Paul's Passing Thoughts

The Potter’s House Sunday Fellowship 10/13/2019: The Truth About Galatians 2:20

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 13, 2019

Trump’s Syrian Policy Reflects Individualism Over Collectivism

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 12, 2019

ppt-jpeg4I don’t think President Trump is a great communicator, though he is a great doer.  If you listened to his explanation for pulling out of Syria at the end of his Minnesota rally, you heard an emphasis on individual soldiers and their personal testimonies, but no clear explanation for pulling out of Syria other than, we must stop the “endless wars” policy. If you understand  that Trump is an individualism purest, you can read between the lines.

More than not, American war policy is about the individual’s sacrifice for the country. That’s not really the core of American ideology. America was founded on individual equality and a government for the people and by the people, but for the individual is implicit.

Though the question for Americans in regard to war is usually; “How many American lives would be lost and is the cause worth it?” an individualism purist like Trump is going to ask, “Is the cause worth one American life?”

Take Vietnam for example; the war wasn’t brought to a swift end because we were afraid of Russia. Obviously, if the United States had decided to invade North Vietnam to end the war, it would have been over in short order. Was our fear of Russia resulting in an anemic war plan worth 50,000 lives? Hardly. When Nixon decided to end the war, he did the next best thing that stopped short of forcing a standoff with Russia; he ordered a blockade of North Vietnam. He dropped sea mines in their harbors and bombed all of their railroads and the war was shortly ended thereafter. America won the war at that point. When Watergate happened, everyone knew the impeachment of Nixon would result in North Vietnam invading South Vietnam; no one cared. For the Democrats, getting Nixon out of office was worth more than the 50,000 lives spent in Vietnam.

This is just fact: American solders are expendable for American politics and political wars in general. How do we know? The cost of a war will be expressed in numbers of lives. Have you listened closely to the arguments against Trump’s withdrawal of troops from Syria? It goes something like this: “We are only there giving support for the Kurds and they have lost 11,000 troops while we have only lost a couple of hundred; we are getting a lot of bang for the buck!” Those who have American ideology backwards will always ask how many lives will be lost rather than the following: “Is the war worth one life being lost?” This question weighs the effect on a single family when they lose a young member who had a whole life to live. It reflects the proverb that says, “He who saves one life saves the world.” This is the true measure of life value.

Trump weighed everything going on in Syria including the lack of equal effort by those who have more to gain than us and decided to pull out. Besides, these are wars that Trump inherited and his approach to war is much different because it is based on individualism: he will go in with the full unhindered force of the American military, destroy the enemy, leave abruptly, and leave rebuilding to whom it may concern. Why?

Because the loss of one American soldier is one too many. When Harry Truman found out that an invasion of Japan would cost 700,000 allied and American lives, he decided to use the A-Bomb instead. Trump would use the A-Bomb to save one American life. He measures the cost by the effect on one family, not a hypothetical number of expendable lives.

That’s the difference between collectivism and individualism: one measures the value of life by numbers because it’s a collective mindset, while the other measures the value of life by one. It is the shepherd that leaves 99 sheep to find the single lost one.

paul

 

Should “Christians” Read Their Bibles?

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 12, 2019

ppt-jpeg4

The whole widely accepted idea that Christians should read their Bibles must be qualified. If you ask the average Churchian why they should read their Bibles the answers would be varied and interesting. Being a Churchian, it’s just another thing in a list of other things that they do while having no idea why they do it.

So, according to orthodoxy, according to their spiritual heroes, according to the original tenets of the Protestant Reformation, what is the purpose of Bible reading? Answer: Bible reading is one of the “ordinary means of grace.” What’s that? Church is a salvation PROCESS. There are no exceptions. And consequently, according to the Bible, in every case where salvation is not finished one remains under law and the law’s condemnation. In other words, church orthodoxy is biblically defined as pertaining to the unregenerate. And by the way, contemporary mainline Protestant leaders state this publicly all of the time. You are either under grace or under law, you cannot be both, but actually, church claims that under grace does not change your state of being, but is part of the salvation process while remaining under law.

So, why read your Bible according to church? Answer: it aides you as an “ordinary means of salvation (grace).” As you read the Bible, the goal is finding self-condemnation for purposes of returning to the cross for more Jesus, or in other words, more salvation. This is the extreme antithesis of what the Bible states regarding its purpose. According to the Bible, it is the source for learning how to love God and others with no fear of condemnation. In contrast, when Protestant pastors promote Bible reading, it’s the former purpose they are promoting without the parishioners even knowing it. On Sunday, during the “gospel preaching” anything read in the Bible during the week is reflected back as condemnation. It promotes a “lifestyle of repentance.”

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Problem is, it’s a backward look for purposes of gaining more and more salvation rather than a forward look that promotes love. The idea of finding love in the church is an orthodoxed oxymoron unless you are talking about more salvation as the only love prism. Argue with me if you will, but I will quote Calvin and Luther extensively and the argument will be over.

paul

The Furry Fandom Part 12: Look Through Any Furry Window, What Do You See? Evil…Always. A Casual Stroll Through a Furry Park

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 10, 2019

The Furry Fandom Part 11: Good News for the Furries

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 10, 2019

So-kuschelig-war-die-Furry-Convention-in-Berlin_big_teaser_article

In reply to Dubmutt.
I am not answering your question with a question to be snarky, and it’s not a loaded question; there is actually a point to it, and it really doesn’t have anything to do with Furries other than the question being a readily available example. Do you think it is ok, or normal, to have sex with roadkill? Either way, yes or no, tell me why. Is pedophilia ok? Why, or why not.

In reply to Paul Dohse

Animals can’t consent to sex. So we as a society said it was wrong. It is repulsive most of us hate it for that reason. Pedophilia is wrong because children aren’t capable of consent. They aren’t mentally mature enough to understand. That’s why 18 is considered adult and the typal consent age. Although I feel it should be older. Since 18 is still immature juvenile.
That’s how we’ve always determined laws since the start of civilization. Whether God is real or not religion is an effective way to control human behavior. A lot of religions seem to agree on one thing and that is to do good to your fellow man. I’m not anti-religion and to be honest, not sure if you read all of the OT laws but I can pick quite a few that would really benefit society today.

In reply to Dubmutt.
I believe the Bible because it is the only source that logically explains what you just stated in your comment. All people are born in the image of God according to the Bible, but what does that mean? One thing that it means is described in Romans chapter 2: the works of the law of God are written on the hearts of every individual born into the world with the conscience either accusing or excusing behavior and actions. The Bible also says that God is known by His creation so all are without excuse. And all are under judgment. The irreligious will only be judged according to the law of their conscience, but the religious will be judged by both laws: conscience and the Bible, so they will receive a more severe judgement. Eternal punishment is meted out to different degrees based on the level of condemnation; the more law that you are under, the more condemnation. The goal should be to escape judgment altogether. Christ died on the cross to end the law. He was resurrected by God to establish the new birth. The new birth changes our relationship to the law because the old us dies with Christ and we are resurrected with Christ to being a new person. Hence, like a person who dies in this life, they are no longer accountable to any law; you can’t indict a dead person. NO person is tried in abstention that is dead. To the new person, the law now has a different purpose: it is our manual for loving God and others, BUT with NO ability to judge or condemn. Think about this: no true Christian will ever stand in judgement before God. There is “now” “no” condemnation for those who are in Christ. The love we are now in casts out fear, because “fear has to do with judgement (1John chapter 3).” Of course, the new birth also changes one to have a love for truth and God’s word, so true love does not use being set free from condemnation as a license to sin. And that my friend, is the good news.

 

%d bloggers like this: