This was my question of the day last week on my FB page; the answers were spit, one saying yes one saying no and one basically allowing some people in the socciopath community unable to define right from wrong.
This question is part of the spine of natural law what atheist, secularist and humanist argue cannot be so.
Natural law teaches we know right from wrong, God designed us to do so with a conscious. Those who do not believe in the God of the Bible refute this argument, atheist view this as against Darwinian ideology. Secularist and humanist believe it’s what you make of it or what you are brought up to believe.
One of my friends felt that a sociopath loses his or hers conscious and no longer has that ability to know right from wrong. I have to disagree with my friend, if God creates us and designs us with a conscious then we all know no matter how damaged the brain is.
To say yes we cannot not know right from wrong based on upbringing is again to deny God and his creation. On one end you’re saying if you have no interaction with right you cannot know right. Can this be so, well look at it this way.
A person who would be brought up to know only wrong would still defend themselves if wrong was committed against them. They know you are doing a wrong deed against them, if they did not know in their conscious what right or wrong was they would allow anyone to do anything to them all the way to allowing you to kill them without protest.
Now mind you most children are brought up with some sense of right and wrong however jaded it may be. If society refutes this basic teaching and demands right or wrong be relative or your own definition I believe our inclinations will force to suppress what we already know and relativism will reign supreme.
The Decalogue also known as the Ten Commandments is Gods basic written log of natural law. Most everyone will agree the Ten Commandments are a good thing and I think that’s why atheist and secularist want the Ten Commandments removed it reminds them that right and wrong is not relative and there is an absolute truth.
No, we cannot not know right from wrong we were created to have a conscious that guides us. It did not evolve like the secular and humanist want you to believe because humans put value on right and wrong based on what God has designed us to know.2nd Corinthians 1:12
To think otherwise takes God out of the equation and allows relativism to be the heart and soul of our lives and there is no justice in relativism and there is no salvation in relativism just questions that can never be answered by the average man.
If the common man cannot not know right from wrong and only rulers or persons with authority can define and dictate what that right and wrong a free society is lost and I believe America was partly founded based on wanting to leave that form of belief and justice behind.
Last week I asked the question “Is tolerance disrespectful” and I got a few answers that are not fully direct like I thought they would be. My friend Bryan from So Cal said “tolerance was disrespectful only for yourself” and there is a lot of truth to that. Another FB friend Brenda said “If you do it on a daily basis for the same thing then yes you are being disrespectful“.
Now mind you the general idea of tolerance in the minds of Hollywood and the Left, tolerance is good and it’s what will save humanity from itself. Tolerance lets us get a long in spite of our differences.
I have to be honest I really never gave it a thought to what tolerance stood for, I probably felt you were being kind or compromising by tolerating a person, act or a situation. It was not until I was listening to Michael Ramsden an apologetics and evangelist that cleared it up for me.
Tolerance is disrespectful, Ramsden uses the west and it’s tolerance to Islam as an example. Islam sees the west as just tolerating its way of life, its religion and that does not sit well with Isamist.
Islam demands respect and when you tolerate them you are saying I don’t like you but you can still practice your religion and way of life but in reality I don’t care or respect you please don’t bother me.
Islam views this with great disrespect and it’s no wonder the west and Islam are at odds.
It’s a double edge sword no matter what decision the west makes they cannot win unless the west either quits extending its arms out to Islam or completely surrenders to Islam.
If they quit extending their arms out then they are at odds and war, if they surrender then the west is no longer the west and everything from technology to our religion changes.
Now it’s a tat bit different on a personal level, the loss of respect comes to you the tolerator over the tolerated.
We really don’t care for the person, situation, or whatever act is being done but we allow it or just don’t say anything because we are tolerating to keep the peace. I’m not disrespecting you to your face but you are to my face but I’ll deal with it to keep the peace.
If we are tolerating the person, situation or act that we feel is not satisfactory with what we believe in, in a way by not telling the truth we are disrespecting ourselves and our way of life. Do we do this as a one time thing out of respect or do it until it becomes a compromise?
Do we do tolerate to keep the peace or just be friendly, some would say never stop but do we keep tolerating even when the offensive destroys a way of morality and since the worlds definition of morality is so relative I will define morality as Biblical morality.
Should we be full on truthful and tell that someone or the situation we just don’t like it, them or what they do. Like my friend Brenda that said if you do it all the time you are being disrespectful and I agree but are you being more disrespectful to yourself than the person or thing you are tolerating?
Now I’m not saying we should be rude to everyone that we don’t agree with let me be clear, that is being disrespectful. With that said there are things that will affect us, or families and our way of life that cannot be compromised and if we keep on tolerating or compromising on these things and issues then you can expect to lose them in the name of tolerance.
When should truth take the stand, do we tolerate a crying baby in a movie theater and just wait the crying out to spare feelings?
Do we tolerate hate speech in the name of free speech, do we tolerate decisions made based on lifestyle in the name of personal freedom or do we tolerate and disrespect ourselves in the name of getting along. And if we do tolerate in the name of getting along do we have a limit on how much we tolerate or is it a given we tolerate everything no matter what we compromise.
When should truth take the stand, when your sense of morality is being broken in the name of freedom to do as I please?
Do we speak up when our rights are being questioned or taken away on the basis of fairness?
Do we speak up and tell the truth when we see our families forced to relearn or be a part of something that is morally objectionable to our way of life our moral upbringing or do we stay silent and disrespect ourselves so as our names and lives are not drag down in the mud of disrespectfulness to the offender.
If we are to believe tolerance is actually a good thing then we have to expect both sides to practice this good thing fairly.
If tolerance is a part of fairness and getting along then people that expect their way of life to be respected also need to respect the rest of society’s way of life and that includes the right to be for or against that way of life.
If we toss away morality, we toss away the Bible, God, and mans sinful nature for tolerance then we either practice fairness across the board or we prepare for all out war.
Either way if you stand for Biblical morality the Decalogue and not stand for tolerance and moral compromise then you can still expect all out war.
At the top I gave the liberal definition to tolerance and the way I see it that is not tolerance, what they define as tolerance is what I would call truth and respect of a difference of opinion or way of life.
The reason why they define it as tolerance, Leftist do not believe in truth they find that disrespectful.
Welcome back for another day of my thoughts based on my question of the day. A few days ago I asked “Is it the judgment or the brutal honesty that makes us uncomfortable” everyone that answered that question said yes and why not expect an answer like yes; I think it’s true.
But what separates judgment and honesty no matter how brutal it is or is not? My friend Brian makes a great statement “Many take honesty as judgment. People often don’t like to know the truth.”
This is very true and you will see this quite often, my FB friend Brenda expands on this saying “I say the brutal honesty that we ourselves refuse to accept about ourselves! Sometimes our friend’s family and co- workers are good mirrors for life.”
We don’t like to hear brutal honesty so we cry judgment in the hopes that perpetrator will turn and run based on the Biblical saying judge not least you be judged Matthew 7:1but most tend to forget the purpose for this quote is in Matthew 7:2. It’s not to stop people from judging ever but to remind people if your prepared to judge be prepared to be judged.
But what is brutal honesty, my thoughts are brutal honesty is telling the truth knowing it can cause division or strife. For some we hope to stop the offender using this tactic and for others they just enjoying seeing others fail.
Should we use brutal honesty, not all the time but sometimes when truth is the up most important then it must be said no matter how brutal it may be.
Judgment is not always honesty; judgment may be just that a call based on your judgment it may or may not be correct.
I have always thought I had the right to judge if it was for a righteous cause. That would be to stop something or somebody from doing bad or becoming bad or wrong the debate becomes who defines what is bad, wrong or right.
Leftist love relativism so they cry foul when you define something right or wrong that they are not comfortable, they view that as judgment. While conservatives will use hypocrisy to cry foul feeling judgment is being used over honesty two different believes but effective none the less no one wants to be called out for judging and no one wants to be called a hypocrite.
I think my question proves right, we as people don’t like judgment or brutal honesty. I have to tell you I would rather be judged than have someone tell me the brutal honest truth of my mistake.
I don’t mind being judged because the way I see it I’m either doing it right or I’m doing it wrong and depending on who is doing the judgment allows me to see if I’m right or wrong on my terms.
Brutal honesty is hard, it means I was really in my heart trying to do something right and I failed and nobody enjoys failing.
The difference is how that brutal honesty is delivered and a lot of the time it can make or break somebody’s heart.
This is the first of what I hope to be many thoughts based on my Question of the day. Facebook is a fun place to play, some get serious as all and some keep it light. I personally play the middle I guess, I love to have fun and share things but I also have convictions that I believe in and I’m not shy to express those convictions or opinions.
This is what I call Thoughts of the day answering my Question of the day, mind you it’s a few days off so as to give everyone a chance to view and express their opinion of the question of the day.
If you have missed any of my questions of the day feel free to go to myFB pageand scroll down and give your opinion, I don’t add my opinion, I’m not there to argue my opinion at that point it’s your chance to express your opinion and thoughts, go ahead and argue away the goal for me is just to collect data from everyone to see what people think out there in reality land.
My first question I posted had no replies and that might have been based on the day and the subject of the question. Some of my news or lot of my news comes from conservative outlets like BreitbartCharisma, BarbWire and the Washington Times much of that news is never covered by the main stream media like NBC, CBS and Fox so I suspect this is why no one bothered to answer the question and it was rather written in way so as to have a twist agenda.
My question was“Is the fact Tim McGraw playing at a gun control concert similar to having him say I’m not for socialized economic equality but I think minimum wage should be $20.00?”
For those of you not understanding what has been going on is McGraw has been called out for his decision for playing at the Sandy Hook Promise gun control fundraiser. McGraw says he’s not for gun control but is singing to raise money for the families of Sandy Hook but he’s raising money for the group Sandy Hook Promise which is a gun control group.
McGraw wants it both ways, he wants to help by jumping in with a gun control group but does not want to be labeled as associated with gun control.
A twitter post that I viewed brought up a good point, most conservatives own guns or are for non gun control and most conservatives enjoy and buy country music so you can see McGraw would want to make a distinction of what his intentions are. I feel McGraw has been Holywoodized and falls for leftist causes.
So my other question added to the first was is this not the same as if McGraw was saying he is not for socialized economic equality but thinks minimum wage should be $20.00. On one end you say no I’m not for socialism but I think we need to make everyone’s pay more equal.
Both questions are hot beds right now, gun control is always a hot topic with leftist and conservatives and my opinion is it’s based on freedom. The second amendment says we have a right to carry, no control we have a right to bear arms. Leftist say they want choice but won’t give us real choice unless it fits their needs.
Minimum wage is for entry level jobs, the idea of setting a minimum for wage is not freedom its regulation and bondage. Should not I determine what my value is and if I hire somebody should not that somebody have their right to determine their value as well?
The idea of increasing minimum wage based on the fact that one cannot make a living on it is not a smart idea at all. Most entry level jobs pay less and are mainly consumed by high school and some collage they were never meant for a person to make a living on that job but just to makes small ends meet or as they say pocket change or spending money.
We see more and more retirees working in fast food and retail stores but that is mainly to supplement their retirement since commodities that need to be purchased to live from day to day are becoming over priced based on what. Based on high pay for low skilled work, it’s hypocritical for the folks that want to raise minimum wage based on “you can’t live on it” and then expect to increased taxes on people that they feel make too much money.
We are not equal people we are valued differently some are better than others otherwise we all would be wearing Super Bowl rings like Joe Montana.
If the current minimum wage is not enough then what is the magic number? Why not raise it to $50.00 an hour or maybe $60K a year, is that enough or do we need more. Why not 100K a year for everyone, no more no less; now what kind of country do think we would be living in then?
Few days ago I read a blog about how James Dobson of focus on the familywarned of a civil war that could happen if the Church and Christians kept compromising on Biblical morality and worldly relativism he was a bit more precise in words but this is the gist of it.
The writer of the blog cited this from a leftist emag rightwingwatch.org and generally believed Dobson really meant a war with guns and bombs maybe like the war Ireland had.
After reading both articles I felt that Dobson may have been talking about a real civil war but I think Dobson was talking about a civil war within the church that if happens could it destroy the church as we know it. He may have meant both, if our leaders will not stand up for the rights of the church and Christians we could see dark days ahead.
My reply to the blogger was this “I’m not sure Mr. Dobson’s civil war means actual killing of people but the killing and injuring of souls. I believe what he maybe referring to is a war that will break the church, pitting two sides against each other.
The Conservative Christian who feels Christians need to follow Gods Natural and Moral law, their intent is not to judge people into submission but to point out what happens to a society that refuses to follow these laws most of what can be found Biblically.
The Liberal Christian that accepts the person for who they are regardless of the sin. They never try to judge behavior that is based in sin feeling that loving the person and showing the example of love will be enough and let God be the Judge of that heart.
The problem arises when Christians and churches attached themselves to sinful behavior that God has condemned and or asks us not to condone or be a part of. No one is saying don’t let the sinner in the sinner is already in but the sinner must repent and do the best to sin no more.
This is where the civil war can begin and it will be started by outside forces mainly political and media driven forces that want to see the church die and Christians be thrown in utter chaos”. The blogger didn’t even acknowledge anything I said but stated Dobson’s remarks sounded like a war to her.
At this time I see Christians already engaging in a civil war, churches are still on the sidelines but soon I suspect this will change with court rulings and new laws past. Again if our political and judicial leaders do not protect the Church and Christian rights dark days are ahead.
There already is a division between active Christians that feel Gods natural and moral law is being challenged and Christians that feel those types of Christians are too judgmental and need to allow God to be the judge and Christians need to love. The problem with the latter Christian is they give no boundaries to how far Biblical immorality can be taken before one takes a stand and many excuses will you give to laws that condone Biblical immorality.
There are three types of Christians to this civil war that I believe is in its infancy. 1st type are Christians that defend Gods natural and moral law, his commandments and they refuse to compromise on these issues.
2nd type are Christians of the liberal nature that feel love is first and foremost and we should not judge if we are to lead people to Christ.
These Christians are willing to bend the rules or reinterpret them to make everyone feel comfortable.
Like the conservative Christian they condemn the other for the way they go about their business. They do not take Gods natural law and moral as serious because those can be always changing much like relativism there is not always a right and wrong way, some even believe all gods lead to heaven.
Mind you not all believe this some just see others as judgmental and thus take the opposite side.
3rd type are Christians are the ones sitting on the sidelines not wanting to be labeled either. They go to church or not, donate to charities or a church but do not get evolved with politics or social issues they have a family to raise mind you they don’t have time for this.
In some ways they are correct, they don’t have time due to everyday issues, issues due to some part politics and some parts social that can be very powerful and labeling
Money, time and family weigh down on them and those come first, they will sometimes support issues with money but will don’t take a stand the question is are you this Christian because this is the biggest type of Christian.
There might be a time when everyone will have to take that stand, I believe the civil war has begun and Christians are starting to take sides. Its sad this has to happen but I believe God demands us to follow him and to obey his commandments and uphold his moral law while others feel this is too strong and it needs to be crushed.
This division might destroy the church I believe or it will certainly divide the church and it is already starting to happen.
We know of several church denominations that have compromised on Biblical moral issues while others have stayed true to traditional Biblical moral issues. I suspect this civil war will slowly get bigger and eventually it will demand all church denominations to take a stand and when that happens division will start and in some cases it already has.
What are the stands that will fuel this civil war? 1: Compromising on atheism and natural science the intermingling of the two to make everyone happy or at least some happy.
2: Compromising on sex and how the church views moral and immoral activity (this is one issue that will bring the church into a civil war it spits churches all the time).
3: Allow relativism to be apart church doctrine, no right and wrong just whatever fits your way of life.
4: Allowing or changing the act of homosexuality to be a non sin issue, this I believe will be the catalyst of allowing all sexual behaviors a right to exist in our society you may laugh but it all starts somewhere.
5: Condoning abortion to the point we no longer speak out against this atrocity.
6: Reinterpret the scriptures of the Bible or saying the writers of the New Testament are no longer relevant in today’s world thus saying the Holy Spirit is irrelevant.
So what will you do, what side will you take or have you taken. Typing this up its obvious I lean a certain way and I believe this way to be true.
I believe God spoke and continues to speak and to not listen and try and reinterpret what God has said in order to water down our faith is dangerous for us and our society.
All six fuels I listed are dividing Christians now except for the ones sitting on the fence who have no time to know what is going on.
Prayer is good it is always good but I believe we will need to take this further and prayer with action will be needed.
Understand what God says (read your Bible and ask questions), know him and pray to him (church and Bible studies). Repent from our sins and ask for forgiveness and do our best not to sin again. Uphold Gods natural and moral law but also forgive and love your neighbor.
This is the second in a series of four defining the four denominations of atheism, last week I went over the 1st denomination the non acting or detached atheist, this blog goes over the 2nd denomination, how they view and live in their doctrine known as Atheism
The 2nd denomination is what I call the Reaching out or Seeking Atheist. They view their atheism more like humanism without this view they would have a meaningless belief.
They can have migration from the 1st denomination but more often not. Normally the children of the 1st denomination will seek the 2nd denomination because of lack of a foundation of belief that the 1st denomination did not give. The 3rd denomination will too sometimes migrate to the second and mainly again looking for something that they have not found in the core atheism belief or sometimes just to distance themselves from the underling ideology of the 3rd denomination.
The 2nd denomination again knows there is a God but rebukes God in the name of man hoping someday humans will evolve into a god of its own. They are humanist in nature much like the vision Gene Rodenberry the creator of the Star Trek franchise. Man does not need a God he can evolve in such a way he will either become a little god or have no need for any God.
Most of these 2nd denominational atheist are liberal in nature and don’t view their country to be the great savor of the world but view the multiculturalism evolutionary thought to be the savor of the world or worlds.
Their liberal ideology allows them to disregard God, moral law and natural law thus allowing them a lifestyle that cannot be in judgment. Since there is no God then everyone can make their own moral ideas, ethics are your own ethics its all relative and no one dare judge because after all why are your moral ides and ethics more important than mine.
The 2nd atheist see’s religion as a weakness or hindrance to progress. The view a person is better off believing in themselves than God because the belief in God requires self sacrifice, obeying, faith, trust and accountability in something that sometimes cannot be seen or touched.
The 2nd or seeking atheist feels faith and trust have to be something that is seen or touched but disregards the hypocrisy of theory’s such as evolution and the big bang.
Science is not always their first belief but man himself can be the god of this atheist. This 2nd denomination takes people down the wrong path, a path of disobedience from the God of the Bible, most feel a belief in God is bondage and with no God is freedom.
They try and take faith and trust of God away and convince you that you are your only way contrary to what Jesus said in John 14:6.
The path is full of non judgmental immorality and relativism, creating rules that fit your life and if you disagree of my rules you certainly cannot judge or condemn regardless of who it hurts and how it affects the society.
When dealing with the 2nd denominational atheist know that many are not grounded in their doctrine and make a hodge podge of believe out of humanism, secularism and new age philosophy. This is the main reason why the 4th denomination atheist hates or despises the 2nd or seeking atheist. The pure atheist labels them as secular Christians and they would be correct on this label.
The idea of moral and ethics and right and wrong have to come from somewhere, the 2nd or seeking atheist would like us to believe it evolved but knows it could not have evolved because they cannot explain conscience and why no other creature has had this evolutionary process as well.
The 2nd denomination atheist requires one to know not only the atheist doctrine but humanism, and the secularist ideas as well in order to witness. These atheists again sometimes have many ideas of why they won’t seek the God of the Bible as the one true God.
They are not to be feared but to have patients with. Cutting through their liberal ideology can be the first obstacle, there are a few conservative seekers but most are just economically conservative not socially conservative.
Prayer, patients and friendship is the up most important. Be clear on what you believe and be clear on what God states morally and ethically do not waiver on these issues otherwise you risk getting accused of being hypocritical something the second atheist is well aware and most likely deals with being a part of this doctrine.
In Kenya 150 students lost lives while here in America our president plays games with the decision to give or not give a known agent of terrorism Iran nukes.
150 lives snuffed out while a Pizzeria in Indiana is forced to shut down over death threats and harassment for just answering a question a TV reporter asked.
Is it because America has two ocean on each side of her and the two neighboring countries connected are peaceful that we loose perspective on others hurting.
In the Middle East people that refuse to except Islam are inprisioned or killed. People shout how bad states like Indiana and Arkansas are but give a pass at Saudi Arabia for wiping a woman and sending her to jail for 6th month for speaking to the media for being gang raped, in America we call that free speech.
A Jehovah’s Witnesses gets a pass for not saluting our flag its called Religious Liberty but never tell someone why you won’t cater their wedding.
Are we all loosing our perspective on what is really important, I hope not I’m pretty sure most of my family knows what is right from wrong and the people that I call my friend feel the same as well. God I pray Americans can see beyond all this.
Looking at the Indiana issue over the last few days I see the issues of importance for both side of the ideological and political isle the question is do individuals and states have freedom and rights of their own or is the federal government the final word when it interprets cases and are they always correct.
I look at Indiana as this is a states’ rights issue upholding the personal freedom issues of an individual’s moral or ethical objections and the federal government should stay out of the way.
Now the RFRA was enacted in 1993 and endorsed by then president Clinton, Congressman Chuck Schumer and Senator Ted Kennedy all three leftist.
It’s my guess this was an act to try and sure up the Clinton religious voting base to show America democrats that states had this right also I believe this was to sure up the American Indian vote because the bill affected Native American religious liberties as well this was nothing but a vote grab bill and had nothing to do with religious freedom.
In 1997 part of the bill was overturned and in 2003 the act was amended Different states do use this law and can enact it based on their interpretation of the bill.
To me states have these rights and have the right to enact them the governor and the state representatives are by the way representing the people of that state.
It is a libertarian idea but individuals both owners and customers reserve the right to sell or buy from a individual based on creed or belief which is more of an ideology not always religion but a creed.
The federal government in the 1964 civil rights act made it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex and national order and I guess one can make a argument that creed can be religious but one can make the same argument that creed is not.
I believe our florist and bakers that have refused to give services to what they feel are morally objectionable on the bases of their idea of what is moral what is right and wrong to them.
The individual is refusing to give services based or doing business with somebody they do not agree with whether it be their belief, lifestyle or what they are participating in and the state is upholding this right to do so feeling there is no discrimination going on just a disagreement in belief or creed.
Should that person who has the business and is refusing to serve just coexist, get along and let cooler heads prevail. Should the customer do the same, go somewhere else like Costco or a supermarket or just have a wedding cake made then add on their own creed or belief after they have purchased the item, getting along and letting cooler heads prevail?
Should we force private people to create something that they feel is morally religiously wrong? If they refuse to serve or create do you call it discrimination.
Can you change the color of your skin, can you change your race, you can change your religion but should you have to?
Should you be so bold to advertise your religion for the sole purpose to cause strife? What about belief, do you have the right to refuse based on what another person views of what is right and wrong and should you be so bold to advertise that belief on the sole purpose to cause strife?
Would this be the same argument if Anton Laveyfrom the church of Satan or two people that practice Wiccan came to a baker and asked them to make a cake with a broken cross and derogatory terms about God or Jesus? Would you insist the bakery make this cake for this celebration of marriage?
On the same issue what if a bride and groom asked a homosexual florist to arrange flowers with a tag on them proclaiming Matthew 19: 4-6, does the florist have the right to refuse service based on they have an objection to that scripture?
Overlooking the RFRA and not allowing states to enact a provision takes away from the sovereignty of each state something I believe our framers wanted each state to have. If we can’t uphold states rights that try and uphold individual rights then why have individual states?