I have observed the following:
a. When Christians share their ideas with each other, some will laugh at another person's views. They are so intellectually smug with their theology, they just laugh at the other person.
b. Christians often don't take too much time to explain their beliefs. They say that's just the way things are. And if you disagree with it, it's because the truth is not in you and you are on your way to hell.
c. Christians often don't know how or don't care to explain their beliefs. They are suspicious of the world and think there is no reason to have a strong argument because people will believe what they want. You should just laugh at everyone, basically.
d. Christians spit out theological terms one after another, but they can barely quote the Bible, or they have a few basic prooftexts that they can reach for whenever asked a good question. Christians have a hard time relation their theology and religious views to the Bible and seem to have a compartmentalized religion over here, Bible over there.
e. They are unable to weather trials. They seem to get very uncomfortable with the basic trials in life and very wishy-washy on the teachings of our faith. They don't inspire you as being people that, if things got really bad, would not sell out if that's what they had to do to survive.
f. Their willingness to pass judgment, or their willingness to cover up for their pastor's sins or their own sins, or a friend's sin. They basically use a crooked measure to make excuses when someone they care for does something wrong, or heinous, but they are always clear to call out what they see wrong about your life. Even when nothing is wrong, they search anything they can sniff out about a person, even if it's as silly as just disagreeing with them on a particular doctrine, for which they will then accuse you of not believing in the "whole Bible", "picking and choosing", or using the Bible for your own purposes.
g. They speak to others with such an air of cockiness, like they are great academics, in an ivory tower somewhere. Even when they have only a very basic education and are not scientists or very good academics at all. But the "Bible" gives every one of them a special area of expertise, and instead of acting as good stewards, leading sheep into light, they speak like the cockiest academic from graduate school, who steamrolled all the students with the superiority of his scholarship.
It's not even that these apply to a small minority. These are basic character traits that you will find in almost any Christian you talk with, any day of the week. Not one person is going to demonstrate all of these traits, but almost every Christian you meet will have at least one on this list. This is a huge problem. If Christians cannot talk respectfully about their beliefs without mocking the person sitting across from them, or mouthing some curse about them going to hell or being a worker of darkness, how will Christianity survive? How will Christians survive when they start seeing prophecy fulfilling itself in front of them, and they have to decide if they are willing to die for their beliefs?
Christians should be learning now while there is still time, to separate themselves from the world, to be not like the world, to not behave like they are of the world, the way the world ridicules, and mocks and scandalizes those who disagree with it. Or else they will have to learn this later, and a lot faster. We still have time now to practice these now and learn from our mistakes.
Corrie ten Boom, witness is perfected under trial. The Church must suffer the tribulation because it is so far from being worthy now to be received into God's kingdom. American Christians are living proof of that.
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Who is the white male?
Talking with a black man tonight, I saw first hand the true plantation mentality which exists among many black Americans, who are dyed-in-the-wool democratic voters. It's an American phenomenon that in most election cycles, black Americans vote 95% in favor of Democratic party candidates and some times, over 97%. They state emphatically, with no indication the thought of error crossed their minds, that the Republicans are bad for black people, the Democrats good.
But I have observed American politics far too long to gather that assessment. There is no ethnic policy among Republicans. The national Republican party is a big business enterprise and will make deals with anyone who will make them a buck. And they harbor no ethnic prejudice but a clear cut view that prides money and business more than anything.
But neither do the Democrats have a clear ethnic policy. Instead, I think Democrats are willing to cater to whatever ethnic ideology will serve them at that moment.
If one district is served by running Shaka Zulu, the "kill whitey" candidate, then the Democrats will hit hard on the racial platform, reminding blacks of an imminent white conspiracy to take away their liberties. Meanwhile, if facing a black conservative, the Democrats will also cater to black stereotypes to win approval from the white voters.
Such is the case when President Bush nominated for the Supreme Court the Honorable Clarence Thomas. When a known false accuser stepped forward to engage in insidious character assassinations against a respected judge, who merely differed from the prevailing political ideology of the left in Washington, white Democrats appealed to every demeaning stereotype about African-American men, Clarence Thomas was sex-crazed, he was a sexual predator. Even when Herman Cain, the pizza guy ran in 2012, the narrative was still the same. Black men: Are sexually uncontrollable rapists who throw themselves on women every chance they get.
Even one of the most honorable in Washington and that's saying something, it's the slimiest place on the planet will escape the wrath of American liberals: Allan West, former Marine, one-term Congressman from Florida. That's not okay. A black man talking about personal responsibility and strong families and not inciting class warfare to stir up the masses, per Alinsky? Pssh.
Alan Keyes, he was quite a remarkable fellow. One of the most brilliant individuals who I don't know has ever served in elected office, which is a great stain on this nation's record, that such able-bodied men are unable to win election. But he doesn't fit it. If you're black AND a conservative, in the United Socialist States of America, you aren't entitled to the same rights as those who pass the ideological test.
Recently, a young black woman learned first hand, the inner racist frustration of the Democratic party, who after announcing her support for Rand Paul was very condescendingly rebuked by a white male liberal, stating something like, "Didn't you see the party? Republicans are anti-black and anti-woman." (Seems very Jim Crow like, publicly belittling a black woman by a white man for holding a personal opinion.)
In America, if you are a minority, you don't get to make the same decisions as everyone else. You have to pass an ideological test to enter the great American debate.
Its moments like these in the political landscape that I'm deeply troubled with the broad generalizations that "Republicans = bad, Democrats = good!" Many black people I'm certain don't have an analysis more than that more white people consider themselves Republican than Democratic and that anything white people support must be bad. I think it's a great example of the extreme racism prevalent in the black community.
Who is the white male?
It seems at this time that there is no one more hated in this country than the white, heterosexual, Christian male. And that is an extremely harmful policy for this nation. Mores aside, family values aside, I want to outline who the white American male is and why he is the backbone in this country.
In the jobs market, the majority worker is the white male. White men make up most of the workers in this country and they pay most of the taxes. And yet there is no more hated group in America than the white male.
In America, over ninety million people do not work, AT ALL. The primary reason these people do not work, and don't have to work, is because of the largesse of the American worker, which is primarily a white
male workforce.
This is extraordinary. This is the only nation on earth that I'm aware of where nearly one-third of the population does not have to work at all, and many are not retirees, they're people who have never worked or never had constant employment.
In European social democracies, it happens that a young person could take three months paid leave from work, or the ordinary worker could retire at 45. But the reasons that can be sustained there are as numerous as the reasons that it could not happen here.
In fact, managing a country as big and diverse as America, apparently, reviewing modern empires as well as past empires, appears to be totally impossible. The trend is borne out when one observes that America is reaching a point where it is no longer manageable. But in countries one may look at, China (very equal in size though much greater population), Russia (somewhat equal in population and very unequal in size), to other nations, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan. These are nations that are not truly functioning participatory democracies. Brazil is for all intents and purposes one of the most impoverished of the nations, India as well. China and Russia, nations which in the 20th century killed an estimated over 100 million combined of their citizens. There just is not a comparable nation that has been managed as well as the United States without either killing a huge number of its own or suffering tens of millions to live on the brink of starvation, which has been historic in India, where millions of its people die from too little to eat. Prevailing caste structure makes it repugnant to even help them and not the nation's responsibility. They are suffering because of the build up of evil in their former lives. Let them starve, the Indians say. (Apologies to all Indians, some in that nation do feel that way.)
So in America, where the prevalent attitude and history has been a strong family, a strong participatory democracy, a system where despite all its wants and warbles, has been such a remarkable success, because of the strong family tradition, and the industriousness of the American worker, black, white, male and female, all the workers.
But let's not claim victory. The white male worker, the predominant worker, I'm not being unfair, I'm saying because America is majority white, the majority worker is the white male. It is very substantially based on the taxes they pay and on their productivity, that ninety million people in this country do not have to work!
What in the world makes people want to change that? Imagine what will happen to this country if their mission is accomplished. The majority of your workforce will one day be recruited out of the third world. They will have poor command of the English language. Instead of high-paying skilled jobs, you will have those fields replaced with a third-world labor force, who graduated from third-rate universities in India or Pakistan, who make a third of what the last guy made. Your tax revenues will shore up. Soon, many of that ninety million will find their money stops coming in. They have to look for work. At this stage, it doesn't matter what sort of education they have, they can't find work because an Indian will do it for a third the price.
All white people subsequently blamed and held to account. More demands for justice ensue. Society sinks further.
Rinse and repeat.
This rhetoric, "for the worker!" The Democrats are not for the worker. The Democrats are for death taxes, stronger regulation, impediments to business (that's right, if you have 10 workers you're uberrich and should pay the jizziyah!), then they'll also go on endless witchhunts: You don't hire enough blacks, you said something that a paranoid woman thought sounded sexual, etc etc.
I am for the worker. I recognize what this means to the economy that the worker is allowed to work and produce, and take most of his pay home. Democrats' default position is raise taxes, class warfare, death taxes, private property is unlawful, redistribution, pensions (where people get paid to not work, and paid even more than if they did work). There's a disjunction between their policy and their expectation: Looting Social Security is okay, even if there's no way to pay it back later, looting Medicare and diverting it to the Affordable Care system, pulling the plug on Grandma. Stalin's system was evil. The Democratic party's system is inventive and evil. How can the worker work and produce, under burden of regulation, and at the end of the day, take home less than 50% of what he's paid? The answer is he can't and the jobs because fodder for immigrant labor.
Why I am suspicious of the American Democratic party and why you should be too: The modern Democratic party is in the political tradition of a movement that climaxed in the October Revolution 1917. It came to a sudden, horrific halt when the factory workers were gunned down under machine gun fire. Their crime? They discovered that Lenin and his henchmen weren't concerned about the worker at all. They discovered they were only useful idiots in bringing about the Soviet revolution, and when they piped up to Stalin, "Hey, what about all that worker stuff?" they were ordered to be gunned down by Stalin. Nothing gets
people's attention faster than heavy machine gun fire into a crowd.
In fact, in Lenin's Russia, he had perfected the most expeditious way of eliminating one's political enemies. No need to get decked out with gas chambers and more expensive modes of dispensing with one's opponents. Machine guns are faster.
It's no wonder on a review of history why progressves opened abortion centers in black neighborhoods. These were Sanger's "human weeds" who she announced speaking before the Klan in New York State were bad for the country. Sanger wanted black women to be knowledgeable about reproductive choice; she wanted black people to kill themselves, with the help of white and Jewish abortion doctors.
It's still no wonder today that the abortion clinics, the liquor stores, are all found in the black community and conspicuously target the black community.
These are all bread and butter for American Democrats. Anything anti-family, anything pro-drug, pro-abortion they love, and while many have shed themselves of the Jim Crow mentality that was once shared by all liberals, it seems to me that a few of them still hold to the old way of viewing things. Why else is there the need to keep reliving on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and elsewhere on the national stage the tried, and proven false, accusations, that black males are raging sexual lovers, drug maniacs, waiting to throw themselves on the first woman they see?
There is nowhere that is more prevalently discussed than in American Democratic circles.
As a Christian, I CANNOT support the American Democratic party. My vote for the Republican party is not an endorsement of their morals and every thing they do. It's because the DNC is a party that advocates for abortion, which takes two million lives per year, homosexual marriage, and caters to racist stereotypes, anti-black, anti-white, whatever it takes to win and they think people will vote for.
But I have observed American politics far too long to gather that assessment. There is no ethnic policy among Republicans. The national Republican party is a big business enterprise and will make deals with anyone who will make them a buck. And they harbor no ethnic prejudice but a clear cut view that prides money and business more than anything.
But neither do the Democrats have a clear ethnic policy. Instead, I think Democrats are willing to cater to whatever ethnic ideology will serve them at that moment.
If one district is served by running Shaka Zulu, the "kill whitey" candidate, then the Democrats will hit hard on the racial platform, reminding blacks of an imminent white conspiracy to take away their liberties. Meanwhile, if facing a black conservative, the Democrats will also cater to black stereotypes to win approval from the white voters.
Such is the case when President Bush nominated for the Supreme Court the Honorable Clarence Thomas. When a known false accuser stepped forward to engage in insidious character assassinations against a respected judge, who merely differed from the prevailing political ideology of the left in Washington, white Democrats appealed to every demeaning stereotype about African-American men, Clarence Thomas was sex-crazed, he was a sexual predator. Even when Herman Cain, the pizza guy ran in 2012, the narrative was still the same. Black men: Are sexually uncontrollable rapists who throw themselves on women every chance they get.
Even one of the most honorable in Washington and that's saying something, it's the slimiest place on the planet will escape the wrath of American liberals: Allan West, former Marine, one-term Congressman from Florida. That's not okay. A black man talking about personal responsibility and strong families and not inciting class warfare to stir up the masses, per Alinsky? Pssh.
Alan Keyes, he was quite a remarkable fellow. One of the most brilliant individuals who I don't know has ever served in elected office, which is a great stain on this nation's record, that such able-bodied men are unable to win election. But he doesn't fit it. If you're black AND a conservative, in the United Socialist States of America, you aren't entitled to the same rights as those who pass the ideological test.
Recently, a young black woman learned first hand, the inner racist frustration of the Democratic party, who after announcing her support for Rand Paul was very condescendingly rebuked by a white male liberal, stating something like, "Didn't you see the party? Republicans are anti-black and anti-woman." (Seems very Jim Crow like, publicly belittling a black woman by a white man for holding a personal opinion.)
In America, if you are a minority, you don't get to make the same decisions as everyone else. You have to pass an ideological test to enter the great American debate.
Its moments like these in the political landscape that I'm deeply troubled with the broad generalizations that "Republicans = bad, Democrats = good!" Many black people I'm certain don't have an analysis more than that more white people consider themselves Republican than Democratic and that anything white people support must be bad. I think it's a great example of the extreme racism prevalent in the black community.
Who is the white male?
It seems at this time that there is no one more hated in this country than the white, heterosexual, Christian male. And that is an extremely harmful policy for this nation. Mores aside, family values aside, I want to outline who the white American male is and why he is the backbone in this country.
In the jobs market, the majority worker is the white male. White men make up most of the workers in this country and they pay most of the taxes. And yet there is no more hated group in America than the white male.
In America, over ninety million people do not work, AT ALL. The primary reason these people do not work, and don't have to work, is because of the largesse of the American worker, which is primarily a white
male workforce.
This is extraordinary. This is the only nation on earth that I'm aware of where nearly one-third of the population does not have to work at all, and many are not retirees, they're people who have never worked or never had constant employment.
In European social democracies, it happens that a young person could take three months paid leave from work, or the ordinary worker could retire at 45. But the reasons that can be sustained there are as numerous as the reasons that it could not happen here.
In fact, managing a country as big and diverse as America, apparently, reviewing modern empires as well as past empires, appears to be totally impossible. The trend is borne out when one observes that America is reaching a point where it is no longer manageable. But in countries one may look at, China (very equal in size though much greater population), Russia (somewhat equal in population and very unequal in size), to other nations, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan. These are nations that are not truly functioning participatory democracies. Brazil is for all intents and purposes one of the most impoverished of the nations, India as well. China and Russia, nations which in the 20th century killed an estimated over 100 million combined of their citizens. There just is not a comparable nation that has been managed as well as the United States without either killing a huge number of its own or suffering tens of millions to live on the brink of starvation, which has been historic in India, where millions of its people die from too little to eat. Prevailing caste structure makes it repugnant to even help them and not the nation's responsibility. They are suffering because of the build up of evil in their former lives. Let them starve, the Indians say. (Apologies to all Indians, some in that nation do feel that way.)
So in America, where the prevalent attitude and history has been a strong family, a strong participatory democracy, a system where despite all its wants and warbles, has been such a remarkable success, because of the strong family tradition, and the industriousness of the American worker, black, white, male and female, all the workers.
But let's not claim victory. The white male worker, the predominant worker, I'm not being unfair, I'm saying because America is majority white, the majority worker is the white male. It is very substantially based on the taxes they pay and on their productivity, that ninety million people in this country do not have to work!
What in the world makes people want to change that? Imagine what will happen to this country if their mission is accomplished. The majority of your workforce will one day be recruited out of the third world. They will have poor command of the English language. Instead of high-paying skilled jobs, you will have those fields replaced with a third-world labor force, who graduated from third-rate universities in India or Pakistan, who make a third of what the last guy made. Your tax revenues will shore up. Soon, many of that ninety million will find their money stops coming in. They have to look for work. At this stage, it doesn't matter what sort of education they have, they can't find work because an Indian will do it for a third the price.
All white people subsequently blamed and held to account. More demands for justice ensue. Society sinks further.
Rinse and repeat.
This rhetoric, "for the worker!" The Democrats are not for the worker. The Democrats are for death taxes, stronger regulation, impediments to business (that's right, if you have 10 workers you're uberrich and should pay the jizziyah!), then they'll also go on endless witchhunts: You don't hire enough blacks, you said something that a paranoid woman thought sounded sexual, etc etc.
I am for the worker. I recognize what this means to the economy that the worker is allowed to work and produce, and take most of his pay home. Democrats' default position is raise taxes, class warfare, death taxes, private property is unlawful, redistribution, pensions (where people get paid to not work, and paid even more than if they did work). There's a disjunction between their policy and their expectation: Looting Social Security is okay, even if there's no way to pay it back later, looting Medicare and diverting it to the Affordable Care system, pulling the plug on Grandma. Stalin's system was evil. The Democratic party's system is inventive and evil. How can the worker work and produce, under burden of regulation, and at the end of the day, take home less than 50% of what he's paid? The answer is he can't and the jobs because fodder for immigrant labor.
Why I am suspicious of the American Democratic party and why you should be too: The modern Democratic party is in the political tradition of a movement that climaxed in the October Revolution 1917. It came to a sudden, horrific halt when the factory workers were gunned down under machine gun fire. Their crime? They discovered that Lenin and his henchmen weren't concerned about the worker at all. They discovered they were only useful idiots in bringing about the Soviet revolution, and when they piped up to Stalin, "Hey, what about all that worker stuff?" they were ordered to be gunned down by Stalin. Nothing gets
people's attention faster than heavy machine gun fire into a crowd.
In fact, in Lenin's Russia, he had perfected the most expeditious way of eliminating one's political enemies. No need to get decked out with gas chambers and more expensive modes of dispensing with one's opponents. Machine guns are faster.
It's no wonder on a review of history why progressves opened abortion centers in black neighborhoods. These were Sanger's "human weeds" who she announced speaking before the Klan in New York State were bad for the country. Sanger wanted black women to be knowledgeable about reproductive choice; she wanted black people to kill themselves, with the help of white and Jewish abortion doctors.
It's still no wonder today that the abortion clinics, the liquor stores, are all found in the black community and conspicuously target the black community.
These are all bread and butter for American Democrats. Anything anti-family, anything pro-drug, pro-abortion they love, and while many have shed themselves of the Jim Crow mentality that was once shared by all liberals, it seems to me that a few of them still hold to the old way of viewing things. Why else is there the need to keep reliving on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and elsewhere on the national stage the tried, and proven false, accusations, that black males are raging sexual lovers, drug maniacs, waiting to throw themselves on the first woman they see?
There is nowhere that is more prevalently discussed than in American Democratic circles.
As a Christian, I CANNOT support the American Democratic party. My vote for the Republican party is not an endorsement of their morals and every thing they do. It's because the DNC is a party that advocates for abortion, which takes two million lives per year, homosexual marriage, and caters to racist stereotypes, anti-black, anti-white, whatever it takes to win and they think people will vote for.
Friday, May 1, 2015
Marilyn Mosby is an Emissary of Jesus Christ
On April 12,2015, police publicly arrested, tried and executed twenty-five year old Baltimore resident Freddie Gray.
The video is, though incomplete, astonishing. In my estimation, it shows the aftermath of a brutal assault and the carrying away of a suspect who physically cannot stand, cannot hold his head up and probably has already suffered the injuries that would end his life seven days later. And then he is restrained in Medieval sort of metal restraints and loaded with conscious disregard of near fatal injuries and then taken for a bumpy ride through rush hour in a hopping town.
Even more suspicious is the other suspect who has now come out claiming that Freddie Gray injured himself. There is too much history of police threatening suspects and killing people in custody for me to believe this kid has not been threatened. As tasteless as it is to talebear the story he has brought to us, he likely would have been eliminated if he had not played his part in the operation. And that death would have never been discussed.
And here we have one Marilyn Mosby. She is the youngest prosecutor of a major city in this country. She has on Friday, May 1, 2015, declared that the city will prosecute and seek the convictions of six officers on charges including second-degree murder ad false imprisonment, among others.
The commissioner of the police union says that the prosecution has rushed to judgment, Mosby should recuse herself, and a special prosecutor should be appointed. He says at no time have his officers acted wrongly.
"We are disappointed in the apparent rush to judgement, given the fact the investigation into this matter has not been concluded." 1
“Not one of the officers involved are responsible for the death of Mr. Gray.” 2
Who has rushed to judgment? Gene Ryan has rushed to judgment. He says in his own press conference that Mosby has rushed to judgment and his men did nothing wrong. That very statement is a rush to judgment! Marilyn Mosby is asking for the process that the police union says works when they put away your sons to also apply to the officers who enforce it. And now the officers say it does not work. They want a just-us system, rather than a justice system. Mosby is asking for a jury of peers to evaluate the officers' conduct and is not rushing to judgment at all.
In fact, the Fraternal Order of Police letter directed to Marilyn Mosby contains veiled threats against her, stating that her and her husband's political career could be threatened if she does not cooperate with the entrench Baltimore political machine.
Marilyn Mosby is indicted saying that she has a connection to the Gray family attorney. And so the police union is being very transparent: They are asking for a sham investigation seeking no charges on their officers, by a "special prosecutor" who is connected to the city brass.
Marilyn Mosby is an emissary of Jesus Christ.
It is for such a time as this, that this young litigator has been appointed to an office to publicly try the men responsible for the death of Freddie Gray, and to try the system itself.
I am afraid nothing is clearer than the video that Freddie Gray was murdered. And I'm afraid if it does not result in a conviction, the American people will lose faith in the judicial process completely and irrevocably.
The police cannot keep beating these sorts of cases without the ordinary American wondering if the system is not functioning right. And an acquittal will be just as clear to police: You can kill Americans and the system will keep its own. And to America it will be clear: It is open season on the American people.
Who is Marilyn Mosby?
Marilyn Mosby is a third-generation public servant. Her father served with the Baltimore Police department. She also has other family who have served the public. Marilyn Mosby is a public servant, a jurist, and someone who has a deep understanding of the interrelationship between the public and the law. She understands the challenges of those working to keep the streets safe and as a black woman, the unique challenges black Americans face, in a country where there is a particularly aggressive prosecution against blacks, that reeks of profiling and discrimination.
In short, she is uniquely qualified to navigate the tricky intersection of the interests of law enforcement and the public.
It makes Gene Ryan's remarks even more remarkable in that Marilyn Mosby is a public servant herself, the daughter of public servants, and should be received by law enforcement as an ally, as two parties both seeking the judicious outcomes that result in criminal convictions and a fair procedure for all.
But Gene Ryan disagrees. For him, Marilyn Mosby, a sound litigator, really a virtue to our system, with an independent mind and not simply rushing to kowtow to the police association, is someone who has rushed to judgment (a judgment different from his). Marilyn Mosby, to him, is not a public servant. She is an ally to the parties who want to sink Baltimore into vice and destruction and she should recuse herself.
But it is really quite different. Marilyn Mosby is a virtuous prosecutor who believes in the sanctity of our process, and that it applies to the citizen and to those who enforce it alike. Gene Ryan, well, Gene Ryan and who he represents, believes that if they murder your people, a stacked prosecutor's office should refuse to indict, no questions asked. The rules that apply to you do not apply to him and his men. And a special prosecutor should be appointed, as Gene Ryan says, but to investigate the Baltimore Police Department, for a pattern of misconduct, of discrimination, and over 100 deaths of the detained while in police custody. No more of this police bureaus investigating the police. That didn't work.
The video is, though incomplete, astonishing. In my estimation, it shows the aftermath of a brutal assault and the carrying away of a suspect who physically cannot stand, cannot hold his head up and probably has already suffered the injuries that would end his life seven days later. And then he is restrained in Medieval sort of metal restraints and loaded with conscious disregard of near fatal injuries and then taken for a bumpy ride through rush hour in a hopping town.
Even more suspicious is the other suspect who has now come out claiming that Freddie Gray injured himself. There is too much history of police threatening suspects and killing people in custody for me to believe this kid has not been threatened. As tasteless as it is to talebear the story he has brought to us, he likely would have been eliminated if he had not played his part in the operation. And that death would have never been discussed.
And here we have one Marilyn Mosby. She is the youngest prosecutor of a major city in this country. She has on Friday, May 1, 2015, declared that the city will prosecute and seek the convictions of six officers on charges including second-degree murder ad false imprisonment, among others.
The commissioner of the police union says that the prosecution has rushed to judgment, Mosby should recuse herself, and a special prosecutor should be appointed. He says at no time have his officers acted wrongly.
"We are disappointed in the apparent rush to judgement, given the fact the investigation into this matter has not been concluded." 1
“Not one of the officers involved are responsible for the death of Mr. Gray.” 2
Who has rushed to judgment? Gene Ryan has rushed to judgment. He says in his own press conference that Mosby has rushed to judgment and his men did nothing wrong. That very statement is a rush to judgment! Marilyn Mosby is asking for the process that the police union says works when they put away your sons to also apply to the officers who enforce it. And now the officers say it does not work. They want a just-us system, rather than a justice system. Mosby is asking for a jury of peers to evaluate the officers' conduct and is not rushing to judgment at all.
In fact, the Fraternal Order of Police letter directed to Marilyn Mosby contains veiled threats against her, stating that her and her husband's political career could be threatened if she does not cooperate with the entrench Baltimore political machine.
Marilyn Mosby is indicted saying that she has a connection to the Gray family attorney. And so the police union is being very transparent: They are asking for a sham investigation seeking no charges on their officers, by a "special prosecutor" who is connected to the city brass.
Marilyn Mosby is an emissary of Jesus Christ.
It is for such a time as this, that this young litigator has been appointed to an office to publicly try the men responsible for the death of Freddie Gray, and to try the system itself.
I am afraid nothing is clearer than the video that Freddie Gray was murdered. And I'm afraid if it does not result in a conviction, the American people will lose faith in the judicial process completely and irrevocably.
The police cannot keep beating these sorts of cases without the ordinary American wondering if the system is not functioning right. And an acquittal will be just as clear to police: You can kill Americans and the system will keep its own. And to America it will be clear: It is open season on the American people.
Who is Marilyn Mosby?
Marilyn Mosby is a third-generation public servant. Her father served with the Baltimore Police department. She also has other family who have served the public. Marilyn Mosby is a public servant, a jurist, and someone who has a deep understanding of the interrelationship between the public and the law. She understands the challenges of those working to keep the streets safe and as a black woman, the unique challenges black Americans face, in a country where there is a particularly aggressive prosecution against blacks, that reeks of profiling and discrimination.
In short, she is uniquely qualified to navigate the tricky intersection of the interests of law enforcement and the public.
It makes Gene Ryan's remarks even more remarkable in that Marilyn Mosby is a public servant herself, the daughter of public servants, and should be received by law enforcement as an ally, as two parties both seeking the judicious outcomes that result in criminal convictions and a fair procedure for all.
But Gene Ryan disagrees. For him, Marilyn Mosby, a sound litigator, really a virtue to our system, with an independent mind and not simply rushing to kowtow to the police association, is someone who has rushed to judgment (a judgment different from his). Marilyn Mosby, to him, is not a public servant. She is an ally to the parties who want to sink Baltimore into vice and destruction and she should recuse herself.
But it is really quite different. Marilyn Mosby is a virtuous prosecutor who believes in the sanctity of our process, and that it applies to the citizen and to those who enforce it alike. Gene Ryan, well, Gene Ryan and who he represents, believes that if they murder your people, a stacked prosecutor's office should refuse to indict, no questions asked. The rules that apply to you do not apply to him and his men. And a special prosecutor should be appointed, as Gene Ryan says, but to investigate the Baltimore Police Department, for a pattern of misconduct, of discrimination, and over 100 deaths of the detained while in police custody. No more of this police bureaus investigating the police. That didn't work.
Like biblical Queen Esther, Marilyn Mosby has been appointed to intervene on behalf of God's people, a people whose leadership has long forgotten them. Marilyn Mosby, your people are my people!
1. http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/maryland/2015/05/01/baltimore-fraternal-order-of-police-response-freddie-gray-charges/26723673/
2. http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/01/baltimore-police-union-open-letter-to-st#.auuecw:4N99
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Abel and Cain, Vegetarianism
This past evening, my mother brought me several volumes of books she had found at a sale. They're quite beneficial for my studies and I've spent some time reading chapters here and there from the books. They are basically thick encyclopedias, with entries on famous persons, essays, speeches, it's excellent material and unlike anything I have in my library at this point.
I looked at some poems from Anne Bradstreet. And I was occasioned to see her poetry on the feud between the first brothers, Cain and Abel. It was here I was reminded of an old concept for an article I'd had ages ago, but never did compose.
_______________________________________________________
Cain and Abel brought forth their offerings. The offering was a deference; it acknowledged the LORD of the Harvest and the generosity of God's good blessings in maximizing the work of their hands and the produce of the land. It was an occasion of honor and celebration.
Cain was not motivated from impure motives. He had the eager belief that the grain he brought would be much to the LORD's satisfaction. Some think he may have held back calves that he wanted to eat himself, and kept the best of his flock from the Lord. But I think we do this at the expense of impugning Cain's motive. I think there is clear cause to believe that Cain was a vegetarian. The vegetarians we meet don't seem to have subtle considerations at heart, an imperious design, when forming good action. We don't deep down believe that the heart of the vegetarian is overcome with evil. On paper, their cause seems quite just; that is, the alleviation of the suffering of all life, including animal life.
But is vegetarianism the great hailed system of our Jehovah?
I believe not.
It is in this "roots" ideology, the belief in a pure diet, no animal meats or products (dairy, for example), it is in this exquisite empathy with animal suffering that one finds harbored the deepest misanthropy.
It is in the earth based system that the highest value is attached to nature and animals; by extension, the lowest value is placed on that which threatens nature: Human life.
The most visible reckoning of humanity is children. Children are the image of the next generation, the next civilization, and therefore abortion, birth control, and homosexuality are very positive co-ideologies with the vegetarian movement.
Vegetarians care more for a purple salamander in a remote place in Nevada then they care about the fruit of their womb.
This is the deep seat of hate which existed in the heart of Cain. Cain so full of love, of hope for the earth, the peace of all life, "Nature, man."
"How could God accept his sacrifice and reject mine?", he'd ask himself.
It is in the heart of this man, an author of morality, like every political liberal who tries to author his own moral basis for by which to live, like every vegetarian that assents to the death of two million fetuses per year but cries, suffering in mental anguish over a purple salamander, is the heart of murder, of plotting, of cruelty and envy.
Goddess worship, veganism, the practice of yoga, court the moral teachings of Luciferianism. Kill fetuses, turn man against woman, woman against man, exchange natural affection for the unnatural, a man loves a man, a woman loves a woman, birth control... Nothing is out of reach of the people who want to see an end to human life. Only... not theirs. They pass the ideological test. They "revere" the earth; they get to stay. You "hate" the earth, so you deserve to die.
Why does God demand sacrifice?
On the most frivolous level, I would say because He likes the smell. I like the smell. Especially here in Texas, people just love the smell of grilling meat. But I think that's a back burner issue, pun intended, or let me rephrase that, all puns aside, I think it's only tertiary in the scheme of the Temple system of sacrifice and oblation that God instituted.
There really must be a vicarious substitution to sit in a place which man cannot rightfully sit. If a man dies, he dies in sin, and should be condemned. But in a very solemn shedding of life, and an inner acknowledgement of personal transgression and disavowal of that lifestyle does mercy arrive.
And yet God says, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," and elsewhere that he does not desire blood sacrifice. The sacrificial was composed within recognizing one's transgressions and coming to repentance. If sacrifice continues only as a cultural idiosyncrasy of that time, or as an ancient practice that was carried without meaning into the present era, then the sacrifice truly does contain no symbolic or substantive meaning. It is actually nothing more than wanton killing of animals. The abolishment of the sacrificial system entirely is less appalling to God than profaning it.
Because of the "innocency" of animals, there is a noble loss of life when its blood is shed, and that covers the iniquity of the man. A penalty paid in substitution. At this rate, a man can die ceremonially clean and living in harmony with Torah.
And I love animals. I detest reckless corporate habits, which endanger the environment. I hate the recklessness of societies that put more value on the stock market and capital than on preserving the earth, because we are stewards over it. At the same time, I hate the politicians which appeal to purple salamanders, who really just want favorable laws to be enacted that will allow them to go through with exclusive golf resort or winery development. I also hate when the politicians advocate that we must totally paralyze the economy for the sake of future hypothetical environmental casualties, like the Keystone XL, while simultaneously congratulating themselves for the booming American oil and gas industry, (which they had previously made efforts to shutdown post-BP crisis), and falling oil prices, which has more to do with Saudi production than domestic policy.
So what is the environment if not a ruse? What is vegetarianism if not a ruse for abortion, redistribution of wealth, Marxism, and misanthropy, a self-righteous hatred of one's own kind?
And so because of the haughty presumption of the moralist, in this case Cain, a moralist who strays from God and His noble codes to author his own morality, his sacrifice is rejected and held in contempt. One must uphold all of God's righteous statutes and judgments and not deceive himself to think that he can please the LORD by doing it differently.
I looked at some poems from Anne Bradstreet. And I was occasioned to see her poetry on the feud between the first brothers, Cain and Abel. It was here I was reminded of an old concept for an article I'd had ages ago, but never did compose.
_______________________________________________________
Cain and Abel brought forth their offerings. The offering was a deference; it acknowledged the LORD of the Harvest and the generosity of God's good blessings in maximizing the work of their hands and the produce of the land. It was an occasion of honor and celebration.
Cain was not motivated from impure motives. He had the eager belief that the grain he brought would be much to the LORD's satisfaction. Some think he may have held back calves that he wanted to eat himself, and kept the best of his flock from the Lord. But I think we do this at the expense of impugning Cain's motive. I think there is clear cause to believe that Cain was a vegetarian. The vegetarians we meet don't seem to have subtle considerations at heart, an imperious design, when forming good action. We don't deep down believe that the heart of the vegetarian is overcome with evil. On paper, their cause seems quite just; that is, the alleviation of the suffering of all life, including animal life.
But is vegetarianism the great hailed system of our Jehovah?
I believe not.
It is in this "roots" ideology, the belief in a pure diet, no animal meats or products (dairy, for example), it is in this exquisite empathy with animal suffering that one finds harbored the deepest misanthropy.
It is in the earth based system that the highest value is attached to nature and animals; by extension, the lowest value is placed on that which threatens nature: Human life.
The most visible reckoning of humanity is children. Children are the image of the next generation, the next civilization, and therefore abortion, birth control, and homosexuality are very positive co-ideologies with the vegetarian movement.
Vegetarians care more for a purple salamander in a remote place in Nevada then they care about the fruit of their womb.
This is the deep seat of hate which existed in the heart of Cain. Cain so full of love, of hope for the earth, the peace of all life, "Nature, man."
"How could God accept his sacrifice and reject mine?", he'd ask himself.
It is in the heart of this man, an author of morality, like every political liberal who tries to author his own moral basis for by which to live, like every vegetarian that assents to the death of two million fetuses per year but cries, suffering in mental anguish over a purple salamander, is the heart of murder, of plotting, of cruelty and envy.
Goddess worship, veganism, the practice of yoga, court the moral teachings of Luciferianism. Kill fetuses, turn man against woman, woman against man, exchange natural affection for the unnatural, a man loves a man, a woman loves a woman, birth control... Nothing is out of reach of the people who want to see an end to human life. Only... not theirs. They pass the ideological test. They "revere" the earth; they get to stay. You "hate" the earth, so you deserve to die.
Why does God demand sacrifice?
On the most frivolous level, I would say because He likes the smell. I like the smell. Especially here in Texas, people just love the smell of grilling meat. But I think that's a back burner issue, pun intended, or let me rephrase that, all puns aside, I think it's only tertiary in the scheme of the Temple system of sacrifice and oblation that God instituted.
There really must be a vicarious substitution to sit in a place which man cannot rightfully sit. If a man dies, he dies in sin, and should be condemned. But in a very solemn shedding of life, and an inner acknowledgement of personal transgression and disavowal of that lifestyle does mercy arrive.
And yet God says, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," and elsewhere that he does not desire blood sacrifice. The sacrificial was composed within recognizing one's transgressions and coming to repentance. If sacrifice continues only as a cultural idiosyncrasy of that time, or as an ancient practice that was carried without meaning into the present era, then the sacrifice truly does contain no symbolic or substantive meaning. It is actually nothing more than wanton killing of animals. The abolishment of the sacrificial system entirely is less appalling to God than profaning it.
Because of the "innocency" of animals, there is a noble loss of life when its blood is shed, and that covers the iniquity of the man. A penalty paid in substitution. At this rate, a man can die ceremonially clean and living in harmony with Torah.
And I love animals. I detest reckless corporate habits, which endanger the environment. I hate the recklessness of societies that put more value on the stock market and capital than on preserving the earth, because we are stewards over it. At the same time, I hate the politicians which appeal to purple salamanders, who really just want favorable laws to be enacted that will allow them to go through with exclusive golf resort or winery development. I also hate when the politicians advocate that we must totally paralyze the economy for the sake of future hypothetical environmental casualties, like the Keystone XL, while simultaneously congratulating themselves for the booming American oil and gas industry, (which they had previously made efforts to shutdown post-BP crisis), and falling oil prices, which has more to do with Saudi production than domestic policy.
So what is the environment if not a ruse? What is vegetarianism if not a ruse for abortion, redistribution of wealth, Marxism, and misanthropy, a self-righteous hatred of one's own kind?
And so because of the haughty presumption of the moralist, in this case Cain, a moralist who strays from God and His noble codes to author his own morality, his sacrifice is rejected and held in contempt. One must uphold all of God's righteous statutes and judgments and not deceive himself to think that he can please the LORD by doing it differently.
WWII veteran arrested for feeding the homeless
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/03/after-90-year-old-is-arrested-florida-judge-halts-law-that-restricts-feeding-the-homeless/
In Florida, there was recently the case of an old, WWII veteran who was leading a mission on the streets. He wanted to feed the destitute, the downcast, the homeless, and the struggling families.
The evil Democratic mayor and government of this town sent police to arrest this man.
How many thousands of dollars did this cost the city? To send police to investigate the "crime". To arrest this man, who is ninety years old, to transport him to the jail, to incarcerate him. Then to bring the case to trial and prosecute him? HOw many thousands of dollars did that cost?
And yet every year in this country, hundreds of thousands of rape kits go untested, and the true criminals who have made this country's streets dangerous to walk go without prosecution.
I know when I'm walking through town, I never have to fear a robber with a gun or a knife. I never fear young teenagers with too much time on their hands and no fear of getting caught playing the so-called "knockout game" or destroying personal property. My real fear is a man with a wielding a hot dog and a bowl of soup.
Yes, it is these mad men giving us free food that is the most fearful nightmare of them all.
These Americans are very naive people, to continue talking about "American exceptionalism". America is not an exceptional country. Although in terms of ways we have devised to tax people, to arrest and confine people, and to suppress dissent, we are exceptional in those areas.
God does not love Americans more than, say, the Afghanis or the Senegalese. God loves all men and wishes
that all would come to know Him.
The average American does not know anything about this cook down in Florida. Even if they watch the news, the news does not publish everything which is fit to print, or report everything fit to report. The news merely gives you tidbits of information and extraneous news stories, although nothing that would ever really inspire the people to action or to petition their representatives. We get only the news which however salacious and tragic, is just such that no one really asks if things have to be this way.
The true lurid, depraved injustice that exists here, like imprisoning a hero who helped defeat Hitler and served this country as a hero, and today is still a hero and wants to change poverty and help people get a hot meal, and who is being relentlessly persecuted by the Democratic party in this country, will simply never be told in today's media.
And so Americans keep parroting, "America is exceptional, America is God's country," because they are not
told the truth, and that America is fallen, is fallen.
What a satisfaction to know, if you are raped, if you are brutally attacked in this country, it will take years for the DNA to ever be considered, but be safe and know that no uninspected, untaxed hot dog will never be passed on the streets here without brutally subjecting the giver to the barbaric prisons of this country.
In Florida, there was recently the case of an old, WWII veteran who was leading a mission on the streets. He wanted to feed the destitute, the downcast, the homeless, and the struggling families.
The evil Democratic mayor and government of this town sent police to arrest this man.
How many thousands of dollars did this cost the city? To send police to investigate the "crime". To arrest this man, who is ninety years old, to transport him to the jail, to incarcerate him. Then to bring the case to trial and prosecute him? HOw many thousands of dollars did that cost?
And yet every year in this country, hundreds of thousands of rape kits go untested, and the true criminals who have made this country's streets dangerous to walk go without prosecution.
I know when I'm walking through town, I never have to fear a robber with a gun or a knife. I never fear young teenagers with too much time on their hands and no fear of getting caught playing the so-called "knockout game" or destroying personal property. My real fear is a man with a wielding a hot dog and a bowl of soup.
Yes, it is these mad men giving us free food that is the most fearful nightmare of them all.
These Americans are very naive people, to continue talking about "American exceptionalism". America is not an exceptional country. Although in terms of ways we have devised to tax people, to arrest and confine people, and to suppress dissent, we are exceptional in those areas.
God does not love Americans more than, say, the Afghanis or the Senegalese. God loves all men and wishes
that all would come to know Him.
The average American does not know anything about this cook down in Florida. Even if they watch the news, the news does not publish everything which is fit to print, or report everything fit to report. The news merely gives you tidbits of information and extraneous news stories, although nothing that would ever really inspire the people to action or to petition their representatives. We get only the news which however salacious and tragic, is just such that no one really asks if things have to be this way.
The true lurid, depraved injustice that exists here, like imprisoning a hero who helped defeat Hitler and served this country as a hero, and today is still a hero and wants to change poverty and help people get a hot meal, and who is being relentlessly persecuted by the Democratic party in this country, will simply never be told in today's media.
And so Americans keep parroting, "America is exceptional, America is God's country," because they are not
told the truth, and that America is fallen, is fallen.
What a satisfaction to know, if you are raped, if you are brutally attacked in this country, it will take years for the DNA to ever be considered, but be safe and know that no uninspected, untaxed hot dog will never be passed on the streets here without brutally subjecting the giver to the barbaric prisons of this country.
The Biggest Enemies of God
The biggest enemy of God is not His critics, but His own followers!
I read an old article on John Calvin from Christianity Today, dated in 2009. Although I didn't read it all, I did until I felt so lightheaded and flushed that I had to go find something to eat.
Believe it or not, I am not the biggest enemy of the Christian faith. I am the biggest enemy of the Hindu faith. After I got sick reading the article on Calvin, I went had some cereal and a glass of milk. Already this evening I have had:
About a half gallon of milk a bowl of cereal and a large bowl of macaroni and cheese
It is udder abuse, what the cows go through each day. Later I may have some fried cheese or some more macaroni. I'm feeling withdrawals from it now.
The Christian church majority is:
Catholic
and
Calvinist
That right there should prove to you that the biggest enemy of God is the "Christians" themselves because they believe, and love to believe false doctrines.
Jesus was not a Christian, and the Pope is not Catholic. So why should I be a Christian. You people have it all mixed up, who "God" is and what it means to be His people. Look at the Old Testament. Nearly every page has a story about Him slaughtering His people or causing them to take wrong turns in the wilderness.
Some prize, to be God's "people", whatever that means.
It's very straightforward. God is a good Father. You should love your Father and want to obey Him, because you know He looks out for you and can better care for your needs than you can yourself. Christians do not show that. All they talk about are His commands are "a curse, and chains". They say if you obey His commandments, you are only showing off, to have something "wherewith to boast" and God's love is not in you, because you willingly choose to obey His words.
These are the blasphemous lies from the Christians themselves! They love to attack God's word or anyone
who believes it.
If you dare say that the Bible is a literal book, they will attack you, they will slaner you, and say how you do not understand that most of it all is a metaphor and that it only has metaphorical meaning. They sit there and mock the words as too unbelievable to be true.
Christians hate the Bible, and they teach others to hate it too.
Then they teach lies about the Book so that they can cause atheists and all other people who have never read it to hate it too, they love to teach lies about it so much.
The Bible is such an easy book to read, if you do not have some moron with a ministry degree trying to cloud your notion of what it means. You have to stop listening to these bloviators and loudmouths and listen to God, for He will give you a word.
There's no reason to listen to a pastor. They sold out. They only want to have a light-hearted chat. Pastors are so stupid, all they want to do is tell jokes. But they are so boring because they have such an antiquated view of society that their "jokes" fall flat because they aren't funny. And then they speak about something unrelated like how to spend your money or whatnot.
I saw one newsletter a few days ago with a title "Who Your Money Really Belongs To"!!!
Pastor you gotta be shittin' me. I guess according to you my money belongs to the church.
Look, you send the bucket around and I'll put in what I want to put in. You don't have to do a sermon every 4-6 weeks reminding people to give and then send out newsletters to insult people's intelligence and suggest that their money belongs to the church.
At that rate, I may just not give you any money at all. I think from now on, I'll keep my money and spent it on Cheetos and whatnot. This church takes in $20,000 to $40,000 a Sunday and they're still sending out letters to shake its members down. WTF? I'm not familiar with these things, but a $2,000,000 to $4,000,000 budget for one church in a town with 2,000 churches in a 15 mile vicinity seems like a lot. I think being resourceful in managing what one has is another thing that religion teaches. Also being thankful. This church doesn't seem thankful. They seem actually very greedy and thankless for the several million that some of the richest families in our community give to their church every year.
Perhaps if they were using this money to substantially change the lives of members of the community, extensive work in feeding the needy, etc., etc., it could seem justified. I actually have no accounting of where the money is going and there certainly doesn't seem to be a united front against poverty in the community that I'm witnessing. Therefore it must be a money pit. I don't think a Federal Reserve printing press could provide this church with enough money into making a difference in the community because I think their "difference" is all about making a show.
I read an old article on John Calvin from Christianity Today, dated in 2009. Although I didn't read it all, I did until I felt so lightheaded and flushed that I had to go find something to eat.
Believe it or not, I am not the biggest enemy of the Christian faith. I am the biggest enemy of the Hindu faith. After I got sick reading the article on Calvin, I went had some cereal and a glass of milk. Already this evening I have had:
About a half gallon of milk a bowl of cereal and a large bowl of macaroni and cheese
It is udder abuse, what the cows go through each day. Later I may have some fried cheese or some more macaroni. I'm feeling withdrawals from it now.
The Christian church majority is:
Catholic
and
Calvinist
That right there should prove to you that the biggest enemy of God is the "Christians" themselves because they believe, and love to believe false doctrines.
Jesus was not a Christian, and the Pope is not Catholic. So why should I be a Christian. You people have it all mixed up, who "God" is and what it means to be His people. Look at the Old Testament. Nearly every page has a story about Him slaughtering His people or causing them to take wrong turns in the wilderness.
Some prize, to be God's "people", whatever that means.
It's very straightforward. God is a good Father. You should love your Father and want to obey Him, because you know He looks out for you and can better care for your needs than you can yourself. Christians do not show that. All they talk about are His commands are "a curse, and chains". They say if you obey His commandments, you are only showing off, to have something "wherewith to boast" and God's love is not in you, because you willingly choose to obey His words.
These are the blasphemous lies from the Christians themselves! They love to attack God's word or anyone
who believes it.
If you dare say that the Bible is a literal book, they will attack you, they will slaner you, and say how you do not understand that most of it all is a metaphor and that it only has metaphorical meaning. They sit there and mock the words as too unbelievable to be true.
Christians hate the Bible, and they teach others to hate it too.
Then they teach lies about the Book so that they can cause atheists and all other people who have never read it to hate it too, they love to teach lies about it so much.
The Bible is such an easy book to read, if you do not have some moron with a ministry degree trying to cloud your notion of what it means. You have to stop listening to these bloviators and loudmouths and listen to God, for He will give you a word.
There's no reason to listen to a pastor. They sold out. They only want to have a light-hearted chat. Pastors are so stupid, all they want to do is tell jokes. But they are so boring because they have such an antiquated view of society that their "jokes" fall flat because they aren't funny. And then they speak about something unrelated like how to spend your money or whatnot.
I saw one newsletter a few days ago with a title "Who Your Money Really Belongs To"!!!
Pastor you gotta be shittin' me. I guess according to you my money belongs to the church.
Look, you send the bucket around and I'll put in what I want to put in. You don't have to do a sermon every 4-6 weeks reminding people to give and then send out newsletters to insult people's intelligence and suggest that their money belongs to the church.
At that rate, I may just not give you any money at all. I think from now on, I'll keep my money and spent it on Cheetos and whatnot. This church takes in $20,000 to $40,000 a Sunday and they're still sending out letters to shake its members down. WTF? I'm not familiar with these things, but a $2,000,000 to $4,000,000 budget for one church in a town with 2,000 churches in a 15 mile vicinity seems like a lot. I think being resourceful in managing what one has is another thing that religion teaches. Also being thankful. This church doesn't seem thankful. They seem actually very greedy and thankless for the several million that some of the richest families in our community give to their church every year.
Perhaps if they were using this money to substantially change the lives of members of the community, extensive work in feeding the needy, etc., etc., it could seem justified. I actually have no accounting of where the money is going and there certainly doesn't seem to be a united front against poverty in the community that I'm witnessing. Therefore it must be a money pit. I don't think a Federal Reserve printing press could provide this church with enough money into making a difference in the community because I think their "difference" is all about making a show.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
The future of Christianity will be determined by how quickly Christians come to recognize that Pauline theology is frivolous and a dead end
Look how the world hates us.
"Why [i]does[/i] it hate us?"
Why it hates us doesn't matter as much that it does. And Pauline theology has offered nothing to counteract it.
For instance, Paul has a very low view of values (works). He believes that there is a sort of insurmountable distance between man and the divine, and that individual human works are worthless, that they have no value. He suggests that those who do aspire to live graciously are looking for something "wherewith to boast". Many are therefore convinced that the goal of Christian living is not to live in a holy way, but "roll with the punches". If you sin, that's fine, you can always feel sorry for it later.
To Paul, it's not what you do, as much as what you think. As long as you think the right things, the right doctrines, God accepts you in your worthless condition.
One of the main objections of non-believers is very much related to this. They see the Christian moral standard as faulty and contradictory. They often see how many Christians apply one standard to their friends or the group and another set of standards on the world. Christians choose to look the other way when they see a brother in error, or they even try to defend it or cover it up.
Because Christians have not taken a unanimous and decisive stand against immorality, the world views Christians as immoral hypocrites.
The moral component is something sorely missing in Paul's letters. Even insofar as it is contained there, as many would maintain, it is surrounded within such a sea of seemingly contradictory affirmations that many leave with the wrong impression. This is a grave lack of clarity, if the epistles are not wholly deficient of this concept.
The ardent defender of Paul, Martin Luther, after reading Paul, and drawing the same conclusions I've reached here, went on to write, "Be a sinner and sin boldly!" to paraphrase Luther.
So far, Christians do not inspire me with their ability to get this done. Because Christianity was unable to bring many of its marvelous anticipations to pass, it will eventually be violently suppressed, and Christians will be virtually wiped out.
It is not to say that you were not warned. John anticipated this as an inevitable fact over 1900 years ago. Assuredly, it is written in stone, as is our outcome.
Though we are divided now, true Christianity will ultimately prevail in victory, and the good will be given reign to walk the earth without the weight of the iniquity present in this life.
"Why [i]does[/i] it hate us?"
Why it hates us doesn't matter as much that it does. And Pauline theology has offered nothing to counteract it.
For instance, Paul has a very low view of values (works). He believes that there is a sort of insurmountable distance between man and the divine, and that individual human works are worthless, that they have no value. He suggests that those who do aspire to live graciously are looking for something "wherewith to boast". Many are therefore convinced that the goal of Christian living is not to live in a holy way, but "roll with the punches". If you sin, that's fine, you can always feel sorry for it later.
To Paul, it's not what you do, as much as what you think. As long as you think the right things, the right doctrines, God accepts you in your worthless condition.
One of the main objections of non-believers is very much related to this. They see the Christian moral standard as faulty and contradictory. They often see how many Christians apply one standard to their friends or the group and another set of standards on the world. Christians choose to look the other way when they see a brother in error, or they even try to defend it or cover it up.
Because Christians have not taken a unanimous and decisive stand against immorality, the world views Christians as immoral hypocrites.
The moral component is something sorely missing in Paul's letters. Even insofar as it is contained there, as many would maintain, it is surrounded within such a sea of seemingly contradictory affirmations that many leave with the wrong impression. This is a grave lack of clarity, if the epistles are not wholly deficient of this concept.
The ardent defender of Paul, Martin Luther, after reading Paul, and drawing the same conclusions I've reached here, went on to write, "Be a sinner and sin boldly!" to paraphrase Luther.
So far, Christians do not inspire me with their ability to get this done. Because Christianity was unable to bring many of its marvelous anticipations to pass, it will eventually be violently suppressed, and Christians will be virtually wiped out.
It is not to say that you were not warned. John anticipated this as an inevitable fact over 1900 years ago. Assuredly, it is written in stone, as is our outcome.
Though we are divided now, true Christianity will ultimately prevail in victory, and the good will be given reign to walk the earth without the weight of the iniquity present in this life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)