I'm not an expert on Economics, but here is broadly what I support.

Hopefully someone who is more of an expert then me will get where I'm coming from and work out the details.

First you should know that some of the earliest posts I made this blog I'm not exactly gonna stand by anymore.  For example the post I made a little over 4 years ago on Taxation has some of what I still view as the truth in it, but in 2014 my politics were still broadly in Ron Paul mode.  The three documentaries I recommended in that post I'm not gonna recommend anymore, one was an Alex Jones film, another was one Alex Jones did repeatedly endorse.  I don't know much about the over all politics of the people behind The Money Masters.  But basically I don't care as much about the Federal Reserve as I once did, I think it does need more oversight but it's not my main boogeyman anymore.

I'm also undecided on what my ultimate position on Tariffs is.  I know I oppose all existing "Free Trade Agreements" but I'm not sure what to do after that.

At the end of this post I'm gonna link to three Peter Coffin videos.

Phase 1: Taxation.

The problem with how we talk about Taxes is that it simplistically comes down to Conservatives lower them and Liberals raise them, with not nearly enough discussion of the different kinds of Taxes.

There is even specifically more then one Tax called an Income Tax, so I need to be really specific about what I mean when I say I want an Income Tax abolished altogether.  What I'm referring to is sometimes called the Personal Income Tax or the Labor Income Tax.  It's the Tax on the worker's hourly wages.  The working class isn't making what they deserve to start with, so their wages certainly shouldn't be Taxed.

There might be some people who, compared to what the average America makes, seem to qualify as "Rich" that are making an hourly wage. But when I talk about the "Super Rich" I'm talking about people who even make Hollywood Celebrities and Rap Stars look humble.  Contrary to the impression you get from watching how the Business world is depicted in most movies and TV shows, most people holding the position of CEO are not the actual owners of the Company but a person hired to run the Company for them, like The Hand of The King on Game of Thrones.  But even owners who do hold that title themselves, whatever wage their paying themselves is a small percentage of their total income.  No one in the Fortune 500 is in any significant way effected by the Labor Income Tax.

So I ideally want the Basic Income Tax abolished, but for now I'm willing to settle for it being massively lowered.  It's percentage should certainly be lower then the Capital Gains percentage.

I do not want to lower the Capital Gains Tax, or any other type of Income Tax that focuses on big businesses.  In fact I want to introduce a new one.  I support the Wallstreet Sales Tax.  I suspect that can easily more then make up for the income the Government would lose by getting rid of the Labor Income Tax, but I don't know for certain since I'm not an expert.

It's not about "penalizing people who are more productive", it's about the fact that with great power comes great responsibility, and under Capitalism wealth is the only real power.

I believe the 50c3 Tax Exempt Status needs to be abolished.  Tax Exempt Foundations are a big part of how the Rich avoids paying the taxes they're already supposed to pay.

Also I fully support Legalizing marijuana and putting a Tax on that similar to the current Taxes on Tobacco and Alcohol.

Phase 2: Minimum Wage.

I fully support the current movement to raise the national Minimum Wage to $20 an hour.  In the long run I think the working class should be making even more then that, but this is a good place to start.

Phase 3: Basic Income.

As I've said before, I support having a Basic Income sometimes called a Guaranteed Minimum Income. (Scott Santens follows me on Twitter.) 

I think it's highly Immoral that so many Americans are offended by the notion of Feeding people who don't work.  Scarcity is a Myth, we are now producing enough to provide for everyone, we simply don't.  All life is Sacred whether or not one "Contributes to Society" and many may have the ability to contribute in ways that aren't so easy to make money off of.

The notion that if everyone gets money for Free we'll wind up with not enough people working to be able to Tax to pay for that simply isn't true.  Maybe if we tried to do it in our current Taxation system, but certainly not in a model like what I proposed above.

The two main Basic Income models being proposed ares $10,000 a year, or $1000 a month which would come to $12,000 a year.  Most people are going to need or at least want more then that ultimately, especially if they're raising a family.  And those making Millions or Billions every year certainly aren't going to suddenly decide a Thousand a month is enough, those people are addicted to constantly making more money.

The people who are so lacking in ambition that $1000 a month would be enough for them, are mostly people who are having trouble holding a job anyway.  I can say that because I'm one of them.  But even then those people are a small percentage of those having trouble holding a job.  For many people their need to hold a "real job" are only slowing down their ability to peruse their true talents.

Now some Basic Income supporters are saying that it would be Cheaper then our current system of social safety nets and so we wouldn't even need to increase the Government's revenues.  I do want to increase the state's revenue since I want to keep at least some of those.  Charles Murray is a racist which is why some on the Left use his support of it against the Basic Income. The problem is people like Webster Tarpley are still Capitalist in their mindset, they still worship the idea of work.

Phase 4: I support having a single payer Health Care system, like most other developed nations.

Phase 5: If you wanna cut Government spending, it's military spending we waste the most money one.  Ron Paul proposed cutting the Defense Department's budget in half and that is one area I still agree with him on.   If you want to abolish some government agencies, abolish ICE, Homeland Security, the DEA and the ATF.  Not the the ones that regulate corporations.  We could also be spending a lot less money on Prison and the Police by decriminalizing Drugs and other Non Violent Victimless Crimes.

That's all the phases for now.

My ideal society arguably goes even beyond that.  But these proposals are the compromises that I think could vastly improve things.

Here are three Peter Coffin Videos I recommend.  The third is much longer then the others but still essential information.  I don't always agree with him, but these three videos are very informative and enlightening.

Why Criticize Capitalism?

Why We Need Single Payer Healthcare.

Overpopulation.

What is The Gospel?

The word Gospel (Evangelion in Greek) means "Good News", so I have some good news to share.

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.

Yes I know that's a dated reference, but it has more meaning here then just my demonstrating my love of Memes.

You see the joke in those commercials was that the "good news" was good news only to the person speaking and not something the person being spoken to has any reason to care about, and certainly not the good news they needed at that time.  But the marketing hook of it is that it can be your Good News too if you also switch to Geico.

There was one specific commercial I remember depicting an inmate on Death Row who's going to be executed soon, and his lawyer tells him "I've got good news" and the inmate thinks that means he got a pardon or something, but then the lawyer says "I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico".

You see I feel a lot of The Church especially in The West has become that very joke.  We're supposed to be telling people that death has no victory.  But instead we're telling them how we just saved a bunch of torture on our Hell insurance by switching to The Independent Fundamental Baptist Church of Philadelphia.  We're delivering a sales pitch not actual Good News.

Most Christians, at least in the West, think the Bad News we need saving from is Hell, and that they therefore need to convince people of the Bad News first.  But 1 Corinthians 15 which includes the most clear statement of what The Gospel is, is clear that the Bad News is Death, the Bad News is something people already fear.  Ancient Pagans had a concept of an After Life, but it wasn't a pleasant one.  The Gospel is The Resurrection.

But you're also not giving people good news if it's an ultimatum, or a threat.  1 Corinthians 15 says Everyone who Dies because of Adam will Rise because of Christ.  It isn't presented as a possibility it's presented as unavoidable.  It's a Free Gift not a Privilege.

I saw a description for one anti Universal Salvation YouTube video say "if everyone receives Grace no one receives Grace", which is basically the same as that mentality which The Incredibles ultimately vilifies "If everyone's special then nobody is".  The attitude that Grace is less if others aren't excluded is exactly the attitude Jesus was constantly trying to correct.  And guess what, every warning of "Hell" or Judgment Jesus gave was to believers, to the Pharisees (the Jewish sect early Christians broadly qualified as because the point was believing in The Resurrection) and his own Disciples, the Sheep and Goats parable was part of Matthew's Olvite Discourse, a speech given only to the 12.  The only exception is in Luke 12:47-48 where some judgment for non believers is alluded to, but it's clear those who do believe but still sin will have it worse.

These people are comparing Universal Salvation to the now constantly mocked idea of a participation trophy.  But that's not actually a valid comparison, the doctrine of Conditional or Exclusive Salvation should be compared to everyone on the losing team being killed or tortured for losing.  And in Calvinism it works like Pro Wrestling rather then a legit sport.

What Paul blatantly says in 1 Corinthians 15:55 is that it's Death and Hell who don't even get a participation Trophy.  Most Western Evangelicals think Satan gets the majority of Humanity, which would mean he wins.

So what is The Good News?

The Good News is that Jesus will Draw all Humans unto Himself according to John 12:32.

That all who Die will be Risen each in his order.  Some will face corrective punishments and be purified by fire.

But as Romans 5 explains all who are made Sinners in Adam will be made Righteous in Christ, for Grace will abound more then Sin.

And as Romans 11 explains the fullness of the Gentiles will be grafted into Israel and then All Israel will be Saved.  For God consigned them all to Disobedience so that He might have Mercy on All.

Revelation 21-22 explains that some will at first be outside New Jerusalem in Outer Darkness when the New Creation begins, but the Gates of New Jerusalem will never be closed, and the Leaves of the Tree of Life are for the healing of the nations and a River of Pure water flows out of the City into the World.

What was the nature of Jesus Atonement on The Cross?

There are a number of theories within Christianity about the nature of Christ's Atonement on the Cross, of what it's purpose was, including a number of different ones that can all be called Substiutionary Atonement.  However in the Western Evangelical Church the tendency has been to default to Penal Substitution, that He was taking the punishment for our Sins for us.

First of all I think it's possible that more then one theory of Atonement is true, that the act of the Creator of The Universe incarnating as a flesh and blood Son of Adam willingly laying down His own Life was a pretty big Stone that could kill a lot of different birds.

So on the YouTube Channel titled Early Church Faith there are three videos providing interesting takes on The Cross that I feel are all valid and interesting. Two are by Brad Jersak, The Gospel In Chairs and The Cross Remembered, and then Dr. C Baxter Kruger's God In The Hands of Angry Sinners.  However they and a lot of my other allies in advocating for Universal Salvation often object to Penal Substitution, and I understand why, the way Penal Substitution is traditionally understood in a framework that assumes some suffer endless torment, is indeed twisted.

When people come from the starting place that Salvation is not being punished at all, then saying some temporary punishment will take place for people who are saved feels like adding to The Cross.  And so we sometimes respond by wanting to remove punishment from the scenario altogether.

Romans 6:23 says the Wages of Sin is Death but the Gift of God is Aionios Life through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Hebrew 9:27 says it is appointed unto each Human once to die and after that the Judgment.  Therefore there must be a Judgment that is not the "wages of sin" in the same sense.

There are different kinds of Punishments.  A Death Sentence or Life in Prison is not done for correction, our Death Sentence is what Jesus paid for us.  But that doesn't preclude that some corrective Punishment will be necessary.

The misconception that forgiveness for Sin is inseparable from Salvation is why the Unpardonable Sin, Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit, confuses people.  They want to redefine it as something much more mystical and cosmic then what the immediate context implies.  It not being forgivable means you will be punished for it, but God's Punishments are not endless as Matthew 5:26 and Matthew 18:34 explain.  Habakkuk 1:12 and Proverbs 3:11 explain that God's punishments are for correction.  Luke 12:47-48 tells us that believers will receive more punishment then unbelievers.

So I can just look at the context of the unpardonable Sin in Matthew 12 and see that it's attributing something God did to Demons or Satan.

1 Corinthians 15 defines Jesus' Death as being for our Sins, 2 Corinthians says He was made Sin for Us.  1 John 2:2 and 4:10 calls his Death an Atonement (Propitiation in the KJV, the Greek word is clearly the equivalent to the Hebrew Kippur), likewise Romans 3:25.  Hebrews 2:9-15 says He died to defeat death, also agreeing with material from 1 Corinthians 15.  John The Baptist called Him the Lamb of God who takes away the Sins of The World, the Passover Lamb was offered to protect households from the Angel of Death.

So I don't know exactly which model is the most accurate.  But I believe that because of His Death and Resurrection from The Dead, Jesus Will Save Everyone.

The Christology of the Sanctity of Monogamous Heterosexual Marriage.

So I've been talking on this Blog about how Paul said there is neither Male or Female in The Church.  And recently I've been noticing how traditionalists will say that it's important to defend "traditional marriage" because of how it's a picture of the relationship between Christ and Israel and/or The Church (whatever your view on The Bride of Christ doctrine is).

And it just occurred to me to ask, have they forgotten about Colossians 2:16-17?  Which Paulian Christianity has long viewed as arguing that the Sabbath, and The Holy Days and other aspects of The Law being type pictures of Christ are exactly why those mere terrestrial shadows of the truth don't actually matter, or at least aren't something to be dogmatic and legalistic about.

Or likewise Mark 2:27 where Jesus said "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath", which was one of His responses to the Pharisees overly strict legalistic attitude towards The Sabbath.

That same principle can be applied to marriage.  God didn't create Adam and Eve because He wanted Ken and Barbie dolls to play with, He created Eve so Adam wouldn't be alone.  Where the KJV says "Help Meet" other translations say Helper or Companion, some scholars argue it means "rescuer".  So when the companionship someone needs is from a person with the same reproductive organs they have, that is perfectly consistent with the intent of Genesis 2.  And likewise when some people need more then one companion.

1 John 4:7.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

So there is no context in which it can ever be appropriate to call Love a Sin, in fact doing so could quite possibly be Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit.

Peter Hiett loves mentioning various Romantic movies in his Sermons and making then analogies for The Bride of Christ doctrine.  Well guess what, I'm capable of seeing the same analogy in Gay Romances, or Het ones but with the traditional roles reversed, especially in the Anime I've watched.

Luke 16:19-31, Lazarus and The Rich Man

The first thing that needs to be understood about this parable is it deals with Hades not Gehenna, so we know this condition can't be permanent because of Revelation 20.

I've spent some time in the past defaulting to the interpretation that this is a Parable and so not a real depiction of the contemporary after life at all, and I still think that's probable.  But I want to break it down some more.

In the KJV some form of the word "torment" occurs four times.  They are two different words in The Greek, neither is the best word for describing torture inflicted for no reason other then pain or punishment.  The word Torture actually comes from a Greek root.  Luke could have used words used of Jesus's scourging, or the words used by the "Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades" that's been variously attributed to both Josephus and Hippolytus of Rome.

Verses 23 and 28 use forms of Basanos.  Basanos was a Greek word for a Touch-Stone used for testing and refining Gold and other precious metals.  Forms of the word are also translated "travail" in Revelation 12:2 and "tossed" in Matthew 14:24.  An argument can be made that a good deal of the time it's used as a verb "tested" would be the best translation.  Basanos is also the basis for every use of "tormented" linked to the Lake of Fire in Revelation.  A form of Basanos is also the basis for "Tormentors" in Matthew 18:34 where Jesus explicitly described it as not indefinite.

Verses 24 and 25 use Odunao, a word not at all used of physical pain but of mental or psychological sorrow or anguish.  Like how it's used in Luke 2:48 or Acts 20:38.

The use of the word "flame" here is the rich man describing his Odunao.  So maybe it's an expression of how he feels and not literally saying he's on fire.

Now even leaving aside what we know elsewhere in Scripture about Hades fate in Revelation 20 or the Harrowing of Hell, there are a couple things in this parable on it's own that imply it won't be a permanent state.

One is the meaning of Basanos, Metals are tested with a Tocuh-Stone for a purpose, as already made clear above.

The other is Abraham's explanation to the Rich Man, The Rich Man is now experiencing what Lazarus did.  But if this state were permanent it at some point wouldn't be a just retribution anymore.

Some Christians oppose the Harrowing of Hell doctrine.

Which I consider very problematic given the amount of Scriptural support the Harrowing of Hell has.

I've been an enthusiastic supporter of InspiringPhilsophy's videos on the Was Jesus a Copycat Savior playlist in-spite of my many doctrinal disagreements with him.  But the recently added video about Inanna includes him flat out saying there is no Biblical support for Jesus descending into the underworld.  I shall address how Christians should respond to this being compared to ancient Pagan myths at the bottom of this post.

Their only argument against it is Jesus telling the Thief on The Cross next to him that "I tell you this day you will be with me in Paradise".

1. If you believe the Parable of Lazarus and The Rich Man is an accurate literal depiction of how the After Life works (or did before The Cross) and not just an illustration based on the Pharisees own false views, it clearly has a Paradise in/next to Hades, Abraham's Bosom.

2.  My main argument on this.  An analysis of the actual Greek text can support putting a comma after "I tell you this day" meaning "this day" is not necessarily the day it will happen.  Jesus' Crucifixion wasn't normal ( a fact skeptics point out) most Crucifixion victims took days to actually die.  And the evidence of Jesus dying sooner then expected is in the Gospels text itself, He died before the Romans even got to the leg breaking part.  So chances are the thief didn't even die the same day Jesus did, especially given how in the Hebrew reckoning there was only like 3 hours left when Jesus died.

3. InspiringPhilosophy is an Old Earth Creationist who will say "A day is like a thousand years" when it suits him.  After all Adam didn't literally die within 24 hours of eating the fruit did he?  Actually this and option 2 go well together.

Now to the clear Biblical Support.  If you haven't read it yet, you should read my break down of what "Hell" is Biblically.  Before the Cross Sheol/Hades is where all the dead went, including the righteous like Jacob and David.

Isaiah 24:21-22 foretells it.  Likewise with Zechariah 9:11.  Psalm 16:10 and 83:13 where David says "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.".  Psalm 139:8 might be relevant as well.

In Matthew 12:39-41 and Luke 11:29-32 Jesus says "as Jonah was in The Belly of the Whale so shall the Sun of Man be in the Hear(Core) of The Earth".  In Jonah 2:2 Jonah felt like he was in Sheol/Hell when he was in the Belly of the Whale leading some to speculate he technically died, but that's besides my point here.  Numbers 16:30-33 and Deuteronomy 32:22 confirm that the Core of The Earth is where Sheol is.

In Acts 2:27-31 Peter quotes the above mentioned Psalms in reference to the Resurrection of Jesus.  Peter also discuses this in his Epistle (traditionally numbered as his first) to Jewish Churches in Asia Minor.  In Chapter 3 verses 19-20, and later in Chapter 4 verse 6 specifically saying Jesus proclaimed the Evangelion (Gospel) to the dead.

Paul in Romans 10:7 says Christ was in the Deep (Abyss).  Paul also discuses Christ's Descent to the "lowest parts" in Philippians 2:9-10 and Ephesians 4:7-10.

So Paul alludes to it three times, Peter said it on more then one occasion, two Old Testament Prophets foretold it, two Davidic Palms foretold it and Jesus said it in a statement recorded in two Gospels.  Frankly it's affirmed more repeatedly and unambiguously then The Virgin Birth and yet the later is considered more heretical to neglect today.

It's also supported by understanding Easter as the fulfillment of Passover.  Jesus died on the 14th of Nisan as the Passover Lambs were being Slaughtered.  After that the Lambs were roasted, and then after being eaten any leftovers were required to be burned up before sunrise on the morning of the 15th of Nisan.  So if there is indeed a fiery part of Hades/Sheol, Jesus traveled through it during those hours.  And then during the daylight hours of the 15th He delivered the saints in Sheol exactly when Israel was delivered out of Egypt.  On the 16th of Nisan which was a weekly Sabbath he rested, and then on the 17th, the day Mordecai was honored and Haman hanged, Jesus Rose from The Dead at Sunrise.  Matthew 27:51-53 records that others arose from their graves sometime after Jesus did.  Maybe that was later on the 17th, or maybe it was the 21st the last day of Unleavened Bread.

Seeing Egypt as Sheol typologically here is backed up by how Joseph is a type of Christ in Genesis. He was presumed dead to his family and then spent time as both a slave and prisoner in Egypt.  Then much later his body was taken out of Egypt at the Exodus.

The Early Church Fathers did affirm the doctrine, including Tertulian who IP likes to cite as the best Pre-Nicene precedent for a Homusion understanding of The Trinity.  And the Eastern Orthodox Church still considers it important to this day.  But it's come to be neglected in the West, possibly partially because of how it lends credence to Universal Salvation.

When some Richard Carrier type starts comparing this to Pagan myths about heroes or gods traveling to the Underworld, our response should be that Christ was Totally Victorious (1 Corinthians 15:55 "Grave" in the KJV is Hades).  Orpheus and Izanagi failed to save their Brides from Hades/Yomi, but Jesus got everyone out of Sheol/Hades he intended to (he may have completely emptied it and those in Hades in Revelation 20 have been added since, either way it will one day be fully emptied).  Inanna/Ishtar had to leave her Husband Dumuzid/Tammuz behind in her place, Jesus did not add anyone to Sheol to replace who he took out.

Basically, the Pagan versions are Bad News reinforcing the inevitability and inescapablness of Death.  The Gospel is The Good News, that as in Adam all Die so in Christ all shall be Made Alive, 1 Corinthians 15:22 (Cross reference with Romans 5).

The Sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17 is a problem for The Sacred Name movement.

The Sacred Name movement often overlaps with the Hebrew Roots movement.  Not only do they think you have to say the proper names of Yeshua/Jesus and/or YHWH, but that you have to even get the specific pronunciation right, which of course different groups within the movement have different opinions on.  (For the record I think the proper pronunciation of YHWH is probably Yahuah.)

Acts 17:37 tells us that at least a few people became believers from the Sermon on Mars Hill.  And yet, Paul never mentioned Jesus by name in that Sermon.

"What about all those verses about calling on the name of The LORD/YHWH to be Saved?"

The Hebrew word Shem and Greek word Onoma mean more then just a set of letters or sounds used to identify someone, they include what The Name means. When Jesus says in Revelation 3:1 that Sardis has the "Onoma" of being alive but is dead, the KJV and other translations say "Name" but some instead say something like "Reputation".  And yet "Onoma" is the same word for "Name" used in the "All who call on the Name of The Lord shall be Saved" verses like Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13.

The Name of Yeshua/Y'shua/Yahshua/Yehoshua/Iesous/Jesus however you pronounce it means "YHWH is Salvation".  YHWH is generally agreed to in some way carry the meaning of "I AM that I Am" (Exodus 3:14) a Name which implies Eternal Timeless Divinity.  Jesus explicitly identified himself with the I AM of the Burning Bush at least once in John 8:58-59.  Of course to some extent every time Jesus said Ego Eimi (Or Ena-Nan in the Aramaic Peshita) is of interest to theologians.  But I think the second most interesting example is John 18:5-8.  Many scholars compare the I Am statements with a predicate not to Exodus but rather to various I Am statements of YHWH in Isaiah 40-55.

The Salvation that Jesus came to offer is the Resurrection of The Dead, that is The True Gospel.  And that is what the Mars Hill Sermon ends on in Acts 17:31 and what really got people's attention according to the following verses.  Eternal Life is what Jesus promises in John 3:16 and also promises us we will never die.

There are other refutations of the Sacred Name movement's arguments out there.  Christ White did a video I watched years ago, some details of which reflect views I don't agree with, but the basic premise is right.

I reject most attempts to claim certain professing Christians aren't true believers because of what ever doctrine they might have you or I might disagree with.  Because 1 John 4:15 says that everyone that confesses Jesus Christ is The Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:3 says you cannot say that Jesus is The Lord accept by The Holy Spirit.

Philippians 2:10-11 foretells that one day at the name of Jesus every Knee shall bow and all shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.  So clearly eventually everyone will be Saved.  Romans 14:11 also says every tong shall confess to God.

As a side note, NO ONE is calling on The Name of The Lord in Matthew 7:21-22, those people are doing the opposite, they are calling Him Lord (Kurios/Adonai/Mari) instead of calling Him by Name.  Doing things in His Name is not the same as calling upon it.  But that argument was more important to me back before I believed in Universal Salvation and was all about Free Grace Eternal Security.  I now view them as believers who'll be Weeping and Gnashing their teeth outside New Jerusalem, not as eternally damned.