Second Reading of Four Witnesses

I said I would re-read and so I have.  Now for the comment.   So, what did I write about it before?  I checked a bit into that with links to those posts:

1. Let's not go the way of the Romans, please
2. Ever so brief comment upon book "Four Witnesses"

As for number 1, not much has changed there.  In fact, it has been enhanced.  We do seem to be going in that direction.  Feeding the Christians to the lions is definitely possible, for we aren't any more immune to that than any other people on this earth.  The only things that may separate us is our Constitution and a belief in God, but these could be going out of style in this country.

I write that, and people may scoff at it.  One theme in the book is about how people tried to pretend to be Christians.  You can't fake something like that.  For a true Christian will allow himself/herself to be thrown to the lions.  Happened before and it could happen again.  Now, there could be a whole lot of "pretend Christians" out there who will never allow that.  If so, then there may not be any TRUE Christians at all.  If there are none of those, and none permitted, then what prevents the horrific spectacles that the Romans were capable of?  What restrains people, beside a TRUE belief in God?  A pretend belief won't.

One thing has changed though.  I wrote favorably of Ayn Rand, and I think she was wrong about something.  To put it as briefly as possible, I'd say Rand believed that people can orient themselves to the objective state and stay there.  But that may be where her error lies.  There is a bit of subjectivity in every person, and that is what can make us irrational.  In other words, people can never reach her idealized state of pure objectivity.  People don't stay objective when their own skins are at risk.

Secondly, I attributed a better outcome to these difference in philosophies, as Rand did.  Perhaps I should walk that back a bit because I relied too much on her opinion.  I have no opinion on the competing philosophies at this time, but my opinion could now have changed to something Rand would probably condemn.

I think Christianity may have made our modern high tech society possible because it enables TRUTH, which from science is the seeking of same, whereas anything false will subvert it.

The Romans could have said to have been the same, but that is not so.  If it were, then the Pretend Christians would have inherited the Church.


As for number 2, I'm still not Catholic.  Nor am I likely to convert.  Perhaps I'm more useful outside of the current institutions because as they stand now, I'm pretty glad I'm not with any of them.  I hate phonies and always will.

A special evening for Spring Branch ISD running backs, past and present

A special evening for a Spring Branch High School running backs, past and present - Chris Gilbert


That was my school.  I brought it up because I noted how the school seemed to be going downhill the whole time I was there.  ( Early seventies )  Sure enough, the school produced Gilbert, but nobody else of note came out of there.

A long pause had to ensue, because I just remember the Lesbian Mayor of Houston graduated from a Spring Branch school.  I checked my "list" of graduates and her name wasn't there.  I didn't know her, and probably couldn't have because she didn't go to Spring Branch High School, but some other Spring Branch ISD school.  Maybe it was Spring Woods.  I checked out some info sources, but it is rather sketchy, so I cannot confirm or deny where the hell she went to school here.  Whatever.  One thing I did find is that she made up a false story about discrimination.  She has state office aspirations.  If she is going to run for mayor again, I am going to vote in that election, and it won't be for the Lesbian.

Spring Branch ISD did produce Craig James, who played in the NFL as a running back.  He ran against Ted Cruz and others in 2012 for Texas Senate and lost.  He was "unpopular" for his "anti-gay" positions.

Moral of the story.  None really.  All of it just plain old facts, if that matters anymore to anybody.

Checking in, 5/23/15

As you may infer from this post, I didn't travel out West this holiday weekend.  Really, that is just too dumb.

Besides, I meant to check out the book I mentioned in an earlier post.  Once I got my Kindle going, I checked it out and was a bit amazed that I may not have actually finished reading the book in the first place.

But on closer examination, yes I did.  By the way, the book is Four Witnesses.  It's about the Early Church, and the four men who served as witnesses here to the TRUTH.

So, what do I get from the book so far?  One thing that comes to mind is that the roles of science and religion have reversed.  Science has become immutable, and religion is up for grabs.  Up until modern times, which are now to be revered as holy things, it was the other way around.

Thus, religious doctrine was religious doctrine and that was that.  Science could change with new discoveries.  Science wasn't holy, like say Man Made Global Warming.  It didn't get raised to the holiest of holies, for which no blasphemy could ever be tolerated.  The men in the Church, kept their part, and kept the Church as it was.  And so we built this highly advanced society while sticking to those principles.

But somewhere, like the Sixties, the train come off the tracks.  Now we are not to profane the SACRED with any of the UNHOLY politically incorrect speech lest we run afoul of the LAW of the LAND, the El SUPREMOS of EL COURTO.  They are the new HEAD PRIESTS, and you'd better know your place, the First Amendment be damned.

Meanwhile, the country hasn't prospered lately, the GDP in GOLD per Capita hasn't exceeded what it was in the FABULOUS SIXTIES, and technologically, we can't do what we did then, even though we have computers and those guys used slide rules.

Nowadays, they call it progress.  Besides, everything is hunky dory cuz they say so.

Checking in, 5/22/15

Another late start and another hurried post.  I try to put up something every day.  For four and a half years, I have managed to do that, but to what effect?  It all seems pointless sometimes.  But this isn't about getting approval anymore.  It has always been about getting at the truth, though it be a slippery thing.

It's a troubled time.  The course of events have made it so.  In times of trouble, I have relied upon a couple of things to pull me through.  Reading and humor.  I'm a bit too grave for a joke right now, so I think I'll read.

Posting will be light while I read.

Wrong answer Mr Gates

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83598922/

Makes no difference what the majority thinks.

Wrong is wrong.

Sodom and Gomorrah

This nation could be hanging by the flimsiest of threads.  Heck, just mentioning Sodom and Gomorrah now, even amongst the so-called right, could get you scoffed at.  But Robert Bork wrote a book about it called Slouching Towards Gomorrah.  Yeah, I bought that book and read it back then.

You know one of the swing votes on the Court is the guy who replaced Bork, who got "Borked"?  Anthony Kennedy is that guy.  What a fitting tribute to the Cultural Marxist's victory if he votes with them in Roe v. Wade Redux, which would be what a right to homosexual marriage would be.

Reading Limbaugh's page this morning, it struck me how he is just in it for the game.  There's no root in him.  One thing that is deeply rooted in him is this winning v. losing mentality.  You lose this one, and you've just had a crushing, crushing defeat imposed upon you.  Maybe then you'll understand in the terms that is possible for you to understand.  YOU LOSE.

Nero fiddled, but Limbaugh snoozes and we lose.  Not a word from Limbaugh on this possible CRUSHING DEFEAT.

Matter of degree

If you think the country has gone down the tubes already, you're really not saying anything new.

It was being said on Limbaugh's show 20 years ago.

Perhaps it is all a matter of degree.  That is to say, what convinces you.  What is convincing me is this homosexual marriage thing.  But there are other things.  Looks like more and more people want to make hate speech a crime.  Funny how these folks that push this won't ban porn, or burning the flag, but they'll sure want to ban what they regard and define as hate speech.  Oh, and saying anything against homosexual marriage may be considered hate speech some day.

If the republic isn't dead, it is certainly dying.  Fast.

Home again, 5/20/15

Signed the new lease, dag nab it.  I'll be here for at least another 10 months.  Truth be told, I don't see getting out of here before I start my ss checks, which is more than 2 years away.

I haven't done a thing about my off-the-grid project since I got back.  Of course, this weekend gives an opportunity for a trip out there, but it's just too expensive.  There's nothing that can be done in such a short time.  Almost the entire time will be spent traveling.  It's dumb.

In the meantime, in between time, ain't we got fun?

Goodfellas film

Based upon a true story.

Not that the truth matters anymore, but I thought I'd relate something that I remember about the film.  Karen Hill, the wife of Henry Hill is quoted from the film:

Karen: [narrating] After awhile, it got to be all normal. None of it seemed like crime. It was more like Henry was enterprising, and that he and the guys were making a few bucks hustling, while all the other guys were sitting on their asses, waiting for handouts. Our husbands weren't brain surgeons, they were blue-collar guys. The only way they could make extra money, real extra money, was to go out and cut a few corners.
[Cuts to Henry and Tommy hijacking a truck]

A corrupt practice can seem "normal" and a person becomes accustomed.  Karen Hill was introduced as a nice Jewish girl from a good family.  How did she get mixed up in organized crime?

It's like Yoga said in Star Wars, once you take the easy and seductive path, it will forever determine your destiny.

I know these are "only" movies, but what else have I got to try to persuade?

I also know that it is probably hopeless for almost everyone.  They'll just laugh at this.  But if you were wondering why things are on the wrong track, as many of you say, you may want to consider things like this.

Like homosexual marriage.

Checking in, 5/20/15

Maybe I ought to say:  mailing it in.  Hmm.  Late start this morning, so I'll do a quick post because time is short.

I'm not inactive, but it is a little hard to describe what I'm doing.  Or maybe not.  It just doesn't lend itself to excess verbiage and thus doesn't translate into blog posts.

One observation or is it a hypothesis?  Has this country completely given up on its heritage?  It is like it is repudiating itself.  Why?

I checked into the Supreme Court decision in the DOMA case last night.  There's not much there to indicate a finding in favor of a right to homosexual marriage, but then there was this Gallup poll claiming that a large majority now favors it.  Is this propaganda?  Are the powers that be trying to influence the justices?

But that is only a musing.  Not a detailed research project.  Hell, it doesn't need any research.

I checked into what I wrote at the time of that DOMA case.  Nothing has changed for me.  What could have changed people's opinions in that time?

One other thing before I close up this little post.  People have this notion that religion is backward and the modern "science" establishment is progressive and therefore advanced.  I'm of a different opinion.  I think people have been deceived.  Whatever is deemed progressive is not, and what is said about religion is not necessarily right nor accurate.

The "science" establishment has been corrupted by politics.  Politics has been corrupted by money.  To drill it down to the root, it might be said that money has corrupted everything.

With respect to Truth again

Would it be correct to say that to remain faithful with Truth that one should consult first principles?

With respect to that, I've been reading excerpts from the book Four Witnesses.

That's what the book is about.  It shows how the Early Church stayed faithful to First Principles.

I bought the book awhile back, but I haven't studied it.  I will do so in the future.

As for now, I note that there is a lot of confusion out there in our society.  So was there in the Early Church.
How did they manage to keep the faith going through all the trials that it suffered?  First Principles.

Here's a possible shocker for you:  Our modern day "leadership" is deviating from First Principles, not only of Western Civilization, but of our basic Organizing Principles of the Nation.

What may be even more of a shocker: they know very well that they are doing this, but are going to try to convince everyone that they are doing exactly the opposite.

An example:  Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Justice in the Supreme Court of the United States, presided over a homosexual marriage.  It was written in the New York Times that she did this in the name of the Constitution.

Nowhere in the founding documents nor in the history of Western Civilization has such a practice ever considered to be an organizing principle for the Nation.  It is a clear and definite break being engineered by those who wish to change the nature of the Nation towards something completely different from what it once was.

Now, if I am wrong, SHOW ME.

Truth

I've written many times that I considered truth to be a slippery thing.

The following question comes from that:  Can someone who claims to be dedicated to the truth be false?

In other words, if someone claims to be dedicated to the truth, can that person be, in fact, a liar?

You aren't a liar unless you really do know the truth about a matter and try to deceive someone else as to that truth by getting them to believe something that you know is not true.

Putting that another way, just because you are wrong about something, doesn't make you a liar.  A sincere belief in something false just means that you are making an honest mistake.

That might be disputed.  Some may argue that there's no such thing as an honest mistake.  If you are misled by a liar, does that make you a liar too?

The worse thing is to know the truth and to prevent someone else from knowing it.  That what makes you a liar.

Majorities and morality

I saw earlier in my news scan that I do each morning that Ireland may vote for homosexual marriage.  It seems that this is the latest rage in Western countries, if you count Ireland as a Western country.

Anyway, the reaction I have to that is so what?  A majority does not make a thing right.  Is a lynch mob right?  The South owned slaves prior to the Civil War.  A vote was taken here in Texas in order to join the Confederacy.  Was that right?

People are confused, yet they probably don't realize that they are confused.  They're confused because a majority does not make morality.

At any rate, even if I am the only one in the world left to criticize this, I will continue.  Even if someone threatens to kill me if I don't comply or agree, I won't comply nor agree.

I won't be moved by a mob.

From the movie Idiocracy

A case study.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the movie is uncomfortable for a lot of people because it hits a little too close to home.

But really successful people breed like rabbits.  ( or could if they wanted to)

Justice Kennedy not looking good if this article is any indication

American Thinker

“Haven't we learned a tremendous amount… just in the last ten years?”

Not looking good.  In any case, regardless of what was allegedly learned, the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering in marriage.  However, the government has already been doing that for decades, so it should not be a big surprise if it does it again.

Marriage is a sacrament.  Sacrament means "sacred".  Sacred means you don't mess with it.  They've been messing with it all this time.  How?  Divorce.  How is anything having to do with marriage any of the government's business?

It's official: "England is a fag country!"

One from the time machine.  What seemed ridiculous is now official policy.

Does Limbaugh talk about this stuff?

There has been lately a push amongst the so-called conservatives in this party to emulate David Cameron.  Evidently, he is being cited as the model for us to follow over here across the pond.

Get this:

Cameron personally led the fight to legalize gay marriage, made addressing climate change a top priority,

Read more: 

Now let's see:  How does legalizing homosexual marriage actually help the Brits?  Addressing "climate change" which should be re-worded to man made climate change, by the way?   How does making their economy less competitive actually help them?   Cameron probably won because he made a little more sense than his opponent, not because of homosexual marriage and man made climate change.  Some of what his opponent advocated went off scale stupid.  That doesn't make Cameron smart, only seemingly so.

If you want to address man made climate change, then what is your proposal?  Obama shutting down coal?  How about molten salt reactors instead?  There are some in England who favor this.  I'm all for it even though I strongly doubt that we really doing any harm to our environment by burning fossil fuels.  I think a by product would be to defund radical Islam.  Call it a two fer.  If the GOP wants to win, why don't they advocate molten salt reactors?  Molten salt reactors could end the use of fossil fuels.  That won't help the oil industry, though.  How do you know that Cameron isn't doing that?  Or least not hampering molten salt reactor tech????????  Instead, it is claimed that Cameron favors the premise of the far left.  In the case of homosexual marriage, he did, but not necessarily man made climate change.

The GOP won't advocate molten salt reactors because they need all that oil money.  Or so they think.

The GOP won't fight homosexual marriage because they are without conviction.  They aren't any different really than the left on this one.  They only pretend to be against it.

Has Limbaugh said anything about this lately?  I have a feeling that he is quite silent on both issues.

He probably talks a lot about taxes, which isn't the big problem right now.

Going through the motions

Keeping up all the old routines.  On Sunday mornings, I go get some groceries.  Later, its laundry.  Preparing myself for the new work week just ahead.

Isn't that what we all do?

I haven't been in a church since I was a kid.  I know that I've railed against homosexual marriage, but isn't that what the preachers were supposed to do?  Now they don't do that.  I don't know that for a fact, but if "America's Pastor" Joel Osteen speaks favorably of the Lesbian Mayor of Houston, you can probably guess that most of the pastors aren't saying anything against the behavior.  So, what exactly are today's pastors doing?  Just going through the motions?  Pretending to be something that they really aren't?

Should I go to church?  Not from what I'm seeing.  When my parents took us to church when I was a little kid, the preacher gave a "fire and brimstone" type of sermon.  I didn't like it.  It turned me off to churches.  But maybe because I was a kid  and didn't understand.  Eventually you have to grow up and stop being a kid.

If there are any fire and brimstone type preachers, I may consider it now.  I think I understand now, but its a bit late, I'm afraid.

Been going through the motions, you see.  Eventually that will end as all things do.

How you can tell that America is in a lot of trouble

It's because nobody cares about the truth.  If people cared anything about the truth, there would be hope for this country.