Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The false dichotomy between faith and reason

All thought must have a foundation of beliefs in order to process information for reasoning. Being that we are constantly forced into making decisions, other than being bipolar, we have no option but to embrace a set of beliefs to predicate our decisions upon. Although there are many ideologies upon which to form a foundation of thought, they can be reduced into two basic categories, herein referred to as spiritual and material, or sometimes distinguished as faith and reason(religion and science). Keep in mind that these terms are not precise seeing that the materialist will show a spiritual side and does place faith in something, and the spiritual man is not without reason or necessarily in denial of science, although a part of his reason is based upon a trust that there are things in existence which cannot be seen or proven by man, but nonetheless, are a reality. Therefore, there is a false dichotomy between faith and “reason”, because everyone who believes anything, or holds any ideology or belief system, embraces both. But even so, when faith is misplaced, reason becomes corrupted.

Because of conflicts between spiritual and material(worldly) foundations of thought, there becomes a necessity to choose one over the other as the predominate basis in making choices; for you cannot establish a direction in life based upon uncertainty. As it is written: “You cannot serve God and mammon”. It is easy for one to say they are agnostic, but in practice when making certain choices, some decisions must be made by faith; and the rejection of a faith often is in itself an opposing faith, or a faith against a faith. For if we are to believe anything, we must base trust in what knowledge is. And we cannot always do that solely on what is proven or accepted as fact because of the many unknowns. For even with all we know, there are gaps in our knowledge created by unknowns. It is often necessary to fill these gaps, which we attempt to do by reasoning. This means that along with provable certainties, we also all choose to believe some things which are only accepted by faith. This is true whether we believe in God or not. For while one can claim only to believe in science, it is almost impossible, because at this point scientific knowledge is too incomplete by itself to completely support an ideology. And because it is incomplete, one who believes only in science is often forced to interpret what the science means, which gives birth to theories. This too becomes faith wherein one puts trust in his own reasoning. For we cannot make any sense of anything without first laying a foundation of what we accept as knowledge. And without this foundation, we are tossed to and fro being unstable and confused. Herein lies the Great Division between the spiritual man and the carnal man sometimes referred to imprecisely as, science versus religion, or reason versus faith. In reality, those terms create a false dichotomy; for faith is hardly without reason, nor is secular reasoning completely devoid of faith.

A secular belief system based solely upon scientific reasoning places more limitations on knowledge than does a system based upon faith in God, in part because the secularist will reject knowledge received by revelation or through testimony of a personal experience. While often this can be the correct thing to do, there are cases where revelations, experiences, and testimonies are indeed true. Even an event that takes place with no witnesses still happens. So likewise, the rejection of all things that cannot be proven also will include some truths. Nonetheless, by doing so, secularists put academia in the position of being the exclusive arbitrators in determining what qualifies for knowledge and biases arise wherein there is often an exclusion of the beliefs and knowledge held by others if it dose not conform to their ideology.

Because of the gaps in knowledge, to connect the pieces together, secularists are themselves forced to resort to faith to manufacture links, often at best based upon circumstantial evidence. They rely upon theories to arrive at explanations and conclusions. In doing so, however, their explanations often tend to create even more questions, which in turn demands an even greater faith and an expansion of theories. Thus, in many cases, the materialist ends up being no less believing, no less devoted, no less fanatical, nor any less evangelical, and far more wildly imaginative than his religious counterpart.

Nonetheless, when popular ideas and theories gain enough traction in intellectual circles, they often become accepted as a reality and are incorporated and “certified” as knowledge, even without sufficient supporting evidence. Thus, pure science is undermined and in many cases, the occupation embraces faith and becomes a profession with a ‘religious’ nature. Agenda driven ideologies become dogma and are embraced by the academics, creating numerous instances wherein things are treated as indisputable fact when at best they are unknown. But then too, many things which are indeed true are treated as falsehoods or dismissed. The end result is science ceases to be as scientific as it claims.

H.G. Wells, whom I have often cited, a man sold solely on science and reason, exhibits his faith in the following words,

“There was no Creation in the past, we begin to realize, but eternally there is creation; there was no Fall to account for the conflict of good and evil, but a stormy ascent. Life as we know it is a mere beginning….“ “……We have still barely emerged from among the animals in their struggle for existence. We live only in the early dawn of human self-consciousness and in the first awakening of the spirit of mastery.”

This is a statement of faith and a religious expression of secular-humanism wherein mankind is essentially evolving to the status of being “God”. To further illustrate this religious aspect of secular humanism embraced by materialists we can continue with Wells’s writing where he says,

“Man’s soul is no longer his own. It is, he discovers, part of a greater being which lived before he was born and will survive him. The idea of a survival of the definite individual with all the accidents and idiosyncrasies of his temporal nature upon him dissolves to nothing in this new view of immortality…..……The first sentence in the modern creed must be, not “I believe,” but “I give myself.”

Thus accordingly, the secular mindset holds that creation is and of itself; there is nothing more. Man’s sole purpose is not as an individual but in being a “part of a greater being”(the collective). It is to give himself to the “being” for the advancement of mankind (the being) to higher levels. As individuals alone we have little to no value, but as a apart of the collective, we are as single cells in the immortal body of humanity. Our sole purpose of existing is to help advance the immortal body of civilization through the stages of evolution. Cells die, but they are replaced by new and the body lives. Collectively, we are the supreme being. There is no God above us. It is this vein of thinking that puts mankind above all and invites justification for man to act as God, to decide who is innocent and who is guilty, who should live and who should die. The lives of individuals become dispensable if deemed a liability to the advancement or benefit of the body of humanity. This rejection of faith in God creates a faith, albeit, an atheistic one with all the aspects of a religion.

Wells was an understudy of Thomas Huxley (“Darwin’s bulldog“) and his writing exemplifies the strain of thought that was widespread in academia in the early 1900s. Wells was not an originator of this thought but was indoctrinated into this line of thinking in the universities and rejected faith in God.

It was this worldview which gave birth to the eugenics movement to facilitate evolution in the process whereby the “superior” elements supersede the weaker. The ideology spread worldwide and particularly throughout institutions of “higher” learning. The introduction of this into Germany was inspirational in the Nazis’ determination that the Aryans were the most advanced race, and thus, not only had the right, but an obligation to the future of humanity to supersede the inferior elements which were destroying the world and slowing the evolutionary process. Only those deemed the most perfect had value, the lives of all others were disposable and worthy of life only as long and in as much as they were useful in the advancement of the Übermensch.

By this time, the Soviet Union also had already promoting the unrealistic concept of perfection in a material world, but more emphasis was placed on the march toward social perfection rather than genetic superiority. The result, however, was no better under Communism than it was under Nazism; but even though the Communists were responsible for many more deaths than the Nazis, communism has not not attained to the same degree of stigma. As a result, today even in western societies, Marxist ideologies are woven into progressive socialist agendas and Darwinism is foundational in governmental education.

The words of Vladimir Lenin, “We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth,” may be well and widely accepted throughout universities everywhere.

Well over a hundred million lives have fallen victim to materialists ideologies which are essentially based on the concept that man is the supreme being and that the supreme men are “God.” How this repeats itself in the future is yet to be seen, but it will be seen if man continues down that road.

Arbitrary Morality

According to secular humanism, not only have the species been evolving, but law is “living and breathing” and also evolving. For law, having no source other than from those persons who create it, is relative, arbitrary, and at this point incomplete. Thus, whatever seems the most expedient or beneficial at the moment is deemed acceptable. The problem however, is that what benefits some may be totally devastating for others.

From this conflict of interests comes the concept of the “common good” wherein the benefits for society as a whole are weighed against the rights, freedoms, or even the lives of those whose suffering would seem small in comparison to the benefits reaped by society. In all actuality, however, the benefit of the elite ruling class carries more weight than the “common good” of society, and it is arrogantly viewed by them as being the same.

In the elitists mind, if a few years of holocaust purges out the “corrupt” and “inferior” elements of humanity and brings a thousand year reign of a superior and more perfect civilization, then so be it, it was merely a part of the process. Besides, how much future suffering will be avoided by eliminating the “sub-humans” and their posterity who were spared being born? The overall gain is a plus. This type of rational is the direct result of reason absent a faith in God. It is the place reason always ends when it travels alone.

Faith or Reason

Reason absent faith has proven itself a force of destruction. By the same token, faith absent reason is no less destructive than reason without faith. Man cannot live without faith; he is intellectually paralyzed without it. On the other hand, by faith alone without reason, man is also lost. Only when knowledge is perfect can reason be perfect; and a faith that is not misplaced possesses the same virtue as knowledge; for indeed, it is knowledge.

As many have been destroyed by the reasoning of the Godless, a great many have also been destroyed by faith in a “God”. What the two have in common, however, is materialism. For the as the Godless have based their ideology upon the physical world, those religions responsible for the murder of countless individuals did the same by establishing their faith in the physical realm. For although they professed to be spiritual, in practice their deeds were physical, aimed at fulfilling worldly ambitions. This is as true of the Church of Rome it is of Islam today.

Although the evangelical Christian may preach about hell, the Islamic fanatic believes it his duty to expedite your arrival as soon and as horrifically as possible. The faith of the former is in the spiritual; he awaits a kingdom, and judgment is carried out by God alone in his time. On the other hand, the latter acts in the place of God, to execute judgment and establish a physical kingdom of “God” on earth. The pursuit of an earthy kingdom was the ambition also of Roman Catholicism, of both the Nazis and Communists, and it is also the vision of “progressive” elitists today.

Thus, religions that base their actions on the establishment of a kingdom in the physical realm have more in common with communists, fascists, and other secular collectivists who seek to do the same, than they do with those who base their faith on an everlasting omnipotent Creator, who has endowed men with a free will and inalienable rights!

Reason alone did not bring freedom, it did not create rights, nor did it bring justice; it has always done the opposite. For reason never travels alone; it is always accompanied by ideology. And reason is to be a servant of faith, a helper to bring invisible principles into the knowledge of a physical world as a constant foundation. For, if we are to avoid catastrophe, we must balance faith with reason, reason with faith, but the redeeming virtue of reason comes from faith.

RAS – 2007


Read Full Post »

What is Christianity? Where did it originate? Is there a difference between Christianity, The Church, and the true “Body of Christ”?

The first believers in Yeshua, today more commonly known as Jesus, were called “Followers of the Way”; and they were Jews living in Judea. In other nations, variations of the Babylonian religion of the sun god had for centuries become established as the foundation of belief. It was upon the foundation of Babylonian religion that virtually all nations and people would build their beliefs and systems. In different cultures and among different peoples and nations, this ancient religion would evolve, mutating into various versions, adding, subtracting, and interjecting different ideas, often substituting different names for the same deities, idols, and gods. In Rome up until the time Christianity became the official state religion, “Sol Invictus Mithras” — “The Unconquered Sun Mithra” was worshiped. This religion disappears around the 4th Century A.D. Is this time frame coincidental? Or, did the practice of idolatry even disappear? Contrary to common belief, Rome did not convert to Christianity. It would be more correct to say it was Christianity that was converted into being Roman. By incorporation of the Gospel with existing beliefs and practices, Roman idolatry was given a face lift, maybe more like a face transplant. Thousands of Christians whose Christianity was at odds with Rome’s version were put to death by Constantine. Was that very Christian? This would become the rule for hundreds of years to follow.

It was a brilliant plan by Satan to incorporate the truth of Yeshua into his lie. It would become the lie whereby Christianity would become characterized for hundreds of years, even until today. But Satan made one fatal mistake. By incorporating some truth into his idolatrous Babylonian religion, he provided for its demise. Indeed, for there is something within the truth that is so powerful, it fights to restore itself to the fullness of truth. Even in the midst of lies, truth cries aloud to be heard and to come out. There are those who hear truth’s voice for it tugs at their hearts and they cannot escape its pull. Truth draws these people continually unto the fullness thereof. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, truth is restored. This is how we have come to arrive where we are today. And the restoration of Truth is not finished. The Truth was spread around the whole world within a lie and has been fighting its way out of that lie ever since — often at the price of the lives of those who dared declare it. No, the restorationists were not perfect, but they were moved by the Spirit, and those who would follow after would bring truth, each one, little by little, closer to home. As it was foretold by the prophet Joel:

Tell ye your children of it,
And let your children tell their children,
And their children another generation.

That which the palmer-worm hath left hath the locust eaten; And that which the locust hath left hath the canker-worm eaten; And that which the canker-worm hath left hath the caterpillar eaten.

Awake, ye drunkards, and weep,
And wail, all ye drinkers of wine,
Because of the sweet wine,
For it is cut off from your mouth.

But in chapter 2, Joel proclaims the restoration of the truth.

“And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, The canker-worm, and the caterpillar, and the palmer-worm. . .”

The Bible is a Jewish book, both parts. It must be restored and understood in its Jewish context if it is to be understood by anyone. There are over 40,000 different Christian denominations and sects. What has not been corrupted or devoured, all or in part, by 40,000 armies of palmer-worms, locust, canker-worms, and caterpillars? Doctrines left in tact by one have been perverted by another. Yet, even within those institutions there have been those who came to know Him through faith in Him, in spite of many false doctrines — to whom He says, “Come out from among them my people. . . “

Read Full Post »

Science as the guardian of truth

Has the scientific community set itself up as the arbiter and guardian of truth? I believe it has.  In “science” there is a pretension not only to know, but to also be able to classify what is unknown. The assumption is that because science does not know something, know one else can it know either. The fact is, just because scientists don’t know something, that cannot be counted as proof that nobody knows it.

There are people who know things that science cannot know, because the information falls outside the realm of scientific experimentation and measurements. It is knowledge that is perceived rather than proven.  A conflict arises between invisible truths and science, when the “scientific” community determines that because a thing cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be known. It is then, that by the designation of things being an unknown, they think to have a monopoly on knowledge. Thus, they categorize all things ‘known’ or ‘unknown’, and thus they imagine they are the ones who ‘know’ all things that are known.

“Science” cannot know what I am thinking, but I do, and only I do. Nor by “science” can I prove all my thoughts or the many experiences only I experienced. Even if I reveal secrets only I know to be true, it doesn’t prove them, it merely proves what I am saying they are. Indeed. The private secrets I hold are mine. Does it mean they did not exist because only I know them and science cannot prove them?

It is absurd to say because something cannot be proven by science it therefore does not exist or it is an unknown. It is presumptuous to assume that because something is not known by almost all, that it is unknown by all. It is presumptuous to say that because a majority of people who profess a faith are deceived, all who profess a faith are deceived.

By “science”, one may assume there is no God.  On the other hand, by science one can assume there is. Moreover, by a personal experience one may be deceived, then again, one may come to know something intangable—and that which is known by one, may be something beyond the knowledge of all others.

By believing that things unknown to science are unknown to all, there is a temptation to imagine knowing everything knowable, This in turn is followed by the temptation to establish “the truth”,  which in turn, becomes something that is expected to be accepted by all and questioned by none.

The “scientific community” can only imagine to know all it does and does not know, but it cannot truly know what anyone else knows, personal experiences, invisible knowledge, and God are not subject to science. And, “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Read Full Post »

The timing of the meltdown is a truly remarkable coincidence, and does raise the question of whether or not it is orchestrated.

Anti-capitalists wish to destroy the system in order to remake it into a global economic system.

Buffet and Sorors aren’t selling they are offering to buy!!!!!

WARREN Buffet, according to the Forbes list, is the richest man in the world. He has an estimated wealth of about $62b or more than the size of the East African economy. He has made his money by first investing on the stock exchange and later own-buying whole companies. The 77-year old billionaire made his first stock purchase when he was 13.

Buffet’s success has come from buying good companies selling at a discount. When the market is generally overvalued, he has the discipline to refrain from buying because everyone is buying.

In the run up to the current financial crisis, Buffet has been out of the markets accumulating up to $40b in cash in the process.

Since the crisis begun last year, Buffet has been in the market, his latest deals have been multi-billion dollar share purchases in investment bankers Goldman Sachs and US conglomerate GE. Share purchases in good companies heavily discounted by the investing masses.

Buffet is famously quoted as saying, “We are fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”……..


Soros too.

These monopolists work to create panic, then when it crashes they come in and buy up as much as they can as cheap as they can. At the same time, their socialist counter parts in the political arena use the crisis as an opportunity to make news laws and gain a choke hold on society and business.

If you have not heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. read about it here:

Cloward – Piven

It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Read Full Post »

The Change Of Times

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.” — U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

Abe prayed he was wrong but such is not the case, Lincoln was more prophetic than wrong. The US economy has no foundation and is propped up by foreigners only in so much as it is their current source of wealth. We are no longer a nation of producers but of consumers who are dependant upon other nations. There is no solid foundation for our wealth any longer and the US economy is being artificially kept alive by manipulation of those who have interests. Not love of our country mind you but self interests. A shift in any number of areas can dissolve these interests or over-ride them leaving the US dollar in freefall overnight.

How did this happen? – In part by economic globalization. International banks financed monstrous corporations that swallowed up each other and became international so that their loyalties now lie with an international agenda.

In a December 08, 2006 article: Deficits: Should we worry? author Dennis Sevakis writes:

“But all over the world, behind those curtains, there’s a veritable army working to keep the planet’s economic treadmill from breaking down. And just what would a breakdown entail?

Well, it could become dump-the-dollar day

Since 1976 the United States has run a trade deficit. No big secret there. For a time that deficit was offset by a surplus in services and earnings from overseas investments. However, in 1983 “Net goods, services and payments” went into the red and has stayed there ever since. In 1991 it did shrink to a paltry $7 billion deficit (payments received for our Gulf War expenses?) but has risen ever since then, and for the first half of 2006 stands at $783 billion on an annual basis. Yes, that’s three-quarters of a trillion. Despite these enormous annual deficits, the dollar has not as yet tanked and still remains the world’s number-one currency and comprises 66% of the world’s foreign currency reserves held by national treasuries……..”

Of course, “if current trends continue” is a big “IF.” The diligent efforts of European and Asian finance ministers to support the dollar has, until the present, worked fairly well. Yes, the dollar has declined over the last few years relative to the Euro, British Pound and Yen with the Chinese Yuan being pegged to the dollar. But it hasn’t “broken” in a hard rush downward. This is due to the determination of the countries with whom we trade to keep their exports up and American consumers buying goods as if there were no tomorrow. If the dollar tanked, the sudden increase in the cost of imported goods to the American consumer would skyrocket and the economies of the exporting countries would suffer. That’s why they’re willing to finance our purchases. How convenient….”

Like it or not, America lives off of a big credit card and we cannot change it because internationalist debt holders also control who our candidates for the top offices are. Big money picks the candidates and without their support you will not be a viable candidate once you start getting into the upper tier of politics. GW Bush is a fluke, they thought they would get more out of him than he has given them, and he has given them some, albeit, along with some of what they don’t like.

Of the two major parties we have been sold out by one party completely and in part and by part of the other party.

The unrestrained globalization of the US economy has undermined the nation and will eventually bring political globalization and at the same time global wars. This globalization is also what has the Islamofascist freaked out – they are fighting for their culture because they feel threatened by globalization and wish to take us all back to the dark ages or death which ever comes first.

I am not against international trade but the way it was done has sold us out. We are now a consumer nation and we are almost solely reliant on others for production and resources. They hold our national economy in their hands and to an extent, we theirs – but this is a very fragile act that can only be juggled for so long until the balls hit the ground.

Also of note is the quote of Abraham Lincoln is not the only warning on the matter:

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
– Thomas Jefferson – The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)

Read Full Post »

Jesus advocated violence saying that he came not to bring peace but a sword. Notwithstanding, his use of the term sword in context with the surrounding scriptures is often used metaphorically as a symbol of spiritual division, for he also preached against physical violence. He stated that the kingdom he was representing was not earthly and it could not be advanced or defended by carnal weapons.

However, he did say something about earthly kingdoms.

Jesus said. “If my kingdom were of this world then would my servants fight

With that in mind, is America our kingdom; and, is it of this world? I would venture to say it is and that it is also worth fighting for. However, if it became over time like Nazi Germany, or the old USSR, it could come to the place it no longer would be worth fighting for or defending in a physical sense.

That being said, I believe that defense is not only a right but an obligation, however, there must be enough spiritual substance that is worthy of defending to qualify for it.

Israel at the time of Christ was a fallen and corrupt nation, even the temple priest were illegitimate and were sold out to the Romans. Is it possible that at that time Israel was not worth defending and any victory would prolong a perverse nation?

In the Bible God through his prophets told the people of Israel to surrender. On one occasion Jeremiah proclaimed to the people that they should go out to the king of Babylon and serve him and by doing so they could spare their lives and their city. Jeremiah was imprisoned and almost put to death for this; but then, wound it not seem treasonous to weaken and undermine your nation at a time of such peril? But Israel had become corrupt before God and God would not deliver Israel in that of state of depravation.

Those who fought against the Chaldeans were slain and Jerusalem was destroyed. However, on the other hand, there were many other occasions in which the Israelites had been commanded to fight and they prevailed against overwhelming odds.

Many Christians today are confused by what seems to be the pacifist message of Jesus, and it is true Jesus used the sword figuratively to represent spiritual division. But if God has given us an earthly kingdom in addition to a heavenly one, as long as it is worthy of defending we had better do so. That being said, may God grant us enough wisdom to know when the nation in which we reside is our kingdom or when it is fallen beyond worth. I, at this point, in spite of the depravity and corruption still see in America enough worth fighting for.

Read Full Post »

The dominion belongs to reality, however, for the time reality seems to be largely absent. There is a manipulation of information on such an immense scale today that most people now live in a pseudo-reality. As more and more people adopt a false reality the perception of it as truth becomes greater and others are also persuaded to accept it as such.

Finally, when a delusion gains enough momentum, those who do not accept it are intimidated, ridiculed, and given derogatory labels by the true believers of pseudo-reality so that by their sheer numbers they cause even some clear thinkers to begin questioning themselves.

It then becomes possible that for a finite period of time pseudo-reality can work with the same power and affect as reality itself by the control of perceptions. If enough people are convinced that markets are going up they invest in the markets and they do indeed go up, even if there is no physical foundation for it, but it will not be sustainable.

For although a pseudo-reality can bring forth a positive effect, that effect is often doomed having no foundation in reality. However, more often than not, a pseudo-reality is likely to have a negative result bringing a destructive end to what could have been a positive outcome.

“I believe it and therefore it is,”
This seems to be the philosophy of the elitist media, those who regard them, and also many of those in high places of power today. They believe that if they can control perceptions by the manipulation of information that they can control the world and create reality. This is a folly of catastrophic proportions that has put the world on a collision course with the truth. When reality inevitably collides with false perceptions the end result shall be the devastation of that which is not. Reality always comes back to claim its domain.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »