I first recommended Bitcoin on this website in November 2015. The price was less than $400. Since then, I’ve learned a lot about it, and a lot has changed. Bitcoin is currently at $43,000 and has been as high as $69,000. It is extremely reliable, and much easier to purchase than in 2015. It was a bit of a challenge to purchase it at the time, but it was also anonymous.
I purchased my first BTC by depositing cash into a company’s bank account and emailing them a picture of the receipt from the bank. I gave them my wallet address and they sent it to me. No one asked for my name. I bought more by meeting a guy at a convenience store and gave him cash. That is still a valid method for maintaining privacy, and I’d still do that, but it’s not quite as worry-free as it was at the time. I even had a Coinbase account where I linked my bank account, but gave a false name. Not sure how privacy-minded it is to link your bank account and give a false name, but it’s an indication of where Bitcoin was at the time.
At some point, Bitcoin decided they wanted to please the government so you can’t buy it on any decent exchange without KYC (know your customer) and providing all your information. You can’t buy very much at a Bitcoin ATM (which are a huge ripoff) without KYC. Americans are banned from many exchanges because they don’t want to comply with whatever the US government is requiring. Bitcoin is government’s bitch.
That’s not all. Something I didn’t realize until recently is that from the beginning, every wallet balance and every transaction is completely public and will be public information as long as Bitcoin lasts. At first it was pseudonymous, as I pointed out. But now, the government can track everything and for the most part can know every penny you spend. It is a government dream-come-true. It is not even close to being as private as a bank.
Bitcoin may still be useful and may still go up in value. However, since most people don’t realize how public it is, they aren’t being careful about how they use it.
Furthermore, when I first got into Bitcoin, its purpose was to work as a currency. Now, they say it’s digital gold. You’re not supposed to ever sell it. It would be foolish to sell it or use it as a currency, because it is going to go to $100,000 or $1 million or whatever. It was supposed to be a way to phase out dollars. You can’t use it to phase out dollars if you’re only supposed to hold it.
There are alternatives that I can recommend. I can’t guarantee they’ll go up in value like Bitcoin, but I think they will. However, they aren’t to be horded but they are to be used and traded. They aren’t digital gold; they are currency to be used.
Monero and Pirate Chain are two completely private currencies. No amount of government spying on the block chain will yield any results for them. Pirate has the best technology, while Monero is older but definitely good. We need to be using these and developing businesses with them. They aren’t to be horded but used to destroy the monopoly of incredibly depreciating US dollars.
I’ve posted about this many times in the past, but here it is again as this Youtube video raised the question again. You can ask someone, even a police supporter, “What percentage of cops are bad?” If they say 1%, you can show them a video like the video below or many others (go to Youtube and look up “Operation Rescue LAPD” for a great example).
If one cop does something bad, he could just be one of the 1% of bad cops. But what are the odds that 2 cops are bad and you witness those 2 cops being bad together? It would be 1% squared, or 1 in 10,000 that those cops would be in the same place at the same time. That you witness them or catch them on camera actually being bad together would be hard to calculate. It would be nearly infinitesimal. Most of the time 2 bad cops are just eating doughnuts, not actually carrying out evil deeds. What are the odds that 3 bad cops are together? It would be 1% cubed, or 1 in a million. The odds of 4 bad cops would be 1 in 100 million. The odds of 50 bad cops in one place would be like the odds of a monkey sitting down at a typewriter and randomly typing out War and Peace.
The bigger the bootlicker the police supporter is, the smaller the percentage of bad cops he gives you, the more crazy the numbers become. The only way to make sense of some of these videos is if 100% of cops are bad. Here’s another example of a bad cop and several other bad cops coming to his aid.
This meme comes from a progressive Christian facebook group, which I’m not a member of. There are true and false items on both lists, and I wanted to provide some biblical references where I can. We’ll keep score and see which side wins in the end. The contest is between hipster Progressive team and Bible belt Nominal Christian team.
• Was Jesus white? I’ve had the opportunity to spend some time in a Mormon church recently during some homeschool events. They have pictures all over their church of the guy on the left. It is annoying when people depict Jesus as a blonde or darker blonde white guy. He was clearly Jewish. I’m sure he looked a lot more like the guy on the right. See Matthew 1, for the genealogy of Jesus and it says he’s a descendant of Abraham and David. He’s of Jewish lineage, clearly. One point for Progressive side.
• Was Jesus a Christian? This is a confusing point. Not sure what they’re going for, but it’s technically true. Christian means follower of Christ. He gave us Christiantity. Two to zip Progressives.
• Was Jesus patriotic? Not in the way we think of it with pledging to Chinese-manufactured fabric. I believe Jesus gave us the basis for theocratic anarchy–no rulers, but justice according to His law. That is the system of the Old Testament and Christ taught that as well. The greatest among you will be a servant–not some elected official that has his finger on the nuclear button (Matt 23:11). Three to zip Progressives.
• Justice through retribution or restoration? I’m not sure what they mean. The Old Testament law gives the proper punishments for various sins, including the death penalty. Jesus endorsed the death penalty for rebellious sons (Mark 7:10). The penalty for stealing was for the thief to repay his victims plus an additional amount. No point awarded to either team as they both are terrible on this point.
• Died for your sins? This one is true. (Romans 5:8: “…but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”) Point for Nominal team.
• Send sinners to hell? This one is true. (Matt 23:41ff: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”) Make it 3-2: point for Nominals.
• Condemns sinners? This one is true. See the above. God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble (1 Peter 5:5). He didn’t come to condemn sinners, because they’re condemned already (John 3:16-18). The Nominals win, score is tied.
• Endorses church and state? I’ve already said that Jesus was a theocratic anarchist, so He didn’t endorse the state. Did He endorse the church? The church is believers, so He endorsed that. However, I think “church” as we think of it today is apostate, and so far gone that we’d be better off without it, so I see the point of Progressives here. They take back the lead 4 to 3.
• Is Jesus a king? Not only is He a king, He’s the King of kings (Revelation 19:16). Easy point for the Nominals. Tied back up at 4.
• Upholds traditional family unit? He does, big time. He forbids homosexuality and expects husbands and wife to remain faithful. Mark 10:6-9 says, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Another easy point for the Nominals, who take the lead for the first time at 5 to 4.
• Endorses holy war? I think the Nominals actually do believe this, as I did at one point, especially after 9/11. But, war is to be defensive as was the teaching in the Old Testament. No one can be compelled to fight in a war they don’t believe in, and there are rules for how wars can be fought. Point for the progressives. Tied back up at 5 to 5.
• The first 3 items on the historical Jesus side have been covered, and are true, and therefore go to Progressives. It’s now 8 to 5.
• Justice through restoration? I’ve covered this as well and I’m not sure exactly what they mean, but knowing progressives, they are opposed to the type of justice Jesus taught, and the Nominals are also opposed, so I’m awarding no points here.
• Killed by church and state? The church is the body of Christ, which didn’t really exist at the time of Jesus’ death, but I know what they mean. I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to them and change “church” to “organized religion”, and give the Progressives this point. He was clearly killed by the state at the insistence of the Jewish authorities. 9 to 5 Progressives.
• Friend of sinners and outcasts? Yes. Jesus came for the sick, not for the healthy (Mark 2:17). Again, God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. We’re all sinners, but it’s the proud sinner who is self-righteous that God opposes. I’d say progressives fit the proud sinner description better than the Nominals. Even though this point is technically true, and is on the Historical Jesus side, it’s the Progressives who need to examine themselves on this, so I’m giving this point to the Nominals, making the score 9 to 6.
• Liberates the oppressed? Absolutely He does. He liberates us not only spiritually, but as His Kingdom grows, we have been and will continue to be liberated physically. It is those who help orphans, widows, the sick and imprisoned who will go to heaven (Matt 25:34-40). 10 to 6 Progressives.
• Critiques religious people? Yes. Matthew 23 and Revelation 2-4. Judgment begins in the house of the Lord. 11 to 6 Progressives.
• Subverts Empire? Yes. Jesus was an anarchist. The Pharisees would try to trick Him, but He would give parables that were subversive, even though not outright subversive. The Christian system will undermine empire and tyrannical government. Romans 13:3-4 is dynamite laid at the foundation of tyrannical government. 12 to 6 Progressives.
• Homeless man and child refugee? Yes. Foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head (Matthew 8:20). And Matthew 2:13ff talk about Jesus’ family fleeing to Egypt. All humans ought to be able to relocate to where they are safe, and where they can best fulfill the dominion mandate. Make it 13 to 6 Progressives.
• Had half-siblings? I don’t think this is right. Did Jesus’ body have Joseph’s DNA? I don’t know. Did He have Mary’s DNA? I don’t know. But Jesus’ genealogy lists His physical father as Joseph (Matthew 1:16). I don’t think I’d call his siblings half siblings. Point for the Nominals: 13 to 7.
• Was Jesus non-violent? I’m going to give this one to the Nominals, but when you say someone is violent, you’re usually talking about a crazy person or at least out-of-control person. God is definitely not out-of-control. He sends people to hell. He sent the Israelites to kill entire cultures. And Jesus Himself overturned the tables of the money changers. But He also said whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword. As individuals, we are to be generally non-violent, but with the potential to be violent in a defensive manner. Meekness is power under control. Meekness isn’t a rejection of power or violence, but having the power and ability under control.
Final score is 13 to 8 for the Progressives. But that is just because the American church is in desperate need of help and restoration. Progressives are generally slightly worse off than Nominals, but they can definitely make some arguments against the Nominals. The problem is they don’t really believe Scripture is God’s Word, so they have serious epistemology problems.
If you care to find out what the Bible says about the Ahmed Arbery case, the case of Michael Brown from several years ago is a good comparison. Bojidar Marinov gave an excellent, and thorough application of biblical case laws to that situation. Here’s the article in pdf format. You can download it and read it in whatever format you prefer.
As I’ve gotten involved in various Christian organizations or causes, there inevitably comes disagreement and eventually a split of some kind. You have to choose which fork in the road to take, and the number of people you find yourself among are about half of what they were. Eventually, there’s another fork and another and another. Maybe not among the same group, but in different ways, you’re growing more and more specific in your beliefs, and you may eventually find yourself among a very small group.
This has always troubled me. But my friend has this to say:
“There’s rarely if ever such a thing as perfect unity between creatures who learn discursively, so we should not be under any unrealistic illusions of unity. What we can expect are alliances and sharply defined unity and division with everyone we enjoy fellowship with. This requires effort and charity, but it is worth the investment and necessary.
Division is necessary, but it does not necessarily mean we are ultimately divided. Paul said that without division, we’d never know what is right or wrong. I love and am united with sincere Christians who believe fascist propaganda. Ultimately, we are united, in Christ, but on their idolatrous, fearful error, we are divided. The ultimate unity, in spite of division is what the world will look on and admire. As iron sharpens iron through debate and friction, it produces deeper and more meaningful unity.
False unity: ignoring of division, and neglecting iron sharpening iron is not admirable. It requires no effort. It’s lazy, and there is no love in it. I despise the “agree to disagree” attitude. It’s not Christian.”
The good news is you are learning from different people and organizations, and eventually, you don’t need them anymore. You still need fellowship, but you don’t have to be taught about a certain topic any longer. Hopefully, as we get older and more mature and you find that the group you identify with is smaller and smaller, you have unity on important topics with local Christians. Even though they may not know as much as you, and they occasionally say things you disagree with, you can teach them what you’ve learned. Maybe they’ll come to agree and maybe they won’t, but you have unity on the important doctrines of the faith.
I read a conversation with a covenanter. They have some peculiar beliefs, that you may have never heard about anyone believing. They are small in number, but they are smart guys. The doctrine I’m referring to is probably one that most evangelicals hold to in general, but these guys are passionate defenders of it. I hope I’m not misrepresenting it, but they believe that any new doctrines not held by the early church, or at least not held by the time of the writing of the confessions in the 1600s that it is false. To rephrase, they would say that any new doctrine would be false.
I know that I’ve believed something similar to that, and the pessimistic eschatological view of most evangelicals (premillennialism) would dictate something similar: that Christianity would have less and less influence, and fewer Christians over time.
However, covenanters aren’t premill, they are postmill, which is optimistic about the future. They seem to believe that the Westminster Confession (1646) is the apex of Christian knowledge, and they believe it wholeheartedly.
But, if postmillennialism is true, we may very well be in early church history, and Christianity will grow in influence. The curse is being reversed. The Holy Spirit is going to have more and more intamacy with believers. If that is true, it seems that our knowledge and application of Scripture may very well improve over time, and grow more detailed. We’re standing on the shoulders of giants who battled heretics and strived to accurately define important doctrines like the Trinity. The Westminster Confession may have been nearly perfect, but I think the authors would have been open to correction and would not expect anyone to just submit to what they say, or change their minds on something, just because they say it’s true.
Have you ever run across a portion of Scripture that is hard to understand? What immediately comes to mind for me is head coverings for women (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). I don’t think anyone really knows for sure what that means, though I think Bojidar Marinov has the best explanation. As the effects of the curse is pushed back by the spread of the gospel, is it possible that we will come to a better understanding of what that passage means? Is it possible that we will discover an ancient document that sheds light on the topic? How many other such difficult passages are there?
It seems to me important topics, such as most Christians’ understanding of Romans 13 is woefully lacking. It’s possible that covenanters are on the right track–that we just need to study historical Christian teaching on the topic. It’s also possible that as our evil form of government affects our interpretation of that passage, and once a majority of Christians have a better understanding of what the Bible teaches about government, they will demand a more biblical government.
I’m optimistic that God’s kingdom will grow as the gospel spreads. Our understanding of Scripture will improve and we will make new discoveries about the Bible and how to apply it to our lives. The apex of Christian understanding wasn’t 1646, but some date far in the future.
I can’t tell if this cop is a man or woman, so that’s the first problem. The second problem is he or she lies twice until this guy calls his or her bluff. At least I think this individual knows they’re bluffing. Most other cops insist that you have to obey their every whim.
My homeschooled children were listening to an audio book about history of the world from about 1500 to 1800 while we were driving. Pretty much all the stories were pretty disgusting. The Japanese were attacking China and Korea. The Manchurian Chinese took advantage of the effect of the plague on the Han Chinese to take over power. The Indian rulers called themselves kings of the world and the last one before the British really started to take over spent 20 years attacking Indians in the south to try to make them submit to his rule. Louis XIV in France was a true ego maniac. Even Oliver Cromwell in England, who did some good things, when he got power, he ended up forcing legalistic Puritan beliefs on everyone. It was pathetic. Not much good was going on as far as civil governments go.
This Thomas Sowell quote is really dead on. I look forward to the day when government is gone. We will all be so much better off when a bunch of psychos aren’t forcing their citizens to pay them, and even attacking foreigners to bilk them as well.
I’d love to have someone watch this and imagine this sort of thing going on all across the country and explain how sending your kids to a government camp is a good idea.
It’s that time of year again—time to make preparations for the big day. It’s a day when foolishness is celebrated, and pranksters run amok. It’s National Atheist’s Day, better known as April Fools’ Day. Today we’ll look at one of Charles Darwin’s most far-fetched theories—a theory even a child can laugh at. This is one that’s only suited for a holiday as foolish as National Atheists Day: the evolution of the giraffe.
Darwin speculated on the evolution of the giraffe:
“So under nature with the nascent giraffe, the individuals which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearths [drought] to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved…for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food….Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed [bred] and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish…By this process long continued…it seems to me almost certain that any ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.”
According to Darwin, during a period of drought, the tallest gazelles (for example) would have had food to eat, while the shorter gazelles would have starved. The taller gazelles would have had taller offspring, and eventually, after millions of generations, gazelles became the giraffes we have today. Let’s play along with Darwin and see where his idea takes us.
While all of Africa’s other grazing animals seem to have done quite well, the shorter gazelles that weren’t quite as tall as their cousins starved. What caused them, specifically, to starve to death? Maybe, in seeing their fellow creatures eat leaves from tall trees, they were too proud to lower their heads to eat grass. This may seem plausible until we recognize that all grazing animals (including modern giraffes) bend down to drink water. Darwin, however, maintains they died of starvation—not thirst.
Since only the tallest giraffes survived, all the females also must have died, as females are on average two feet shorter than the males. How exactly, then, do giraffe’s reproduce today?
Another Huge Problem
The giraffe’s heart generates enormous pressure in order to pump blood all the way up its long neck to its brain. Were it not for its complex blood pressure regulating system, when a giraffe bent over, it would suffer serious brain damage. If it managed to bend over without dying, it wouldn’t be able raise its head again. Its brain would suffer from a sudden lack of oxygen, and it would pass out. Here’s a four minute video with more info on that:https://www.youtube.com/embed/BMz9o9LP9WI?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent
Furthermore, after a century of intense fossil exploration, no intermediate forms are on display in any museum in the world. The billions of giraffazelles have kept their remains well hidden. There is no intermediate form linking the giraffe to any other creature.
If you still believe that giraffes evolved, you may want to check yourself into a mental institution, or the biology Ph.D. program at a university. There are few other places where such fairy tales are believed. But keep your chin up. National Atheist’s Day is right around the corner.
Working for the Secession of Fremont County from the Union
