Trust, Repentance, and Forgiveness

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Ever since college, I’ve been intellectually committed to the notion of talking as I have mentioned in previous posts. This is largely due to various conversations with one of my best friends at the time. He described what he termed a “Leap of Faith” that happens when one opens up and bares one’s soul to a friend.

When he said that, it kind of clicked in my head what he was talking about.

Jesus and Talking

A short time later, I heard an excerpt from the Bible where Jesus says, “I am doing this so that you will trust in me.” And, at the time, it seemed as if Jesus was making the same point. Trust. Share the secrets of your soul with a trusted friend. In my case, it was my college buddy. In the case of the Apostles, it was Jesus.

Of course, at this point, I’m sure many a Christian eyebrow is raised in consternation. Are you comparing your college friend to Jesus? To a certain extent, yes. That experience with my college friend opened my eyes to the value of talking. However, as I grow older, I think it is incomplete. And I think the lessons of Jesus completes it.

Talking and Moral Direction

Talking alone without moral direction is somewhat limited. In fact, if the moral direction of the conversation is toward immorality, talking can have a negative effect. Two serial killers jovially sharing murder techniques and wallowing in that immorality are not morally improving or helping anyone, including themselves.

In light of that, I think talking should have a moral direction, a moral direction that Christ points out in other parts of the Bible.

Confession, Repentance, and Forgiveness.

What does Jesus (and Christians) stress in addition to just talking? Repentance and forgiveness.

Repentance is a human act. If you’ve done wrong, and you know you’ve done wrong, I do firmly believe you should talk about it. But not in the sense of boasting or even in an amoral sense (when a moral sense is required). Rather, talking should be accompanied by sincere repentance when moral error is clearly present.

This, of course, is a risk. Can you trust the person you are talking to enough to unburden your soul to him or her?

If it’s a priest or other clergymen, that’s a firm yes. In the case of the priest, they are forbidden from violating the Seal of the Confessional. Other clergymen might have more leeway in serious situations like confessing a murder or something, but I don’t think priests do.

Outside of clergy, there is also the mental health professional which is also reasonably secure.

Next, more risky but probably more therapeutic would be confessing to a close friend. But, like I said, that can be risky. It can ruin the relationship in some cases or cause other problems.

Anyway, not all forms of talking involve moral confessions. Maybe it involves just a relationship problem at home. In such a case, a friend is probably a more suitable sounding board than a priest in most situations.

Moral Error, Repentance, Human Forgiveness and Divine Forgiveness

In the case of moral error, the point I want to make is that in addition to the confession one must feel sincere repentance.

Without sincere repentance human forgiveness obtained is based on a lie, and Divine Forgiveness may or may not be granted—I say may or may not because God will know that you are insincere; He may forgive you anyway, as I don’t know the mind of God, but He may not if you don’t really mean it.

I kind of think that He will forgive you to a certain extent, but not fully until you sincerely repent.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would say that my major point is that when it comes to morals and life, talking alone is not the be-all and end-all of everything. In the case of moral error, repentance and forgiveness are also of great importance.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Mysteries of the Rosary

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

I started saying the rosary a few years back, partly because it was something I could do with my father and partly because I had decided that, to a certain extent, I did believe that there was “something to” Jesus. I don’t agree with the Catholic Church 100% of the time, but I do agree with much of their teachings.

For those that don’t know, the rosary is a beaded necklace with a total of 59 beads and a crucifix. The idea is to say a prayer on every bead as you circle through the entire necklace (it’s not really a necklace as you don’t wear it, but it resembles one).

In all, you say a total of 53 Hail Mary’s and 6 Our Fathers, 6 Glory Be’s and a few other miscellaneous prayers in one circuit of the Rosary.

The collection of prayers is divided into decades of 1 Our Father, 10 Hail Mary’s, 1 Glory Be, and 1 other prayer I’ve forgotten the name to. Then there are a few extra prayers here and there.

Protestants and the Virgin Mary and the Catholic Church

Protestant, generally, don’t think highly of the Rosary as many sects view it as idolatry or something similar. They believe that Catholics are making a deity out of the Virgin Mary when she was never meant to be seen as such. Catholics, generally, argue that they are not worshipping the Virgin Mary but venerating her as a worthwhile human example.

A friend of mine once likened pictures of Mary in Catholic Churches as images of a beloved relative or family member or something similar. They are neither understood as nor treated as images of God (or a Goddess). Catholics pray to Mary to intercede with Jesus on their behalf. Jesus, of course, then intercedes with the Father.

Anyway, there are four different Mysteries of the Rosary. Each Mystery consists of a total of 5 sections (probably not the correct word)–one per decade. Let me rephrase that. An entire rosary consists of 5 Mysteries (a decade apiece) from each Mystery Group. There are four standard Mystery Groups (again, I think I’m using the wrong words).

Below you will find all four Mystery Groups with corresponding sets of Mysteries listed. At the end, I have included two Mystery Groups I made up just for religious kicks. Actually, the Triumphant Mysteries relate to my antichrist issues, but that is a story for another post.

So, without further adieux, here are the Mysteries of the Rosary:

The Joyful Mysteries

• The Annunciation
• The Visitation
• The Nativity
• The Presentation
• The Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple

The Sorrowful Mysteries

• The Agony in the Garden
• The Scourging at the Pillar
• The Crowning with Thorns
• The Carrying of the Cross
• The Crucifixion

The Glorious Mysteries

• The Resurrection
• The Ascension
• The Descent of the Holy Spirit
• The Assumption
• The Coronation (of Mary)

The Luminous Mysteries

• The Baptism of Jesus
• The Miracle at Cana
• The Proclamation of the Kingdom
• The Transfiguration
• The Institution of the Eucharist

And now are two Mystery Groups I made up for my own prayer rituals.

The Miraculous Mysteries

• The Healing of the Blind Man
• The Feeding of the Crowds
• The Walking on the Water
• The Calming of the Storm
• The Healing of the High Priest Servant’s Ear

The Triumphant Mysteries

• Resisting the Temptation in the Desert
• The Cursing of the Fig Tree
• The Victory in the Garden
• Enduring the Betrayal
• The Victory of Pain, Suffering, Death, Sin, and Satan

There you have it. Six whole Mystery Groups with 5 Mysteries apiece. Feel free to use my additions if you want.

Conclusion

I think saying the Rosary is a worthwhile endeavor. However, I do have one difficulty with it: it is so repetitive, I generally say it by rote. That’s better than not saying it at all, I think, but it is hardly ideal. Anyway, there you go.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Progressive Taxes versus the Flat Tax

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Okay, switching to something completely political … well, governmental anyway, I figured I would talk about the flat tax and the progressive tax. The U.S. has a progressive Tax System. I support a Flat System. I will use this post to explain why.

Interested? Probably not, unless you are a taxpayer … which should be about half the country.

What is the Difference Between a Flat Tax System and a Progressive Tax System

The difference between a flat tax and a progressive tax is easy to understand.

If you use a flat tax, all taxpayers pay the same percentage as a tax. So, if you have a flat income tax of say 10%, all income taxpayers pay 10% on their income tax every year. So, if you make 100,000 dollars, you pay $10,000 in income tax. If you make 1,000,000 dollars, you pay $100,000 in income tax. Easy, right?

If you use a progressive tax, the taxpayers pay a different percentage based on the amount of money being taxed. The greater the amount of money, the greater the percentage of tax.

So, if you have a progressive income tax of 10%, 20%, 30% for incomes of 100,000 dollars, 1,000,000 dollars, and 10,000,000 dollars, a person that makes $100,000 would pay 10% in income tax, or $10,000; a person that makes $1,000,000 would pay 20% in income tax, or $200,000; and a person who makes $10,000,000 would pay 30% in income tax, or $3,000,000.

Is that fair? Is that wise? Let’s see.

Why Does the U.S. Have a Progressive Tax System?

The answer to this question is complicated, and there is probably not a single answer. The current tax code is a compilation of numerous rewrites and add-ons stemming from years and years of arguments and compromises between the Republicans and Democrats. Still…

The usual reason given to justify a progressive tax system is that the rich can afford to pay more because they have more money at their disposal. Also, the poor shouldn’t pay at the same rate as the rich because it “hurts more.” That is, if you take 10% of a poor man’s money, he will feel that loss more sharply than a rich man would if you took 10% of his money.

Seems reasonable, right?

I, at least, understand the reasoning behind such, but I still disagree with the progressive tax system. And I will tell you why.

My Incentive as a Worker Faces Diminishing Returns

I am not a wealthy man. I have worked low-income jobs (I still do). In particular, I remember working as a dishwasher in a Nursing Home part-time. I usually worked three days a week, sometimes four. It was hard, grueling work. And one of the things I hated was the fact that when I worked four days instead of three, I was taxed more. Not by much, but enough.

I would much prefer a system where, if I worked 4 days instead of 3 in a week, I would be paid 133 1/3 % of the pay I would make for a 3 day week, not some smaller value, like only 125%. Those diminishing returns absolutely killed my incentive to “go above and beyond” and really dig into my job. And I think I have a reasonably decent work ethic.

So, I’m inclined to think many people would have a similar reaction.

The Government is Incentivized to Give as Much Money as Possible to the Rich

Okay, I have never studied economics, so it is possible that I am missing some subtle economic law or relationship here, but it seems to me a progressive tax incentivizes the government to move as much money into the hands of the rich as they possibly can.

Why? Because the rich pay a higher tax rate, and therefore, when it is taxed, the government winds up with more money than if that money was dispersed among multitudes of lower tax paying individuals.

That might not be clear.

Suppose for clarity, the entire taxable amount of money is $100. And there are only 11 people in existence: 10 poor people who pay 10% tax, and 1 rich person who pays 20% tax. Okay, now suppose the 10 poor people have, taken together, $50, and the rich guy by himself has $50.

For the sake of simplicity, if you divide it up equally, the poor people each have $5. So, at 10%, they each pay $0.50 or $5 in total. The rich guy pays 20% of $50 or $10. Great! The rich guy paid $10 and the poor people paid less. How much does the government take in? $15 dollars total.

Okay, what if the rich guy has $60 and the poor guys have $40 between them? The poor guys pay a total of $4, and the rich guy pays a total of $12. The government rakes in $16. And if the rich guy has $80 while the poor guys have $20? The poor guys pay a total of $2 and the rich guy pays $16. The government takes in $18.

Do you see what is happening? The government takes in more money the more money the rich guy makes at the expense of the poor guy making less. In other words, the government is incentivized to see that the rich guy makes more money and the poor guy make less.

And so the poor are squeezed ever harder even though the original intent of the progressive tax system was meant to help them.

The Rich Man Can Be Incentivized to Pay More in Taxes Because He’ll Keep More Money

Now, let’s look at the situation from the Rich Man’s perspective. Same situation: 11 people with $100 of taxable income. At 50/50, the poor men pay $0.50 apiece in tax and keep $4.50 each. The rich man pays $10 in tax and keeps $40.

Now, suppose the government approaches the Rich Man and tells him, “We will use our influence to increase your share of the monetary pie provided you agree to pay 25% in tax.” The rich man agrees.

Now, suppose government, using the influence of the law, sets things up so he takes in $60 and the poor men split the remaining $40. Once again, the poor men suffer a shrinking piece of the pie: the poor men pay $0.40 in tax, but only keep $3.60 for income. The rich man pays $15 in tax and keeps $45.

So, by working with the government and agreeing to “pay more in taxes” the rich man keeps $45 instead of $40, and in fact becomes richer.

How does the government make out? The government gets $15 in taxes in the first scenario where the rich man paid 20%, and it gets $19 in taxes in the second scenario where the rich man 25%. So, both the government and the rich man benefit, and the poor man’s income decreases. The squeeze is on.

You might be able to finagle the mathematics a bit to get things to work out better for the poor man (I’m not sure), but the point is that the government and the rich man are incentivized to act as I have described above. And that just leads to a relentless squeezing of the poor man in a manner similar to the above.

Given my experience of poverty, I think something like that is happening as a result of the progressive tax.

What About the Flat Tax?

Okay, at 50/50 with a 10% tax, the poor men make $5 and pay $0.50 in tax. The rich man makes $50 and pays $5 in tax. The government takes in $10.

At 40/60, the poor man makes $4 and pays $0.40 in tax. The rich man makes $60 and pays $6 in tax. The government takes in $10.

At 20/80, the poor man makes $2 and pays $0.20 in tax. The rich man makes $80 and pays $8 in tax. The government takes in $10.

The poor man performs pretty much the same regardless of a flat tax or a progressive tax in this comparison. The rich man does better under the flat tax than he does under the progressive tax. The government does the same regardless.

The point is that under the flat tax, the government is NOT incentivized to augment the rich man’s wealth AT THE EXPENSE of the poor man.

Under the progressive system the government IS incentivized to perversely punish the poor by concentrating money in the rich man’s hands because the government will get a larger share of that wealth. So, I guess you have to ask yourself: Can the government influence the economy in such a way as to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor? And does it do so?

What does your experience in this economy suggest the answer to that question is? Do things seem to be getting worse for the poor? Or not?

Conclusion

I could go on about the flat tax. If you set it at 10% for everybody, it’s simple to compute and that is a massive labor-saving device. Similarly, it preserves the incentive of the poor man to work hard. It doesn’t incentivize the government to do harm. And the rich guy is always incentivized by money. I’m sure there is more.

However, as I said, I am not an economist. I might be missing something important here. Feel free to comment should you see something I have missed.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Embracing the Deep State

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

The Deep State. A.k.a. the Swamp. It was, apparently, the bane of President Trump. I may be conservative and a Constitutionalist, but I think I’ve come to the position that the Deep State may be worth preserving.

One of the major distinctions between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives want people to help themselves without government interference or they want to help the needy through charity, but not through government. Liberals want the government to help the needy (at least, that’s what I’ve gathered).

The Deep State has grown because, to be frank, the liberals are winning. Actually, not really. They win off and on, trading their positions of power every two or four years. The thing is, whenever they get power, they add to the Deep State and once the stuff is added in, it’s almost impossible to remove it.

For one, the people in the Deep State are unlikely to vote to remove their own jobs. And two, the people “helped” by the Deep State are unlikely to vote to cut off their stream of benefits. Is there some way to address this?

I’d like to, perhaps not remove, but at least reduce the Deep State. Because I am convinced I am the antichrist, I have been diagnosed as having schizoaffective disorder. As a result of that, about 12 years ago I started receiving Disability payments from Social Security. Then there was Medicare and Medicaid and a few other programs designed to “help” me.

The problem is that these programs help sustain me, but they also trap me. The more programs you get involved in, the more difficult it is to get out of the system. The social safety net isn’t a net; it’s fly paper.

For one, the programs seemed to be designed to suck people into subsistence living and hold them there. Two, the people who work for these programs to “help” people in such situations are incentivized to keep a steady supply of people in those programs. If no one were in those programs, the employees would all be out of jobs.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the people so employed actively try to discourage people from escaping the fly paper. But there may be some who do. I don’t know. Regardless, I think it is a bad idea to incentivize people that way.

Perhaps, we could pay the civil servants for every individual they actually extricated from the fly paper. Then, we could make better progress, I think.

Anyway, I’m getting off topic. Back to the Deep State. As a conservative, I am leery of the government doing anything. But I realize that liberals, obviously, are not. Why don’t we split the difference and make the taxes that go to support the Deep State voluntary? Then if I want the government to be my means of charitable giving, I can support it. If I don’t, I don’t have to.

Of course, playing Devil’s Advocate, this would likely last only a year, at best, or until the Deep State had a shortfall. From that point on, the mandatory tax-supported government would bail out the voluntary tax-supported Deep State, and the mess would continue.

So, it probably wouldn’t work. I do, however, like the idea of giving financial rewards to Social Service employees who help a disadvantaged citizen get off the flypaper and back into the workforce to become a self-sufficient member of the economy. I don’t see any negatives with that.

So, I will throw that idea out into the Internet Cosmos to be discussed and cogitated upon by my whole 4 or 5 visitors.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?