Independent voters are faced with another year of hard choices to elect a presidential candidate they aren’t much satisfied with. Trump may be a perfect candidate except for an F grade on environmental economics and basic income while Biden rates an F on foreign policy (and numerous other issues) stuck as he is in a 1980s cold war mentality concerning Russia, besides seeming to fade too much to take on the responsibilities of President of the United States another five years.
Can independents switch to vote for either patty with good conscience. The Democrat Party is one meaning full support or the death of unborn, unwanted fetuses. It also means support for homosexual marriage and adoption of children by homosexual parents and the blurring of family blood history and genealogies until they become meaningless some day. That would be ideal for a future elite aristocratic global rule with the masses being without blood family groupings at all.
A future world order supported by Democrats is one where robots with A.I. have taken over most tasks such as stocking grocery store shelves, and those businesses have been bought by major publicly listed corporations. Robots with A.I. can work 24-7 without breaks or inaccuracies in placing items and expiration dates on shelves. Robots with A.I. will have taken over every driving job and the planet will have its wealth concentrated within 1% of the population ruling the masses through capitalist or socialist systems- often working together. Is it possible to say that Republicans would be disturbed by the prospect of that borderless new world order?
Independent voters that care about the environment- and there are many, haven’t much trouble discerning the weakness on that subject of President Biden. Biden provides enough environmental talk to get elected and follows up with the minimum required to claim to be a supporter of environmentalism while at the same time advocating tax cuts for the rich within the present classical system of economics that needs to be evolved into ecological economics. There is no prospect for a full-bodied presidential candidate from either party with a comprehensive and supportable plan to radically reform the present national system of classical economics and transition to a new basis of ecological economics that is sustainable and designed to move the world directly toward a recovering ecosphere and atmospheric health more suitable for healthy terrestrial life including human.
If such a candidate were to appear in 2028 independents would need to decide if it would be worth voting for ecospheric reform knowing that a Democrat would also be for homosexual marriage. Tax cuts for the rich and liberal abortion. A Democrat would pack the Supreme Court with abortion and homosexual marriage supporting judges as well as undermining Christian values. Liberal judges would back censorship of conservative free speech in social media and even in public libraries while describing free choice to ban children’s book advocating homosexual lifestyles as censorious violations of free speech. Independents would know that Democrats prefer a one-party system while describing Republican presidential candidates sometimes as ‘threats to democracy’ while using all litigious means possible to terminate the presidency of a Republican president in office. Would it be worth tolerating the degradation of the nation during a democrat Presidency if that meant getting an ecological economic transition policy started?
I had considered why a Republican candidate with 19 years of formal education such as a lawyer has could hold publicly with anti-global warming views as if he were retarded. Ow could anyone so educated fail to understand the manifest science of things massively in support of global warming and the decay of the the ecosphere in regard to habitat quality decline and species extinction rates? In the case of Donald Trump it may not be disingenuous and callous, practiced cynical political pragmatism.
Some politicians may choose in a tobacco producing state to say that tobacco smoking doesn’t cause cancer in order to get elected. Republicans may have done so in the past (with the notable exception of Senator John Edwards) yet if they wanted to participate in politics there was no other choice perhaps since the democrats with their abortion and homosexuality viewpoints were the only real alternative. Donald Trump though has just 16 years of formal education and grew up in an era where Exxon was the largest corporation on Earth and extraction businesses were 100% American, kosher corporations except to some rising extremists associated with the 1960s era anti-war hippie-doper, counter-culture. Mr. Trump just hasn’t divested entirely from the fossil fuel and coal sector as an ecological economist probably should do.
Stopping the war in Ukraine with a peace settlement giving most of the east bank of the Dnepr to Russia is paramount for reunify the world from its present state bordering on the brink of nuclear conflict and turn toward requisite globalist approaches to economic transition to sustainable economics. Democrats tend to want to get to sustainability by culling the population with homosexuality, the end of families, millions of abortions and post-birth life abortions also known as combat casualties of wars. The uniformed, non-consenting just-cull them approach to stopping global population growth requires concentrating wealth and dumbing down the masses. I don’t think most independent voters in future elections will opt fo the approach.
It is more efficient to design an ecological political economy and inform the electorate and get them to voluntarily support it. Neither party is ready for that yet. Maybe some day.
On the subject of homosexual marriage; a few more words. People of the world might have gradually accept homosexual behavior as a private issue among adults as part of the freedom of citizens of democracies. Pragmatically it was a horrible choice to try to force that upon the public and the nations of the world from the top down through homosexual marriage. Expropriating and redistributing marriage meant creating a permanently politically divided world and political fights that were completely unnecessary for the effort to attain freedom from repression for those that feel a need for homosexual relationships. It is politically unwise to create battles and conflicts that are de trop. Democracy came to be viewed by many as a false flag for atheism and homosexual norms and a culture without morality.
The religious opinion from the Abrahmic tradition tends toward condemnation of homosexuality. Thus non-believers from Darwinist and homosexual arenas found common cause in attacking Christian beliefs; to eradicate Christians would eradicate opposition to homosexual repression they thought since Christians and Muslims were the majority in perhaps half of the nations of the world. Christians generally were not updated on their own theology. There were churches taken over in effect by liberal secularists and even homosexual viewpoints. Church lives could be comfortable sinecures for some non-believer pastors who thought it a new evolution. What was lacking was traditional reform and continuing theological comprehension of the depth of the material of the Bible at a pace that would provided fair apologetics- rather than ‘intelligent designs’ to the populace.
There is a good, brief paper of the Apostle Paul’s references to the kingdom of God (he made 14 direct ones while the gospel has 121) by Prof. Of Theology Michael J Vlack titled ‘The Kingdom of God in Paul’s Epistles’. Dr. Vlack believes the kingdom of God is in the future, though perhaps it is also somewhat present and administered by the Holy Spirit in the present for believers.
Jesus Christ said that the Kingdom of God is within you. That is the spirit of God is with believers even while the world is under the authority of Satan. In the future the full actualization of the kingdom of God on Earth and reduction of the unsaved to eternal hell will occur. In the meanwhile the elect are not judges over the world nor should they try to be so. They may recommend Christian values to the lost yet cannot meaningful try to establish a theocratic state to replace secular democracy. Instead they should be wise as serpents and gentle as doves and if interested in the politics of democracy try to moderate the excesses of moral failure with pragmatic spin to a peaceful, prosperous and stable society. This latter is my opinion and not one I guarantee is found in scripture.
Augustine wrote about the kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man; twin realities with a little transcendent overlap. The kingdom of God is not yet fully actualized. Dr. Vlack mentioned that in Gen 1:26–28 that Adam was assigned the task of bringing the world through perfect obedience to the kingdom of God *(and failed). Jesus Christ is the last Adam who will succeed where the original failed and transition the souls f the save unto the eternal kingdom of God.
One might infer that Adam in the garden encountered a pre-existing population on Earth, as it appears that Adam and Eve’s sons and those of Noah did as well. There are may subtle ideas resent in scripture that people generally run past in their assumptions that they know it all and in some cases without having read it.
It is possible that cosmological speaking, the Universe was created in six days in a kernel, pre-packed form and expanded over 13.3 billion years unfolding in time as designed, naturally. Although there are thousands of possible configurations of physical cosmologies that would result in a way consistent with the present measurable phenomenal values of the evident Universe I prefer the one about the unpacking of a monistic membrane of zero dimension.
That zero dimension membrane given the word of God (entailing an intelligent design) unfolded from eternity and quickly inflated faster than light because light and slower, reductions that were phenomenal pluralism of force had yet to exist. With the membrane unpacking it frayed with expansion at the edges yielding gravity, the strong, electro-weak and nuclear forces (the Higgs field emerged from the electro-weak break-up). God rested after the work designing the future Universe was complete. The nature of time from eternity to the contingent universe of space-time (with its relativistic Einstinian values) probably would allow John Wheeler-esquereverse causality and life eternal to present interaction as God willed because of omnipresence includes all points in time as subject to the eternal now of God the eternal. Time is just a thing to God as real as spatial continua, and finite, I would think.
There isn’t a need for on-believers to have contempt for those of faith for the cause of believing in evolution cosmology rather than Christian cosmology of God. The two viewpoints are not necessarily or logical exclusive.
*26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
-comment. One may take it that mankind existed already in a debased form; uncivilized, savage and little more than animals. Then God created a man and woman and set them among the lost animals. How might God otherwise have expected prefect obedience form his creatures if they were not better than average? This at any rate is one theory. The first civilization may have been set on the coast of the Persian Gulf sometime toward the end of the Wisconsin ice age and lost beneath a flood surge perhaps worsened by interminable rain and a typhoon in some sort of global warming super-storm. The early mud-brick city dissolved over time beneath rising ocean water into oblivion.
No comments:
Post a Comment