Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

I Keep Pointing It Out: The ESSENTIAL Nature Of Homosexual Liberalism Is Pure Rabid FASCISM. And Here It Is Again…

April 24, 2014

Let me point out that these homosexuals are Nazis.  And I mean that LITERALLY, given the historic connection between the rise of Nazism and homosexuality and that Nazism would not have risen had it NOT BEEN for homosexuals who served as Hitler’s brownshirted stormtrooper thugs and beat down the opposition.

And nothing has changed.  Homosexuals are every bit as violent and as hateful as ever.  Look at the history of the “gay rights” movement.  Their “movement” began with violence at Stonewall and the White Night riots.  Today our prisons are CLOGGED with violent and vicious homosexuals who rape one another every chance they get.  And homosexual domestic violence is FAR higher than among heterosexual couplesEven studies that are clearly pro-gay acknowledge this fact.  Gays routinely threaten violence against those who don’t agree with them.

Nazism has its philosophical roots in philosophical worldviews that abandoned truth.  And once truth is dismissed as a possibility, anything and everything is allowed to fill the void.  And homosexuals have that in common with the Nazis, in that the philosophical systems they cling to abandon any and all notion of “truth” as held by classical foundationalism.  It really is no surprise that the two (homosexuality and Nazism) would be so inextricably inter-connected.  I documented this (liberal) philosophical worldview in depth six years ago as Obama was getting elected and these people have obviously become even worse since then.  There are so many examples of it happening it is beyond unreal.

Back on November 22, 2008 I wrote this article: Gay Rights Groups Using Vile Intimidation Tactics To Attack Prop 8 Backers

These people are true fascists.  They are identical to the Nazis – especially the homosexual Nazis who BEGAN Nazism in the first place.

And with that, here we are, detailing AGAIN how homosexuals act identically with NAZIS as they clearly haven’t changed one damn bit, have they?

MSNBC Panel Members Find ‘Disturbing Level’ of Gay Rights Interest in ‘Targeting People’
By Brad Wilmouth | April 19, 2014 | 16:27

On the Friday, April 18, All In show, during a discussion of the firing of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for simply donating to a political campaign opposing same-sex marriage, guest Richard Kim of the far left The Nation magazine intoned that he found it “disturbing” that gay activist friends of his have expressed interest in “targeting” more people who have made similar donations, and who have declared they should “find out where they live.” Kim:

Here’s a disturbing thing. I did ask some of my gay activist friends, I was like, “Look, here’s a list; 6,500 people gave the same amount that he did or more in California. Should we go down the list and sort of start targeting all these people?” And I asked this facetiously, and people were like, “Let’s do it. Let’s find out where those people live. It’s all-” To me, that’s a disturbing level of targeting people.

Hayes, who had earlier expressed reservations about Eich’s firing, exclaimed, “Yes,” to Kim’s view that such talk was “disturbing.”

As he brought up the discussion, the MSNBC host seemed skeptical of the former Mozilla CEO’s firing: “And there was part of me that did not know how to feel about how this whole thing unfolded.”

A bit later, as panel member and MSNBC host Karen Finney defended the practice of pressuring company heads about their political views, Hayes brought up President Obama’s previous history of opposing same-sex marriage. Hayes: “Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to marriage equality.”

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, April 18, All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, with critical portions in bold:

CHRIS HAYES: So here’s the other interesting part of this, and I want to use this to segue to the Brendan Eich story because what you hear and see here are changing social norms, right? It is legal in South Carolina to fire someone because they’re gay. Increasingly, that is not viewed as socially acceptable, right? And rightly so. We agree everyone at the table agrees that is wrong.

But, now, there’s also social norms about whether it is socially acceptable to have the belief that gay folks can’t get married or to oppose gay equality. And this came to a head in the tale of Brendan Eich, who was the CEO of the firm, Mozilla, which makes a very popular Web browser. People found out that he had given a contribution to the wrong side in Prop 8, which was the anti-equality side. It was in a public record.

And there was a campaign that basically got rid of him, basically saying this is an unacceptable view for the CEO of a major firm to have. And there was part of me that did not know how to feel about how this whole thing unfolded. What was your thinking?

RICHARD KIM, THE NATION: Yeah, so I, first of all, say I don’t think anybody’s rights were violated.

HAYES: Nobody has a right to be a CEO.

KIM: Right, exactly, exactly. I do, on the level of proportion, question this. So this guy gave one $1,000 donation six years ago to a campaign that 7 million Californians voted for, that 6,500 people gave a donation at his level or higher. Mozilla has an anti-gay discrimination policy. He had no intent to change that. Marriage in California is settled law.

So there’s a question of whether or not all the sort of fury targeted at him and this one sort of, you know, attempt to oust him is in proportion to any threat that he represents to gay people in the future.

CATHY HENNA, LGBT ACTIVIST: It’s somehow, it’s how the culture works, too. This is a major tech company in Northern California, and, you know, as we were talking about before, you know, this is not just about gay people anymore. This is about allies. I mean, the second this went on social media, on Facebook, on Twitter, people just find this unacceptable. It’s no longer acceptable to be anti-gay.

HAYES: But did they find it unacceptable, there was a weird kind of advertising of one’s own enlightenment that this was part of. You know what I mean? It felt to me a little bit like, “I can like this, I can get behind this because this is a kind of, it’s no skin off my back, you know? Like, I don’t care who the CEO of Mozilla is.” And this shows — that’s what conservatives were saying, right? Conservatives were saying that this is basically hounding people, this is totally “il-liberal.”

HENNA: (INAUDIBLE) -to say that when it works for them because what their big thing is, “Oh, it’s about the free market.” Well, in this case it was the free market. People are making decisions about what they do and what they buy and what the organizations and the companies they support and the decisions they make as consumers voting with their wallets based on the leadership of those companies.

KAREN FINNEY, MSNBC HOST: It’s the little bit of power that we have as consumers. And you hear Karl Rove and the right wing. What do they always say about the companies that give to right-wing causes. We don’t want to have to publish our names. They’re afraid of a backlash. Well, guess what: I can decide I don’t want to spend my money at, with your company if I don’t approve how you spend that money. I can decide-

HAYES: Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to marriage equality.

FINNEY: And he still got elected, you know, that’s the process.

HAYES: The point, but this guy gave them-

KIM: Here’s a disturbing thing. I did ask some of my gay activist friends, I was like, “Look, here’s a list; 6,500 people gave the same amount that he did or more in California. Should we go down the list and sort of start targeting all these people?” And I asked this facetiously, and people were like, “Let’s do it. Let’s find out where those people live. It’s all-” To me, that’s a disturbing level-

HAYES: Yes.

KIM: -of targeting people.

FINNEY:  But is part of it because Prop 18 is so, it became such a heated issue in this country, and it sort of became, I think, and it is a sort of either you’re on the right side or the wrong side, and, ironically, even the lawyer in the case has been evolving as he’s planning his daughter’s wedding.

I defy you liberals to show me ONE case of a corporate board firing their CEO because he gave money to the “No on Prop 8″ campaign.  Because that never happened.  Only the LEFT is capable of that kind of rabid fascist intolerance.

In the same vein, show me ONE case of “Yes on 8″ supporters viciously targeting their opponents the way the homosexual liberals did.

Who has been caught over and over and over again being rabidly intolerant of allowing people to have free speech?  The left.  Who routinely shouts down speakers if they don’t agree with those speakers to prevent ideas from being presented?  The left.  Who obeys the dog whistle whenever it is blown by chanting slogans rather than engaging in debate?  The left.  Who has been caught over and over again attempting to indoctrinate students in what amount to unhinged political rants in college/university classrooms (hell, this garbage happens all the damn time – here’s another one) and even in public elementary schools?  The left.  Who actually used the IRS as a thug ideological force to punish people with whom they politically disagreed?  The left.  Who systematically suppresses journalists?  The left.  The left is simply and purely intrinsically fascist.

Do you want to know which side routinely “outs” homosexuals publicly?  The left.  You see, certain homosexuals have decided that outing homosexuals is “a moral act, a means to prevent gays from participating in their own oppression.”

That is the essence of who these people are: YOU don’t have any rights; THEY have all the rights.  You have the right to sit down and shut up while they impose their agenda on you.  And if you don’t like it, they’ll come after you with a viciousness and a rabid hate that is beyond stunning.

The thing about the left is that they are pathologically incapable of seeing themselves for what they truly are.  They are your classic projectionists: the more rabidly intolerant they become, the more they project their own viciousness onto their enemies.  And since these people are true fascists, and with true fascists the end always justifies the means, this rabid hate and intolerance that is THEIRS but which they hypocritically project onto their opponents “justifies” them to be more and more evil and use any and every means to attack.

And just like the brutal Nazi stormtrooper thugs who used every tactic to ensure that their opponents were intimidated – if not physically beaten – into silence, the homosexual left is showing that they are the same damn Nazis they were in the 1930s.

 

Barack Obama Is A Liar. And The American People Know He’s A Liar. The Question Is, Does Anybody Give A Damn About Truth Anymore?

April 17, 2014

Do the American people believe Obama’s dishonest bullcrap any longer?

Not so much:

Poll: Most Americans believe Obama lies on important issues
By Charles Hoskinson  | APRIL 17, 2014 AT 10:53 AM

How much do Americans trust President Obama? Not much, according to a Fox News poll.

Sixty-one percent of respondents in the poll released Thursday said Obama lies at least some of the time on important issues. An additional 20 percent said he lies every now and then.

Only 15 percent believe the president is completely truthful.

“Lies” as in DELIBERATELY says things that he KNOWS are false.  Obama knows he’s looking you right in the eye and lying to your face, but he does it anyway.

The article points out that there is some political bias going on in the perception:

Predictably, Republicans were more likely to believe Obama is a liar, with 85 percent saying he lies some or most of the time. Thirty-one percent of Democrats said the president is always truthful.

Two things.  Thing one: “Thirty-one percent of Democrats”?  Less than a third of the man’s own damn party???  That aint so good.  I’m sure other roaches have a far higher opinion about their lead roach.  And thing two, well, I’ll let the article say it and just comment afterward:

What’s interesting is that independents were slightly more likely to believe Obama lies at least some of the time — 63 percent, compared with 61 percent for the total sample.

Yeah, Independents are actually MORE likely to believe Obama is a dishonest lying sack of bovine filth than Republicans are.

So, it really turns out that the only truly “biased” people are the Democrats who rabidly insist on believing their lying Führer no matter what.  We’ve seen that rabid mindset before.  But the fact is that not only are Independent voters with the Republicans, but they are actually even MORE with Republicans than Republicans are in that they are even more likely to point a finger in Obama’s face and snarl, “YOU LIAR!”

By the way:

The April 13-15 poll of 1,012 registered voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Democrats were 39 percent of the sample, Republicans 38 percent and independents 20 percent.

Which is to say (again) that the only people who would find “bias” in this poll are the biased Democrats who are totally out of step with reality and with the rest of the universe.

Here’s the thing.  It wasn’t all that long ago that Obama would have been done with this kind of perception.  His own party would have turned against him, the way Nixon was done when his own Republican Party said, “That’s it.  We’re better than this and we’re definitely better than YOU, Tricky Dick.”  Not long ago, Obama would have been giving his final pathetic wave as president as he flew away before the people showed up with pitchforks and torches to burn the monster.

This isn’t – or at least it shouldn’t be – just about the lies by which Obama sold ObamaCare to the American people and then got re-elected based on the same lies told over and over and over again.  This is a man who began his campaign with lie after lie.  He slandered his predecessor based on lies, such as his attack on George Bush as “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” for allowing the debt to increase by $4 trillion during his eight years only to increase it himself by nearly $8 trillion in only five years.  This is a man who demonized his opponents in the GOP for voting against his debt ceiling increase when HE HIMSELF voted against the debt increase when he was a Senator.  This is a man who routinely demonizes and slanders his opponents for their “war on women” when HE HIMSELF is far more vicious against women in HIS OWN “boy’s club” and in HIS OWN “gender gap” “wage disparity” than his opponents have EVER been.

Barack Obama is a lying, dishonest, cynical political opportunist without shame, without honor, without virtue and without decency.  And he always HAS been from his first day on the campaign trail.  Obama literally BEGAN his campaign for the presidency with a lie having broken his promise:

MR. RUSSERT: When we talked back in November of ‘04, after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as a United States senator from Illinois?”

Obama: “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

And in being the first major party nominee to refuse to accept matching funds, Obama didn’t just fundamentally transform the nature of American campaigns by blowing open the doors to money as has never been seen in politics, but he LIED:

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause [and to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network] when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

versus:

Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.

By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.

Barack Obama has ALWAYS been a liar.  And those who hate the truth have always been his most ardent supporters.

Obama has spent his career slandering and demonizing his opponents with his “war on women” slander and has “my opponents want dirtier air, dirtier water and children born with Down Syndrome and Autism” vileness.

That, too, is just another lie from hell from a liar from hell.  Lest you have conveniently forgotten, Barack Obama’s “signature promise” to the American people was that he would “transcend the political divide.”  He lied.  And the only people who believe that the political climate that has become more bitter than ever is the Republicans’ faults are the pure, rabid, toxic liars who have supported Obama and his ocean of lies.

Obama’s pathological dishonesty has taken it’s toll on America’s national security.  Obama is the man who issued a “red line” warning if Syria used chemical weapons.  And then did NOTHING as they used them repeatedly.  And now Obama is threatening Vladimir Putin on an almost daily basis if Putin keeps doing what Putin keeps doing.  Because nobody believes a thing our Empty-Suit-in-Chief says anymore.

Obama has already been kissing the dirt of Nixon with his own poll numbers.  And that is with the most dishonest propaganda mill since the Soviet Union’s TASS and the Nazi Party’s Ministry of Propaganda spinning the news for their messiah.

But times have changed.  America is a much fouler place.

We are a nation of Pontius Pilates, a nation who skeptically asks, “What IS truth?”

And just like Pilate, we have turned out backs on the Man who is truth’s very embodiment.  And that is because we turned out backs on the values of that Man that made discerning truth even possible.

From the Great City on a hill that many of our founding fathers envisioned, we are a nation that is in darkness just as Israel was in a darkness of wickedness and moral relativism in their darkest days.  We are a people who do that which is right in our own eyes, rather than in God’s.

We find out that our president is a wicked, dishonest man and our response is to yawn in boredom and stuff another handful of potato chips in our faces.

God is patient, yes He is.  I already would have handed out “Flood, Part Deux” were I in God’s place.  And that’s just one of many reasons why I praise and honor God for being God.  But that said, we also know that God is not mocked as those who are deceived think He can be.  What a man sows, that he will also reap.  And what a nation plants, it will surely harvest.  Which is why Longfellow pointed out the truth that “Though the mills of God grind slowly; Yet they grind exceeding small.”

And that is why we are a nation on the way out.  It is why when we collapse, there will be no part of what used to be America big enough to survive.  And it is why it will be no shame when we go the way of the failed empires before us.

God is going to judge this nation as a nation that tolerates lies and that tolerates wicked policies based on those lies.  And as I look around, I see a people and a nation that is ALREADY being ground down.

America has lived by lies, and it will surely perish because of those lies.

 

The Inherent, Pathological Fascism Of The Left. It Took Nazism Decades To Fester In Germany And American Liberals Are Ahead Of Schedule.

April 7, 2014

Back in 2008 I wrote a three part series of articles entitled, “How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism.”  Guess what?  It still does.

Its been nearly three years since I wrote a long article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.”  And the man has EXPLODED in fascism since I wrote that with his targeting of nearly 300 conservative groups using his thug IRS as a major recent example.  He is a firehose of pure fascist evil and you literally cannot keep up with it unless you stay up 24/7 trying to document it all.

But this article isn’t about Obama per se; it’s about the left that Obama is a creature of.  It’s about the left that is quintessentially fascist.  Which is all-too easy to prove and to document.

In a nutshell, “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  The only difference between fascist “national socialism” and “communism” was the fact that one favored “national” socialism while the other demanded “international socialism.”  But socialism is socialism.  Socialism is always and in every case big government run amok.  Socialism is government dictating to the people what to do and how to live and what to think.  If there was a National Socialist American Workers Party, is anyone actually fool enough to believe it would be the Republicans or the conservatives???  Because conservatism stands for the ANTITHESIS of socialism: we stand for LIMITED federal government, for individual liberty rather than governmental control, for laissez-faire free markets rather than government taxation and regulation.

Gene Edward Veith makes this point:

“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative.  [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.”  Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite.  If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative.  If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing.  If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.

The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

Which is to say that you are already a far-leftist socialist – a communist – merely to believe the lie that the communist propaganda put forward about fascism being “right-wing.”

The notion that fascism/and or Nazism is “right-wing” is utter nonsense beyond this: Nazism and fascism are the extreme right of the far, radical LEFT.  Socialism is inherently LEFT-WING, not right-wing.  The Nazis believed in a fiercely nation-based socialism whereas the communists believed in an international, “workers of the world unite!” brand of socialism.  But they BOTH wanted a giant, all-powerful, totalitarian government that is the heart of not the right but the LEFT.

So “fascism” is NOT “right-wing.”  The next surprise is that “liberalism” is not “liberal” in any classical understanding of the term.

One of the things the reader must understand is how liberals have perverted the term “liberal” and “liberalism.”  Yes, fascism is ideologically the opposite of liberalism; but that is “liberalism” in the CLASSICAL sense of liberalism, rather than what today’s progressive liberals believe and are doing.  What is “liberalism” in the classical sense?

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4]

In other words, a limited proponent of limited government, free markets, individual liberty.  THAT’S a classical liberty.  Which is to say that I as a modern conservative am a classical liberal, whereas modern progressive liberals are – you guessed it – fascists.  Modern liberals, like the fascists, believe in the OPPOSITE of all these things that classical liberals held and hold the most dear.

As you think about fascism and Nazism (which was merely a particular form of fascist socialism, think about some of the tenants and try to understand how what I am going to document that which is coming from the American left today is genuinely fascist.

Only a couple of months ago there was this gem of rabid fascist intolerance from the left:

Harvard writer: Abolish free speech
Woman claims First Amendment threatens liberalism
Published: 1 day ago

A student writer at Harvard University is raising eyebrows after publishing her belief that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” Korn asks.

“It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”

Korn’s view grabbed the attention of the nation’s top conservative voice, Rush Limbaugh.

“This is not unique. This is not satire. This is not parody,” Limbaugh said on his nationally broadcast radio program Tuesday. “This woman, Sandra Korn, is real, and she’s serious that free speech needs to be abridged because it is threatening liberalism. It means that liberalism cannot hold up to scrutiny. It cannot withstand a challenge.  If liberalism were infallible, if liberalism were so powerful and automatic, they would welcome challenges to it – and they would welcome the attempt to persuade and to convert. But instead they’re threatened by it.”

When asked of he thought her belief was going to become a movement, Limbaugh indicated it already was one.

“This is what the left is,” he explained. “Why do you think they want to get rid of this program? Why do you think they want to get rid of Fox News? Why do they want to silence criticism? What is Obama’s modus operandi? Eliminate the opposition. This is already a movement!”

“This woman has just written a column about it at Harvard with what appears to be an extreme view of eliminating the First Amendment as a way of silencing opposition. But she’s very honest. The First Amendment, free speech, ‘threatens liberalism,’ meaning liberalism cannot thrive in an open society. Liberalism is totalitarianism. Liberalism is statism. It is authoritarianism. It is all of the horrible Isms, and it cannot thrive when there is open debate. It cannot survive challenges.”

“Ah, the ‘community organizer force’ is strong with this one,” I’m sure Darth Obama – who held a similar position writing for Harvard - must have mused when he heard this.

The question, “Is this already a movement?” – and not merely an intellectual bowel movement – has been powerfully answered in the few weeks since this article came out from Harvard (the brains of the cockroach that is the leftist organism).

This from yesterday at the leftist Mozilla:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigns under fire for supporting Prop. 8
By Salvador Rodriguez
April 3, 2014, 2:32 p.m.

Just days after taking the job, Brendan Eich has resigned as chief executive of Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, after coming under fire for his 2008 support of Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment that disallowed the marriage of same-sex couples in the state.

Mozilla announced Eich’s resignation Thursday afternoon in a blog post, saying that his hiring did not reflect the organization’s beliefs.

“While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the Web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better,” Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said in a statement. “We need to put our focus back on protecting that Web. And doing so in a way that will make you proud to support Mozilla.”

The organization named Eich CEO last week after operating under an interim CEO for more than a year. Eich had worked at Mozilla for years and was known as the founder of JavaScript, a popular programming language.

But Eich came under sharp criticism for donating $1,000 to a campaign that supported Poropisition 8, Several Mozilla board members resigned to protest his appointment.

Numerous Mozilla staffers also took to Twitter to call for his resignation. One popular online dating site OKCupid displayed a message on its website asking Firefox users to access the Web using a different browser.

“We took the stand because it seemed like the right thing to do,” a spokesman for OKCupid said.

Mozilla said it is still discussing what comes next for its leadership.

This guy Eich was incredibly well qualified to run this company, which he’d helped found.  But liberals hold religious purity tests having nothing to do with corporate performance – and Eich was found to be a heretic and blasphemer.

If you ask the question, “Is Sandra Korn running Mozilla?” the answer is, “She might as well be.”  Because fascist leftist who are rabidly intolerant of ANY point of view that differs from their own and cannot emotionally or intellectually handle dissent are what they are whether they’re at Harvard or at Mozilla.

Imagine the fallout had a corporation purged a CEO for the death penalty-worthy crime of having exercised his or her freedom to donate to the No on 8 campaign.  And said they were doing it out of a spirit of “inclusiveness” and “diversity” (which they would have as much to claim as the opposite side).  But for the most part, the propaganda mill that constitutes “journalism” simply ignored this story.

What is rather fascinating is that one particular paragraph in the print article (on page B2 of the LA Times’ Business section) – was purged from the online article that you see here.  It immediately follows the “did not reflect the organization’s beliefs” line of crap.  Here it is:

“Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness,” Mozilla Chairwoman Michell Baker said in a statement.  “Mozilla supports equality for all.”

You can see that statement from Mozilla in broader form here.

What is funny – and I mean laugh-till-you-pee-your-pants-funny – is how these Nazis actually view themselves as “inclusive.”  You can understand why the uberleftist LA Times would purge that: it is so obviously self-refuting that it could not stand the light of day and had to be hidden the way ashamed parents would hide a child molesting freak in the basement.

Hell, I still remember when Barack Obama stated the following when he was lying his way to the presidency:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. [big audience applause] For me as a Christian it’s also a sacred union, you know, God’s in the mix….I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.” — Barack Obama, Saddleback Church debate moderated by Rick Warren, August 20, 2008 

The ONLY reason the left didn’t go after Obama the way they have rabidly gone after everyone who said the same words is that they understood that – being one of them – Barack Obama was a pathological liar who said one think until it was time to say the opposite of the thing he said.

Pathological dishonesty goes hand in hand with pathological fascism.

When “inclusive” means, “If you don’t think exactly like I do, I will destroy you,” you have arrived at the spirit of Orwellianism.  And the soul of the left skinny dips in Orwellian anti-thought.

If you are a Democrat, if you are a liberal, you DON’T think.  You double-think.  You unthink.  You anti-think.  Which is why you are such a complete moral idiot.  And why you have no shame, no honor, no virtue, no integrity of any kind whatsoever.

Sandra Korn was also apparently running the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference – which was (laughably) all about “inclusiveness” too.

Stormfront – from where I found the Youtube video below – also found this beauty of self-contradicting liberalism:

Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,” according to the event’s official website (feministcampus.org).

Watch how “inclusive” they are the moment they discover “the other” and tell me about that “safe space policy” again.  Tell me how this is what “structured around inclusivity” looks like.  Tell me that this is what it looks like to have “a focus on representing various perspectives”:

Here’s a write-up from Campus Reform, which sent the reporter to be treated like a leper by “the tolerant and inclusive” people:

Campus Reform’s Katherine Timpf attended the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference (NYFLC) — an event which promised to be about “inclusivity” and welcoming everyone — only to be told that “conservative” women were not welcome.

Timpf attempted to ask students’ their opinions on feminism, but conference organizers made an announcement advising participants not to talk to Campus Reform because it was a “conservative” outlet.

“You guys aren’t wanted here.”

The organizers also followed Timpf around the conference to interrupt her conversations with students to tell them the same thing.

“They’re a group that’s conservative, so what we are fighting for is not something…” one organizer told a student who was talking with Timpf, prompting the student to walk away.

“You’re just assuming that based on where I work,” Timpf told the organizer.

“Yeah, we are,” the organizer stated.

“You guys aren’t wanted here,” a participant told the reporter after the warning.

“I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive thing, why am I being excluded because of where I work?” Timpf asked another organizer after another interruption.

“Because the place that you work is not inclusive,” the organizer responded.

“You don’t know that,” Timpf said. “You don’t know anything about me or my personal beliefs, I’m just being labeled and excluded based on a label.”

Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,” according to the event’s official website.

“We will not tolerate, allow, or encourage behavior which makes folks feel uncomfortable, threatened, or demoralized,” the policy continued.

The NYFLC conference was held March 29-31 at the DoubleTree by Hilton in Crystal City, VA.

The Nazis couldn’t have done it any better.  One female editorialist described it as “Mean Girls with ugly women.”

But hey, I’m not done yet detailing how the left self-refutes themselves and documents their OWN rabid hypocrisy and intolerance.

Try this bit of “Sandra Korn” at other liberal universities like UC Santa Barbara and Oberlin, which are beginning to impose “trigger warnings” that would allow students to opt out of anything that might harm a liberal mind (you know, like reality or the truth):

‘Trigger Warnings’ Are Antithetical to College Life

You can’t bubble wrap students against any and all possible moments of discomfiture.At the Los Angeles Times, a rare outstanding editorial, “Warning: College students, this editorial may upset you“:

The latest attack on academic freedom comes not from government authorities or corporate pressure but from students. At UC Santa Barbara, the student Senate recently passed a resolution that calls for mandatory “trigger warnings” — cautions from professors, to be added to their course syllabi, specifying which days’ lectures will include readings or films or discussions that might trigger feelings of emotional or physical distress.

The resolution calls for warnings if course materials will involve depictions and discussions of rape, sexual assault, suicide, pornography or graphic violence, among other things. The professors would excuse students from those classes, with no points deducted, if the students felt the material would distress them; it is left unclear how students would complete assignments or answer test questions based on the work covered in those classes.

The student resolution is only advisory, a recommendation that campus authorities can turn into policy or reject. They should not only choose the latter course but should explain firmly to students why such a policy would be antithetical to all that college is supposed to provide: a rich and diverse body of study that often requires students to confront difficult or uncomfortable material, and encourages them to discuss such topics openly. Trigger warnings are part of a campus culture that is increasingly overprotective and hypersensitive in its efforts to ensure that no student is ever offended or made to feel uncomfortable…

More.

Keep in mind that this development is something that derives entirely from the radical feminist left.

For more on that, see Robert Stacy McCain, “‘Fat Justice’ Feminists Blame Reagan, Praise ‘Communism and Socialism’.”

May I please have my liberal reality inoculation please?  Because reality really, really upsets me and I have to be protected from it at all cost.  That’s why I went to college where I could swim in a protective ocean where only fascist liberalism is allowed.

Accompanying this at UC Santa Barbara is a leftist professor who came unglued because somebody thought they had the right to be opposed to abortion and grabbed the sign away as her inner Nazi erupted:

The police report regarding UC Santa Barbara Professor Mireille Miller-Young has been released. Miller-Young made news after tearing a sign away from an anti-abortion activist in the university’s Free Speech Zone. Here is the PDF, and here is a rather illuminating quote.

Mireille Miller-Young

It’s worth a reminder that this professor’s areas of study include “Pornography; Sex Work; Black Film, Popular Culture and Art; Feminist & Queer Theory; African American & African Diaspora Studies,” all of which require confronting potentially upsetting material. So what exactly is the limit on what is permissible on university campuses?

Outside of Santa Barbara, this story is receiving the most attention from conservative outlets. I’m curious to know what mainstream left-of-center outlets think about this.

This post was provoked by Donald Douglas, who writes, “America’s college campuses: literally the most f-ked-up places in the nation.”

Read more at the Santa Barbara Independent.

Instapundit and Jim Treacher also have some choice words.

So if I’m upset by something, I have the right to employ violence?  Only if I’m a liberal.  If I’m a conservative, I’m going to get hauled away and prosecuted to the very fullest possible extent of the law just for SAYING that a liberal cockroach doesn’t have a right to be somewhere.  That’s the kind of double-standard that also went on as “Germany” became “Nazi Germany.”  Only the fascist thugs had the right to beat the hell out of somebody they didn’t like.

Understand: college and university faculties are THE most intolerant establishments in America, bar none.  If you are a conservative, you won’t be hired.  If you’ve already been hired and you’re a conservative, you’ll get the “Mozilla treatment” and lose promotions if not your positionProfessors openly ADMIT they discriminate against conservatives.  They take the amazing position that it is literally discriminatory for them to hire anyone who does not think exactly like they do.  If you so much as try to speak as a conservative at a college or university, you will be shouted down by rabidly intolerant “tolerance” hypocrites.

And don’t tell me that university faculty and students are some “fringe” element within the Democrat Party or the liberal movement.  Don’t tell me the violent and vicious Occupy movement fascists - and yes I truly do mean “violent and vicious” – that violated and just plain polluted the property rights of damn near everybody not long ago are some “fringe” element.  Don’t tell me that the union thugs who either beat people up or shake people down aren’t at the heart of the liberal bowel movement.  These people are all IT – whether you mean “Democrat,” “liberal” or “fascist.”  They’re all part of the fascist army of liberal goose-steppers.  Don’t tell me that the black people who make up the heart of the Democrat Party to the tune of voting 95% Democrat aren’t anything other than vicious.  When they aren’t murdering their own babies or murdering one another, they are beating the fascist hell out of innocent white people in unprovoked racist attacks.

And if white kids had a game called “black bear hunting” in which they sucker punched little old black ladies, I have a damn feeling that the media and the courts would treat these racist young punks differently and call it for what it clearly is.  But it’s black thugs, and Eric Holder says, “Never bring a lawsuit against a black” on my watchSo we’ve got this “knock out game” a.k.a. “polar bear hunting” going on all over America, and of course it can’t be “racist” for a black thug to sucker punch a white person.

The amazing thing is that THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO CALL ME A NAZI.  And they’re so pathologically dishonest and they’ve so completely deceived even themselves that they actually do it with a straight face.

You wonder how their skulls don’t explode from trying to hold so many massive contradictions, but they manage to pull it off.  Because they anti-think when un-thinking or double-thinking fails them.  And they are the most rabidly intolerant people that there are – and you literally have to be a full-fledged NAZI to be more rabidly intolerant than these liberals.  And it is my observation that liberals are “progressives” who are progressing quite rapidly toward being full-fledged Nazis.

Do you want to know what is interesting?  It is that when the Nazis came to Germany, it was these same university professor-types who were the FIRST to knuckle under and collaborate with their Nazi masters:

Holocaust survivor Eli Wiesel:

“Within the system of the concentration camp, something very strange took place. The first to give in, the first to collaborate—to save their lives—were the intellectuals, the liberals, the humanists, the professors of sociology, and the like. Because suddenly their whole concept of the universe broke down. They had nothing to lean on.”

Albert Einstein (a Jew who fled before the Nazis could capture him):

“Having always been an ardent partisan of freedom I turned to the Universities, as soon as the revolution broke out in Germany, to find the Universities took refuge in silence. I then turned to the editors of powerful newspapers, who, but lately in flowing articles, had claimed to be the faithful champions of liberty. These men, as well as the Universities, were reduced to silence in a few weeks. I then addressed myself to the authors individually, to those who passed themselves off as the intellectual guides of Germany, and among whom many had frequently discussed the question of freedom and its place in modern life. They are in turn very dumb. Only the church opposed the fight which Hitler was waging against liberty. Till then I had no interest in the church, but now I feel great admiration and am truly attracted to the church which had the persistent courage to fight for spiritual truth and moral freedom. I feel obliged to confess that I now admire what I used to consider of little value.”

Modern liberalism and those who cling to it had no answers or courage against Nazism.  And in fact their philosophies, the values they hold today ARE the same as that of the Nazis they bowed down to when their moment to stand heroically came.

Here’s what you need to know about the university liberals who endlessly lecture us:

Soon after the end of World War II, the Jewish scholar Max Weinreich published Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People.  This exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime documents how the scholarship of the time provided the intellectual justification and the conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  This is not to say that these intellectuals necessarily intended the Holocaust, but, argues Weinreich, it would not have been possible without them.  “Did the administer the poison?” he asks, “By no means; they only wrote the prescription.” — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 79-80

Ask yourself if “Professor” Mireille Miller-Young did far more than “write a prescription” justifying violence.

Weinreich establishes that these many academics who supported Hitler were sophisticated thinkers.  Their problem was that the “value-free” assumptions with which they pursued their research resulted in a mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values.  Which is THE same cancerous flaw that modern progressive intellectual liberalism suffers from today.

Now that I have documented the fascism in the left’s behavior, allow me to proceed to develop a new point about the fascism central to the left’s philosophy.  Jonah Goldberg, in his great work Liberal Fascism makes this point:

For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right.  And yet with the notable exception and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee if Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger.  All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment – John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke – and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism.  Meanwhile, the ranks of left-wing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition.  And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents.  The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values – even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments. — pg. 175-176

The solidly left-leaning (as acknowledged even by the leftist BBC) Prospect Magazine published an article titled, “In Defense of Heidegger.”  If you want more proof that it is leftist, consider that it considered the EXTREME leftist Noam Chomsky as its greatest of its 100 Greatest Intellectuals.  Most of the other 99 were quite leftist too, by the way.

The left now acknowledges that it is “common knowledge” that Martin Heidegger was a Nazi.  But it’s funny that they spent most of the last eighty years denying that “common knowledge.”

Even a socialist publication admits out the following:

The same methods—suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications—were employed by the legions of Heidegger interpreters and apologists. They were, until the publication of Farias epochal book, largely successful in preventing any critical scrutiny of Heidegger’s ideas and their relation to his politics. An ironic chapter in this enterprise was played out by the deconstruction theorist, Paul De Man. De Man did much to publicize Heidegger among the American intelligentsia in the 1960s. Then there came the posthumous revelation in the late 1980s that De Man’s hands had not exactly been clean. He had been a Nazi collaborator in occupied Belgium during World War II and in that capacity had written some anti-Semitic articles for a Nazi-sponsored literary magazine. After De Man’s war-time essays were published there ensued a lively controversy about the relationship between De Man’s war-time activity and his subsequent ideas on deconstruction.[

And my exploration of the above distortion of Marxist scholarship of fascism and Nazism at the beginning of this article is merely part of that intellectual tradition of deceit.  The left “suppressed evidence” and employed tactics of “evasions and falsifications” to conceal the “common knowledge” of their intellectual hero for most of the last century until one courageous scholar finally blew the doors off the lie.  And of course then the left instantly proceeded to apologize and rationalize the man’s heart and mind of pure evil.  And of course it is pointed out that the left did the exact same thing with ANOTHER hard-core Nazi intellectual hero of the left named Paul de Man.  You can goose step down the list of numerous leftist intellectual heroes such as Herbert Marcuse, Frantz Fanon, Georges Sorel, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Carl Schmitt, and others to see the same damn thing.  And frankly even documented PROOF of the hatefulness of these men and their ideas – and the CONSEQUENCES of their ideas – don’t matter.

The paragraph that follows the one cited above in Liberal Fascism therefore points out that:

In a seminar there may be important distinctions to be made between, say, Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, and Hitler’s “revolt against reason.”  But such distinctions rarely translate beyond ivy-covered walls – and they are particularly meaningless to a movement that believes action is more important than ideas.  Deconstruction, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all of these ideas had the same purpose – to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancien regime still fought and persevered.  These were ideologies of the “movement.”  The late Richard Rorty admitted as much conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project. — Goldberg, Modern Fascism, p. 176

And it is simply a FACT that all of those intellectual traditions and worldviews are at the very heart of the left and in radical rejection of the Classical Enlightenment foundationalism and Judeo-Christian religious worldview of the right.  You can ignore it with your constant exploitation of crisis and demand for action all you want, liberal, but hateful ideas have hateful consequences.  And it has been the hateful ideas that you CONTINUE to espouse to this very day that had those hateful consequences that resulted in the gas chambers and the Holocaust of Nazism AND the purges and massacres of MILLIONS of communism.

You OWN it.  Even though you are too much of a hypocrite and a liar and frankly a coward to ADMIT that you own it.

One of the primary reasons that the left’s “enterprise of Unreason” (remember how I referred to the left’s “un-thinking” and “anti-thinking” and “double-thinking”?) consistently leads to moral horror boils down to this:

David Hirsch, in his study of Holocaust literature, concludes that one of the most striking characteristics of those who have carried out the exterminations was their inability to have empathy with an “other.”  Hans Ebeling criticizes Heidegger in similar terms: “the power of acknowledging the other as the other, as essentially equal, is missing, and for that reason it only remains to oppress the other without any leniency.”  Since existentialism focuses upon the individual consciousness, “the other” is necessarily minimized. — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 103

At thus I reintroduce the demonization and purging of Brendan Eich for no other reason than that he gave a small financial contribution to a view of marriage that Barack Obama was HIMSELF hypocritically and dishonestly claiming at the time.  Because it is the NATURE of the left – particularly the “intellectual” left – to lie without shame and cover up the truth and to suppress and to evade and to falsify the FACTS.

It ought to go without saying that if a more conservative-friendly corporation’s CEO had been found to have donated $1,000 to the “No on 8″ campaign – as I’m frankly sure many have - he would still be there.  Because unlike the left we value intellectual freedom.

So when Barack Hussein Obama routinely demonizes “the other” – that is absolutely everybody who doesn’t think exactly like he does – it’s what they call in golf “par for the course.”  It’s who he is and what he does because the man is a fascist who has acted like a fascist his entire adult life as a “community agitator” and who very much THINKS like a fascist.

Just a few days ago, Obama said this incredibly demagogic and frankly hateful thing as his Republican straw man/bogey man:

A lot of times folks would prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t. But this law is doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s working. It’s helping people from coast to coast, all of which makes the lengths to which critics have gone to scare people or undermine the law, or try to repeal the law without offering any plausible alternative so hard to understand. I’ve got to admit, I don’t get it. Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance? Why are they so mad about the idea of folks having health insurance?

Everything Obama says is a lie, so why should this be any different?  Republicans DO have an alternative to ObamaCare.  They’ve been talking about their alternatives for years now.  Hell, I wrote a post in 2009 describing the Republicans’ alternative and pointed out that even at that early date they had already offered THREE alternative bills to ObamaCare.  So Obama just lies like the devil and then demonizes his enemies.

He has repeated his lie about Republicans offering no alternative to his fascist health care hijack act even more times than he lied about people being able to keep their doctors and their health plans.  And he lied about those things a LOT.  But Obama believes in the Big Lie just like Hitler believed in it – which is why he fascistically and rabidly keeps sticking to his lies even when it is beyond obvious that they are lies.

The Big Lie is how Obama has governed.  It is his ONLY “leadership technique.”  And because he kept repeating the same lies his Big Lie governance literally got him elected and re-elected.

Find ONE Republican who would say he or she is opposed to ObamaCare because – and I quote Obama’s lie from hell here – “I don’t want people to have health insurance.”  Just find ONE Republican who has said, “I’m mad about the idea of folks having health insurance.”

Obama has ALWAYS hated and demonized “the other” while maintaining the exact same hatred for the truth and willingness to engage in the “suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications” that I cite as at the heart of the fascist intellectual tradition above.

Obama is the man who has so much rabid hate for “the other” in his heart that as far as he is concerned, Republicans are people who want dirtier air, dirtier water and children born with Autism and Down Syndrome.

Tell you what: I challenge any liberal to a “hate contest.”  It’s Bush hate vs. Obama hate.  If I can find more examples of Obama demonizing Republicans than you can find of Bush demonizing Democrats, I get to use you as proof – with your consent no less – that all Democrats are Nazi liars who participate in Obama’s campaign of hate against “the other.”

Obama does to Republicans what Hitler did to Jews on a nearly a daily basis.

And again, Obama is the worst kind of self-righteous liar without shame who says one thing and then proves that he’s a hater according to his own dishonest standard with the next thing that comes out of his mouth.  And again – that is part and parcel of the leftist tradition.

I’ve been saying it and saying it.  The beast is coming, the Antichrist from the Bible.  He will be the ULTIMATE Democrat in that he will be the ultimate big government totalitarian who creates the State in place of God and demands worship in place of God.  He will do what Democrats have tried to do and he will succeed in completely taking over the economy such that no man or woman may buy or sell without his stamp of approval (a.k.a. the mark of the beast).

Nazism didn’t just fly out of nowhere.  It took DECADES for the evil in the German spirit to metastasize to the point where they were willing to murder six million Jews and five million other helpless human beings in their government extermination center.

It was from the minds of thinkers whom the American left still adores and follows today – thinkers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger and Derrida – from which the thought process that led to the death camps and the gas chambers and the ovens.

And Obama has taken that liberal descent into true fascism that will ultimately have the ugliest and darkest consequences a giant step forward.

Update, 4/7/14: Well, it doesn’t take very long for liberals to prove even further that they are true fascists, does it.  Yes, we just had a liberal UC Santa Barbara professor described above inciting violence against someone for the crime of peacefully holding a viewpoint different from hers.  We just had the same uberliberal UC Santa Barbara student body demonstrate that under the leadership of such “professors,” they are rabidly intolerant of any ideas that they don’t like and demand that they should never have to listen to anything that disagrees with their preconceived liberal fascism.  And being liberals and being fascist, they just got through documenting that they are as violent as hell: 100 young liberal fascists were arrested for rioting.

And of course it’s nothing new when a mob of black liberals (blacks voting so overwhelmingly Democrat that to be black IS to vote Democrat) beat a white man into a coma.  So it shouldn’t be any surprise whatsoever that blacks – who are fascist because they are liberals – would beat yet another white man into a coma for the crime of being white.

 

 

 

 

Atheists Acknowledge God Because There REALLY IS Power In The Cross (It Sickens The Forces Of Satan)

March 8, 2014

Hold up a cross and watch a vampire shrink back in pain and fear.

Vampires are evil, parasitic leeches – just like liberals – and as the unholy spawn of the devil they cannot abide the holiness of God as demonstrated in His cross.

Turns out – and this according to atheists themselves - that the power of the cross works on them, too.  And apparently just as well.

You see, if there were any actual reality to atheism, what would the cross be?  Just two sticks held together at a perpendicular angle.  No pain there.  It’s just a simple geometric figure.  Do isosceles triangles cause you so much agony and emotional devastation?  Parallelograms?

But you see, the cross DOES mean an awful lot more than what atheists claim it does.

The cross represents the reality that God entered the world, assumed a human nature, and conquered sin and death by taking sinful man’s place and dying (as a man) and being raised from the dead (because God can’t die).

And the power of the cross makes the demons that haunt atheists’ shriveled souls start crawling and howling and causing all kinds of freaky symptoms:

Atheists Continue to Push for 9/11 Cross Ban, Claiming It Has Caused Them ‘Physical and Emotional’ Pain
Sep. 11, 2012 4:39pm   Billy Hallowell

American Atheists Claims 9/11 Cross Has Caused Physical, Emotional Pain

The World Trade Center cross was pulled from the rubble of the 9/11 attacks. The cross is part of the planned 9/11 Museum. (Photo Credit: AP)

Atheist activists have a knack for picking riveting, infuriating and seemingly never-ending battles. During the Christmas season, they aim for nativities on public property and at the end of every school year, their targets set on commencement prayers.

While these battles have become all-too-familiar, there’s one showdown brewing that distinguishes itself from the rest — atheists’ demands that a cross found in the rubble following the September 11, 2001 attacks not be included in a museum that is being planned to commemorate the lives lost during the tragedy.

American Atheists (AA), a group working to advance the secular cause, has been leading the charge against the Ground Zero cross since July 2011, when the organization first filed suit against it. TheBlaze’s Meredith Jessup has explored this issue, in detail, on TheBlaze Blog, where she explained AA’s main arguments against the cross’ inclusion.

“The atheists’ suit claims that by including the cross in a museum on public property, the government is unconstitutionally endorsing a religion,” Jessup writes. “It also asserts that the mere presence of the cross would result in emotional — and possibly even physical — injuries among atheists who will feel anxious and excluded.”

Jessup isn’t exaggerating. The organization’s complaint reads, in part:

The plaintiffs, and each of them, have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer damages, both physical and emotional, from the existence of the challenged cross. Named plaintiffs have suffered, inter alia, dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack and the lack of acknowledgement of the more than 1,000 non- Christian individuals who were killed at the World Trade Center.

There is nothing “unconstitutional” about that 9/11 cross no matter HOW warped your reading of the Constitution is.

Because nobody made it.  The first responders simply found it in the ruins, just like it was.  They literally found a piece of wreckage that gave them comfort and so they preserved it.

Atheists are welcome to find a symbol in the 9/11 ruins demonstrating that atheism was there on 9/11.  But oh, that’s right: atheism HAS no symbol because atheism is mindless idiocy and doesn’t stand for ANYTHING beyond hatred for reality and contempt for the God who created it.

And so atheists blame their symptoms of demon-possession on the cross when they ought to recognize that it’s just God demonstrating Himself to them according to Romans chapter One:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

And being confronted with that reality makes them just plain psycho.

Homosexual Sexual Assaults In Military Skyrocketing – And Also Why Sexual Assaults In Military Are Skyrocketing In GENERAL

January 2, 2014

First let’s have the news from the pages of the Los Angeles Times:

Air Force member’s allegation of sex assault brings him more grief
Male victims of sexual assault in the military rarely file complaints. When Air Force security guard Trent Smith did, his life got worse, he says.
By David S. Cloud
December 30, 2013, 9:19 p.m.

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. — Shortly after he arrived at Ramstein Air Base in Germany in March 2012, Air Force security guard Trent Smith was at an off-base apartment when, he says, a male sergeant touched him and pressed him to go into the bedroom for sex.

“I said, ‘No, I don’t want to spend the night,’” Smith recalled. But Smith, 20, says he felt he had no choice. “I went along with it.”

For Smith, the encounter — which he reported up the chain of command three days later — began an emotional ordeal. As the months passed, his doctors say, the trim, polite airman with an engaging smile suffered bouts of anger, guilt and depression so severe that he contemplated suicide several times.

More disturbing for a Pentagon struggling to gain control of a seeming epidemic of charges concerning rape and unwanted sexual advances in the ranks, Smith’s attempts to get help only worsened his troubles. After a lengthy investigation, the military decided that no crime had occurred, and it later moved to discharge Smith on medical grounds.

The case highlights a little-recognized reality for the male-dominated military. Although members of Congress have focused their outrage on abuse of women in uniform, the Pentagon reported in May that 53% of the estimated 26,000 troops who were raped or forced into sex last year were men.

Although women are proportionally more likely to be the victim of a sexual assault — the Defense Department estimates that 6.1% of women and 1.2% of men are victims of sexual assaults — the fact that men so vastly outnumber women in the military means that the problem affects more men than women.

Only a fraction of those alleging rape or sexual assault file complaints with military police or prosecutors, as a rule, so the Pentagon’s most recent estimates are based on a confidential survey of service members. Smith was among those who did file an official report.

After a six-month criminal investigation, Brig. Gen. Charles K. Hyde, then commander of the 86th Airlift Wing at Ramstein, decided the sex was consensual, according to case records. The sergeant was admonished for an “unprofessional relationship” with a lower-ranking airman, the lightest punishment possible.

The Times is not naming the sergeant because he was not charged. He declined an interview request through a base spokesman at Ramstein. The spokesman, Maj. Tony Wickman, said the sergeant was considered an “above-average airman.”

As usual, of course, I turn out to be completely correct in my predictions from 2010:

In my “day” in the Army, soldiers in the infantry that I served in just would not have tolerated openly homosexual soldiers.  There would have been blanket parties galore, until the gay-berets got the message that they were most definitely not wanted.  I don’t know that that will happen today, but I just can’t imagine the mindset has changed that much in the years I’ve been out (by which I mean out of the military, and not, you know, “out”).

I heard a Democrat representative today say that the military is having a hard time keeping up its recruiting goals, and so therefore it’s stupid to deny thousands of gay men and women the opportunity to serve.  What that omits is the fact that there are a lot of heterosexual men and women who don’t want to be forced to shower and sleep right next to same-sex soldiers who may well want nothing more than to have “relations” with them.  There are also a lot of young men who continue to have something of that Judeo-Christian worldview who rightly believe that homosexuality is a serious moral issue, and these young men aren’t going to want to be forced to trust people that they don’t trust with their lives.

“Missile defense” is about to take on a whole new meaning.

And lo and behold, or for you French-surrender-monkey-loving liberals,  voilà.  Missile defense has taken on a whole new meaning under Obama just as I TOLD YOU SO.

Not only a  majority but a whopping majority – as in an even slightly larger majority that constituted a “landslide” for Obama in 2008 - of the rape cases involve some poor bastard who didn’t have adequate “missile defense” against some homosexual sodomy soldier (or sailor, because after all the openly homosexual Village People did sing that song, “In the Navy”).  Fully 53% of the rape cases in the military are men getting raped by other men.

The LA Times wants you to think that the 53% of cases of rape being against men is irrelevant given the ratio of male troops to female troops.  But I hasten to point out that less than 2% of the population is homosexual – and that “10% figure” is a giant load of crap that is merely a bellwether of the insane ideology of everyone reporting this easily refuted statistic as if it were even remotely true.  So we’ve definitely got the “gay military” I described back in 2008.  And if you don’t have kung fu missile defense, you’d better stay the hell out of Obama’s military unless you’re a guy who likes being the girl during your rape.  In which case you’ve come to the right place signing up for a tour of rump ranger duty.

I think of our prison system, where that less-than-2% of our population for some unknown reason (other than the biblical fact that their lifestyle is an “ABOMINATION” and “A DETESTABLE ACT”) constitute a massive percentage of our inmate population.  Go to prison or jail and you’re extremely likely to run into one of these innocent, wonderful homosexuals the media and the Democrat Party are so in love with.  To wit: if you’re entering the military or if you’re entering the prison system and you’re a heterosexual, sorry, dude.  Keep up with that “missile defense” and just do the best you can.  And remember that when they bend you over, you’re sacrificing your “virginity” for Obama’s glory.

This is the funny thing (unless you happen to be a heterosexual serviceman): sexual assaults in the military HAVE SKYROCKETED under the first “gay president” (aforementioned “gay” thing being according to überleftist MSNBC and Newsweek just in case you don’t want to take my word for it).

As an example, military sexual assault cases “skyrocketed” in 2012, according to the news reports.  Their words.  But then “there were more reported sexual assaults in the military in the first nine months of fiscal year 2013 than in all of fiscal year 2012.”  So let’s just say that the rate of the “skyrocketing” has “skyrocketed.”

And yes, that’s “rocket” as in what the poor bastard tries to protect himself from with “missile defense.”

Let me explain why it is that sexual assaults have skyrocketed under “first gay president” Obama.  It’s actually very simple: because Obama has purged “religion and morality” from the military that as “commander-in-chief” he has so much control over.  And without “religion and morality” you have NO MORALITY AT ALL.

I’ve pointed out the following point again and again:

Washington [as in George Washington, the Father of our country] said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

George Washington said:

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

John Adams completely agreed:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

Barack Hussein and the Democrat Party that stinks of all things Hussein are traitors to America and guilty of treason according to the men who fathered America and wrote our Constitution.  PERIOD.

Why were our founding fathers so right and Obama and the entire Democrat Party so treasonously and so wickedly wrong???

I wrote a brief response to a comment this morning that I think does a reasonable job expressing the reason why:

This gets to a far deeper problem with secular humanism: there ARE no grounds for morality.  To wit, if I am an atheist, what do I have to do such that I am not a “good atheist” the way one could easily point out that one is not a “good Christian” by comparing his or her moral behavior to the ethics of the Bible.  THERE IS NOTHING.  Stalin and Hitler and Mao were all “good atheists” even though they are responsible for way, WAY over the murders of 100 million people (and yes, for the official record, Hitler WAS an atheist, having been described as such by key members of his inner circle like Joseph Goebbels in private journals.

As an example of that last, here is the entry into Goebbels’ personal diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tues):

“The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Similarly, in a 1939 diary entry, Goebbels pointed out that Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

Hitler said a bunch of things about Christianity, such as that Christianity was the invention of sick minds.  Hitler was an atheist who pointed out to his inner circle that after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow.”

Liberals are fascists who believe what Hitler said to the masses because Hitler spoke as the Führer of Big Government Socialism (NAZI standing for “National Socialist German Workers Party”) and to them Government is God.  The morality of God must be supplanted and replaced with the “morality” of the State.  They ignore the fact that Hitler was a demon-possessed LIAR who told the people one thing and told his trusted inner circle something very different (the truth).

So what does one have to do to be a “bad atheist”???  What IS morality to these people???  And the answer is as chilling as the worst of Stalinism: it is whatever the hell they SAY it is at any given moment.

So Obama was a “good liberal” when he said that marriage was the union between one man and one woman in 2008, and he was a good liberal for saying the exact OPPOSITE the moment political expediency enabled him to do so.  Because ultimately the “morality” of liberalism is dishonesty and abject personal hypocrisy.

I like the morality of the Bible better.  Because “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands forever,” whereas the “morality” of liberalism is a constantly shifting thing that always and only benefits liberals and their perversions.

The reason that morality is irrelevant to liberal Democrats is the reason that Obama could swear in 2008 that “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” [and in fact said it on the very eve of the 2008 election to make sure we all heard him lying] and then said the EXACT OPPOSITE THING when it was convenient for him to do so.  Because liberalism stands for NOTHING but more liberalism.  It’s the same reason that your NEXT Democrat candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, did the same damn stinking lying dishonest depraved thing.

I repeat the moral lecture from a liberal to me, who said:

surely you cannot be so ignorant as to believe the eight mentions of homosexuality in the Bible are appropriate for total guidance in modern situations.

Because he prefers Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s constantly shifting stand and just as constantly self-centered and self-serving “morality” to the eternal morality of God and His Word.

“Morality” to a liberal is whatever the hell he or she wants it to be at any constantly shifting moment in time.  And of course every single time it shifts it will reinforce the ideology of liberalism.  And every single time it shifts it will agree with Satan and his depraved world and disagree with God and His Word.

If secular humanist liberals tell us not to rape, what does it matter???  Tomorrow they’ll tell us something very different, for one thing.  And give that liberals believe in evolution, aren’t they contradicting themselves???   Because after all:

The males of most species—including humans—are usually more eager to mate than the females, and this enables females to choose among males who are competing with one another for access to them. But getting chosen is not the only way to gain sexual access to females. In rape, the male circumvents the female’s choice [p. 53, A Natural History of Rape, MIT Press, 2000,  Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer].

These evolutionists make it very clear that we’re rapists by evolutionary biology:

“Human rape arises from men’s evolved machinery for obtaining a high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates” (p. 190, emp. added). They further state that “[e]volutionary theory applies to rape, as it does to other areas of human affairs, on both logical and evidentiary grounds. There is no legitimate scientific reason not to apply evolutionary or ultimate hypotheses to rape” (p. 55). In their proposed “scientific” evolutionary reasons why men rape women, they suggest that in some cases heavy metals such as lead “disrupt psychological adaptations of impulse control,” which may lead to a “higher rate of criminality” (p. 58). They state, “[l]ead may account for certain cases of rape, just as mutations may” (p. 58).

Of course, in our new gay military, the male circumvents the [politically unprotected] male’s choice, too.

No lesser evolutionary authority than William Provine pointed out that atheism and evolution equals zero morality or ethics:

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

So the facts are (according to secular humanist liberal Democrats) that: 1) there is no God and that therefore 2) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists which means that 3) Human rape arises from men’s evolved machinery.  and of course 4) the facts may change tomorrow when liberals say they changed 5) in order to suit liberals.  Oh, and 6) people vote “Democrat” because they are mindless and soulless meat puppets devoid of anything resembling free will.

And you seriously wonder why sexual assaults are flourishing in the age of Obama???

I just wonder when Newsweek will rightly put Obama on the cover as “the first buttrape president.”  I know that’s a truly crude term, but as ObamaCare rears its massively intrusive governmental ding dong and starts pushing it up their rears, that’s precisely how a lot of people who AREN’T either in the military or the prison system will feel…

Secular Humanist Liberals Who Try To Hijack Christmas Are Like Klu Klux Klansmen Who’d Like To Hijack Martin Luther King Day

December 26, 2013

Let me just point out an obvious historical fact: Christmas is a federal holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus.

Democrats – who despise God, despise the Bible, despise Judeo-Christianity, despise Western Civilization itself and whose favorite “art” is “Piss Christ” – most despise the nativity scene that depicts the birth of Jesus when they rain their hell on Christmas.

That said, Democrats hate Santa Claus, too.  Because Santa Claus was based on an actual historical white Christian male named Saint Nicholas, after all.  And truth is just something these people WILL NOT tolerate.

But they hate Jesus far more.  Because Jesus put it best when He pointed out, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first” — John 15:18.

What is it about allowing a nativity scene that forces people to bow down and pray against their wills?  I have no freaking clue.  Apparently Democrats believe more in the power of the Christmas spirit than conservative evangelical Christians do.

Demanding that other religions or other people be honored as much as Jesus is honored on Christmas is no different than demanding that we give equal honor to the equivalent day for the Soviet Union when we honor the day our Declaration of Independence (which is filled with references to God, fwiw) was adopted in America on Independence Day.  It’s like demanding that we give equal time to Nathan Bedford Forrest (the founder of the Ku Klux Klan) on Martin Luther King Day.  In other words, it is a frankly insane and evil thing to do.

So stop and think about the liberals who come unglued over a holiday that honors the birth of Christ.  Tell me precisely how they’re different from Ku Klux Klansmen (the Ku Klux Klan being the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, for the factual record) wanting to bring their agenda into a holiday that honors the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Take a look at the KKK’s history:

As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[20] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks’ voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

It is a historical fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican who publicly campaigned for Dwight D. Eisenhower.  Democrats responded by whitewashing – literally white washing – history to turn truths into lies and lies into truths.  Such as that Democrats should get the credit for voting for the Civil Rights Act when history documents that Republicans deserve overwhelmingly MORE credit.

But what should one expect from the Party of lies and liars???  What should one expect from the Party of homosexual sodomy worship and baby murder???

The beast, the Antichrist of the end times who will be the ultimate big government bureaucrat and who will promise a liberal Utopia but instead create hell on earth, will be cheered by every Democrat.  Count on it.

I feel I need to point it out again: Christmas is a federal holiday honoring the birth of Jesus.  You don’t have to honor Him as the Son of God adding a human nature to His deity by being born of a virgin, as I do; you just have to recognize that the Man who had the greatest impact on all of human history was BORN.  Just like Martin Luther King day is a federal holiday that honors the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

If Democrat judges need to impose “Festivus” or whatever the hell else the demons in them itch to push to undermine Christmas, they should just as vigorously support the right of white power groups to impose their agenda on MLK day.  The fact that they don’t merely supports the thesis I have argued hundreds of times: that the quintessential ingredient to liberalism is abject hypocrisy.

It is simply a FACT that our founding fathers were Christians and very much intended to forge a nation upon the foundation of Judeo-Christian morality:

If You Think Founding Fathers Didn’t Want This Country To Be A Christian One, Put This In Your Pipe And Smoke It

Whose Country Do We Want: Our Founding Fathers’ Or Our Secular Contemporaries’?

It is simply a historical fact that of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 54 were confessed Christians and members of Christian churches. And 29 of them had seminary degrees and were ordained ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  They didn’t throw their faith into the trash can and they didn’t seek to have their faith – a faith that influenced them to defy the mightiest nation in the history of the world up to that time to found a nation – being banned from influencing the government they had founded.  Only genuinely morally insane people would believe that.  Rather, our founding fathers sought to provide a climate friendly to religion and in fact FOUNDED upon religion as George Washington famously expressed it:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

The central project of America was to create a moral and religious citizenry:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

Did our founding fathers intend to create a “theocracy”???  NO.  When the founding fathers used the term “religion” (as in the question, “What is your religion?”) they in fact understood “religion” to refer to a Christian sect.  There simply weren’t enough non-Christian religions in America, for one thing, while there were NUMEROUS Christian denominations.  And the founding fathers – who did NOT want a “Church of England” situation arising in America – were wise enough to realize that they had to prevent one denomination from being allowed to use government power to overshadow any or all of the others.  That was all they sought to do.  The did NOT seek to ban religion or even Christianity in a general sense from influencing the government.  Only a true fool believes otherwise.

Democrats are truly evil people who have sought to subvert and frankly to pervert the project of the founding fathers who gave us our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.  That is why Democrats have sought to impose socialism that would make our founding fathers frankly puke; that is why they have sought to overturn the 2nd Amendment in a manner that makes our founding fathers spin in their graves; that is why Democrats have sought to create an all-powerful central government that is more of an enemy to America than the imperial England EVER was to the founding fathers; and that is frankly why Democrats have sought to impose godless Marxism which replaces “God” with “the State.”

The Democrat Party is the Party of genuine, demon-possessed evil in America.  It has ALWAYS been, since the day that Democrats wanted the “freedom” to own slaves:

The Democrat Party was the Party that waged a brutal Civil War to continue black slavery with a United States led by Republican President named Lincoln.  The Democrat Party was the Party that spawned the Ku Klux Klan as its terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.  The Democrat Party under Woodrow Wilson actually RE-segregated the US Military and government service (after Republicans had de-segregated them and allowed blacks to serve).  The Democrat Party in 1924 was SO completely dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that the Democrat National Convention was called “Klanbake.”    The Democrat Party under FDR and their New Deal was rife with racism and unions and Democrats used it to prevent blacks from getting jobs.  The Democrat Party continued to be THE Party of hard-core racism for the entire history of the republic.  The racist horror story of “Mississippi Burning“ was OWNED by Democrats from the Governor right on down.  In fact, the state Democrat Party in Mississippi was limited to whites only.  And the fact is that a FAR higher percentage of Republican Congressmen and Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.  Democrats were the Party of keeping the black man down until they cynically – incredibly cynically – saw that there was another way to keep exploiting black people to keep them on their plantation and keep them down.

Again, the evidence that the founding fathers clearly and overwhelmingly intended for Christianity and for religion to be the dominant form of morality in America is so crystal clear that it is beyond unreal.

The Democrat Party’s war against Christ and Christianity has so many fronts no human mind can possibly keep track of all of them.

The attack on Christmas is merely one of them.

But I think it makes me roll my eyes more than any of the other demonic attacks by Democrats.  Because if honoring the birth of Jesus somehow imposes “religion” against non-Christians’ wills, then honoring the birth of Martin Luther King forces non-black people to become black people against their wills.  It is simply such a stupid and asinine allegation that all the barf bags in the world aren’t enough to contain the response of a rational thinking soul.

Jesus, Son Of Man, Son Of God (Part 4): The Trinity In The Old Testament

December 23, 2013

There are a lot of spiritually and scripturally ignorant people who view the doctrine of the Trinity as a problem.  The doctrine of the Trinity is not a problem at all; rather, it is an OBVIOUS ANSWER to the “problem” of the biblical data which assure us that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

Question: Does the Old Testament allow for the doctrine of the Trinity?

Answer: You betcha it does.
I. Uniqueness, Unity, and Diversity: a brief study on the nature of the God who would send the Messiah and give us the Bible.

A. God’s Uniqueness and Unity presented in the midst of a pagan world.

1. The fundamental point of OT theology is the uniqueness and unity of Israel’s God as opposed to the polytheism of Israel’s neighbors.

a. All the religions of the nations surrounding Israel were basically nature cults, designed to enlist the aid of the pantheon and ensure the fertility of the land.
b. Humans were basically created because the gods were lazy and needed someone to do the work so they could play and stay drunk.
c. In contrast, Duet 6:4 claims, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.”  Yahweh alone is the true and living God.  He is unique and it is therefore humanity’s obligation to worship Him alone.  We also find that, unlike the pantheons (e.g. the Baal pantheon) God is not divided.  In Num 6:27, God’s “name” is singular in number (“put My name upon the people”).

2. But the above emphasis on the unity of God’s being seems to be supplemented by a kind of mulitiplicity suggesting distinct centers of consciousness, as we are about to see.
3.  And further, Israel knew that the “Lord is one,” but it also became aware of one called “Seed,” “Branch,” “Wisdom,” “Prophet,” and “King” (as well as [another?] one called “Spirit of God” and “Holy Spirit.”).

B. The diversity of the one true God revealed in the Pentateuch.

1. A study of “the Lord is one” (‘ehad /echad. Strong’s #259) in Deut 6:4.

a. “’Ehad” is closely identified with “yahad” (“to be united”) and “ro’sh (“first, head).” It stresses unity while also recognizing the potential for diversity within that oneness. A good translation for this sense would be “a compound unity/oneness.” The word “compound” is defined as being “composed of two or more parts, elements or ingredients.” Read Num 13:23 and Gen 1:5 for illustration.
b. Here are a FEW of the MANY times when ‘ehad/echad is used in this manner:

1) Gen. 1:5: The yom echad (first day) is a combination of two things – the evening and the morning as a compound unity.
2) Gen. 2:24: Adam and Eve became l-visar echad (one flesh). They were one, but two and they were two, but one.
3) Gen. 3:22: Adam and Eve became “one” (echad) with God. But they did not lose their personhood when they became “one” with God.
4) Gen. 11:6: The people were one (echad). They were, thus, “one” and “many” at the same time.
5) Gen. 34:16, 22: The Shechemites wanted to become “one people” (l-`am echad) with the Jews.
6) Ex 24:3 describes all the people as speaking “with one voice.”
7) In Ex 26:6,11; 36:13 the NIV translates “‘ehad” as “a unit.” The tabernacle curtains were fastened together to form one unit.
7) II Chron. 30:12: God gave the people “one heart” (lev echad). Obviously, the thousands of individual hearts were “one” in a compound or composite sense.
7) Ezra 2:64: The “congregation” (kol-haqahal) of forty two thousand, three hundred and sixty persons was described as “one” (k-echad). Similarly, in Jud 20:8 and 1 Sam 11:7 the word “’ehad” is used in the phrase “as one man” (all the people arose as one man).
8) Jer. 32:39: Under the New Covenant, God will give His people “one heart” (lev echad).

c. There ARE times where the word ‘ehad/echad is used as “one” in the sense affirmed by strict Unitarian monotheists (such as Deut 17:6 (“only one witness” as opposed to “two or three witnesses”) and Ex 9:6 (“but not one animal”). But all Christians need to demonstrate here is that there is a powerful sense of ‘ehad/echad as a compound oneness throughout the Bible. Thus the Trinity is in the door EVEN in the Shema of Deut 6:4, the monotheistic Jews’ most powerful claim of strict monotheism. It is simply intellectually dishonest not to recognize that fact. And NOTE that when we speak of human witnesses and animals, we are speaking of one AMONG MANY. We are merely speaking about one particular human or animal among many others. So this is hardly the strongest case for ‘ehad being used in a strict Unitarian sense.
d. By contrast, there IS another Hebrew word – “yachid” (Strong’s #3173) – which means an absolute or solitary oneness. It is even translated “solitary” in Psalm 68:6 and refers to someone who is absolutely alone. This is its general meaning throughout Scripture. Unitarians should naturally expect to find that the word yachid applied to God in the Bible. On the other hand, Trinitarians would not expect to find yachid used of God because they believe that there are three Persons within the Godhead. So who is right? When we turn to the Bible, what do we find? The authors of Scripture NEVER applied yachid to God. They never described God as a solitary person. This is simply devastating to the Unitarian position of strict monotheism.
e. “The Lord is one” of Deut 6:4 is a powerful contrast with the polytheism that surrounded Israel. It is clear that God is one in some profound sense, and that, as one, He is unique and worship is to be accorded to Him alone. But it does NOT in any way rule out the doctrine of the Trinity. Quite the contrary: it allows for it as much as “one team” allows for 11 or even 53 49er football players to be on the field.

2. A study of “In the beginning God created” (Elohim).

a. The 3rd word in the Hebrew Bible (‘In the beginning God’) conveys a clear sense of plurality in God.
b. “Im” (in “Elohim”) is a masculine plural suffix, which clearly allows – if not demands – for a plurality of persons.
c. This plural form (the singular is “’Eloah”) occurs ONLY in Hebrew and is not found in any other Semitic language (including Aramaic). THERE IS NO PLURAL FORM OF GOD IN ARAMAIC, ONLY IN HEBREW.  You seriously have to wonder why ONLY the Jews used the plural form if they were supposed to be strict Unitarian monotheists.
d. The singular form “Eloah” IS used in the Old Testament, but why is the plural form “Elohim” used FAR, FAR more???   Note that the singular form does NOT damage Trinitarian doctrine because Trinitarians AGREE that “God is ONE in His nature; we hold that God is ONE in Nature and THREE in Person.  The question here is why the plural form of God “Elohim” is used at ALL if God is the strict Unitarian entity of the radical strict monotheism of Islam and Judaism???
e. It is simply a fact that Israel, in distinction from all the nations, had a unique sense of plurality in the one true God whom they worshipped in addition to the fact that God is One.

3. A study of the use of plural pronouns and verbs.

a. Plural pronouns are used to describe the actions of God (Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7).

- This phenomenon of plural pronouns points to a plurality of persons within the Godhead.
- Religious liberals who like to call this a “plural of majesty” fail to be properly disappointed by the fact that there is NO example of a “plural of majesty” in the Ancient Near East. (And no Hebrew king ever uses “we” or “us” to describe himself). The very earliest usage of such a plural of majesty is in 4th century AD Byzantine – some 800 years AFTER the OT was written.

b. The OT occasionally uses plural verbs when God is the subject and a singular form of the verb would be expected.

- wooden literal translation of Gen 35:7 is “because there the gods they had revealed themselves to him [Jacob].”
- Liberals don’t want to acknowledge the deity of Jesus Christ, and they therefore refuse to acknowledge any grounds for the doctrine of the Trinity in the OT. If the facts get in the way, so much the worse for the facts!

4. A study of the enigmatic figure called the angel of the Lord (Gen 16:7-14). The angel of the Lord is apparently distinguished from “Yahweh” (v. 11b) and then identified with Yahweh, El, and Elohim (v. 13).

- Note that in Gen 16:10 the Angel of the Lord says, “I will multiply your offspring.” Contrast that with appearances of angels who are NOT “the Angel of the Lord,” such as Gabriel in announcing to Mary.
- In Luke 1:28 Gabriel says, “The Lord is with you.” In Luke 1:30 Gabriel says, “Do not be afraid, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive…” And when Mary asked, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” Gabriel responded in Luke 1:35, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”
- Contrast Gabriel’s “God will do these things” with the Angel of the Lord who said “I will do these things.”
- Who is this Angel of the Lord? He is the Preincarnate Christ

5. A study of the three “mystery men” who appeared to Abraham. Yahweh appeared to Abraham (18:1); when he lifted up his eyes he saw three men (v. 2).

- Notice in Gen 18:1 “the LORD” (Yahweh) appeared to Abraham. How does “the LORD” appear? In the form of three men standing before him.
- Why three men? Because God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  If you think you’ve got a response that somehow rules out the doctrine of the Trinity, let’s hear it.
- The doctrine of the Trinity is MORE than allowed in the Old Testament.  And as we continue to study the Person of Messiah as revealed in Old Testament prophecy, the fact that God is three Persons will scream louder and louder and louder.
- Just as God progressively revealed His sacrificial system and His law and His Messiah in the Old Testament prophecy, He similarly progressively revealed His Triune nature.

6. A study of the three-fold repetition of divine blessing with the three-fold repetition of the divine name. Paul saw in Num 6:24-26 a foreshadowing of the Trinity (2 Cor 13:14).

- Numbers 6:24-26 says, “‘”The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine on you and be gracious to you; the LORD turn his face toward you and give you peace.”‘
- 2 Corinthians 13:14 says, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

THIS is the language of the Bible that revealed the coming of the Person – the DIVINE Person, the Second Person of the Trinity – of the coming Messiah.

Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson Suspension: Two Things Liberals Hate (Facts And Freedom) And The One Thing Liberals Love (Fascism)

December 19, 2013

We live in a world where Phil Robertson has no right to express his views on homosexuality, but where homosexuals have every right to express their rabid, frothing hatred of Christianity and evangelical Christians.  We live in a world where Phil Robertson gets suspended for basically just saying what the BIBLE says but Miley Cyrus doesn’t get suspended for performing a simulated sex act on television.  We live in a crazy, morally depraved world, in other words.

I mean, just try to get your head around: Phil Robertson is being suspended from a “reality program” for actually being “real.”  And A & E wants to take Phil Robertson out of a show that is actually mostly about HIM (he was the inventor of the duck lures of “Duck Dynasty,” you know) and is entirely about his family of which he is the patriarch.  And since A & E wants the family to continue with the show that they just banned the family’s patriarch from, A & E literally is attempting to “suspend” Phil Robertson from his very own family.

Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson allegedly just got suspended from his own television program for saying that homosexuality was next to bestiality:

Not only does “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson fail to understand what it’s like to be gay, but he also thinks homosexuality is a sin comparable to bestiality.

In a shocking new interview with GQ’s Drew Magary, Robertson — the 67-year-old patriarch of the Duck Commander kingdom that earned his Louisiana family a fortune and a hit A&E series — opened up about “modern immorality” and the gay community.

It doesn’t matter that Robertson didn’t actually do that.  Read his quote (and it would have been nice and, well, HONEST had GQ provided the context OF the quote – unless you think Phil Robertson just started popping off about homosexuality without any prompting whatsoever):

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine,” he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Notice that you “START from homosexuality” and then you “morph out from there.”  One is NOT necessarily the same as the other in Robertson’s description any more than a nasty kid starts with pulling the wings off of insects and morphs out to killing other children means that children and winged insects are the same thing.

It also doesn’t matter if the Bible confirms the view that, yes, homosexuality really IS next to bestiality:

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.  Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.  Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” — Leviticus 18:21-23

In blatant fact, not only is homosexuality next to bestiality, but it is actually sandwiched in between bestiality and child sacrifice (which liberals also love: we call it “abortion” today and 55 million innocent children have been sacrificed to the gods of convenient liberal demonism).

And, no, homosexuals will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.  Don’t take my word, don’t even take Phil Robertson’s word, take the Word of God’s word:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

And it’s not just the Book of Leviticus or 1 Corinthians.  Go to Romans Chapter One.  In fact, go to ANY passage of God’s Word and see if it EVER says a positive word about homosexuality (hint: it DOESN’T).

Liberals are pathologically opposed to the Bible.  And their hatred for the Word of God literally begins with the very first words of the Word of God and pervert more from there.

Liberals have “fundamentally transformed” morality by replacing God’s morality with their own perverted version of it.  And now they sit in rabid judgment of God and the Christians whose crime is believing the Word of God which had been the source of the moral backbone of Western Civilization for 2,000 years.

I’ve pointed this out so many times: liberals have a fundamental and profound hostility toward the Bible and toward everything about the Bible and the God of the Bible.  That hostility permeates their entire worldview.  God wanted us to be stones – individuals free to choose as individuals.  But liberals want us to become government-stamped bricks where one is identical to all the others.  It has been so from the very beginning of human civilization and it is so today.

As a Christian, Phil Robertson ought to have the right to accurately express the content of his faith – particularly when he is virtually quoting the Bible when he does it.  But “Christianity” now has to bow down before political correctness.  And the factual content of the Bible and the Christianity it expresses be damned.

Facts are anathema to the left.  They utterly despise them.  And therefore they utterly despise anyone who disagrees with them.

You need to understand how liberals, secular humanists, et al view “truth.”  I wrote about this a long time back (see part I, part II and part III).  Basically, liberals reject the classic philosophical position of foundationalism and believe instead in postmodernist coherentism.  Under coherentism, knowledge does not require any foundation and rather can be established by the interlocking strength of its components like a puzzle.  Which is to say liberals parted with “truth” long, long ago.

I stumbled across a great expression of this liberal “philosophy”:

The only difference between an opinion and a fact is the way you look at it.

In many ways, there are no facts. There are just different ways of looking at things.

With that in mind, I think it’s important to think of your opinions as facts.

Don’t tell me what you think. Tell me what you know, and if you don’t feel passionately enough about something to think you “know” it, then you should probably save your breath.

A good argument is when two people take two competing facts and let them battle it out.

The truth is created when an opinion beats out all other opinions.

Don’t say what you think is true. Decide what is true and then try to be right.

Like I said, liberals HATE truth.  They don’t even accept the possibility that there could be something called “the truth.”  They despise facts as irrelevant whenever they become inconvenient.  What they love is perverting discussion about truth into opinion polls.  And then relying upon their propaganda control over the media to slant the debate by creating straw men regarding the view they despise versus a celebrity culture regarding the view they cherish.

On my view as a foundationalist, our ultimate foundation for being able to know truth and have genuine knowledge of the external world rests with Creator God who made man in His own image and created the world for the man whom He created in His own image.  Because of the Fall and sin, we do not know truth perfectly, but because we are the result of a special creation by a truth-knowing God and because He created the world around us for us, we can reliably know things about the world.  That is the ultimate foundation upon which human epistemology rests.

Let’s hear what evolution logically entails:

Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There is no purposive principle whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable…

Second, modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society.

Third…the individual human becomes an ethical person by means of two primary mechanisms: heredity and environmental influences. That is all there is.

Fourth, we must conclude that when we die, we die and that is the end of us…

Finally, free will as it is traditionally conceived…simply does not exist. — William Provine, Distinguished Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University

To put it in Phil Robertson Duck Dynasty terms, if you are a man and you prefer another man’s anus to what God intended for you, you are a biological meat puppet insect who cannot help but prefer the anus to the vagina. And since there is no possibility of “morality” in the world your love/lust for the anus is simply a brute fact that cannot be questioned in any way, any shape or any form.  And it is for some mysterious reason only those who hold any other view who must be suppressed as ruthlessly as necessary.

Contrast that with the view that necessarily stems from the philosophy atheism and evolution:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his own presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

As a result of my view, I can know the truth and I can have free will and freely choose.  And I therefore have the right to express my beliefs.  Versus anyone who believes in evolution, who necessarily is a biological meat puppet entirely conditioned by DNA and environment and by definition can have nothing the Bible calls a “soul.”  Whereas such humanity is utterly and completely impossible to liberals BY DEFINITION.

Anyone who believes in evolution is according to their own view basically an insect who crawls a certain way merely because they were either hard-wired to so crawl or because their parents crawled that way once and didn’t happen to get eaten as a result.  That is what you are and that is all you are.  It is scientifically impossible for you to ever be anything more.

Ooops.  Did I say “free”???

Liberals also viscerally and viciously despise human freedom.  And as I believe you ought to see, that hatred stems from their views on human origin itself which result from their radical hatred of the God of the Bible.

Do I have the right to my beliefs?  Absolutely, says the liberal.  As long as your beliefs accord with mine.  Otherwise, as Khrushchev boasted, “We will bury you!”

Liberals, secular humanists, atheists and evolutionists (basically one and the same group, for the record) exploited the view of their enemies regarding individuality and freedom to make their public case.  Conservatives opposed what they said, of course, but they did not oppose their right to say it because they believed in freedom.  But the moment the left got their way, they shut the door.  They use a device called “political correctness” to shape society and therefore shape reality to their point of view.

Being politically correct is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by  redefining it. Early Marxists designed their game plan long ago and continue to execute it today — and now liberals are picking up the same tactic: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

We’re told that “political correctness” is about being sensitive to people.  But we already have the template for that; it’s called “good manners.”  Political correctness is not at all about anything other than power.

You need to understand how this has worked its way into our government: huge, sweeping government that has the power to intrude into virtually every component of our lives.  A giant welfare state.  A giant ObamaCare bureaucracy.  Stifling regulations.  The belief that “you didn’t build that” and therefore the government has the right to whatever it demands from the fruit of your hard work.

What you end up with is “Government is God” from the people who first rejected the God of the Bible.  And you end up with the battle between: Paul Ryan: ‘Our Rights Come From Nature And From God.’  Barack Obama: ‘Our Rights Come From Government And To Hell With God.’

Obama openly mocked the Bible as a book that should have anything whatsoever to do with modern life or the modern world.   I explore Obama’s demon-possessed misunderstanding of Scripture.

And instead of any worldview informed by Christianity in any way, shape or form, we have this demonism:

Liberals are fascists.  They are intrinsically and pathologically fascist.  I wrote an article two years ago that went on and on and on documenting Obama’s fascism.  And note that I predated Obama’s NSA scandals, Obama’s criminal abuse of the IRS as a weapon to target conservatives or anyone who used “anti-Obama rhetoric,” and the latest ObamaCare meltdown.  Note that I predated a Clinton-appointed judge who denounced Obama as a fascist who rules by “secret law.”  Another judge described Obama’s policy as “almost Orwellian.”

Let’s consider these statements from these judges, first from Clinton-appointed Judge Ellen Seal Huvelle:

In a Freedom of Information Act victory, a federal judge has slapped the Obama administration for its secretive ways and ordered officials to turn over a bland-sounding foreign policy document.

Chastising what she called “the government’s unwarranted expansion of the presidential communications privilege at the expense of the public’s interest in disclosure,” U.S. District Judge Ellen Seal Huvelle ruled the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development is not exempt from FOIA.

Judge Huvelle’s 20-page decision took a shot or two, or three, at the Obama administration’s penchant for secrecy.

The government appears to adopt the cavalier attitude that the President should be permitted to convey orders throughout the Executive Branch without public oversight, to engage in what is in effect governance by ‘secret law,’” Huvelle wrote.

Now by Judge Richard Leon:

A federal judge ruled Monday the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records “almost certainly” violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon described the NSA’s activities as “almost Orwellian.” He wrote, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen.”

This from the administration of “The Liar of the Year” (by both überliberal Politifact and by the überüberliberal Washington Post) who made a career dishonestly and deceitfully boasting that his was “the most transparent administration in history.”

Note: when I called Obama a FASCIST and pointed out that it is the pathological nature of the left to BE fascist, I WAS RIGHT.

In all of human history, we have NEVER had a man as stridently revealed as a complete and utter liar as Barack Obama has now been.  More human beings have seen his lies played out before them than any other liar who ever lived.  And this dishonest man is a fascist.

And the same damn people – and “damn” being a technical term for those who are one day surely going to burn in hell – are out to get Phil Robertson.  Because as I describe above, they are biological meat puppet insects and it is their nature as slave-beings who by definition have no free will and therefore do whatever their hateful slave ideology compels them to do.

You can be the random evolution meat puppet or you can get off your ass and not stand for what the left is trying to do to a man just for expressing his opinion and exercising his freedom of religion.

I mean, stop and think about it: “marriage” has meant a particular thing for the entirety of human civilization and certainly the entirety of the Judeo-Christian-based Western Civilization upon which our society was formed.  Liberals believe they have the right to redefine marriage to mean something that it never meant before as they “fundamentally transform” America.  But it gets worse, because these fascists literally believe that no one has the right to oppose them or stand for the sum entirely of previous human civilization as they pervert and distort reality to suit their demonic ideology.

In the same manner, a damn liberal judge just imposed POLYGAMY on America.  Nothing is more alive in America than the slippery slope that conservatives have been warning about.  The claim to polygamy logically follows the claim to homosexuality: who are YOU to tell me I can’t marry the man – or men – of my dreams???  And that same “logic” will necessarily ultimately see the imposition of the very bestiality that Phil Robertson talks about, because who are YOU to tell me I can’t marry my canary???  And again, that same logic will also ultimately spill over to children having the “right” to be sodomized by some adult pervert.  Because if a kid is old enough to choose abortion – which all kids are by definition according to the “logic” of liberalism – then who are you to tell them they can’t have sexual relationships with the people they choose to have them with???  It either all logically follows or NONE of it does (another free hint: NONE of it does).

Liberals can say whatever the hell they want and nobody boycotts them because conservatives believe that people have a right to say what they think.  But the liberals who believe THEY have such freedom are fascists who would NEVER grant that freedom to anybody who doesn’t think just like they think.

I update this to note that Mark Steyn wrote:

Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups like GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It’s quicker and more effective to silence them.

That is precisely right: Christians who dominated society allowed gays and other radical leftists to have free speech because it is our nature as conservatives to allow freedom.  But the left is truly fascist and the moment they were allowed in the door they slammed it shut because genuine freedom is anathema to them.

I update again to add Bristol Palin - who apparently has her mother’s way of expressing herself – to the mix:

“I think it’s so hypocritical how the LGBT community expects every single flippen person to agree with their life style. This flies in the face of what makes America great — people can have their own beliefs and own opinions and their own ways of life.

“I hate how the LGBT community says it’s all about ‘love’ and ‘equality,’” she added. “However, if you don’t agree with their lifestyle, they spread the most hate. It is so hypocritical it makes my stomach turn.”

I demand the left defend it’s “tolerance” when they are so radically INTOLERANT with anybody who doesn’t precisely march to their goose step it is beyond ridiculous.

Take a stand against that fascism while you still have a little bit of your country left.

Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God (Part 3): Having Faith Like Jesus In The Bible

December 17, 2013

Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God

Jesus, Son Of Man, Son of God (Part 2)

I have an analogy for what faith is like: at what age do you think the average child is when he or she realizes that one day – if they live long enough – that he or she will be old and gray?  How many times do they have to hear their grandparents say things like, “When I was your age…” or “When I was a little girl…” before they realize that their grandparents were once children like them and one day they’ll be old like their grandparents?  And yet, how many people – old or young – seriously live for the future???  My point here is that you can intellectually know something is true, but at some fundamental level simply refuse to believe it and act accordingly.  Obviously, if you know one day you’ll be old, common sense tells you that you ought to start seriously planning for that eventuality.  BUT VERY FEW PEOPLE DO THATHalf of Americans have ZERO savings for retirement.  People are even dumber in the shorter term: how many people know they shouldn’t eat something because it’s bad for them and then eat it anyway???  I’ve certainly done that.  You know you’ll pay dearly for something you’re doing now in the future, but you just don’t care BECAUSE YOU WANT WHAT YOU WANT NOW.  It’s not that you don’t know what will happen; you simply put it off, refuse to think about it.  And so with believing in God and the Bible.  I don’t need to keep wondering if there’s a God or if the Bible is His Word any more than I need to question if I’ll one day be old and gray like my grandparents were.  The difference between “knowledge” and “faith” is that extra step: “okay, there is a God and the Bible is His Word.  What should I do with those facts?  In what way should they make a difference in how I live my life?”  And then you ACT the way your common sense based on what you KNOW tells you how to act.  Knowledge becomes faith when you start making your decisions based on what you know about God and His Word.

There are many people who just can’t ever get to that point to true faith, no matter how much they “know” about God, just as there are many people who just won’t get messages such as, “You know you can’t eat like that or you’ll have a heart attack and die.”  The morgue proves the latter situation.  And the atheist is ultimately rather like my dog: I watch the beautiful sun set and contemplate its significance and my own significance before it; my dog sees it get dark.  I take communion and meditate on the sacrifice of Christ as exemplified in the elements; my dog eats crackers.  But we’re often like that, too.  Just as the atheists simply refuse to go to the next level – beyond what God and simple common sense say is self-evident – too many Christians simply refuse to act based on the knowledge that they either already have or truly ought to have.  And we have maybe just enough faith to be saved but not enough faith to actually live out our faith as a result.  There’s just a super-massive disconnect between what we know and how we act in spite of what we already know.  Which of course describes “foolishness.”

I’ll personalize it: When I stand before God, I won’t have the excuse of just not being sure that He’s actually there.  I don’t doubt that God is here for a second any more.  And yet how many times have I refused to think and feel and act given what I already KNOW is true!!!

To wrap it up in a nice little bow: there simply comes a point when you need to just BELIEVE your Bible really truly is the “Word of God” and therefore as a common sense RESULT of that knowledge treasure it, hunger for it and JUST READ IT.  And believe the message it has for you and be transformed daily by that message.  That’s the way the world ought to work if you’ve got common sense and it’s the way your spirituality ought to work if you’ve got any wisdom (which is just “spiritual common sense.”  I submit that “wisdom” is far more about “integrity” than it is about “intelligence.”  Wisdom isn’t about what you know; it’s about what you DO with what you know.  “Wisdom” is knowledge rightly APPLIED.  If I know that the Bible is truly God’s Word to me, and if I am wise, what will I do?  I’ll apply that knowledge by reading my Bible!  Every time I read my Bible I get another chance to hear the voice of God.  And so therefore I’ll read my Bible with a submissive heart that is at the same time eager to learn and obey.  But how many of us are FOOLS more often than we are WISE???

Now, as we read our Bibles, we may ask, “Is this experience subjective or objective?”  It’s both – to a point.  It’s subjective in the sense that I read the Bible in a personal sense as “God addressing me.”  But ultimately the Holy Spirit’s testimony invariably directs us AWAY from ourselves to the objective authority of Scripture.  The Bible is what it is, not what I want it to be or try to twist it into being.  To apply this to my friends and family, if our relationship is all about me, then I’ll tend to subjectively interpret things they say to my own advantage; but if I truly love those people, I’ll try to understand them in the way they intended to be understood.  It’s the same way with God’s Word.  I recall the comedy sketch where a man is reading a Bible and someone asks, “What are you doing?” and he replies, “Searching for loopholes.”  When we read our Bible as “God’s Word,” we will tend to read it in an objective (and LITERAL) sense.  But yet another fact is that my experience of reading God’s Word is not merely “a private matter”; rather it is an experience common to all God’s people.  The Christian community, led by the Holy Spirit, ought to serve as a check and balance against over-subjective implications or experiences.

Consider, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim 4:3).  As a student in seminary, I first began to see a problem that has perverted much of higher education.  At the graduate level, the student is (particularly at liberal universities) encouraged to consider for a dissertation a completely different approach, a new way to interpret, etc.  But historic Christianity was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).  There’s a fundamental tension there.  Do you see that?  You practically BEG for heresy to enter into your domain.  And that’s exactly what has happened at many schools that began as institutions of the Christian gospel that were perverted into synagogues of Satan. Each generation was like a tide that progressively carried out the foundation as every new class searched for something new and different.  As culture changes, I want to be able to innovate such that I can reach people in new ways – but with the same gospel that Jesus and Paul taught rather than one that is “modern” and “contemporary.”

Now, one could contrast two fields such as science and religion and see the differences with one being intended to innovate and the other being intended to conserve (the teaching/values of God handed down to us).  But even THAT isn’t correct, because science ALSO has been severely distorted and altered and perverted by the constant itching for the next new thing, the next scientific fad.  C.S. Lewis wrote about how easy it would be to pervert science into a religious system by requiring obedience to its findings, by instilling groupthink and promoting a lack of healthy skepticism for its conclusions, and by dominating society.  I think all that has already happened.

Ultimately, Christians simply have no choice but to recognize the authority of the Bible as God’s Word.  It comes from beyond ourselves as we simply allow God to be God.

What is “inspiration”?  It is the activity of the Holy Spirit whereby He superintended the human authors in Scripture so that their writings became a normative expression in human language of God’s Word to all humanity.  To call the Bible “inspired” is merely another way of saying that it is God’s authoritative self-revelation.

God was directly involved in the writing of the Bible: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16).  God’s breath is a graphic metaphor in the OT for the action of God, particularly through His Spirit (see Gen 2:7; Job 33:4; Ps 33:6).  The statement that Scripture is “God-breathed” affirms its divine origin and character and implies something much stronger than the English word “inspired”; in this sense they are EXPIRED – breathed out by God.  Note in 2 Tim that the object of God’s action is the written Scripture; the human writers aren’t even mentioned.  They are of course involved, but the actual forming of Scripture is referred wholly to God’s activity.  Note that “all” refers to the entire Bible, rather than merely some parts of it that may seem more “inspired” (such as the “Thus says the Lord” passages in the OT).

Another key passage of the doctrine of Inspiration is 2 Peter 1:19-21 – “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.  Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”  This passage confirms and actually extends the teaching of 2 Tim 3:16.  The words in the Bible did not emerge from the writers’ private reflections, but rather “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”  That same word “carried along” is used in Acts 27:15 to describe a ship “carried along” by a powerful storm.  God’s “carrying” is far more gentle than that of a storm, but this is a strong statement of the divine activity in the production of the entire body of Scripture.

The third key passage is John 10:34-36: “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”‘?  If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and Scripture cannot be set aside--what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”  The exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees goes back to Psalm 82 regarding the discussion of “gods” in the law, but I cite this regarding something Jesus says about the Law: I prefer the rendering of the KJV and NASB, “and the Scripture cannot be broken.”  That same conviction of Jesus about the absolute authority and complete inspiration of Scripture emerges when Jesus equates the words of the OT with the voice of God.  See Matt 19:4-5 – “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”  So we have, “the Creator…said.”  And the man leaving his father and mother part is Gen 2:24 – which does NOT quote God as the speaker.  It is Moses editorializing the meaning of Adam’s words in vs. 23.  The point here is that whenever ANY Scripture speaks, it is God speaking.

I am going to here ask a question: in your view, are the red-letter words of Jesus in the Gospel more or less inspired than the black letter words in the Gospels, or than the epistles of Paul, etc.?  Do you see why the words of ALL Scripture are ALL equally inspired???  The same Jesus who spoke the authoritative words of God in the Gospels was under the power and inspiration of the same Holy Spirit who spoke the authoritative words of God in the Pauline epistles.  Which is to say that St. John was just as inspired when he wrote the Book of Revelation as he was when he wrote his Gospel.

When St. Paul (or any of the prophets or apostles) and Jesus meet, there is no question which one will bow down before the other.  Jesus us Lord.  But that is not at issue when we talk about the authority of the Bible.  Rather, the same Holy Spirit that spoke through Jesus also spoke through Paul and the apostles and the prophets.

There’s a saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”  Someone who wants to hold that the sayings of Jesus are more authoritative than any other writings in the Bible may have a sincere desire to uphold the authority of Jesus, but what has that person in effect done?  Undermined the authority of the REST of the Bible.  Think about it: if the Bible that the prophets and apostles wrote has 100% authority, how then can the “red letter” passages of Jesus have more than 100%/absolute authority???

Jesus is God.  But He NEVER put “His” authority over or above the authority of the REST of Scripture.  Because the rest of Scripture – ALL of Scripture – is the Word of God.  And God never contradicts God.

When we talk about inspiration, we use two adjectives – “verbal” and “plenary.”  The doctrine of verbal inspiration holds that the prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible were not merely inspired in the topics or the ideas they described, but in the very WORDS that they used.  Note that this does not mean that God “dictated” the Bible, but rather that he chose, shaped and guided his human vessels such as that they – through the agency of the Holy Spirit – were accurately thinking and writing the thoughts of God.  “Plenary” means that the inspiration described above in “verbal” applies to the whole Bible, to “all Scripture” (2 Tim 3:16).  This is not to say that every single part of the Bible is as equally significant as every other part, any more than that every brush stroke of a painter is just as significant (e.g., the background of “Mona Lisa” is not as important as the face and the smile – BUT THE SAME ARTIST PAINTED THE ENTIRE PAINTING).  So we can rightly consider some books “background” (e.g. “Leviticus”).  But Leviticus is just as much the Word of God as the Gospel of John.

How does God’s Word revealed through human agency work?  There will always be a mystery this side of heaven.  But assume for the sake of discussion that I am right now completely filled with the Holy Spirit.  Would you say that a) I am still me or that b)I have become a “godbot” or a theological meat puppet that God dangles on a string?  I am stating categorically that I would still be me – and in fact I would be the IDEAL me, the very best me that I could possibly be.  Put another way, at the moment of the Rapture, do you believe that YOU will be a recreated meat puppet, OR do you believe that you will maintain your unique sense of identity?  Again, I believe we will still be the same people – just perfected examples of the same people.  In heaven, I will still be “me”; but I will be the me that God always intended for me to be.  I will be the perfect me. And l’ll be able to express God’s thoughts in my words.

Now, in the unique case of the prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible, should you believe that when the Holy Spirit came upon them that God obliterated their individual personalities?  Absolutely not!  God doesn’t work that way (I have frequently wished that He would!).  Rather, under special inspiration, God guided and shaped each writer’s experiences, thoughts, feelings, etc., in such a manner that they thought God’s thoughts after Him.  And they expressed those thoughts – in their own words – exactly as God intended.  Because they were uniquely filled with the Spirit of God.

Orthodox Christians who believe in the faith “which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3) understand that the Bible is infallible and inerrant.  Both of these terms are nothing more than the inevitable concomitant of the divine authority and inspiration of the Bible as God’s Word.  To assert with Jesus that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and “Your Word is truth” (John 17:17) and to literally appeal to its very letter (Matt 5:18; Luke 16:17) is the essence of what we seek when we use terms like “infallible and inerrant.”  “Infallible” carries the primary quality of not being misleading.  All the Bible’s assertions are truthful and worthy of confidence.  There is a contrast between God’s eternal self-testimony with human fallibility.  There are a few things that must be understood, such as that “infallibility” refers to God’s message as a whole rather than in isolation.  For example, if we quote James’ question, “Can faith save him” (James 2:14 KJV) with its implied answer “no,” we miss the point of the Book of James.  The infallibility of Scripture is attained when we read James 2:14 within the total framework of the letter of James as set alongside the complementary teaching of the rest of Scripture.  Another qualification of “infallibility” is the intention of the author.  Scripture is infallible ONLY AS CORRECTLY INTERPRETED; it does NOT follow that every human interpretation of the Bible is infallible.

“Inerrant” conveys the sense that the Bible has been supervised down to its very words by the God of truth, and therefore we can be confident that it will be free from error.  Thus whenever the Bible prescribes the content of our belief (doctrine) or the pattern of our living (ethics), or records actual events (history), it speaks the truth.  We go back to the intention of the author or speaker: the inerrant truth of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son does not require us to assert that there has ever been such a family or that the events of the story actually occurred.  It was a parable and the inerrant truth was the meaning of the story, not the historicity of events.  Again, like infallibility, we find that only when any passage of Scripture is interpreted in harmony with the rest of the Bible and we consider the author’s/speaker’s intention, will the inerrant truth be plainly perceived.

So having the very Word of God, how should we interpret it?  Let’s talk about “hermeneutics,” the science of interpretation (that’s what the Greek word “hermeneutics” means, “to translate or to interpret”).  To be properly interpreted, the Bible must be interpreted literally (i.e., the historico-grammatical method), with the natural, straightforward sense of a text being fundamental.  This sense does NOT demand “literalism.”  We do NOT need to interpret 2 Chron 16:9 (“For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth”) as meaning that God has a whole bunch of eyeballs sweeping over the globe.  We rather understand it as being a passage that literally teaches God’s omniscient knowledge.  Further, we interpret according to the original meaning of a passage, and therefore we must seek to understand the original setting as we try to relate a passage to ourselves.  We interpret according to literary form, and thus read poetry or parables differently than we would read historical narrative or doctrinal passages.  And we interpret according to context.  We do not take a verse in isolation, but we also read the rest of the paragraph and we also understand what we read as it relates to the rest of the Bible.  The Bible must be interpreted by the rest of the Bible.  This is known as “harmonization.”  There is a unity and a self-consistency in Scripture that derives from its Ultimate Single Author God.  Also, the Bible must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit.  True spiritual understanding is not natural to us; it is God’s gift (Matt 11:25; 16:17).  It is crucial to understand that God’s Spirit is HOLY, and what we understand of God’s truth is therefore related more to the extent of our obedience than it is to the capacity of our brains.  Jesus taught, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matt 5:8).  Note He did not say, “Blessed are the vast in intellect” or “Blessed are the weighty in academia.”  How far one can see depends upon how high one has climbed and NOT to how well one is equipped.  We have to approach Scripture in an attitude of prayer from an obedient heart if we seek to rightly understand it.  Finally, the Bible must be interpreted dynamically.  Hebrews 4:12 teaches, “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”  God’s Spirit is a living Spirit and He uses His Word in accordance with His goals for His people, their regeneration and sanctification.  And therefore the Word of God as we rightly divide it (2 Tim 2:15) must be brought to the surface and put to work in the present rather than being a scholarly tome that gathers dust on a shelf.  Therefore, having asked, “what did this passage mean in its own time and context?” and “what does it mean in the light of the whole of Scripture?” we must additionally ask, “what does this mean today – here and now – in the lives of people today, that person I’m trying to reach, and my own life?”

Jesus, Son Of Man, Son of God (Part 2): How God Revealed Himself To Man

December 2, 2013

See Part 1 here: https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/jesus-son-of-man-son-of-god/

Much of this work is a distillation of Bruce Milne in Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief, pages 25-62.

Statement #1: “If you don’t know Jesus, then you don’t know God at all, and that’s just that.  Jesus is the only way to the Father and the only way to have peace with God.”

Statement #2: “That’s not true.  Jesus may be your way, but God has revealed Himself in lots of other ways.  My friend is into New Age religion and she says she really feels God within her.”

Discuss…. But what I want you to realize is that such divergent viewpoints are often determined by a prior discussion about the nature or grounds of religious authority.  What should our authority be?  Should we appeal to what we feel personally?  Or is there something more ultimate?  How do we decide what is correct teaching?  To what source can we appeal to resolve differences and conflicts?  What is our criterion for truth?  If you don’t know, you end up where the wind blows.

What IS “authority”?  Authority is the right or power to require obedience.  I submit that the world is experiencing a crisis of authority in culture today – and it is largely self-imposed as we have rejected the biblical authority that our ancestors assumed.

Over the centuries, various Christian sects have appealed to a variety of voices as sources of authority, such as: the historic creeds or confessions (the 39 Articles of the Reformation, the Westminster Confession); the mind of the Church (i.e. the main trend/consensus of Christian opinion); subjective Christian experience and “the inner voice” (which largely began in the 19th century); Christian reason as the belief that truth consists in what we can demonstrate about God via logical reasoning.

All of these have some degree of validity.  But none of them are adequate to bring us to God’s mind and thus be the authoritative source of Christian truth.  The ultimate source of authority is the triune God Himself as He is made known to us through the words of the Holy Bible.  This view combines three truths: 1) God has taken the initiative.  We know of Him because of His decision to make Himself known to us and reveal His will to us (revelation).  2) God has come to us Himself in Jesus Christ, the God-Man.  As the eternal Word and Wisdom of God, Christ is the mediator of our knowledge of God (John 1:1ff; 14:6-9; 1 Cor 1:30; Col 2:3; Rev 19:13).  3) Our knowledge of God comes through His Revelation in His Scripture.  He caused it to be written and speaks to us through His eternal Words given to all generations of believers.  And as we submit ourselves to its authority we place ourselves under the Living God who is supremely revealed to us in Jesus Christ.

What is “revelation”?  Revelation means unveiling something hidden, so that it may be seen and known for what it truly is.  The principal OT word is “gala,” which comes from a root meaning “nakedness” (e.g. Exodus 20:26 cf. Isa 53:1 and 52:10 where the arm of the Lord is literally “made naked”).  In 2 Sam 7:27, the literal rendering is “You have made naked your servant’s ear.”

But how has God revealed Himself to us given that: 1) We are creatures.  There is a vast distinction between “God created” in Gen 1:1 and “God created man” in Gen 1:27.  God the Creator exists utterly apart from us, while we as creature depend utterly on God for our contingent existence.  We are literally “dust” and to dust we shall return (Gen 3:19).  That said, this distinction is NOT absolute: we are made “in the image of God” (Gen 1:27).  God communicates with us (v. 28).  Ultimately, God became a man in Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14); God the Spirit indwells Christians and brings us into personal relationship with God (Rom 8:9-17).  There is a profound correspondence between God and man; but the profound and irreducible distinction remains as a barrier that only God can overcome.  For instance, only God truly knows God and the thoughts of God.  God’s knowledge includes our self-knowledge (Ps 139:1-6), but our knowledge does not include God’s self-knowledge.  Our creaturehood requires God to reveal Himself if we are to have any adequate knowledge of Him.  2) We are sinners.  Our need to have revelation from God is immeasurably increased by our sinfulness.  The fall has affected every single aspect of our being – including especially our perception of moral and spiritual reality.  Sin leaves us spiritually blind and ignorant (Rom 1:18; 1 Cor 1:21; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:1-5; 4:18).  That means there is absolutely no road from our intellectual and moral perception to be any kind of genuine knowledge of God.  The ONLY way to knowledge of God is for God to freely place Himself within range of our perception and renew our fallen understanding.  Which makes revelation from God crucial.

What is the likelihood of such a revelation from God?  Is there a reason we ought to expect God to reveal Himself?  If God is our Creator, revelation in some form becomes overwhelmingly probable because we can presume that God made us for a purpose.  And since His creatures are clearly responsive beings with inherent capacities for relationship, we may also presume that God’s purpose for creating us involved some kind of relationship and response to Himself.  Such a relationship requires revelation in some form.  Would a wise, intelligent, relational Creator leave His creatures to grope helplessly in the dark without making Himself known?  The thought is plausibly absurd.  And when we presume that God is loving, the likelihood of revelation becomes overwhelming; no loving parent would deliberately keep out of His child’s sight and range of reference so that His child would grow up ignorant of His existence.  The alternative would be a “Susan Smith” God, who gave birth to her children only to load them into a car and push the car into a lake to perish.

God has revealed Himself in Creation.  In Rom 1:18-32 Paul explains God’s judgment on the Gentile world.  God “gave them over” (1:24, 26, 28) to the self-destructive tendencies of their fallen natures because, though they knew God, (by His creation), they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him (1:21).  Instead, they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God” and “exchanged the truth of God for a lie” and “did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God (1:23, 25, 28).  This spurned knowledge of God consisted of their not recognizing “God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature [which] have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (1:20).  Therefore they are “without any excuse” (1:20).  In short, the creation of the world obliges mankind to acknowledge God and give glory and thanks to Him (1:20).  Similarly, at Lystra in Acts 14:17 Paul informs the pagan crowd that God “has not left Himself without testimony.”  And in Acts 17:26 refers to the Creator’s ordering of the affairs of individuals and of nations “so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him.”  God has also revealed Himself in moral experience.  In Rom 2:14, Paul points out that “when the Gentiles, who do not have the [OT] law, do by nature things required by the law… they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.”  There is clearly some awareness of God’s moral will on the part of [even non-Christian] humanity.  The Bible confirms the fact that God has revealed Himself to all within our moral experience, which is to say that He has revealed Himself in the conscience of the NON-Jew/Christian.  Yes, sin causes a moral obtuseness which distorts all of our consciousness of God and His will, but nevertheless, all humanity has some awareness of the sense of obligation to do good and to spurn evil that reflects the image of God to whom we are all finally fully responsible.  Further, God has revealed Himself in our universal religious sense.  The instinct for worship is a universal human phenomenon.  Anthropologists have NEVER uncovered so much as a single people or group, no matter how primitive, who lacked a sense of awe before the supernatural.  I submit that John 1:9 and Psalm 139 (esp. 12-16) testify to this universal religious sense.  Which is to say that atheism is NOT “natural”; it is rather bizarre and abnormal.

By the way, it is BECAUSE of this role of God in all our hearts and in our governments that a stabilizing of human society due to the sanction of moral law – whereby good and evil are distinguished and evil is held in check – is a fruit of God’s general revelation regardless of how little it is acknowledged by sinners.  Without this Providence of God, human society would swiftly unravel into chaos, anarchy and nihilism.  Because of God’s general revelation, even in spite of the blinding effects of sin, no one can plead entire ignorance of God.  Everyone alike is confronted by God and therefore carries responsibility for the lack of a true relationship with their Creator.

Further, God’s revelation is not static like the sun’s rays or electricity; rather, it is dynamic as God sovereignly chooses upon whom He will shine His light.  We find that God repeatedly reveals Himself to mankind but that mankind repeatedly resists, obscuring and even perverting the revelation (Rom 1:21-28).  It is only in an attitude of utter submission and obedience that God’s revelation can truly be encountered.  When people refuse the revelation they have and refuse to adopt an attitude worthy of revelation, God may close the door to further revelation (Matt 25:29; Mark 6:21-28; Luke 8:18; 23:9).  And a person who repeatedly resists God’s revelation may eventually become incapable of recognizing or responding to it.  By contrast, as a person responds to the light God gives him, God will send more light/revelation such that he will be saved.

The supreme/ultimate form of God’s self-disclosure was His becoming incarnate in the Person of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14).  In the Incarnation, God bridged the gulf separating Creator from Creature by “taking the form of a servant…being found in appearance as a man” (Phil 2:7-8).  In Jesus Christ God is present in the world in person, and His character and essential nature are “naked” to us: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:10).  This identity of Father and Son is critical for our knowledge of God.  Jesus is not a partial or temporary image of God which needs to be complemented by anything or anyone else afterward.  He is “the exact representation of God’s being” (Heb 1:3).  In Jesus Christ we see and confront the beating heart of God.  Jesus Christ is the center/summit of all divine revelation.

Nevertheless, apart from the Twelve disciples, special revelation comes to us in and through the Bible first and foremost.  God has always communicated to His people through His written Word mediated through the lives of chosen patriarchs, prophets and apostles.  A written Word (according to Abraham Kuyper): 1) achieves durability, with errors of memory and intentional or accidental corruption being minimized compared to any other form of communication; 2) can be universally accurately disseminated through reproduction and translations; 3) has the attributes of fixedness and purity; and 4) has a finality and normativeness which all other forms of communication cannot attain.  The Bible as God’s written Word is objective and eternal, never changing as men’s subjective feelings of God change.  It is in the Bible that we learn about and meet Jesus Christ.  It is the Bible that is the basis for all Christian teaching and preaching.  And just as Jesus taught through the Bible of His day in His earthly ministry, He teaches us through His Word today.  This it is written, “The grass withers, the flower fades but the Word of our God stands forever” (Isa 40:6).

It is worth asking, ‘Why should anyone believe that God could communicate with a different order of being such as man?’  The answer is that God is well able to communicate with His own rational, verbalizing and image-bearing creatures on their own level (i.e. by human language) because He created us to be able to communicate with us.  To deny the reality of God as Communicator (as some do) is in effect to deny the reality of God as Creator.  Psalm 94:9 says, “Does He who formed the ear not hear?”  We could also say, “Does He who formed the mouth not speak?”

That having been said, the Bible is not exhaustive in giving us all knowledge of God.  We retain our human limitations, for instance.  And while the Bible is God’s Word to us, the language of the Bible remains human and therefore limited.  There is more to God than even the Bible can convey.  Scripture itself distinguishes the “secret things” which belong to God (Deut 29:29) from “the things which are revealed” which “belong to us and to our children forever” (Isa 55:8-11).  Francis Schaeffer pointed out that in His Word, God tells us truly about Himself, but not exhaustively.  Human language – particularly written human language – remains the best medium we have for communicating God’s truth to us.  And to the extent that human language is not finally completely adequate, we have the Holy Spirit.  According to John 14:15-17, Jesus sent us the “Spirit of Truth” as an advocate who will help us and be with us forever.

What was Jesus’ view of the OT?  Jesus accorded complete divine authority of the OT Scriptures.  1) He quoted the OT in a manner in which He clearly viewed it as the divine Word of God (Matt 4:4; Mark 14:27) and 2) even referred to it as “the Word of God” (Mark 7:11-13; John 10:34-36).  3) He spoke of its divine inspiration (Mark 12:36).  4) Jesus indicated His ministry was in complete accordance with the Scriptures (Luke 24:25-27, 44).  5) He accepted OT history as completely true (Matt 22:29, 32; John 8:56; Mark 12:26; Luke 11:30-31; Matt 25:35: Matt 12:3; Luke 17:26-28; John 3:14). 6)  Jesus assumed the normative character – applying to all people throughout all time – of OT ethics (Matt 5:27-48; 19:3-6; Mark 10:9).  7) Jesus rebuked those who did not believe the Scriptures (Matt 22:29-32; Luke 24:25-25; Matt 15:3).  And crucially, 8) Jesus viewed the OT Scriptures as previsioning His own unique mission (Matt 5:17,19; Luke 24:46-47; John 5:46-47).

Significantly, although as Incarnate Deity Jesus exercised the very authority of God, Jesus at no point opposed His personal authority to that of Scripture.  Even further, being persuaded that He was the long-awaited Messiah of Israel through whom God’s Kingdom was to come, Jesus modeled His Messianic role in terms of OT teaching – such as the inevitability of His rejection and suffering on the cross (Matt 26:24; Mark 8:31; Luke 22:37).  Jesus recognized that Scripture was God’s divine blueprint.  Jesus clearly believed in the complete authority of the Scripture as God’s Word, and the One who was Himself the eternal Word and wisdom of God (John 1:1-14; 8:58; 17:5; Phil 2:5-11; Col 1:15-20), and who possessed a perfect and sinless human nature(John 8:46; Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 1:19), simply could not have been wrong.

Jesus gave His apostles special authority.  Jesus deliberately chose certain men to be His disciples and gave them a special endowment of the Holy Spirit (John 20:22 cf. Acts 1:5).  He commanded them to go and teach in His name ((Matt 28:18-20; John 20:21; Acts 1:8).  And He promised the Holy Spirit would guide their teaching and their witness of Christ (John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:13-16).

The apostles claimed direct experience of this unique authority and divine insight (1 Cor 2:9-13).  They proclaimed the gospel in the boldness and confidence that they spoke “by the Holy Sprit” (1 Pet 1:12), to whom they attributed both the content and the form of their message (1 Cor 2:13).  We also note the special concern in the Book of Acts for the apostles’ role as specially appointed witnesses (Acts 1:21-26; 2:32; 4:26,33; 5:32; 10:41-42; 13:31).  And thus they were authoritative proclaimers with the corroborative witness of the Spirit (Acts 2:32) of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  They spoke with complete assurance (Gal 1:6-8) and issued commands with authority (2 Thess 3:6, 12). In fact, a person’s claim to have the Holy Spirit was measured by whether he or she recognized this divine authority of the apostles teaching (1 Cor 14:37).  Peter actually classifies Paul’s letters as “Scripture” (2 Pet 3:16) and Paul commanded that the letter to Colossae be “read in the church” (Col 4:16).

Naysayers claim that this argument is circular (e.g., the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible calls itself the Word of God), but we need to point out a final reason for the authority of Scripture: how else could one establish a claim to ultimate authority other than by reference to that authority???  Wouldn’t any other authority to establish that ultimate authority itself become the ultimate authority?  This same approach is used in other fields of human investigation: we don’t keep having to establish the “laws of science” by appeal to other science; it is the laws that give the rest of science its foundation.  The fact of the matter is that, in the final analysis, only GOD can be the proper authority to Himself.  There can be no other.  That said, ultimately Christians escape the charge of circularity quite easily: I believe the Bible is the Word of God because Jesus believed the Bible is the Word of God – and Jesus was not only the greatest man who ever lived, but the Son of God, and thus in a unique position to know the truth.

It’s not that history and the historicity of the Bible don’t matter; nor is it that the correspondence of Scripture to logic, philosophy, psychology, science and medicine don’t matter.  But if we’re always looking to corroborate the Bible we never get to the thing that we refuse to simply BELIEVE.

I was somebody who at one key point in life needed “convincing.”  I wanted proof.  I spent many hours searching for that proof.  But here’s the thing: I found it (past tense).  I don’t walk around wondering if there’s a God anymore; I don’t walk around wondering if the Bible is His Word anymore.  I resolved those things.  I moved on to weightier stuff, such as “Now that I believe, what am I going to do about it?”  I think that’s what James is getting at in his verse, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder” (James 2:19).

Click here to see Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God (Part 3)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 495 other followers