Never tell yourself you're a loser, even if others do it. There is no shame in defeat, but there is plenty of shame in self pity. Always bear this in mind: It is wise to recognise inferiority, for it prepares you to excel in face of adversity.

On Free Will

If life were a game, and God the Writer of the rules, then free will would be a rule in the game and God, as Dealer and Game-Master, would not need to cheat the players to know the outcome. The rules being so intimately His, it would be logical for Him to be able to foresee every outcome. This in no way undoes the freedom of the players to choose their moves. It simply makes them predictable.

On Free Will

The question of free will is indeed a problem because it empowers Man to do evil and pursue wickedness and then blame God for the outcome. Conversely, it also empowers us to choose to be better and grow.

While I will vouch for obvious common ground between Judaism, Christianity and Islam without hesitation, I do not think that syncretism between those who believe in reincarnation and those who do not is possible at all.

It is my firm belief today that, if governments were to be committed at all with the people they govern, the salaries and benefits of government officials, ministers and top management in governmental institutions should at all times be proportional to the country’s GDP. In that manner, they would grow or shrink as a function of how well the economy is flowing. If their reward is directly proportional to the performance of the country's economy, it should follow then that they would take great care to select only people of competence to occupy positions of leadership, and that a country’s leaders would police one another in order that one’s ineptitude would not affect another’s diligent work. It may also follow that the people’s perception of their leaders would improve knowing that they are as directly affected by the welfare of the nation as the regular working people. As to corruption: it would certainly endure, but the cost of it to the people would be diminished.

Historically, a professional or mercenary army is always easier to spend than one made up of conscripted citizens and patriots, and if you have one, you have to use it from time to time lest you'd have a problem in your hands. An army of conscripted citizens is inherently more concientiously deployed. Conversely, an army of patriots is inherently a defensive force and can never be used for invasion.

In the absence of true affinity, social salvoirfaire is desirable. Likewise, in the absence of genuine respect for life, respect out of fear the threat of punishment is a fair substitute. If one will not preserve me out of love, they will respect me out of fear.

There is rule of Law, and there is rule of conscience. Law governs a people via threat of force and punishment, conscience governs self via moral values. I accept that no religious doctrine and no moral value can be forcibly imposed without generating conflict. Yet, they can and must be heartily defended in a just and coherent fashion. A self professed Christian cannot abide abortion, unjust war, consumerism, homossexual behaviour, polygamy, pornography and other choices that go against his/her belief. Neither can a Christian suffer to see those that do chose such paths violated or trampled in their right to chose such paths according to their conscience. A Christian must hate the "evil act" whilst loving the "misguided person". There can be no compromise. There is a fine line between defence of Faith and a tyranny of the intolerant. The latter is the most common in both religious and anti-religious groups, but even more so among anti-religious minorities.

Governments the world over are redefining social relationships and ethics at the expense of expressive conservative groups and moral traditions. The initiative, though applauded by the naive and the gullible as progressive, reeks of totalitarianism and self-interest.

On Feminism

Whether or not the Feminist movement started out as a reaction to injustice and abuse, the truth remains that it went astray. The radicalism that took over organised Feminism resembles the injustice it once fought. No good comes from unleashed hatred. I'm not saying feminists are wrong at all in pursuing female dignity and opportunities for female professionals. However, the level of indignity at some of the issues raised by Radical Feminism is justified and in others it is disproportionate. Radical feminists seem to throw in the same pot felonies, misdemeanours and commonplace affairs and this only makes everything reek of blind rage. In my view, this is what weakens the ultimate goal of Feminism as a whole. The same is true of other contemporary movements. For instance, I currently don't live in the US, but I can tell you from when I visit and from the American women in my social circles, that the relationships between men and women in the US have been somewhat compromised by the manner in which defence of feminine dignity has been pursued in that country to-date. It became tainted and artificial in some very natural points, utlimately compromising the enjoyment of a straightforward relationship by either party. Also, the whole issue of “being the same” has, in some level, led to groups of women pursuing promiscuity (of the same kind that is condemnable in licentious men), which does not become the very dignity that is desired by feminist women. As I said, the message was corrupted along the way. It needs to be redressed and rebuilt. You have to fight a monster without becoming one. To me, the ideal between genders is not independence at all, but interdependence. This is what empowers both within the same dignity. Two halves of one whole. Slightly different in nature, but equal in worth.

"Seven social sins: politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi And we are doing it all.

On The Constant Siege of Christianity

Seriously, illustrating Christianity by using examples of bad Christians who don't follow Christ's example or Christian doctrine is no good. Shall we start digging for bad feminists, bad homossexuals, bad atheists etc. throughout history (I'm sure there are a few)? It's like illustrating Medicine via poor doctors, Engineering via bridges that fell, Art via unskilled paintors, Music via Rap (yeah, I kind of don' like Rap music, though I think hip-hop is fine). I can tell you from my experience that for every rotten apple, there are basquetfulls of good Christians out there.

On Accountability

If you pay a tax to a government, and that government uses the money to pursue something that is utterly iniquitous, are you still accountable? I say you are, if you were aware of their policy when you fuelled their coffers. If you elect a politician and that politician pursues iniquitous acts, are you co-responsible? I say you will be insofar as you were aware that such wrongdoings were part of the politician’s agenda. If you follow orders from a superior and those orders are iniquitous, will you be absolved of the wrongdoing? No. A man may rightfully command another, but each man is accountable for his own acts.

Why is it that some people just feel a need to come to your face and say that your religious beliefs are wrong? Does it in any way change anything at all? I find that the most insistent and vexing anti-religious interlocutors are those who have no solid theological, scientific or even philosophic basis with which to challenge my Faith. All they have is guilt and the will to do away with it.

On Homossexualism

Until 1973, homosexuality was recognized as a disorder. After 1973 the matter became political and no longer scientific, so scientific argument was compromised entirely and I won't even go into that. Homossexuality was (and sometimes still is) regarded as a deviation of the natural norm. Frankly, it is isn't it? If we take away all the propaganda and all the moral onus that's associated with the issue, everyone KNOWS it is not the natural norm to be homossexual just as it isn't normal to be a paedophilic (distinctive clinical causes notwithstanding). That having been said, I personally feel that, unlike paedophelia, pursuing homossexuality is an issue of individual conscience insofar as it affects adult individuals who decide about their lives "conscientiously". No one has a right to PERSECUTE homossexuals socially just as no one has a right to IMPOSE homossexuality on Society or any subgroup thereof. This should NEVER have become a legal issue. I believe it did solely on account of interested parties. It is indeed hard to be a homossexual. I've homossexual friends who accept their inclinations and those who don't. Of those that accept them, some act upon them and others refrain. They all have a hard time dealing with the reprecursions of their choices. That I may have friends with different lifestyles, beliefs and divergeant sexual orientation does not mean that I agree with them on all their choices. I may like the person, respect their choices and still disagree. Likewise, disagreeing with any stranger about their choices does not immediately mean that I nurture any resentment toward them. Is that such a difficult concept to understand?

On all issues of modern moral controversy: It must be said that making something LEGAL doesn't necessarily reflect that it will also be MORAL or RIGHT. More often than not, it merely means it is CONVENIENT.