In my last post, I asked why one-channel media ignored the crime and the manifesto of the Nashville shooter, a member of an “oppressed” group, and failed to blame the usual suspects (guns, Christians, conservatives). A friend of mine called me paranoid:
There seems to be a bit of paranoia with your statement. How would the media go about suppressing the manifesto? Nashville Tennessee is in a very red state so if the politicians had a concern, wouldn’t it be more public? The school is a Presbyterian parochial school and likely conservative. In other words, not aligned with the liberal news media that you fondly talk about. Not sure all this follows your narrative.
The Nashville Shooter’s Manifesto Exposed – Seek the Truth (seek-the-truth.com)
I think he is implying I am imagining things: the media is not nearly so bad as I portray and people like me want to be martyrs instead of accepting the media’s fair criticism of our positions. However, I simply stated undeniable facts: the manifesto has not been officially released and the media does not care to investigate or explain this tragedy, certainly not in the way they have when one of their political enemies can be implicated (fairly or unfairly).
I did not fill in gaps I did not know. I did not say why the manifesto has not been released. Instead, I focused on what I am sure of: the dishonesty and corruptness of our media who have avoided discussing the manifesto and the shooting. I did not jump to conclusions on who to blame for the shooting as the one channel media typically does. For them, it all depends on the group identity of the victims and the shooter. If the name Trump had been referenced at any point, he and all Republicans would instantly be blamed for all six deaths.
My friend criticizes “my narrative” but what is his narrative: the news media is NOT liberal, corrupt, and dishonest?
Where does Truth come from?
The real question I have asked my debating partners several times is: what do you base truth on? How do you determine the good guys and bad guys from among the various competing narratives we are fed? Previously, my friends and I discussed the war in Israel. I think good and evil are clearly delineated in this war, but they do not see the stark contrast I see. Evil is also clearly defined in Nashville, but still there is hesitation to acknowledge it. There is often a tendency to define a moral equivalence, just to even the playing field. What leads us each to dramatically different conclusions with regards to these matters along with guns, abortion, climate change, and more? We all believe we are advocating for righteousness, but how do we each judge right and wrong? We all think murder six in Nashville is wrong, but why is it wrong? Are we simply born believing murder is wrong or are we taught that by others? These are fundamental life questions, but difficult ones if you have not yet given them thought. I am still waiting for their answers.
How do you judge the world? Do you follow a standard or does your opinion depend on how you feel today? If you follow some standard, has it been handed down to you or do you define your own? It is clear those in my debate group follow some standard because all of us believe we are good people, yet we view the same events and arrive at vastly different conclusions of right and wrong.
The moral code we base our decisions upon can help clarify. What is your code?
The ten commandments form a foundation for me. The complete Word of God rounds out that moral code. God’s standard is above me, so I cannot alter it to suit my needs. It is also a constant. The same code was applied to moral dilemmas during the times of Caesar as well as those of today. It has been flexible enough to guide us throughout all of civilization. Answers may not always be apparent and we may need help in interpreting God’s intention, but we certainly do not need Rosseau, Marx, Nietzsche, or contemporary political parties or public figures to re-define that morality. Finally, God’s is a just standard, one applied equally to every individual alive today or in the past. We believe, in the end, nobody will escape its judgment.
I do not consider myself better then you because I follow God’s moral code and you do not. I do not wish to compel you to live as I do, but I know God’s code is best for me, for you, and all of mankind.
I am also not a hypocrite because I fail that moral code at times. All who follow God’s law fail it. We should strive to follow it perfectly; don’t accept nine of the ten commandments, and give yourself a pass for the most difficult one. Ninety percent earns an A in math class, but not in morality. When I fail, I acknowledge (confess) that failure (sin) and strive to do better. I cannot alter God’s law to excuse my own bad tendencies, so it forces me to become a better person (assuming I do not abandon it).
We are also required to be merciful with others when they fail; we should help them do better and not condemn them for their failures. However, we also believe in justice and so when you fail badly, when you deliberately murder six at a Nashville school, you face the consequences immediately. The consequence for this person was being shot to death by the police. Also, when you further such evil by ignoring it or unjustly (and deliberately) blaming others for it, you should face consequences as well.
If not religious, you probably still follow a moral code that says murdering six at a Nashville school as well as lying, stealing, cheating, etc. are bad. What forms that foundation for you? Can you put your finger on it?
My friend said the following:
If your arguments all boil down to religious discussion such as animal slaughter is ok because God gave us dominion we aren’t going to get very far and the discussion becomes a “just because I said so” type of argument.
Again, he criticizes my point of view but does not define his own. He considers my moral code and world view exclusionary, but God’s law is available to all. Why should God be excluded from the discussion, especially as it has proven itself time and again.
We all have varying opinions of right and wrong for sure, but how does he distinguish right and wrong for those understandably gray areas, like whether killing an animal murder or not? Let’s dig deeper.
What is Good and Evil?
The media promotes evil because it analyzes a school shooting based on the identity of the shooter and the victims. If the perpetrator belongs to a group they favor, there is silence because there is no narrative to advance. Furthermore, if the victims are of a group they did not wish to elevate, there is continued silence. The media is following their moral code which says there is no narrative to advance and so no need to be outraged at the evil perpetuated. Without a narrative, there is nothing for them to say. I, on the other hand, don’t wish to blame or elevate an identity group, but I am outraged at those who excuse evil (or simply ignore it) to further political goals.
My friend consistently defends the media because it (supposedly) defends causes (LGBTQ rights, for example) he sees as worthy.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I emphasized the point transgenders should not be blamed for this shooting; however, such tactics are standard practice for one-channel media. For the record, I don’t hate LGBTQ folks and I believe they should have the same protections as us all. My view is typical among conservatives and Christians. The media’s lies about Christian views on LGBTQ is a massive problem.
My friend also sees the media advancing a moral cause, and so they can’t be blamed harshly for the over-zealousness of a few in their ranks. He may admit some go too far in their criticism, but they are more right than the folks on my side; such tactics are just the cost of doing business. No. Furthering the defense of LGBTQ folks with dishonest tactics (lying, double-standards, ignoring wrong, hypocrisy, etc.) is immoral.
This shooter had her own narrative as well. Why shouldn’t we examine her ugly narrative? The media ignored that narrative because it implicates them. Their narrative that white privilege is problematic boomerangs back to them when someone kills privileged mop yellow-haired kids who drive daddy’s mustang (i.e. rich white kids) for who they are. Their narrative that transgenders are oppressed by Christians who they say hate anyone with any sexual deviancy, boomerangs back to them. The hatred and anger in this person was created and egged on by the media. They need to examine their consciences, but they hide instead.
God’s moral code calls this evil. The woman who wrote this perpetuated evil and those ignoring it, making excuses for it, and changing the topic to suffering the transgender community feels after such a shooting, are advancing the cause of evil as well. https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/03/analyst-calls-out-conservatives-blaming-nashville-shooting-on-trans-people/.
None of my debating partners has answered the question about what forms the basis of their judgments. Why don’t they see the harm in this cover-up? What is good about ignoring evil? They debate individual issues and offer their opinions, but still no insight into how they judge good and evil. My friend told me this instead:
Maybe in your worldview the basic authority is from God but in a non-theocracy it is not.
He implies religious people in America would impose a theocracy if they could. It is the same ridiculous straw man continually trotted out. I have never heard any public figure or known anyone who advocates for a theocracy. He is influenced by lies from our dishonest and corrupt one-channel media. Republicans-are-imposing-a-theocracy-wheres-the-beef
The Prevailing View: Marxism
The whole progressive movement: the Left, the Democrats, Hollywood, the media, academia, even corporate America are trending towards Marxism. Marxism provides an alternative, albeit ignorant, moral code to God’s law handed down in the Bible. Marxism bases morality on group identity. If you belong to the favored group, you are good. If you belong to the oppressive group, you are bad. That seems to be their whole morality in a nutshell. Originally, those groups were the bourgeoise and the proletariat, but today the groups are are based on an ethnic, sexual, or gender identity. All who disagree are the oppressors.
My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism – Karl Marx
Marxists have no problem doing evil to bring about some higher good. They believe it acceptable to lie about an enemy who must be defeated. Once you accept this view that traditional morality can be altered, it will not be too long before it is acceptable to murder another for their beliefs, which is basically what the Nashville shooter was doing. This past week, Joe Scarborough said former President Trump has no morality and no guardrails:
“He will imprison, he will execute whoever he is allowed to imprison, execute, drive from the country.” Scarborough said. “Just look at his past! It’s not really hard to read. Again, the only thing that stood between him and the destruction of American democracy was the federal judiciary.”
If Trump is truly this evil, if he is the re-incarnation of Hitler (another comparison made by Morning Joe), then whatever it takes to defeat him becomes moral. However, Trump is not Hitler. It is not a close call.
I agree it was acceptable to lie to the Nazis about where the Jews were hidden and it was acceptable to kill Germans to defeat the Nazi regime (which killed far more). Trump was president for four years and he didn’t imprison, execute, or drive his enemies away. He did not end elections. He did not refuse leave office. He was not impeached and/or imprisoned for these crimes.
There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, etc, that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience – Karl Marx
Scarborough is another liar who leads others to take actions into their own hands, just like the media which lies about Christian hatred and white privilege. He should be held accountable by his fellow media and public officials. They said nothing.
Prove your case or be fired. This rhetoric will lead to more evil some day.
Per Marxist ideology, Trump is hated for his identity, for his alignment to Republicans. Keeping Trump out of office is the highest good for Scarborough, so he will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. It is not acceptable to invent a new reality to support your cause. Still, Scarborough’s morality is consistent with Marxism: the correct group identity is always supported and the wrong group identity always opposed. That is the new morality–if you can call it morality.
How far are we from the two minutes of hate towards Emmanuel Goldstein that George Orwell wrote of in 1984?
The Marxist philosophy is embedding itself in our culture. Do whatever necessary to win and do not let God or traditional morals get in the way. The Marxist moral code changes as the time and circumstances change. In fact, Marxists see Christians and religious folks as enemies because they can’t abide by unchanging moral codes. A revival is needed to save us from certain destruction. revival-must-happen
Many traditional Christians and Jews have also altered their moral code to adapt to the times (and appease the prevailing Marxist view point). They are doomed to failure also. Personally, I would like to avoid civilizational collapse, so I advocate for a more traditional, God-centered, worldview instead. Call me crazy.
Parkland vs. Nashville
Governor Gavin Newsome blamed Governor Ron DeSantis for the school shooting in Parkland Florida in a one-on-one debate this week. The Parkland shooting was better suited to the narrative than the Nashville shooting, so it is still mentioned years later.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/7-takeaways-ron-desantis-debate-gavin-newsom/story?id=105277405
He then invoked the Parkland, Florida, school shooting where 17 kids were killed, arguing DeSantis later made it easier for some people to purchase weapons, referencing legislation the Florida governor signed earlier this year that allows Floridians to be able to carry concealed guns without a permit.
To blame him for these 17 deaths is silly. The statistical link, if you think such links are valid, isn’t even that strong: Florida ranks 34th in the nation for gun deaths https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-by-state. California’s numbers are only marginally better.
Why not also blame Governor Newsome for shootings in his own state? If more gun laws are the answer, why is California, with its far tougher gun laws, only marginally better than Florida? Perhaps Governor Newsome should be asked if California gun laws are actually effective at stopping deaths in his state? Should we also ask if more deaths might have been prevented if more good guys had guns? Massachusetts, has the lowest rate in the nation, a third of California’s. Perhaps Governor Newsome needs to follow the Massachusetts path? Or perhaps we are just looking in the wrong place to ascribe blame?
One Final Example
A nine-year-old was attacked in a DeadSpin article this week for wearing blackface and an Indian headdress. The article showed the kid in profile, so we couldn’t the other half of his face, which was painted in both his team’s colors.
Is it acceptable to bend the truth in order make an important point about not mocking black people? Is it acceptable to bend the truth to make an example of a supposedly white privileged kid?
Perhaps you also think stealing is fine if your need is great? If you are poor and if your people have been oppressed over the years, we can be more lenient and ignore other violations of the moral code? It is a slippery slope. Stealing and the rest are prohibited. Stick with the ten commandments and we will all be better off.
My friend says the introduction of a religious moral code is illegitimate to the public discussion. He does not propose as an alternative. Marxism is an alternative moral code, complete with religious zealots; that ideology is infused throughout our culture today. Our traditional religious moral code is far more proven and far more successful, so why shouldn’t we boldly proclaim its truth?
Dave https://seek-the-truth.com/about/
https://seek-the-truth.com/
Seek the Truth 
My friend finally responded on the standard he follows. I will put my response below this comment.
I use my internal compass to determine right and wrong. Does what I do adversely impact others? The basic ideas you mention are easy to navigate. You say in Marxism the end justifies the means and I’m sure you can see people who rely on religion, or God could simply use the excuse that they are doing something because God we wills it. In the end, isn’t that the same thing? God says abortion is wrong, so blowing up an abortion clinic can be justified as moral and just and if a few people die they were murderers anyway and God willed it. The Crusades come to mind when Christian started killing in the name of God. Was this a misunderstanding, temporary misunderstanding of His word or part of this never changing code? How do you know your understanding is correct?
To put it simply, your so-called never changing code is an interpretation and does change based on the trend of the day which may fit in your Marxist definition? In terms of the evolving moral code you use terms like Marxist, Socialist, liberal, racist, woke, etc. in ways to evoke certain emotions. First, I haven’t a clue what woke means and why it would be bad. While I don’t know what it means I think sleep is the opposite and this looks like a lack of awareness and I don’t see why anyone would think that’s a good thing.
Socialism is bad? You practice it within your church, assuming you donate to it. Your money is not only used for the building and staff, but it also is used to help the less fortunate. Isn’t that socialism when you take from the more fortunate and give to the less? I’m guessing that’s why Marxism is the latest, people are realizing we live in ways that could be linked to socialism, either that or people are listening to Mark Levine more. He uses the term Marxist quite a lot. What about social security? Beside the implementation resembles a crumbling pyramid scheme, it even has social in the name.
LikeLike
Yes, the old internal compass. It is a standard that is not above you. It is your compass and yours alone, so you can adjust it to suit your needs. We need a standard outside (and above) ourselves. Also, if we have 300 million internal compasses, we can have no agreement on anything. That will be a problem someday. The biblical Judeo-Christian standard is on the walls of the US Supreme Court; it was a standard that sufficed for a long time. Our nation had problems certainly, but not because this standard was inadequate.
Yes, I can say God willed me to blow up the abortion clinic, but I would not be following the standard, and I should be held accountable for it.
The Biblical standard is unchanging: Do not bear false witness, do not commit adultery, do not steal, etc. are as valid today as they were thousands of years ago.
Interpretation is needed because there are situations we encounter which were not encountered thousands of years ago. We have cars, computers, artificial insemination, firearms, etc. all things that did not exist when these standards were developed. We are caught up in situations that folks thousands of years ago did not have to deal with. We can still apply the standards to these new items and new situations. In fact, we must. One of the purposes of the church is to help us navigate the new pathways so we can determine right and wrong. It is not always that difficult. Killing someone by running over them in your car is clearly murder, for instance: same original standard, but a new interpretation. Sometimes interpretation is a bit trickier: are contraception and artificial insemination good or not? We need help and time to carefully consider these situations, but still apply the same old standards to them.
We do not practice socialism in the church. You can donate if you can or are willing, but it is not enforced. People give in different ways (as Paul pointed out in his epistles), in their own way and at their own pace. You do not even have to belong to the church. Nobody is punished for not belonging. Marx was an atheist and anti-Christian. He would be appalled that you equate socialism and the church.
I have a problem with social security. The Church has outsourced much of charity to the government. Charity should be local not national. Social security is also a failed system. Medicare and Medicaid are even worse. These systems will eventually bankrupt us and may destroy our nation before the Marxists do.
Did you really develop your own standards in any case? I am guessing they were handed down to you in some way: from teachers, from parents, from coaches/mentors, from books or philosophies you studied, etc. You started with some standard that someone provided and you accepted. How do you come to believe murder, stealing, lying, etc. are wrong? The Socialists, for instance, justify these things. Someone who influenced you obviously did not, but you can still change your standard to suit yourself or the changing times. For that reason, your standard doesn’t hold much weight.
Sure the bible has been translated, and so was Frederick Nietzsche and Karl Marx. The bible has been translated and re-translated by so many over so many years. I trust that the word is correctly interpreted. It has served humanity well for thousands of years. It has served me and my family well also. We will stick with the translations given to us by our Church
LikeLike