.
Stop empowering people who are only empowered because they present themselves to you as a less painful option. Stop the pain. If it matters enough for you to notice and/or vote, it should matter enough for you to make an adult decision to think for yourself. Stop the paradigmagogues from telling you to decide between two evils.
"Never give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it." ~Motto of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Contest
Since I can't think of anything to say, I'll ask you to say something.
Can you describe President Obama in one word?
Entries will be submitted in a poll, and the winner gets honorable mention.
(Who can resist an award like that?)
Comment your entries below, no limit to the number of entries.
Can you describe President Obama in one word?
Entries will be submitted in a poll, and the winner gets honorable mention.
(Who can resist an award like that?)
Comment your entries below, no limit to the number of entries.
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Kansas Openly Defies the Entire Federal Government
Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder sent a letter to Kansan Governor Brownback informing him that recent legislation in Kansas to exempt Kansan firearms from federal regulation would be ignored by federal authorities. Holder said that the State of Kansas could not stifle federal control over the business of the state, as per the overly-cited Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Now, Brownback wrote his own defiant reply, stating Kansas had no intention of being cowed by threats of litigation... but the letter sent by Kansan Secretary of State Kris Kobach is worthy of remembrance.
I pray God helps the State of Kansas.
Saturday, May 04, 2013
Heat of the Moment: Bane of the Rule of Law
Every irritation is magnified, every emotion is intensified, yet all passions are dichotomized into hatred for the disruptor and love for the state - this is an emergency.
I don't know why it is, but the American people seem to develop this syndrome anytime their peace of mind is disturbed. It doesn't make sense, as it is no part of our American heritage to cling to the government to "save us," but even the most prominent "conservatives" seem to demand the state become empowered to keep them safe from all harm whenever there is a scary threat to their well-being.
Extreme punishments, exaggerated descriptions, and the sacrifice of anything, no matter how tightly clung we were to it beforehand, flow from our cups like a waterfall of hypocrisy. An hour before a crime was committed, we were willing to die to protect our freedoms and rule of law; when someone does die, though, it is "unpatriotic" and almost "treasonous" to not cut out the heart of your God-given rights on the altar of government. It is as though the state, a demigod, requires a sacrificial offering to appease them enough to protect you.
People, we are adults. Behave as adults. Reason as adults.
I am not going to appeal to the law, as I often do. It has become my modus operandi, for the most part, to appeal to the law. I mostly do that because it has recognized authority. The foible of this is that the authority has only as much power as the people give it. It is only authority because it is recognized. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, and that is just fine with me; I have no affection for sheepskin; only the ideas and principles written on it do I appreciate. And it is because liberal and conservative alike now pay the Constitution no mind that I must argue and reason only the merits of its principles.
I have no reason to argue my rights with anyone. God gave them to me, they are mine. They are not conditional or contingent on your opinion or mine. It only matters that they are realized.
So when we see an emergency, such as the Boston bombing, it makes no sense from any perspective but that of tyranny that our rights are forsaken. The warrantless searches of homes in Boston following the attacks produced no results except to humiliate the people of Boston, violate their rights to be secure in their houses, and generally terrorize and tyrannize the public.
There is no legitimate reason to ever forget your human rights. Ever.
I don't know why it is, but the American people seem to develop this syndrome anytime their peace of mind is disturbed. It doesn't make sense, as it is no part of our American heritage to cling to the government to "save us," but even the most prominent "conservatives" seem to demand the state become empowered to keep them safe from all harm whenever there is a scary threat to their well-being.
Extreme punishments, exaggerated descriptions, and the sacrifice of anything, no matter how tightly clung we were to it beforehand, flow from our cups like a waterfall of hypocrisy. An hour before a crime was committed, we were willing to die to protect our freedoms and rule of law; when someone does die, though, it is "unpatriotic" and almost "treasonous" to not cut out the heart of your God-given rights on the altar of government. It is as though the state, a demigod, requires a sacrificial offering to appease them enough to protect you.
People, we are adults. Behave as adults. Reason as adults.
I am not going to appeal to the law, as I often do. It has become my modus operandi, for the most part, to appeal to the law. I mostly do that because it has recognized authority. The foible of this is that the authority has only as much power as the people give it. It is only authority because it is recognized. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, and that is just fine with me; I have no affection for sheepskin; only the ideas and principles written on it do I appreciate. And it is because liberal and conservative alike now pay the Constitution no mind that I must argue and reason only the merits of its principles.
I have no reason to argue my rights with anyone. God gave them to me, they are mine. They are not conditional or contingent on your opinion or mine. It only matters that they are realized.
So when we see an emergency, such as the Boston bombing, it makes no sense from any perspective but that of tyranny that our rights are forsaken. The warrantless searches of homes in Boston following the attacks produced no results except to humiliate the people of Boston, violate their rights to be secure in their houses, and generally terrorize and tyrannize the public.
There is no legitimate reason to ever forget your human rights. Ever.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Opinions and Perspectives
I do not mean to belittle you, dear reader, but your opinion doesn't matter.
Don't feel dejected - my opinion doesn't matter, either. And yet here you are reading it!
When it comes to the nature of reality, your opinion is only your perception. You may be right, you may be wrong, but your opinion is quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Does this render opinions pointless? Not at all... in my opinion, anyway.
In fact, it is your opinion that makes you you! Aside from physical features and characteristics, our "take" on our universe is the only thing that makes a person an individual. I mean only to set the proper perspective for what many call one's "worldview."
I don't know how many different terms we have for the way we perceive God and the entirety of reality that He created, but I often hear about this or that worldview, theology, philosophy, religious view, school of thought, etc., etc. I have found, in my young life, that these terms are mostly superfluous outside of academia. Further, and more importantly, I find that they are entirely without use when you realize that only God's Word is our standard and source of truth.
Different interpretations of the same text? Yes, that happens. It can happen to a drastic degree, in fact. The superfluity, I think, then becomes a matter between reasonable Christians. Christians who are honest and open, in a true relationship with their Creator and Savior, not seeking trouble with others or only the advancement of themselves - these are the people among whom there should be no such substantial quarrel. Their views should be more or less identical; their perspectives, however, as individual as their fingerprints.
We have the highest of commonalities: we are adopted into brotherhood with Christ! He is our Lord, and He has supplied us with every thought we should think, every conviction, and every emotion we are to have. Where is the legitimacy of owning particular views outside of His Word? Certainly things which pertain to the daily grind of our physical life on earth may produce a variety of approaches, but the Bible and His Spirit are to be our guide and our source for direction.
There is only one true theology, one true worldview, and one true philosophy, and His Word never changes. It never has, and it never will. Your opinion may and should conform to His ways - His ways will never bend to meet your standards.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)
So long as we are seeking the truth of God with an honest and open heart in His Word, our opinions should take a backseat and enjoy the ride. It's hard to do, let me tell you; but, you will learn and live a lot more when you don't let your own notions get in the way of His truths. Rather, let yourself be a perspective and a glorification of Him.
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil." (Proverbs 3:5-8)
Don't feel dejected - my opinion doesn't matter, either. And yet here you are reading it!
When it comes to the nature of reality, your opinion is only your perception. You may be right, you may be wrong, but your opinion is quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Does this render opinions pointless? Not at all... in my opinion, anyway.
In fact, it is your opinion that makes you you! Aside from physical features and characteristics, our "take" on our universe is the only thing that makes a person an individual. I mean only to set the proper perspective for what many call one's "worldview."
I don't know how many different terms we have for the way we perceive God and the entirety of reality that He created, but I often hear about this or that worldview, theology, philosophy, religious view, school of thought, etc., etc. I have found, in my young life, that these terms are mostly superfluous outside of academia. Further, and more importantly, I find that they are entirely without use when you realize that only God's Word is our standard and source of truth.
Different interpretations of the same text? Yes, that happens. It can happen to a drastic degree, in fact. The superfluity, I think, then becomes a matter between reasonable Christians. Christians who are honest and open, in a true relationship with their Creator and Savior, not seeking trouble with others or only the advancement of themselves - these are the people among whom there should be no such substantial quarrel. Their views should be more or less identical; their perspectives, however, as individual as their fingerprints.
We have the highest of commonalities: we are adopted into brotherhood with Christ! He is our Lord, and He has supplied us with every thought we should think, every conviction, and every emotion we are to have. Where is the legitimacy of owning particular views outside of His Word? Certainly things which pertain to the daily grind of our physical life on earth may produce a variety of approaches, but the Bible and His Spirit are to be our guide and our source for direction.
There is only one true theology, one true worldview, and one true philosophy, and His Word never changes. It never has, and it never will. Your opinion may and should conform to His ways - His ways will never bend to meet your standards.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)
So long as we are seeking the truth of God with an honest and open heart in His Word, our opinions should take a backseat and enjoy the ride. It's hard to do, let me tell you; but, you will learn and live a lot more when you don't let your own notions get in the way of His truths. Rather, let yourself be a perspective and a glorification of Him.
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil." (Proverbs 3:5-8)
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Dr. Carson Fails the 2A Litmus Test
The Second Amendment is my litmus test for a decent representative. If one is not in complete support of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, he will not receive my vote.
I agree with him on many things, but for him to deny people the God-given right and basic human dignity of the freedom to keep and bear arms for their own defense and the defense of their state is to deny an essential truth about individual freedom. Constitutionally, morally, and reasonably speaking, government has no rightful power to restrict a right simply because it may be abused or neglected. That's... crazy-talk.
If he has misspoken to some major degree, I will give him space enough to correct and articulate his point - as it is, however, he does not have my support.
H/T Hannah Jane
I agree with him on many things, but for him to deny people the God-given right and basic human dignity of the freedom to keep and bear arms for their own defense and the defense of their state is to deny an essential truth about individual freedom. Constitutionally, morally, and reasonably speaking, government has no rightful power to restrict a right simply because it may be abused or neglected. That's... crazy-talk.
If he has misspoken to some major degree, I will give him space enough to correct and articulate his point - as it is, however, he does not have my support.
H/T Hannah Jane
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Just... C'mon... It's Gross
Okay... I know this is mostly a politically-geared blog. And I'm sorry to take up this space to complain about something so trivial, but I have to get this off of my chest. And maybe it isn't as trivial as one may think.
I have to ask: is anyone else annoyed by child-birthing scenes from movies and documentaries?
It seems like most films set in the olden days, back when kids were cheap, someone will, at some point, have a baby. It is inevitable. Especially in Christian films. And it is all such an emotional plot element that evokes a sense of urgency and fear, but then we're all relieved and happy when it's over... because who in their right mind wants to hear a woman screaming? Who wants to hear a baby squalling? I mean, for crying out loud (no pun intended), it makes me want to pierce my eardrums with a stick!
And... it's sick! This is not entertainment! I mean, would we want to watch an emotionally-charged scene of a cowboy out on the range trying to pull a tick off of his head? It's just as natural, just as much of a relief...
Maybe the camera could be averted to only show his sweaty eyebrows as he strains to remove the bugger. Maybe we could have some grunts and strained gasps in there, too... just for effect. And then he can wipe-off his bloody hands on his handkerchief and pat his horse on the nose and everyone is all smiley and entertained.
Not.
Am I being callous? I think having kids is great. I, for one, wouldn't be here were it not for the phenomenon. But, really... this is not entertaining. And for myself, it isn't even educational at all. So why include it? It's like a cliche. No Christian western would be complete without someone giving birth.
I need to be a filmmaker and just totally turn the Christian film industry on its head.
Maybe next time, I'll discuss the inevitable guitar solos in the middle of every. single. movie. as the protagonist comes to that lowest point of breaking... so touching... so predictable...
I have to ask: is anyone else annoyed by child-birthing scenes from movies and documentaries?
It seems like most films set in the olden days, back when kids were cheap, someone will, at some point, have a baby. It is inevitable. Especially in Christian films. And it is all such an emotional plot element that evokes a sense of urgency and fear, but then we're all relieved and happy when it's over... because who in their right mind wants to hear a woman screaming? Who wants to hear a baby squalling? I mean, for crying out loud (no pun intended), it makes me want to pierce my eardrums with a stick!
And... it's sick! This is not entertainment! I mean, would we want to watch an emotionally-charged scene of a cowboy out on the range trying to pull a tick off of his head? It's just as natural, just as much of a relief...
Maybe the camera could be averted to only show his sweaty eyebrows as he strains to remove the bugger. Maybe we could have some grunts and strained gasps in there, too... just for effect. And then he can wipe-off his bloody hands on his handkerchief and pat his horse on the nose and everyone is all smiley and entertained.
Not.
Am I being callous? I think having kids is great. I, for one, wouldn't be here were it not for the phenomenon. But, really... this is not entertaining. And for myself, it isn't even educational at all. So why include it? It's like a cliche. No Christian western would be complete without someone giving birth.
I need to be a filmmaker and just totally turn the Christian film industry on its head.
Maybe next time, I'll discuss the inevitable guitar solos in the middle of every. single. movie. as the protagonist comes to that lowest point of breaking... so touching... so predictable...
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Put Him Back? Where?
Put God back in the schools, eh?
How about you just take your kid out?
Seriously, where does your allegiance lie? You may not be old enough to have even been in public school when they started banning expressions of religion or belief (except, of course, belief in evolution), or maybe you're like me and were homeschooled your whole life. But, if you have or are planning to have your children educated by the government, and you are yet complaining about God not being "allowed" in schools, that's rather hypocritical. I mean, you are probably aware that government has all but declared belief in the Bible to be a mental illness, and that they have declared war on individual liberty in general, yet you insist on sending your child to be "educated" by them regardless of those facts?
When they kicked God out of the schools, all the Christians should have gone with Him.
Where do your loyalties lie? With God or with government? In whom do you put your trust? In which institution would you rather your child be raised, in the family or in the government? It is the place of the family to raise the children, because that's the way God said He wanted it.
Maybe put God back in the family? Maybe put God back in the church? Government is the one institution I can imagine whose daily duties are not necessarily contingent on theology. Government, contrary to popular opinion, can be secular. In fact, it should be secular in nature. However, that will only work if our other institutions of family, church and free market are in good, working order in our collective relationship with God.
How about you just take your kid out?
Seriously, where does your allegiance lie? You may not be old enough to have even been in public school when they started banning expressions of religion or belief (except, of course, belief in evolution), or maybe you're like me and were homeschooled your whole life. But, if you have or are planning to have your children educated by the government, and you are yet complaining about God not being "allowed" in schools, that's rather hypocritical. I mean, you are probably aware that government has all but declared belief in the Bible to be a mental illness, and that they have declared war on individual liberty in general, yet you insist on sending your child to be "educated" by them regardless of those facts?
When they kicked God out of the schools, all the Christians should have gone with Him.
Where do your loyalties lie? With God or with government? In whom do you put your trust? In which institution would you rather your child be raised, in the family or in the government? It is the place of the family to raise the children, because that's the way God said He wanted it.
Maybe put God back in the family? Maybe put God back in the church? Government is the one institution I can imagine whose daily duties are not necessarily contingent on theology. Government, contrary to popular opinion, can be secular. In fact, it should be secular in nature. However, that will only work if our other institutions of family, church and free market are in good, working order in our collective relationship with God.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Everybody has an Agenda
Bible? That old thing? Constitution? Really... is that even relevant anymore? We've come a long way since those things were written; there are new challenges to overcome that they just didn't have any way to know about back then.
WRONG! Where's the buzzer... where's the lever for the trap-door? This nonsense has to stop! Stop talking! If you don't know what you're talking about... don't! Every time these people open their mouths, they weaken the nation.
Look, people... do I need to explain how life works? This isn't complex at all.
Situations change; principles do not change. Ever. Not once since the beginning of time. Unless the principles by which a person lives are deemed to be incorrect from their inception and rejected, there is no reason for a person to change their principles to match their situation... unless someone has an agenda.
"Yes, we used to believe more in [insert defining principle], but times are different than they were 200 years ago. We need to find a solution that will suit the times we live in." ~Typical agenda argument.
Okay, first of all, don't end sentences with prepositions; secondly, what is wrong with conserving our values? There is no shame in being conservative. Maintaining our ideals is what makes us different as a nation, right? We don't just say we changed our minds about rights and wrongs, do we? Never! ... unless those principles get in the way.
You see, I'm going to be a conspiracy theorist for a minute and tell you something the infamous "THEY" don't want you to know... everybody has an agenda.
Everyone.
Everyone who's anyone is trying to promote something, push something, assert something... pick your verb, they're doing it. It may be innocuous, it may be momentous. It might be benevolent, or it could be malevolent... hard to say sometimes, because it is made to sound like a good idea. Nobody would promote what they thought was a bad idea for them. It could affect millions, or it might just be something between two individuals. Agendas... we all have 'em.
You will find this fact most prevalent and most controversially in two areas of life: politics and religion. These two worlds, completely intertwined in a thousand different places, make up what may be called society.
The sum of all that I believe the world is and what it should be - my agenda - can be summed-up in the word "liberty."
On the wall of my bedroom is a phrase taken from 2 Corinthians 3:17, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." This sums up my idea of absolute liberty for eternity. Second to this comes liberty from worldly oppression, temporal yet essential liberty for all men to live on their own terms, with responsibility falling on none but themselves individually. With one's agenda being an agenda that seeks to obey the God of the Bible, loving and encouraging others to do the same, your agenda is worth promoting.
And that is what I try to do.
WRONG! Where's the buzzer... where's the lever for the trap-door? This nonsense has to stop! Stop talking! If you don't know what you're talking about... don't! Every time these people open their mouths, they weaken the nation.
Look, people... do I need to explain how life works? This isn't complex at all.
Situations change; principles do not change. Ever. Not once since the beginning of time. Unless the principles by which a person lives are deemed to be incorrect from their inception and rejected, there is no reason for a person to change their principles to match their situation... unless someone has an agenda.
"Yes, we used to believe more in [insert defining principle], but times are different than they were 200 years ago. We need to find a solution that will suit the times we live in." ~Typical agenda argument.
Okay, first of all, don't end sentences with prepositions; secondly, what is wrong with conserving our values? There is no shame in being conservative. Maintaining our ideals is what makes us different as a nation, right? We don't just say we changed our minds about rights and wrongs, do we? Never! ... unless those principles get in the way.
You see, I'm going to be a conspiracy theorist for a minute and tell you something the infamous "THEY" don't want you to know... everybody has an agenda.
Everyone.
Everyone who's anyone is trying to promote something, push something, assert something... pick your verb, they're doing it. It may be innocuous, it may be momentous. It might be benevolent, or it could be malevolent... hard to say sometimes, because it is made to sound like a good idea. Nobody would promote what they thought was a bad idea for them. It could affect millions, or it might just be something between two individuals. Agendas... we all have 'em.
You will find this fact most prevalent and most controversially in two areas of life: politics and religion. These two worlds, completely intertwined in a thousand different places, make up what may be called society.
The sum of all that I believe the world is and what it should be - my agenda - can be summed-up in the word "liberty."
On the wall of my bedroom is a phrase taken from 2 Corinthians 3:17, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." This sums up my idea of absolute liberty for eternity. Second to this comes liberty from worldly oppression, temporal yet essential liberty for all men to live on their own terms, with responsibility falling on none but themselves individually. With one's agenda being an agenda that seeks to obey the God of the Bible, loving and encouraging others to do the same, your agenda is worth promoting.
And that is what I try to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Websites That Make This One Possible
