Marvel8ed
Webdesigns
ARMAGEDDON OR HEAVEN ON EARTH?
Any intellectual person who pays much attention to World politics understands that all of humanity is in a very precarious condition. We have advanced in knowledge and technology far beyond our control over our basic instincts, and we have become like mad gods, incapable of achieving the greatness of universal love; but we are now more than capable of destroying all of humankind. Our knowledge and technological capabilities have outstripped our moral character.
This paper is not a call for rejection of knowledge and technology. Rather, it is a call for a recognition that we do possess the power to change the course of history for the better. Annihilation of the human race is not foreordained.
Let's start this discussion with an (unprioritized) enumeration of a few of the reasons why we need to pay more attention to our survival:
- Our nation's political and economic instability are reaching criticality. The United States is in political crisis, and our democracy is unlikely to survive unless radical changes in thinking occur. A second Civil War will destroy millions of people and almost everyone's retirement funding, food supplies, energy sources, potable water, and on and on. The technology of destruction is so much greater now than in the first Civil War of the 1860s that the desolation from the second will be far more severe. Survival will be for the unlucky few.
- The decline in the overall level of rational thought occurring worldwide is causing a huge loss of respect for specialists in every avenue of endeavor. Wishful thinking is replacing reality in the minds of a majority. Rational analysis is of little to no consideration in a majority of disputes. This decline is occurring largely within the most prosperous countries, "Western" countries, because prosperity distorts and hides reality. This decline in rationality in the West, logically, will allow more disciplined Asian countries to gain World supremacy -- at our loss.
- The rise of religious fanaticism is being manifest in most Muslim countries, but no more so nor more dangerous than that being manifest in the United States, among Evangelical Christians. Modern Evangelical Christians can tell the difference between an acorn and an oak tree, but not between a human blastocyst and a human being. Against all evidence, they believe the Earth is only 6000 years old; it never occurs to them that their interpretation of Scripture might need revision! Their theology is faulty because they reject the very logic and reasoning so strongly espoused by Jesus. If you doubt this, just look at how Jesus refuted the bad theology of the religious leaders of his time.
- The danger of virus mutations and our general lack of preparedness were made clear during the very mild COVID-19 epidemic, which had an infection fatality rate of only 1.4 percent. Had it been a Marburg or Ebola virus or a similar nasty virus, the World could easily have lost 50 percent of its population in a year! Billions dead, instead of millions. The scientists know this, and have sounded the alarms, but the politicians and the public are in denial. Those who put free-dumb (freedom) before sound anti-viral measures will not get away with their stupidity if a truly nasty virus pandemic occurs. Any observer of how non-native plants and animals are proliferating in new environments due to globalized trade and travel can understand that viruses can be transmitted to new countries far more easily and with far less detection than the foreign plants and animals we worry about. Considering how badly COVID-19 disrupted economies worldwide, and particularly China’s, factor that economic disruption up by a factor of 30 or more if a nasty virus pandemic occurs. If you don’t die from the virus, you still might starve.
- The political instability of nations that possess nuclear arms is rising. Economically and politically, China is on the rocks. We may see their entire national structure collapse soon. Russia is but a shell of its former self, having rotted from the inside out. North Korea is a backwards nation run by a mad man. Will China, or Russia, or North Korea, rather than collapse under the weight of their bad decisions, start a war in an attempt to revive their economies? It is likely that a war with any of these countries will go nuclear. The old MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy that worked so well when national leaders were rational is now unlikely to work so well, because we see grossly unqualified mad men -- not just in North Korea -- in "control of the little red button" of thermonuclear bombs. Add to these risks the desire of Muslim fanatics to obtain atomic bombs, many of which are unaccounted for. We need to contemplate the scenario of if-and-when some nutcase triggers one; and what will happen in response?
- One can argue whether global climate change is caused by humans or not, but no rational person can argue that global climate change does not exist and is not increasing in scope. It is undeniable. We can expect to see forest fires that encompass hundreds of square miles, increased hurricanes and tornados, coastal cities under water, much of Africa uninhabitable desert -- with hordes of refugees trying to move to Europe and Asia. Crops will fail. Water scarcity will increase. Standards of living will plummet. Hunger and starvation will become commonplace in many parts of the World
- Artificial intelligence has improved by leaps and bounds. It can do much good; but, it also can do great harm in the hands of the wrong people. A good AI computer can craft highly believable propaganda in milliseconds, and the debunkers of this disinformation are like rock throwers against machine gunners. Unless the Constitution is modified to restrict the "free speech" of computers, our democracy will not survive the onslaught of disinformation.
If a wise person seriously considers all these threats concurrently unfolding, they will quite logically starts thinking about things that they can personally manage to help mitigate the likelihood of personal disaster.
It is right that we look at personal, actions, because we cannot rely on our governments to do what is best for us. But buying gold and silver and stockpiling food are about as effective as applying band-aids to a fractured spinal column. Those who seriously explore personal ways to mitigate global threats soon come to realize that the best answers are in the collective. We are all mankind, and we are all in this mess. There is no us-versus-them. We are all in this together. It is the us-versus-them that will kill us all if we don’t recognize its lethality, and conquer it.
For those who seriously explore personal survival alternatives, it is quickly obvious that survivalism is a great hoax, a fantasyland.
Survivalists might last a week or two longer than non-survivalists, but then everyone is equally dead.
The greatest survivalist hoax of all is foisted by well-meaning but deluded Christians. Christians claim that "God is in control. God will protect His people." And they really believe it. Their problem is not of belief, but of bad theology. They fervently believe -- just in the wrong thing. Most of the people who claim that God will protect them will be under His wrath, not his protection.
Scripture is crystal clear and abundantly plain that most people who claim to be Christians will NOT be welcomed if and when they reach the pearly gates. It will not be because their God does not exist; rather, it will be because their God will refuse to accept them. He'll say, "Depart from me ye workers of iniquity. I never knew you."
Yes, most professing "Christians" will be refused at the pearly gates. Why?
A major theme of the Old Testament and of Jesus in the New Testament is that God expects everyone to be committed to "the common good" of all mankind. This commitment cannot be satisfied just with occasional charity. Those who claim salvation but ignore this demand will not be welcomed by God. Don't take my word for it. Read what Jesus said! It logically follows that if God does not regard them as "His children", unacceptable for Heaven, then they do not have His protection now, either.
I am not arguing against real Christianity nor against the wise counsel of Scripture. I am arguing against the current widespread heresy of greasy grace, where one can say, in effect, "Rub a dub dub, thanks for the grub, yea God!" and that is all that is required. But God does require more. It is fine to believe that God will save his own. But the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians are not His own.
Whether you be Christian or Athiest, in this one area of God demanding that Christians seek the common good, the demands of Scripture are equally sound! If one thinks about it from a careful Scriptural analysis, one sees that God demands all mankind to work tirelessly for the common good of all humankind. Whether you are an atheist or a devout Christian, or a Muslim, Buddhist, or any other religion, this is exactly the right message for our troubled world.
If one is an atheist and doesn't recognize the existence of any god, the same message is still the only rational alternative; that is, the best hope for mankind's survival, regardless of your religious or non-religious beliefs, is to work tirelessly for the common good of all humankind.
If those who profess Christianity would begin to understand this great truth, and the fact that they have ignored an unconditional demand by God, they could become an unbelievable force for changing the course of humankind. A light on the hill for the whole World. But I have no faith that they will do this. Perhaps the athiests will become the rocks that cry out?
If those who profess Christianity would begin to understand this great truth, and the fact that they have ignored an unconditional demand by God, they could become an unbelievable force for changing the course of humankind. A light on the hill for the whole World. But I have no faith that they will do this. Perhaps the athiests will become the rocks that cry out?
--mof, 10/13/2023
AYN RAND VERSUS JESUS CHRIST
Robert Reich has written a series of articles lamenting the loss of a vision for "the common good" in America. In the second article in his series ( https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=365422&post_id=133584355 ) he complains, "The idea of 'the common good' was once widely understood and accepted in America. After all, the U.S. Constitution was designed for 'We the people' seeking to 'promote the general welfare' -- not for 'me the selfish jerk seeking as much wealth and power as possible.'"
The common good was not seen as charity. It was seen by your Founding Fathers as the embodiment of civic virtue -- the recognition that we are our brother's keeper, that we are all in this together, and only by supporting everyone, by always seeking the common good instead of our own selfish good, can a society prosper in the long term.
Reich attributes much of our loss of vision for the common good to the writings of Ayn Rand, author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. In her books and lectures, Rand expounded her views about "the virtues of selfishness". She quite literally believed that selfishness is a virtue. She attacked the American idea of the common good:
"The common good is an undefined and undefinable concept," she wrote, a "moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it."
When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual desires of its members, "it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals."
Her ridicule and attack of the common good was mainly directed against governmental programs that tried to promote the common good, and she found lesser fault in the charity of individuals, given voluntarily. But she definitely made it known that in her mind the latter was foolish, while the former was morally wrong; an overreach of government that must be corrected. But was she on firm philosophical and ethical ground, or on quicksand? Lets turn to another important historical figure.
In contrast to Ayn Rand's ideas we have the teachings of Jesus Christ, who explicitly made it clear that we are our brother's keeper, that our righteousness is measured by our care for the fatherless, the widows, the oppressed, the downtrodden, and the stranger (foreigner) among us. His parable of the Good Samaritan, in which he asked the hearers who was the more righteous, is but one of a host of examples. In another passage he tells of the end-time judgement, in which many addressed him as LORD, but he turned them away because they did not take care of those in need whenever and where ever they encountered them. To summarize, Jesus demanded his followers be very concerned about the common good. Note that he did not characterize the demand as "optional charity"; he made it mandatory, a demand on his followers. This demand is not emphasized in most churches today.
It should be clear that Ayn Rand's philosophy runs directly counter to the teachings of Jesus. She saw those who would follow Jesus' teachings as foolish, and a government that concerned itself with the common good as corrupt.
The one area of Rand's philosophy that gives us brief pause is that she divides between individuals and their governments in terms of supporting the common good: For her, the caring, charitable individual is simply foolish. How much more so an individual who believed the common good was an obligation, and not an optional charitable act? For her, the caring government that dares to seek the common good is corrupt in its "stealing from the well off" to help the less well off. Because Rand draws this distinction -- between what individuals can and should do versus what governments can and should do -- we have to ask if Jesus did too?
Did Jesus hold governments accountable to the same demands to seek the common good as he holds individuals?
Remarkably, we have no record of Jesus ever speaking out about governmental authority. He said that His kingdom was not of this World, and he said to render to Caesar his due, and to God his due. So, we cannot directly answer as to whether Jesus even thinks in terms of judging governments. Sure, we can infer from the Old Testament that God judged Kingdoms (governments); but, they all were monarchies, in which the king held absolute sway. From the top to the bottom, the government (kingdom) was controlled by one man, the king. So, maybe when God judged a Kingdom He was actually judging the king as an individual? I leave this to you to ponder at your leisure. For now, just accept that Jesus didn't give us any clear mandate regarding how our government should behave.
Does Jesus silence about governments leave us stranded? Hardly. Logic can guide us.
Evangelical Christians today claim that America was founded by God as a Christian Nation. I won't debate this claim; for sake of this logical argument, assume it to be true. If it is true, then one should expect such a nation to possess certain attributes that reflect the will of God. One of these attributes would be that -- at all levels of government -- such a nation would follow the precepts of the common good, preached by and demanded by Jesus. If the nation is truly founded by God, you can't have a spiritual requirement for individual citizenry that is ignored or even actively opposed by the government. Anything less would be "a house divided against itself". Emphatically, if one believes that America is a Christian Nation, then the great governmental concern about the common good held by our Founding Fathers is an unequivocal requirement.
But what if you don't believe America was founded as a Christian Nation? Such skeptics are still "on the hook" for their Nation's actions. Even if you reject the claim that America was founded by God as a Christian Nation, we can still safely say that -- because government is determined through the democratic process of elections -- our government should reflect " the will of the people". That is, the government, overall, should reflect what the majority of people believe. If the majority of people believe in the demands of Jesus, to promote the common good as individuals, then so should the government. Conversely, if the majority of citizens believe in the ideals of Ayn Rand, then the government should promote selfishness. Most emphatically, those Christians who don't believe America was founded as a Christian Nation must still believe in the common good, as taught by Jesus -- or they are not followers of Jesus. Therefore, these believers are morally obligated to vote for the common good in governmental programs. But do they?
So, we come to the rub. Evangelical Christians today largely support a Christianity that (very) slightly supports a common good within their churches; but many, actually most, emphatically support a Randian governance. Here is my evidence:
Donald Trump has called Rand his favorite writer and said he identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of The Fountainhead.
Rex Tillerson, secretary of state under Trump, called Rand’s Atlas Shrugged his favorite book.
Former Trump CIA chief Mike Pompeo cited Rand as a major inspiration.
Before he withdrew his nomination to be Trump’s secretary of labor, Andrew Puzder said he devoted much of his free time to reading Rand.
Paul Ryan, former Republican leader of the House of Representatives, required his staff to read Rand.
Ronald Reagan professed to being a follower of Rand.
The stark contrast between Ayn Rand's philosophy and the teachings of Jesus should make any Christian wary of voting elected officials into governmental positions if those candidates oppose the teachings of Jesus and support the teachings of Ayn Rand. But that is precisely what most Evangelical Christians of America are doing today!
It seems like Paul's epistle, in which he asked his readers "Who has bewitched you?" is even more relevant today. All of the political emphasis of the Evangelical Churches seems to be focused on governing the behavior of others, to force them to comply with the beliefs espoused by the ministers of these churches. In stark contrast the ministers are almost totally neglected is the teaching of a common good so firmly demanded by Jesus.
Why? Because the teaching of a common good -- as demanded by Jesus -- requires action and money from those who have much to help those who have little. How much easier it is for Evangelicals to say that the poor are getting the punishment they deserve for their laziness, and that it is God's judgement on their lives? How much easier it is to make demands on others instead of shouldering the demands of Jesus on oneself!
I've often wondered how Jesus would speak to the leaders of modern churches if he were to walk the streets of America for awhile now? I'm pretty sure his rebukes to them would be every bit as severe and corrective as when he walked the streets of Jerusalem. He requires all followers to commit to the common good, and today's Evangelical churches are preaching against it. They espouse optional charity, but strongly oppose the demands for a common good.
--mof, 8/18/2023
An Audacious Proposal for a Paradigm Shift in our Public Schools
Daniel Goleman has written a seminal book called "Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ". Most reviewers have absolutely missed the point of his book. They argue against the evidence -- indeed the intuitive knowledge -- that emotional intelligence exists, or that emotional intelligence is important to a person's happiness and success. We knew that, even if we didn't give it the exquisite name that Goleman has. What they all ignore -- you cannot miss it if you read the book -- is that he gives us a blueprint for solving much of what ails our public school system -- to say nothing of society as a whole.
Read my comments about Goleman's book <here>.
The Global Crisis of Legitimacy
Every so often I read an article that I think puts something in perspective better than any of the other articles I have read on the topic. I just read a wonderfully lucid article by George Friedman of Stratfor that meets this criterion. I have permission to reprint it here.
Read this article with three things in mind:
- Think about whether the social agreement is working in the United States?
- Think about whether it is working in Europe? Is the International Monetary Fund doing the right thing in bailing Greece out -- using funds from the U.S. and Great Britain as a major part of the bailout?
- What does the social contract say about the Supreme Court's recent decision that gives corporations the same rights of free speech as real persons?
Read George Friedman's thoughtful analysis <here>.
The Simple Mechanics of Legalized Theft:
A lot of economic theory has been accepted like religion, "by faith," instead of by withstanding critical examination. I think parts of economic theory are like parts of psychological theory: severely under-evaluated. Don't get me wrong, both psychology and economics have many serious scholars who are very rigorous. But both fields seem to attract greater-than-normal numbers of ideologues in scientist's trappings; probably because it is harder to disprove their whacky theories in these two disciplines than it is in the so-called hard sciences.
One of the widely acclaimed but spurious economic theories is that corporate takeovers are good for our economy because they weed out the inefficient and promote the efficient. Well, let's take a look at how it usually works, and you decide if the theory holds up to scrutiny or not.
Read my thoughts <here>.
JUSTICE: A Look at One Essential Element of Christ's Teaching
"Equal justice for all" is a foundational aspect of good Christian doctrine, rule of law, and democracy. It is rapidly declining in America, and our churches are silent about it. They, more than any other sector, should be the champions of justice. But they are derelict in their duty.
Read my thoughts <here>.