Mankind’s God Complex

Mankind’s God Complex

It is interesting how humanity is constantly striving to become god-like. This is nothing new. In the biblical story of the Garden of Eden the temptation by the serpent offered that by eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge Adam and Eve would become more like God because they would gain the knowledge of right and wrong, thus giving them the knowledge of things God understood that, up to that point, they did not comprehend.

In reality, in the story of Adam and Eve, the serpent did not lie to the first humans. They did not need to be lied to in order for the deception to take place. The truth only had to be presented in a way to elicit a certain response, or action. It was an enticement to become more like God. Who wouldn’t want that?

The whole point of the Tree of Knowledge was obedience, but most folks miss the whole point.

One thing is for sure, however. Mankind has always strived to be more like God.

In today’s society the key word for this constant human struggle to be more like God is “Spirituality.” Some claim we are heading into a new age of enlightenment where the next step in human evolution is about to be upon us. Others say humans are multi-dimensional beings, and our dreams are actually contact by ourselves in other dimensions. One person once told me, for example, that if we dream we are flying it may mean that we are a bird in another dimension.

But these same people find a Judeo-Christian God something too difficult to believe in.

There are also those that believe in the power of the mind, and that the human mind is so powerful it is in complete tune with the rest of the body in ways that could lead to miracles. This may be a belief that stems from a story about Sigmund Freud in which he dreamed about having cancer, he interpreted the dream as something else, failing to recognize the opportunity to cure himself. He then subsequently died of the very cancer he dreamed he had. Some believe it was the cancer cells communicating with him, warning him.

I am not saying that dreams are random brain sequences, there may be a meaning to some dreams. Dreams, after all, played a significant role in many stories in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible. But once again, deception does not have to be a complete lie.

But to stay on point, the whole idea that humanity is progressing to perfection is a product of the Theory of Evolution. This movement, coincidentally, is populated by people who are also anti-Christian. The idea of progression to perfection is hardly compatible with the Biblical idea that we are all sinners and unworthy of God’s love.

Progression to perfection makes sense on the surface. After all, we seem to become more advanced as a species with each generation. Our understanding of the world, and universe around us, increases with the passing of each cycle. So, with such constant progression, it would seem logical that eventually we will progress to a god-like state. And with that kind of thinking, it would seem that since Christians are diametrically opposed to such a human-centered ideology, those that support progressivism would see it as a necessity to eliminate the obstacle to human advancement towards perfection. Specifically, Christianity, and religion as a whole, would be seen as a hindrance to humanity’s evolution – especially those that dare to believe in a Christian God.

But are we truly progressing?

In physics there is the Chaos Theory which says in the most simplistic terms that whenever something is left alone it will have the tendency to move toward a condition of chaos, rather than order. Progressive evolution, however, proclaims the opposite. The liberal idea of human evolution progressing toward perfection is essentially saying that our species is moving from chaos to order. But if naturally we tend to go from order to chaos, isn’t the idea of progression toward perfection in complete opposition to the logic of science?

For that matter, isn’t the entire theory of Evolution itself in direct opposition to the Chaos Theory? And if we are indeed moving from order to chaos as physics would profess, how did things begin in a state of order in the first place?

For many, the logical conclusion is that there was a creator, a designer, a blueprinter, who set everything in motion in perfect order. However, since that creation, we have been slowly progressing, or should I say “regressing,” toward a state of chaos. Toward confusion. Toward disorder.

Anarchy, when standards and morals and order are abandoned, is often the result of such a deterioration.

Without order, without standards, humanity has the tendency to do the wrong thing – “naturally” the wrong thing.

The natural tendency of humans to do the wrong thing is confirmed, from a Christian standpoint, in the New Testament Book of Romans. Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Humanity, however, does not want to accept that. Humanity does not desire to accept the fact that we are a flawed being headed towards catastrophe should we abandon the standards of order given to us in the form of Godly morals and principles. We would prefer, it seems, to be arrogant and believe that we are able to move in the opposite direction of nature, move in the opposite direction of science, and move in the opposite direction of common sense – that we are somehow progressing toward perfection, and a god-like state, in an opportunity as a species to be, well, more like God.

As a species we have become so dead-set on our evolution toward perfection that agendas have been created to ensure it happens. These political agendas are designed to control you, herd you, and point you in the direction of progressivism – as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom would say, “Whether you like it, or not.”

But as I said earlier, there is only one thing that stands in the way of this agenda: Religion – and more often than not, Christianity. In order to become more like God, they must eliminate the belief in the true God. In a sense, the secular humanists are attempting to eliminate the competition.

And for those of you that are religious, but are not necessarily Christian, understand this: The desire of the liberal left secular humanists to eliminate, subdue, or control Christianity will not stop at Christianity. You, my friends, will be next.

The fate of one will eventually become the fate of all.

Secular Humanism, the religion of humanity, is on the rise. The agenda? Perfection. Order. And the elimination of anybody that gets in the way.


Published in: on December 17, 2008 at 6:00 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Gay Marriage and the Equal Protection Clause

Proposition 8, The Equal Protection Clause, and the Coming Wave of Lawsuits

I guess Proposition 8, the State Constitutional Amendment in California defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, angered a few people. Lawsuits against the choice of the people are emerging.

The opponents of the amendment claim that it violates the “Equal Protection Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, as set out in the fourteenth amendment. Since rights apply to individuals, the Equal Protection clause applies to potential state violations of the rights of an individual, based on the individual’s status. A law or Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman means “any” man and “any” woman. This applies to any man or woman who wish to marry, and are of legal age or have parental consent. So, the law does not prohibit the rights of gays to marry. A homosexual male and a homosexual female are free to marry one another if they so desire.

The right to marry has not been eliminated from anybody. However, marriage is not necessarily a “right” anyways. If I wanted to marry a supermodel, I don’t have a “right” to that marriage. Nor would I have a “right” to marry my car, dog, or neighbor’s horse.

Not allowing people to marry someone of the same sex is not a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Besides, a state constitution is designed to address “state issues” and cannot be considered in contradiction with the U.S. Constitution if the federal constitution does not address those particular issues in the first place.

The opponents of Prop. 8 claim the Equal Protection Clause was designed for exactly that – to stop the states from violating someones rights based on . . .

Based on what? A behavior? The Equal Protection Clause was a direct result of the abolition of slavery in the United States. The 14th amendment was designed to protect blacks, or any racial group, against unfair treatment. The Equal Protection Clause was written to protect ethnicity and race – not behavior! Since behavior, such as homosexuality, is not specifically addressed in the U.S. Constitution, that means it is not a federal issue, and it is up to the individual states to address the issue – and if a state wishes to ban gay marriage in its state constitution, it is entitled to do so. The federal government cannot (though it has unlawfully in the past) overturn state law or amendments. It is unlawful for the federal government to do so according to the U.S. Constitution!

This very application, in turn, makes the Roe v. Wade decision unconstitutional (Roe v. Wade overturned a Texas State Law). It also makes the practice of the federal government shutting down medical marijuana facilities in California (as long as the drug does not cross state lines the issue remains a state issue) illegal as well. I don’t agree with the legalization of medical marijuana, but from a legal and Constitutional point of view, the state has a right to make such law without federal interference.

In reality, like Roe v. Wade did for abortion, the courts legalizing gay marriage with a court decision (and overturning state law) was unconstitutional in the first place. It is not for the courts to “make” law. Making law is the responsibility of the legislature. The courts were tasked by our founding fathers to provide an “opinion,” and then it is up to the legislature to act upon that opinion by the courts “if” they choose to.

The U.S. Constitution was written to limit the federal government from dictating law to the states, and the branches were set up as they were to limit the judiciary from having too much power. “States Rights” and “The People” are the central themes of the founding documents. Contrary to the lawsuits coming against Proposition 8, the voters have a right to interpret the Constitution, and change it, with their vote.

The Constitution belongs to “The People.” The U.S. Constitution was written for the people, of the people, and by the people. Besides, one does not have to have a law degree to recognize the original intent. However, if the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved, and decides to overturn California’s Proposition 8, there is going to be some serious issues rising from it regarding federal intrusion into state issues.

The Obsolete Man

Living in the Twilight Zone

Golden Earring’s Chorus for The Twilight Zone goes as follows:

Now I’m steppin’ into the Twilight Zone
This is a madhouse
Feels like being home
My feet they can’t move
Under moon and star
Where am I to go now that I’ve gone too far

Now why, you may ask, am I bringing up that chorus and The Twilight Zone?

I am a huge Twilight Zone fan, catching old episodes whenever I can on the local independent television station. I will not be so arrogant to say that I have caught every episode in my lifetime, but I have seen a great many of them. A couple of nights ago I caught an episode that sent a chill down my spine. The episode of The Twilight Zone was “The Obsolete Man,” with Burgess Meredith (Watch the full episode here). The opening narration is as follows:

You walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future; not a future that will be, but one that might be. This is not a new world: It is simply an extension of what began in the old one. It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advancements, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom. But like every one of the super states that preceded it, it has one iron rule: Logic is an enemy, and truth is a menace. This is Mr. Romney Wordsworth, in his last forty-eight hours on Earth. He’s a citizen of the State, but will soon have to be eliminated, because he’s built out of flesh and because he has a mind. Mr. Romney Wordsworth, who will draw his last breaths in the Twilight Zone.

The main character, Romney Wordsworth (Burgess Meredith), is a person that has been found to be “obsolete” by The State because he is not needed by society anymore. And because he is guilty of the crime of being obsolete, he is prosecuted by The Chancellor, and is sentenced to death.

In his daily life Mr. Wordsworth is a carpenter. Secretly, he is a librarian, a practice that is punishable by death. Also, he believes in God, another crime punishable by death.

After his sentencing, Wordsworth is given the choice of method of execution. He requests, also, that he be allowed to not disclose his method of death, and for the execution to be broadcast live on television. The requests are honored, and Wordsworth is sentenced.

Note the name of the main character. Romney Wordsworth. Appropriate considering his hobby as a librarian. Also note this daytime occupation: Carpenter. Considering that Mr. Wordsworth in this episode of The Twilight Zone is a man of faith, the connection is obvious. And Mr. Wordsworth spends a large portion of his final moments reading from a Holy Bible which he retrieves from a hiding place (apparently the Bible is illegal as well).

As the episode proceeds, while Wordsworth’s final hours are broadcast live to the nation, the chancellor is invited by Wordsworth to come to his apartment (Wordsworth’s choice location for his death) for a short discussion. What the chancellor does not realize is Wordsworth ensures that the chancellor is locked in the room with him. Then Wordsworth reveals his choice method of execution, and this chosen method is by bomb, a device which has been hidden in the room and is set to go off when the clock reaches midnight.

Wordsworth is calm as death approaches, and his intention is to show the nation how a man of God faces death. As he reads verses from his Bible, he points out that the State will risk losing face by trying to rescue a high-ranking chancellor. As the time winds down, Wordsworth’s calm acceptance of death stands in sharp contrast with the chancellor’s increasing panic, and eventual outburst, “In the name of God, let me out!”

Wordsworth immediately obliges, saying, “Yes, chancellor, In the name of God, I will let you out.”

Wordsworth knows he is not obsolete as he dies. His personal freedom was not taken away from him by the totalitarian state, his faith was not rubbed out by the humanistic secular government. His faith in what was written in his Bible is what keeps him going, and he never becomes fearful as death approaches. As death approaches the main character remains firm in his convictions, while the chancellor who claimed all along to be protected by The State became fearful, and panicked.

In the final scene the chancellor, now stripped of his rank for his outcry to God, and his inability to hide his fear, is put on trial for none other than the crime of being obsolete.

The closing narration of The Obsolete Man is as follows:

The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete, but so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete. A case to be filed under “M” for mankind—in the Twilight Zone.

How chilling is the parallels to today’s society. The liberal left desires that The State (big government) be all things to all people. They encourage dependency upon The State through entitlement programs while squashing faith and self-sufficience. Anything not in agreement with their agenda is suppressed (as Creationism is in academia, how discussions of faith are because the Christian faith refuses to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, Pro-Family books and addresses because they defend the family unit). And as this agenda incrementally advances, eugenics peeks over the horizon, and the liberal left’s own green agendas stands in the way of their own supposed advancements and religion of saving the planet from ourselves.

How chilling is it that today’s society is hell-bent on eliminating God, eliminating faith, and suppressing scriptural teachings and values. The commonalities between The Obsolete Man and the path our society is on is chilling, indeed.

Also note the following: The Obsolete man aired during the second season of The Twilight Zone in 1961, two years before God/prayer was removed from the public school system by Abington Township School District v. Schempp, June 17, 1963, a case brought about by the activism of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who founded the group American Atheists in 1963.

Hear commentary about this episode of The Twilight Zone on Political Pistachio Radio.

A Military Commitment in the Age of Government Dependency

Honoring Commitments

James Raymond is an honorably discharged veteran that was ordered to Iraq despite disabilities he suffered from his service in Afghanistan. The Leftwing Blogosphere and Leftwing e-mailers went ballistic on this. My cousin immediately sent me an e-mail stating that this kind of suffering and unfair tyrannical military actions are a direct result of Christianity, because if there was no Christianity, there would be no Islam (idiotic, I know but that is what she says). Ballbuster sent me an e-mail saying that if a**holes like me would go fight in this war that “rightwing fanatics,” like me, favor so much, the injured would not have to step back into the “Hell that Bush created.” Tom the Neurotic Liberal Blogger said, “And the f***ers that cheered this on.. and the f***ers that think they deserve an opinion.. and the f***ers that didn’t suit up and risk getting blown to pieces.. can f**k off. The vast majority of the “right wing Loon-o-sphere” sure can type a mean game.. eh?” Wow, now that one is pure idiocy mixed with out-of-control anger . . . perhaps he needs to be lying on a couch explaining himself to a shrink.

Stating that people have no business supporting a war effort without joining the military is like arguing that people don’t have a right to be against illegal immigration if they never served as a Border Patrol Agent, or that I have no business supporting a politician if I’ve never been in politics. That argument by the left is pure lunacy, and proof that rather than argue the issue, they would rather go into a finger pointing, name calling fit.

As for the article about James Raymond, there may be an error in the article. The article states that the “Department of Veteran’s Affairs determined that he was 10 percent disabled, enabling him to receive $120 a month for the rest of his life.” In the world of military medical separation, the original percentage is determined by the military branch that the service member was discharged from, and then the service member can request a re-evaluation with VA once they are discharged in the hopes of raising the percentage. For example, when I was medically separated, the U.S. Navy originally determined I was a 20% disability, but after a re-evaluation, Veteran’s Affairs determined that I was a 30% disability. This leads us into the “receiving a check for the rest of his life” thing. If Mr. Raymond is only at a 10 percent disability, then the military would have provided him with a severance package, rather than a monthly award because any disability at less than 30% does not warrant a monthly amount of money. If this rule has changed, I am not aware of it, but as far as I know, that is still the rules regarding military separation. It is possible that he was discharged with a 0% disability rating from the military, and was only able to get the Veteran’s Administration to raise it to 10%, but even then, it would not result in him receiving a monthly check. So, with an error like this in the article, I wonder how many other untruths there are in it.

As the article in the Buffalo News explains, in addition to a service member’s active duty commitment, there is a four year inactive reserve commitment in effect after a service member separates. Any disability that is less than 30% normally does not exempt a veteran from being later deployed during this period of Inactive Reserve. I learned quite a lot about this when I looked into re-entering the military service after the act of war against the United States on 9/11/2001, but because of my percentage, I am undeployable, therefore, unfit to serve.

One of the reasons James Raymond does not want to re-deploy, aside from having to drop his current life into a holding pattern, according to the article in the Buffalo News, is because he is not sure his knee will hold up. If that is the case, when he undergoes the medical evaluation (which will be mandatory) before deployment, and if the military medical staff determines his knee is unstable enough, then they will cancel his redeployment.

I understand the injuries that Raymond have incurred. I am deaf in my left ear, as is Mr. Raymond, and I have tinnitus (constant ringing in that ear) that is sometimes so loud I can’t hear what people are saying in my other, still functioning, ear. And, like James Raymond, I have a damaged knee, one that the doctor’s seriously wondered whether I would ever be able to use again. I was in a wheel chair, and graduated to a cane (twice), until I was finally able to walk fairly well, as I do now, with occasional bouts of pain that cause a visible limp. In addition to that, I incurred various other injuries during my time as a sailor, enough, apparently, to make me undeployable.

I believe I was “low-balled” on my disability rating, but never fought for an even higher percentage for a number of reasons, one being that I figure those monies would be better spent on a veteran with more severe injuries than myself. I have also had two doctors recommend that I go on permanent government disability, but I have refused that as well, figuring as long as I can stand, I can work. Perhaps James Raymond was low-balled as well. Perhaps his injuries demand more than a ten percent rating. But when I consider my disabilities, and then consider what I read about James Raymond’s, I wonder. I am ready to return to service (or course it would be amidst objections by my wife) if ever they were willing to take me. But he, with less disability than myself, is crying foul.

When James Raymond, like all other people who enter the U.S. Military, took that oath to defend this nation, he signed a contract. The contract included the inactive reserve period that he is now a part of. It is his obligation to fulfill the contract he signed. Or does the liberal left not place importance on contracts anymore?

Perhaps this is just more evidence of our Society of Dependency. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that there are those cases where there are people that find it very difficult to fully participate in the rights that the Creator has endowed them. I recognize that there are some Americans that find themselves in such situations due to no fault of their own. These cases are rare, however, and should not dictate the direction of our society. The current societal trend is to create dependency through a welfare state that perpetuates poverty. There are no rewards for getting people off of federal programs and no rewards for getting people back into the community with full-time jobs and independent lives. As a result of this welfare society that has been created, originally by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s unconstitutional “New Deal” which actually failed seven years after it had been originally put into place, and only succeeded because of the industry created by World War II, not because of his “socialized” government programs, our poorest neighborhoods are more violent and drug-infested, and the remainder of society has begun to believe that somehow the government owes them something. This “What can I get out of government” attitude is most apparent in stories we come across about people who take the “dependency” approach to life.

To illustrate this, I wish to discuss to situations. The first is about the disability pension abuse by the California Highway Patrol which reports that nearly 10 percent of the CHP budget goes to workplace injury complaints. Among the top ranking members of the CHP, more than 80 percent file for disability pensions, and the evidence is showing that most of these are fraudulent, and they are often simply being used as mere entitlement while the recipients pursue other careers.

In contrast to that “What can I get out of government” approach to life, there is the story of a paratrooper named George Perez, who, after losing his leg in Iraq, re-enlisted and in order to be able to serve again he undertook a tireless regimen to rebuild his body so that he could rejoin his regiment in Afghanistan. He was quoted as saying, “I’m not ready to get out yet. I’m not going to let this little injury stop me. . .”

In the end, the article in the Buffalo News is not about poor James Raymond who must place his life on hold, and go out on the battlefield with a bum ear and a less-than-100% knee. This article in the Buffalo News was not written with Mr. Raymond’s horrible plight in mind. The article was written with an anti-military fervor attached to it. It was designed to encourage pity for the poor soldier because of the horrendous mistreatment by the “big, bad” military. It uses comments like “…drop my life,” that it had been originally explained to him “. . . unless World War III breaks out, your name is never going to be called,” “He was expecting a normal life,” “He can’t understand how the government can send him checks for being disabled one day and then ask him to fight in a war the next,” he “hasn’t been able to quit smoking, a habit he picked up in the military,” and that he is being “forced to join a unit with which he has no history.”

The techniques worked, apparently, for my cousin, Ballbuster, and Tom all fell for the B.S. lock, drop, and barrel.

Oh, and my responses to those attempts at gaining pity by the Buffalo News article, and James Raymond? – – – Drop your life? Welcome to the world of honoring contracts with the military. You knew full well what the possibilities were when you signed up. Never going to be called up? Never say never, especially in a time of war. Expect a normal life? Are you saying the military is forcing you not to have a normal life? You signed the contract, so the decision to possibly have your normal life disrupted was originally yours. Receiving checks one day, fighting in a war the next? Hmmmm, goes back to that contract thing, first of all, and my question to you is, if you received no disability rating from the military when you were discharged (which I find unlikely, but possible), and then the VA later increased your percentage to 10 percent, did you bother letting the military human resources know about the disability rating? Did you bother to be responsible enough to ensure the information was forwarded to them? As for the smoking cigarettes part, the way that was worded it makes it sound like the writer of the article blames the military for forcing the poor guy to start such a horrible habit. That was a free choice. I began smoking in the military myself. I smoked for 21 years before I quit. And guess what? I didn’t blame anyone for me starting the habit. It was me that placed that cigarette in my mouth, and it was me that lit the lighter and placed it to the cigarette. No blame game. Personal responsibility. As for being forced to join a unit he is unfamiliar with. . . please, cry me a river. Welcome to the military. The need to adjust to new and unknown situations is a normal occurance in the military. You didn’t figure that out during the time you spent on active duty?

But, hey, not all people are cut-out for the military, so I sincerely hope the military does reconsider sending him back out into the field, because when I was in the military, the last thing I wanted was for my life to be in the hands of a fellow service member that did not want to be there, and therefore was not putting 110% into their duties. Whiners and criers are not fit for military service. Go home, go to school (or whatever it is you are going to do), don’t poison the moral of a unit.

In closing, I do not wish to take away from James Raymond’s service. Fact is, he did enlist, and he did serve in Afghanistan. I thank him for is service, and I appreciate all of our fine service members for the sacrifice they are giving. We all have our way to serve in this effort. Now that I cannot serve anymore due to my own disabilities, I blog and host my radio show on Blog Talk Radio. Others that wish to contribute to this war effort work for, or donate to, resources that support our military and provide services to our military service members. We all have a way to be a part of this effort, and comments by the left that if you support the mission you have to do join the military is idiotic. . . but, that’s when you need to consider the source.

Published in: on April 19, 2008 at 10:56 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

The Death of Common Sense

This has been making its rounds on the internet, thought you might enjoy. . .

I don’t know who wrote this little article but it seems like it is turning out to be TRUE !
 Obituary of the late Mr. Common Sense

‘Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years.  No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. 

 He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn’t always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. 

Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate;
teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch;
 and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. 

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student;
but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. 

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. 

 She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents,

Truth and Trust;
his wife, Discretion; his daughter,
 Responsibility; and his son, Reason. 
 He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
 I Know My Rights, I Want It Now,
Someone Else Is To Blame,
and I’m A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. 

 If you still remember him, pass this on. 
 If not, join the majority and do nothing.’
Also Visit my main blog Political Pistachio
Published in: on April 4, 2008 at 4:53 pm  Leave a Comment