Occam's Razor - a simple answer . . .

What may be known about God is plain, because God has made it plain. Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. (Romans 1:19-25)

This is just as true today as it was when written by Paul nearly 2000 years ago. The only thing that has changed is our “sophistication.” Science is now worshiped rather than physical icons. Astrophysicists have decided that the entire universe is the result of a “Big Bang” nearly 14 billion years ago. Perhaps, but what caused the Big Bang? Einstein’s theory, Mass is Energy divided by the speed of light, is being proven basically true. If we consider the total mass of the universe, we can only conclude that an inconceivably immense amount of energy was involved. Where did that energy come from? Scientists don’t want to consider that question, and it is very doubtful that it can ever be answered. We can only say, “In the beginning God . . . “

Carl Sagan said two things were needed for man to exist, and there must be thousands of inhabited planets in the Universe. Since his death, the requirements for life have been gradually increasing until now it is felt that life on a planet requires over one hundred correct conditions, and even the Earth does not meet all conditions. All we can say is, “But God . . . “

For the last several centuries our energy needs have been met by use of coal, oil, and gas deposits within the Earth’s crust. Scientists have calculated that these deposits were laid down when the Earth was covered by lush vegetative growth during the much warmer 60 million year Carboniferous Period of about 300 million years ago. Jewish historical records indicate that the God worshiped by both Jews and Christians knows both history and future. This can only be true if He is in a timeless “world.” We live in a three dimensional world with irreversible, one dimensional time. We can conceive of nothing else. For this discussion, however, if we accept the concept of God’s timeless world He would have understood our needs from the beginning of time. All we can say is, “And God . . . “

Today many have rejected the concept of a Holy God of creation who loves the World he created, along with everything in it. When we look around us, we see many things that really make no natural sense and we ask, “How can this have happened.” Scientists often create explanations which are not supported by observations. But if our mind is opened to an all-powerful, loving God who knows and meets our needs it falls together and makes sense. This is the God I worship – how about you?

The cause of 'global warming" - Truth or Fiction?

     “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.” Have you ever heard someone use that quote?  Let me alter it a bit to: “Statistics don’t lie, but people with an agenda can misinterpret statistics.” Basically, statistical analysis is a method to extract relationships from confusing information. It is not always easy, though, and error of interpretation can always sneak in, either through error or intent. Let me give you an example.

     Early in my career I was working on a project studying the role of Phosphorus in eutrophication of a lake. (Eutrophication is a term used for the process of a clear water lake gradually being taken over by vegetation, eventually becoming a bog.) At one point we collected lake bottom samples along a transect from shallow to deep water, hoping this would provide some answers. Instead, it created confusion. Everything we measured was related to water depth. This made absolutely no sense … until we realized it was mechanical. All chemistry, instead, was related to organic matter, and through wave action that was gradually moved from shallow to deep water.

     Today we are bombarded with similar statistical analysis error of interpretation – and it is intentional as a method of financial gain. Is Carbon Dioxide CO₂ really causing the Earth to rapidly heat? Let’s analyze this interpretation. First of all, our “stove” is the sun, and the amount of heat reaching the Earth is directly related to solar surface activity. That activity is known to undergo high/low cycles. In the 1970s activity was low and everyone was talking about global cooling. There was fear we were headed into a new glacial period, which would have serious impact upon society and the ability to sustain global population.

      The argument is that solar activity does not adequately explain the current temperature trend, so it must be something else. The decision is that the “something else” must be CO₂, since that has been increasing. Wait a minute! What is the Specific Heat Capacity (SHC) of CO₂? 0.844 – 0.655, depending on how it is measured. (SHC is the amount of heat required to heat one gram one degree Celsius – expressed as Joules of heat) There happens to be something else in the atmosphere – water! What is the SHC of water? 4.184 Joules per gram per degree C. There are also other gasses in the atmosphere, and some have higher SHC than CO₂. For example, the SHC of Methane is about 2.3. While there is much less methane in the atmosphere, it has increased from about 1.6 ppm in 1980 to 1.85 in 2017 – faster than the increase of CO₂. Nitrous Oxide also has a higher SHC (0.88), but it is present in even lower concentration, so its contribution would be even less important.

     The concept that we live in a “global greenhouse” means something in the atmosphere traps solar heat during the day and controls loss of heat during the night, thus moderating surface temperature. The current concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere is about 0.04%, or 400ppm. The concentration of water is variable, ranging from possibly 1% in polar regions to as much as 4% over tropical oceans. Now, which is going to be the better “greenhouse gas” – one with an SHC of 0.8, present as about 0.04% of the atmosphere, or one with an SHC of 4.1, present from 1 to 4% of the atmosphere?

Have you ever walked into shade during a hot day and immediately felt cooler? Have you ever wondered why a desert can be so hot during the day, but freezing at night? Carbon dioxide is certainly not the reason! Water is the answer – or, better, the lack of water in the atmosphere. Heat comes from the sun in the radiant form, so when we walk into shade we are no longer receiving the solar heat. Water in the atmosphere adsorbs a lot of that heat, so normally moderates surface temperature. No atmospheric water means hotter surface. Likewise, if there is little atmospheric water, there is nothing to prevent radiant cooling during the night. The same principle applies in early autumn when a cloudless sky often means frost, while cloud cover means one more night escaping a frost.

     When there is abundant water in the air, the “greenhouse effect” becomes operative. The water continues to collect the solar energy, but atmospheric water content is too variable for finding any relationship to surface temperature.  That brings us back to our original comments on statistics and the ability to extract relationships from confusing information.  

     When atmospheric data is carefully examined, it is obvious that CO₂ has been increasing, and world population is also increasing. This is obvious and understandable. Every time we burn some kind of carboniferous material, whether it be wood, coal, natural gas, gasoline, or any other burnable carbon containing fuel, two gaseous products - CO₂ and H₂O – are released into the atmosphere.  Thus, the amount of CO₂ and H₂O entering the atmosphere from human activity is logically related to human population. Problems arise, however, in attempting to develop any kind of relationship between these gasses and Earth surface temperatures, which have been increasing. Atmospheric water content should logically be related to surface temperature, but any kind of statistical relationship is compounded by the global water cycle that makes human existence possible in the first place.

     Then one individual had a “eureka moment!” If the world could be convinced that increasing global surface temperature is related to human activity, there is much money to be made. While we put far more H₂O than CO₂ into the atmosphere, the natural global water cycle makes any statistical relationship impossible. Conveniently, CO₂ in the atmosphere has also been increasing, and a plot of increasing temperature as a function of atmospheric CO₂ looks convincing. The campaign has been unbelievable successful and people around the world are convinced that increasing temperature is the result of human activities. But is this logical?

     While less studied than the water cycle, the earth also has a carbon cycle which makes existence possible. Every living organism on earth, both plant and animal, obtains energy through oxidation of carbon compounds to form CO₂ – i.e. respiration. If there were not a method to reverse the reaction the CO₂ level in the atmosphere would become toxic and all living organisms would die. Fortunately, plants are capable of photosynthesis, using solar energy to break the C-O bonds and restore O₂ in the atmosphere, and they produce more O₂ during the day than they use at night. In this way the global CO₂ level is maintained well below the toxic concentration.

     There are two areas of the earth primarily important in maintaining adequate O₂ and safe CO₂ levels in the atmosphere -this being the tropical rain forests and ocean algae. What is happening in these areas? A significant amount of the tropical rain forests of the world are being cleared for wood and kept clear for agricultural purposes. The ocean has become the final recipient of our human wastes, both chemical and solid. As a result, the algal population has been affected. We might ask, then, is the increase in atmospheric CO₂ really a function of our increasing energy production, or is it the result of the global carbon cycle being disrupted? Likewise, is the current increase in average surface temperature really  caused by an increased CO₂ in the atmosphere, or are the two observations unrelated but conveniently used for financial convenience? Logic tells us it may well be the latter, and any greenhouse effect is really a function of atmospheric water vapor abetted by increased solar activity.

     People have become so convinced of “global warming” being the result of increased atmospheric CO₂, though, that no politician looking toward being re-elected would ever dare suggest this attribution is in error. Besides many of them are financially benefiting in supporting the idea. You often hear, “the science is settled.” This not a scientist’s statement, but a politician’s – even if made by a person with scientist credentials. Science is never “settled.” All scientific research must be based on the positive theories – A is the result of B. This means that one valid research study showing this statement cannot be true means the theory must be discarded and replaced by a better one. There are a number of points upon which the current “settled science” can be questioned.

     What about the scientists who support the theory? The answer involves money again. Research funds are available for studies on the effect of increasing temperature on . . .  Scientists are always looking for research support. Few are going to attack this opportunity. When opportunities like this arise, the game is to figure out how you can twist your favorite research program to fit under the objectives of the granting agency. Were I not retired and no longer looking for research support, I must admit that I could be among the scientists doing “atmospheric research” in support of my real Soil Chemistry research interests. 

Why are some countries great? What does it take?

“I will make our country great again.” What does that mean? The statement says the United States was once great, but is no longer great. When was the United States great? Why are we no longer great? What makes a country (or a person) great? We often hear the phrase, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” In reality, greatness could also be in that category. If I were to ask 1,000 people the meaning of national greatness, I would likely get 1,000 different answers. With this in mind, I will consider the meaning of national greatness. What I present will not be accepted by all, I am sure of that!

Over history, greatness in a nation was always measured by power. Rome was great, because it conquered and controlled the entire Mediterranean Sea surroundings as well as most of what we now know as West Europe. Later, Spain was great because its navy controlled the oceans, giving it power over new lands as the Europeans discovered them. Then England defeated the Spanish navy and became the greatest empire yet known, with control over vast holdings around the world. The problem with this power-greatness is that it is not permanent. Throughout history, the holder of power 1) became over extended, with increased difficulty with control, and 2) a rebellion arose within or outside their empire. England’s empire began to collapse when an upstart colony became upset with the king and rebelled. A different definition of greatness was presented by Christ (Luke 12:16-21, Matthew 20:25-27, Mark 10:42-44). He said that power does not endure, and true greatness in only achieved through service.

Yes, England’s upstart colony did engage in conquer and enlargement, but the largest land acquisitions were purchased through negotiations with countries which could not adequately defend their holdings. I am not forgetting, however, that we did acquire land in the southwest through conflict with Mexico, although it is a bit difficult to distinguish how much of this conflict was aggression and how much was defense of current land holdings. Certainly, it was Spain that originally laid claim to most of the landscape, but both Mexico and the United States wanted the area. Yes, we did acquire additional land through conflict, but the acquisitions were not because of aggression – most were through successful defense against aggression.  This is a major simplification of national formation, but I am primarily concerned with why the United States became great.

Once the United States was consolidated, unprecedented action was initiated in dealing with all further gains due to conflicts, which did happen. The acquired civilizations were allowed to decide their own future, and they were supported in that decision. In many cases this included preparation for independence. Cuba and The Philippines were given independence. Hawaii was given statehood per their request. Puerto Rico and Guam both remain as protectorates, but have the freedom to request independence or statehood if desired. These are a few examples of the support approach which made the United States great.

The problem is that within our country greed and selfishness has snuck back into existence. While the attitude of servitude does still exist, to many of our representatives and senators do not see themselves as servants to those put them in place. Instead, they see their position as an opportunity to advance themselves - to gain both position and wealth. And this has been true right up to POTUS level.

With these things in mind, has there been a peak of greatness which we have passed and need to recover? Not everyone will agree, but I would place that goal as the United State between about 1940 and 1970 – during and after World War II. No, it was not a good time for many, but it was for the country. We had helped Europe to defeat Germany in World War I, and had little interest in getting involved again. This attitude was changed, however, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The country came together as one in support of our soldiers. We denied ourselves many things to make sure our soldiers had what they needed. Young women headed for the industrial plants to replace their husbands and brothers who had been called into service. Yes, there racial problems were still there “under the table,” but all worked together for the benefit of all. The result was winning a war fought on two fronts, defeating the aggression of both Germany and Japan.

When World War II ended, the United Stated did something unprecedented in the history of mankind. We helped both Germany and Japan to get back onto their feet, and soon both became economic powers. And our benevolence did not stop there. We helped people around the world – mostly those who have been listed as being in “third world” countries. Within a decade problems began to reemerge in Southeast Asia and we answered the plea for help when the newly formed United Nations declared war against North Korea in support of South Korea.

It began to fall apart in the 1970s, though, as war emerged in Viet Nam. In retrospect, entering this war may have been a mistake, but at the time it was thought to be necessary.  The most important thing, however, was that the country was not unified behind our decision, and our soldiers were reviled by many, rather than being given support. The division initiated has turned out to be a crack in our national unity which has greatly expanded during intervening years, until it is now a chasm that may never be possible to heal. Those who desire power and wealth for themselves have jumped in for their own benefit, and have contributed to the turmoil. With the help of Martin Luther King, one serious racial division was addressed and healing was initiated. However, the healing was soon reversed by our national turmoil, and persons with self-interest have initiated more and more divisions to keep us occupied. Power-brokers have stepped in behind the scene to support unrest, with the lofty objective of “World Unification” – with them in control, of course.

Those who believe that World Unity will solve all problems are certainly not in favor of reversing our movement toward this end, but in reality it will not and cannot succeed in anything other than providing wealth and power for a few. Europe has been giving this a trial and their effort is currently slowly disintegrating – but there is a group of people who have benefited. There is no reason to believe a world effort would be any more successful, but there is certainly a group of people who will benefit.

President Trump’s objective seems to be to provide an economic environment conducive to healing of the many divisions which have arisen. Return to the environment of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s would not make us great again. In fact, no return to past period attitudes would make us great again. The whole world had changed and continues to change. The only thing that will make us great again would be the healing of our many divisions, and a regaining of the attitude that we all benefit by working together with the realization that everyone’s beliefs will never be unified, but everyone has the right to their beliefs. Along with this, we must regain the attitude that helping others also benefits the helper. 

What Hath the Election Wrought as Our New President?

"Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand."

Right now our country is severely divided. I don't think anyone can argue that, or the fact that the crack has been widening since about 1990. It is now a chasm and we need to heal, or our future as a country is at risk. It has taken about a quarter century to reach today's status, and it won't be healed quickly. As of yesterday it has been finalized that Trump will become our 45th president. Unless the country now gets behind him, I fear we will not survive much longer. At the same time, we must trust that he has been honest about what he wants to achieve, and his promises were not, as Harry Truman one said, simply a platform one uses to get onto the train. He has promised to rid the government of the waste and corruption now in place. This is likely his most difficult task to achieve, and he needs the cooperation of every (non-corrupt) citizen to achieve. This doesn't mean we all need to agree, but that we are willing to work together for the good of all. If this can happen the United States can once again take its place as the World's moral leader.

as I have said before, I believe the United States is at a tipping point. Will we go over the cliff, or will we retreat, reevaluate, and reconstruct our path forward? In another month we will have a new and unproven president. He campaigned on making our country great again. Will he be able to lead us through the battle to reemerge as the world leader, or will he fail? In four years we will do it again. If he turns out to be a good leader and the future looks good, he will likely be given another four years. If not, he will likely be cast out as a failure. I predict that there will be no middle ground. There will be no acceptable president who did an acceptable job. The situation today is not all that different from the country faced by Lincoln when he was elected. NOTE: I am not comparing Trump to Lincoln! I am saying the situation is similar to that in 1860, when the political division centered on whether slavery should be discontinued, and therefore whether the southern states would secede and form their own country. There is actually a comparison of Lincoln's and Trump's situation as well. Lincoln had left the Whig party and joined the Republicans. It is also interesting that Lincoln was not expected to win the nomination. He did have political experience, but was apparently not seen as a strong candidate. 

The story is well known. Lincoln proved a strong leader who made the correct decisions, and a willingness to do what was right and not always what people wanted. As a result he is considered one of the great presidents. What will the next four or eight years look like. Predictions are for a failed presidency, It is alway an easy task to meet that expectation. In our current situation, Trump has the opportunity to join the ranks of great presidents. If he truly solves our problems, reunites the country and, indeed, makes us great again, I predict this will be his legacy. There will be no middle ground. In fact, he is getting a good start. Not everyone agrees with his choices for cabinet members, but there is no question but it is a very strong cabinet. No, he is not another Lincoln. If history views him as a great president, it will not be as a copy of Lincoln, but on his own abilities under a similar circumstance.

WHY SO MANY CHRISTIANS ARE DRAWN TO SOCIALISM

Once again, I find it appropriate to reproduce an outstanding essay, this one by 

Jim Richards, the author of Apocalypse: A Spiritual Guide to the Second Coming.
It was posted in Daily Inspirations, Spiritual Guide To The Second Coming (Oct 31, 2016)

All I can say to this is Amen! I have never seen the attraction to the Christianity/Socialism dichotomy explained so well.

********************************

"With the upcoming elections it has become abundantly clear that many Christians are drawn to the ideas of Socialism, and it’s easy to understand why and how this attraction occurs. Socialism addresses social issues more than free enterprise. Free enterprise promises to give all people an equal opportunity. Socialism, on the other hand, promises to give all people an equal outcome. This has a strong appeal to those with compassion for the poor and underprivileged.

Free enterprise has a strong appeal to those who have ambition, drive, a will to work and an optimistic outlook. Socialism, on the other hand, has a great appeal to those who are not success-oriented, who desire a handout more than an opportunity, or who were not taught how to succeed. Because of these fundamental differences in the promises of these philosophies the talking points of Socialism sound far more humane, making it very appealing to Christians.

Probably, the thing that makes Socialism most appealing to Christians is the fact that other than eternal life Socialism promises everything the Kingdom of God promises: justice, fairness, social equality and care for the poor. So it sounds like it is in harmony with God’s Word. Up to this point Socialism seems to be right on track with the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. But all similarities between the Bible and Socialism disintegrate when they explain how they will fulfill all their promises for a Utopian world!

Because the Church has traditionally not accepted Jesus’ interpretation and application of God’s Commandments there is a tendency to miss the fact that God is love; everything He ever said and did was because of His love for mankind. God’s Word has given us all we need to have every aspect of our social needs addressed in a fair way that provides the opportunity for the best life possible. It is impossible to properly interpret the Old Testament independently of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, burial and resurrection. In this theological confusion there is a lack of applying and interpreting the Commandments from the perspective of love, i.e. how we should relate to one another, to God and manage our own life!

Most of the world and many Christians see the God of the Old Testament and Jesus as an irreconcilable dichotomy. They do not realize that the Commandments, instead of being a recipe to earn God’s acceptance, are actually a prescription for how to treat one another based on God’s definition of love! But the Commandments go far beyond that; they teach us how to have a nation that can be economically sound while providing justice and opportunity for all.

The Commandments give us a prescription for civil justice that protects the innocent, an economic system that will not concentrate wealth in the hands of the few, immigration that protects the citizens, morals that protect the innocent from the wicked, ethics that demand true justice and values which will sustain an orderly civil society. The greatest Luciferian lie that ever came to Planet Earth is the idea that the Creator, God, is an oppressor who seeks to limit man’s freedom and fulfillment by His burdensome Commandments. This philosophy is what the Bible calls iniquity or lawlessness: the rejection of God’s laws as the standard of morals, values and ethics.

Many of our founding fathers were not actually Christians. Some were deists and others simply believed in the morals and ethics as presented in the Word of God. But they all agreed that the Bible was the basis for a civil society. There is no question that what made our country great was its congruence with the Word of God. In fact, more than once they clearly stated that a free society was only possible if people adhered to the morals, values and ethics of God’s Word. The decline of our country and the rise of violence, chaos, immorality, perversion and a bad economy have increased proportionately with our departure from those values and replaced them with Secular Humanism. We have become a lawless society which is tantamount to becoming a godless society.

Beneath the facade of a mere philosophical difference of opinion are those who embrace and promote this lawlessness from a more diabolical motive. They see Lucifer as the one who freed man from the oppression of the Creator God by giving knowledge. This knowledge is called enlightenment. Those who are “enlightened” claim to be able to deliver all God’s promises independently of God’s Word. In fact, they see the total rejection of God’s Word as the only way to have ultimate gratification and fulfillment. There is no modern political philosophy that promotes lawlessness more than Socialism.

Socialism says the state is responsible for man’s economic well-being; the Bible says man is responsible for his own well-being. Socialism protects the perpetrator of crime. His crimes are the result of an oppressive society, therefore man cannot be held responsible for his action. God’s Word says to the perpetrator an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In other words, whatever the criminal inflicts on others should be his own punishment. Socialism says those who don’t work should be cared for; the Bible says a man’s hunger will make him work. Socialism says man is responsible to the state; the Bible says we are responsible to God and one another. Socialism says the State gives and takes away man’s rights; the Bible teaches that God gave man his rights. There is not one single doctrine of socialism that is compatible with the Old or New Testament. Where did such an anti-God, anti-Bible paradigm begin?

Although Karl Marx is considered the Father of Modern Socialism, it did not begin with him. Socialism entered Planet Earth in the Garden of Eden when man declared his independence from God and determined to determine good and evil for himself. From then until now man’s Humanistic philosophies have promised a Utopian world but have never delivered on that promise. The key, they say, to creating utopia is contingent on the total rejection of God’s Word as the basis for ethics, values, morality, justice and all other human needs for peace, prosperity and normalcy.

Karl Marx, however, pushed Socialism into a worldwide, modern day political phenomenon that has swallowed the globe. Marx never had Socialism or Communism as his main agenda. His agenda was to eliminate all knowledge of God from the earth, destroy the world and drag as many people to hell with him as he possibly could. His only joy was to destroy what God loves: mankind!

So why did Marx eventually promote Socialism? Originally Marx hated Socialism; he hated the idea of even giving people false hope. He wanted to create suffering, provoke mankind to blame for their suffering and ultimately reject God. Then he deeply longed for them to join him in an eternity in Hell. But, he had to have a means of seducing the nations into abandoning God’s Word. He needed something that gave hope, seduced the world and brought about suffering. He saw Socialism as the only deception seductive enough to destroy the world.

Marx, like all Communists since his time, claimed for socialism to work there must be a short time of dictatorship after which there will be no government, no war and no limiting morals; there will only be peace. But no dictator has ever willingly given up his power. But he passionately taught, to achieve this peace there must be no accountability to any god or any religion, only allegiance to the State. But like Marx, all subsequent Socialists have never delivered the utopia they promised, only death, poverty and suffering. Marx, Mao, Hitler and others murdered and enslaved hundreds of millions of people using the message of Socialism with its false promises as the tool for seduction.

The promise of Socialism is in direct opposition to God’s Word. God says we can only have a peaceful, fair society by walking in love based on His Commandments, but the process of Socialism is Secular Humanism aimed at creating Elitists, i.e. an enlightened ruling body, eliminating the middle class, destroying free enterprise, creating a poor, uneducated class of slaves to serve the wealthy and create a one-world anti-God government. But just as Communism, Socialism and Progressivism (all of which are a continuum of the same lie) agree: all loyalty to and knowledge of God must be eradicated. All loyalty must be given to the State and all morality, ethics and values must be defined by the state. All who oppose or disagree must be imprisoned or eliminated.

Many people who really do not know the Bible point to the fact that the early Church in Jerusalem attempted Socialism. Everyone brought their money and laid it at the feet of the apostles and shared all things in common. But what they fail to realize is that in a short time the Church at Jerusalem was so poor the Gentile churches had to send offerings to them. The church at Jerusalem didn’t take these steps because it was founded on the Word of God, or because the Holy Spirit led them; it was merely the deduction of what seemed like rational thinking.

The early settlers in America tried Socialism. They had community gardens and shared all goods with one another. History reveals that this flawed plan led to near starvation of the entire group. Just as the Bible teaches, people are motivated to work by the opportunity to succeed and the responsibility to provide for themselves and their family. The first year they implemented free enterprise resulted in bountiful crops that gave us our first Thanksgiving. One year of free enterprise turned the tide. Were there still poor among them? Probably! Jesus said there will always be poor. The Bible never promises to eradicate poverty in this life; for anyone to claim they can do so is to exalt themselves above God.

Am I saying that all Socialists are Luciferians? Absolutely not! I am saying that no socialist is adhering to God’s Word: some by choice, most by ignorance! Am I saying that Capitalism is godlier than Socialism? No! A flaw of the church for hundreds of years has been the idea that we can politically accomplish what must occur in the hearts of individuals who choose to believe the truth of God’s Word.

Although I believe in the biblical principles of free enterprise and personal responsibility, I don’t necessarily consider myself a Capitalist. It is essential to realize no form of government will produce utopia. As long as humans are involved in any process there will be varying degrees of corruption. There is no perfect system: after all, man was able to take God’s commandments meant to give us an incredible life and turn them into oppressive rules used to control and take advantage of others. No system of government will work until Jesus returns.

We all must realize as long as there are greedy people no matter what system is employed there will always be corruption. But Socialism offers no personal opportunity for success other than through government regulation and control. Its track record around the world has proven that it never works. But it keeps promising that if we will only give the government more control they will get it to work! But more than anything else, we must understand the true goals of those who push socialism: it has as its goal the eradication of all knowledge of God from the earth. It is Luciferian in its origination. In the end, the wealth in a Socialist country is concentrated in the hands of even fewer than in Capitalism. The middle class is eliminated and the elite have absolute power.

In Capitalism the greedy do everything they can to get as much of the money as possible, but there is still the realization that for them to make more money the population must also make money. It is no godlier than Socialism, but it does allow a measure of freedom and encourage personal success. But the only way free enterprise actually works is when there are honest, righteous people in government. It is always corrupt government that allows free enterprise to become oppressive. Everything in America that is unfair or unjust is based on a law passed by a politician or interpreted by a corrupt judge, regardless of their political philosophies.

Many Christians say they do not want to be ruled by God’s Commandments; yet, Jesus taught us to pray thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. There is no Socialism in Heaven. Heaven is ruled by God’s justice based on the same Word He gave to man on earth. When man becomes so demoralized that he allows and welcomes the man of iniquity, the antichrist, to rule the world under a false promise of peace that rejects God and replaces God’s Word, the world will experience a tribulation such as has never been seen. This tribulation will not be the wrath of an angry God poured out on humanity. It will be the wrath of the man of lawlessness. The only thing that will save the world from the Luciferian goal of total annihilation is the personal return of Jesus as Lord and King.

Jesus will establish His Kingdom on earth where He will rule and reign for 1000 years. He will rule the world by the Commandments applied by love. They will be the basis of all civil and economic justice. Man will finally have the opportunity to see how the world could have been all along had he simply trusted and applied God’s Word as He intended! If we don’t see God’s Commandments as the only basis for justice and true freedom we will never welcome or usher in His coming or His Kingdom; we will prolong the world’s horrific suffering.

Some ask, are you saying I can’t be a Christian if I’m a Socialist? I certainly believe a Christian can be a Socialist, but one can never be a Socialist and a disciple of Jesus. A disciple is one who has believed on Jesus as Lord, which means (among other things) he or she builds their life, values, morals and ethics on Jesus’ interpretation and application of God’s Commandments from the motive of love, as exemplified through His life, teaching, death, burial and resurrection!

When any individual believes their ideas and philosophies are more applicable or fair than God’s Word they have declared, “I am more righteous than God. I am more just than God. I am fairer than God. I am more loving than God.” Regardless of how pure their intentions, they are workers of iniquity deceiving themselves and turning people away from Jesus as Lord!

Jesus spoke these words:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19)

“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

We can’t be His disciples if we ignore and replace His teaching. It’s time for believers to wake up, repent for turning away from God’s Word, and commit to Jesus as Lord so as to avoid the coming deception and the great falling away."

An analysis of the 2016 USA presidential election

 What is going on this Presidential Election period? Rather than writing a blog on my analysis, today I will simply copy the following essay which summarizes the situation far better than I ever could.

 _________________________________________________________________

"Who is Donald Trump?"  The better question may be, "What is Donald Trump?"
From The New Yorker Magazine on Trump  Submitted by Esther Goodday AUGUST 13, 2016
*************************
The answer: a giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment.

Some Trump supporters are like the 60's white girls who dated black guys just to annoy their parents.  But most Trump supporters have simply had it with the Demo-socialists and the "Republicans In Name Only."  They know there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Hillary Rodham and Jeb Bush, and only a few cents worth between Rodham and the other GOP candidates.

Ben Carson is not an "establishment" candidate, but the Clinton machine would pulverize Carson ; and the somewhat rebellious Ted Cruz will (justifiably so) be tied up with natural born citizen lawsuits (as might Marco Rubio).

The Trump supporters figure they might as well have some fun tossing Molotov cocktails at Wall Street and Georgetown while they watch the nation collapse.  Besides - lightning might strike, Trump might get elected, and he might actually fix a few things.  Stranger things have happened (the nation elected an Islamo-Marxist in 2008 and Bruce Jenner now wears designer dresses.)

Millions of conservatives are justifiably furious.  They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014, and have seen them govern no differently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Yet those same voters are supposed to trust the GOP in 2016?  Why?

Trump did not come from out of nowhere.  His candidacy was created by the last six years of Republican failures.

No reasonable person can believe that any of the establishment candidates [dems or reps] will slash federal spending, rein in the Federal Reserve, cut burdensome business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, etc.).

Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate the Department of Education.  (Of course, getting shot at tends to make a person less of a risk-taker.)  No reasonable person can believe that any of the nation's major problems will be solved by Rodham, Bush, and the other dishers of donkey fazoo now eagerly eating corn in Iowa and pancakes in New Hampshire.

Many Americans, and especially Trump supporters, have had it with:
·    Anyone named Bush
·    Anyone named Clinton
·    Anyone who's held political office
·    Political correctness
·    Illegal immigration
·    Massive unemployment
·    Phony "official" unemployment and inflation figures
·    Welfare waste and fraud
·    People faking disabilities to go on the dole
·    VA waiting lists
·    TSA airport groping
·    ObamaCare
·    The Federal Reserve's money-printing schemes
·    Wall Street crooks like Jon Corzine
·    Michelle Obama's vacations
·    Michelle Obama's food police
·    Barack Obama's golf
·    Barack Obama's arrogant and condescending lectures
·    Barack Obama's criticism/hatred of America
·    Valerie Jarrett
·    " Holiday trees"
·    Hollywood hypocrites
·    Global warming nonsense
·    Cop killers
·    Gun confiscation threats
·    Stagnant wages
·    Boys in girls' bathrooms
·    Whiny, spoiled college students who can't even place the Civil War in the correct century... and that's just the short list.

Trump supporters believe that no Democrat wants to address these issues, and that few Republicans have the courage to address these issues.  They certainly know that none of the establishment candidates are better than barely listening to them.

Trump is their way of saying, "Screw you, Hillary Rodham Rove Bush!"

The more the talking head political pundits insult the Trump supporters, the more supporters he gains.  (The only pundits who seem to understand what is going on are Democrats Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell and Republican John LeBoutillier.  All the others argue that the voters will eventually "come to their senses" and support an establishment candidate.)

But America does not need a tune-up at the same old garage.  It needs a new engine installed by experts - and neither Rodham nor Bush are mechanics with the skills or experience to install it.  Hillary Rodham is not a mechanic; she merely manages a garage her philandering husband abandoned.  Jeb Bush is not a mechanic; he merely inherited a garage.  Granted, Trump is also not a mechanic, but he knows where to find the best ones to work in his garage.  He won't hire his brother-in-law or someone to whom he owes a favor; he will hire someone who lives and breathes cars.

"How dare they revolt!" the "elites" are bellowing.  Well, the citizens are daring to revolt, and the RINOs had better get used to it.

"But Trump will hand the election to Clinton!"  That is what the Karl Rove-types want people to believe, just as the leftist media eagerly shoved "Maverick" McCain down GOP throats in 2008 - knowing he would lose to Obama.

But even if Trump loses and Rodham wins, she would not be dramatically different than Bush or most of his fellow candidates.  They would be nothing more than caretakers, not working to restore America 's greatness but merely presiding over the collapse of a massively in-debt nation.  A nation can perhaps survive open borders; a nation can perhaps survive a generous welfare system.  But no nation can survive both - and there is little evidence that the establishment candidates of either party understand that.  The United States cannot forever continue on the path it is on.  At some point it will be destroyed by its debt.

Yes, Trump speaks like a bull wandering through a china shop, but the truth is that the borders do need to be sealed; we cannot afford to feed, house, and clothe 200,000 Syrian immigrants for decades (even if we get inordinately lucky and none of them are ISIS infiltrators or Syed Farook wannabes); the world is at war with radical Islamists; all the world's glaciers are not melting; and Rosie O'Donnell is a fat pig.

Is Trump the perfect candidate?  Of course not.  Neither was Ronald Reagan.  But unless we close our borders and restrict immigration, all the other issues are irrelevant.  One terrorist blowing up a bridge or a tunnel could kill thousands.  One jihadist poisoning a city's water supply could kill tens of thousands.  One electromagnetic pulse attack from a single Iranian nuclear device could kill tens of millions.

Faced with those possibilities, most Americans probably don't care that Trump relied on eminent domain to grab up a final quarter acre of property for a hotel, or that he boils the blood of the Muslim Brotherhood thugs running the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

While Attorney General Loretta Lynch's greatest fear is someone giving a Muslim a dirty look, most Americans are more worried about being gunned down at a shopping mall by a crazed [Islamic] lunatic who treats his prayer mat better than his four wives and who thinks 72 virgins are waiting for him in paradise.

The establishment is frightened to death that Trump will win, but not because they believe he will harm the nation.  They are afraid he will upset their taxpayer-subsidized apple carts.  While Obama threatens to veto legislation that spends too little, they worry that Trump will veto legislation that spends too much.

You can be certain that if an establishment candidate wins in November 2016 … [their] cabinet positions will be filled with the same people we've seen before.  The washed-up has-beens of the Clinton and Bush administrations will be back in charge.  The hacks from Goldman Sachs will continue to call the shots.  Whether it is Bush's Karl Rove or Clinton's John Podesta, who makes the decisions in the White House will matter little.

If the establishment wins, America loses.

No longer a melting pot.

In a melting pot anything added becomes infused into the bulk contents and changes it's properties, usually for the better. For example, by adding a small amount of carbon, iron becomes steel, which is harder with better properties for use. It should be noted that adding too much can have the opposite case, and more than 2% carbon makes it pig iron, which is more brittle and weaker. Now, if we add some chromium to the steel it becomes stainless steel, which is even harder and resistant to rusting as well. Likewise, adding different cultures into the culture established in the United States has improved and strengthened us as they became infused into our national culture. Unfortunately, during the twentieth century, particularly since 1950, we have increasingly cooled and become more resistant to incorporation of different cultures. Likewise, immigrant cultures have increasingly been resistant to infusion into the U.S. culture. It is increasingly more comparable to pouring oil into water. In the example above, if the steel has cooled too much before chromium is added they will not mix properly and, instead of becoming stronger, their different chemical and physical characteristics result in "conflict" and weakening of the whole. This is the situation we are in now. Our capacity to accept immigrants is being exceeded and those arriving too often want to maintain their culture in the new environments. We are no longer a melting pot, having become a mixture of conflicting cultures. This is progressively weakening us and creating conflict. A sad situation, although certain other countries view it gleefully.