(13) The Naturalist Process

Chapter 13: The Naturalist ProcessShow more

A naturalist can act like a parent who lies about the child’s age in order to get the children’s discount. A naturalist can act like an undercover agent who commits sabotage and frames someone else for the crimes. A naturalist can act like a gangster who slanders and threatens the witnesses to prevent them from testifying.

The naturalists are convicted by objective truth. The agenda of the naturalist requires the subversion of objective truth. A logical person might think that naturalists only are those that claim to be atheists or agnostics, but in actuality many naturalists prefer to identify themselves with other theistic religions. Naturalism logically contradicts the other religions, but this contradiction would only discourage someone who was interested in truth. Naturalists are not primarily interested in truth, but rather personal advantage. To many naturalists truth is viewed as merely a tool to protect personal advantage, and any truth that does not serve this function is not worth defending. Many naturalists often find it personally advantageous to claim they are a member of another religion. These naturalists identify with other religions while denying the power of the eternal kingdom, and thus are naturalists who deceive others and even themselves. A few of these naturalists even misrepresent themselves as religious leaders simply for the prestige and authority. A naturalist may academically parrot the doctrine of another religion when it is advantageous, but live in a manner that is a contradiction with it. The irony is that a naturalist who claims to be another religion is the one most easily discovered to be duplicitous and labeled a hypocrite; the reputation of the other religion is slandered while the reputation of naturalism evades being tarnished. The other religion can also be maligned when naturalists target accusations at former naturalists who are in the process of a genuine conversion.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/45/the-war-against-truth

One of the areas that some naturalists are attempting to subvert objective truth is through gender. Theses naturalists often attempt to misrepresent gender as being equivalent to race. If the naturalists can misrepresent gender as being equivalent to race, then they can misrepresent the advocates of homosexual behavior as being equivalent to the advocates of the civil rights movement. This allows these naturalists to slander other religions and classical thinkers for making gender distinctions. These naturalists want to indoctrinate everyone to think that thousands of years of classical thinkers are all bigoted for discouraging homosexual behavior. These naturalists’ strategy is to censure classical thinking by slandering it and then indoctrinate the masses in their contemporary ideas. These naturalists are doing everything they can to discourage people from reading and learning from classical thinkers who had already extensively refuted the arguments of these naturalists. These naturalists pretend that their arguments are progressive, and try to hide the fact that they are extremely regressive. Gender is not equivalent to race. Gender is an objective fact whereas race is subjective human interpretation. Some but not all gender distinctions serve an objective and beneficial purpose. Lawmakers in California have been indoctrinated by naturalist ideas and have passed laws in California that legally subvert the objectivity of gender. Because of these laws, public schools in California have been faced with potential legal and safety crises when male students enter the female restrooms and locker rooms.

The race of child who is an orphan is not objective. Race is not objective. The sex of a child who is orphan is objective. The sex of a person is objective. In the case when a person has no Y-chromosomes and two X-Chromosomes, she is absolutely a female. In the case when a person has one Y-Chromosome and one X-Chromosome, he is absolutely a male. There is no ambiguity; the gender of the people in these two cases is an objective biological fact. The majority of people who legally change or amend the sex on their birth certificates fall under these two absolute cases. A society is in trouble when it legally validates this legalized fraud over the objective facts. Bringing up other rare genetic conditions is simply a propaganda strategy naturalists used to confuse and distract people from their blatant rejection of objective facts. The myopic details of those other rare genetic conditions are covered with a very simple scientific definition: If a person has at least one Y chromosome, he is a male. If a person has no Y chromosomes, she is a female.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/46/the-war-against-truth

The sex of every human is an objective biological fact that is permanent. It is impossible to change the Chromosomes in all the trillions of cells of a person. What about if a person has “ambiguous genitalia”? What if a person is blind? Do you try to make the eye look like an ear or a nose? If a person is blind, you do your best to fix the eye, which is not an “ambiguous sensory organ”. If a person has “ambiguous genitalia” you do the best to fix the genitalia according to their gender, which is an objective biological fact. When people want to blatantly deny objective facts, the only way they can get away with it is by clouding it in complexity, persuasive language, and fluctuating circular definitions. Intolerance is often spread in the name of tolerance and freedom. Fraud is often attempted to be legalized in the name of rights. The rights of children are often infringed because children have no political voice to defend their rights. If a people prefer to commit fraud, no jury can stop them if objective facts are not legally acknowledged and defended.

Is age an objective truth? If a person has surgery to look younger or surgery to look older, should that person be able to legally change their age on their birth certificate to the age they look or feel? Would that be fraud? Is gender an objective truth? If a person has surgery to look like the opposite gender, should that person be able to legally change their gender on their birth certificate to the gender they look or feel? Would that be fraud? If there was a male gymnast who has surgery to look like a female gymnast, should that gymnast be allowed to compete in the Olympics as a female? Would that be fraud? If denying objective facts gives a person gratification, should that person be able to legally deny objective facts? Would that be fraud? If giving false testimony in court give a person gratification, should that person be able to lie in court? Would that be perjury? If there are no objective facts, could anyone ever be convicted of perjury? Why is it that children are often indirectly the victims when people claim that their irresponsible behavior doesn’t hurt anyone?

A naturalist can act like a criminal who pleads insanity to escape the punishment, and then tries to escape the treatment. A naturalist can act like an unrepentant drug addict who is still blaming everyone else for the harmful effects of his or her own poor choices. A naturalist can act like an unrepentant alcoholic who tries to escape liability by arguing that because the desire to over-consume alcohol was predetermined, the choice to drink and drive must have also been predetermined.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/47/the-war-against-truth

The naturalists are convicted by free will and responsibility. The agenda of the naturalists requires the subversion of free will and responsibility. The naturalists undermine free-will through persuasive language that implies that all their choices are already predetermined. It is true that their feelings are already predetermined. It is not true that their choices and actions are already predetermined. The naturalists claim that their choices and actions are predetermined by their feelings, which is false. All people are accountable for their choices and actions. People choose to be responsible when they choose to oppose their feelings when their feelings are dishonest or detrimental. People choose to be irresponsible when they choose to still affirm their feelings when their feelings are dishonest or detrimental. The naturalists do not want to be held accountable for choosing to be irresponsible.

When a man is afflicted with a desire for fornication or adultery, he can choose to be responsible and oppose those feelings. When a man is afflicted with a desire for fornication or adultery, he can choose to be irresponsible and affirm those feelings. A man is not evil for having evil desires. A man chooses to become a slave to evil by affirming those evil desires. A man who has evil desires and chooses to oppose them thereby chooses to remain a servant of good. Is it fair that some men have to struggle with more evil desires than other men in order to remain a servant of good? No it is not, but life is not “fair”. Just because a man has more opportunities to choose evil does not by any means make him not accountable should he choose evil. Is it fair that some men have to struggle against more opportunities to choose evil than other men? No it is not, but life is not “fair”.

Just because a person’s current feelings are predetermined does not mean that a person’s future feelings cannot be influenced. A person’s current feelings are influenced by choices, actions, and events in the past. Free-will does not allow a person to change their current feelings because free-will does not allow a person to change the past. Free-will does not allow a person to change the past, only the present, which can influence the future. Therefore, if a person currently chooses to be responsible and oppose their dishonest and detrimental feelings in the present, then this can sometimes reduce the recurrence of dishonest and detrimental feelings in the future. For some people the recurrence of these dishonest and detrimental feelings will not be reduced. All people are still accountable for choosing to be responsible even if their dishonest and detrimental feelings are never reduced. Is it “fair” that dishonest and detrimental feelings can be reduced in some people and not others? No it is not, but life is not “fair”. “Fair” is often a word that is irresponsibly used by naturalists to rationalize affirming the dishonest and detrimental feeling of envy or covetousness. Affirming envy or covetousness promotes theft and wrongdoing, which does not make the world any more “fair”. In this world it cannot always be “fair”, if by “fair” you mean “perfect”. However in this world it can be “just”, if by “just” you mean promoting benefit, affirming responsibility, and not stealing from or infringing on the rights of others.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/48/the-war-against-truth

If a person suffers from a chronic detrimental desire, is the person still accountable if they choose to act on that desire? Is a person accountable for their choices and actions even if they feel that life is not fair? If it is unfair to have something stolen from you, does that mean it is fair to steal from someone else to get something you personally never actually had before but always felt you deserved? Do people have the right to earn, own, and bequeath their wealth and property? Should envious and covetousness voters have the right democratically steal wealth and property via the government as long as they claim it is for good cause that people deserve? If a person is successful by honest means, should his or her wealth be disproportionally targeted for compulsory legal theft via taxation by prideful unsuccessful people to fund their pet government projects?

A naturalist can act like an unsuccessful dishonest businessman who can never keep his business afloat honestly, so he decides to always steal from others to make up the difference plus a little extra for himself for his troubles. A naturalist can act like pretentious city that enacts ordinances that prevent its residents from working and then evicts the residents when they cannot pay their bills. A naturalist can act like a corrupt firefighter with a hero complex who sets many fires in order to receive honors for putting them out. A naturalist can act like a tyrant who builds walls claiming they are for the people’s protection, but they are actually to prevent the people from escaping.

The naturalists are convicted by the human dignity endowed to us by our creator. A naturalist can claim to have his purpose in life motivated by natural selection, which dictates that success would manifest itself in reproducing abundantly. This claim is merely a deceptive ploy to rationalize and justify the naturalist’s irresponsibility in seeking to gratify his or her own selfish sexual desires. The naturalist admires the sexual prowess of a man who has many children through sexual escapades of fornication or adultery. The naturalist is repulsed by a man who has ten children with his one wife and lovingly raises them responsibly together on their own earned income. Both would be successful according to what the naturalist claims is his definition of success. The naturalist is disgusted by the loving responsible man not out of envy, but out of self-conviction. This self-conviction of the naturalist spawns disgust which is rationalized by the new contradictory claim that children are a burden not a blessing. To the naturalist, the loving responsible man is now being irresponsible for bringing so many burdens into the world.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/49/the-war-against-truth

The naturalist then claims to have his new purpose in life motivated by increasing the standard of living for everyone. The naturalist can then arbitrarily claim the loving responsible man with ten children is now being irresponsible for choosing not to maintain this new standard of living. The naturalist does not lovingly self-sacrifice his own resources to the increase the standard of living others. The naturalist demands the compulsory sacrifice of other people’s resources. Tyrannical prideful people are always convinced that they are experts and know how to use other peoples’ resources better than they can and therefore have a right to steal it by force or by law. The naturalist then compels laws and arbitrary regulations that prevent young adults from working even part time to acquire skills, responsibility, and resources. The new taxes and regulations stole away surplus earnings and made it impractical for people to start new businesses leading to fewer and poorer quality jobs. The naturalists coin a new term for young adults who are prevented from working, which is adolescents. It is acceptable if children and young adults work and do not get paid because it is called community service. It is unacceptable if children and young adults work and do not paid because it is called exploitation. The hypocrisy in how our society tramples on the rights of children and young adults is often ignored because they do not have a political voice. In 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act was finally passed after two previously failed attempts by the naturalists to pass a Constitutional Amendment. By preventing the young adults from working even part time, the naturalists were successfully able to turn the blessing of young adults into the burden of adolescents.

The creation of adolescents nearly doubled the duration of childhood, preventing young adults from acquiring the skills, responsibility, and resources they would need to begin their adult lives. The burden of adolescence then turned all children from a blessing into a burden. The naturalists claimed they were protecting the youth, but they were actually depriving the youth of the skills, responsibility, and resources they needed to start their adult lives successfully. The nation eventually grew to look in contempt upon the youth as being unskilled, inexperienced, and burdensome. This ultimately lead to the invention of internships where the youth work but don’t get paid, which also did not help the standard of living.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/50/the-war-against-truth

By preventing the young adults from working even part time, the naturalists nearly doubled the duration of childhood thereby causing children to no longer be viewed a blessing but rather to being viewed as a burden. Once children were viewed as a burden, people started to have fewer children. The naturalists redefined marriage to be solely about adult gratification and ignored the rights of children. What are the rights of children? If monogamy protects the healthy development of children, should the government promote monogamy over polygamy in order to secure the rights of children? If the original definition of marriage protects the healthy development of children, should the original definition of marriage be promoted over other unions in order to secure the rights of children? Why should the original definition of marriage be abolished simply because people are envious of its esteem it has earned over thousands of years? The following is from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to John Banister:

The following circumstances are common to education in that, and the other countries of Europe. He acquires a fondness for European luxury and dissipation, and a contempt for the simplicity of his own country; he is fascinated with the privileges of the European aristocrats, and sees, with abhorrence, the lovely equality which the poor enjoy with the rich, in his own country; he contracts a partiality for aristocracy or monarchy; he forms foreign friendships which will never be useful to him, and loses the season of life for forming in his own country, those friendships, which, of all others, are the most faithful and permanent; he is led by the strongest of all the human passions, into a spirit for female intrigue, destructive of his own and others' happiness, or a passion for whores, destructive of his health, and, in both cases, learns to consider fidelity to the marriage bed as an ungentlemanly practice, and inconsistent with happiness; he recollects the voluptuary dress and arts of the European women, and pities and despises the chaste affections and simplicity of those of his own country; he retains, through life, a fond recollection, and a hankering after those places, which were the scenes of his first pleasures and of his first connections; he returns to his own country, a foreigner, unacquainted with the practices of domestic economy, necessary to preserve him from ruin, speaking and writing his native tongue as a foreigner, and therefore unqualified to obtain those distinctions, which eloquence of the pen and tongue ensures in a free country; for I would observe to you, that what is called style in writing or speaking, is formed very early in life, while the imagination is warm, and impressions are permament. I am of opinion, that there never was an instance of a man's writing or speaking his native tongue with elegance, who passed from fifteen to twenty years of age, out of the country where it was spoken. Thus, no instance exists of a person's writing two languages perfectly. That will always appear to be his native language, which was most familiar to him in his youth. It appears to me then, that an American coming to Europe for education, loses in his knowledge, in his morals, in his health, in his habits, and in his happiness. I had entertained only doubts on this head, before I came to Europe: what I see and hear, since I came here, proves more than I had even suspected. Cast your eye over America: who are the men of most learning, of most eloquence, most beloved by their countrymen, and most trusted and promoted by them? They are those who have been educated among them, and whose manners, morals and habits, are perfectly homogeneous with those of the country.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/51/the-war-against-truth

If the naturalists want to have other types of unions, they are well within their legal rights to enter into any type of legal union. We all have the legal right to enter into a contract and all have the legal right of assembly. However, the naturalists were intolerant of the original definition of marriage and therefore sought to abolish it. The following was the original definition of “marriage” according to the American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster in 1828:

MAR'RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Hebrews 13:4

1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matthew 22:2.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/52/the-war-against-truth

2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Revelation 19:7.

The naturalists were envious of the esteem of marriage, unwilling to fulfil the covenant of marriage, and unable to provide the societal benefits of marriage. Out of the hardness of their hearts they spawned strife and deception to pressure for new laws that made divorce routine, which abolished the original definition of marriage. The attack on marriage was an attack on the stability of society and investment in children. The attack on marriage led to deteriorating education for children, the rise of disorders, and a rise in sexually transmitted diseases. Once the naturalists redefined marriage to be solely about adult gratification and ignored the rights of children, the naturalists invented new ways of eliminating children. The naturalists invented ways to kill the children after they were conceived through sexual intercourse and before they could leave the womb. The naturalist then used persuasive language and arguments to dehumanize the children in the womb. The naturalists do not want to be identified as radically regressive, so they use different diction like “abortion” instead of “child sacrifices”. The following was the original definition of “abortion” according to the American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster in 1828:

ABOR'TION, noun [Latin abortio, a miscarriage; usually deduced from ab and orior.]

1. The act of miscarrying, or producing young before the natural time, or before the fetus is perfectly formed.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/53/the-war-against-truth

2. In a figurative sense, any fruit or produce that does not come to maturity, or any thing which fails in its progress, before it is matured or perfect, as a design or project.

3. The fetus brought forth before it is perfectly formed.

At what age do you think young adults started work at before the invention of adolescence? If a young adult is legally prevented from working or prevented from being paid for their work, will that increase or decrease living conditions for the poor? If children and young adults cannot vote yet, whose responsibility is it to defend their rights? Do children and young adults only receive their unalienable rights when they reach voting age?

A naturalist can act like a tyrant who executes the wives of eastern nations before they are even born and hopes no one notices they are missing. A tyrant will often not use the military to directly execute captives, but rather will use the military to forcibly coerce the captives’ own people to do the actual execution themselves. A naturalist can act like a tyrant that attacks a small defenseless country anticipating that the country’s allies will not defend it. A naturalist can act like a tyrant that floods the media with propaganda to dehumanize the targeted victims. A naturalist can act like a tyrant who has the men work in labor camps while executing the people who are deemed less useful such as woman, children, and those who are disabled.

The fact that a child is a person is an objective fact, which does not change simply because one bigoted society feels the child is unwanted or might become a burden. If a child is a person, it can only be killed for legitimate reasons. What is a legitimate reason for killing a person? The first is legitimate reason is self-defense. The second legitimate reason is if the death was unintentional. When there is evidence that the mother’s life is in danger, the mother can choose to defend herself by killing her child. A loving mother will naturally try to find an alternative to save both herself and her child if feasible. In the rare cases when there is no other alternative a mother may need legally to seek the appropriate medical response to keep herself safe. When a mother chooses to kill her own child out of self-defense, this is very emotionally painful for the mother. Once her child is dead, the mother must be allowed to grieve and move on as she would for a miscarriage. It is always traumatic for a mother when her child dies in her womb through a miscarriage. When a child is killed accidentally through a miscarriage, it would be cruel to blame the mother or even hint that it was intentional. However, if the mother is assaulted by another person and the child within her womb dies, she has the right to press either manslaughter or murder charges depending on the situation.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/54/the-war-against-truth

If a mother wants to kill the child in her womb, the first thing is to lovingly remind her that the child is a person and it is her child. A loving mother would naturally want her children in the womb to live and would only kill it unless it truly was self-defense. A fearful mother can sometimes be pressured by men and society to unnaturally kill the child in her womb for reasons other than self-defense. Society should therefor focus its efforts on providing safe havens that support new mothers and alleviate their fears of giving birth to their children. However, if the mother chooses to kill the child in her womb out of self-defense, doctor-patient confidentially may dictate that only the mother and the doctor would know extent of the risk on the mother’s life, unless the mother is a minor. If the mother is a minor, the mother’s guardians must also be included. Any doctor or hospital must have the legal right to abstain from providing any product or procedure that may kill a child in a womb, if it is against the doctor’s conscious or the hospital’s conscious. The creed of the medical profession is “first do no harm”. Any product or procedure that may kill a child in the womb must be paid for by either the mother or by private charity. No public money, tax dollars, or any other form of compulsory funding should be used to pay for any product or procedure designed to kill a child in the womb. No business owner should be forced to include products or services that kill children in the womb in any benefits they provide their employers if it is against their conscious. No minor should have access to products or services intended to kill children in the womb without their guardians’ consent. The goal of society should be to uphold human dignity and personhood status, which is endowed to all by our creator. We are all made distinctly human at conception. The goal of society should be to give every child in the womb his or her right to fullest opportunity for a complete life. The goal of society should be to lovingly deter children in the womb from being killed through the mother’s natural loving affection for her own child. The goal of society should not be to punish mothers when the children in their wombs are killed and their lives are artificially cut short.

The naturalists have used false rhetoric and persuasive language to confuse society and dehumanize children in the womb. The naturalists do not want to be identified as radically regressive, so they use different diction like “pro-choice” instead of “pro-child sacrifice”. The last thing a naturalist wants is to define between what stages the healthcare industry should stop targeting human children in the womb and start caring for their health. The naturalist is not content to use their own resources to voluntarily fund products and procedures that kill children in the womb through private charities. The prideful naturalists are using state mandates to steal resources from members of other religions against their conscious and use those stolen resources to kill children in the womb. The naturalists want to use state mandates to steal from members of other religions in ways that violate their conscious, and then slander and legally prosecute the members of other religions for resisting. Naturalism is the established state religion, and it is using its power to legally prohibit the free exercise of other non-secular religions. The naturalists dehumanizes children in the womb not because they genuinely think that children in the womb are not people, but rather for them it is practical to scapegoat this defenseless minority in order to gratify their selfish desires. Because the naturalist is motivated by desires and not truth, it is impossible to persuade naturalists by truth. All the rhetoric used by naturalists to dehumanize children in the womb is false and therefore can always be logically refuted.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/55/the-war-against-truth

The naturalist says that a child in the womb is not a person because it is not a citizen of the United States. As if human immigrants are not people. The naturalist says that a child in the womb is not a person because it has not crossed the border of the womb. As if a person could be moved to a new location in international waters and no longer be a person. The naturalist says the mother is the master of the child in her womb. As if a human slave is not a full person. The naturalist says a woman should be able to harm anything inside her body. As if we should not try to prevent people from committing suicide. The naturalist says a child in the womb might not be able to live temporarily without life support. As if a family member who becomes temporarily incapacitated is no longer a person. The naturalist says that the child in the womb might develop a physical disability or mental impairment. As if a family member with a physical disability or mental impairment is no longer a person. The naturalist says that the child in the womb might become an orphan. As if all children in foster homes are no longer people. The naturalist says the mother has the right to choose. As if the right to killing has always trumped every person’s right to living. The naturalist says the human child in the womb has not reach the standard of being a human being and therefore is not a person. As if we are all under the scrutiny of their man-made standard of eugenics. The naturalist says if the mother kills her child it will increase her prosperity, as if child sacrifices is something new and progressive. The naturalists says over 50 million children have already been killed in the womb in the United States. As if a large number of children being killed changes the objective fact that each individual child is still a person.

What do you think is causing the skewed sex ratios of male to female in China? How much do you think it costs to kill a child in the womb in the United States? How much profit do you think a doctor makes from killing a child in the womb in the United States? Do you think that naturalists are unwilling to donate their own money to causes they claim they are deeply passionate about? Do you think that the media exaggerates the support for products and procedures that kill children in the womb? Do you think over 50 million children killed in the womb within the United States is “safe, legal, and rare”?
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/56/the-war-against-truth