. Understanding often begins with definition. This tidbit includes definitions and therefore may be abit tedious, but please take careful note that this topic requires greater concentration. We can never understand “White Privilege” without the understanding the definitions of those who invented it!! I repeat, WP cannot be understood by attempting to impose a Christian definition on a word created by non-Christians. We must use their thinking on their word! Let’s begin with a few basic definitions:
1.a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of people beyond the advantages of most:the privileges of the very rich.
-the unearned and mostly unacknowledged societal advantage that a restricted group of people has over another group:white privilege based on skin color; male privilege; children of privilege.
2.White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. With roots in European Colonialism and imperialism, and the Atlantic slave trade, white privilege has developed in circumstances that have broadly sought to protect white racial privileges, various national citizenships and other rights or special benefits. -Wikipedia
3.White Skin privilege is not something that White people necessarily do, create, or enjoy on purpose. Unlike the more overt and institutional manifestations of racism, white skin privilege is a transparent preference for whiteness that saturates our society. White skin privilege serves several functions: first it provides White people with perks, that we do not earn, and people of color do not enjoy. Second, it creates real advantages for us white people are immune to a lot of challenges. While privilege shapes the world in which we live, the way we navigate with one another and with the world. -Southern Poverty Law Center
Or, how about Peggy McIntosh’s 26-point list, who many credit as the discoverer of WP, to help ‘us’ identify, i.e.define, i.e.recognize WP:
1. I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time. 2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area, which I can afford and in which I would want to live. 3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me. 4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed. 5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented. 6. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is. 7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race. 8. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege. 9. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can cut my hair. 10. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of my financial reliability. 11. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them. 12. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race. 13. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial. 14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race. 15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group. 16. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion. 17. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider. 18. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge,” I will be facing a person of my race. 19. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race. 20. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children’s magazines featuring people of my race. 21. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared. 22. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having coworkers on the job suspect that I got it because of race. 23. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the place I have chosen. 24. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help my race will not work against me. 25. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones. 26. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color and have them more or less match my skin.
Or, how about reviewing some of the more famous and popular promoters of White Privilege:
-Tim Wise. Here.
-Dr Joy DeGruy. Here.
-Or even Blind people on racism. Here.
Here is my point, Youtube offers what is probably thousands of people advocating for WP. What is most interesting are their differing definitions! The common thread running through the multitudinous explanations* are personal experiences! In other words, WP is defined by people’s personal experience. But why is that? Because WP requires relativism! In other words, it’s completely subjective!
For example, let’s examine a couple of Dr McIntosh’s list items: “11.I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.” Look at the language used: “most of the time” or “might not like them”. This verbiage is subjective! Can Dr McIntosh honestly believe that Blacks can’t protect their children: “most of the time”? If it is true that Blacks can protect their children, “most of the time”, how then can this be an example of WP? On the contrary, if Blacks, like Whites, can protect their children “most of the time”, do Blacks also have WP?
Or, what about: “5.I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.” This is totally subjective! Can anyone possibly believe that no Black, Brown, Yellow, or Red person can turn on the t.v. and see their own race?!?!! Really?!?! In my opinion, I’m not even sure why someone would be looking for their own race when turning on the t.v.!!!! But…if you’re Black, and want to find your race, has Dr McIntosh never heard of the BET network? Are there no Hispanic speaking tv stations? Really??!!?!?
The ‘Golden Tongue’ of WP, Tim Wise once declared, “For those who still cannot grasp White Privilege…perhaps this list will help. WP is when you can get pregnant at 17, like Bristol Palin, and everyone is quick to insist that your life, and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents cause every family has challenges even as Black and Latino families have similar challenges and are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological, and arbiters of social decay.”
Obviously, Mr Wise dislikes Sarah Palin, so…he uses his personal opinion to explain her WP— and then turns to include America in his criticism of her! Really?!?!? In other words, according to Mr Wise, any human being--White, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, or polka-dotted--can dislike any White person for any reason, and then turn it into an example of WP?
I challenge you to simply go to Youtube and type in the search engine: ‘White Privilege’, and begin to listen…you will hear a ‘ga-zillion’ personal experiences and definitions of WP! In other words, if every time a White person has an experience—good or bad**--and it is defined as WP, then WP has no definition!!!!
*The fact that WP requires so much explanation speaks volumes!! If WP is so obvious, why do I need hundreds and even thousands of people to explain it?
**When Bristol Palin got pregnant out of wedlock, I’m sure that was not a positive experience for Sarah and her husband. But…according to Tim Wise, even negative experiences for White people are WP!
"The worst day in a man's life is when he sits down and begins thinking about how he can get something for nothing." --Thomas Jefferson
Because of man’s wickedness, in the last days, one way God will pour-out His wrath is to send a strong delusion, that men might believe a lie(2Thes2:11). Tragically, all over the culture, not only are sinners affected, but even many Christians are unable to discern right from wrong, or good from evil. One contemporary example of God’s strong delusion is White Privilege.
How do I determine WP is a delusion? In this third tidbit, I want to show that God gave Israel an elaborate and complex system to handle the issue of human sin. For example, in the Old Testament, there were literally thousands of priests whose sole responsibility was to handle the many sacrifices necessary to secure forgiveness of sin for the Jewish people. In addition, God commanded Israel to celebrate several feasts, such as Passover, Feast of Weeks, Feast of Trumpets, etc.; which required Israel to return to Jerusalem several times during a calendar year, along with the sacrifice of animals or birds for the remission of sins.
Furthermore, in the New Testament, the Bible identifies Jesus as the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world (Jn1:29). This truth is supported by other passages like Matthew 27:51, which describes the curtain in Holy of Holies torn in half due to the death of Jesus, which was a sign teaching that the Jew could come into God’s presence without a human priest.
What does all this have to do with White Privilege? Everything!!! First, you must understand that Satan comes to steal, kill, and destroy(Jn10:10) therefore, categorized under the word ‘steal’ is mimicry; to mimic is an attempt to steal. But, to steal what? The answer is: the weight, or the seriousness of something; in this case to steal the reverence for God’s word! In other words, as a method of creating deception, Satan introduces false doctrines (1Tim4:1) that actually mimic God’s word creating a trivialization, which ultimately ends in people rejecting God’s word as unimportant.
For example, if we examine the temptation of Jesus(Matt4:1-10), in the first of Satan’s temptation, Jesus resisted by using the Word of God: “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone”. However, in the second temptation, Satan responded by copying Jesus tactic of using the
Word of God: “…it is written, He will command his angels concerning you…”. Was Satan serious? How can the Word of God be used to deceive the very One Who exists as the Word of God (Jn1:14)!?!? Therefore, Satan was not trying to deceive Jesus in the second temptation, he was mimicking Jesus’ use of the Word of God in the previous temptation. In other words, Satan was mocking Jesus!
If you remember, Satan’s second temptation was, “If you be the Son of God…? In the first temptation, after a 40 day fast, Jesus was literally hungry, therefore to turn the rocks into bread to eat, could have been a serious urge! On the other hand, in Satan’s second temptation, do you
really think, Jesus was ever confused about His Sonship…either before or after Satan’s words?
Of course not! Therefore, Satan could not have been attempting to deceive Jesus! On the contrary, Satan was mocking Jesus, by mimicking Him—in order to get Him to trivialize the Word of God! To trivialize the word of God, always ends in rejecting His word!
This is exactly the error of WP--it seeks to trivialize God’s word in the area of repentance, forgiveness, and reverence, which ultimately ends attacking the very cross of Christ! As I pointed-out in the first tidbit of this series, the people who espouse WP demand that Whites repent of their WP to both Whites and Blacks.* Yet, because repentance is part of God’s system to deliver mankind from sin, the demand to repent/acknowledge/confess WP, pits-it directly against God’s system of repentance and forgiveness of sin. Let’s take a quick look, and literally compare the two systems of repentance and forgiveness against one another:
1.To whom do you confess WP? or to Whom do Christians confess their sin?
White privilege Christianity
Humans: Blacks & Whites God
2.Who defines WP? or Who defines sin/evil?
White privilege Christianity
Humans: Blacks & Whites God
3.Who forgives WP? or Who forgives sin?
White privilege Christianity
Humans: Blacks & Whites God
*If you contend, ‘repentance is not really required in WP, the people who do so, don’t know what they’re doing!’ Yet, if it is true, they don’t know what they’re doing when they repent/confess/acknowledge their White privilege, I have three questions:
i.Why then is WP considered wrong?
ii.Yet, if it is not wrong, why do people feel the need to acknowledge/confess it, i.e.repent? iii.Furthermore, if WP is literally not wrong, and no repentance is necessary, then why make any issue of WP…at all? In other words, if one can do nothing about WP, why even mention it?
The most important question to ask on the job is not "What am I getting?" The most important question to ask on the job is "What am I becoming?" -Jim Rohn
In part 1 of this tidbit, I argued that the “spiritual” origins of White Privilege are the sins of idolatry and blasphemy. In other words, the idea of WP creates in its advocates both idolatry and blasphemy. I would like to add 2 more variables to support my position:
1.Absolute White Privilege
2.Cultural White Privilege
If you examine the term “White privilege” you will notice that its foundation is “Whiteness” not privilege. As I argued in part 1, the idea of “privilege” is what the Bible calls favor(Ps5:12). In other words, favor, i.e.privilege, does in fact exist. However, the favor or privilege of God originates in either:
i.Spiritual privilege. In other words, who you(mankind) are, i.e.mankind’s identity. This means God gives favor according to Who God made you:
a.Mankind (Gen1:28). God made man in His image through the
b.Righteousness(Ps5:12). On the other hand, God requires
righteousness in man, through the Abrahamic Covenant (Rom5:17-
ii.Natural privilege. This privilege happens through what mankind:
a.Produces (Gen1:28; Lu19:13; Pro20:11). All mankind is called to
produce, which God blesses.
b.Moral (righteous) behavior(Is1:19;Ps84:11). For example, it’s
possible for sinners to obey certain of God’s law, i.e.marriage,
at least for a period of time, which can facilitate God’s blessing
These two factors (spiritual and natural privilege) originate in God’s benevolent will; which refers to His general desire to bless mankind—both the righteous (entire Bible) and the unrighteous(Rom2:4; Jer31:3)—therefore, and I repeat, favor(privilege) is Biblical, i.e.godly.
On the contrary, if we examine the “Whiteness” of White Privilege, it can only exist as either absolute or cultural. What do I mean? Let’s examine ‘absolute White Privilege’ first. The absolute nature of WP –in general--refers to human beings who are White that exist all over the world. For example, there are nations where White people comprise a majority, like Russia, Germany, and France etc., and other nations where White people comprise a minority, like Japan, China, or Ghana. Here is the question: are the White people of the nations where they exist, as either a majority or a minority…still White? Of course! Obviously! Duh!! Therefore, because the White people of those nations are all White, if WP originates from ‘Whiteness’---and is absolute--then it must follow that the White people of those nations must possess WP!
On the contrary however, if you actually examine the reality of the existence of ‘absolute’ WP—all over the world--we find something entirely different! For example, does a White person in Ghana (a black African nation) have WP? Or, a White person in China (a yellow racial nation)? Or, how about a White person in Japan (a yellow racial nation)? If we are honest...the answer is NO! This is irrefutable evidence that WP does not exist according to the absolute nature of “Whiteness”! In other words, the fact that White people possess less melanin than Black, Brown, Red or Yellow people does not actually mean that all White people absolutely have privilege!
Moving forward, if the privilege of “Whiteness” is not absolute (universal), unless there are other choices I’ve missed, WP must be cultural. In other words, in the context of this tidbit, ‘cultural WP’ applies only to America. Therefore, here is the essence of ‘cultural WP’: because Whites have dominated America, i.e. created its systems to favor Whites, all White people in America have White Privilege over other races! The question now before us is, ‘IS THIS TRUE?’
My response: if WP applies only to American Whites; or if Whites have privilege in America over Black, Brown, Yellow or Red people…because of their ‘Whiteness’:
1.How do you account for all the Whites in America that are poor,
destitute, and even illiterate? The number of Whites on welfare is
nearly double the number of Blacks. Does this constitute
2.How do you account for the Whites in prison in comparison to
those other races who are not in prison? Can this be designated
as ‘cultural WP’?
3.How do you account for the vast number of non-Whites in
American sports, like the NFL and NBA, where 80% of those
leagues are Black? I repeat, is this ‘cultural WP’?
4.How do you account for incomes of ethnic groups in America,
where non-Whites like Indians(from India), Taiwanese, and
Filipino Americans have all pushed-ahead of American Whites?
In conclusion, the moment “White” is placed in front of “Privilege”, i.e. “White Privilege”, the privilege ceases to come from God, and begins to come from race, which ‘is’ racism; and, why it is called “White Privilege”!! Therefore, because nothing in the Bible teaches that God gives privilege to color or race, then WP can only be designated as a false or unBiblical doctrine!
“This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual,
“1.Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times
some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits,
and doctrines of devils;
2.Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a
hot iron” -1Tim4:1,2
The key factor that will determine your financial future is not the economy; the key factor is your philosophy. – Jim Rohn
The Bible teaches righteousness is gifted to us through imputation (Rom4:3,5,6; Gal3:6), which is very much like money charged to your account through the Cash app . In other words, God’s righteousness is foundational for our personal salvation (Rom5:17,18,21).
On the other hand, 'White Privilege' (WP) works along the same spiritual track; for this reason it is not just a term defining a political or cultural phenomenon, but literally encourages the sins of blasphemy and idolatry. Allow me to explain using WP’s impact on both Whites and Blacks.
To begin, when a White person acknowledges his/her’s 'White Privilege'(WP), it is a confession that 'WP' is not good—which is the reason it requires an ‘acknowledgement’ or a 'confession’. I repeat, when a White person confesses 'WP', he confesses something that has been previously determined as bad! It is very much equivalent to a Christian confessing his sin. For example, 1John 1:9 addresses the Christian who has sinned: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." This means when a Christian confesses a sin, he is cleansed from his sin and unrighteousness through faith in the cleansing blood of Jesus—which by the way, is ‘THE’ sovereign element for the removal of sin for all humanity(Col1:14,20;Heb9:12;Rev1:5)!
On the contrary, what happens when a White person confesses ‘WP'? Three things:
ii.An appearance of righteousness, i.e.enlightenment
iii.A forever acknowledgment of 'WP'
i.Remember, when a Christian confesses his sin, he immediately is cleansed by the blood of Jesus. On the contrary, when a White person confesses his 'WP, that confession results in nothing! Why? Three reasons:
a.Because 'WP' is based upon Whiteness, which is the reason it is
called “WHITE” Privilege, no matter how many times a White
person confesses 'WP'; or for how long that confession is made,
the guilty White person remains White! In other words, the
confession of 'WP' can never change the Whiteness of a White
b.Because ‘privilege’ is based upon Whiteness, and because the
Whiteness of a White person cannot change, neither can their
privilege change! Therefore, confessing ‘WP’ can do nothing to
the ‘privilege’ of a White person.
c.God alone defines sin(Gen2:16,17), and God does not define
Whiteness as sin, which means it requires neither confession, nor
repentance. Therefore, confessing ‘WP’ can do nothing for a
White person, whether ‘WP’ is categorized as: 1.simply
unbecoming; 2.a bad thing; or 3.worst of all, a sin.
ii.Second, in spite of nothing happening after confessing 'WP', the person who actually confesses 'WP', in his own eyes*, immediately becomes righteous, i.e.a good person; or a just person! Why? The White person who confesses his 'WP' immediately feels better about himself because he believes he has become more, higher, or better than other White people, who have not confessed their 'WP'!
iii.As I have already noted, the only way a White person can 'literally' rid himself 'WP' is to become non-White! Yet, because a White person can never become non-White--even after confessing 'WP'--to compensate, the White person must continue to confess his 'WP'! In other words, even after initially confessing 'WP', in all future situations, that same White person must continue to confess 'WP' when encountering other Whites and Blacks who did not hear his initial confession! But once again, what does repeatedly confessing 'WP' do? The same as confessing ‘WP’ once does...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!
What then is the impact on the White person who acknowledges White Privilege? It is four-fold:
i.Self-Deception. The person who believes ‘confessing 'WP'’
delivers him from that ‘WP', or does anything at all, is immediately
self-deceived! I repeat, confessing 'WP' does not rid White people
of ‘Whiteness'; nor privilege, nor 'WP'…nor anything at all!!!
ii.Promotes Deception and lies. To confess one’s own ‘WP’ by
default, encourages other Whites to confess their ‘WP’ in order to
be a ‘good’; or a ‘right’; or a ‘moral’ White person. However, to
participate in the deception promotes deception and lies in
iii.Rejects authentic righteousness. Because acknowledging ‘WP’
literally does nothing, when a White person confesses ‘WP’, he
exercises faith in his own righteousness. This means he defines or
creates his own righteousness, which by default, rejects authentic
righteousness imputed only through faith in Christ Jesus.
iv.Becomes a blasphemer. The White person who confesses his ‘WP’
actually believes his deliverance from ‘WP’ comes through the
‘work’ or ‘works’ (Eph2:9; Tit3:5) of confessing ‘WP’! Assuming ‘WP’
is a sin**, means it must follow that deliverance from sin, or some
forms of sin, i.e. ‘WP’, does not require the cross of Christ…which is
Tragically, 'WP' also has devastating effects on Black people too!
A belief in 'White Privilege' effects Black people in two ways:
i.First, the 'belief' that Whites have privilege creates anger in Black people (and other minorities) because there is no way for Blacks to ever either aspire, hope, or achieve equality or privilege--without first becoming White! Because it is impossible for a Black person to ever become White, the only recourse is to become angry. Tragically, the anger takes two forms:
a.anger at whites, because of their 'WP'
b.and more importantly, anger at God, for creating ‘Whites’ with
ii.Second, because Blacks have no way of overcoming 'WP'--even considering personal achievement***--Blacks can only overcome their oppression by WP through coercing subservience. What does that mean? Blacks demand Whites become subservient to them. This occurs in two ways:
a.Whites must acknowledge 'WP'...to Blacks! The pseudo-doctrine of
'WP' makes a distinction between confessing 'WP' to Whites and
Blacks! If you remember, confessing 'WP' to Whites is designed to
end with righteousness, i.e.Whites feeling good about self,
and feeling better than other Whites who have not confessed
their 'WP'. On the contrary, confessing 'WP' to Blacks is designed
to force Whites to acknowledge Black superiority and White
subservience. Following are just a few pieces of my 660 pages of
archived evidence: Black superiority (Here. Here.) Meet their
insane demands (Here. Here. Here.) Excusing Black racism (Here.
Here. Here. Here.)
b.Genuflection. Whites are literally forced, and even willingly
bowing to Blacks. (Here. Here.)
Tragically, points a. and b. create idolatry in both Whites and Blacks. First, for a White person to literally bow to another human being, either Black, White, or other, creates idolatry in Whites. And second, for a Black person to either coerce or allow a White person to bow to him/her, creates idolatry in that Black person!
In conclusion, two final points.
1.'WP' helps neither Whites nor Blacks, but encourages the sins of both blasphemy and idolatry!
2.Tragically, the idea of ‘WP’ establishes, emboldens, and increases racism in the culture! As long as ‘WP’ is culturally accepted, racism will be impossible to end!
*which makes it an appearance, not a reality!!!
**If ‘WP’ is not sin, why confess it?
***Oprah Winfrey, one the richest woman in the world—Black or White—is still of victim of WP! (Here. Here.)
Only human beings can reorder their lives any day they choose by refining their philosophy. -Jim Rohn
In my experience, contemporary Democrats are almost exclusively Liberal (and vice versa); and contemporary Republicans are almost exclusively Conservative (and vice versa). Interestingly, Blacks are almost exclusively Democrat although many still claim to be Conservative. On the contrary, Whites are divided between Conservative and Liberal, and Republican and Democrat fairly evenly, although Whites lean more toward the Liberal side than Conservative. Most importantly, Christians are often split between both Liberals and Conservatives. Obviously, this creates great confusion!
Furthermore, the reason more Blacks are Democrats than Republican is because Blacks are taught from their youth that Democrats favor Blacks, and Republicans are racist. I find this an extremely interestingly phenomenon, which will be addressed later. This means race does in fact, have an effect upon party affiliation.
If you review the following Pew research poll:
…you will find that peoples’ ‘generation’ is not a consistent factor to determine whether a person is Democrat or Republican. Further evidence for this inconsistency is that political party platforms change over time, and some people switch parties while others choose to remain with their party. This means not even party platforms are powerful enough to consistently predict how people determine their party affiliation.
Furthermore, another Pew research poll reveals that race, generation,
and education do not consistently predict party affiliation over time. In other words, some polls predict, while others contradict how party affiliation is determined. Yet, because inconsistencies do in fact exist, the interpretation of these inconsistencies becomes relevant.
Following are at least four reasons for the inconsistencies:
1.Definitions. First, the definitions of the words Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican often change, which completely confuses people, who respond by retaining their present party.
2.Platform positions. Second, most people do not affiliate with a political party because of their Party’s platform positions. Why? Because like definitions, party positions also change. Once again, because people have voted according to a particular party--all their life—they simply continue that historical pattern. In addition, the idea of voting according to a historical pattern is also true of people who don’t vote at all.
3.Apathy/lethargy. People believe their votes don’t make a difference because--in their opinion--nothing changes whether a Democrat or Republican takes office. Apathy can also overwhelm people due to a belief that because the Constitution does not change, and all leaders must abide by the Constitution, there is no need to vote.
4.Bible. A rejection of the Bible causes:
i.ignorance of the Word of God
ii.ignorance of the purposes of America
ii.ignorance of the providential history of America, and other nations
iii.ignorance of God’s wrath.
“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
-President George Washington
In short review, in part 1, I concluded: Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals all derive their philosophies from a deity! Why? See part 2.
In part 2, I concluded Colossians 2:8 declares Christ/the Word of God stands on one side; and on the other are the philosophies of mankind. Therefore, all philosophy originates in theology, or from a god—either the God of the Bible, or a false god.
In part 3, I offered the definition of liberalism from 1828 Webster’s dictionary: “free to access, sexual license. In comparison, the conservative definition is conserving the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.
In part 4, I concluded the Biblical God is political (Is9:6). Therefore, political philosophies can be Biblical or unbiblical! All man’s philosophies originate either from God, or from man.
Therefore, because parties are comprised of ‘imperfect’ people*, it is possible for an authentic believer to become part of a party/group that holds to unbiblical/ungodly positions, yet that individual can still be saved. How? Because his/her mind is not renewed on the Word of God(Rom12:1-2)!!!
Likewise, it is possible for a person to be part of a party/group that holds Biblical views, and yet not be a Christian, because that one may come understand certain principles God placed in the creation, and allow those principles to inform his/her views. For example, the concept of ‘freedom’ is not only taught in the Bible(Gal5:1,13), but it also exists in the Creation**, therefore an unbeliever can choose a party/group that supports ‘freedom’, and yet not be a Christian.
Of course, the problem arises when an authentic Christian adopts unbiblical philosophies (1Tim4:1,Col2:8); in the long-run--he/she will fail(Josh1:8)! Why? I repeat, only God’s word ultimately works---in both the short and long run!!(Ps119:160) Because this is true, it is imperative that every Christian--after their salvation--begin to renew his/her mind on the Word of God(Rom12:1-2)! Why? In order understand how God works both individually and nationally—and then commit to align themself with His good and perfect will!
It is critical at this point to understand that if an authentic Christian becomes deceived, and chooses to run after political parties, groups, churches, etc., that reject the Word of God(1Tim4:1), they will ultimately receive the same judgment--in this life---as those unbelievers who reject the Word of God! Why? The wages of sin is death(Rom6:23)! For example, although no human can actually judge the heart of another, we can however, judge their fruit(Mat7:16). An application of this great truth is during the 30’s and early 40’s in Germany, where many people claimed to be Christians--yet joined the Nazis! When the Russians attacked Germany from the east and Americans from the west, do you think the German Christians were spared? Of course not! Yet, an even better question is—do you think God protected authentic Christians who ran after Hitler? My answer is an obvious NO! Of course, one may argue that those Germans who claimed Christ, and were Nazis—were pseudo-Christians--and you might be right! Yet, to this day, I know Christians who hold to unbiblical views, yet vehemently claim Christian conversion! Therefore, if that is true, it means it is possible for an authentic Christian to be deceived! But, if a Christian can be deceived holding to unbiblical positions--I can guarantee one thing--his/her Christianity can no more keep that Christian from God’s judgment(on this earth)---than God keeps a smoking-Christian from lung cancer!
Let’s cut to the chase, in part 1 I wrote, “in general, liberal Christians claim the Democrat party, while conservative Christians claim the Republican party”. This is an obvious undeniable fact. What is also undeniable is that liberals/Democrats and Conservatives/Republicans are incompatible, they have totally different values, yet Christians occupy both sides. Who then is right? As I pointed out in part 3, the only standard/way to judge something or someone as either right or wrong, or good or evil—is the absolute standard:
1.the Word of God, the Bible.
2.The creation, which was created by the Word of God, and
possesses God’s innate values within each created thing.
Theologically, these two are known as Special revelation (1) and General revelation (2).
In other words, without God’s word as THE absolute standard, evil cannot exist—only good exists! I repeat, if God does not exist then everything is good---and evil cannot exist! Why? Without God, man becomes the sole judge of good and evil, or right and wrong. Therefore, because mankind is inherently equal, and if mankind determines his own good and evil—then one man’s evil is another man’s good—which means no man’s behavior can be judged as evil!!!!
Yet, because mankind does in fact judge some things good, and other things evil; that fact alone demands an absolute standard! Yet, if an absolute standard exists, it cannot be a creation of mankind—because mankind cannot have an absolute standard! Why? Because I repeat, every man/woman has their own version of good! Therefore, Who is that only One Whom can determine an absolute good and evil? God!! Who is this God? His Name is Jesus! The God of the Bible—Who is the only God (Jn17:3).
If this is not true, there can be no disagreement between Liberals/Democrats and Conservatives/Republicans! Yet, unless one is living on the Moon, we know that not only does a disagreement exist between these two groups, it is an irredeemable disagreement!
*People who have a sin nature, i.e.a propensity to sin.
**Not only people, but all things animate exhibit an inherent law of freedom written on their hearts
“Initial response illustrates a great deal about someone's personal philosophy.” -Jim Rohn
Following are just a few examples of God’s hand of blessing upon America:
1.America is the first nation in the history of the world to facilitate such incredible prosperity for so many of its people*!!
2.An unprecedented number of minorities, including an unprecedented number of Blacks, have achieved--in many instances---wild prosperity; more so than in any other present nation, and more than any other nation in the history of the world--including every Black African
nations—past and present!
3.America is the only nation in the history of the world to willfully elect a descendent of the group it once enslaved as its leader, i.e.president!
4.America is not only the first, but the only nation in the history of the world to willfully re-elect a descendent of the group it once enslaved. There is no other White, Hispanic, Asian, Arab, or African nation that can make this boast!
5.No other White majority nation in the history of the world has ever elected a black leader.
6.America is the only nation in the history of the world to elect a former member of the enslaved group as its president in less than 150 years after abolishing slavery!
7.America is the first nation in the history of the world to abolish slavery not by a slave uprising, but by the conscience of the slave-holder!!!
8.By 1980, more black Africans have immigrated to America seeking freedom and opportunity than were ever brought here as slaves.
9.The conscience of America regarding slavery was changed by the Judeao/Christian ethic, which created Western culture, which for the first time in the history of the world led to, i.e. influenced many other nations to follow its lead, and abolish slavery!!!
-America is the leading exporter of the Judaeo/Christian ethic
to the world, and therefore by default the abolishment of
10.America is the only nation in the history of the world founded upon an idea, and not ethnicity, race, or nationality; and that idea is liberty. America’s freedom has been exported to the nations of the world; and many of those nations have become even more free than America.
11.America is presently the least racist, multi-cultural nation in the history of the world.
Why is America exceptional?** Not because America is better than any other nation, but because America has honored God!
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. -Ps33:12
On the contrary, the day will soon come when God will restore Israel*** to its rightful position as world leader. When that day soon arrives, God will pour out a blessing upon the world like never before!
"I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid:
but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles,
for to provoke them to jealousy.
Now if the fall of them (Jews/Israel) be the riches of the world,
and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much
more their fulness? -Rom11:11-12
*See ‘Everyday Millionaires’, by Chris Hogan, the most comprehensive study of millionaires ever completed. He interviewed over 10,000 millionaires.
**This is a short list of the things that make America exceptional
Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out. -Jim Rohn
The Interpretations of George Floyd’s Murder
Every human being interprets life! And, every human uses a value system to make those interpretations. If you choose God’s values to interpret life, i.e.the Judaeo-Christian ethic—you find truth. If you use man’s value system to interpret life, you find lies, destruction, and death! It’s that simple!
God cannot lie(Num23:19), so He expects and demands we tell the truth. When interpreting George Floyd’s murder, it is critical to use truth…not feelings. Feelings are rarely truth, and can be influenced by personal experience, media, friends, majority voices, and many other factors. However, because truth originates in God(Jn14:6; Jn17:17; Ps119:142)…nothing can influence it!
Following are several interpretations of George Floyd’s murder:
1.Derek Chauvin put his knee on George Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and he died. I have read differing reports of what killed him. Either he died of asphyxia or a heart attack, with heart disease and drug use as contributing factors. However, all who saw his death agree—black, white, brown, red, and yellow--that Officer Chauvin is responsible for George Floyd’s death, which means Derek Chauvin will be charged with murder.
However, moving past this initial fact, I have heard/seen the following interpretations of George Floyd’s murder:
2.Police target black people
3.Police are racist
4.America is a racist nation
5.White people are racist
6.America has systemic racism
7.Blacks get no justice in America
8.Black lives don’t matter
There are presently no conflicting facts with point 1 above, but there are many conflicting facts with every interpretation thereafter. Let’s get to it!
1.The Washington Post, a liberal newspaper cites the facts of police fatal shootings: 2015: white–497; black-258; Hispanic-172. 2016: white-468; black-234; Hispanic-160. 2017: white-459; black-224; Hispanic-179. 2018: white-454; black-229; Hispanic-165. 2019: white-405; black-249; Hispanic-163. 2020: white-185; black-97; Hispanic-61. Totals for 5 years: whites-2468; blacks-1291; Hispanic-900. Fact1- police kill more whites than blacks by almost double. Fact2-Police often kill more whites than blacks and Hispanics combined.
How do YOU interpret these facts?
2.Roland Fryer, a black Harvard trained researcher did a 2016 study of police shootings:
“It is the most surprising result of my career!”
“Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were
about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black.”
"Mr Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot of
there was no difference between blacks and whites"
“In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were
more likely to fire their weapons without having first been
attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white
civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have
been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial
bias in police use of lethal force.” Here Here
How do YOU interpret these facts?
3.The most recent study on Police shootings in August of 2019 is from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS). Their study concluded: “We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.” And, “We report three main findings: 1) As the proportion of Black or Hispanic officers in a FOIS increases, a person shot is more likely to be Black or Hispanic than White, a disparity explained by county demographics; 2) race-specific county-level violent crime strongly predicts the race of the civilian shot; and 3) although we find no overall evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities in fatal shootings, when focusing on different subtypes of shootings (e.g., unarmed shootings or “suicide by cop”), data are too uncertain to draw firm conclusions.”
How do YOU interpret these facts?
4.In 2012 here are the leading causes of death for Blacks:
Police shootings -123 (CDC, 2012)
Homocides-8,206 (22 per day) (6,000 through guns)
Abortion 363,705 (996/day)
Do Black Lives matter, other than when taken by white police? I’m sure these figures were different in 2019, but it’s certainly not going to be by much. How do YOU interpret these facts?
5.In 2016, African-American Keith Lamont Scott was killed by police in Charlotte, North Carolina, and subsequently riots ransacked the city. Keith Lamont Scott became a household name across America, and remains so, to this day. I repeat, the media broadcast his tragic death as another instance of police brutality and racism—against blacks! However, there are two further interesting facts. First, it was a black officer who shot him!! And two, five white men were killed by police that very same day(9/20/16), yet not one of them made national news!!! How do YOU interpret these facts?
6.If it is true that police target blacks; or that police are racist toward black people, how do you account for the LA police force being 64.6 percent minority, i.e.non-white…since 2013? In other words, all across America, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, and minorities are part of policing. Minority involvement in policing has been increasing for decades. In the statement “police target blacks”, does this consider the blacks shot by black police? If so, why is the statement “police target blacks” used to prove police are racist?
As “police target blacks”, does it mean the black policemen(or other minorities) who shoot black people are racist against blacks? If not, why not, considering police shooting blacks is racist? Or, does it mean “only white police target blacks”? If white police target blacks, why do police shoot more whites? If police “target” blacks, why do they shoot Hispanics? The word “target” means focus, intent, purpose. Is it possible for a white policeman to literally target blacks, but shoot whites or Hispanics instead?
In the statistics in point 1, if you add the numbers of white and Hispanics police shootings together, it is often double, and almost triple the number of blacks who are shot. If white policeman “target”, “focus”, “intend” to shoot blacks, and then shoot that number of whites and Hispanics instead, then we absolutely need police reform!!!! How do YOU interpret these facts?
7.Let’s examine the assertions: “America is a racist nation” or “American has systemic racism”. In 1970, there were 1500 blacks in politics, today there are over 10,000!!! America is the only nation, not only in the world, but in the history of the world, to ever elect a man president from a group it formerly enslaved…Barack Obama. And…he was elected twice. If all the blacks and Hispanics of America combined voted for Obama, he would not have been elected president. Therefore, because whites are by far the majority group in America, it was fundamentally white people who elected Obama…both times!
In addition, America is the only nation in the history of the world to elect a member of group it formerly enslaved within 150 years of abolishing slavery!
If America was a racist nation, how foolish would ‘brown’ Mexicans be to literally bum-rush the border to get into America?!?! Why would “people of color” from Cuba literally risk their lives, and many have literally died, to cross shark-infested waters to get into racist America? How about the hundreds of thousands of black Africans; not including the Trinidadians, Bahamians, Haitians, etc.—all black; all ‘people of color’, whom are presently either citizens of “racist” America; or trying get into ‘racist’ America! How do YOU interpret these facts?
8.Researcher Dr Inan Dogan, along with the Washington Post, compiled a list of the ‘25 Most Racist Nations In The World’. Guess what nation did not make the list? Ahhhh…America! They also did another list of the 13 Least racist nations of the world. Guess who was number 1? Ahhhh…America!!! Here Here
How do YOU interpret these facts?
9.American blacks are the most prosperous blacks…in the world!!! Ahhhhhh….let me rephrase that…in the history of the world!! Blacks in America crossed the Gross Domestic product (GDP) mark of 1 trillion dollars in 2013. That figure makes American blacks, whom are not a nation, float between the 16th to the 18th most productive ‘nation’ on the planet!! What’s even more incredible, is that this figure represents a GDP that exceeds the GDP of the top four Black African Nations---combined! Nigeria 408; South Africa-370; Angola-119; Kenya-88!!!!
Black Economist Walter Williams says the rise of economic gain among American Blacks--from slavery to this present day--is the greatest among any ethnic group in the history of the world!
Is it possible for American blacks to produce these kinds of results in a “racist” nation?!?! While being oppression?!?! While being slaughtered by the police?!?! If blacks can produce over a trillion in GDP, making them the 16-18th largest nation in the world--under such oppressive circumstances, than Hitler’s Aryans are not the SUPERRACE…American Blacks are!!!! How do YOU interpret these facts? Here
10.Are you aware what a “racist nation” looks like? Nazi Germany is one example. Under Hitler’s regime did Jews create businesses? Did they prosper in media or academia? Did Jews prosper in entertainment? Did they become political leaders in Nazi Germany? Did they prosper in sports? In the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, America originally had 2 Jews on its 4x100 relay team, and at Hitler’s demand, America removed those 2 Jews! By the way, that relay team won Jesse Owens’ his 4th gold medal!
Or, how about bringing this illustration a bit closer to home--the 1855 American south is another example of a racist nation. Did Blacks prosper under the laws of the 1855 American south? In 1860, the south actually named their nation “Slave Holding Confederate States of America.” The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stevens said, “the Confederate states of America is founded upon… its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the White man. Slavery, the subordination to the superior White race, is a natural and moral condition of the Negro.”
Here are the million dollar questions about “racist America”: 1.Do you see the laws of Germany, or of 1855 America, part of the contemporary American penal code? Can you honestly say, Blacks are not prospering in America? Not in the media? Nor academia? Politics? Entertainment? Sports? etc? How do YOU interpret these facts?
11.Last but not least. The number ‘1’ reason, i.e.the most important reason, America is not a racist nation is God’s call on the nation. God raised up America to be a light to the world. To call America a racist nation is to attack God’s very calling. When Israel was going through the 400 years recorded in the book of Judges, as they sinned, God sent them into captivity as judgment; and when they repented, God delivered them from their captivity. As far as I am aware, God did not ‘call them by their sin!! In other words, God never identified Israel with its sin! On the contrary, He called them to turn away from their sin! When the statement is declared: “America is a racist nation”, it means America is identified with the sin of racism! This is why when liberals make this statement, they support it using the history of slavery. What they mean is, “America is presently racist, because it has always been racist, and therefore will always be racist”—and then cite America’s racial history as their evidence! I repeat—God never did this with Israel! On the contrary, God does not believe America is a racist nation! He created it to be part of His providential plan to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world!!! How do you interpret this fact?
While it is a present fact that Officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd…none of the remaining previous interpretations are true!!
For exact contemporary Democrat and Republican positions, please visit their webpages: democrats.org and GOP.com. However, to do so, will get you the ‘Candy Cane’ version, which is the ‘mask’ offered to the public. The authentic ‘face’ of these two parties can be found in a combination of at least four places. Below is the list from least to most important:
4.The people who support the respective parties
3.The authentic history of the parties
2.The adoption of liberalism and/or conservativism
1.The implementation of the Judaeo/Christian ethic
First, because everyone has a bias, you must understand mine. I am a Christian, a pastor, an author, and a part-time historian. Therefore, because my desire is to glorify God(Col3:23), my ultimate objective is rooted in the Providence of God. Providence means God working in the past and present to bring about His divine purposes. This means, at a ‘practical’ level, my views will emerge from asking some very simple questions: What does God think? What does God think about what I think? What does God think about a political party position or action? What is God attempting to accomplish in the near, and distant future through a particular person or political party’s position or action?
Because political parties are comprised of men who have sin natures, it is impossible for any one party, or group of people, to ever have a monopoly on God’s will and purposes. This means there has been both good and evil coming from all American political parties…from the beginning of this nation! A cursory study of 1Samuel through 2 Chronicles verifies this very point. To be true to the title of these tidbits, and my readers, I must begin somewhere; whether the following is the beginning, middle, or end, only you can decide.
The Bible declares:
-the “government shall be upon His shoulders” (Is9:6)
-“the increase of His government, there shall be no end” (Is9:7)
-“of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Lu1:33)
-“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and
he shall reign forever and ever.” (Rev11:15)
-“He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1Tim6:15)
These verses teach, God is obviously…what we would call…political! In other words, “every knee…”--in every arena of life, including politics—“shall bow” to Jesus (Phil2:10)…from kings to slaves! No exceptions! In other words, my three previous sentences are not only theological statements, but political! The God who reigns over the universe, by default, reigns over politics!!
Therefore, when the Bible declares:
-“all the gods of the nations are idols” (Ps96:5)
-“Blessed is the nation who God is the Lord” (Ps33:12)
…means those in the political arena are subject to the Sovereign God! Now, here is the grand ole question: If it is true that God reigns over politics, and the men and women who are involved--He must have a will for politics or nations. A will that man must use to determine right and wrong; and good and evil! I repeat, some things must be God’s will, while other things are not His will! How do we know God’s will for politics? There are two ways to determine God’s will:
1.God’s word(scripture/Bible). God’s will is His word, and God’s word
is His will! (Jn17:17;Ps119:142)
2.The Creation. God wrote His law/ways into the creation (Rom1:20)
1.There are two ways to determine God’s will from scripture:
a.Biblical. This could also be called Positive
b.UnBiblical. This could also be called Negative
“Biblical” means you find a text like John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” If one interprets this verse to mean: ‘God loves the world’, or ‘God loves humanity’; we call these statements ‘Biblical’. It’s also called Positive because it offers something God supports; He’s in favor of; He desires; His will!
“Unbiblical” means God does not support it. It is most often identified as sin. For example, God says it’s wrong to lie (Ex20:16; 1Tim1:10). Therefore, it’s negative because it instructs us what God determines wrong, or what not to do.
2.There are two ways to determine God’s will from the Creation:
a.Examine how the creation works, and you will discover
b.Determine the purpose of the created thing, and you
will discover God’s will.
In the following weeks, I will examine a few of the beliefs, actions, and history of the parties, and those who support those parties, and contrast them to the Bible!
Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out. -Jim Rohn
What is the definition of ‘liberal’? Dictionary.com gives 13 points, I cite 6 of those points:
2.(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
7.free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts:a liberal donor.
How about ‘conservative’? Dictionary.com gives 12 definitions, I cite 5:
1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
3.traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness:conservative suit.
7.having the power or tendency to conserve or preserve.
9.a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
10.a supporter of conservative political policies.
These are generic definitions, which means at best, they are superficial! As you can plainly read, both definitions are excellent, neither liberal nor conservative definitions reject Biblical principles. Does this mean the two groups have the same values? This can be answered only when we understand the definitions of both groups change when applied to actual people. In other words, the two groups do not have the same values. On a practical level, which means how these definitions are actually fleshed-out, i.e.viewed in people’s actions or lives, the people of these two groups could not be more different! As a matter of fact, their actions are as different as day from night. Yet, this is why the actual philosophy, not the actions/behaviors, of the people who call themselves Liberals and Conservatives is so tricky! I repeat, on the philosophical level, both groups possess--at least what appears to be--godly practical principles; yet, on a practical level, they are as distant from one another as East is from the West!
First, on the most fundamental philosophical level ‘contemporary’ Conservatives, desire to conserve or preserve the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Why do I use “contemporary Conservatives”? Because this has not been true, and is still not absolutely true, of ‘every person’ who elects the title of ‘Conservative’. I repeat, this is what makes these ‘political’ titles so tricky!! For example, historically, Southern Democrats were a.k.a. “Conservative Democrats”. They were totally different from ‘contemporary’ conservatives because their desire was to conserve their ‘way’ of life, which meant White supremacy, such as Jim Crow laws. Therefore, Conservative Democrats and Contemporary Conservatives are complete opposites. Remember, because these are political titles and not Biblical titles, they can change over time!
Second, the ‘historical Liberal’ has two names:
The two are synonymous, and at face value, both claim the previous Dictionary.com definition of liberal. On the other hand however, if we examine the ‘1828 Webster’s Dictionary of liberal’, we find nine entries:
1.Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munificent; bountiful; generous; giving largely; as a liberal donor; the liberal founders of a college or hospital. It expresses less than profuse or extravagant.
2.Generous; ample; large; as a liberal donation; a liberal allowance.
3.Not selfish, narrow on contracted; catholic; enlarged; embracing other interests than one’s own; as liberal sentiments or views; a liberal mind; liberal policy.
4.General; extensive; embracing literature and the sciences generally; as a liberal education. This phrase is often but not necessarily synonymous with collegiate; as a collegiate education.
5.Free; open; candid; as a liberal communication of thoughts.
6.Large; profuse; as a liberal discharge of matter by secretions or excretions.
7.Free; not literal or strict; as a liberal construction of law.
8.Not mean; not low in birth or mind.
9.Licentious; free to excess.
Like Dictionary.com, the first eight entries of the 1828 Webster’s dictionary are wonderful, any authentic Christian could claim these principles-—for they are Biblically sound. However, the ninth entry is ‘THE’ actual, literal, spiritual--behavior of the liberal/progressive. In reality, considering the 9th entry of “liberal”, it is perfectly described in Galatians 5:13: “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” This verse teaches that every human aspires to freedom—which is God’s freedom, the Creator of all freedom. Yet, freedom requires direction. In other words, without direction, we can become so enamored with the word freedom so as to use it to promote the flesh. This is what Galatians 5:13 means by the words: “opportunity for the flesh”. On the contrary, Scripture teaches that ‘the flesh’ is driven by the sin nature(Rom7:17,18,23), and must be kept in control daily(1Cor9:27). But…it cannot be controlled apart from the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit(Rom8:5-8). Very simply, because humans have a sin nature, we do not have an absolute freedom! What does that mean? God has given mankind the freedom to choose anything but sin! Incredibly, the choices of God are infinite, because He is infinite. Yet, when a man uses his freedom to choose sin, he becomes blinded and enslaved, which ironically, unwittingly, and dramatically, reduces, and even destroys his freedom!
Therefore, the definition for ‘Liberal’ in Webster’s Dictionary is actually correct.
The only thing worse than not reading a book in the last ninety days is not reading a book in the last ninety days and thinking that it doesn't matter. -Jim Rohn