Archives for posts with tag: Paul

This Blog “The Philosopher on Politics has been combined with “A New Paradigm in Christian Thinking”.  All new Posts will appear on effective 12/12/2016.

Thanks for your interest in these topics.

The Philosopher


The Gad Fly ver. 1.2.1

The Philosopher


Copyright 2016

Definition of Gad Fly

  • A fly that bites livestock, especially a horsefly, warble fly, or bot-fly.
  • An annoying person, especially one who provokes others into action by criticism.

The Gad Fly of the Greek Democracy[i]

  • Plato refers to Socrates as the “gad fly” of the state (as the gad fly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians).

The Gad Fly of the Christian Church[ii]

A New Paradigm in Christian Thinkingis the gad fly of the Christian Church.  Christian Churches do not accept criticism, ever. The price of criticism in the Christian Church is excommunication.  Christian sees themselves as “birds of a feather” and a critical bird is not of their nest.  They must protect the income and salaries of the professional Christians, the minds of their youth and the minds of all of their members from the gad flies of the Christian Church. Professional Christians must preach to the choir, instructing them on the religion that they have chosen to put their faith.  The cost of not preaching to the choir is that the choir will vote with their feet and donations, resulting in a loss of income to the church and the professional Christians who probably have children – if Protestant – that they need to get through college and a mortgage to pay off.   If the professional Christians are Catholic, they will not meet with the approval of the hierarchy of the church and will be excommunicated.

Max Planck, the German nuclear physicist of the early twentieth century, stated, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.[iii]

The same statement can be made of religion.  Acceptance of a new viewpoint of the existing data on religion can only take place when a younger generation becomes comfortable with these new views and those who are adamantly opposed to these new views die off.

Because of this self-protection of the minds of the youths, the church is destined to disappear for failure to keep up with our knowledge of the universe and the light it has shined on our knowledge and purpose of the visit to planet Earth of the Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU) two thousand years ago, and taught how the Homo sapiens who have evolved over the past thousands of centuries can get their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter met on this planet Earth and how to live in peace with each other and other nations.

An interesting side note is that Paleoanthropologist has found no link to the evolution of the Homo sapiens skull to that of the evolved Ancient Man, leaving open the creation of the Homo species by the “Creator of the Universe”.  Although ancient man and modern man have identical bone structure from the neck on down, their skulls and thus brains are much different, nor is there any evidence of a transitional development from the skull of Ancient Man to the skull (Brain) of the Homo Species. [iv]

The advances in our knowledge of the universe and the life creation process in the last one hundred years, mainly due to the Hubble Telescope and advances in life science, have put the Christian Church in a position where they need to update their theology from religious to pragmatic (cause and effect, science) or face extinction.  The church is clearly in a positon of “grow or die” and the church cannot possibly grow with the determination to maintain their existing course, a course established and handed down through the generations and centuries by people that did not understand the meaning, instructions from the RoCoU and implications of the events that had taken place in the very beginning of “The Way” or the Christian Church.  These events took place in a very religious society and that society, for the most part, saw and recorded these events through a religious lens (perspective).

Case Study I

The RoCoU that visited planet Earth two thousand years ago taught the audience that had gathered around Him how to get along with other people on a one-on-one basis and how nations could live in peace with one another on a nation-to-nation basis.[v]

  • For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” [vi] From the accepted Christian perspective, their judgments will be judged by a higher power at the end of the life of planet Earth. They do not see their judging others as something that has immediate consequences.  From the pragmatic perspective, the effect of judging others – be it one-on-one or nation-to-nation – will have immediate consequences.  All Homo sapiens on planet Earth are of equal authority; one does not have dominion over another. And as one Homo sapien judges another, so in turn are they judged by those they are judging in real time by the same measure they are using to judge!This holds true for one nation to judge another nation. As one nation judges another, so is that nation judged, by the measure they use to judge, by the nation they are judging.  As in the case where the USA is judging ISIS with “air strikes,” the USA is being judged by ISIS attacking soft target (civilian targets, airplanes, restaurants, public places, etc.) with bombing and assault weapons.  The USA has judged ISIS as “barbaric” and ISIS, in turn, has judged the USA as “barbaric”.  This ISIS War has made it impossible to tell the Barbarians from the Barbarians.

Wars of our past have been mislabeled.  We must remember that the President of the USA is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA.  The orders given by the President must be followed by the USA military forces.  The President does not issue illegal orders.  If the President  orders it, it is a legal order and must be obeyed by those in subornation to the Commander-in-Chief.  One can argue that they do not have to follow an illegal order, but they will probably be sent to the brig while the Supreme Court reviews their case. They will be removed from and replaced from duty and someone else will carry out the Commander-in-Chief’s order.

Therefore the Civil War as we know it was not our civil war – it was  Lincoln’s War.  The USA involvement in WWII was FDR’s and Truman’s War.  Harry Truman was President when the Korean War began in 1950, and Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and was President when the armistice was signed in 1953.  The Vietnam War was JFK’s initiative and LBJ’s Bombing War; Nixon pulled USA troops out of Vietnam. The Serbia vs. Bosnia, Kosovo, NATO was Clinton’s war.  The Persian Gulf War I with Iraq was G.H.W. Bush’s War.  The Iraq War was G.W. Bush’s War and the ISIS-ISIL War is Obama’s War.

As a professional troubleshooter for over forty years, I can equivalently state that, “A problem must be accurately described before action is taken to try and solve the problem; if not, a bigger problem will be the result.”  By placing the proper labels on our past wars, we should gain some insight as to the right problem to solve.

The Right Problem to Solve

  • Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.” [vii]

The term “workable compromise” was not coined until the twentieth century. Is it any wonder that our ancestors did not understand the meaning of the above instruction from the RoCoU during his visit to planet Earth two thousand years ago?  A workable Compromise is a solution to conflicts that work for all participants in the disagreement.  The first step in search of a workable compromise is to ask the conflicting subject, “What do you want?”  If one does not understand what the conflicting parties want, how can a resolution ever be found that works for the principle parties?

  • Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.[viii]

Here we have the workable compromise on a much larger scale.  In the case of USA vs. ISIS, the question was never asked, “What do you want?”  If we trace back the steps of the previous administrations, we should be able to predict what ISIS-ISIL wants.  The Sunni Muslims were in power in Iraq prior to G.W. Bush’s administration.  G.W. Bush’s War left the Sunni dispossessed from their homeland by the puppet Shiite Muslim administration installed by Bush. Iraq’s neighbor, Syria, was involved in its own civil war; The Sunni Muslims, now still armed with their weapons from the now defunct Iraq Red Army, seized the opportunity and developed their base of operation in Syria.  This new ISIL then made pronouncement on video, in a very barbaric way, for the USA to “Stay out of our fight.”  The Obama administration judged ISIL as “terrorists” and initiated air strikes against ISIS-ISIL as they threatened our allies in power in Iraq.

As described above in Case Study I, judging a nation as terrorist will result in the judging nation to be judged as terrorist by the judged nation.   As the USA conducted air strikes against “hard targets” (military targets) in an attempt to minimize collateral damage (civilian deaths), ISIS-ISIL, in retaliation, began bombing and assaulting soft targets (Civilian Targets).

Judging and the lack of ability to negotiate a workable compromise by the Obama administration has, and will continue to, cost the western civilization much cost in damage, dislocation of refugees and lives of civilians.  It is apparent that even a routine change in the administration by a newly elected administration will not end this conflict with ISIS-ISIL. A resignation or impeachment of the Chief Executive seems the proper road to pursue.  A newly elected administration would be in a position of trying to apologize for the actions of the previous administrations, and that never happens.

The Lens Used for the Viewing of the Facts

The lens one views the facts, events or evidence through determines the conclusions that the viewer will hold as the correct interpretation of the facts, events or evidence. The classic scenario is this: Two men who are walking in the woods come upon an immaculate garden, complete with trimmed hedges, flower garden arrangements, etc.   One man states, “There must be a caretaker for this place.” The other man states, “What a wonderful work of nature.”   The events that took place during the visit of the RoCoU two thousand years ago can be looked at through a religious lens or a pragmatic lens.

There are two and maybe three writers that were able to record the events, of the visit to Earth by the RoCoU and the events that took place, without looking though there religious lens.  Mark, who wrote the book of Mark in the Book of Books, the Bible, was a young man on the perimeter of the core group who became the Apostles of the RoCoU. He found himself in Rome where much persecution was taking place of the “Christians” in Rome.  He took it upon himself to record for the purpose of history the events that had taken place during his life.  He was an eyewitness to some of the events and received reports from those who were part of the core group of the RoCoU.  The style of writing for an historian is to answer the questions, “who, what, where and when.”   Luke, who wrote the books of Luke (Luke I) and Acts of the Apostles (Luke II), was contracted to record the events that had and were taking place in this time period. [ix]  Luke wrote under the guidelines of a journalist, answering “who, what, where and when.”  Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events that took place, he interviewed others who were eyewitnesses of events and he was an embedded journalist with the Apostle Paul on his missionary journeys.  Matthew was a tax collector and a Jew who made an argument to Jews of the authentication of the RoCoU to the Jewish religion.  He sometimes included the “why” in his writings, as did John in the book of John.  This would make their writing styles, “who, what, where, when and why” a little more difficult to sort out the facts from their interpretation of the facts and events that took place during this visit of the RoCoU.  The Apostle Paul was highly educated in Jewish religion and history.  He viewed our relationship with the RoCoU through the lens of Jewish religion and history.  A close examination of the writing of Paul will disclose that his view of the RoCoU’s visit to planet Earth was religious and the RoCoU’s view of his visit to earth was pragmatic and the next step in the evolution of the Homo species on planet Earth.

 The Gad Fly of the Democracy of the USA

The present day gad fly of democracy in the USA is The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired.[x]  The Greeks invented democracy from scratch and it worked well for them for about 170 years.  The Greeks were on the peak of their Golden Age when they got tired of hearing their gad fly, Socrates, who was a critic of their society, in particular of the shortcomings and corruption in this democracy.  Socrates was one of the founders of western philosophy.  The Greek Senate charged Socrates with “corrupting the minds of the youth,” and they sentenced Socrates to death.  The death of Socrates was the beginning of the downfall of Greece, for they had lost their “guidepost.”

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, like Socrates has been excommunicated from his position at a national laboratory by management that took offense to his proposals that threated their power structure.  His teaching credentials were canceled in a local church for “corrupting the minds of the youth” and not teaching the church’s official view on the subject. He was excommunicated from a church where he was a member in good standing for twenty years for publishing “A New Paradigm in Christian Thinking” [xi] and corrupting the minds of their youth and any other person in their church with science and philosophy.  Thank God for civil laws that protects our citizens from physical harm.

Our President has not chosen to listen to this gad fly, when he suggested that a workable compromise be initiated to resolve the conflict of space, control and authority in Iraq between the three different sects of Muslims. This was proposed by the Vice President, and now the reining authority in Syria has been added to the mix; he chose to put together a coalition of nations to wipe ISIS-ISIL from planet Earth.  ISIS-ISIL has retaliated with attacks against this coalition of nations and the USA hitting soft targets.  We should expect this activity to continue. The best outcome, using the best military forces on the planet,  for a military victory, will be guerilla warfare with the soft targets continuing to be hit by these guerilla fighters.  The only solution to the ISIS-ISIL conflict is a workable compromise – a permanent home for the displaced Sunni Muslims from their Iraq home.

Lessons from History

In 480 B.C. the Persians were set upon wiping the Greeks off the Earth or enslaving them.  The Persians greatly outnumbered the Greeks.  The Persians were under autocratic the rule of Xerxes; the Greeks were under democratic rule (one for all and all for one).   The Persians overran the Greek Spartans (trained warriors) at the pass of Thermopylae [xii] and sacked Athens, which had been evacuated by the Greeks.

The Persians had large war ships (similar to that of the USA navy, bigger than their opponents).  The Greeks built small maneuverable war ships with a torpedo like Ram on the bow of the ship (A trireme).  The Greeks lured the Persian navy in to the Aegean Sea where there were many islands presenting a maneuverable issue for the Persians.  With their mobility (like ISIS-ISIL), the Greeks ran circles around the larger Persian ships and rammed the Persian ships with their torpedo like Rams at the front of their ships and sank the Persian Fleet. [xiii]

Beware USA your large arsenal of weapons is being out maneuvered by an adversary who is focused on mobility.

The USA Transition from a Republic to a Democracy

The USA was formed as a republic and has been in a long transition to a democracy in small steps. This change has come about by allowing more of the population to vote in elections and it changed the way our President was elected.  In the beginning, only land owners could vote in the elections.  These were the people who had an invested interest in the profitability of the nation, much like that of stockholders voting in a corporation. [xiv]  The vote has slowly been extended, for various reasons, to other segments of our society who do not have an investment or knowledge of producing a profitable nation (women, teens, those on government assistance).  We certainly have improved on the lifestyles of our citizens, as have the Greeks, but our national debt is rising above our ability to pay the interest, which could eventually result in foreclosure on our property (nation) by our creditors (like the two bailouts of the Greeks by the EU in recent history).

The Life Span of a Democracy

The average lifespan for a democracy is about 170 years, as established by the Greeks.  In the Greek democracy, leaders were chosen by a lottery, thus minimizing payoffs and corruption in the government.  Serving as a leader was considered a duty of citizenship.  Ballots could be cast to remove a government leader from office and they would be exiled for ten years from their society. In the Greek democracy, only about 20 percent of the population could vote. [xv]   The Greeks now have more people on the government payroll than people paying taxes to support the government. Is this direction the USA wants to continue to pursue?

The Code of Conduct to Live Long in this Land

There is a “code of conduct” that was intended to provide for the continued success of a nation living long in the land that had been giving to them.  Unfortunately, these were given to a very religious people and they did not understand the economic implications of these Ten Codes of Conduct.  Unfortunately, these Ten Codes of Conduct are still seen as religious by almost our entire society, religious and secular alike.  When one sets aside their religious lens, the pragmatic lens shows that the economics of these Ten Codes of Conduct can be realized.  The original Codes of Conduct were given in an ancient language; therefore, the proper perspective is to look at them through the eyes of a parent giving instruction to their children so that they might live long in the land the parent was giving them to raise their generations.

  1. You will not listen to anyone but your father for guidance.
  2. You will not form addictions that will prevent you from making your own decisions.
  3. You will not use my name as an authority to cause trouble or discomfort for any other person on this planet Earth.
  4. You will take a day off, after every six days of work, and remember who gave you this land and enjoy your time with family and friends, and you will allow your employees time off to enjoy their family and friends, and you will not mow your lawn on this day and interrupt the peace of your neighbors.
  5. Remember what your mother and father taught you, and hand down those teaching to your children and grandchildren, that you might live long in this land I have given you.
  6. You shall not murder.
  7. You shall not steal.
  8. You shall not give false witness against your neighbor.
  9. You shall not seek an intimate relationship with your neighbor’s wife.
  10. You shall not scheme to gain possession of your neighbor’s property.
  11. You will not build a big mansion type house in your neighbor’s back yard.
  12. You shall keep the walk-ways, of your communities, free of “F oxtails” that injure our pets. [xvi]






[iii] Max Plank,

[iv] NOVA: Dawn of Humanity DVD,

[v] Jesus on judging, negotiating

[vi] Matthew 7:2, The Bible

[vii] Matthew 5:25, The Bible

[viii] Luke 14:31-32, The Bible

[ix] Luke 1:1-4, The Bible




[xiii] National Geographic The Greeks DVD, 2016,

[xiv]  TBC

[xv] PBS, “The Greeks”, 2016


We got Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Right here in the U.S.A., It starts
“I-W-Y-L” and that stands for “I Win, You Lose” ver. 1.0.1
The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired


The police forces of the U.S.A. are retaining officers with the attitude that “I win, you lose”. This attitude has made the news in recent events where the officers clearly had this attitude that they were going to win and the alleged suspect is going to lose. It has shown up in Fergusson, Missouri, Chicago, Illinois, and North Charleston, S.C. There are several possibilities for the origin of this attitude of “I win, you lose,” for this attitude has been observed in many circumstances many times.

    Communication Styles:

Communication professionals have identified four different styles of communication and actions: “I win, you lose,” “I win, you win,” “You win, I lose,” and “You win, I lose, but I will get you back.” These styles are also identified by names: Aggressive, Assertive, Submissive, and Passive Aggressive. These styles of communication have also been labeled: Parent to Child, Adult to Adult, Child to Parent, and Loser to Winner. These styles of communication have been characterized as: Tyrant, Adult, Door Mat, and Snake-in-the-Grass.

    The Origin of I Win You Lose:

Psychology has chimed in on this situation of “I win, you lose” origins. Adlerian Psychologist has attributed these tendencies of aggression to their family of origin. For example, the older of two brothers, close in age, could produce a male with aggressive tendencies in the older male developing the “I win, you lose” attitude. The younger brother, having experienced bulling from his older brother, will have the tendency to bully others as well, thinking this is how to treat other people. Therefore, these aggressive “I win, you lose” tendencies could have their roots in the family of origin.

    Military training is all about “I win, you lose.” The transition from being taught to destroy an enemy (“I win, you lose”) in the military to “I win, you win” in civilian life is not always an easy transition to make. We could see many of our war veterans, struggling with this transition to civilian life; it is not easy to reeducate one’s communication style once indoctrinated into an aggressive style, or any of the other dysfunctional styles, of communicating with others.
    The environment that one grows up in can influence their communications and actions. Even one’s formative years in grade school and high school is often shaped by their teachers, who have this “I win, you lose” attitude. If this is how we are going to train our children, can we really expect them to grow up and invent their own assertive “I win, you win” communication style which will precede their actions towards others?

Some of us then send or have sent our children to Sunday school, where hopefully they will learn how to relate to others as equals. But, even in church setting, this writer has witnessed “I win, you lose” attitudes. It seems as if our missions in life can take precedent over our relations with others.


C. G. Jung observed a change in men’s lives between the ages of 35 to 39 years. Working with the general population, he surveyed men of various ages and in this survey he asked them one question: “Is God important in your life?” He received responses like, “God has no meaning in my life” to “God is the most important person in my life.” He plotted this data on an X-Y Cartesian coordinate graph. The results were nothing short of amazing; there was a huge spike in the curve between the ages of 35 and 39 years where the responses changed from God having no influence to God being the most important person. Therefore, it can be concluded that men will often see a transition in their life during this mid-life time period. It could prove to be a very interesting follow-up study to see if these men who transitioned from God having no influence to God being the most important” attended Sunday school in their youth.

We are What We Fight Against:

    Psychologists have also observed that a person will become like what they are fighting against. For our police officers, this is a warning sign. In order for our police officers to maintain their perspective, they need to be associated with a group of people who are not fighting against the behavior that our police officers see every day. If our police officers associate mainly with other police officers, it will be difficult for all the officers to maintain the proper perspective about other people, and a culture of “I win, you lose” can spread throughout the police force.

      The Solution to “I Win, You Lose”:

    It appears that the most effective change we could make in our police forces is to require our officers of the law to participate with a group of people that see a more friendly side of life in our society, such as a church, a charitable nonprofit organization, or a club with charitable objectives. The basic premise for these types of programs can be found in Paul’s writings in I Corinthians Chapter 13 that ends with verse 13: “And these three remain, Faith, Hope, and Love/Charity, but the greatest of these is love/Charity”.

We got Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Right here in the USA, It starts with “R” and that stands for “Religion”, Part II, ver. 1.1.1

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired


Socialization a Basic Human Need:

A basic human need is to socialize with other Homo Sapiens of similar interests.  Who would know better about our human needs than our creator, the Christians call Our “Father in Heaven”.    To accommodate this need for socialization, the Christian Church was formed by “The Savior”, aka Jesus, who visited this planet Earth over twenty centuries ago to empower we Homo Sapiens with his “Personal Counselor, show us how to live this life and how to get what we need to live this life from our “Father in Heaven”, and inform us that when life is over, it’s not over, that he has provided a place for us with him in this place called Heaven.

Where is Heaven?

Twenty centuries ago it was believed that Heaven was beyond the clouds in with the stars that shown themselves at night.    Being involved with Applied Physics for several decades, I received an assignment to provide Technical support to a group using a “Relativistic Electron Accelerator” to do their experiments.  As a relativistic electron approaches the speed of light it is considered relativistic because it behaves according to “Einstein’s theory of Relativity” E=MC2 or Energy (E) = Mass (M) times “The Speed of Light” (C).  As the electron approaches “The Speed of Light” its Mass increases and the electron slows down so that going faster than the “The Speed of Light”, is not possible.  Therefore, the “The Speed of Light” is a barrier that cannot be crossed and that opens up the question “Is there something on the other side of this barrier “The Speed of Light”?

Speed is relative and requires a point of reference to measure its speed.  If all the points of reference are moving at the same speed as the object in question, then the relative speed is zero, as if it is not moving at all.  Therefore, if Heaven is beyond the “Speed of Light” and all objects are moving at the same speed, than from an objects point of reference it will not be moving at all.  If we are standing next to each other in Heaven, traveling faster than “The Speed of Light” at the same speed, we will not even notice that we are moving at all relative to each other and our surroundings.

It is being reported that the Universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.  In that case the solar system, of our sun and planets, and the galaxies are also moving at an accelerated rate, but we do not see or feel this motion because all of the references objects in the Universe are also moving at the same speed.  Therefore, if heaven is on the other side of “The Speed of Light” everything will appear as it does on this side of “The Speed of Light”, normal.

The Church as the Intended Social Unit:

The Savior, aka Jesus, provided us with a social unit “The Church” so that we can get our social needs met and live a healthy life, mentally and physically.  The churches have become “Religious Organizations”.   Do they meet the social needs of us Homo Sapiens?  Well yes, to a point but only if the individuals’ beliefs are of the same “Brand Name” as the church.  Many churches have “Rules of Belief” one must subscribe to this “List of Beliefs” or they are considered “Not of the same Interest (belief)”.  Even if one subscribes to their “list of Beliefs” and over time and study learns of differences in their “Beliefs”, than the “Social Needs” of this individual will not be met at this church anymore because they are not the same as the “Rules of Belief” for that church.  And if there is not a church who’s “Rules of Belief” match this new knowledge, than that individual will not be getting their social needs met in any of the “Christian Churches”.   This result is not what The Savior, aka Jesus, wanted for his church.

There is a movement in the USA that is growing and that movement is “Atheism” (non-believers of God).  They are now forming their own churches so that they can get their social needs met with other Homo Sapiens of similar interests, just as “The Savior”, aka Jesus, wanted.  Many of the leaders of this movement are individuals whose knowledge exceeded that of their original church and have moved on to “Higher Ground”.   In some of the more traditional churches those who’s knowledge of the Gospel of The Savior, aka Jesus, have exceeded that of their church, have been ex-communicated from their own church!  That is, they have been cut off from their social unit and thus are not getting their social needs met with other Homo Sapiens they have known for years.   It is ironic that “Non-Believers”, Atheist, are forming churches to achieve the goals of those they don’t believe in.

Maybe the real problem with the “Christian Churches” is that they have become “Religious Institutions” rather than “Social Institutions”.  It is the experience of this Philosopher, that the Homo Sapiens can make a “Religion” of almost anything and everything, especially if they do not understand the “Science” behind what they are making a “Religion”.  This includes such objects as the Sun, The Moon, The Stars, The Church and even the Ten Imperatives whom God had given His children to build a strong nation (Israel).

A Strong Nation:

The measure of economic strength of a nation is its national debt.  A large national debt indicates that foreign nations have an interest in the land of the borrowing nation.    A large debt indicates this nation is not operating efficiently and staying within the earnings of its “Gross National Product” (GNP).  “The Ten Imperatives” that were given this newly formed nation were meant to give that nation a strong infrastructure and a high “National Economic Operating Efficiency” (NEOE).

The history of this particular nation shows that they made a “Religion” out of these “Ten Imperatives” and this “Religion” caused this nation to operate inefficiently and they lost their land to their enemies.  This “Religion” was cumbersome with many rules and regulations to control the behavior of the citizens so they would comply with the requirements of this “Religion” that they made of “The Ten Imperatives”, causing a low NEOE and a weak nation (Israel).

The Christian Churches of today still make a “Religion” of these “Ten Imperatives”.  And we, the taxpayers of the USA, are spending way too many dollars on issues arising from failure to adhere to these “Ten Imperatives”.[i]

The Church was created for Man, Not Man for the Church:

The Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath, The Savior, aka Jesus.[ii]   The Church is the miracle of the continuing presences of The Savior, aka Jesus, and his miracles, The Apostle Paul[iii].  The Church was created for man, not man for the Church.  The church was created to meet a basic human need and advance the objectives of The Savior, aka Jesus.

The Church, Top Down or Bottom Up?

Through the power of the Personal Counselor the Savior, aka Jesus, sent to guide each of us through life, the indication is that the church is “Top Down” in management style with The Savior at the top.  However, if each of us is empowered by The Personal Counselor, than as we come together as the church, the church itself is “Bottom Up” in management style with the individuals as the source of power in the church.

The Apostle Paul was given the responsibility to bring the church into fruition with the Gentiles (Non-Jewish) Homo Sapiens.  Much of the writing of Paul was about the formation of “The Church” particularly in “I and II Corinthians”.  Although The Savior, aka Jesus, and Paul were connected through the “Personal Counselor, Paul did not have the benefit of the Gospel writings themselves.  Paul wrote his church in Corinthians on how to successfully resolve disagreements between themselves (The Church), but they did not include those recorded in the Gospel writing on “Negotiating a Workable Compromise”[iv] [v].  Despite these instructions on resolving conflict in the church, the church tended to become a “Top Down” organization rather than a “Bottom Up” organization.

The Church following the Historic Israel:

When the new nation Israel was formed they were not given an appointed leader, but Judges guided the country for many years.  After much experience with the Judges, the Israelites demanded a king to rule over them like the other nations.[vi]   Saul was anointed their king by the Judge Samuel to lead the country.[vii]   In the same way the church as adopted the same philosophy as the Israelites, that they need a leader for their church, large or small.  This has made the church into a “Top Down” organization.  After much failing of the new king, David was anointed as God’s chosen to lead the country,  he had no political power, in fact was providing service to his anointed king, Saul, by playing his harp to sooth Saul’s troubled mind, and he took out Goliath, who was challenging the Israelites to fight him, for king Saul as well.[viii]  David proved himself as a leader in battle against the enemies of Israel and eventually was given leadership of the country after King Saul fell on his sword after a battle defeat against the Philistines.[ix]  Was David’s ascension to leader of the country “Bottom Up” and his rule over the county “Top Down”?  This does appear to be the case.  In the Church the same phenomena is taking place, church leaders are appointed by the church, “Bottom Up” then the appointed leaders lead the church in a “Top Down” manner.  “Bottom Up” or “Top Down” the two are mutually exclusive, meaning you cannot have both; it is either one or the other.

The Imperatives of Kant:  

Categorical Imperative:

The eighteenth century German Philosopher Immanuel Kant, an Enlightenment Philosopher, and credited with being the greatest Philosopher since Aristotle, postulated that there are two different categories of “Imperatives”.  There are “Categorical Imperatives” and “Hypothetical Imperatives”. “Categorical imperatives” are what one does because they know it is the right thing to do.  Kant reasons that there is only one “Categorical Imperative”, ”Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (A maxim is a personal rule that someone might follow in his or her life, such as “Always pay your debts”).[x]   This thought has been presented in different ways.  “Do that which you would have all mankind do”, “In choosing for himself he chooses for all men”, “In fashioning myself I fashion man”, Sartre.[xi]  “Do to others as you would have them do to you”, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets”, The Savior, aka Jesus.[xii]

Kant and Paul on Maturing to a “self-reliant and responsible adult”:

Kant: The guiding metaphor of Kant’s Enlightenment is that of leaving behind one’s childhood and dependency, and of becoming a self-reliant and responsible adult. As a minor one cannot help being guided and shaped by precepts and directives that come from established traditions and authorities outside. A child has yet to learn how to think for himself or herself. At the point of reaching adulthood, however, a person has to consciously come to terms with guidance from without. Passively accepting the rules and norms of one’s youth will not do, according to Kant; doing so would amount to remaining a mental minor. A mature individual has to critically reflect on what is offered as moral, and decide on the basis of his or her own analyses whether an established morality is actually valid or not. Only moral idiots— people who have failed to inform themselves and critically think about relevant pros and cons–would leave such important decisions to others or to chance[xiii].

Paul: Love never fails. But where there ae prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away, now we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.  When I was a child, I talked like a child; I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.  When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.  Now we see but a poor reflection; then we shall see face to face, now I know in part; then I shall know full, even as I am fully known[xiv].

Paul and Kant agree that one must first become a “self-reliant and responsible adult” (Enlightened) before they can become autonomous and make decisions for themselves rather than being directed by others.  When does one obtain this maturity?  The Jewish tradition specifies the age of twelve as when a boy becomes a man.   In the USA we legislate that when the age of eighteen is obtained the minor becomes an adult.  Researchers state that the Homo Saipan’s brain is not fully developed until the age of about twenty-three is obtained.  The USA does not allow anyone the Presidency, of the USA, until the age of thirty-five is obtained.  But Kant clearly states that one can remain a “Mental Minor” for life!

The Savior, aka Jesus, sent us his Personal Counselor to help us make decisions for ourselves.  Therefore, “Mental Maturity” (Enlightenment) could be obtained by one accepting this “Personal Counselor” as their life’s guide.   The present popular definition of some protestant churches is that one “Accept Jesus as their personal Savior”.   This may be counterproductive as it puts a religious bent on something that is more likely science that we do not yet understand; religions which are the basses of most past worshiped objects, the sun, moon, stars, idols of all kinds, people, rulers etc.  Most of these religious objects have been since explained by science.  Is there a conflict of “Mental Maturity” and receiving this “Personal Counselor” that was sent to us by The Savior, aka Jesus?  At what point in one’s life can “Mental Maturity” be obtained?

Brain science is still in its infancy; the president of the USA has even allotted funding for “Brain Research”.  We don’t know how this communication with the “Personal Counselor” that was sent to us by The Savior, aka Jesus, works, but it is evident from the writings that one should go to a quiet place like a closet, supposedly to get rid of the “Brain Noise”[xv].   “When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen[xvi], The Savior also stated that this “Personal Counselor” would tell us what to say.  “When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”[xvii]   This has been observed when in confrontations with adversaries that messages of what to say are heard as guidance of how to proceed with the confrontation.[xviii]   “Where to go messages” have been received that led to interesting circumstances.[xix]

Hypothetical Imperative:

A “Hypothetical Imperative” is something one does because there is a reward for following the “Imperative(s)”.  The “Ten Imperatives” that were given to this new forming nation (Israel) were “Hypothetical Imperatives”.  The reward for following “Obeying” these “Ten Imperatives” is contained in the Imperatives themselves “That you might live long in the land that I am giving you”.

Modernizing these “Ten Imperatives” so that they apply to the USA, our nation, is as follows Exodus 20 NIV version:

  1. “You shall have no other gods before me”:
    The one giving them this land is their Father in Heaven. Would a parent tell their children to find someone else to listen to and have them take care of their children?  Not a chance, the parent will tell their children to listen to them and they will take care of their own children.
  2. “You shall not make yourselves an idol”:
    An idol is anything that is control of your life. It can be alcohol, drugs, sex, and beliefs and yes religion.  All of which add to the economic inefficiency of our nation.
  3. “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God:
    This is an action item not a verbal item. It has been interpreted as the latter for centuries and people have been accused of sinning against God or being disrespectful of God and suffered the consequence of the actions of the accusers.  Do not take an action against anyone that will cause them discomfort, suffering or even death in the name of doing it for God.  This is misusing the name of the “Lord your God”.

    This applies to the nation as well as to individuals that make up that nation.  We can defend our nation against outside threats, we can launch offensive maneuvers in that defense, but we cannot have the objective of eliminating an outside threat by removing them from this planet. Once the threat is neutralized we stop our offensive maneuvers and help to rebuild what we may have destroyed in the process of eliminating the threat to our nation.  This applies to individuals and removing threats to them as well, and it applies to our police forces that are to maintain order in our nation.

  4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy:
    “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”, The Savior aka Jesus. There is not much argument against we Homo Sapiens needing a day of rest to recharge our bodies and have time for those much needed social interactions with others of our same interests.  There are exceptions like the Photographer Ansel Adams who never took a day off in his life, but his work was also his hobby, so it could be said that Ansel Adams never worked a day in his life.  Sometimes people get energized by doing what would look like work, but in reality is their passion.

    Around the time these imperatives were being given to this new nation (Israel), there existed a Metric Week, a ten day cycle of the week.  This new nation (Israel) ended up with a seven day week with a one day Sabbath.  It could be that the Metric Week disappeared because those who practiced it died from overwork!

  5. Honor thy Father and thy Mother that you might live long in this land I am giving you:
    We do not enter into this would with a blank slate, but with the innate knowledge and the environmental knowledge that we receive from our Father and our Mother. By honoring what our parents have given us, the generations will advance in innate knowledge.  President Theodore Roosevelt made notice of this phenomenon, but regretted making it public, as it made him appear as if he was belittling some of our citizens, but he was just stated the facts in a rather abrupt fashion.
  6. You shall not murder:
    Murder eliminates a citizen and hurts and eliminates the murder as well, as neither can now contribute to the economy of the nation and will even cause a national economic inefficiency.
  7. You shall not steal:
    Crime means the nation must provide protection against crime in the form of policeman boots on the ground, crime investigators, courts, prisons etc. all of these are detrimental to the economic operating efficiency of the nation. The Savior, aka Jesus, taught us how to get what we need in life from our Father in Heaven.
  8. You shall not give false witness against thy neighbor:
    Using the police and courts to gain revenge against a neighbor or ex, as it may be, will add cost the nation in productivity and contribute to a low National Economic Operating Efficiency which contribute to the national debt.
  9. You shall not commit adultery:
    There is evidence that “sins of the father” will be passed down to the fourth and fifth generation. “It is the wife’s concern to keep the family fortune intact.”[xx]  It is better that a husband or wife does not have to make this decision because of adultery.   Once the family fortune, no matter how large or small, is divided, it will have a negative effect on the children and the nation, as the losses must be made up by other citizens in the form of “Safety Nets” and the children will miss out on much environmental knowledge and the generations that follow will be effected adding to the nations national debt.
  10. You shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife or house:
    This is the politically right thing to do, and will improve the relations with our neighbors and make our neighbors feel safe within their homes.  Losing a wife or house (shelter) will be devastating to this family and contribute to the nation’s inefficiency and add to the national debt.


Moving the Church Forward:

Old time ships and even modern boats have two important components; “Rowers” and “Anchors”.  The Rowers can be compared to the “Progressives” and the Anchors compared to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    the “Traditionalist”.   Progressives move an organization forward the Traditionalist hold the organization back.  Both are important to the progress of the organization.  In storms the anchor can be used to keep the bow into the wind, riding the waves safely.  In calmer weather the rowers can move the organization forward.   Both the Progressives and the Traditionalist are important for progress, but if one or the other says “I’m in charge” of the organization, the organization is dysfunctional and will not accomplish its mission here on this earth.

This is true in today’s churches, there is a great desire in churches to keep things as they are and always have been, in fact progressives can be accused of violating all sorts of church theology.  They can be accused of being an enemy of the church and suffer all sorts of sanctions applied by the church leaders. A new paradigm in a church has as much chance of success as an ice cube has in warming up a glass of ice tea!

The churches are known as “The Existing Paradigm” and the Progressives as “The New Paradigm”.  The Savior, aka Jesus, created a “New Paradigm” in our relationship with our Father in Heaven. “The Existing Paradigm”, Jewish traditionalist leadership, represented by the Sanhedrin, charged him with claiming to be “The Son of God” and convinced the Romans to nail him to a cross until dead.  The Apostle Paul received his mission to take “The Gospel” to the Gentiles (Non Jewish) but tried to bring the “New Paradigm” to his Jewish compatriots, “The Existing Paradigm”, and they tried to kill him also.   Paul had better luck with the Gentiles that did not have an “Existing Paradigm” in this area of thought and therefore had nothing against which to defend their “Existing Paradigm”.

The present day churches are in the same position as the Jewish traditionalist, they want to defend their “Existing Paradigm” against the “New Paradigm”.  As history has shown us this is the way of all “New Paradigms” they will find much resistance from those of the “Existing Paradigm” especially those who have a financial interest in the “Existing Paradigm”.

Are we stuck in our religious ways or is there a way forward so that we can increase our National Economic Operating Efficiency and lower our national debt?  Stay tuned for the next episode on Religion, a national crises.

To be continued.

[i]  Tags:
ChristianEconomic WarEconomicsEconomyHypothetical Imperatives, National DebtParadigmTen CommandmentsWar

[ii] Mark 2:27 NIV

[iii] II Corinthians

[iv] I Corinthians 6: 1-8

[v] Matthew 5:25

[vi] 1 Samuel 8:4-5

[vii] 1 Samuel, Chapters  9-11

[viii] 1 Samuel, Chapters 16-17

[ix] 1 Samuel 31:4

[x] Solomon, Robert C., Introducing Philosophy, 4th ed.,p585, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Pub

[xi] Ibid. pp397, 613

[xii] Luke 6:31, Matthew 7:12, NIV

[xiii] Kant: Self-Determination in the Age of Reason 

[xiv] 1 Corinthians 13: 8-14 NIV

[xv] Mind Noise

[xvi] Matthew 6:6

[xvii] Luke 12:11-12 , Matthew 10:19-20

[xviii] Personal experience

[xix] ibid

[xx] My Mother

We Got Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Right here in the USA, It Starts With “P” and that Stands for Paul Ver. 1.0.1

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired


There is a popular scenario that explains how one event can have great consequences. This is often referred to as a Butterfly flapping it wings at the Equator and the wind movement from this action results in a Hurricane in the northern hemisphere. Another example is the nail that held the shoe on the horse that Paul Revere rode to warn of the approaching British by land and the Colonist were given time to prepare, organize and affront this assault beginning a process in which the USA was created. If the nail had come loose and fallen off, the shoe would have come loose also, the horse would pull up lame, Paul Revere would not have been able to warn the Colonist of the approaching British, the Colonist and the Revolution would have been crushed and the USA would not have been created. This story is all supposition, but the effect that the Apostle Paul hand on the creation of the USA is similar to these cause and effect relationships, he was the spark that ignited “Autonomy and Reflection” which led to “The Enlightenment” period (The Age of Reason) which led to the American and French revolutions.

Do we really know who set in motion the creation and formulation of the United States of America? Was it our first president, President Washington? Was it the writer of our “Declaration of Independence” from England, Thomas Jefferson, also our third president? Was it John Adams who delegated the writing of the Declaration of Independence to Thomas Jefferson and was our second president? Or was it Ben Franklin who with Adams and Jefferson edited and finalized our Declaration of Independence from England and convinced France to give the USA naval support?

Who formulated the concepts of “The Freedom and Rights of Man” that Thomas Jefferson integrated into our Declaration of Independence? Was it the “Enlightenment Philosophers”, those Philosophers after the late seventeenth century (René Descartes, Baron Henri d`Holbach, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire in France, John Locke, David Hume in Great Britain and Immanuel Kant of Germany) and formulated the concepts of “The Freedom and Rights of Man”?

Or was it the seventieth century French Philosophers, Voltaire, Diderot, and Rousseau Together they took on what they described as the forces of darkness—absolute monarchs, oppressive church establishments, irrational dogmas, thoughtless traditions, and all sorts of unexamined notions and customs embraced by ordinary people. They hoped to enlighten the general public by promoting independent thinking, scientific research, and improved systems of public education. Important philosophical impulses for this movement came from the writings of René Descartes and John Locke, thinkers of the 17th century

René Descartes, who is credited with formulating the process known as “Autonomy and Reflection” that was used by the “Enlightenment Philosophers” to come up with the concepts of “The Freedom of Man” that Thomas Jefferson integrated into our Declaration of Independence,? Or was it Paul, aka the Apostle Paul, aka Saint Paul aka Saul, who introduced the process of “Autonomy and Reflection” and recorded the process in his letter to the Galatians chapter 1:13-17. NIV “But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Paul’s description of his experience with gaining knowledge about his mission assignment did not come from anyone else. He did not consult with anyone else. He did not search out any information from any source. He went to Arabia, by himself (Autonomy) and Reflected autonomously and received his vision for his mission. Paul did not label this process as “Autonomous Reflection” the French Philosopher of the seventeenth centuries, René Descartes who established it in his “Discourse on Method”. First, to accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognize to be so. Second, was to divide up each of the difficulties which I examined into as many parts as possible, and as seemed requisite in order that it might be resolved in the best manner possible. Third was to carry on my reflections in due order, commencing with objects that were the most simple and easy to understand, in order to rise little by little, or by degrees to knowledge of the most complex, assuming an order, even if a fictitious one, among those which do not follow a natural sequence relatively to one another .

Therefore, I think we can contribute the creation of the United States of America to Paul, aka Apostle Paul, aka Saint Paul, aka Saul as he was also known because it seems he was at least the first person to record the “Autonomy and Reflection” process in detail. Socrates also practiced “Autonomy and Reflection”, as he most famously, went against the popular opinions of his day and, consequently, sacrificed his life for the “Laws” and principles he believed to be right . The Philosophical process of “Autonomy and Reflection” marked a new era in Philosophy and separates the “Modern Philosophers from the Ancient Philosophers who used the methodology of “Argument and Rebuttal” process to gain knowledge and the Modern Philosophers the “Autonomy and Reflection” process to gain knowledge.

There are other notable Philosophers that used the “Autonomy and Reflection” process to gain knowledge such as the British philosopher-scientist, Isaac Newton. In the eyes of his contemporaries and followers, he single-mindedly mastered the laws of the universe, while sitting (so the story goes” under an apple tree (Autonomy and Reflection). “Modern philosophy is defined as “Thinking for yourself”. If this “Autonomy and Reflection” process originated with the Apostle Paul we even owe credit to him for much of our present day technology.

Therefore, Paul is the Father of Modern Philosophy, the Father of our Technology and the Father of our Country. Let’s “Give credit where credit is due”!
Robert C Solomon, Introduction to Philosophy 4ed., PP 18-19 , Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 1989
Ibid PP 15
Ibid PP 15