Why do Men Like to Fight?

History of Violence

I was recently asked by a Christian woman, what I’ve come to deem the strangest question known to man. Being that I am a man, I felt inclined to give an answer.

She asked me, “Why does “MAN,” love to fight?”

In truth this question was targeted to the male population. This was only revealed after I ignored her question and she prodded me further by asking a much more targeted question, “Why do “Men,” LOVE to fight?” 

With the years of movies, television shows, news reports, stories of wars in far away places, and the interpersonal relationships of her own life~ which she would suggest she was never violent to anyone, stanchly keeping to her Christian principals of “turning the other cheek,” upon any form of confrontation; she truly was at a loss of understanding death and a “MAN’s” need to kill. Believing if a woman kills she is of a reprobate mind and deserving an asylum, for violence is never justified. (In her mind.)

Living in America all these years she still weeps for the Native American and believes none of them had a chance to know Jesus and that’s why they chose to kill, opposed to seek peaceful relations with the American invaders.

I only had one answer that sums up our American history and propensity toward violence when terms of peace have been violated; “Self-preservation;” becomes the great equalizer in our realm of chaotic reasoning.” No one likes to fight, in all honesty. Very few really can. No longer do we live in a feudal society, yet when we are placed in feudalistic circumstances, self-preservation becomes one’s only measure of justification. Cowboys did not like killing Indians any more than the Stick up man enjoys having to live the life on the run, avoiding a smoking gun. Self-preservation equalizes all involved.

In our light discussion this Christian woman has been known to compare me to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Much to my annoyance. She has seen me as a man of two eyes, the left dim and grey and unfeeling the right full of fire and green with passion.

Yet wouldn’t anyone suffer these twinges of feelings if they are made to incessantly repeat themselves. Nothing new expected from their lives. Living in the past, unable to complete the story they’ve begun. Hyde would raid the towns at night seeking the freedom he experienced as a solider of the Queens Army, and when he returned home was stuffed into the belly of the whale that was the vault of Jekyll’s mind. At some point we were to expect the break down of history. Then I think of my own, a mind filled to the brim with art depicting a freedom I’ll never truly obtain, acquired once; yearn for daily and must shove back into the vault of reason, lest I am to be seen as a demon like Hyde. It would be different if Jekyll’s psychosis was not based upon a plausible reality~ none would offend me, by comparing me to that monster~ Instead, they would have seen me as a man who lost something and help me in finding it. Thinking of Hyde I am always made to wonder if he ever found peace~ I’d have to re-read his story to remember.

For “Violence is in Our Nature,” and “Art of War,” I chose the image as an illustration to speak upon a topic that has shown it’s face culturally in America and world wide. A nature that is as violent as the weather and equally a sensation that must subside according to it’s own will. “Why do men like to fight?” is nearly as unexplainable as the diamond that crashed in the Sudan desert in 2008. Oh scientist have devised a story; and I could do the same, in hopes of assuaging your mind and giving you an answer. Whether it is believable or not; well that can only be determined by what it is you really want to believe.

I’ve proposed, “self-preservation,” is the only motivation for MAN’S desire to struggle. Yet somehow the answers that come easiest deter us from accepting them. We dig deeper into history, into the mind of  a person; Jodie Aries for instance, imprisoned for murder; Never asking what drove her. Condemning her  to the lot destiny of killers.  Men and women protest the violence of the Gaza Strip; arrested for speaking against the deaths of Palestinians; which I find interesting; “They would risk being called traitors by their own political state? Risk their own self-preservation and of their countrymen?” (The contradiction is unbelievable and that is why it is broadcasted.)

Men bleed and die in hopes of self-preservation and the selfless (though very few in number, are imprisoned for ignoring a natural human reaction.) Why do men like to fight? I am a military brat that was not accepted into the Army as a Warrant Officer (one who flies helicopters) because I would teach ROTC cadets in my time of University studies that our leaders discourse upon Leadership was flawed. Where they taught “Good Leaders Know How To Follow.” I taught, “Good Leaders Know How To Think In Pursuit Of The Best Interests Of The Group.” This was the wrong, but correct thing to say in a cadets training course. Wrong because as the Corps would have it; Leadership was based upon who could follow orders, good or bad. Not upon who could obtain the goal placed upon the group. The structure was not based upon whether a mission was fruitful but whether one would do what they were told. Regardless of how one morally felt about the terms and conditions of one’s employ. I told the class and instructors as such; and though I analyzed correctly; I was told I was wrong to suggest good leadership took thought.

I am methodical because those whom pose a threat to anyone’s safety, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are even more methodical in how they can cause harm and keep a positive light shining upon their cause. Those seeking to conquer the innocent pursue quickly and with a vast determination out of fear and the formulated doctrine of “self-preservation.” I was not given the honor of serving my country. (I do see it as an honor.) Yet you would not believe the number of times I’ve had a gun in my face by a man desiring to kill me, simply because I had what he wanted or because he “heard” I was offended.

That last statement always threw me for a loop; L’ll o’d me was enough of a threat to a man to where he believed taking my life would ensure his own. Darwinist’s & Burton “Russellites,” have the same flawed mentality.  Garrett Hardin, the ecologists explained it best; in his discourse commonly known as, “King of the Hill.” He compares the human community to the socio-economic cycle of plants and weeds. He believed when, “Man,” colonized themselves into groups in order to cultivate the most from their devised social order; anything outside of the “norm” was to be seen as a “weed.” “Man” seeks to protect it’s self interests (crops) from the encroaching nature of the “weed;” in hopes of achieving the best social order from what lies beneath; the resources that keep life going. Self preserving structures of thought that if you don’t root up the weed, protecting the King of the Hill, the crop dies and the weed thrives.

This was proposed to be the “natural reflection,” of the nature of modern and past man. Incessantly seeking to retain the best resources and crop and preserving the Hill or best life. If it was not done; according to these modern thinkers, you’d not have much of a crop.

I always defended man against this thought under the belief that we are not plants to be lined in rows, to be eaten by the “King of the Hill.” This of course does not change the fact that ecologists have tirelessly sought to write dissertations of this nature to defend genocide.

Am I a monk? a Pacifist? A Priest?

All of which are asked in hopes of binding the hands of a man who is entitled to the same “self-preserving,” fire as the man whom would talk of flowers and weeds.

2 Kings 9:22, Psalms 72.

Where “Man’s” nature is predicated upon self-preservation and the war with flesh. God’s nature is decreed in Matthew 18. A nature he commands of man in order to reach heaven.

Coinciding art work for a lot of our topic discussions can be found @ https://adventvoice.newgrounds.com/

At that site we like to have in-depth discussions about the art and the motivations behind them.

Recently we were discussing the implications of giving Pulitzer Prizes to individuals that have built  portfolio’s that justifies the very mindset many of them would claim they could not personally condone in public.

We are believers in the freedom of expression, but we frown upon the cheering of hypocrisy.



Silence is Acquiescence

I wrote an article that I really wanted to save for April Fools Day. I wanted to publish it on the very day and honestly I wanted to have another publisher take the lead and showcase the story to the world. In hopes that more would read it and not feel I held any biasedness or there was something untoward in the discussion.

I reference  https://avproductionsblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/31/digital-stick-up-kids/.

Nothing happened.

When I say that, I mean no one from those companies that I spoke of had anything to add. They did not answer emails. There was no discussion of false accusation. There was no defense given on there behalf and they did not even seek to rectify there behavior. No apologies where given for the misunderstanding. Why?

Nothing was misunderstood. They robbed, felt they got away with a scheme and who will believe the account of one individual, one publisher, once source of knowledge?

It is the very same issue the writers of the bible face to this day, with entities such as the History Channel and leading minds in the institutions dedicated to knowledge.

Can you see how everything falls back to a righteousness singularly equated to the tenants of the BIBLE.

Usury is inexcusable but somehow we always justify it and when we are asked about it, only our shame can answer for us.     is quoted in suggesting she feels like a trash person. When if truth if she never decided to live the life she is living, she would not feel like a trash person. There are many that feel they have to live a certain way and feel like trash because of their behavior, never coming to realize to amazing power at their finger tips; in the power of “REPENTANCE,” “FORGIVENESS,” & “UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.”

These where to gifts offered by Jesus when he died on the cross for us. A death none of us would have been willing to do for a single person. Not even our own family.

I was really expecting some sort of retaliation. This is a very human response. To hear nothing from a single person, who is liable and accused of robbing a man of his time and patience, that shows forth a callousness I was not ready for and why I entitled this page Silence is Acquiescence. If they are not set to defend themselves to change the course of the accusation, then by all means one should continue on the path of truth and declare with all joy how the Lord shall fight for me and when he takes hold of the situation, woe to those whom touch GOD’s anointed.

Nothing good comes from these methods we decide to take upon ourselves for the sake of a pride that so easily besets us. We suggest that when we are wronged; all we can do is pray for those that persecute. As if it is the least action one can take and nothing else will avail you. When in truth it is the first action any believer must take and it is the best. When we can watch the hand of GOD move in our favor; then can we be like Joseph and profess what our enemies meant for evil, GOD meant for our good.

What a joy our reason Lord truly is.

With God there is never silence.

Only peace.


This has been a moment with your Advent Voice.

Undisputed and Uncontested!

When we leave things undisputed, when we remain silent on issues and allow them to run there course; in the search of a peaceful solution we are believing in ourselves that, we have done the world a favor. When in truth we have left ourselves open to a truth Jesus held very firm to when contesting the scribes and Pharisees, whom had the keys to the Holy Spirit and never used it, nor allowed others the right to it.

When we claim to have truth and hold onto it because others are not ready to receive it; or we feel they will not receive it from us, we stifle the gift of Truth and are made to wrestle as the unbeliever. Did not Pilate ask what is Truth and have the answer before him?

Dear History Channel,                                                                                                                                    3/28/2018


Jesus~ his Life and Story~

Professors of bible studies like Wayne Meeks at the University of Yale; E.P. Sanders; a historian who claims Jesus to be no more than a small rabble-rouser of the gospels; Bart Ehrman, professor of biblical studies at the University of Chapel Hill NC; professing the writers of the gospels probably altered the stories to fit prophecy; Have deliberately spit in the face of GOD and speak as the Pharisees and Sanhedrin and the emissaries of Rome during, “HIS,” time. A time the bible accounts for.

Is this irony? Is this human nature? Did Jesus and his disciples not tell you what would be decided upon the ushering of his coming. Did he not tell you they would deny me?

I pray for the souls of the men that would take the very stance of hypocritical men; that were buried in the rubble of the Roman Empire. If we are made to question the validity of the bible and it’s truths, why do we not challenge the account of every man that called himself king before Brutus, Ete Brute’d Cesar! Deliberately fictionalizing the faith, text, and structure of Christianity will not eliminate it’s truth or relevancy in your very real world. They are the kind of men that would read the account of Luke Chapter 23; witness the mockery he endured and place themselves in league with the very rulers spoken of in Luke 23: 35-37- If thou be the King of the Jews, save thyself.

Why would you blatantly lie on (page 22) and suggest Jesus never came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets of Judaism? Why do you insist Christianity to be a radical religiousness, when both the Torah, the Old Testament Gospels and the New Testament, fulfill (complete) themselves as the proclamations of GOD!

Professor John Dominic Crossavi claims to be a scholar of the Gospels but contradicts them?

Men like E.P. Sanders prove the contextual strength of Psalms 107; his pitiful discourse on (page 29) makes me suggest A wise man answers not a fool according to his folly lest he is seen wise in his own conceit: Proverbs 26: 4-5

In Mark 8: 27-30 Peter calls him “The Christ,” he solidifies his separation of Judaism and the need of the existence of an ideal that encourages rebirth and Christendom. It is that very moment each of the disciples begin to understand immortality through the presence of their Holy God in the flesh. It was more than Messianic indoctrination, it was pure Christendom born, later to be inacted in the book of Acts. Again E.P. Sanders is a fool that believes man dawned from apes or a cosmic speck. Fearing the idea that GOD; the very creator of the universe placed his feet in Israel.

Paula Fredriksen, professor of the appreciation of scriptures at Boston University suggests a very base ideal of Pontus Pilate many would not have gleaned from scriptures; raising questions as to how a man could be as cold hearted and unfeeling toward the cause of Jesus as one that says, “He finds no fault in the man?” Washing his hands clean of a crucifixion he was reluctant to give? (page 38). Interesting how learned men parade around their unbelief and call it truth. James Tabor professor of religious studies at the North Carolina University of Charlotte and his account of the Didache is tiresome, especially for those that can read as well as he. Bruce Chilton of Bard College and E.P. Sanders know very well why the resurrection and the Gospel of Jesus Christ was so significant to anyone that heard it. Because before the testimony of Christ; there was no hope of an everlasting after death. The Greeks in all of their philosophizing could not offer the absolution Jesus offered. Hades and Hell was all anyone ever knew, and there is still no source of immortality offered to those that believe in it as powerful as the Gospel of Christ, given to the Jew first and graciously opened to the Gentile.

(Page 52) is the very reason you have sought to write. Supplanting subjective lies about Christianity as a whole. With the sole purpose of ebbing it out of existence. For Christianity proclaimed the earth to be a circle while you remain in the past debating if the world is flat!

(page 71) Religious Autonomy?!

Elaine Pagels, professor at Princeton University, suggests 85% of literature was destroyed throughout history. Making me ask, “But Christianity survived, and Israel still reigns?!”

The Gospel of Mary, does not agree with the second coming of Jesus?! Carl Schmidt is not accused of losing anything in the midst of translation as modern Christianity is, but A Gospel only published since 1955 is an accredited source of knowledge?!

(Page 78) please explain to me how a Catholic Pope; Pope Gregory is to be considered a spokesperson for Christianity?

(Page 84) is the worst depiction of history I’ve ever heard!

Paganism, unlike Christianity, was tolerant of other religions and often incorporated elements of other religions?! Pliny the Younger proposed execution but it was the fault of the Christian’s because they would not honor false gods?!

Robert W Funk of the Jesus Seminar seek to unify the canon’s of Thomas with the Gospels for the past 30 years in search of unifying the Homosexual Community with Christianity, but for years the BOOK OF ENOCH has been ignored by ALL?!

You have been an affront to the decency of REASON, the path to knowledge and sponsors of a the very confusion that is our Liberal present. Where the BIBLE rights the oars of the lost, you’ve sought to keep men and women floundering in vain discussions of what has already been proven to be sound judgment. With no other motivations besides purging the world of the one hope to peace and forgiveness.


A humble servant,

Advent Voice