Here are a couple more examples of true and false opposition, in which a hyper or exaggerated version of something becomes its very opposite:

Distributism vs. Capitalism

In conformity with modern parlance, I'm using here the term 'capitalism' to refer to our current experience of large corporate capitalism, what some might call late-stage capitalism. This is but a perverse exaggeration of a small-scale and more reasonable capitalism, what is now called distributism.

Distributism has been championed by such diverse thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Thomas Jefferson. As the name suggests, distributism puts economic and political power in many small hands, mostly at a local level. I believe it was Chesterton who said, "The problem with capitalism is not too many capitalists, but too few capitalists". The original U.S. Constitution gave the vote to landowners, as these were seen as having a legitimate stake in setting government policies. Jefferson's vision was for as many small landowners and small businesses as possible, thus distributing economic and political power widely to many legitimate stakeholders.

Distributism, or small-scale capitalism, remains the most equitable and human alternative to the false opposition of socialism vs. late-stage corporate capitalism, both of which concentrate power in the hands of a few elite. In our present unwieldy system, the humongous state controls the corporations, and the humongous corporations own the politicians, so there isn't a nickel's difference between the two ideologies, opposite though they may seem. Either way, you're a slave, whether to Walmart and Microsoft, or to bloated government bureaucracy.

Love vs. Unconditional Love

Returning to a more specifically religious theme, we've all heard the seemingly inarguable axiom: God's love is unconditional. There are no limits to his love, and nothing we can do to increase or diminish it.

Since God's love is unconditional, one might surmise, it follows that he can never be displeased with any of us; his blessings are assured, no strings attached. Whether I seek his will or go my own way, God holds me in the same high regard. Even were I to deliberately commit grave sin, and willfully reject God, he would love and embrace me all the same. In fact, if God's love is all-encompassing, perhaps there is no such thing as sin. My consciousness of wrongdoing before God is just my over-scrupulous imagination; in reality I cannot offend God at all, since he loves me no matter what. Quite obviously, then, there can be no Hell, and I can be sure of enjoying eternal life hereafter regardless of how I may have lived in this world. Even Hitler and Mussolini must be in Heaven.

But wait - can love be thrust upon someone who doesn't want it? Would that be true love? It may be better to say that love, by definition, must be freely offered, not forced upon the recipient. And if freely offered, it must be freely received and reciprocated. This means it may also be freely rejected. This is what sin is: a rejection of God's love, and of the demands of that love. We must, in fact, be able to completely and finally reject God's offer of love. This is what Hell is. Jesus, the very embodiment of God's love, warned of eternal Hell more than any other prophet or teacher of the Bible.

Moreover, an unconditional love which makes no demands, which always accepts the recipient just as he is, seems quite passive. Neither participant is expected to do much of anything; it is an agreement to just let be, much the same as indifference. But God's love is anything but passive or indifferent. Jesus loves us to the point of dying on the cross to restore our broken relationship with the Father. He requires something from us as well.

If true love makes demands, God's love, being perfect love, demands everything in return. To be sure, God knows our frail nature, and his demands are very lenient. He offers to forgive and cleanse us of our sins and gather us into his eternal home. In return, we must agree with God that our sin is evil, repent of those sins, and join ourselves completely to the crucified and risen Jesus, holding nothing back. Is this unconditional love? I think it's the opposite, and immeasurably better.

Patriarchy vs. Machismo

Patriarchy literally means 'fathers rule'. If you think 'machismo' means patriarchal, you've got another think coming. The machismo man may strut and crow like a banty rooster, but the last thing he is is a responsible father. The machismo spirit that some consider patriarchal is very compatible with feminism. If the man is cocky and irresponsible, it's probably because the woman is independent and responsible for everything, or because of socialist programs that undermine his paternal obligations.

So when feminists (or egalitarians) equate machismo with true patriarchy, they are equivocating. What at first glance seems like super-patriarchy is in reality its diametric opposite.

This pattern of false opposites shows up in a number of other interesting ways:

Freedom vs. License

Libertarianism or license may seem to be a sort of super freedom. But it is not. As the late Pope John-Paul II advised, "Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." As a matter of fact, the licentious giving of 'free' rein to all one's desires leads to an enslavement that is very akin to addiction, not its opposite at all.

Salvation vs. Universal Salvation

Easy to recognize the rejection of God in one who blasphemes or curses God. But what of the increasingly popular notion that every one will be saved, that no one can possibly be alienated from God's love? Such super-salvation is not at all what it seems to be.

Salvation is understood and gained by the sinner who perceives his own wickedness, who understands God's righteous judgment, and who then cries to God for mercy and forgiveness. Psalm 103:13 and many other scriptures remind us that God is indeed merciful - - to those who fear him.

Besides being contrary to the clear message of the Bible, universal salvation makes no logical sense. Why would God make us suffer through this valley of tears if there were no final consequences, if everyone gains the same eternal reward? Such caprice would not befit a just and loving God.

Repentance vs. Presumption

This fourth example of false opposites is almost the same as the former one. The sweet deception of universal salvation leads inexorably to the deadly sin of presumption. The soul that despairs and the soul that presumes upon God's grace both face damnation for exactly the same reason: they do not repent and seek forgiveness. The one fails to seek God's grace because he thinks himself to be too bad, beyond redemption. The other fails because he thinks himself too good, with no need for redemption. Either way is a rejection of God's merciful forgiveness.

Let the honest Christian beware of false shepherds who speak in grand, majestic and comforting terms of God's everlasting love and infinite mercy, assuring their listeners that God will never allow them to suffer perdition. Such a comforting message may well lead the soul to presume upon God's grace. But remember: Mt.7:13,14 and other Scriptures speak of two opposite roads. When the preacher speaks of an all-inclusive, none-rejecting (and, above all, tolerant) religion, toward which road is he pointing his listeners? Please do not go there.

Starting a few days ago, the comments area on Jerry's Blog now contains a few words reminding you that your comment is a public work and may be quoted, copied, and shared freely by other people. This is simply an explicit disclaimer of what was always implicit, applicable to pretty much any blog comment on the internet. What's new is that large segments of this website, including Jerry's Blog, are now protected by the Gnu General Public License (GPL). A public license is sometimes called copyleft protection. Conventional copyright means that nobody can copy the work without explicit permission. Copyleft means that the public may freely copy it, but they cannot later claim (read article)

Am planning some small website changes soon, but first want to publicly clarify another matter that is of great personal import and may also have a slight impact on the planned website changes.

My family name is DePyper, a compound, two-part surname of Belgian origin. Am not sure of the etymology; it may originally have meant something like 'the piper', as in the village flute player, or, more likely, 'of (the town of) Pyper'. Either way, 'Pyper' was the important part, and 'De' (or 'de') merely the prefix.

I grew up learning to write my family name as DePyper, but also to recognize and accept De Pyper and de Pyper (read article)

A principal symptom of psychosis, especially of schizophrenia, is a profound disconnection from reality. The patient, for emotional or organic reasons, does not relate to his surroundings in a rational manner. He often constructs his own private reality quite different from the world in which more sane folks live.

We are in the midst of the modern Dark Ages, an epoch of human history marked by a mass departure from reality. An age in which certain psychoses become acceptable because believed in by so many, perhaps by the majority. But if everybody believes in an alternate reality, does that alternative therefore become true? I think not.

100 or even 50 years ago, it (read article)

This old dog is learning a new trick. Specifically, a new math programming technique, called Fractional-Exponential Integer Math. Less complicated than it sounds. It is "a programming technique for storing and computing fractional and exponential numbers without the inaccuracies inherent to floating point numbers. . . It is precise because all numeric values are stored internally as integers."

It began for me earlier this year when I participated in an online math challenge at linuxquestions.org , my favorite online forum. My (read article)

Immediately before the Ascension of our Lord, and in the midst of his promises of the imminent outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the apostles ask Jesus this question. It seems irrelevant, and countless preachers and homilists have dismissed it as such, or as yet another example of the clueless disciples completely missing the point.

But there is nothing of a rebuke or dismissal in Jesus' answer, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons. . ." It sounds rather similar to other words of Jesus (read article)