Paul's Passing Thoughts

Video post by @PaulMDohse.

Source: Why Ligon Duncan is a Heretic in 8 Minutes

Part One

The standard philosophical theory for the caregiver industry is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Hartman’s Nursing Assistant Care: The Basics, pp. 58, 59). Care targets are designed around this theory. In actuality, no pun intended, the elements of Maslow’s theory are evident in the milieu of caregiving. Regardless of the severity of disability, residents will seek to do things they enjoy; they will seek personal relationships, and will seek to have purpose and accomplishment. Even ones who cannot communicate and have use of one arm will use that one arm to help you dress them. As they are accustomed to the routine they feel upon their bodies and often cannot see, they will wait for their moment and spring into action to do their part. These are extremely meaningful moments for the caregiver and the top two hierarchies immediately come to mind, and maybe the need to love and be loved as well.

I have to give Democrats credit where credit is due; they seem to understand the significance of Maslow’s theory and how to utilize it to obtain their goals. We all know that national defense is often a hot topic during many presidential elections. Why? Because one of the basic human needs is safety and security.

Republicans usually tout security and peace through strength while Democrats seem to take a naïve and disarmed approach towards aggressive evil in the world. Why? Because aggressive countries share the same basic presuppositions regarding mankind that the Democrats possess; man must be ruled over by government for the common good. In their minds, there is only one thing worse than a bad statist; a good rugged individualist. They will side with the bad statist in a heartbeat. If Al Gore would have been President during 911 rather than George Bush, there would have been no retaliation of any significance. Expenditure of resources to protect a measured number of individuals does not benefit the state nor does it serve justice because the only real sin is against the state, not individuals.

This is why socialist countries like France respond passively to terror attacks. And regarding what benefits state commerce and not individuals we hear in the aftermath of a terror attack that people should go on with life normally because to do otherwise is to “give into fear.” Statist will then define “courage” as those who go on with life as if nothing happened without any precautions. This is because individuals are expendable and moralism is defined by one’s willingness to sacrifice for the state.

So, how do the Democrats get around the need for security? They shift the fear of annihilation from enemies abroad to trigger happy Republicans within. Is this card, the same one played against Barry Goldwater in the 60s not the same exact card being played against Trump in our day? Sure it is. Forget about ISIS, we all may die because Trump can’t wait to launch nukes against Russia and China over a Tweet. It worked against Goldwater, and it will work against Trump.

Presently, this will work because Americans still enjoy individual actualization and have the convenience of lazy thinking resulting in the idea that financial security comes from the government. Presently, more than 47% of all American households receive some sort of government benefits. Republicans are perceived as a threat to that security, and even more so Donald Trump being a hardcore get-it-done business man. This whole idea of “making America great again” will effectively send at least 47% of all Americans running for the Hillary lever—their food and water intake depends on it. “Making America great again” translates into rugged individualism that has no safety net. This is palatable for the time being because the dirty little secret follows: the Democratic ruling elite are not telling their followers what they really believe; the totality of self-actualization is defined by one’s contribution to the state.

Here is the good news that is really amazing: a little less than half of the American people still get it. Without a doubt, that is because of alternative media and the Information Age that we presently live in. But…it will not be enough to elect Trump.

How is this likely to play out in the future? We will look at that question in Part 3.

paul

Why in the world would the American people elect a known criminal for president of the United States? As you know, here at TANC Ministries, we are big on reminding people that the accusation of “stupidity” is an analytical shortcut; people ALWAYS do what they do for some reason driven by logic.

In this case, the logic is probably driven by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Anyone who has followed our ministry for a while knows that I am a proponent of this theory because its truths are evident for those who pay attention to what they experience in life; especially for those in the caregiver industry.

Colonial Americans were unique to human history because their logic was driven by the top of Maslow’s pyramid. Of course, their philosophy founded on Enlightenment ideas resulted in this emphasis. One’s basic logic, and in this case, presuppositions about mankind will determine the emphasis people put on basic human needs. For the Colonials, “Give me liberty or give me death” clearly reverses the order of Maslow’s pyramid.

By the way, the lynchpin, or windsock, is always FEAR which the Colonials lacked because mere human existence for the sake of existence was unacceptable to them. In this case, existence for the sake of the state in exchange for food and water was completely unacceptable to them. One element of this is high taxation.

Be sure of this: the only reason the Democratic political party exists is due to lack of education about these things. It’s a kind of “The only thing we need to know is Jesus died for our sins” mentality. It results in the whole consideration being twiddled down to who we trust to get our needed food and water: the individual, or the state. Is the state’s purpose to free the individual to pursue the top of Maslow’s pyramid or is the top of the pyramid purely defined by one’s contribution to the state’s ability to rule over the affairs of men?

The lie told by the Democratic Party while they slowly dismember Americanism is that trusting the state for food and water will not cost people the top of the pyramid still experienced by Americans. But it will, and it always has. Until America came along self-actuation was only found in one’s contribution to the state to rule over the great unwashed, and invariably, this is always found desperately wanting.

This November, a majority will trust Hillary for their food and water because right now Americans are getting their cake and eating it as well. Even hardworking Americans, via lack of truthful education, see the state as their safety net in case they fail which is likely because after all, we are all totally depraved. Even Billy Graham says so.

Therefore, yes, Hillary has her flaws, but at least she supposedly understands that we all need food and water. But what about Donald Trump? He’s despicable and immature? Well, sure he is, but more than that he represents pick yourself up by the bootstraps and do your job or you’re fired! And if I get fired, how will I eat? If I fail, Hillary will understand and make sure I still have my needs fulfilled by the nanny state. But under Trump, if I fail, he thinks I deserve to starve. It’s cold-blooded survival of the fittest.

Hence, Hillary’s ethics are completely irrelevant. Let me repeat that: this is why Hillary’s ethics are TOTALLY irrelevant. She understands that we are weak and may need help with food and water one day. But that is the lie of the ages. Sooner or later, self-actualization is totally defined by one’s contribution to the state for purposes of saving humanity from itself. Eventually, it becomes an existence totally defined by the state in exchange for food and water. History bears out the results of this miserable existence time and time again.

The antithesis is liberty. In the next part we will further examine this theory and then move on to the likely future of liberty economics: Capitalism.

paul

Gospel Sanctification is the original false gospel of the Reformation that presently dominates the institutional church. Basically, it is the gospel of New Calvinism. It is often expressed by the t…

Source: The Reformed False Gospel of “As If”

We hear it all of the time and have heard it for years: “Justification is a legal (forensic) declaration.” The ways in which this short statement alone is antithetical to the gospel is surprisingly simple. First, if righteousness, a synonym for justification, is “apart” from the law any idea that we are justified by a legal declaration has problems right out of the gate. We cannot say that we are NOT justified by the law and then say we are justified by a legal declaration. This would seem evident.

That is, unless you are a Protestant and buy into something else we hear constantly: “The gospel is a paradox.” This means the truths that make up the gospel contradict each other but are yet truth. In other words, reason or logic is not a valid epistemology except for the logic that makes us subordinate to authorities that make truth what it is by edict. “Leave the thinking to us” and be saved through obeying authority.

But what logic should one use to decide which authority saves? When it gets right down to it, I think people believe they are saved through the “humbleness” of submitting to any religious authority found upon the earth. Why would the Catholic religion be enjoying the popularity that it is in our day regardless of its absurd behavior and history? I don’t think it is complicated; it’s salvation by submission to Catholic authority.

Catholics, especially those who have left Protestantism for the Catholic Church have stated this to me in no uncertain terms. The reasoning used is that Catholicism was around hundreds of years before Protestantism. So, one uses that logic to select a mode of salvation, and then abandons reason/logic to keep their salvation. “By their fruits you will know them” becomes just another paradox. And we wonder why we get the vibes we get from people when witnessing to them. Go figure.

The above screen shot sent to me by a friend of PPT is Martin Luther’s Simul Justus et Peccator (simultaneously saint and sinner) and is a cardinal doctrine of the Protestant Reformation claimed by all strips of Protestantism including Baptists and Methodists. I challenge you to find one Protestant scholar or pastor who has ever denied or refuted this statement; you search in vain.

This is a prime example of Protestantism’s “paradoxical gospel” and the deliberate deceptiveness of its communication. The statement allows you (deliberately) to assume a state of being paradox when the statement is not really a paradox at all. Note that Protestants are unique in that they are often wrong about their own error in a sort of multifaceted confusion. Sometimes we call this, “doublespeak.” However, Protestantism often engages in orthodoxy that has several layers of doublespeak in regard to a single doctrine. Simul Justus et Peccator is taught as a paradox but it really isn’t a paradox.

Why would they do that? Here’s why: in the mind of the deceived Protestant a mere legal declaration can also be a state of being. When convenient, it’s nothing but a legal declaration while we remain “evil,” but when otherwise convenient, it is a state of being. You see here the multilevel contradiction in one truth. That’s Protestantism.

Clearly, the Protestant Reformation was predicated on the denial of the new birth as a literal state of being. This is critical because no biblical transformation of being happens in Protestant soteriology. This means that we are not really born of God while remaining in a weak mortal body. Rather than now needing grace for a help in overcoming weakness for the glory of God, “grace” is redefined as a continued covering (not an ending of sin) that prevents us from being condemned because we are still under the condemnation of the law. The cardinal point of 1John chapter 3 refutes these ideas with prejudice.

Let me explain. In the Bible, there are ONLY two groups of people: under law, and under grace. These are denoted by ONE thing and one thing only; and please do not miss this simple fact: they are differentiated by a change in state of being. “You must be born again.” The changes are the difference between salvation and damnation.

Here is where condemned Protestants get confused. “Under grace” does not mean that you are not under law per se, it means that the saved person’s relationship to the law is changed. When one is under law, the law can do nothing but condemn them. But after one’s state of being is changed by the new birth, the law can no longer condemn them; in regard to condemnation, they are said to be “perfect.” The law is now our guide to love God and others, not our condemner. And it is also said to set us free from our prior relationship to the law.

Don’t miss this: it’s a LIKE perfection (righteousness) that is Christ because we are born again into God’s family and Christ is our brother, but it is NOT exclusively Christ’s righteousness that only covers our unchanged state of being. According to the Bible that would be yet…”under the law of sin and death.” If we are still “sinners” at all, the definitive biblical definition of the unregenerate, we are still under the law of sin and death. Those who claim that they are “sinners saved by grace” are proclaiming themselves as unregenerate. Again, this kind of confusion is unique to Protestantism while it claims to be the intellectual stalwart of Western culture.

When the Bible calls us “holy” this is in regard to no longer being under condemnation. But this is far from being a mere legal loophole; it is a change in state of being. Now, we have always been taught that good motives will not get us into heaven and that is just plain wrong. The new birth changes who we are in our heart—it changes our motives while we fail to use the law “lawfully” for purposes of love because we are still weak. “Redemption” is the future salvation of our weak bodies but that makes us no less born again in the present.

“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

This where many misread a verse like this; the word of God doesn’t do this to condemn us in order to lead us back to the cross again for more salvation because we are still under law, it rather guides us in discerning between the weakness of the flesh and our intentions which are now fitted for love via the new birth…NOT condemnation.

Sorry, but the fact is, church-going is the deliberate or unwitting advocating of a false gospel. I realize that this is a VERY inconvenient truth but it is what it is.

According to the Bible, we are to use our “members” for holy purposes and the Bible also states that this is our…“logical service” based on what Paul taught in Romans prior to that verse.

Come out from among them and be saved.

paul