Brunswick

The kids understood this write-up with no questions. Not bad for reframing 4000 years of philosophy. nostr:naddr1qqgrsv3kxenrvery8qmnyep5xqmngqghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7q3qc856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsxpqqqp65wykny7w

You know what I hate about hydronic in-floor heating? That whatever can fail, will fail.

“Will” is the natural faculty of desire and action, shaped by instinct and circumstance. “Free-will” is the constrained but genuine power to choose between the Father’s reality (Logos) and alternative narratives (lies). The act of choosing between good and evil is the demonstration that free-will, distinct from mere will, exists.

Christian Fidelity, Coercive Systems, and the Moral Status of Social Security and Medicare The modern church often teaches that because we inhabit an unjust system, certain unrighteous acts become practically necessary: obtaining a Social Security Number, receiving Social Security payments, enrolling in Medicare, or participating in state-managed financial mechanisms in general. The justification typically offered is that the believer’s righteousness is secured by imputation, and therefore participation in morally suspect systems cannot compromise one’s spiritual standing. The church simultaneously proclaims the Bible as the highest authority, yet excuses behaviors that Scripture itself characterizes as contrary to covenantal ethics. This tension arises from a failure to distinguish coercive structures of the world from voluntary, covenantal obedience within the Kingdom of God. 1. Imputed righteousness does not sanctify unrighteous acts The doctrine of imputation means that the believer stands righteous before God because of Christ’s merit, not because of flawless performance. Yet Paul explicitly rejects the notion that grace legitimizes participation in evil: “Shall we sin so that grace may abound? God forbid.” Imputation is never presented as permission to submit to systems that violate God’s moral order. It is empowerment to obey God with a restored conscience. To argue that Christians may safely participate in unrighteous economic structures because grace covers them is not gospel—it is antinomianism. 2. Scripture defines charity and mutual aid as voluntary, relational, and covenantal In the biblical pattern: giving is voluntary (2 Cor 9:7) the community’s care is relational (Acts 2:44–45) widows are supported under covenantal criteria (1 Tim 5) economic justice rests on stewardship, not coercion debts among believers are forgiven as an act of love, not extracted through legal force Christian generosity flows outward from the heart transformed by the Spirit, not from state bureaucracies acting through compulsion. Coercive redistribution is not biblical charity, even if the outcome resembles benevolence. Benevolence without freedom collapses into mere policy. 3. Social Security is not reciprocal or covenantal; it is coercive extraction Social Security and Medicare are not acts of mutual aid. They are legally enforced transfers: the worker has no choice the contributions are not saved but immediately redistributed the “beneficiary” does not receive what he paid in, but what is taken from younger generations Congress explicitly denies that contributions create any property right This is not lending, not charity, not contract, and not stewardship. It is intergenerational extraction under threat of penalty. Whether Christians or non-Christians administer the system does not alter its moral nature. The presence of believers in the machinery of coercion does not sanctify coercion. 4. Distinguishing between loans, usury, and enslavement Scripture does not condemn all lending. It condemns: lending at abusive interest predatory terms coerced relationships treating a brother as commercial prey Voluntary debt is warned against, but not prohibited; it binds the borrower to the lender, but within a framework of consent. Usury violates covenantal bonds by commodifying the need of the vulnerable. The state’s compulsory retirement system bears none of the marks of covenantal lending and all the marks of coercive appropriation. 5. “The system requires it” is not a Christian argument A central pattern in Scripture is the refusal to accept the world’s framing of what is “necessary”: Daniel refused the king’s food Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused the furnace’s logic The apostles refused the Sanhedrin The early Christians refused civic cult participation Jesus Himself refused the terms of Satan’s kingdoms Practical necessity has never been a valid justification for crossing moral boundaries. Faithfulness is often impractical. When the church teaches believers to comply with unjust structures merely because they are powerful, it abandons the Kingdom for the logic of empire. 6. Identity systems enforced by the state are not covenantal The imagery of Revelation regarding the “mark” is not superstition about numbers. It is a recognition of systems where: economic access requires state-issued identity participation demands ideological submission one’s ability to buy and sell becomes contingent on compliance allegiance shifts from God’s covenant to state structures This is not an accusation that modern systems are the mark, but an acknowledgment that their architecture imitates the same spiritual pattern: identity enforced by power, economy gated by compliance. A believer may be compelled by law to hold an SSN, but he should not mistake the system for righteous order. 7. Abraham’s refusal provides the archetype of covenantal integrity Abraham refused even a shoelace from the king of Sodom, saying: “Lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’” This is the Kingdom posture: refusing to allow worldly powers to claim the mantle of provider. Accepting the fruits of coercive extraction from younger generations contradicts this stance. It allows Caesar to claim that he sustains the believer in old age, rather than God. Refusal is not legalism; it is loyalty. 8. The moral conclusion Christians may be compelled by law to pay into Social Security and Medicare. But they are not compelled to sanctify these systems, nor to receive the fruits of coerced labor extracted from their grandchildren. Imputed righteousness does not bless participation in unrighteous systems. It empowers the believer to live faithfully within a corrupt world without accepting the world’s moral definitions. Social Security remains a coercive, intergenerational transfer system; its benefits remain the fruits of compelled labor; its administration remains morally unjust whether carried out by Christians or pagans. To refuse the payout is to align oneself with the pattern of Abraham, the ethic of voluntary covenant, and the Kingdom’s rejection of false providers.

Social Security and Medicare are not “benefits you earned.” They are not the return of some personal account. They are intergenerational transfer mechanisms—mandatory extractions from younger workers to older cohorts. What you paid in was never saved for you; it was spent immediately on those before you. Any payout you receive comes from those after you. Calling this a “benefit” is moral camouflage. It disguises compulsory redistribution as reciprocity. Whether the lawmakers who built the system were Christians, or the administrators are Christians, or the recipients are Christians, the structure doesn’t become righteous. Coercive redistribution is not charity. It is not covenantal care. It is not voluntary generosity. It is a forced taking backed by state power. We may be compelled by law to pay into this system, but we are not compelled to sanctify it. And we are not compelled to take from our grandchildren what was taken from us. If one desires to remain righteous, the duty is clear: refuse the fruits of coerced labor extracted from the next generation.

🙏❤️ Jesse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEniFt1grPg

When people will not tell you the truth, and instead defend your destructive delusions, they hate you.

It couldn't be clearer than with this video. This is the end-game of women's suffrage. Men are relegated to being servants in their own home with no authority, children run roughshod over their mothers, women use the government to maintain power over men, then attempt to repurpose the government to provide the protection of children their fathers are prevented from providing. This at the cost of subjugating all of society to the same rules designed to protect children. The next generation grows up in a nanny state, men never learn to be men, and the totalitarian state ratchets tighter and tighter every generational cycle. Why do women think their men do not serve their interests? Who convinced them to rebel against the only ones who are truly loyal to them? nostr:nevent1qqsrunsq72kf2gp8eeuf3dqmxa8ae6xduuqt5pjtqx5qzs2dpc0cneqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygyehd2erjg3vcq0s3gs05clndv79a78uzdpl7qzap836s762472vspsgqqqqqqsxqqrsh

#solitaire

I hate this game #wordle

The Narrative reverses Did Retail Just Sell the Bottom? Vanguard Buys as Bitcoin Crashes to $83K https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG-9hD0BUtI

In Bitcoin you have two options: 1) Buy high, sell low 2) Buy high, buy low

Btc is choppy