Paul's Passing Thoughts

“At least in some cases, the way long term care facility lockdowns are being practiced is causing more deaths than the virus, and proliferating the spread of the virus in other facilities. I wonder if this isn’t true of the national lockdown as well.” 

I am a STNA/MA-C and I don’t talk politics at work. Even if someone agrees with my political opinions, I would never discuss it with them at work. I know a lot of nurses and respect them, and I don’t know what their politics are, and I don’t want to know. I was texting back and forth with a nurse the other night that I used to work with at a facility. She was my charge nurse for several months. I have no idea what her worldview is about anything other than resident care. When we talk, our politics are resident care; our religion is resident care, and so it is.

My reality on the facility unit floor is a world I keep separate from my normal life with a single focus: resident care. I work with gay people, I work with straight people, I work with transgender people, I work with those who like me, and I work with those who don’t like me, and I could give a rat’s behind (sanctified version) about any of that. However, if an aide or a nurse is just a clock-puncher, I do care about that, but to tell you the truth from my perspective, that’s pretty rare. And from my perspective, most aides and nurses share this same obsessive focus that separates our lives into two realities.

With that said, most aides like and respect nurses, but really don’t care for other aides that much. You would think, given how tough the job is, one of the toughest jobs in the world hands down, that there would be a brotherhood/sisterhood thing going on. Um, not so much. As far as eating their own, lions have nothing on them. If you are a decent aide in their book, they will allow you to live. Aides are fiercely competitive and want to believe they love the residents more than any other aide. Think about four mothers having the same children and ponder how that works out, and then toss male aides into the dynamic who have no nurturing instincts. But it’s ok, if  they think they are a better than you, and you become a better aide, that forces them to become better as well. And in many cases, that works well in a lot of facilities.

Then, there is my other world made possible by technology. On my Twitter account, I follow nurses who are Trump supporters. That’s a whole bunch of fun. Would I follow them if they were local and I worked with them? No. Facebook is much trickier. Its got the “friend” thing going on. While Twitter is primarily religious/political/philosophical, Facebook is a mixed bag. Facebook crosses many boundaries between personal life, family life, work life, religion, philosophy, worldview, and politics. And, as the director of a philosophical/religious think tank involving three authors and an educator, my views are often posted on my Facebook account where nurses I have worked with see what I post. For me, that’s a metaphysical minefield.

One thing I have noticed, for reasons I cannot explain, I find aides somewhat apolitical. Nurses, not so much. And regarding the COVID pandemic, nurses have joined the political fray. The most vocal nurses are in favor of continuing the national lockdown. In fact, I saw a meme posted by some the other day. It showed a mob of people celebrating a nurse with a number of scissors sticking out of her back. It said something like: “Don’t praise us and then stab us in the back by protesting the lockdown.”

I saw it, and I thought: “Holy cow Lord, bring the mountains down on me to hide me from this fray!” Those who know me will tell you I have never backed down from a fight, except for this one. This one I will run from every time. Dear God, find me a refuge.

I have also seen a meme that pictures a shell-shocked nurse with PPE lacerations all over her face with the caption, “We go to the frontlines for you; please stay home for us.”

Yikes!

This is hard for me, because regarding nurses, I am respect-driven. It is my honor to serve them. In all honesty, my mentality on the unit hallways is, “The nurse is always right.” I was recently certified by the Ohio Board of Nurses to pass medications in long term care facilities, and on any multiple choice question for the schooling or state test, if “The nurse” is one of the choices, that’s the right answer in every case. Laugh if you will, but the second you see a question that says, “What do you do if…” your eyes immediately look for “The nurse” among the answer choices. Aides make it a point to argue with each other, but they will rarely argue with a nurse.

How hard is the rock between me and the hard place here? Very. As one who does other things aside from healthcare, I have studied religion and philosophy, and their relationship to politics, for more than 11 years as the director of the aforementioned think tank. Before the Enlightenment Era gave birth to America, the world was not a very nice place to live in. If this pandemic unseats America from being the leader of the free world, as far as death, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

And this virus is the perfect agent for Russian misinformation meant to divides us. It poses itself, to a large degree, as a common cold and asymptomatic nuisance, while on the other hand, it bludgeons ICU nurses with watching people die slowly and inevitably despite efforts that leave them physically and emotionally exhausted. How much of that is the COVID gruesome reality? Enough to make nurses political. Enough to make me want to hide and say, “No, I can’t watch this.”

This seems to be their argument; granted, a handy argument presented by politicians. If the lockdown isn’t done properly, the healthcare system will be overwhelmed and there will be no economic recovery and you shouldn’t put lives before money anyway. That’s immoral. Meanwhile, no one has figured out what the balance is, and the last thing you want to do is throw gasoline on the fire by arguing with these nurses about statistics; that’s just going to piss them off and understandably so. The second you start talking about statistics, they are going to see the patient that defies all of the statistics that they did three full codes on, and failed.

Here is what I see, even from great thinkers like Tucker Carlson on statistics, and the argument is both ignorant and annoying. There is a healthcare norm, which is a statistical curve, and then pandemics, which are healthcare spikes that get underneath the normal statistical curves (which healthcare systems are based on) and drive them up. This causes the whole system to implode. Such and such pandemic is not that bad because even this that or the other kills many more people. Really?

I am going to suggest what the problem is before I move on to the main point of the post. Government is way, way overrated. There has been pandemics coming out of Asia every twenty years since Eve ate the bad apple. Yet, this country has no adequate pandemic protocol. Here in Ohio, everyone waits with bated breath for the Governor and Director of Health to give daily briefings at 2pm.

But here is the problem: their all-wise government lockdown is not an intelligent lockdown and it certainly is not based on any science. For example, and for the most part, healthcare workers are coming up with their own protocols. The Director of Health for Ohio didn’t tell frontline workers to quarantine from their families when they go home to their home lockdowns, they are doing that on their own. Who thought it a good idea for correction facility workers and long term care workers to go home to an isolated locked down household?

So, the government dropped the ball on stocking N95 masks? Well, with all these people out of work, the federal and state governments could not have rounded up a bunch of sewing machines, material, sweeper bags, people who can sew, or train people to sew, and crank out a ton of N-95 masks? That’s what we did during WWII for what we needed. We found a way to put the unemployed on the frontlines. While government brainiacs have called COVID a war, they have doled out cash for people to stay hidden in their homes. We even flew to China, where the freaking pandemic came from, to pick up equipment to fight the war. Folks, these people are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. What is becoming more and more clear follows: we needed a science based intelligent lockdown, not the lockdown that occurred.

This brings us closer to the primary point of the post. Long term care facilities (nursing homes) are in lockdown. And, the kind of lockdown in place is indicative of the national lockdown which is loco grande stupid. At least in some cases, the way long term care facility lockdowns are being practiced is causing more deaths than the virus, and proliferating the spread of the virus in other facilities. I wonder if this isn’t true of the national lockdown as well. Let me be clear: I am not saying a lockdown should not have occurred; rather, I question the kind of lockdown that we got.

Let me explain. My information comes from frontline experience and information from nurses that work in long term care facilities. At least in some facilities, mortality is up, not from the virus, but residents being cut off from their families. At any rate, aides talk often about the one’s who have “given up.” It’s usually a death sentence. When you have had everything taken from you; ie., your health, the home you raised children in, etc., and the only thing you have left is family, and you are cut off from that, the results are not good. In fact, per our training, the family is part of the care team for that very reason. Family as part of the care team is LTC official protocol. So, who was the brainiac who came up with that lockdown idea? I was working in facilities that had their own proactive protocols that limited family visits to one family member at a time. There were other precautions taken as well; the family member’s temperature was taken and they had to wear gloves, and were given a short lesson on standard precautions. Then came the total lockdown ordered by the government. All of a sudden, the family is no longer part of the care team. That’s a really bad idea for many reasons.

But the brilliance doesn’t stop there. I am an agency nurse aide. I get a list of facilities that have open shifts. And here is where I will break some news to you. Nurses worry about our healthcare system because though it is the best in the world, it is fragile due to understaffing and lack of training. Nurses I talk to worry about the system being overwhelmed. Well, in the case of long term care facilities, that has already happened.

Let me further the point this way with conversation I have with other agency workers: “Yes, I saw the list of openings at that facility and that’s why I won’t go there, they must have next to no staff and I can’t do two or three halls by myself.” Not only that, being overwhelmed invariably leads to taking shortcuts on standard precautions.

So, you have hundreds of agency aides moving in and out of several different facilities. Anyone see a problem with that? The aides do. Many only take open shifts three days on, and four days off to see if they develop any symptoms because we can’t get tested unless we get sick. Others stick with a single facility so they know where they got infected if they get sick. But again, this isn’t a government protocol, or even an agency protocol, or even a facility protocol, these are individual protocols. I work for two agencies, neither has had a COVID in-service training except for, “Remember to be careful out there!” And like everyone else, they can’t get their hands on the right PPE equipment.

Here is the paragraph I have been wanting to get to. While it is true that the long term care system has collapsed, it is still floating, because of the unsung heroes, that is, the nurse aides. Yes, I am one, but I mostly hangout with them and help out. It is true that a lot of them fled the facilities out of fear; it is true that many quit because they will make more money with the stimulus package for not working at all (more government brilliance).

But, those who are left are taking care of business because of who they are. So to speak, the men have been separated from the boys. They are enough. I got my start in healthcare by starting with a small home healthcare agency in Dayton, Ohio. The RN who was supposed to orientate me after being beckoned off the street was a Muslim women who spoke broken English. It was a short “orientation.” She turned the pages one at a time saying, “Sign here on bottom that you agree.” I signed, and to what I don’t know. I was not very impressed as a retired business owner that ran a pretty tight ship, and I think she knew that. At the end of the “orientation,” she took her hand and started touching  her chest saying, “If you have heart you make it; if you don’t have heart, no. We will see.”

That isn’t lame, she was right. Even though long term care facilities are woefully short staffed right now, the one’s left have the heart. Long term care is much different than acute care, sometimes the aides and nurses are the only family a resident has. I used to think that was a sentimental cliché. I remember when I used to hear aides tell residents they loved them, I used to think, “Oh please, just shut the hell up and do your job.” Since then, I have become a lot less construction worker and more aide.

As a Christian, I know every human being will have to do business with God at some point. But in heaven, there will only be love and no judgment. There won’t be any politics, there won’t be any religion, and everyone’s identity will be without controversy.

I find that most aides in long term care facilities do have a single focus. And that single focus is love. Aides don’t ask how someone ended up in long term care and it doesn’t matter. With the opioid epidemic the way it is, we care for many that are there by their own doings. They get the same care everyone else does. I have never heard an aide judge a resident. Judging other aides? Well, ok, that’s another matter. But, the judgement is always about your ability to deliver care.

Clearly, when acute care nurses say, “I hope the lockdown protestors get the virus and stay home and die,” such nurses have lost their focus. Perhaps the one’s that are furloughed should relieve the shortages in LTC to regain the right healthcare perspective.

Where, for at least the time being, heaven is a place on earth.

paul

We don’t meet together in private homes for some practical matter; it’s a statement about our gospel. It is a statement about the new birth. The new birth makes us literal members of God’s family, and this is what makes us righteous, the new birth, not perfect law-keeping by anyone including Christ. In addition, church is an institution that speaks of authority and functions on authority. Home fellowships are a family functioning as a body.

Live Link for Sunday 4/19/2020 @ 6pm. 

As a new Christian in 1983 I did something out of the gates that put me at odds with the church inside of six months: daily Bible reading. I didn’t understand a lot of what I was reading, but on the other hand, a lot of what I was reading was pretty clear and objective. Then, I would go to church and hear one contradiction after another while church claimed the Bible as its authority for truth. I remained faithful to church for many years following, but knew something was fundamentally wrong with the entire concept.

This post is about one example. Really, a major example. One of myriads of inner-church quarrelling is the whole, “Which day should we ‘worship’ on, Saturday or Sunday?” Of course, a single church quarrel is always fraught with false premises to begin with. Worship is not on any given single day, worship is all of life A-Z. And don’t forget this: there is so much debate in church that no reasonable person could believe the church knows anything objectively.

Should we worship on Saturday or Sunday, and should Christians recognize the Sabbath, and is Sunday the church Sabbath under the New Covenant? So, I attempted to do a Bible study and come to a personal conclusion, and with many such debates like this, it was a fools errand. Why? While church disingenuously encourages parishioners to read the Bible for themselves, it has never taught legitimate principles of epistemology. In contrast, it only supplies a foundation of false presuppositions that result in the following: the more people read their Bibles, the more church falsehoods will be reinforced. Church infuses a prism into parishioners which will determine what they see in the Bible.

Regardless, the whole argument bothered me for reasons I couldn’t put my finger on. My daily Bible reading could not recall a biblical emphasis on days of the week or the naming of days of the week; weekdays were always referred to by their order, not a name.

Like many things with church, there are all kinds of suspicions in the background, but you also have life to attend to, so you really don’t pause life to launch an in-depth investigation. But, then the COVID worldwide emergency happened. And, per the usual, with ANY non-business-as-usual event that takes place in the world or local culture, church has a head-on collision with reality. This, throughout history, has caused church to die on hills of no relevance. Church, in regard to true Christianity, is completely irrelevant with trainloads of meaningless controversy following.

So, here we go, “Easter Sunday” and “Good Friday” were cancelled because of a government lockdown, as well as weekly church services. And trust me, God could care less. He could care less because church, that is, its basic principles, are totally invalid. We will be looking at this from a calendar point of view. God chose a particular calendar for His theology to emphasize basic points. One point follows: His ekklesia is not an institution; it’s a literal family functioning as a body. An institution cannot function on a lunar calendar; institutions have to function on a solar calendar because an institution functioning on a lunar calendar would be very difficult if not impossible altogether.

Why is that? First, the first day of the week (according to the Gregorian calendar), viz, Sunday, would not always be on Sunday. A solar calendar makes it possible for specific days to be named and always occurring in the same order (and position) every week. The Jews, for purposes of God’s appointed days, used a lunar calendar. This means, according to one theory, the Sabbath occurred on the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th of every month. Let’s take May of 2020 for example, all the Sabbaths would be on Friday. In June of 2020, all of the Sabbaths would be on Monday. This would wreak havoc on institutional “worship” for many, many different reasons. However, in a family setting, just like differing birthdays or anything else, not so much.

I am not going to cover everything I have been studying about this for the past week, but suffice to say that the implications for biblical theology are profound, especially in regard to Genesis, chapter one, and the law instituted on Mount Sinai. Following a particular order of time was part and parcel with the commands themselves, and following any biblical command regarding sabbaths apart from a lunar calendar is not a legitimate observance. The fact that a Jewish day started at evening and ended the next evening also causes interpretive confusion.

Furthermore, first and second temple law protocols were intrinsically linked  with Jewish feasts and other holy days, which were all ended with Christ dying on the cross. The ekklesia was free to meet wherever and whenever it wanted to. Set days for anything were nonexistent. In the first century, the Sanhedrin determined when the new moon occurred, which set the precedent for the month. Obviously, with the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD, any authority to determine the Sabbaths on a monthly basis became nonexistent.

Aside from the Sabbath (and calendar?) protocol established with creation, Leviticus chapter 23 expounds on the instructions given to Moses at the beginning of the exodus. Curiously, these instructions occur for when Israel was in their land, but yet, the instructions pertain to individual family dwellings.

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, concerning the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.

Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.

Why? Why not the area surrounding the tabernacle or purpose build temples? But curious is how many Bibles translate the same passage:

The Lord said to Moses, Speak to the Israelites and say to them: These are my appointed festivals, the appointed festivals of the Lord, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies.

There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a sabbath to the Lord.

Note that many translations imply a gathering at a “sacred assembly” wherever the Jews may be established geographically at any given time. No, the focus is clearly private dwellings. You can die on a hill of freedom to congregate for religious purposes if you will; it’s a good American thing, but don’t do it for any biblical reasons because there aren’t any. Just simply do church and Easter (Passover) at home. It was never meant to be a public spectacle, and rarely, if ever, occurred on Sunday. And for that matter, the Sabbath rarely occurred on Saturday which means the first day of the week wasn’t always Sunday either.

According to Leviticus chapter 23, the Sabbath was a “feast,” not a “time of worship.” Passover was on the 14th of Nissan which was the first month of the Jewish year. For some reason, this was a huge point of controversy between the ekklesias and the church established in Rome by the church fathers—Rome wanted the date of Easter recognized for Passover instead. And if my research is any indication, there is defiantly fire where you see smoke. Understanding this issue to a great degree (I have only scratched the surface) would lend gargantuan understanding of your Bible starting with the creation event in Genesis chapter one.

The next day, the 15th day, was a sabbath day and marked the first day of unleavened bread which was a yearly feast that took place with Passover. The seventh day of that feast (the 22nd day) was also a Sabbath. This follows the theory that the Sabbath days were on the 8th, 15th, 22, and 29th of every month. Regardless of what theory you prefer, the following point remains: these days on the present universal calendar would be different days every month. And again, the feasts were always family centered and not institution centered.

Correlating all of this with the death of Jesus would be an insightful study. The Passover was followed by unleavened bread and Pentecost which was about 49 days from unleavened bread. And by the way, the study IS rocket science, but would be well worth the effort.

A biblical day starts at evening and ends the next evening. Darkness came first, or at least was already present. “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” And, God didn’t rest on the seventh day because he was tired. It all means much more than what we realize.

 paul

“The death of Democrat Americans is necessary collateral damage to achieve the greater good: getting rid of Trump at all cost…Democrat celebrities have spoken openly and often about the insignificance of Republican lives, but we should consider the newly revealed democide of the Democrat Party.”

The Democrat Party has now taken its place in the infamous history of socialist and communist democide. The greatest example is China’s Great Leap Forward between 1958 and 1962 when the economic policy of that socialist movement killed between 18 and 45 million people.

Regarding the present Plaquenil (hydroxychloroquine) controversy concerning the medication’s use to fight the Coronavirus pandemic, the evidence is in, and it is overwhelming. Three parties are guilty of outright murder: doctors who have book knowledge and lack commonsense, the Democrat Party, and doctors who hold to collectivist ideology.  Little space will be used in this post to address doctors who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel (the first party) as they pretty much speak for themselves.

First, we will look at the overwhelming and obvious proof that (as everyone knows) Plaquenil is effective in curing Coronavirus and is also a prophylactic. Fact is, this drug is a weapon that could likely stop this pandemic in the United States dead in its tracks. As Dr. Stephen Smith, founder of The Smith Center for Infectious Diseases and Urban Health, said recently, “I think this is the beginning of the end of the pandemic. I’m very serious.”

Yet, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and on Trump’s C-19 team, said the following on Face the Nation last week: “You know, as I’ve said many times, Margarate, the data are really just at best suggestive. There have been cases that show there may be an effect and there are others to show there’s no effect. So I think in terms of science, I don’t think we could definitively say it works.”

That, my friends, is a blatant lie, and I strongly suspect that he knows it.

Now the evidence.

The firsthand testimonies, which are Innumerable and known thanks to the internet and conservative journalism, is where we will begin. I will cite the two most compelling testimonies, actually, stunning testimonies. First, the following excerpt is from USA Today:

A Democratic state representative from Detroit is crediting hydroxychloroquine — and Republican President Donald Trump who touted the drug — for saving her [life] in her battle with the coronavirus.

State Rep. Karen Whitsett, who learned Monday she has tested positive for COVID-19, said she started taking hydroxychloroquine on March 31, prescribed by her doctor, after both she and her husband sought treatment for a range of symptoms on March 18.

“It was less than two hours” before she started to feel relief, said Whitsett, who had experienced shortness of breath, swollen lymph nodes, and what felt like a sinus infection. She is still experiencing headaches, she said.

Whitsett said she was familiar with “the wonders” of hydroxychloroquine from an earlier bout with Lyme disease, but does not believe she would have thought to ask for it, or her doctor would have prescribed it, had Trump not been touting it as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

Trump, at his daily coronavirus briefings, has repeatedly touted the drug in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin, despite criticism from health professionals that it is unproven and potentially dangerous. There have also been complaints that Trump’s remarks have resulted in a shortage of the drug for those people who normally use it for its recommended purposes.

But Whitsett said Trump’s comments helped in her case. “It has a lot to do with the president … bringing it up,” Whitsett said. “He is the only person who has the power to make it a priority.”

Full stop. Come now, let’s employ a little commonsense. When Donald Trump says, “What do you have to lose,” he speaks wisdom that is self-evident to humanity. That’s what commonsense is. Even if there were only a handful of these testimonies, when people are on the precipice of death, they have absolutely nothing to lose. But, in reality, these testimonies are myriad. Folks, in the middle of a life and death crisis, there is something seriously wrong with those who will watch people die over the difference between “anecdotal” evidence and “long-term controlled studies.”

But, it gets better. Marc Siegel, a Fox News medical correspondent, columnist for several news outlets, including the New York Post and Forbes, and associate professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center, stated the following on last night’s Tucker Carlson show: “I want to tell you about a 96 year old man in Florida who said one night, ‘I don’t think I’m going to make it, I feel very weak, the end is coming. I’m coughing, I’m short of breath, I can’t get up from the couch.’ The next day he was on hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics per his cardiologist. He got up the next day; he was fine. This man is my father.”

That’s a stunning testimony from a celebrity doctor trusted by millions. But, hundreds like these two testimonies cited are pouring in daily. Would Siegel share this testimony if he thought it would give false hope? Very unlikely.

Even more compelling is the actual studies on this drug and its use for Coronavirus in particular. Another celebrity doctor who has been leading the charge on this is the heart surgeon Mehmet Oz. Though a controversial doctor according to some, the point here is the studies he is citing, not the consensus of opinions about him. On Fox and Friends 4/6/2020:

By the way, the word “anecdote” is used a lot — that is an incorrect description of where this medication is now. There’s no question it’s not proven to be beneficial in the large clinical trials we expect in America, and certainly the FDA and medical societies would desire. But these have been supported with case studies. I just got off the phone with Didier Raoult, who’s the well-respected French physician who’s done a lot of this work. Thousand series of patients — 1,000 patients in a row he’s treated, and he’s not published yet, he’s going to be published over the next two weeks. But he’s got seven people who have died, they were all older and had other co-morbidities, 20 people have gone to the ICU of that trial.

Now, it’s not a randomized trial, but that’s not anecdotal. The data from China we discussed last week for the first time on Fox & Friends also, pretty evident that it’s a randomized trial. That is the opposite, if I had to create an opposite of an anecdote. So when those words get thrown around and I saw us this morning in some of the papers, it’s an error on the part of journalists.

Doctors know that difference and they say you know what, I’ve got nothing else. I’m going into a battle, I’m going to march with the army with me. I’ve got randomized data and large case studies that support — it’s the best I’ve got and I’ve got, I’m estimating this, but Dr. Raoult, who was born in Africa, thinks there have been a billion prescriptions written for these products, and he’s stunned that there’s so much concern about side effects. Yes you have to screen for side effects; a doctor has to be involved. But all of this panic about how dangerous they suddenly became is surprising him.

Another doctor that Oz interviewed was even more forceful, saying that not using Plaquenil in the current crisis because there are no long-term controlled studies is, “immoral.” It’s truly amazing how the likes of Dr. Fauci think Americans will accept expertism beyond the scope of what’s reasonable, even to a child. Even more amazing is the stoic coldness in which he dismisses the data while thousands of people are dying daily. Something is very wrong with him.

Does Dr. Fauci lack so much commonsense that he sees no connection between human health and economics? Does he really think America can survive a one-year shutdown economically? No, he is not that stupid; he has an agenda.

Understanding Collectivism 

Whether religion or politics, your position is determined by you presuppositions about mankind. Is man able, or unable? Regarding the ability of man, this position acknowledges human weakness and even evil, but touts man’s ability to overcome these things. Belief in human ability is expressed through individualism.

In contrast, collectivism rejects mankind as able. It sees human existence as one, big, hot mess. Here is where you don’t want to get confused: in collectivism, wisdom is defined by knowing that. The wisest among us know that truth cannot be known; man is unable to discern reality.

Hence, the “experts” among us are educated in making the best of it. They are the ones who lead us through the darkness in order to make life the best it can be. This necessarily insists that mankind should give up all of its freedom to those who know that man cannot know reality. Those who refuse to believe this, and are arrogant enough to believe they can know reality, are a threat to all of humanity.

This is why we dare not question the experts. And, the American concept of self-rule is like letting children play with loaded guns. That’s what’s behind gun control: “For crying out loud, we can’t have millions of people carrying guns around! It will be the Wild West all over again and the hospitals will be overwhelmed with accidental shootings and all kinds of gun violence!” So, people should trust the government to protect us and only “trained law enforcement” should carry guns.

This concern among collectivists is genuine, but there is another reason. A well armed public is a huge problem for a collectivist government; a collectivist government (socialism, communism, etc.) cannot exist with a well armed public because it poses problems for tyrannical oppression of the great unwashed. Yes, they would concede, it’s a pity when criminals break into your house at night and you can’t defend yourself, but a worse problem is everyone being armed willy-nilly. Therefore, the few are expendable for the collective good, or the greater good. No, the fact they are surrounded by armed guards is not hypocrisy: they are the experts that the commoners depend on; of course we should protect them. Of course it is necessary for the experts to have a carbon footprint; they need to travel the world over to discuss how to save it from the great unwashed. The problem is the masses producing an unnecessarily large carbon footprint as a result of willy-nilly travel.

Collectivism is not the shepherd that leaves the 99 for the one lost lamb. The one lost lamb is expendable for the greater good of the other 99. Also, with collectivism, the highest moral value is altruism; that is, self sacrifice for the collective or greater good.

FYI, some doctors and nurses are collectivists also. Of course, they all take The Hippocratic Oath to abide by medical ethics, but the question is, does individualism or collectivism drive the ethic?

Vaccines are a great example of this. For whatever reason you like to cite, they are harmful to a small percentage of people. The medical community is very unmotivated to do anything about that. Why? They say it all of the time: “The benefits outweigh the risks.” Indeed, that is true, but this is also clearly saying that the few are expendable for the collective whole.

America is not based on pure individualism; yet, to the degree that it is, it has accomplished more good on earth than any nation before it. God’s ekklesia, not to be confused with the church, which by the way, was actually founded on collectivist ideology, is an example of pure individualism. The group is one body with individual members being part of the body and all contribute to the overall function of the body in some way. In the Bible, this is called the “body of Christ.” If a part of our body is ailing, we nurse it and care for it, we don’t kill it and go on our way. If we lose use of an arm, we don’t have it cut off because it is no longer useful. Why not? Well, because, obviously, it still has some sort of value.

This is the way individualism sees life. Life has value because it is life, not because of its ability to contribute something. But, with that said, individualism recognizes that what people have to contribute is not always obvious and may be hidden under things we take for granted and fail to think about. But regardless, life is sacred.

Be sure of this: “quality of life” is an euphemism for a person’s ability to contribute to the “collective good.” Or to be more crass, one’s ability to contribute to the state. Things like eldercare and “special needs” do not equate with collectivism. The exception is initially, during the transition of a culture from open society to socialism.

Collectivism will also show continual fondness for globalism. Vaccines are wonderful, but those behind a strong push for vaccines, like all healthcare professionals, knowingly or unknowingly, are either driven by collectivism or individualism. It would seem, given our present circumstances, that the argument against globalism is simple and discussion-ending: people in some cultures like to eat bats and house pets. In other cultures, people are romantically involved with other species. These behaviors, and other ill-advised behaviors, create pandemics that can utterly destroy entire nations. That is, unless you have universal vaccination that makes globalism possible. Keep in mind, in the same way that socialism is impossible without a ban on guns, globalism is impossible without a universal vaccination program. Too often, individualists think collectivists like vaccines for the same reasons.

Many are shocked at Dr. Fauci’s lackadaisical attitude towards shutting down the American economy for up to a year. Some Democrat strategists are calling for an eighteen month shutdown. This would forever change America’s standing in the world and wreak havoc on mortality rates in other ways. Fauci does not share Trump’s view that the cure can be worse than the disease. In fact, he seems totally indifferent to shutting down America in order to mitigate new cases to zero—however long it takes.

If Fauci is of the globalist mentality, this makes perfect sense. The significance of a single economy in the globalist scheme of things is relatively insignificant. In addition, Fauci’s criticism of the World Health Organization, even in light of its overt corruption, is always conspicuously missing. Obviously, Fauci has no emotional attachment to American exceptionalism whatsoever. Obviously, America is expendable for whatever he considers to be the collective good, which certainly couldn’t include individual American lives. More precious to him than the thought of Plaquenil saving one life out of fifty times it is tried is his coveted “long-term controlled studies.” If he isn’t a coldblooded collectivist, he at least functions like one.

The Democrat Party is much easier to read. Their only prayer of beating Trump in the November election is to destroy the Trump revolution earmarked by the best economy that America has ever seen.

A cure for Coronavirus means a limited economic shutdown. A limited economic shutdown will not destroy the Trump economy. Problem is, Democrats will also die. But, this you must understand: the death of their own for the better good equates with socialism and the collectivist ideology it is founded on. The death of Democrat Americans is necessary collateral damage to achieve the greater good: getting rid of Trump at all cost.

The cost of health during an economic depression is well known. Shutting down America for eighteen months will result in death rates that would far rival the Coronavirus pandemic. Everyone knows this, everyone. And, everyone knows that would include Democrats. Democrat celebrities have spoken openly and often about the insignificance of Republican lives, but we should consider the newly revealed democide of the Democrat Party.

It’s a socialist lie older than the mountains: the “People’s Republic of China” is a “republic” for the people. No, it’s a people whose value is determined by their ability to contribute to the state, and the people are expendable for every whim of social experiments. Oops, the Great Leap Forward didn’t work out, oh well, better luck next time. Millions of people died, and yet China clings to socialism because the ability of man and self-rule are impossible. That presupposition about mankind is excluded as a possibility. Worse yet, America came along and told everyone else in the world that they have been wrong since the beginning of civilization. The very existance of America is a constant indictment against world history and all of its preceding cultures.

And unfortunately, the Democrats agree with that. That is…

…the Democide Party.

paul

“You can state it that way, and the Bible does in a few places, but that is really just another way of stating what Christ really did. It’s not the whole story. What Christ really did, and understanding it, is key to having assurance of salvation. And by the way, as we shall see, church is no friend of that understanding.”

The Bible states that all fear comes from the fear of God’s judgement. So, people don’t fear death per se, they fear the judgement that comes afterward. This is the general, core principle, and we see it clearly in realty. ALL psychological problems, whether deemed medical or the product of bad thinking and doing, have an element of fear or paranoia. A person may be diagnosed as Bipolar, but anxiety will also be present…always.

Enter condemnation—condemnation is the consequence of God’s judgement. Those under God’s enviable judgement are also under condemnation. This word is very central to the discussion of a Christian’s assurance. If you are a Christian, and you lack assurance, it is because of condemnation. Where condemnation does not exist, 100% assurance of salvation is present. lack of assurance necessarily means condemnation has crept in.

Now comes the thesis of this post: condemnation is not yet completely vanquished by God; our fight for assurance is a fight against condemnation. While the Bible tells us that in reality, objectively, there is NOW…NO condemnation for those in Christ, condemnation can still harass us because death has not yet been vanquished by God. Death is still alive. The Bible states that it will be the last enemy defeated by God.

These are the basics, and lend understanding to God’s beautiful awe-inspiring plan of salvation. God’s plan of salvation is a logically consistent complex tapestry that employs all aspects of reality including individual identity, family, religion, and government. Any question of Bible doctrine is determined by how it fits with God’s true plan of salvation.

For example, is the Trinity a correct Bible doctrine? Yes, because it fits with how God transformed mankind from living creatures to being His very family members. Angels are living creatures created by God, and it can certainly be said that He loves them, but they aren’t family. No Trinity, no family. No family, no salvation. And by the way, this is family in the literal sense. Can I make a logical argument for the Trinity? Yes, it is efficacious for becoming part of God’s family and becoming part of God’s family is synonymous with being saved.

God is a Father and the words He speaks are life. His words are His seed, the seed of life. God came to man with Promises, and those who believe those promises and embrace them as their identity are fallen upon by the Holy Sprit and God’s word (His seed) is infused into them. This results in a love for God’s truth. This results in holding God true and every man a liar. This is true of the father of our faith, Abraham, and is true for us just the same. We are saved by believing God’s promises, and nothing else.

God made a promise to Abraham AND “the seed,” Christ. To Abraham, God promised that He would make Abraham a great nation that included Jews and Gentiles as one metaphysical body. He promised Abraham that the nation would dwell in a city built by God where pure righteousness will dwell. We and our father of faith look for that city. It is the hope of things not presently seen because we believe God’s promises. Yet, that hope forms how we live presently.

To the seed, Christ, also, “the Word” because He is, “the seed,” He promised the following: He would die for the sins of mankind, and would not be left to corruption in the grave. God, through the Spirit, would resurrect Him from the grave, and establish the new birth. Those who believe the promise are fallen upon by the Spirit and die with Christ, and are resurrected with Him, and thereby become heirs of the promises and the commonwealth of Israel.

“Heir” is another key word here. “a person legally entitled to the property or rank of another on that person’s death.” You see, it is not technically correct to say that Christ died for our sins. You can state it that way, and the Bible does in a few places, but that is just another way of stating what Christ really did. It’s not the whole story. What Christ really did, and understanding it, is key to having assurance of salvation. And by the way, as we shall see, church is no friend of that understanding.

The Old Testament is a will. A will is not executed until there is a death. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises. That’s what makes the New Covenant “better” while the Old Covenant is “passing away.” Christ died to END that covenant and fulfill its promises. let’s look at the Old Covenant will.

The Old Covenant will was administered by Angels on Mount Sinai. It was deliberately instituted about 400 years after God’s promises to Abraham and Christ because salvation is by the promises and not the law. The law was instituted by God to increase condemnation. The apostle Paul said it was instituted to “increase sin,” but that’s another way of saying the same thing; an increase of sin leads to increased condemnation which leads to increased fear of death because death has to do with God’s judgement. A review of all the events at Mount Sinai puts an explanation mark on that point.

However, the law, or the will, also offered life. The law also offered instruction on how to love God with all of your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as well. This was the gospel of Moses under the will: “I put before you on this day death and life, choose life.” Meanwhile, as a believer in the promises and therefore infused with the seed of God, ALL of your sins were imputed to the will. In this way, it was said that you were “captive” to the will because all of your sins against the law were held captive by the law. “All sin is transgression against the law.” The will was said to be a “protector” against sin’s condemnation until Christ came.

Accordingly, all the believers under the will were held captive in a place called “sheol” until Christ died. When Christ fulfilled that promise, “he ascended on high, he led captive a host of captives, and gave gifts to men.” Those gifts were poured out on the ekklesia (“called out assembly”), and made Jews and Gentiles one body with Christ as the head. This was part of the promises made to Abraham and Christ.

Here is the important part: Christ’s death fulfilled the will, but also by fulfilling it, ended it. And since all sin was imputed to the will, sin is no longer merely covered by the law by way of imputation, sin is ended. “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” Why would the Bible say that? Death is a sting because of sin’s condemnation, and the law condemns. If you are an heir to a will, and the testator dies, that will is fulfilled, you receive the goodies, and the former will no longer applies to you.

However, remember, the will is “passing away” and for believers has been replaced with “better promises.” That is, those that have been received. In this way, the will, is a “ministry of death.” That’s because the Sprit still uses it to “convict the world of sin and the judgment to come.” Sin→condemnation→fear→hopelessness→death→judgement all go together. The bible calls this sequence, “under law.”

ALL sin is still imputed to the “ministry of death” as an objective criteria for the question of sin and condemnation: if the ministry of the will has been ended for you, that is, to increase condemnation to compel you to flee to Christ,  there is no condemnation because for you, the will has been fulfilled by Christ. This doesn’t make the Old Testament will any different than any other will except the volume of heirs. If you discover that you are an heir long after the death of the testator, you are still entitled to the inheritance.

Are all people born into the world under the old will? Well, are all born “under law”? Are all born “under sin”? Well, then all are heirs of the Old Testament will. Sadly, some understand that they are in God’s will and do not care to contact their attorney in order to collect the inheritance. “How will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation.” Literally, God sees all of this as a rejection of what He has offered as “something to be despised and trampled underfoot.” Interestingly enough, in the Bible, the promises are said to be to those who are “near” (Jews) and those “far away” (Gentiles). To the “invited guests” (Jews) and whoever you find to fill the wedding banquet hall (Gentiles).

Those who want to collect on God’s inheritance by believing the promises are said to be “under grace.” This is better understood as, “under love.” This is because under law and under love are two totally different state of beings. “Grace,” is defined as God’s love in action. In every place you see the word, “grace” in the Bible, you can replace it with the word, “love” and it will make perfect sense in the context of the sentence. Salvation was the ultimate grace and act of love, and believers partake in grace as well. To always interpret the word “grace” as a salvation event is a serious interpretive misstep.

When you are under grace, what you know about the law should be the foundation of your assurance. Death means you will see God, but it also means you will see your literal Father who has no law for which to judge you. And if He has no law, there is no condemnation. The old you that was under sin, the law, condemnation, and judgement, died with Christ; you now stand before your literal Father—no father worth his salt condemns his children; in fact, the Bible says NO loving father does.

Instead, we are told that we will be judged based on how we built upon the foundation of our faith. Some sort of rewards will be given accordingly, and our efforts that fall short (“wood, hay, and stubble”) will be consumed with fire. Note that wood and hay are not worthless materials by any stretch of the imagination; I think eternal value is the issue. You may make a beautiful piece of furniture out of wood for someone who otherwise could not afford it. The wood will pass away, but not the act of love that made the furniture; that’s eternal.

That brings us to the subject of love. The practice of a Christian has not changed: as under the old will, we obey love and life; our faith works through love. It’s an altogether different state of being: faith→word→love→courage→joy→life→eternal reward. As 1st John states, “perfect love casts out fear because fear has to do with judgment.” As children of God, we can experience the loving chastisement doled out by real fathers who don’t condemn their children and provoke them to wrath, but we are never subject to a condemning judgment by the law. Hence, “where there is no law there is no sin.”

Nevertheless, the Christian is still harassed by condemnation. The Devil, sin, and religion, all wage war against the Christian with condemnation. To the degree that these attacks are successful, the Christian will lack assurance. For certain, if a Christian misunderstands the relationship of the law to the new birth and does not understand the covenants, their assurance will be a hot mess and their sanctification woefully anemic. A Christian who is sure of their salvation will lead a powerful life. This is not to be confused with religionists who base their assurance on a false hope.

Assurance is based on the right gospel, the right knowledge, and practicing love that displaces fear. The law is fulfilled by love.

Church orthodoxy is predicated on the “Christian” remaining under the law and its subsequent condemnation. Church orthodoxy has a single perspective on the law. That means the following: when a Christian does a good work, or an act of love, if you will, they have no way of knowing what their motives are. “Am I doing this to justify myself before God, or am I doing it strictly out of love?” If there is only one relationship to the law, condemnation is always running in the background and it is impossible to discern motives. This is why the church doctrine of double imputation states that Christ obeys the law for us and thereby excludes the possibility of practicing love through the law.

In contrast, a Christian can always know their motives if they understand that being under law is a different relationship to the law than being under grace. While under grace, it is impossible to justify yourself with the law. This is because the true Christian knows they are justified by believing in the promises of God and the law can justify no one, nor can it give life. That’s why Christ did NOT live a perfect life so that a perfect law-keeping  life could be imputed to the Christian life. The law is not the basis of righteousness to begin with nor can it give life. The law can only condemn, and we are no longer under its jurisdiction.

All that’s left is the possibly of loving while there is NOW…NO condemnation. The true Christian understands that the new birth is a demarcation between two different persons that are under two different jurisdictions and two different relationships to the law. One is dead and no longer subject to the written code; one was enslaved to sin, and the new person is enslaved to righteousness. Those who are enslaved to righteousness are free from the condemnation of the law.

Hence, the Christian is free to aggressively love God and others through knowledge of the law with no fear of condemnation or concern that they have ill motives. In fact, the apostle Paul told us to outdo each other with love! In other words, try to be better than other Christians in regard to loving God and others.

Church orthodoxy opens the door wide for condemnation. Under law and under grace are not two different relationships to the law according to orthodoxy, but under grace is a covering for remaining under law. If under law is not completely vanquished, there is no real biblical new birth. If law and justification are not mutually exclusive, all remain enslaved to sin and its condemnation under the law. Clearly, church orthodoxy says so-called Christians are under both; this is not true, you are 100% one or the other. Under grace is not a covering for remaining under law. And if you function according to that ritualistic system, condemnation will have a strong foothold.

Unfortunately, since church orthodoxy keeps all people under law, which is central to its double imputation soteriology, many look to church commitment for assurance. Being committed to church and patted on the head by pastors and elders give many a false sense of security. Apart from church ritual, actually referred to as “church ordinance” and “the sacraments,” their assurance would be shattered. Others are condemned by the weekly preaching and seek relief from church sacraments. The condemnation leads them back to Christ, supposedly, which leads them to live a “lifestyle of repentance” by returning to the cross (“ordinary means of grace”) for more Jesus. For those supposedly not under condemnation, weekly preaching is very condemning. The complete absence of condemnation makes church orthodoxy impossible while the doctrine of double imputation depends on it. One must remain under the law’s condemnation for perpetual pardon through Christ found only in the church.

A proper view of justification will also answer all other types of theological questions. Is there more than one resurrection and judgment? Yes, because we know at least one resurrection involves plenary condemnation, so that resurrection cannot include Christians. There are many more examples.

The Christian’s level of assurance is directly related to condemnation. When a Christian is experiencing lack of assurance, condemnation is present and active in some way. Condemnation always fills a void where love is lacking, will definitely seize the opportunity to pounce when a Christian’s behavior is unbecoming, and will have success always in error concerning the gospel and its relationship to the law.

paul