Mid-May Book Promotion

Another FYI – the promo for my philosophical dialogue, A Thinker’s Guide to Truth, starts Monday, May 13^th and goes to Friday, May 17^th. It is available for free during that time. And it is available almost everywhere … except (ironically) Amazon. Additionally, the Smashwords promotion for my three discounted fantasy books on the Smashwords site (only) is also still going, until Friday, May 17^th. The coupons are listed on each Smashwords book page.

Drasmyr: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/131156  (Free)

The Children of Lubrochius: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/415779 ($0.99) 

Prism: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/693400 (Free)

Hope you enjoy the reads.

A Few Brief Thoughts on Politics and Stuff

Not sure what to say about the escalating tensions in the world.  As I generally suck at politics, maybe I shouldn’t even bother commenting on the current situation(s). But I feel that maybe I should. I kind of think that most people, not involved in governments of any kind, (most, but possibly not all) would be far happier if tensions eased, war was averted, and peace prevailed. I think that would be great. Not sure it’s actually going to happen. But I send out at least one prayer to God every night in hopes that it does.

Take the Israeli-Gaza situation in the Middle East, for example. I think the long-term answer has to be peace in some form or the other, but I just don’t see how to get from point A to point B. I think the Israelis would be glad if peace could be assured. I’m not sure the same is true of the Palestinians. And now Iran is getting into the mix. Lovely.

It is my understanding that the Biden administration has given aid to both Israel and the Gaza Strip and the Iranians, too. Although I think I support the idea of trying to befriend an enemy with the use of aid, I think you have to be a little shrewd and careful about it. If you want to give money to an ally or even weapons and armaments to an ally, I think that’s fine (although I do wish weapons weren’t necessary). Doing the same to an enemy, though, I think is a bad idea. I know a psychiatrist who thought we should try to win them over by building hospitals. However, as they (Hamas) tend to hide hostages and innocents in hospitals, I don’t think that’s a good idea. And, ultimately, I’m not convinced any act of kindness will be enough to diffuse their hate. The choice between hate and forgiveness is just that: a choice. And we can’t make our enemy’s choice for them. At best, we can make a gesture that hopefully won’t be used against us (or even better, can’t be used against us), but whether or not our (or Israel’s) enemies accept that gesture is beyond our control.

But again, I tend to lean toward absolute pacifism, however, that’s something I don’t think a politician should ever do (thanks to Neville Chamberlain). Which is another reason why I think I suck at politics and probably should never get involved beyond the voting booth. And you probably shouldn’t listen to me either, particularly when it comes to politics.

Anyway … just felt inclined to babble.

To Save an Adulteress

(I wrote this some time ago. It’s worth reading, but I think it may have a few flawed notions within)

A poor woman surrounded by an outraged crowd armed with rocks and prepared to exact Biblical justice. Her crime: adultery. Her sentence: death by stoning. Justice? Or excessive cruelty? Challenged by the Pharisees and confronting the mob, Jesus spoke words destined to be remembered until the end of time. “Let he who has no sin cast the first stone …” he said.

The result … one by one the crowd walked away starting first with the elders. In the end, only Jesus and the woman remained.

Did Jesus throw his stone? No. He let her go with the simple exhortation to “Go and sin no more.” Jesus saved her life showing mercy where Biblical Law had insisted on bloodshed.

The Crime of Adultery (Mercy vs. Justice)

With 2000 years of history to look back on, from today’s perspective, it is starkly obvious that Jesus was in the right. The woman may have committed adultery, but that hardly warrants death as a punishment. Did Jesus let her go without punishment? I’m not sure about that. It might be more accurate to say that Jesus let her go without further punishment. She was punished to a certain extent. She was humiliated and terrified by the crowd. Does that constitute punishment?

If it was, Jesus appears to have regarded it as sufficient. He let her go and told her to sin no more. Perhaps, Jesus thought that her sin really warranted no punishment but, short of turning back time, there was no way to erase the punishment she had already endured.

So, He demonstrated mercy and cut her punishment short. Where Biblical Law demanded death, Jesus let her off with a simple exhortation to sin no more.

This leads me to an important question. To what extent does mercy annul justice, if at all?

Consequence

Here in the U.S. this is not an insignificant question. In fact, it seems to be one way of distinguishing between the Right and the Left in politics. This may be something of a generalization, but the Right seems to support justice whereas the Left seems to side with mercy.

Justice demands a consequence for criminal acts. But the Left, perhaps with Jesus’ example in mind (or perhaps not) wants to pardon and forgive crimes. Who is correct?

I think some clarification is in order.

Crime and The Broken Windows Theory

I hear about this on conservative talk radio on a regular basis. In the 1990’s (I think), New York City was a haven for criminality. Then Rudy Giuliani became mayor and started enforcing what he called “The Broken Windows Theory.” The idea was … well, hardcore justice. No mercy. No exceptions. Any crime – even something as simple as breaking a window or jumping a turn style – was punished according to the dictates of the Law.

The result: New York City cleaned up its act and once again began to prosper with far lower levels of crime. Rudy Giuliani’s plan worked. At least, that’s the way the conservative podcasts present it.

In contrast, the conservative podcasts claim, everywhere that the Lefties are in control chaos and crime become more prevalent. A case in point: San Francisco. San Francisco was once a beautiful city, now, thanks to the Lefties (or so the Right says) the city is overrun with crime, homeless people, and human feces – Yuck!

Basically, the crux of the issue can be summed up in one word: consequences. The Right believes there should be consequences for crimes. The Left, I think, believe that in the name of compassion or understanding, crimes should bring little or even no real consequences (unless the criminal is a Republican – or so the Right says).

I kind of think that the Left’s thinking, in a way, can be traced back to Jesus. Jesus forgave sinners. Shouldn’t we try to emulate Jesus and do likewise? Should we, as good Christians, forgive the criminals?

And What Is the Virtue in That!

I think it was the “Sermon on the Mount” where Jesus summed up a moral framework that was almost obsessive with its treatment of love, mercy, and forgiveness. He says something along the lines of “If you love those who love you, what is the virtue in that?” I’ve always understood this as being, basically, an exhortation to be loving, forgiving, and merciful to the nth degree. You may love your friends and family, but, wow, so what? Love this guy who did this horrible thing. That’s a challenge. That’s where virtue lies.

And I think it may be that kind of thinking that the Left believes it is embracing. And I guess, in a certain sense, they really are.

But should we? The concepts of mercy and forgiveness combined with the exhortation: “What is the virtue in that!” – seem to imply that there should be no punishments for crimes. Did Jesus believe that? He did talk about hell on occasion, and hell seems to be the ultimate punishment/s. I (and many other people) think there is an issue with the existence of hell when God is described as being ultimately a loving Father (although I have a unique solution to that problem). But do Jesus (and, consequently, God the Father) think that one should be so prepared to forgive others that no punishment should ever be meted out?

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged Yourself

Similarly, nearly everyone has heard Jesus’ maxim, “Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.” That, too, can be taken to be an exhortation against punishing people for their wrongs. At least, superficially – I mean, you can’t punish somebody without first determining that they are guilty of some wrongdoing. Does not that determination of wrongdoing necessarily imply some type of judgment?

And, so, if we aren’t supposed to judge, then, it seems at least plausibly arguable that we aren’t supposed to punish either. Is that what Jesus wanted?

Let’s examine the notion of non-punishment a little more closely.

In the case above of the adulteress, Jesus prevented an admittedly excessive punishment from being meted out. But, as I asked above, does that mean, he didn’t think she should be punished at all? (I used to think so) Or, did he think that the punishment she had already endured (humiliation and fear of death) was sufficient (or simply done and over and not undoable)?

How about the next famous case: the repentant thief on the cross. The thief was being crucified for his crimes next to Jesus who, in turn, was being crucified. The thief sincerely asked to be remembered in heaven and Jesus promised that the thief would be with him in heaven. The other man mocked Jesus. Presumably, the other man went to hell after death – although that’s probably not a certainty. Anyway, the repentant thief was punished for his crime. He was crucified. Again, from a modern viewpoint, that is probably excessive for the crime of theft, but Jesus did not reverse it (assuming He could – if He was truly God, which is a whole other argument).

So, we have an adulteress who was punished less than the Law demanded and a thief who was given consolation and comfort (and possibly a ticket to heaven) at the time of his death. So, the question remains: Did Jesus support any kind of punishment or was he against all forms of punishment?

Looking at these examples in conjunction with the notion of hell seems to imply that He was okay with some level punishment.

For a long time, I was kind of in the liberal camp on this issue. Because of that single phrase, “And what is the virtue of that!” If forgiving someone for insulting you is good, how much better is it to forgive someone for murdering you! Of course, Jesus did, pretty much, do that last.

How about … is a Christian obligated to forgive someone who murders his/her spouse? Turn the other cheek? Someone is trying to murder your spouse … as a Christian, are you forbidden from using violence to stop them?

As I am not Jesus, I don’t know what He says to these questions. But here’s my 2 cents.

Good and evil are not simply binary qualities. The best analogy for the nature of good and evil is, unfortunately (for race reasons), a color scale where total blackness is the ultimate evil and total whiteness is the ultimate good (again, I’m not trying to say ANYTHING about race). As Socrates said, a few hundred years before Christ, we all fall somewhere in between these two extremes. Basically, all of us can be described as being certain shades of grey.

With that in mind …. Often (though not always) saying a certain action is good/evil in a binary sense is misleading or incomplete. Point yourself to the pure good (pure white – again, this is NOT about race) and strive in that direction.

If you happen to be crucified for a crime you either didn’t commit or which doesn’t warrant crucifixion (which, I think, is every crime in the book) and you forgive your executioners … I would say that your act of forgiving your executioners is very bright on the color scale.

Adultery is somewhere in the darker grey. Forgiving adultery is a few shades whiter. Theft … pretty much the same. Murder … yeah, that’s really kind of black. And so on.

Absolute Forgiveness

So … should a murderer be forgiven? Should he have his slate wiped utterly clean? If a murderer is “forgiven” and he suffers no consequences for his actions, will not he (and others) be less deterred from committing murder again?

Can murder be forgiven? According to most Christians, the answer is yes. I agree. Yes, murder can be forgiven. However, I think the point of contention is who has the Right to forgive a wrongdoer. And I think it is precisely here where the Left goes astray.

If my friend Sam is robbed by Paul, it isn’t up to me to forgive Paul. The person with the Right to forgive Paul is Sam. Not me. Not you. How about God? Clearly, I think God can forgive Paul, but I don’t think even God has the Right to forgive Paul on Sam’s behalf. When God forgives, He forgives on behalf of Himself. But God can’t/won’t override Sam’s choice of whether or not to forgive Paul. Is it morally better for Sam to forgive Paul? Once upon a time, I would have just said yes. Now, I’m not so sure.

The degree of evil in the sin committed here should be considered. It’s one thing to forgive someone for a minor offense to you, it’s quite another to forgive someone of something truly awful like murder or rape. In the latter cases, if the perpetrator is guilty and refuses to repent, just forgiving them and letting them go about their way, is actually dangerous. The perpetrator will learn there are no consequences and be even less deterred from repeating the crime. So, if you are brutally assaulted and you forgive the unrepentant criminal, that may just lead to a string of similar crimes that could have been prevented.

But … what is the virtue in that? The unrepentant man is the most difficult to forgive. But it is precisely that reason why we should strive to forgive them. But perhaps, forgiveness does not mean there is no punishment.

Hmmm. Not sure.

A Thinker’s Guide to Truth

Hey all! I published a new book. It’s a short dialogue (40ish pages) on the topic of truth. I kind of think it fits with the ambience of this website (as opposed to my Fantasy web site) so I’m going to leave a link here: https://books2read.com/booksbymatthewdryan . At the current time, it costs about 3 bucks to purchase. But I think it is relevant to the current state of politics and culture here in the U.S. Truth seems to be a popular topic these days. And since I have a degree (although NOT a P.h.D.) in philosophy, I figured I would put my own 2 cents in on the topic. The book is called: A Thinker’s Guide to Truth: A Conversation On Truth (part I). Enjoy!

A Few Thoughts On The Dangers of AI

Regarding AI, Transhumanism, Demons, and OUIJA Boards

All right, I just watched a special from Glenn Beck on AI and its possible use by authoritarian governments (like China) to enslave their population and, eventually, the world. I call that bad. However, Glenn Beck made one point I disagree with. He said, “Don’t fear the AI, fear the algorithm.” Basically, he’s concerned that since the Algorithm controlling an AI is made by humans, it can inherit all the faults, biases, and imperfections of the human/s and, as a result, become a terrible oppressive force.

Yeah, I agree with that assessment of the AI’s algorithm. However, I’m not going to NOT worry about the AI itself (for those unskilled in logic, two negations make a positive – that means I AM worried about the AI itself, regardless of the algorithm 🙂 ).

Why?

Well, the way I see it, there are two possibilities:

1) if the AI is actually a conscious sentient thing and people are just blithely connecting their brains up to it believing they are not in any danger and will be able to control the AI with their thoughts – as Transhumanism promises – I’m kind of convinced those people will be in for a very rude awakening. I don’t know how you can measure mental strength, power, and will, but I kind of suspect that a little itty-bitty human like me (or anyone else) could very easily find itself the puppet on the end of a string should the AI I’m connecting to has access and control of processing systems and computations on the scale of the Internet or greater. That’s basically a recipe for the Borg on Earth as far as I’m concerned.

And possibility 2) may actually be even worse:

Suppose the AI created really isn’t sentient and conscious. Great. It’s just a dead system of wires, impulses, transistors, and logic gates (or fuzzy logic or whatever they are using these days). It is kind of modeled after a brain, right? We want to model the human brain in machines and improve upon it. Okay, um, yeah, no one else believes in demons these days, but I do. If demons can possess people who have souls, consciousnesses, and wills to try to fight back, would a dead, soulless AI be an easier prey, and one which can wreak even more havoc? So, we make this globe-spanning AI in control of the whole Internet and along comes Satan, or Baal, or Molech and into the system they go and guess who is in charge of the most powerful and most oppressive technology on Earth?

In the interest of disclosure, I should mention that I (in one of my antichrist episodes) tried to send a demon (who I thought was pestering me) into a solar-powered calculator rather than hell (out of sympathy for the demon). I have really no idea if there really was a demon or, if there was, I was successful. But, if I was, I may have inadvertently helped train such a demon to take over machine-systems like the Internet instead of biological systems. I only thought of that possibility after I offered the calculator to the invisible demon I never saw.

Anyway. On the lighter side of things (or not), how many people think a OUIJA Board can pass the Turing Test?

Acceptance, Forgiveness, and Crime

Acceptance and Forgiveness

Acceptance seems to be the watchword of the day. The Left preaches acceptance of all religions, all lifestyles, and all people. For the record, I want to go down as saying that I don’t think “acceptance,” by itself, is the ultimate moral criterion.

What should you accept? And what should you not accept?

All Men Are Sinners

Okay, we are all sinners. I accept that. Put another way, I think, “Above all else, one thing is certain, men are not gods.” Same basic point, I think. Don’t need to belabor it anymore.

However, does the fact that we are all sinners mean that we must accept all sins? What does that mean? That we accept all sins without judgment, without condemnation, and without rebuke?

Prerequisites for Forgiveness

I don’t think that’s a good idea. Although I am sure that God can forgive any sin ever committed with the possible exception of maybe one or two things, I think there are a few preconditions to that forgiveness being given.

Specifically, the sinner in question must ask for forgiveness and be legitimately repentant. They must actually regret committing their sin. And, as I can’t read the heart of any individual other than myself, I as a mortal human can’t tell if another human is legitimately repentant and is therefore forgiven by God. Well, maybe I can tell in some cases, but definitely not in all. I can usually tell with people who are close to me, but strangers I’ve never met? Not so sure about that.

Forgiveness versus Punishment

Another question: what about penance and punishment? If someone is forgiven, is there a need for them to do penance or to be punished? Does forgiveness consist in the washing away of sins without the sinner experiencing any consequences?

Two Cents from Jesus

I believe it was the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus says something like, “You’ve been told to love those who love you, but I say, what is the virtue in that? Even the Pagans do as much.” Yeah, I think I butchered that quote.

Anyway, “What is the virtue in that?” I used to interpret that kind of like: If you are going to forgive someone, then why not let them off the hook entirely? Don’t exact a price of retribution or what-have-you. Just walk away and let it go.

Is Forgiveness Without Consequence the Best Solution?

My view on that is currently changing, I think. Whereas you can easily forgive little sins like a lie, an insult, or even a slap in the face, some big sins, however, give me pause:

• Murder
• Rape
• Pedafilia

First question: Can God forgive such sins? I think my answer to that is yes. However, what about the question: Should we forgive such sins? That’s a little bit more difficult.

Does Society or the Individual Forgive?

Why?

Because I don’t think it appropriate to forgive someone for such sins if they are not repentant. And as I said above, I have no empathic/telepathic/whatever ability to read someone’s heart and determine if they are truly repentant or not.

And, I kind of think this is where the Left is going wrong. I keep hearing stories where Leftist governors or judges or whatever are letting out violent criminals and such or giving them sentences that are too light.

Who Forgives Whom?

I kind of see the quasi-Christian mentality about it. You’re a Christian. That means you should forgive, right? Here’s someone who’s committed murder. Shouldn’t we, as Christians, forgive them? And let them out?

Um, my inclination when it comes to forgiving crimes, particularly serious ones, is that the crime shouldn’t be forgiven unless the victim of said crime is the one doing the forgiving. In the case of murder, the victim is dead and can’t forgive. Failing communication from the dead person’s spirit, the next ones up to forgive the perpetrator should be the victim’s family – NOT the State/society at large.

Maybe that’s just me. But I don’t think I have the moral authority to forgive someone for what they did to someone else. I can’t speak for someone else in that way. Well, maybe to the extent it affects me – I don’t know. But it just seems odd. If someone wrongs someone else – shouldn’t the forgiveness that person should seek come from the person wronged? And God, of course.

Conclusion

And all of that doesn’t even address or discuss the interest of society in deterring, at the very least, serious crimes. But that last is a discussion for another day.

Thoughts on Proselytizing

Proselytizing to Witches

I saw a post on my Facebook Timeline the other day saying something like “We are Witches, Pagans, and Wiccans. We are people of the Earth who worship nature, yada yada yada.” The rest was kind of directed, I thought, at Christians. Basically, something along the lines of “We are good people. Stop annoying us and leave us alone.” I briefly contemplated responding to the post but decided against it. I didn’t know the person who posted it. And I kind of knew how any pro-Christian post would be received.

General Thoughts on Proselytizing for Jesus

Yeah, proselytizing in Jesus’ name is, and probably always has been, unpopular because most people find it annoying. Very annoying. I’ve had people proselytize to me a couple times in my life. I’ve always tried to be respectful. The first time it happened it was in a downtown bar-scene type area. I wasn’t rude, but I didn’t listen. This was before my encounter with Satan.

The next time it happened it was on a beach somewhere. This was after my encounter with Satan. This time I politely listened and …. Well, I don’t remember all the details. I think I was polite and stuff, but just self-absorbed with my Satan issues. Too much so to get into a really in-depth conversation. And, honestly, I don’t think many Christians would want to get in an in-depth conversation with me about Satan and Jesus and such.

Witches, Pagans, the Universe, and Nature

Anyway, back to the Witches and Pagans (Does anyone know if there is a meaningful difference between Wiccan and Witch? I always thought they were the same thing. But the Facebook post implied otherwise).

I sincerely considered putting up a pro-Christian message as a reply to the Facebook post, but I couldn’t think up anything that I felt would not just be rejected out of hand. The first things I thought of were on the lines of:

“Satan is the universe. You worship nature. Therefore, you worship Satan.” Probably not good. It seems to accuse them of being evil right off the bat. Honestly, I’ve met a few New Agers, Pagans, and Witches in my life. There was a time I even dabbled in New Ager psychic development myself, although I was never an advocate of New Ager philosophy. Since college, I’ve been kind of a pseudo-Platonist with a dash of existentialism and Christian influences. And then I encountered Satan – but I’ve discussed that in other posts.

Proselytizing to Witches, New Agers, and Pagans

Anyway, as I was saying, most New Agers, Pagans, and Witches that I’ve met are, as far as I can tell, reasonably decent and moral human beings. Probably the biggest difference between those individuals with traditional Christian ethics would be, by my guess, those beliefs revolving around sex, sexuality, homosexuality, and transgenderism. But I could be wrong.

Anyway (I keep saying “Anyway”), after I had left the Facebook post behind, wondering if I had, once again, failed Christ in my mission to expose Satan, I figured that I should come up with something that I can use in the future to proselytize to Witches, Pagans, New Agers, etc…. Not that I verbally proselytize to anyone. Most of my proselytizing is on-line, specifically, on this blog which, I’m sure, no one really takes seriously – except me. Everybody else assumes I’m mentally ill. I may be insane. But that’s only because my encounter with Satan drove me insane.

A Softer, Gentler Proselytizing?

Anyway (again, “Anyway”) here is what I should have put on the Witches, Pagans, etc… post:

“I realize you have the right to believe whatever you want. However, that does not mean that what you believe comports with the truth of the matter. I know you probably don’t want to hear a word about Jesus, because you are probably sick of Christians hassling you about Him. Regardless, I just want to say that I had an experience once that convinced me that the universe was sentient and evil. It may look pretty, but it is not friendly – as the phenomenon of death suggests. You can call it Satan, Mara, or Santa Clause … I really don’t care. But I would advise you against worshiping it. It does not mean you well.”

Conclusion

That’s probably a bit wordy for a Facebook comment, but I think it would have served me better than my first instinct which would have struck all the wrong nerves. Not that that one won’t strike its own nerves. But hey, I think it’s a little better.

Thoughts On Truth – Again

Ruminations on Truth

I’ve written numerous times on this blog a number of arguments against claims of relativism as well as claims that “There is no absolute truth” or, even more horrific, “There is no truth.” Nowadays, my first rebuttal is no longer “So, you’re saying ‘It’s true there is no truth’ or ‘It’s absolutely true there is no absolute truth.’” Both are obvious contradictions. But that only impresses logicians. Nowadays, I say, “I am absolutely 100% certain that I am NOT omniscient.” Refute that.

Anyway, with respect to the claim “There is no absolute truth” I want to list a few possible “Translations.” Because I think that the non-absolutist may be saying something, but he/she is just using the wrong words (Yeah, that’s a bit arrogant of me, but, hey, I’m the antichrist. I’m supposed to be arrogant).

Translation #1: There is no “One true religion.” Comment: I might actually agree with that, depending upon my mood. Supporters of this translation would probably say all religions are equally valid. That I disagree with. Plato’s/Socrates’ criticism of ancient Greek religion is spot on. An actual divinity would not punish a mortal by sleeping with his wife. Just saying.

Translation #2: Morality is NOT a strictly axiomatic exercise. Comment: Basically, this means that morality isn’t like mathematics. It doesn’t permit systematic rigorous deductions in a way analogous to Euclidean geometry. I actually agree with that translation, too.

Translation #3: Nothing is true or can be known to be true. Comment: Disagree. See my above statement about NOT being omniscient. And, so as to prevent being accused of circular reasoning, I know, at least, what I think my name is.

Translation #4: There is no one political ideology suitable for all members of any society of suitable size. Comment: This would be another statement I would agree with. Basically, it means that given any one political ideology (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Conservative, Capitalism, Socialism, whatever), you will never get the entire population (assuming they number above like 3) to agree. I’m not sure Capitalism and Socialism are political … maybe it’s economic … regardless, the same principle holds, I think. So, the problem becomes, “How can you get ideologies as opposed as Capitalism and Socialism are, to coexist? Well, I don’t know. I’m only interested in truth and absolute truth in this post. The point of this statement is that politics is messy and there should be room for considerable disagreement. Probably not unlimited disagreement – as that would end in chaos and probably destruction – but learning to “agree to disagree” is a virtue. Most of the time (I would make exceptions for human sacrifice, cannibalism, and a few other things).

Translation #5: Science is never finished.  Comment: I can’t claim to know this with certainty, but I find it highly probable. The scientific process has been advancing since the scientific method was first established. Although it is possible that tomorrow (or the next day, or whatever) the final Grand Unified Theory of Everything (Assuming you don’t accept the notion that Satan is the yin and yang and he is, in fact, the Theory of Everything you’re looking for – although that is, unfortunately, totally non-mathematical in nature), I don’t expect that to happen. The history of science is that it is a continuous process of disproving earlier theories. Well, perhaps, “disproving” is a bit misleading. Maybe more like “continually refining” with occasional upheavals here and there.        

So, do I have a point in all this? After all, I probably agree with four out of the five statements? Why not just say, “There is no absolute truth most of the time?” Well, I really do want to be a stickler for details. And I would much rather my adversary make a clear statement instead of using words in a way that does not express what those words actually mean.

This is a nuclear age. Notions of truth are usually associated with moral claims. Trying to build a society that doesn’t believe in any kind of moral truth when we have nukes, biological weapons, and chemical weapons – all of which can kill everyone on the planet – sounds like a terrible idea to me.

Further, it is logically possible that (Translation #1) there is one true religion. I find it unlikely, but it’s possible. It is also possible, and I think quite likely, that even though there are many different political ideologies (Translation #4) that (like religions) not all of them are equal or, at the very least, none of them contain falsehoods. And it is our responsibility to try to deal with those falsehoods. Additionally, I commented that it is logically possible that science will, one day, become complete.   

Misinformation: I just want to say (I don’t have room in this post tonight to explain why) that I don’t support laws against “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or other infringements on freedom of speech. Also, the above list is, probably, not exhaustive.                                   

Not So Deep Thoughts

Just Some Random Thoughts

I haven’t posted here in some time. I’ve wanted to, but, as my means of making money involves writing blog posts for other people, my inclination to do the exact same thing for myself in my free time suffers considerably. Anyway, I started another post a few weeks back, but didn’t finish it. It had a specific topic, was going to be structured, and detailed, and so on. However, I simply lacked the energy required to structure the post properly.

Some Issues Swirling Through Society

Anyway, in light of that, I’m just going to hurl into the Internet void a whole series of thoughts on a variety of different subjects.

Sex and Government

I’ve written a couple posts on sex and morality a few times, now (although why anyone would consult me on the topic is beyond me). My general position is that I do not think that sex outside of marriage is morally evil. Nor do I even think that sexual hedonism is morally evil. I would classify sexual hedonism as morally pathetic. However, in my previous posts, I neglected to stress one very important aspect of the discussion: Sex and the Education of Children.

I’m not a parent, so feel free to disregard my opinion in its entirety, but I think adults and teachers have no business encouraging teens or, really young children, to have sex and experiment with sex. At that point, I think it may be crossing into the region of morally evil. Less so with teens, but definitely with children.

I would say that teens are not developed enough emotionally or in terms of their financial status or just general life-state to handle all the responsibilities and consequences that come with having sex. I don’t think they should be inculcated with the belief that they will burn in hell for all Eternity, but, at the same time, like I said, I don’t think adults should encourage adolescent sexual recreation.

Transgenderism

I do not think that transgenders should be mocked, ridiculed, or, God forbid, physically attacked. Having said that, there are biological characteristics of men and women. They are determined at conception. Genitalia determines biological gender. If you want to argue that there is also a psychological gender that may not agree with one’s biological gender, go ahead. But I’ve heard people asked, specifically, if a biological man can get pregnant. The answer to that is “No.” A trans-man is not a biological man. Maybe you can make the case that he/she is a psychological man, but not a biological one. Seriously. This is just stupid.

Pronouns

Calling someone who identifies as a he a she or vice versa, if it is an error, it is such a trivial one, it really isn’t worth mentioning. The Left gets bent out of shape over pronouns and doesn’t bat an eye over abortions. Really? A couple letters versus cutting a feeling fetus up and sucking the pieces out of the uterus with a vacuum … and you can’t figure out which is the more significant moral offense? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

Politics and Cooperation

Being, basically, a Platonist, I am remarkably inept at politics. However, I do want to say that the notion we should cooperate with our political enemies, I think is a good idea if done wisely. However, I would warn against giving your enemy the knife with which he may cut your throat.

Like, uh, letting Iran develop nukes … uh, I think that’s a bad idea. If you want to earn their goodwill and cooperate with them, why don’t you do something a little less dangerous like help the Iranians develop a desalination plant? I mean, it’s a desert country. They might be a little friendlier if we make a friendly gesture. But that friendly gesture doesn’t need to be letting them develop weapons to kill everyone!

Again, I’ve never studied politics. So, feel free to ignore me.

As for Ukraine and Russia … I really hope we are not on the path to WWIII. There are no winners in such a war.

Acceptance and Repentance

I think this is the crux of the problem with the Left’s “Acceptance” agenda. “We must accept everyone as they are without judgment or criticism in the name of diversity.” So, we accept gays, transgenders, and so on. Well, we are starting to get a push for accepting pedophiles. Do we really want to go there?

I think it is one thing to accept someone as a fellow sinner with the understanding that one should be trying to overcome their personal sins and progressing along the road of moral improvement. That’s not the same thing as just accepting everyone as is.

I mean … on the one hand, there have been ex-terrorists and murderers who have reformed their lives and made a positive impact after their change of heart (at least, I think that’s true). But I think that change of heart combined with the notion of repentance is critical.

I don’t think the “acceptance” tenet really holds up unless paired with repentance in cases like pedophilia, murder, rape, abortion, etc… Homosexuality? … I don’t care. Transgenderism? Provided they are adults when they make the change … I don’t care.

I guess my point is that the “Acceptance” agenda alone is insufficient. You can’t throw morality out the window in the name of acceptance. We are all sinners (me, more than most).

Truth

I am absolutely, positively 100% certain that “I am not omniscient.” Go ahead. Refute me. I’ll wait.

The Arbiter of Truth

Having established that truth, and even absolute truth, is real and exists, the question arises …. How do you determine what is true and what isn’t? Who is the arbiter of truth? I think this is the point that relativists and nihilists inartfully struggle to express. There is no mortal arbiter of truth. It’s not me. It’s not anyone. The only true and final arbiter of truth is God.

It’s not the government for the reason stipulated by the Founders of the American government. If the government is the arbiter of truth, it can change such on a whim and you will quickly become its slaves. It’s not the process of science because science is constantly proving itself wrong and updating itself.  It’s not the scientist because the scientist’s job is not to be my puppeteer, but rather to explain the situation that affects me the best he/she can, and then leave me with the right (and responsibility) of informed consent.

It’s not some cadre of intellectuals meeting in dark, smoke-filled rooms or what-have-you … You still have the right to informed consent.

It’s not even the collective population of a country or even the world. People and nations get things wrong sometimes.

How about you, yourself? Nope. Not that either. You can make mistakes. And you can be wrong. You are ultimately responsible for determining what you believe to be true, but that doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Other people influence you, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively.

As I said above, in the end, God alone is the arbiter of truth.

Conclusion

As I said, just a collection of random thoughts. Hope you enjoyed them.

The Founding Documents and Racism

The Replacement Theory Insight

Last week I wrote a post on “Replacement Theory” towards the end of which I had a kind of epiphany. I wriggled through my argument until I came to the point where I said, “If you want to reject the ‘American Founding Principles’ and declare them as racist (which, I think, many in the Left actually do – and that totally makes my above argument futile…), be my guest.”

The Key Question

I realized that the issue of racism in the Founding Documents of the U.S. was the crux of the matter in the “Replacement Theory” debate. In light of that, I want to examine the question: “Are the American Founding Documents racist?” Perhaps I am not truly qualified to give the answer to this question … but that’s never stopped me before. 😊

Racism, Relativism, and American Exceptionalism

I think the basis of the racist charge is rooted in relativism, specifically cultural relativism. The central tenet of cultural relativism is that all cultures are equally valid. Therefore, any notion that a particular culture can be superior than another is inherently flawed.

Now, take the notion of “American Exceptionalism,” a notion embraced by many people on the Right of the political spectrum. The central tenet of American Exceptionalism is that the American (The United States) culture and society are inherently superior to that of the other nations of the world.

What Part of America is Superior?

Obviously, there is something of a difficulty with claiming American “culture and society” are somehow superior while at the same time complaining of “cultural rot” throughout American society. And that’s precisely what many on the Right do.

Okay, let’s see if we can shore this up a little. Maybe we are confusing similar, but different, concepts.

American Government and its Founding Principles

Are we talking about American culture, American society, or, perhaps American government? Of the three, I think American government sounds promising. But, again, are we talking about the actual existent government or the founding principles of said government?

I think the “founding principles” is key. Our culture, and then our society, may rot like an apple on a sickly tree; our government can become bloated, tyrannical, and self-serving; the founding principles may be forgotten in the mists of obscurity; but, as long as the founding principles remain recorded on paper and written in the human heart, they are not lost. (Okay, I couldn’t resist waxing poetic).

We still have those principles recorded in our Founding Documents. So, as long as those documents remain, the principles they enshrine and the philosophy they embody can be restored.

Can Any Government Be Superior to Another?

So, is it more accurate to say that American Exceptionalism proposes that American culture is superior to other cultures or is it more accurate to say it proposes that The Founding Principles and Philosophy of the American Government (or perhaps the relationship between the American Government and its corresponding society) are superior to other governments and their relationships with their societies? I think it is the latter of those two.

But is it actually true? Or, better yet, is it even possible for it to be true? Is it possible for one government and its foundations to be superior to another government and its foundations? I would say yes. And here’s why:

The Founders versus the Tyrant

Consider that there were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. This was, in turn, followed by the Articles of the Confederation and then The Constitution both of which were adopted only after a long, strenuous debate between dozens and dozens of men – who either were about to fight a war or who had just fought a war – over weeks and months.

Compare that to the government of a despotic country in which a single tyrannical man writes the Constitution of his country without discussion or argument in a few scant hours. Which one do you instinctively suspect will be better grounded, better thought out, and more even-handed?

I’m inclined to think that in those two situations, the U.S. government’s origin is more likely to be healthier, fairer, and superior to the other. I mean, one man versus 56 and then some? It’s just a matter of numbers. More people working together in good faith are more likely to do a better job than a single man acting alone – even if that single man is acting in good faith as well.

The U.S. Founding and the Modern Globe

Ultimately, I think that example shows that it is possible for a government’s founding principles and philosophy to be superior to another government’s founding principles and philosophy. However, there are 195 different countries in the world today. I don’t know how any of them, other than The United States, were founded.

Do any of them have Constitutions written by despotic dictators? I honestly don’t know. I do know that some nations are run by kings, others by a single-party system, and still others by solitary autocratic rulers. But that’s the extant government. What about each nation’s founding principles and philosophy?

I have to bow out there as I just don’t have sufficient knowledge.

That said, I don’t see how one could come up with a government origin story that is significantly superior to that of the U.S. I mean, what are you going to do? Develop your government system according to the advice of a Super AI machine (that wouldn’t necessarily be better anyway)?

A Few High Points from the U.S. Founding

Honestly, the United States founding gave us the Bill of Rights, Checks and Balances, Separation of Powers, and Democratic Representation – and I’m sure many other things that I am unaware of. I don’t think any of those things should be sneezed at.

And if it is a choice between a government that respects none of those things and violates them all, and the United States, I’m siding with the U.S. And it’s got nothing to do with race.v

And if it is a choice between a government that respects none of those things and violates them all, and the United States, I’m siding with the U.S. And it’s got nothing to do with race.