When I was growing up, there was a cliché saying, “Don’t take candy from strangers.” Even though it wasn’t explained nearly as much as it was repeated it was universally understood that it implied that there were bad people out there that would entice you with tasty treats… To what end was left the imagination.
Even though my generation who was raised on the true story TV mini series of Adam Walsh’s terrible kidnapping in the 80’s, we haven’t seemed to have taken anything away from the repeating of that cliché…
Don’t take Candy from strangers… seems simple enough. However, in November 2008 the American people hungry for proof that they were not the bigoted people that the Left of this country slander them as elected a stranger… a marketed black American that delivered a confident smile, a GQ look, and a handful of candy referred to as “Hope and Change”….
In December of this year in Copenhagen there is a summit planned to try to solve the believed issue of Global Warming (despite the almost 9 year cold trend that has contradicted all Global Warming computer models)… However this summit has with it a sting that wont effect any climate that has to do with weather but instead change the economic climate of the world in an irreversible forfeiting of sovereignty by the U.S. African and Latin countries have draw up a plan of a world government that would have jurisdiction over the carbon emissions of ANY country (including the U.S.) further that the larger industrial countries must pay reparations to developing countries for “damaging the earth”…
It goes without saying that in general the most depraved of all countries are in those conditions not because of Global Warming but because of their grossly corrupt governments… Africa and Latin America have more natural resources at their disposal than any other developed country yet there almost systematic transfer of power from warlord to dictator to thug keeps their countries from ever becoming anything other than third-world charity magnets… To add insult to injury to the abused people of these countries their loss of life, lack of food and general impoverished state are used to demonstrate the desperate need for these reparations yet, it is in Africa that the very environmentalist who use the photos of these people to create sympathy with one hand, and with the other deny them the use of DDT and pesticides for their crops. They do this by denying them aid if they do not abide by the strict rules environmentalists set… In Africa alone more than 50,000,000 people have died of malaria since the ban on DDT began…
In the U.S. there is a different contradiction… The United States has the will, the resources and the know-how to create a network of nuclear power plants that would decrease our “carbon footprint” by over 70% yet EVERY single environmental agency is against it. Rather than use 1 square mile for a power plant, they’d rather carpet the U.S. with towering windmills and 10’s of thousands of square miles of solar panels that require more water for cleaning than most small countries. Almost worse than that you have farms tearing out crops that could be used for food and planting corns and sugar field to get Federal subsidies for bio fuels. Ironically it takes 4 gallons of regular fuel to produce 1 gallon of bio-fuel. In fact if the “bio-fuel” industry had to run on bio-fuel it would be out of business before it started.
All the lies and contradictions of environmentalism aside the most striking of all is the shocking resemblance environmentalism has with good ol’ fashion communism.
How is it that the redistribution of wealth is the answer to what the Left feel is a “global crisis”?
More and more Obama officials are being outted as either former members of a communist party or out right describe their affections for communist leaders.
The United States is a land bless with prosperity because of the rights and liberties given to its citizens… But these rights and liberties will be stripped away by a world government lead by the most corrupt of third world countries who will tax us and cripple us in the name of environmentalism… All that stands between our great country and them is a weak kneed president drunk on his own adulation, but worse a president who favors their opinions and views over what is best for the American people…
Barack Obama feels that America owes the world a debt… He feels that Global Warming is a real crisis and has been emboldened by his newly acquired Nobel Prize.
What did America get by taking candy from this stranger?
On August 10th 1981 the severed head of a 6-year-old boy by the name of Adam Walsh was found in a Vero Beach, Florida canal… His remains were never recovered.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Defanging the Radical
The book that keeps getting talked about so much as the “Obama play book”,
Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” has been in my back pack for the past couple weeks… Like a snack I keep picking away at it, but like the wrong kind of snack its is sometimes too much to digest. This entry is not so much a book review as much as it is a warning of things to come…
“Rules for Radicals” is a freighting look into a delusional author’s distorted view of the world. To hear leaders today of the Democrat Party openly quote Alinsky or allow them selves to be deemed “alinkyites” without correction is even further reason to be afraid for the future. These casual associations being made by the Democratic leadership of far-Leftist ideologues is a new emboldened face of their party. It is nothing more than a showing of their un-American agenda and the comfort they feel they have with the climate of American people to show their true colors. Paul Alinsky by no hidden means in “Rules for Radicals” lists tactics for the misguided Left to dupe their fellow American people in believing the “anti-establishment/anti capitalism” vomit of the 60’s. At least Karl Marx was straight forward about his desire to overturn capitalism… Alinsky on the other hand, like the Democrat Party understands that their ideas are unpopular and realize they have to mask them to gain any popular support.
What motivates people like this to want to tear down the very society that gives them their definition of what a great country should be? Alinskyites and Alinsky him self use generalized statements that are and dishonest to their values of America’s past greatness as a motivating factor to “return” to those times. Yet America’s greatness was realized because of all the things these Leftists fools so adamantly abhor, like success, and free market capitalism, profit, and individual liberty. Alinsky foolishly accuses “the older generation” of being trapped in the machine of capitalism, projecting a degree of naïveté on them, believing that they cannot even see the tangled web they are in. He goes so far as to describe America as chasing false truths of the suburban nuclear family, implying that these people are forced into drugs and alcohol abuse to tranquilize the need they have for individuality that their choices don’t allow. Alinsky’s tactic is that of making his reader think that his or her family is the acception to the rule when in fact HIS description of the “trapped” family is. Ironically his call for individuality is instead a call for enslavement to a system where the logical conclusion is that of pure identity-less Communism or social-fascism.
As a unstable catalyst to his lies, he falsely empowers the most vulnerable of Americans, “the-ready-fire-aim” emotionally driven “youth” as ambassadors of “progress”, describing them as the audience to the destruction by apathy their parent inaugurate, bolstering their egos and playing on their narcissism to believe that they can see past the lies of the world around them. It’s further ironic that Alinsky was speaking to the baby boomer generation… a generation known for being born of not only our most patriotic Americans but also of a generation who sacrificed greatly for Liberty. He recruits a generation of children who have basked in the sun of their forbearer’s successes without any knowledge of the work it took to get to that destination. These are his soldiers of an all too familiar call for undefined “change”… to change the system by infiltrating the system. Then in doing so you initiate “change”… However, change according to the theories of what you (the radical) feels is needed… not what actually is needed, if anything…
Some might say that this process is democracy at work but they would be terribly mistaken. Democracy is the free exchange of ideologies, policies, and open debate where the public or electoral college can determine which of the candidates would run the country better according to their own principles. Democracy can only thrive in an environment where actual ideas can exchange. Yet in Alinsky’s world, and in Obama’s world (the radical‘s tactic) is one that uses recognizable accepted Conservative phraseology like "competition" and "choice" to distract Americans and disguise the far-Left/Statists agenda of equality over liberty... America was founded on individuals who were given the rights and opportunity to succeed...
If in fact "competition" and "choice" were a value to Democrats, why would they fight so venomously against competition in public schools by not supporting school vouchers when the public system is failing so badly? Why would they be against competition in the job market and abandon their racially based and gender based quotas? Why would they be against competition in Social Security and help privatizing retirement savings account programs so that people may be able to keep more of their money in their family rather it going to a government pot? Why would they want to regulate talk radio to silence views opposed to their own? Or, why would they be against deregulating health insurance so they can sell across state lines and ACTUALLY increase competition?
The reason is Democrats do not support these things because "competition" and "choice" are as far from their agenda as efficiency or success is from ANY government program. Which is why our founding fathers worked to create a LIMTED government one that is very apposed to the monster Democrats since F.D.R. have created.
These Leftists live in a made up world where lying about their end goals is just a means to an end and is a small wrong compared to the vast crimes against humanity they feel capitalism has committed… Ironically most of what they oppose is the product of a market contaminate by quasi-socialist policies that redistribute wealth and allow for corruption in vast government bureaucracies. They fight a disproportionate war against reason in that to lie or hide the true motivation for their initiatives is justifiable to their cause. Truth is not a value to the Left. It only stands as an inconvenience to their “progress”. They feel they know better than the individual American who believes working hard, saving money, and being responsible for them self is the most patriotic of choices. In fact they despise those Americans and accuse them as being part of the “angry Right”… They take the imaginary position of “Government knows better than you” believing their own lies and excuse away those who strive for financial stability and a comfortable life. These delusions are nothing less than religious as they are not at all diminished when confronted by factual evidence that would argue other wise. But, it is in these delusions that we see the chaos these Statists wish to create. They know that it is in chaos that Americans will become desperate for change… no matter how foreign to our American heritage.
Today’s Left cannot compete on issues because they know that they do not have the public’s immediate interests in mind. If you look at Social Security, welfare, Income tax… All have become swollen mutated monsters from the original plan of each initiative. Medicare is more than 10 times what its was predicted to be and is going bankrupt while giving the lowest standard of health care to its users.
The Democrats agenda is a slow poison. They start with just a little and build on it like water slowly boiling. Obama in a 2002 speech said that getting to Universal Health Care by way of a public option and it would be a long road claiming the need for little steps… Juxtapose that to what he is saying today that Universal healthcare is not the goal but “competition” is… Which is just like his claim at the State of the Union where he said he was “not for a bigger government” while he is continuing to increasing its size more than any other president before him… The Left (including our current President) claim to love America but only see a history of imperialism. They claim to be patriotic yet believe that America was not only founded on but is ramped with racism. They claim to value The Constitution yet completely dismiss any ideas of a Creator from which we derive The Bill of Rights from, further saying that it is a “living breathing document” rendering its wisdom and direction completely relative according to its interpreter. They claim to stand for freedom but work to silence through government fiat anyone who freely tries to practice those freedoms apposed to their own. They claim to love democracy yet slander their opponents to the point of humiliation and a retreat from public life. They claim to work for the people but then create the intricate bureaucracies and unions that act as cattle chutes so that people only go where they allow.
The Democratic Party is blindly against anything that Republicans want. Any one Republicans elect is considered by The Democrats to be racist, a bigot, homophobic, an “Uncle-Tom”, xenophobic, sexist, or any other slanderous title you can give someone… They have become experts at projecting their faults unto Republicans by demanding that Republicans are guilty of everything that they themselves actually are doing with zero accountability from most every media source. The Democrat Party have become profits who predict the doom they themselves orchestrate.
They claim that the Republican Party is a party of racism yet the Republican Part’s main charter at its conception was to abolish slavery, further that historically Democrats have stood in the way of every vote for Black equality. From The Emancipation Proclamation to Brown vs. Board of Education… Almost all votes in The House or The Senate that concerned the equality of minorities or women were party line votes with Democrats on the wrong side of history. Every bill brought to the House since the birth our nation from the Dred Scott decision to voting against the Civil Rights Act; anything that subjected black Americans was sponsored by Democrats. On June 10th 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat) began an over 14-hour filibuster opposing the legislation for Civil Rights Act. Robert Byrd still serves as a senator to this day for the Democrat Party.
The Democrats have slandered the Republicans, calling them “a party of tyranny”. Yet, it is Republican dogma that government is the problem and work toward reducing government keeping it out of people’s lives and wallets. Contrary to that set of principles, the Democrats see all solutions with a larger government but has yet to produce one efficient government program. Today’s voter has to decide between a party who’s philosophies are contrary to the lessons of history, that government is the answer or the philosophies of a party who’s policies have built this land of opportunity, the party that believes government is the problem, the party that believes individual responsibility is the answer.
Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” has been in my back pack for the past couple weeks… Like a snack I keep picking away at it, but like the wrong kind of snack its is sometimes too much to digest. This entry is not so much a book review as much as it is a warning of things to come…
“Rules for Radicals” is a freighting look into a delusional author’s distorted view of the world. To hear leaders today of the Democrat Party openly quote Alinsky or allow them selves to be deemed “alinkyites” without correction is even further reason to be afraid for the future. These casual associations being made by the Democratic leadership of far-Leftist ideologues is a new emboldened face of their party. It is nothing more than a showing of their un-American agenda and the comfort they feel they have with the climate of American people to show their true colors. Paul Alinsky by no hidden means in “Rules for Radicals” lists tactics for the misguided Left to dupe their fellow American people in believing the “anti-establishment/anti capitalism” vomit of the 60’s. At least Karl Marx was straight forward about his desire to overturn capitalism… Alinsky on the other hand, like the Democrat Party understands that their ideas are unpopular and realize they have to mask them to gain any popular support.
What motivates people like this to want to tear down the very society that gives them their definition of what a great country should be? Alinskyites and Alinsky him self use generalized statements that are and dishonest to their values of America’s past greatness as a motivating factor to “return” to those times. Yet America’s greatness was realized because of all the things these Leftists fools so adamantly abhor, like success, and free market capitalism, profit, and individual liberty. Alinsky foolishly accuses “the older generation” of being trapped in the machine of capitalism, projecting a degree of naïveté on them, believing that they cannot even see the tangled web they are in. He goes so far as to describe America as chasing false truths of the suburban nuclear family, implying that these people are forced into drugs and alcohol abuse to tranquilize the need they have for individuality that their choices don’t allow. Alinsky’s tactic is that of making his reader think that his or her family is the acception to the rule when in fact HIS description of the “trapped” family is. Ironically his call for individuality is instead a call for enslavement to a system where the logical conclusion is that of pure identity-less Communism or social-fascism.
As a unstable catalyst to his lies, he falsely empowers the most vulnerable of Americans, “the-ready-fire-aim” emotionally driven “youth” as ambassadors of “progress”, describing them as the audience to the destruction by apathy their parent inaugurate, bolstering their egos and playing on their narcissism to believe that they can see past the lies of the world around them. It’s further ironic that Alinsky was speaking to the baby boomer generation… a generation known for being born of not only our most patriotic Americans but also of a generation who sacrificed greatly for Liberty. He recruits a generation of children who have basked in the sun of their forbearer’s successes without any knowledge of the work it took to get to that destination. These are his soldiers of an all too familiar call for undefined “change”… to change the system by infiltrating the system. Then in doing so you initiate “change”… However, change according to the theories of what you (the radical) feels is needed… not what actually is needed, if anything…
Some might say that this process is democracy at work but they would be terribly mistaken. Democracy is the free exchange of ideologies, policies, and open debate where the public or electoral college can determine which of the candidates would run the country better according to their own principles. Democracy can only thrive in an environment where actual ideas can exchange. Yet in Alinsky’s world, and in Obama’s world (the radical‘s tactic) is one that uses recognizable accepted Conservative phraseology like "competition" and "choice" to distract Americans and disguise the far-Left/Statists agenda of equality over liberty... America was founded on individuals who were given the rights and opportunity to succeed...
If in fact "competition" and "choice" were a value to Democrats, why would they fight so venomously against competition in public schools by not supporting school vouchers when the public system is failing so badly? Why would they be against competition in the job market and abandon their racially based and gender based quotas? Why would they be against competition in Social Security and help privatizing retirement savings account programs so that people may be able to keep more of their money in their family rather it going to a government pot? Why would they want to regulate talk radio to silence views opposed to their own? Or, why would they be against deregulating health insurance so they can sell across state lines and ACTUALLY increase competition?
The reason is Democrats do not support these things because "competition" and "choice" are as far from their agenda as efficiency or success is from ANY government program. Which is why our founding fathers worked to create a LIMTED government one that is very apposed to the monster Democrats since F.D.R. have created.
These Leftists live in a made up world where lying about their end goals is just a means to an end and is a small wrong compared to the vast crimes against humanity they feel capitalism has committed… Ironically most of what they oppose is the product of a market contaminate by quasi-socialist policies that redistribute wealth and allow for corruption in vast government bureaucracies. They fight a disproportionate war against reason in that to lie or hide the true motivation for their initiatives is justifiable to their cause. Truth is not a value to the Left. It only stands as an inconvenience to their “progress”. They feel they know better than the individual American who believes working hard, saving money, and being responsible for them self is the most patriotic of choices. In fact they despise those Americans and accuse them as being part of the “angry Right”… They take the imaginary position of “Government knows better than you” believing their own lies and excuse away those who strive for financial stability and a comfortable life. These delusions are nothing less than religious as they are not at all diminished when confronted by factual evidence that would argue other wise. But, it is in these delusions that we see the chaos these Statists wish to create. They know that it is in chaos that Americans will become desperate for change… no matter how foreign to our American heritage.
Today’s Left cannot compete on issues because they know that they do not have the public’s immediate interests in mind. If you look at Social Security, welfare, Income tax… All have become swollen mutated monsters from the original plan of each initiative. Medicare is more than 10 times what its was predicted to be and is going bankrupt while giving the lowest standard of health care to its users.
The Democrats agenda is a slow poison. They start with just a little and build on it like water slowly boiling. Obama in a 2002 speech said that getting to Universal Health Care by way of a public option and it would be a long road claiming the need for little steps… Juxtapose that to what he is saying today that Universal healthcare is not the goal but “competition” is… Which is just like his claim at the State of the Union where he said he was “not for a bigger government” while he is continuing to increasing its size more than any other president before him… The Left (including our current President) claim to love America but only see a history of imperialism. They claim to be patriotic yet believe that America was not only founded on but is ramped with racism. They claim to value The Constitution yet completely dismiss any ideas of a Creator from which we derive The Bill of Rights from, further saying that it is a “living breathing document” rendering its wisdom and direction completely relative according to its interpreter. They claim to stand for freedom but work to silence through government fiat anyone who freely tries to practice those freedoms apposed to their own. They claim to love democracy yet slander their opponents to the point of humiliation and a retreat from public life. They claim to work for the people but then create the intricate bureaucracies and unions that act as cattle chutes so that people only go where they allow.
The Democratic Party is blindly against anything that Republicans want. Any one Republicans elect is considered by The Democrats to be racist, a bigot, homophobic, an “Uncle-Tom”, xenophobic, sexist, or any other slanderous title you can give someone… They have become experts at projecting their faults unto Republicans by demanding that Republicans are guilty of everything that they themselves actually are doing with zero accountability from most every media source. The Democrat Party have become profits who predict the doom they themselves orchestrate.
They claim that the Republican Party is a party of racism yet the Republican Part’s main charter at its conception was to abolish slavery, further that historically Democrats have stood in the way of every vote for Black equality. From The Emancipation Proclamation to Brown vs. Board of Education… Almost all votes in The House or The Senate that concerned the equality of minorities or women were party line votes with Democrats on the wrong side of history. Every bill brought to the House since the birth our nation from the Dred Scott decision to voting against the Civil Rights Act; anything that subjected black Americans was sponsored by Democrats. On June 10th 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat) began an over 14-hour filibuster opposing the legislation for Civil Rights Act. Robert Byrd still serves as a senator to this day for the Democrat Party.
The Democrats have slandered the Republicans, calling them “a party of tyranny”. Yet, it is Republican dogma that government is the problem and work toward reducing government keeping it out of people’s lives and wallets. Contrary to that set of principles, the Democrats see all solutions with a larger government but has yet to produce one efficient government program. Today’s voter has to decide between a party who’s philosophies are contrary to the lessons of history, that government is the answer or the philosophies of a party who’s policies have built this land of opportunity, the party that believes government is the problem, the party that believes individual responsibility is the answer.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Killing in the Name of Peace
Killing in the Name of Peace
For my friend, “native son”
Twitter has many uses… so many that naming them would be pointless. Personally I may be a bit on the irresponsible side with the postings I write, but my goal is to make a point; I try to get people to stop and think… I purposely hit on taboos or thoughts that the everyday person may think but doesn’t say. The other day I wrote a post saying: “Iran wants to blow up Israel...Can someone please bring back assassinations? God! It would only be a short list.” Followed by: “I'd love to start with Castro! Then Chavez... Maybe throw some other commis in there”
I was immediately challenged asking how I can advocate the killing of one of God’s creations?” I’m sure the idea of assassination is even worse to anyone that disagrees with me. Beyond that initial challenge I was quoted some scripture all of which supported an idea of pacifism. The first being Romans 12:19 “…‘Vengeance is mine’ says the Lord…” And of course Mathew 5:39, “…Turn the other cheek…”
I don’t mean to discount those arguments and I completely understand that there are more than just those verses that call for what would sounds like pacifism. Yet God does not expect pacifism…
I feel I know the bible well and thought that defending the idea of assassinating a tyrant could be defended in the bible easily because of the value God puts on each and every life. But it can’t. Yes there are times when we are expected to stop a crime or an injustice or to protect those who cannot protect them selves with lethal force if necessary, but premeditated murder of a person is not what we are released biblically to do. Capital punishment and war have an accountability and are often consequences after a sentence. (obviously there are corrupt countries and powers who deviate from moral action) that is another matter…
Yes there are areas in the Old Testament that called for capital punishment, there are kings that if killed could of drastically improved the lives of the Israelites. But, all matters of ending someone’s life in the bible was specifically ordained by God. For all capital punishments there were stipulations that needed to be addressed. There was no grey area, but where there was disagreement there was accountability. Even in war, it was God who said when wars were to be fought. David seemed to have special favor with God. Yet even in that favor God did not allow David to build His temple:
1 Chronicles 22
6 Then he called for his son Solomon, and charged him to build a house for the LORD God of Israel.
7 And David said to Solomon: “My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house to the name of the LORD my God; 8 but the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days.
God sent David on most of those wars. In reading this passage you might wonder why God penalized David for following His direction. However, David went beyond God’s direction. The blood on David’s hands was a product of David’s zealousness for God. David killed more men than God commanded to satisfy his own appetite and not God’s plan. The Temple was a symbol of that. God did not ask for a temple yet David felt He should have one. God answered David’s request but through his son and not through David. David’s downfall was his not looking to see God’s plan but instead forging his own; though he felt is was for God, it still was not in God’s plan.
David’s story gives an example of places God has not ordained deaths even to enemies. But in the Book of Daniel we see a picture of God’s perspective on evil rulers:
Daniel 5
13 Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king spoke, and said to Daniel, “Are you that Daniel who is one of the captives from Judah, whom my father the king brought from Judah? 14 I have heard of you, that the Spirit of God is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you. 15 Now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing and make known to me its interpretation, but they could not give the interpretation of the thing. 16 And I have heard of you, that you can give interpretations and explain enigmas. Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.”
17 Then Daniel answered, and said before the king, “Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another; yet I will read the writing to the king, and make known to him the interpretation. 18 O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father a kingdom and majesty, glory and honor. 19 And because of the majesty that He gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. Whomever he wished, he executed; whomever he wished, he kept alive; whomever he wished, he set up; and whomever he wished, he put down. 20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him. 21 Then he was driven from the sons of men, his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. They fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till he knew that the Most High God rules in the kingdom of men, and appoints over it whomever He chooses.
22 “But you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, although you knew all this. 23 And you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven. They have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, which do not see or hear or know; and the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified. 24 Then the fingers of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written.
25 “And this is the inscription that was written:
MENE MENE, TEKEL UPHARSIN
26 This is the interpretation of each word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it; 27 TEKEK: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; 28 PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” 29 Then Belshazzar gave the command, and they clothed Daniel with purple and put a chain of gold around his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. 30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was slain. 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
It is God who determines who leads and who dies. He allows evil men to rule but also numbers their days. Every man will be accountable for his actions and it is God’s justice that we wait on. It is our faith in Him that we believe that the evil men in this world will find their judgment day…
So I stand corrected. Though evil men like Castro live beyond great men like Regan. I have to believe that on some level it is a picture of God’s mercy that they have more time to turn from their ways. It is only this life that we can make this choice. After it we all will stand before God.
I owe my friend “native son” and apology and a sincere thanks you. I am happy to know that I can still learn something…
For my friend, “native son”
Twitter has many uses… so many that naming them would be pointless. Personally I may be a bit on the irresponsible side with the postings I write, but my goal is to make a point; I try to get people to stop and think… I purposely hit on taboos or thoughts that the everyday person may think but doesn’t say. The other day I wrote a post saying: “Iran wants to blow up Israel...Can someone please bring back assassinations? God! It would only be a short list.” Followed by: “I'd love to start with Castro! Then Chavez... Maybe throw some other commis in there”
I was immediately challenged asking how I can advocate the killing of one of God’s creations?” I’m sure the idea of assassination is even worse to anyone that disagrees with me. Beyond that initial challenge I was quoted some scripture all of which supported an idea of pacifism. The first being Romans 12:19 “…‘Vengeance is mine’ says the Lord…” And of course Mathew 5:39, “…Turn the other cheek…”
I don’t mean to discount those arguments and I completely understand that there are more than just those verses that call for what would sounds like pacifism. Yet God does not expect pacifism…
I feel I know the bible well and thought that defending the idea of assassinating a tyrant could be defended in the bible easily because of the value God puts on each and every life. But it can’t. Yes there are times when we are expected to stop a crime or an injustice or to protect those who cannot protect them selves with lethal force if necessary, but premeditated murder of a person is not what we are released biblically to do. Capital punishment and war have an accountability and are often consequences after a sentence. (obviously there are corrupt countries and powers who deviate from moral action) that is another matter…
Yes there are areas in the Old Testament that called for capital punishment, there are kings that if killed could of drastically improved the lives of the Israelites. But, all matters of ending someone’s life in the bible was specifically ordained by God. For all capital punishments there were stipulations that needed to be addressed. There was no grey area, but where there was disagreement there was accountability. Even in war, it was God who said when wars were to be fought. David seemed to have special favor with God. Yet even in that favor God did not allow David to build His temple:
1 Chronicles 22
6 Then he called for his son Solomon, and charged him to build a house for the LORD God of Israel.
7 And David said to Solomon: “My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house to the name of the LORD my God; 8 but the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days.
God sent David on most of those wars. In reading this passage you might wonder why God penalized David for following His direction. However, David went beyond God’s direction. The blood on David’s hands was a product of David’s zealousness for God. David killed more men than God commanded to satisfy his own appetite and not God’s plan. The Temple was a symbol of that. God did not ask for a temple yet David felt He should have one. God answered David’s request but through his son and not through David. David’s downfall was his not looking to see God’s plan but instead forging his own; though he felt is was for God, it still was not in God’s plan.
David’s story gives an example of places God has not ordained deaths even to enemies. But in the Book of Daniel we see a picture of God’s perspective on evil rulers:
Daniel 5
13 Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king spoke, and said to Daniel, “Are you that Daniel who is one of the captives from Judah, whom my father the king brought from Judah? 14 I have heard of you, that the Spirit of God is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you. 15 Now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing and make known to me its interpretation, but they could not give the interpretation of the thing. 16 And I have heard of you, that you can give interpretations and explain enigmas. Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.”
17 Then Daniel answered, and said before the king, “Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another; yet I will read the writing to the king, and make known to him the interpretation. 18 O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father a kingdom and majesty, glory and honor. 19 And because of the majesty that He gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. Whomever he wished, he executed; whomever he wished, he kept alive; whomever he wished, he set up; and whomever he wished, he put down. 20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him. 21 Then he was driven from the sons of men, his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. They fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till he knew that the Most High God rules in the kingdom of men, and appoints over it whomever He chooses.
22 “But you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, although you knew all this. 23 And you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven. They have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, which do not see or hear or know; and the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified. 24 Then the fingers of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written.
25 “And this is the inscription that was written:
MENE MENE, TEKEL UPHARSIN
26 This is the interpretation of each word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it; 27 TEKEK: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; 28 PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” 29 Then Belshazzar gave the command, and they clothed Daniel with purple and put a chain of gold around his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. 30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was slain. 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
It is God who determines who leads and who dies. He allows evil men to rule but also numbers their days. Every man will be accountable for his actions and it is God’s justice that we wait on. It is our faith in Him that we believe that the evil men in this world will find their judgment day…
So I stand corrected. Though evil men like Castro live beyond great men like Regan. I have to believe that on some level it is a picture of God’s mercy that they have more time to turn from their ways. It is only this life that we can make this choice. After it we all will stand before God.
I owe my friend “native son” and apology and a sincere thanks you. I am happy to know that I can still learn something…
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Letter to Keith Olbermann (re-post)
In honor of Keith Olbermann continual struggle for fairness and equality (except for those he deems unworthy) I wanted to repost an old entry:
In response to this Keith Olbermann article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/#storyContinued
My response:
Like Keith Olbermann's statement, "This is a matter of the heart…" Is foolish. That statement over shadows the rest of his article. What great authority or tradition is he invoking? What beyond his own ideas of right and wrong can he measure his conclusion against? What common ground is he appealing to that all people agree?
Martin Luther King in his "I have a Dream" speech said. "…I have a dream that someday my four little children will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character…" He was not advocating to a change the definition of what people recognized as a moral absolute. Martin Luther King instead reminding people of that moral absolute that all men are created equal.
To me it is extremely disingenuous for advocates of the homosexual community to associate their struggle for complete social endorsement of their practices with black Americans. Black Americans were denied basic human rights not because of their actions (like homosexuals) but because of the way they look. If someone cannot see the difference they are fooling themselves...
The commercials and advertisements seem to understand this clearly which is why I imagine that EVERY commercial never once said "homosexual" or "same sex marriage"… All commercials were pictures of racial violence, ambiguous talk about the "importance of family", or had a heterosexual couple denied the right to be married. It is a form of bait and switch. We (the public) are shown pictures of moral absolutes that we universally agree on and then they attach their proposition without every identifying what their motive is.
It would seem that even the advocates of same sex marriage understand that what they want is radically against universal acceptance, so much so that they omit the very detail that their cause is for. If same sex marriage is a basic human right then why is it not more readily spoken about in the ads that support it? Dr. Martin Luther King readily talk about specifically white and black people coming together because he knew it was a rallying point not an agenda to be cleverly disguised.
Proposition 8 was not about equality. It is about radical change. Whether or not that change is good or bad for society I am not even arguing but it is radical compared to traditions for the last couple thousand years. It is dishonest act as if homosexuals are being persecuted unjustly when (unlike the black Americans before desegregation) they are in fact given every right that every American has. -What they are not given is the ability to have all their actions endorsed by the state. Marriage is not a right it is an institution defined by the society that endorses it and is ratified by the state that the society elects… It is not an endowment to be stolen or taken by force. Proposition 8 was half about the definition of marriage and half about the outrage over a court that has overturned (for the second time) the will of the people that has elected them.
It is sad to think that in this country words like "bravery" have been stolen from men on the battlefeild and given to people like Keith Olberman who only preach nonsense to his chior and never invites open debates of his tirades....
Sincerely,
Someone who is tired of being called a bigot by the real bigots
In response to this Keith Olbermann article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/#storyContinued
My response:
Like Keith Olbermann's statement, "This is a matter of the heart…" Is foolish. That statement over shadows the rest of his article. What great authority or tradition is he invoking? What beyond his own ideas of right and wrong can he measure his conclusion against? What common ground is he appealing to that all people agree?
Martin Luther King in his "I have a Dream" speech said. "…I have a dream that someday my four little children will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character…" He was not advocating to a change the definition of what people recognized as a moral absolute. Martin Luther King instead reminding people of that moral absolute that all men are created equal.
To me it is extremely disingenuous for advocates of the homosexual community to associate their struggle for complete social endorsement of their practices with black Americans. Black Americans were denied basic human rights not because of their actions (like homosexuals) but because of the way they look. If someone cannot see the difference they are fooling themselves...
The commercials and advertisements seem to understand this clearly which is why I imagine that EVERY commercial never once said "homosexual" or "same sex marriage"… All commercials were pictures of racial violence, ambiguous talk about the "importance of family", or had a heterosexual couple denied the right to be married. It is a form of bait and switch. We (the public) are shown pictures of moral absolutes that we universally agree on and then they attach their proposition without every identifying what their motive is.
It would seem that even the advocates of same sex marriage understand that what they want is radically against universal acceptance, so much so that they omit the very detail that their cause is for. If same sex marriage is a basic human right then why is it not more readily spoken about in the ads that support it? Dr. Martin Luther King readily talk about specifically white and black people coming together because he knew it was a rallying point not an agenda to be cleverly disguised.
Proposition 8 was not about equality. It is about radical change. Whether or not that change is good or bad for society I am not even arguing but it is radical compared to traditions for the last couple thousand years. It is dishonest act as if homosexuals are being persecuted unjustly when (unlike the black Americans before desegregation) they are in fact given every right that every American has. -What they are not given is the ability to have all their actions endorsed by the state. Marriage is not a right it is an institution defined by the society that endorses it and is ratified by the state that the society elects… It is not an endowment to be stolen or taken by force. Proposition 8 was half about the definition of marriage and half about the outrage over a court that has overturned (for the second time) the will of the people that has elected them.
It is sad to think that in this country words like "bravery" have been stolen from men on the battlefeild and given to people like Keith Olberman who only preach nonsense to his chior and never invites open debates of his tirades....
Sincerely,
Someone who is tired of being called a bigot by the real bigots
Friday, May 1, 2009
Does Happily Ever After Exist in Hollywood?
The other night I went to a symposium on “church and beauty”. As terribly contrived as that title might sound to be deep or intellectual, it was an interesting lecture. The speaker (who by the way had two first names and referred to himself by both names) made correlations between art and Christianity. Some things he said were utterly fascinating with an amazing amount of insight. While other statements were left far too open ended as if because he said it, it doesn’t even need to be challenged. But that might be my preconceived notion that most intellectuals are so used to being in a class room setting that they never get challenged, therefore stop feeling that they need explanations for there ideologies…
Anyway in his talk he basically brought two scenarios of story foundations that he thought covered every popular story today… he put it that most stories fall into two categories: either “boy meets girls (and of course, vice-versa) and “a nobody rebel who makes good”.
He also made a fascinating parallel between our culture’s values and the stories we tell with their slow digression of morals… For example:
Beauty and the Beast. The original story was about a rich merchant with three daughters. Two of the daughters were selfish, self-centered and vain. The third was polite, selfless, and compassionate. One day through some trans-ocean voyage this merchant loses all his fortune and his family becomes impoverished. The two selfish daughters resent their father for it while the good one loved him all the more to support him. Through some turn of events the man’s fortune was later recovered and in celebration he asks his daughters what they desire. The two ask for gifts of jewelry and gowns, while the one asked for a single red rose.
The father returning from a journey one day finds a garden with beautiful roses and picks one, only to find that this rose garden belonged to a horrible beast! The beast after finding out he has these daughters makes a deal with the man that he will not kill him if he convinces the daughter of whom the rose was for to come care for the beast. The man agrees and to save her fathers life his one good daughter goes.
Time passes and the daughter falls in love with the beast breaking the spell that was on him and the two live happily ever after….
This stories moral was that good behavior and selflessness in rewarded while selfishness is never satisfied.
Contrast that with a Beauty (Bell) who’s first song in the Disney cartoon declares her superiority to her surrounding neighbors. Disney backs this notion up by not only making the entire village full of idiots but also making most people basically indistinguishable from the others. Bell is later rewarded for her believed greatness by actually achieving it and becomes queen over a town whose people are so brainless that they can be easily swayed into becoming an angry mob through a two-minute speech by another self diluted character, Gaston.
Disney effectively conveys that as long as you think you deserve something, you’ll get it. (Unless you have dark hair, then you’re a bad guy.) But working to achieve your goals or earning what you get is not important. In fact the character of Cinderella is now frowned upon as ridiculous or naïve. The idea that Cinderella’s principals kept her submissive to her stepmother and sisters is an idea almost unconscionable now at days.
The speaker made a much more detailed and compelling argument but said this to back up his main point in this section of the lecture …it is a lack of creativity that our arts become perverse and even dangerous. Like the pied piper who took the towns kids, the arts unchecked blur our direction for virtue and morality by caring away our sense of decency and duty. He sighted an idea in France from I don’t know what year that talked about regulating poetry and what is said. The reason was because the idea was that art was a window in which we see the soul of society. Just as any good poem can inspire you, a bad one can enslave you.
Of course he brought up Brokeback Mountain but only said that he felt artistically it was uncreative as if they took any other over played story line and made everyone nocturnal or some other arbitrary difference from normal stories.
I say all this because throughout his talk I thought about the film and theater industry. These people who spend a career pretending to be something they are not, speaking words written by other people, masquerading as lives that are not theirs become delusional and believe that they are bold in speaking out about things that they don’t understand. These misguided people have an ability to inspire people to believe past their surroundings but instead spend their time and popularity speaking out against injustices that exist in their sheltered little universe of morally inept peers.
If you can act well, you have an amazing gift. To be brave isn’t to take a roll that Hollywood deems controversial, or another roll that magnifies the worst part of our world and portrays it as commonplace. The brave path is to make sure that your ability to bring people into a character to inspire them to be better people.
What Hollywood does not want to accept also what enforces the idea that they are trying to create their own morality is the blocking, blackballing and or ignoring of original stories.
Passion of the Christ grossed $350,000,000.00 in the theaters and almost matched that on video. It was sold out weeks then days in advance for the first month it was out, breaking every box office record. Yet there was no talk of it at the Oscars or any other awards by the “entertainment industry” The hypocrisy of this industry crying the loudest about government cover-ups decides what is good and what is bad by what they determine good and bad not by actual ticket sales. They exalt the creators of Brokeback Mountain as if they were courageous to bring this love story to the public but had no difficulty with any one group about its opening. There was even a quote that said they were hoping for some uproar to help promote it and believed that Christians were trying to purposely ignore it so not to bring attention to it.
Lord of the Rings re-wrote J.R.Tolken’s King Aragorn as more rebellious so to appeal to a younger crowd. It was later changed back but again Hollywood thinks that things cannot be interesting unless they are rebellious, sending a message that you can’t be interesting unless you are rebellious!
Chronicles of Narnia: the original screenplay tried to write out Aslan as a lion! This movie grossed $300,000,000.00 without a word from any award organization! Instead the people who make movies were handing awards to themselves for the courageous release of an old story with a perverted twist of two men who fall in love with each other and then cheat on their wives. Unfortunately this story not only leaves the viewer with a distortion of real love as life long commitment would encourage but leave the viewer with a perversion of morality that “passion” somehow is such a pure virtue, that it trumps any duty or responsibility. Not to mention that this industry is the loudest proponent of born sexual orientation but is now advocating the natural interchangeability of one’s own orientation through two married men.
The point is people gravitate toward good stories that depict a world they want to live in but Hollywood is force-feeding a reflection of a deprived world because they have lost the ability to be truly creative.
Anyway in his talk he basically brought two scenarios of story foundations that he thought covered every popular story today… he put it that most stories fall into two categories: either “boy meets girls (and of course, vice-versa) and “a nobody rebel who makes good”.
He also made a fascinating parallel between our culture’s values and the stories we tell with their slow digression of morals… For example:
Beauty and the Beast. The original story was about a rich merchant with three daughters. Two of the daughters were selfish, self-centered and vain. The third was polite, selfless, and compassionate. One day through some trans-ocean voyage this merchant loses all his fortune and his family becomes impoverished. The two selfish daughters resent their father for it while the good one loved him all the more to support him. Through some turn of events the man’s fortune was later recovered and in celebration he asks his daughters what they desire. The two ask for gifts of jewelry and gowns, while the one asked for a single red rose.
The father returning from a journey one day finds a garden with beautiful roses and picks one, only to find that this rose garden belonged to a horrible beast! The beast after finding out he has these daughters makes a deal with the man that he will not kill him if he convinces the daughter of whom the rose was for to come care for the beast. The man agrees and to save her fathers life his one good daughter goes.
Time passes and the daughter falls in love with the beast breaking the spell that was on him and the two live happily ever after….
This stories moral was that good behavior and selflessness in rewarded while selfishness is never satisfied.
Contrast that with a Beauty (Bell) who’s first song in the Disney cartoon declares her superiority to her surrounding neighbors. Disney backs this notion up by not only making the entire village full of idiots but also making most people basically indistinguishable from the others. Bell is later rewarded for her believed greatness by actually achieving it and becomes queen over a town whose people are so brainless that they can be easily swayed into becoming an angry mob through a two-minute speech by another self diluted character, Gaston.
Disney effectively conveys that as long as you think you deserve something, you’ll get it. (Unless you have dark hair, then you’re a bad guy.) But working to achieve your goals or earning what you get is not important. In fact the character of Cinderella is now frowned upon as ridiculous or naïve. The idea that Cinderella’s principals kept her submissive to her stepmother and sisters is an idea almost unconscionable now at days.
The speaker made a much more detailed and compelling argument but said this to back up his main point in this section of the lecture …it is a lack of creativity that our arts become perverse and even dangerous. Like the pied piper who took the towns kids, the arts unchecked blur our direction for virtue and morality by caring away our sense of decency and duty. He sighted an idea in France from I don’t know what year that talked about regulating poetry and what is said. The reason was because the idea was that art was a window in which we see the soul of society. Just as any good poem can inspire you, a bad one can enslave you.
Of course he brought up Brokeback Mountain but only said that he felt artistically it was uncreative as if they took any other over played story line and made everyone nocturnal or some other arbitrary difference from normal stories.
I say all this because throughout his talk I thought about the film and theater industry. These people who spend a career pretending to be something they are not, speaking words written by other people, masquerading as lives that are not theirs become delusional and believe that they are bold in speaking out about things that they don’t understand. These misguided people have an ability to inspire people to believe past their surroundings but instead spend their time and popularity speaking out against injustices that exist in their sheltered little universe of morally inept peers.
If you can act well, you have an amazing gift. To be brave isn’t to take a roll that Hollywood deems controversial, or another roll that magnifies the worst part of our world and portrays it as commonplace. The brave path is to make sure that your ability to bring people into a character to inspire them to be better people.
What Hollywood does not want to accept also what enforces the idea that they are trying to create their own morality is the blocking, blackballing and or ignoring of original stories.
Passion of the Christ grossed $350,000,000.00 in the theaters and almost matched that on video. It was sold out weeks then days in advance for the first month it was out, breaking every box office record. Yet there was no talk of it at the Oscars or any other awards by the “entertainment industry” The hypocrisy of this industry crying the loudest about government cover-ups decides what is good and what is bad by what they determine good and bad not by actual ticket sales. They exalt the creators of Brokeback Mountain as if they were courageous to bring this love story to the public but had no difficulty with any one group about its opening. There was even a quote that said they were hoping for some uproar to help promote it and believed that Christians were trying to purposely ignore it so not to bring attention to it.
Lord of the Rings re-wrote J.R.Tolken’s King Aragorn as more rebellious so to appeal to a younger crowd. It was later changed back but again Hollywood thinks that things cannot be interesting unless they are rebellious, sending a message that you can’t be interesting unless you are rebellious!
Chronicles of Narnia: the original screenplay tried to write out Aslan as a lion! This movie grossed $300,000,000.00 without a word from any award organization! Instead the people who make movies were handing awards to themselves for the courageous release of an old story with a perverted twist of two men who fall in love with each other and then cheat on their wives. Unfortunately this story not only leaves the viewer with a distortion of real love as life long commitment would encourage but leave the viewer with a perversion of morality that “passion” somehow is such a pure virtue, that it trumps any duty or responsibility. Not to mention that this industry is the loudest proponent of born sexual orientation but is now advocating the natural interchangeability of one’s own orientation through two married men.
The point is people gravitate toward good stories that depict a world they want to live in but Hollywood is force-feeding a reflection of a deprived world because they have lost the ability to be truly creative.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Leftism Only Creates Destruction
I continually find proofs to myself for the legitimacy of the bible. It actually is one of those things you could never list because it is thousands of small things I discover here and there. I have been taking a Torah class in L.A. for almost 3 years now and am blown away by the need for annotation due to all the insight, practical insight it has… I am not Jewish but I am utterly astonished by the practical application of their belief system. Outside of the differences in denominations the culture the beliefs, the traditions are an insulated therapeutic utopia. Now, I understand that’s me looking in and not actually being in the religion, still I am so inspired by its completeness…
It has however inspired me to read the bible more and the more I read the bible the more I find parallels in our world and what the bible says. Not so much parallels in similarity but parallels by way of irony. Our world is the world the bible is set against. Whether you believe the bible or not; why is it almost every social/political fight today is one that the bible has specifically addressed in its first book? Allow me to answer. There are powers outside of this physical world that are battling for your life, which is proof of your individual value. In this world however the battle looks more like a, “does evil exist in a natural world?”... The question seems inconsequential but has implications that dictate you priorities. If there is no evil then there is no choice. If there is no choice then there is no accountability for our actions. If we are not accountable then there is no reason to believe or lives have any meaning beyond emotion in this life. (Please think that over)
I digress, last night I was writing notes on my hand, on a napkin and on scraps about things I wanted to research for a thought (this entry)… Last night I went to a debate that left me with more questions as any good debate should do, however this debate was solely uninteresting in its discourse. In lieu of my attention to the “debate” I sent my mind wondering about accomplishments of “The Left” which lead my comparing that to biblical principles… Which puts me back to where we left off…
Taking the religion out of the bible and just listing its principles you might find some starting revelation when you counter it with today’s social movements.
“In the beginning God”… The bible establishes God as outside of time and space by declaring His position in existence. It could have started out, “God created the heavens and the Earth…” But that leaves you with the question, “from what?” but declaring a "beginning" makes that "beginning" God’s first creation, which was time and space simultaneously. We do not know how long before the creation story God formed the Earth; we just know what events marked the first day. It is this component of time that has sent science into a frenzy as evidence against a 6 day creation. However the bible does not say the Earth was created in 6 days. What it says instead is what God did in the 6 days.
Point 1
I bring this up to come to our first point, Evolution. I will concede that the church stifled honest science for centuries and in return during what was called, “The Age of Enlightenment” man revolted against God and in almost every pattern of revolution, those who revolt replace bad with worse. God gave us purpose and spirituality. What did evolution give us random chance i.e. purposeless? Genesis 1:25 describes that God made every living creature after its kind… asserting a separation of species, yet Neo-Darwinist push pull and stretch fossil records to excoriate any idea that creatures were purposefully made. The lack of intermediate fossils in the fossil record doesn’t cause them to abandon any theory of speciation but instead emboldens them to pontificate how an animal can make a jump from reptile to bird or rodent to cat. When they find they do not have enough time geologically to fit the number of generations needed to support their hypothesis they create new theories like punctuated-equilibrium. The implications are less about the origin of species and more about proving there is no higher authority other than one of natural selection. This is humanities revolution against belief in God. Your value system is dictated by your belief in who/what is the higher power. Natural selection as the believed origin give no instruction of morals or values. Without an objective value system, there is no purpose, there is no meaning. There is no judgment…
The idea that we are not perfect (morally speaking) so we cannot judge one another is a prevailing ideology among “progressive” thinkers. We are given ideas of “natural selection” and apply them to emotional circumstance relieving individuals of their responsibilities for their actions, further removing them from their innate convictions.
Part 2
Genesis 2:18,(first part) “…man should not be alone…” God was at the beginning and could have designed man and reproduction in any way He liked… He could have made another man, or two women but he made a statement with making someone of the opposite sex to complete the man He created. God said, “I will make a helper ‘suitable’ for him…” In today’s culture there is an attack on sexuality. There is a movement that wants to desexualize society, demanding that both sexes are absolutely interchangeable. Yet the bible would argue that the opposite sexes complete a person by design. What do we have to gain with the interchangeability of sexes? It is certainly not equality because it is not the measure of someone’s efforts that we are discussing but instead the dynamics of their preferred sexuality. We are asked as a society to identify someone’s individuality not according to their individual contributions but instead according to their actions sexually. In this we are demanding a norm of society to desexualize adults but ironically worse, sexualize children by making them aware of a group that is only differentiated by whom they prefer to seek sexual gratification from. There is a revolution against marriage that doesn’t stand to make it better but only will destroy it. Leftist policies can only destroy.
Point 3
Gen 2:18 (second part)“The LORD God said, "... I will make a helper suitable for him." What did God mean by helper. Any hypersensitive feminist might read this as a hinted direction of women’s subservient position within relationships. Yet a closer look at the bible in the previous chapter and throughout the Torah you would find the placement of woman before men and men before women in equal proportions. The Garden of Eden is a picture of perfect balance. In the first 3 days God only separates and does not create. Or, one can say in the fist 3 days God created balance to Earth. In this great example of perfect balance God creates man and woman in His image. I would argue that part of that image and completeness is lost in mans solitude otherwise Adam’s aloneness would not have earned God’s attentions.
But further, In God’s perfect environment he created a perfect partnership, a foundation as God directs man to be “fruitful and multiply”. The bible speaks of family in so many ways and develops their role within their group and within a society. The family serves as an accountability and support group for individuals. However, well meaning Leftists groups pull at the loose threads of society demanding more state sponsored funding for single mothers and impoverished individuals. In the past the family has had a stake in the success of later generations as they would care for the elderly but also serve as a support group for those members who are on hard times. With the infusion of state funded care and financial support the family as it were has taken a step back from accountability and support. This has only increased the amount of people who require that state funded support exponentially. If the burden is not on the family to remedy, the family does not take action to maintain a level of accountability. But it is not just this monetary care for family members but also the emotional foundation that has been torn away with the diminishing family. The family is the core structure the back bone if you will of society and the Left from every angle is set to replace it.
Point 4
Genesis 1:25 …”let Us make man after our image…” I often get into arguments with people about Global Warming. Lately I have been given the argument “we are not qualified to question science…” Yet the story of the origins of the theory of evolution is riddled with scientists who have tried to push frauds into the science with motivations that fall short of seeking truth. Be it to end the debate or to make a name for themselves their examples of deception are in the pages of history. Evolutionary science has an investment in finding their missing link yet 150 years later they are still searching. Though there are claims of the “Java Man” found in the early 20th century or later finds of “Lucy”. Science can only postulate the existence of an almost human link to primates; only today instead of a fake conglomerate of various creatures we have stories and models made of what “should be”. These stories told over and over are the same fraudulent science only as a wedge slowly being sunk deeper into academia. The search for the missing link is a search for evidence that man was not made as Genesis 1:26 describes. This is our Tower of Babel, our declaration that ‘man does not need God’…
Point 5
Genesis 1:28, (first part) “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Since the 18th century there have been men who have campaigned for zero population. The most famous of which is The Population Bomb (1968) written by Paul R. Ehrlich. The idea is demonic in nature as it goes against the first commandment God gave to humanity. God did not give limit to his commandment. Further the idea that we can over populate the Earth is to say that God did not design the Earth correctly, which directly attacks God’s omnipotence. Again, if God is not everything He claims He is none of His claims. And without God we have no meaning, no greater stake in this life than a blade of grass.
Secondly, This verse is in direct contradiction to ideas of abortion. We are told that abortion is a right, we are given arguments of children that have no future because of the potential circumstance of their potential parents, yet we are not told the statistics of who is getting abortions in greater number (being women who can afford them). Abortion fights against the very core of creation. It is the one area that God partners with man in such a way to be apart of His ultimate plan regardless of where you are spiritually. God goes further in His use for Cain as He uses his line to re-populate the Earth. Cain who murdered Able was God’s vehicle for a greater blessing. We do not know God’s plans with every unborn baby regardless of its circumstances.
Point 6
Genesis 1:28, (second part) “… have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Today environmentalists would have you believe that you are no greater part of this ecosystem. They would have you believe that you share this world and that it was not made FOR humanity but instead humanity is more like a cancer that lives within it. God shows without a doubt in Genesis 8 &9 that He is willing to destroy the Earth for His plan for humanity. He shows that the Earth is only the stage andit is our lives that He values.
Environmentalism in its fanaticism is destructive. It is responsible for 10’s of millions of lives in Africa because of the ban on DDT. Behind the guise of “responsibility” environmentalists would have you trade your purpose and inheritance with God for a belief in nothingness.
The first 10 chapters of Genesis outline a divine plan that is thwarted by every secular cause. An honest person must ask them selves why the dominant secular causes directly conflict with biblical direction. Is that a coincidence that an almost 4000 years ago a book was written that declared man’s individual value universally, that declared man’s dominance over nature and all creatures? Is it coincidence that man was intended not to live alone yet the desire for marriage is on the decline in Western Europe?
This argument might be poorly articulated. My structure might be lacking, yet I ask that you look at it with an honest inspection. This is less about whether you believe there is a God and more about that a 4000 year old book is mark for mark against every contemporary secular movement. How is that possible unless there is some greater struggle in our world that is not physical but spiritual? Why is there attacks on human value, Human purpose? Why is there a discounting of human life by way of environmentalism but then a inflating of it when it pertains to capital punishment, when the bible speaks plainly about both again contrary to popular culture? “It is because man was made in the Image of God that if a man’s blood is spilled so shall he have his blood spilled by man…” God declares that life is so valued that there are consequence for ending a life early, further that the murder has not just killed one man but all of his descendents (Genesis 4:10, “… the voice of your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground…” In the Hebrew the word for blood is actually plural “bloods” as if more than one generation is crying out to God)
There is a demonic force that is working against God’s plan. There is no Leftist program, movement or revolution that has ever created anything. Throughout the bible there is a contrast of purposes. A defining character of Satan is that he has no power to create anything. His sole purpose is to destroy what God has created. In turn, Leftism is a godless endeavor and finds its purpose (with sometimes the best of intentions) in only tearing down what has been created. Its movements are all about reform, its rebellions are all about removing, it’s activism is always against. What has the Left created that it hasn’t stolen or made worse?
Nothing… Sexuality, Family, Home, Accountability, Liberty, Life, Innocence, Purpose, Meaning, Self-Esteem, Honesty… Leftism is nothing more than a parasite on society. They can only mobilize after something is created for them to rebel against. They champion social victories of the past like women’s suffrage and abolitionism, taking ownership as their victories forgetting that it was Christian groups that were on the front lines of those fights and it was Leftist groups who opposed them. Leftism lays claim to social welfare causes but misses that it is faith-based groups that head that fight and it is Leftist policies that encourage poverty.
Leftists live in a fantasy world both in their accomplishments and in their struggles. They chase windmills (now literally) and never seem to realize that they are their own enemy, ironically they themselves as a group are the only thing they don’t destroy.
For reference:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201%20;&version=50;
It has however inspired me to read the bible more and the more I read the bible the more I find parallels in our world and what the bible says. Not so much parallels in similarity but parallels by way of irony. Our world is the world the bible is set against. Whether you believe the bible or not; why is it almost every social/political fight today is one that the bible has specifically addressed in its first book? Allow me to answer. There are powers outside of this physical world that are battling for your life, which is proof of your individual value. In this world however the battle looks more like a, “does evil exist in a natural world?”... The question seems inconsequential but has implications that dictate you priorities. If there is no evil then there is no choice. If there is no choice then there is no accountability for our actions. If we are not accountable then there is no reason to believe or lives have any meaning beyond emotion in this life. (Please think that over)
I digress, last night I was writing notes on my hand, on a napkin and on scraps about things I wanted to research for a thought (this entry)… Last night I went to a debate that left me with more questions as any good debate should do, however this debate was solely uninteresting in its discourse. In lieu of my attention to the “debate” I sent my mind wondering about accomplishments of “The Left” which lead my comparing that to biblical principles… Which puts me back to where we left off…
Taking the religion out of the bible and just listing its principles you might find some starting revelation when you counter it with today’s social movements.
“In the beginning God”… The bible establishes God as outside of time and space by declaring His position in existence. It could have started out, “God created the heavens and the Earth…” But that leaves you with the question, “from what?” but declaring a "beginning" makes that "beginning" God’s first creation, which was time and space simultaneously. We do not know how long before the creation story God formed the Earth; we just know what events marked the first day. It is this component of time that has sent science into a frenzy as evidence against a 6 day creation. However the bible does not say the Earth was created in 6 days. What it says instead is what God did in the 6 days.
Point 1
I bring this up to come to our first point, Evolution. I will concede that the church stifled honest science for centuries and in return during what was called, “The Age of Enlightenment” man revolted against God and in almost every pattern of revolution, those who revolt replace bad with worse. God gave us purpose and spirituality. What did evolution give us random chance i.e. purposeless? Genesis 1:25 describes that God made every living creature after its kind… asserting a separation of species, yet Neo-Darwinist push pull and stretch fossil records to excoriate any idea that creatures were purposefully made. The lack of intermediate fossils in the fossil record doesn’t cause them to abandon any theory of speciation but instead emboldens them to pontificate how an animal can make a jump from reptile to bird or rodent to cat. When they find they do not have enough time geologically to fit the number of generations needed to support their hypothesis they create new theories like punctuated-equilibrium. The implications are less about the origin of species and more about proving there is no higher authority other than one of natural selection. This is humanities revolution against belief in God. Your value system is dictated by your belief in who/what is the higher power. Natural selection as the believed origin give no instruction of morals or values. Without an objective value system, there is no purpose, there is no meaning. There is no judgment…
The idea that we are not perfect (morally speaking) so we cannot judge one another is a prevailing ideology among “progressive” thinkers. We are given ideas of “natural selection” and apply them to emotional circumstance relieving individuals of their responsibilities for their actions, further removing them from their innate convictions.
Part 2
Genesis 2:18,(first part) “…man should not be alone…” God was at the beginning and could have designed man and reproduction in any way He liked… He could have made another man, or two women but he made a statement with making someone of the opposite sex to complete the man He created. God said, “I will make a helper ‘suitable’ for him…” In today’s culture there is an attack on sexuality. There is a movement that wants to desexualize society, demanding that both sexes are absolutely interchangeable. Yet the bible would argue that the opposite sexes complete a person by design. What do we have to gain with the interchangeability of sexes? It is certainly not equality because it is not the measure of someone’s efforts that we are discussing but instead the dynamics of their preferred sexuality. We are asked as a society to identify someone’s individuality not according to their individual contributions but instead according to their actions sexually. In this we are demanding a norm of society to desexualize adults but ironically worse, sexualize children by making them aware of a group that is only differentiated by whom they prefer to seek sexual gratification from. There is a revolution against marriage that doesn’t stand to make it better but only will destroy it. Leftist policies can only destroy.
Point 3
Gen 2:18 (second part)“The LORD God said, "... I will make a helper suitable for him." What did God mean by helper. Any hypersensitive feminist might read this as a hinted direction of women’s subservient position within relationships. Yet a closer look at the bible in the previous chapter and throughout the Torah you would find the placement of woman before men and men before women in equal proportions. The Garden of Eden is a picture of perfect balance. In the first 3 days God only separates and does not create. Or, one can say in the fist 3 days God created balance to Earth. In this great example of perfect balance God creates man and woman in His image. I would argue that part of that image and completeness is lost in mans solitude otherwise Adam’s aloneness would not have earned God’s attentions.
But further, In God’s perfect environment he created a perfect partnership, a foundation as God directs man to be “fruitful and multiply”. The bible speaks of family in so many ways and develops their role within their group and within a society. The family serves as an accountability and support group for individuals. However, well meaning Leftists groups pull at the loose threads of society demanding more state sponsored funding for single mothers and impoverished individuals. In the past the family has had a stake in the success of later generations as they would care for the elderly but also serve as a support group for those members who are on hard times. With the infusion of state funded care and financial support the family as it were has taken a step back from accountability and support. This has only increased the amount of people who require that state funded support exponentially. If the burden is not on the family to remedy, the family does not take action to maintain a level of accountability. But it is not just this monetary care for family members but also the emotional foundation that has been torn away with the diminishing family. The family is the core structure the back bone if you will of society and the Left from every angle is set to replace it.
Point 4
Genesis 1:25 …”let Us make man after our image…” I often get into arguments with people about Global Warming. Lately I have been given the argument “we are not qualified to question science…” Yet the story of the origins of the theory of evolution is riddled with scientists who have tried to push frauds into the science with motivations that fall short of seeking truth. Be it to end the debate or to make a name for themselves their examples of deception are in the pages of history. Evolutionary science has an investment in finding their missing link yet 150 years later they are still searching. Though there are claims of the “Java Man” found in the early 20th century or later finds of “Lucy”. Science can only postulate the existence of an almost human link to primates; only today instead of a fake conglomerate of various creatures we have stories and models made of what “should be”. These stories told over and over are the same fraudulent science only as a wedge slowly being sunk deeper into academia. The search for the missing link is a search for evidence that man was not made as Genesis 1:26 describes. This is our Tower of Babel, our declaration that ‘man does not need God’…
Point 5
Genesis 1:28, (first part) “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Since the 18th century there have been men who have campaigned for zero population. The most famous of which is The Population Bomb (1968) written by Paul R. Ehrlich. The idea is demonic in nature as it goes against the first commandment God gave to humanity. God did not give limit to his commandment. Further the idea that we can over populate the Earth is to say that God did not design the Earth correctly, which directly attacks God’s omnipotence. Again, if God is not everything He claims He is none of His claims. And without God we have no meaning, no greater stake in this life than a blade of grass.
Secondly, This verse is in direct contradiction to ideas of abortion. We are told that abortion is a right, we are given arguments of children that have no future because of the potential circumstance of their potential parents, yet we are not told the statistics of who is getting abortions in greater number (being women who can afford them). Abortion fights against the very core of creation. It is the one area that God partners with man in such a way to be apart of His ultimate plan regardless of where you are spiritually. God goes further in His use for Cain as He uses his line to re-populate the Earth. Cain who murdered Able was God’s vehicle for a greater blessing. We do not know God’s plans with every unborn baby regardless of its circumstances.
Point 6
Genesis 1:28, (second part) “… have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Today environmentalists would have you believe that you are no greater part of this ecosystem. They would have you believe that you share this world and that it was not made FOR humanity but instead humanity is more like a cancer that lives within it. God shows without a doubt in Genesis 8 &9 that He is willing to destroy the Earth for His plan for humanity. He shows that the Earth is only the stage andit is our lives that He values.
Environmentalism in its fanaticism is destructive. It is responsible for 10’s of millions of lives in Africa because of the ban on DDT. Behind the guise of “responsibility” environmentalists would have you trade your purpose and inheritance with God for a belief in nothingness.
The first 10 chapters of Genesis outline a divine plan that is thwarted by every secular cause. An honest person must ask them selves why the dominant secular causes directly conflict with biblical direction. Is that a coincidence that an almost 4000 years ago a book was written that declared man’s individual value universally, that declared man’s dominance over nature and all creatures? Is it coincidence that man was intended not to live alone yet the desire for marriage is on the decline in Western Europe?
This argument might be poorly articulated. My structure might be lacking, yet I ask that you look at it with an honest inspection. This is less about whether you believe there is a God and more about that a 4000 year old book is mark for mark against every contemporary secular movement. How is that possible unless there is some greater struggle in our world that is not physical but spiritual? Why is there attacks on human value, Human purpose? Why is there a discounting of human life by way of environmentalism but then a inflating of it when it pertains to capital punishment, when the bible speaks plainly about both again contrary to popular culture? “It is because man was made in the Image of God that if a man’s blood is spilled so shall he have his blood spilled by man…” God declares that life is so valued that there are consequence for ending a life early, further that the murder has not just killed one man but all of his descendents (Genesis 4:10, “… the voice of your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground…” In the Hebrew the word for blood is actually plural “bloods” as if more than one generation is crying out to God)
There is a demonic force that is working against God’s plan. There is no Leftist program, movement or revolution that has ever created anything. Throughout the bible there is a contrast of purposes. A defining character of Satan is that he has no power to create anything. His sole purpose is to destroy what God has created. In turn, Leftism is a godless endeavor and finds its purpose (with sometimes the best of intentions) in only tearing down what has been created. Its movements are all about reform, its rebellions are all about removing, it’s activism is always against. What has the Left created that it hasn’t stolen or made worse?
Nothing… Sexuality, Family, Home, Accountability, Liberty, Life, Innocence, Purpose, Meaning, Self-Esteem, Honesty… Leftism is nothing more than a parasite on society. They can only mobilize after something is created for them to rebel against. They champion social victories of the past like women’s suffrage and abolitionism, taking ownership as their victories forgetting that it was Christian groups that were on the front lines of those fights and it was Leftist groups who opposed them. Leftism lays claim to social welfare causes but misses that it is faith-based groups that head that fight and it is Leftist policies that encourage poverty.
Leftists live in a fantasy world both in their accomplishments and in their struggles. They chase windmills (now literally) and never seem to realize that they are their own enemy, ironically they themselves as a group are the only thing they don’t destroy.
For reference:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201%20;&version=50;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
