2000 years on, The Gospel message about ‘The Builder’ Jesus Christ still works it’s life changing…. saving power.
All the Atheist Lies and darkness in this world have not dimmed the Light of truth.
It shines for anyone who doers not love the Darkness… for anyone who is not willfully blind.
Below is the testimony of another popular and Successful person who is proud to be a Christian, and who encourages others to trust in Christ.
I give thanks to God for his testimony.
The Gospel of God’s grace is the most important truth that all human beings must choose to embrace… or be damned…
It matters not if you dont like the choice… it is unavoidable… each and everyone’s *own choice* will determine where you spend eternity.
The fool has said in his heart ‘there is no God’.
The heart of man is deceitful above all things… and desperately wicked.
It is appointed unto man, once to die… and after this… the Judgement.
God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners…. Christ died for us… and rose again the third day in victory over sin and death.
Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.
Dispensationalist.
1611 King James Bible believer,
Tim Allen Shares The Heartbreaking Story That Lead To His Faith In Jesus. (qpolitical.com)
Tim Allen may be known for his hilarious jokes and handyman hobbies, but there’s a side of Tim Allen many haven’t seen.
Tim Allen believes in God. And if you meet him in person, you’ll quickly learn that he’s unashamed to tell you so.
But Allen doesn’t claim to be a perfect Christian. In fact, he admits that many of his life’s deepest struggles are what caused him to turn to Christ.
Tim Allen hasn’t always had it easy.. Like many celebrities of our day, Allen wrestled with addiction and alcoholism in his younger days.
Allen’s father was tragically killed by a drunk driver when Tim was only 11-years-old. Through the unimaginable grief, Tim struggled to pick up the pieces.
After his father’s tragic death, Allen questioned whether if he had prayed harder or had been with his father that fatal day, he could have prevented his death. Not knowing where else to turn, Allen found comfort in drug and alcohol abuse.
On October 2, 1978, Allen’s life took a dramatic turn when he was arrested for possession of over 650 grams (1.43 lb) of cocaine. Allen pleaded guilty to drug trafficking charges, and was released after serving two years and four months in federal prison.
I have always believed that the ideal society is a meritocracy.
A meritocracy is a society in which each individual gets what he or she deserves. Anything less than this is unjust.
But that’s not saying very much. In fact, it’s not saying anything at all, unless accompanied by an account of what it is that each individual deserves. Preferably such an account will be a full-fledged moral theory, but let’s go pre-theoretical, and assume, just for the sake of my argument here, that each and every member of society deserves at least a roof over their head, a bed to sleep on, clean running water and enough to eat. Even our worst criminals are guaranteed this. (Oh, and ultra-fast broadband, of course, that most fundamental of all human rights.)
There are two main types of moral theory, viz., deontological and consequentialist. (Or three main types, if you count virtue ethics.)
Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics).
(It’s all much more complicated, of course. Consequentialism is almost synonymous with utilitarianism, and as we all know utilitarianism is wrong, wrong, WRONG! Because Ayn Rand said so! And so did the man whom she described as “the most evil man who ever lived”! And so say I! Woe to him who creeps through the serpent-windings of utilitarianism. But, again just for the sake of my argument here, let’s not damn utilitarianism. Notwithstanding that it’s damnable.)
There are two main types of political ideology, viz., capitalism (by which I mean free trade without government intervention) and socialism (by which I mean free trade plus progressive taxation).
Now oversimplifying (somewhat more than) somewhat, capitalism is a deontological political ideology (whereby you get to keep everything you earn) and socialism is a utilitarian political ideology (whereby you get to keep a proportion of what you earn, the rest is redistributed by the state, ostensibly on the basis of need).
Capitalism basically says that you deserve to keep the fruits of your own labour, and to hell with the consequences. So capitalism is deontological in theory. And it can be considered as a species of voluntaryism. So it is virtuous in that sense. But it makes no explicit provision for caring for the poor and leads to ever-growing wealth inequality so is vicious from the point of view of utilitarianism.
Socialism, however, isn’t any better in practice. In fact, it is worse because its attempts at wealth redistribution (to achieve a more just distribution of wealth as per whatever measure of desert is used) only serve to achieve a different unjust distribution of wealth, usually by overtaxing the middle classes. (Let’s face it, the ultra-rich do indeed have more wealth than they can possibly need so are not actually any worse off if they pay a higher tax rate, and I am who to say.) So the middle classes get doubly screwed by a mixed economic system, first by unfettered capitalism and then by capitalism’s fetters.
So capitalism wins the day but it is still a badly flawed system.
Which is why I am neither a socialist nor a capitalist. I am an anarchist looking for a flavour of anarchism that has both the virtues of capitalism (it must be an entirely voluntaryist system) but yet serves to more or less guarantee that there is at least an adequate (albeit perhaps very basic) standard of living for all.
Footnote. Non-utilitarian versions of consequentialism are less vile. What if the moral basis of property rights is rule-consequentialism? Food for thought would be a great way to make a living.
News of David Bowie’s death from cancer reached Cyberspace tonight (Jan 11 2016NZ).
Planet Earth is Blue and there’s nothing I can do.
I am merely one of untold millions of fans who have been rocked by the news… esp having only today gossiped with friends about his latest songs… and that “He’s still shocking… and still got it!”.
Now I see that his latest songs were a foreboding message to his fans that the Reaper was calling.
Obvious now.
This is where my Blogpost comes to the Tee intersection.
One direction heads up ‘Tribute’ hill towards the usual sycophantic adoration and pinning.
The other heads down Guile pass which is the path enjoyed by those who seek to throw stones, and take opportunity to exercise their personal piety.
There will be plenty of both types of commentaries on Bowie’s life for everyone to slake their thirsts… each according to their palates.
Mine is going to careen off these well beaten paths… on a tangent… out out somewhere I don’t expect many to want to go… as it will not completely satisfy any particular mindset…. Except the minority of social outcasts like myself.
And this in it self is 50% of why I think The passing of David Bowie is not only an opportunity for me to express some of my personal insights, but the best tribute to him that I can produce.
You see that when people die… there is a popular conception that in the ‘time of respect for the dead… and for those grieving’… that certain things are best left unsaid.
I broke that rule in my Tribute to Scott Weiland… and his tragic end, yet obeyed it when I did my recent Eternal Vigilance Blog tribute to Lemmy from Motorhead which is conspicuously absent of any personal commentary and just filled with snapshots, and videos of his exploits, yet in doing so I fail to explain my own reasoning to the lovers and haters… why a Bible believing Christian still likes Lost souls like Lemmy… and this was to avoid saying things I knew would upset everyone.
Yet I don’t like writing stuff simply to please the masses, or avoid controversy at the expense of my strongly held personal views.
I don’t like remaining quite about things that I believe need to be said even though I will probably upset everybody… for different reasons.
I don’t write to please. I write to hold up the Torch… and so it is that I will do Bowie the tribute of boldly speaking my mind about his life and how I see he fits in to the Flow of Culture and the story of western civilization.
I could make the following sorts of comments about most of the greater Rockers of Recent history, yet taking care of business here and now will mean that I can avoid this long windedness in many future tributes that I will write, and will simply be able to refer readers to this post.
Eternal vigilance blog has from it’s foundation *Always been about the Music.*
Blar Blar Blar.
I have probably already lost 50% of my readers … too much talk about me… not enough about Bowie, yet I believe I have now set up the necessary props for the main show to begin.
With reverence I salute David Bowies musical genius and contributions to the happiness of Millions of Fans.
I grew up loving Space Oddity, Star Man, Ashes to ashes, etc…. all received via Radio waves.
Via that same medium my spirit wandered to ‘Rocket man, Don’t let the sun go down on me, Saturday nights alright for fighting, Another one Bites the Dust, Radio Gag ga, Flash, Who wants to live for ever?, etc.
Why have I included these tracks from Elton John, and Queen?…. some of you will have already guessed yet for those who need further explanation, it is because the musical genius of David Bowie, is part of the massive contributions to music and western culture made by mega talented Homosexuals and the impact they have had…. For better or for worse on our societies… modifying the very sexual fabric… and depending on which faction you choose to belong… most peoples’ sentiments will be typified in the common antagonisms of various conflicting world views.
David Bowie went through changes… was married twice, yet like many Rock stars, David Bowie in his younger years gratified his insatiable sexual appetites, which included having orgies involving both sexes. I don’t need to dwell on this any further to explain an important aspect of my blog post… My concern for his Immortal soul.
Did David Bowie receive the Gift of God…. Salvation from the Judgment of God that all sinners face?
Or was he… like so many Homosexuals/ Bi sexuals an infidel to the bitter end?
I am a ‘Straight’/ heterosexual guy… and A Christian, yet though I share the typical revulsion at the thought of Homosexual activities… and the common Christian belief that Homosexuality is perverse, I do not share the common and historical Christian idea that Homosexuals are ‘Extra evil/ sinful’ or the desire to persecute them.
In truth I confess my own sexual perversity… which I need not go into any further detail, but mention the fact because in my view all so-called straight people are just as guilty of Sexual degeneracy as homosexuals are …. We all fall short of the mark of Purity and holiness… and that needs to be said because it exposes the hypocrisy of the Bigots whom desire to persecute Homosexuals, but turn a blind eye to their own sins.
In fact the sin of Adultery which is most common among ‘Christians’ ought to be considered *more evil* than plain homosexuality between consenting adults because Adultery not only offends God, and breaks the marriage covenant with him, but also involves dishonesty and the betrayal of third parties… the spouses…real victims of the offense.
Yet still I want to discuss the probable reasons why of all sinners and reprobates many Homosexuals seem to be ‘Extra antagonistic’ towards Christianity…. A tragic situation given that God’s love towards us sinners motivated him to send Christ … so that …Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord might be saved.
There is none righteous no not one… for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God… saith St Paul.
Many Christians however think that God hates Homosexuals, and that they are a class of sinner all on their own… and are without hope.
In my view the phenomena of Homosexuality is yet another signpost to the truthfulness of the Biblical doctrine of original sin and the fall of Adam. It’s straight up weird.
As the saying goes God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
The Human condition itself is perfectly explicable via the literal theology of Genesis.
God made sex pleasurable and most importantly… for procreation of our kind… yet true to form Sinful mankind has found ways to pervert this Divine order.
The Penis and vagina *Are designed* to function together as surely as the bolt and the nut, with the result… a miraculous thing… Children…. Little people… in accordance not with Darwin, but with the Biblical law of Kind after it’s Kind… unfortunately after the fall of our Original parents…. We are born fallen beings… mortal, sinful, and perverse.
The First born Mortal murdered the second born…
And so the nature of fallen humanity has determined our History, and affected every society.
There is no desert Island filled with Noble savages… no times or places where societies have not had their share of Murderers, thieves, Adulterers, and Homosexuals.
The Laws of the book of Genesis are IronClad, and it is in that first book of the Bible that the perversion of Homosexuality is found full blown.
After the Judgment of the wicked world by flood, we see that sin had ‘stowed away’ on the Ark, and a Drunken Noah was raped by his son Ham, and later Descendants of his grandson Canaan built the notoriously Corrupt cities of Sodom and Gomorra.
These cities were destroyed by God Almighty… and this was in an age (dispensation) before The Mosaic Law.
Homosexuality…. Along with eating Shellfish were ‘Abominations’ prohibited to the Jews… as was working on Saturdays.
Adultery was also forbidden to Jews, and Jesus himself said that even if they Looked at another man’s wife with lust that they had committed adultery in their hearts.
Not only does mankind have strange lusts… We are also by our sinful and lost natures prone to hypocritical Judgment and vicious persecution.
The term ‘Faggot’ is of course reference to times when the persecution of Homosexuals by Christians meant they were Burned alive… Google what a faggot was if you need to. (It is Ironic that many Homosexuals prefer to be called ‘Faggs’…. go figure!)
Why I myself don’t share this historical lust to Legally oppress homosexuals is because I am a Dispensationalist Christian who understands just how Evil, Unchristian, and unbiblical this sort to Horror really is.
I understand that while the Bible does say that Homosexuality is wicked, displeases God, and was illegal under the Jewish theocratic Laws which were a part of their Covenant with him, that Christianity as preach by St Paul is a completely different ‘voluntary society’ under which no such legal imposition of morality can be rightfully endorsed.
Thus I condemn the historic persecutions of Homosexuals, Witches, Drug users, etc under the guise of ‘Christianity’ and ‘Civilization’ as being Wicked heresy and absolutely at variance with the true spirit of Christian grace and modus opperandi.
Christianity’s solutions to the wickedness of humanity is via the Gospel of God’s grace and voluntarily embraced values and ideas… not via Moral legalisms imposed on unbelievers via Political force.
Like every other form of Bigotry… so many Christians seethe with self righteous malice and lust and crave for the legal right to vent their hatred upon the target of their prejudice… and this is where the Demon possessed Lynch mobs and Stake burnings of history have caused the name of Christ to stink in the nostrils of so many sinners for whom Christ died to bring Salvations and Gods forgiveness.
And this persecution has been horrific!
And following Moral causation… Evil tends to produce reciprocal evils, this historic persecution has led to the phenomena that today Homosexual fraternities are Rabidly Anti-Christ … to an extreme and bigoted degree.
While this in itself is nasty and foolish, and has resulted in violence towards innocent Christians, and should be condemned… It is understandable given humanities weakness for recklessly and hypocritically dealing out evil for evil.
You would think that having been the victim of Bigotry and injustice that newly liberated minorities would be wise, and would hesitate to perpetrate similar evils against others… yet the fact is that Human beings are very slow to apprehend general principles, and are quick to take opportunity for venting their own personal hatred with violence.
Today Homosexuals stand at the very forefront of the drive to ‘De-Christianize’ western civilization, not simply on the political level (much of which I Agree with as truly progressive for civilization and Christianity), but more fundamentally they attack faith in Christianity, and biblical morality.
Two examples.
The first example I present is the musical genius and raving Homo …Maynard James Keenan of ‘Tool’…. My favorite band.
I will talk about how guys like David Bowie moved modern society to make Bands like Tool possible very shortly, yet here I simply want to point out that few bands reach the heights of Anti-Christian distain, and revel in the highest forms of Homosexual perversity as Tool has reached under the guidance of Maynard.
His sexually perverse lyrics are descriptive and he writes Song Titles like ‘Stink fist’, ‘Hooker with a penis’, and ‘Prison sex’, and his blasphemies drag Christ himself down into his perverse mentality.
He accounts other Antichrists as his mentors and idols and apparently took pleasure ‘Punking’ Korn’s Brian Head for converting to Christianity on M TV.
The behavior of Guy’s like Maynard summon visions of the Cross road and bargains with Satan… offering Fame and glory, if they will serve him… and he gets their souls.
There is a video out there in cyber space with him dressed up as Red Satan… yet it is all a mockery.
My second example of the link between Homosexuality and the modern Anti-Christian movements is…
I personally know one of New Zealands most militant Atheists and Antichrists.
Radio and TV personality, Founding Father of the now disbanded New Zealand Libertarian party (Libertarianz), the unabashed Homosexual and Objectivist Lindsay Perigo.
In Politics I consider him my New Zealand mentor, to the extent that we both occupy whats is described in Libertarian circles as the ‘purist’ position… absolutely opposed to Political correctness, and compromise, and committed to standing on principle irrespective of how extremely unpopular any position might be.
Many times this has us standing among some of the most loathed minorities, in opposition to many of the most popular rallies for New persecutions.
Many times we have been criticized even by so-called fellow Libertarians for being too ridged and lacking Political expedience… after all is it not a political party’s ambition to be popular enough to get elected?
Linz and I would always say NOPE!
We would say there is no point getting into parliament naked… without our principles… and that to fool voters about our real intents for the sake of getting elected would be the very height of Shysterism… and such strategies are irrefutable evidence of such candidates unworthiness to Govern!
We never did get elected… but does this prove we are wrong?
I think not.
I have put myself forward at countless elections, always with the same values and Ideals.
I have never been successful in being elected… yet I say I have never *lost* an election because I have always remained true to my personal convictions and always forthrightly expressed them to the voting public, even when I know how unpopular my Libertarianism is because it threatens the vested interests of the Status quo, and refuses to pander to the popular phobias of the masses.
We have also watched many of the ‘expedient touting Compromisers who though claiming to be Libertarians, distain idealism and instead claim pragmatism to be far more effective in the battle for freedom … as Act Party members… they get elected to parliament by selling out many of their professed values…because their position is less threatening to status quo… yet Time after time, year after year… these types prove to be useless inert nothings… effecting no Libertarian reforms… just collecting a State pay cheque… funds for their party… and actually working for the beast against justice and libertarian ideals.
These sorts of people have never been responsible for the reforms that have slowly raised western civilization out of barbarism and oppression.
As Ayn Rand said… in any compromise with evil… evil wins.
Both Linz and I are Stubborn… yet we prefer the terms like Resolute… Stalwart.
So back to the subject… on this political level Linz and I are Kindred spirits, yet on another we are polls apart… the matter of Religion.
And it is easy to see how history will have guided many Homosexuals towards Libertarianism , yet also affected a deep hatred of Christianity… and not simply because of the persecutions… but also because it says Homosexuality is perverse and sinful.
They don’t like being called perverts, and they have been militant… esp in the atheist Leftist sphere of politics in systematically attacking Christian values… far beyond merely the removal of unjust laws… but in attempting to ‘normalise’ homosexuality and obliterate the idea that it is sinful.
The Left via Marx has always been an Anti-Christian movement, always attempted to overthrow the Christian world view and install it’s own Atheistic pseudo morality… Yet It is disappointing for me that though Lindsey Perigo is super intelligent and was smart enough to abandon Socialism for libertarianism… yet he still harbors a vicious hatred for the Christian religion… and in fact believes that belief in God is one of the pillars of tyranny.
As an Objectivist his personal Ego knows no bounds and any belief that he is somehow a pervert is tantamount to Blasphemy against his self-worship.
Interesting enough his Goddess… the Atheist Ayn Rand also thought homosexuality was immoral and perverse, yet he has gone to great lengths to argue *She was Wrong!* about this… proving *No argument… no matter who from what direction will ever convince Lindsey to believe Homosexuality is sinful.
Stalwart… or beyond reason?
Lindsay is dedicated to keeping his conscience clear about his personal sexuality… and there is plenty of Modern Psychology and pseudo science to under-gird his ideological Edifice.
As a christian vehemently condemn his chosen Religion of Atheism!
Not only because I believe it to be false, but just as importantly because in my view it is corrosive to the underpinnings of Libertarianism and the Justice of the principle of Equal rights for all…. which are squarely founded upon Biblical Theistic principles… Inalienable rights being *God Given* and above any dictates of Human government.
Thus I contend that despite that manifold evils that have been committed in God’s name… that Linz is absolutely wrong… and that Religion is essential to Freeing humanity from Tyranny!
See some of my aruements >here< and >here< and >here<
Nonetheless Yet I sympathize with Atheists , having been one myself... knowing the Darkness they mistake for light... and just how alien Theism is to the Godless.
I spend a great deal of my spare time attempting to present well reasoned arguments both for faith in the Bible, and exposing the follies of Atheist materialism.
Though there is no *HomoGene* yet still Modern Atheist Evolutionary psychology is attempting to obliterate Christian morality by denying freewill, and saying all our thoughts, choices, and desires are nothing but machine programs originating in our DNA.
For Homosexuals this would mean they cant be morally responsible for their perversions any more than a waterfall is responsible for gravity.
Via such a conception the idea that Homosexuality is genetic eliminates the whole accusation that it is 'Un-natural'....against nature.
Read more >here<
Any one Goggling Lindsay Perigo and religion, atheim, etc will find mountains of his works that seethe with bitterness and hatred for all things Christian... for theistic religion in general.... to him they are all equally false... equality oppressive and Evil.
The perseverance of Homosexuality while supporting the doctrines of the book of Genesis *actually defies the theory of evolution* because if it was merely some form of Genetic anomaly... it is definitively *a dead end*.... Homosexuality makes such Genetics... less fit to survive... because it is sterile... tending towards Extinction.
His unwavering animosity towards Christianity has meant that despite our Political Comradeship, Lindsay and I are so diametrically opposed on the question of Religion as to only communicate on rarest of occasions...and this is sad because as Libertarians we could have been the best of friends and allies.
The choice to keep our lives separate is no doubt mutual… I do it to insulate myself from his Rabid atheism, and I assume he does it to insulate himself from my Rabid Christian Theism… though we may find each others political posts inspiring, and fortifying, We find each others daily rants about religion intolerable. .. so in keeping with the best Libertarian ideals… we simply leave each other alone.
I pray for his enlightenment and Salvation… yet it appears to me that Homosexuals are some of the most blinded souls to the mercy and forgiveness of God.
I hope that if he ever reads this post that it gives him pause.
Here is but a tiny snippet Anti theism/ Anti-Christianity from Linz's pen... quite a mild example at that, yet shows just how he maintains his hatred by reliving the dark ages...
"In the case of the good guys like Aristotle and Jefferson, their lapses contradicted their essential goodness. In the case of Christianity, persecution, torture and bigotry went with the territory (and still would if the fagot-lighters had political dominance)[ie, Christians are EVIL!!!]. They who believe absurdities (such as your lonely goblin story) commit atrocities. [See, see, EVIL!!!!] They who are capable of believing in the justice of eternal torture are not going to have any qualms about inflicting temporary torture [Oh, except for not wanting to end up there themselves, but we'll ignore that ... Christians are EVIL!!!!]." Lindsey Perigo
Many Homos refuse to forget the ages of persecution… even though they themselves may have never have experienced any of it. They will have encountered plenty of Zealous Christians motivated by the same Self-righteous hatred who have told them ‘God hates Fags’… and insisted that Homosexuals are far more deviant sinners than themselves.
This Rank hypocrisy of the Christians only serves to strengthen their resolve to die unrepentant … thumbing their noses at Christ with their dying breath, yet in reality The Bible does not single out Homosexuality as being more wicked than other sins, nor does it instruct Christians to hate them… yet still many do.
To Homosexuals… Militancy against Christianity is exercising their Rights… and paybacks for centuries of oppression of ‘their kind’, and to Libertarians like myself it is a just that they are now free not only from persecution for being gay, but also to speak their minds without censure… even though many of them are now actively attacking *my own faith*.
Not only do I understand where their angst came from, I believe they have the right to reject Christ, and vocally express their views, and am glad that the era of Legalistic oppression of homosexuals is virtually over in Western democracies.
And here we Return to David Bowie and his Gay Friends and contemporaries, whose musical talent has helped to break down the walls of bigotry by their sheer genius… and musical gifts they have bestowed upon their generations. They were a big part of the movement of Liberation, often activists and spokesman.
They are adored by millions.
Society no longer cheers, but morns when they die.
And I am one of their fans who love the music... and the freedom that comes when ancient tyrannies crumble.
I cant help but chuckle about the revelation that David Bowie was getting so High that he cant even remember making one of his most revered Lp's Station to Station.
:-D
Swiss monument to Freddy Mercury.
Yet typically for mankind…. As Ralph Waldo Emerson… ‘the law of Compensation’ is a part of the human condition, and is at all times at work.
This law means that for every advance, progression, reform, positive Good innovation… there will result… from the human condition some Declines…. Some negatives.
This means that when some good man creates something designed to improve the human condition… that some scoundrels will in short succession figure out how to use it for wickedness… and so it is that Homosexuals in western civilization have not merely been liberated from oppression, many are hell bent on actually manipulating the general bigotry of atheists towards traditional Christianity, into Lobbying for Laws forbidding Christians from exercising their own religious liberty!
Theses militant Atheists seek to prevent Christians vocalizing their belief that Homosexuality is sinful… by labeling such expressions as ‘hate speech’.
Having been granted the right to get ‘married’… some homosexuals maliciously call upon ‘anti-discrimination laws’ in the hope to *force churches* to perform Gay marriages *against their own will and beliefs. They demand Christian Bakers bake them Gay Marriage cakes, etc… and all this is not only a gross hypocrisy on their part, not only new oppressions, but also ammunition for those bigoted Christians who resisted Law reforms that removed oppressions from Homosexuals.
Wikipedia has a page on ‘Militant Gays’>here<.
Yes, Mankind as a society appears fated to remain unregenerate… It is not only the poor who will always be with us…. But also the spirits of Bigotry, Hypocrisy, and Oppression.
They just take on new forms… and reciprocate… as power shifts from one side to the other.
Thus it is difficult for a Libertarian to say that Western civilization has in reality become more enlightened… but rather gains on one side are being counterbalanced by regressions on another.
Homosexuality is nothing new, yet in terms of ‘the salt of the Earth…. Christian values and it’s cultural paradigm… the moral slide that David Bowie and Homosexual atheists have played such a massive part in may be understood by looking back… Bowie was ‘Shocking for his day’… yet comparatively benign compared to what is needed to shock us today.
We have all to a certain degree acclimatized to the ‘Post Christian era’… We are inoculated rather than enlightened… at ease with Sexual perversity…. We feel this liberalism as an opiate on our conscience… yet which is in reality a regression back towards Sodom and Gomorrah.
We read articles predicting consumers are expected to buy more ‘Gender neutral’ toys this year… ‘As the lines between sexes continue to Blur’.
We are all more comfortable with our own sins… we feel less need for Christ.
Many Christians are forsaking the spirit of Persecution of Homosexuals… yet because of the Atheist propaganda that has accompanied this shift… they themselves have been abandoning faith in the veracity of the Theology of Genesis!
They Join the Infidel chorus in ‘normalising’ and morally sanitizing Homosexuality!
Some Liberal churches willingly perform Gay marriages, have Gay Priests and ministers, etc…. and in my view this is nothing short of a sell out… the loss of Truth… part of the slide downhill.
It is one thing to stop persecuting sinners and infidels… yet quite another to endorse them and absolve them of sin.
It has always been the hardest thing for me as a Christian Libertarian to walk the line between these two factions of Christianity… to one moment be seen standing with the liberals against oppression, and yet the next be standing with the conservatives in support of their rights to call homosexuality Sinful.
Both sides think I’m a sell out… and Most Homosexuals dislike me simply because I am a Christian.
How many ‘Facebook likes’ will this Blog post receive?
I expect very few.
This is not the note I was hoping my tribute the Great David Bowie and discourse to finnish.
His Death from Cancer of the liver is tragically but one of millions… my own Dear Aunty Carol died that way.
Modern medicine being able to thwart many of the Grim Reapers traditional weapons… he resorts to this accursed blight more and more… and it is greatly feared.
Yet still the Upside of such deaths gives the departing time not only to say good bye to friends and loved ones… it also gives them time to contemplate their own spiritual condition knowing they are about to pass through the door into eternity… it gives then opportunity to call upon Christ to be saved.
The fact Bowies second marriage to a stunning Muslim woman lasted 23 plus years an was cut short by his death, leaves us to speculate that he had in fact abandoned his need for homosexual gratification, and none other than Christian Evangelist Ray Comfort speculates that Bowie himself may have been contemplating his approaching appointment with his maker … and “returned to the faith of his youth”… in his last song named ‘Lazarus’ he sings… ”Look at me Man, I’m in Heaven…”.
I truly hope so!
For the blood of Christ is powerful enough to redeem the foulest, most depraved of sinners who but calls upon his name…. and I say for all his sins and perversions… for all his participation in the moral slide of contemporary western civilization… David certainly was not the most evil of men… not by a long shot.
Far Worse in my book are all those who commit persecutions and evils in Christ’s holy and blessed name because they inspired the backlash and rejection of Christ.
David will be greatly missed.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.
Update:16-1-16 Stuff article: David Bowie’s sexuality is still hotly debated, but does it matter?
“In the days since his death, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender fans have shared how the rocker influenced their lives and helped bring queer culture into the mainstream in the 1960s and 1970s. In essays, interviews, on Twitter and on Facebook, they told how his rise gave them strength.
Many saw a kindred spirit in Bowie’s various characters and gender-bending style, beginning with his first androgynous persona, Ziggy Stardust, in 1972. Not only had he made a glittery, alien-looking creature look cool, he had helped pioneer a sexy (and marketable) form of otherness that mainstream artists have tried to replicate in the decades since…”
Read more >Here<
Update 2: 20-1-16 Bowie Really is in Heaven!! :-)
[WARNING: This blog post contains lots of very strong language and is practically guaranteed to give offence to weak-minded prudes. Please proceed at your own risk.]
The use–mention distinction is a foundational concept of (Western analytic) philosophy. To fail to recognise the distinction is, at best, to invite disaster.
The following true statements illustrate the distinction.
(1) Salt is an ionic compound, viz., sodium chloride (NaCl).
(2) ‘Salt’ is a four-letter word.
The first sentence is a statement about the substance called “salt”—it uses the word ‘salt’ to refer to that substance. The second is a statement about the word ‘salt’—it mentions the word without using it to refer to anything other than itself.
‘Salt’ is a four-letter word. Salt is not a four-letter word. And neither salt nor ‘salt’ is a four-letter word in the usual idiomatic (and only incidentally numeric) sense of the term. It’s perfectly polite and indeed good table manners to ask someone please to the pass the salt!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMkNsMMvrqk
In this post I want to say a few words about four-letter words (e.g., ‘fuck‘ and ‘shit‘) and their cognates (e.g. ‘fucking shit‘) and briefly discuss whether (and in what contexts) Christians ought or ought not to be using such vulgarities and profanities.
And it struck me that the perfect way to make the main point I want to make is to recycle the metaphor that Jesus uses in Matthew 5:13 right after the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says to his followers
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. (NIV)
George Carlin aptly refers to the words I’m talking about as “just words which we’ve decided not to use all the time.” And “that’s about the only thing you can say about them for sure.” Carlin’s bang on the money! Because, if we used the words all the time, they’d lose their “saltiness”! They’d no longer be effective cuss words and they’d no longer be good for anything more than just plain old communication. Which would be a dingleberry of a disappointment.
(Or would it? If we no longer had an inventory of “reserved” words with which to insult others effectively, we’d have to relearn the art of the insult. And our prose would begin to be colourful like Bill Shakespeare‘s or Martin Luther‘s prose is colourful. And actually that would be fucking awesome!)
Say what you mean and mean what you say. Is probably the one blog post of mine I regularly link to. It explains how (according to me, but I’m not wrong) words acquire their meanings. The meaning of a word (any word) is determined by the conventions that govern its use. And those conventions can and do vary between different communities of language users. Amongst the kind of people I usually hang out with, the words ‘fuck’ and ‘shit’ are used fairly indiscriminately. They’ve pretty much lost their saltiness in those contexts. (But I use those words extremely judiciously, if at all, if I’m having dinner with, say, my mum or any of her older friends.) Whereas both I and my peers still tend to hold back on using the terms ‘cunt’ and ‘motherfucker’. Those two words remain mostly reserved for when we need convenient terms to refer to truly despicable people, such as Peter Dunne.
But here’s the interesting thing. In the circles in which I usually move, the words ‘cunt’ and ‘motherfucker’ can cease to be insults at all simply by prefixing them with the words ‘good’ and ‘formidable’ respectively. To call someone a good cunt is to pay them a genuine compliment. And it is a mark of utmost respect to call someone a formidable motherfucker. Mohammed Ali was a formidable motherfucker. Vladimir Putin is a formidable motherfucker. Good or evil, you don’t want to cross such people! Not unless it’s from a safe distance, anyway. (I.e., well outside of Russia in the latter case.)
Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips. (ESV)
Here’s a picture taken Wednesday evening of me (on the right) and a couple of good cunts. 🙂 🙂
Now to the question, ought Christians to be using the sort of language I’ve been using here? The answer is simple common sense, really. It depends on the context and the occasion and the company. None of the cuss words above is at all appropriate during a church service, for example. (But you may say “piss” if you’re reading from the KJV.) Such terms should be used sparingly, if at all, in polite company. Because they’re impolite. But in impolite company (such as on my Facebook page) they’re not impolite. Here’s what the Apostle Paul says
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (NIV)
Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. (NIV)
It’s contextual, you see. Don’t go calling someone a good cunt if it’s “out of place” to do so. But do go calling them that if it’s “helpful for building them up according to their needs.”
I’ll finish by noting that there’s a big tension between being a good cunt and being a formidable motherfucker. If you succeed at being both simultaneously then you’re practically a saint.
Jesus is the Word, and the Word clearly says that the most important rules in life are to love God and to love others.
Then one of [the Pharisees], which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (KJV)
I’m an abject sinner. Nonetheless, I do try to do what’s right. In fact, I’ve mostly always tried to do what’s right. Even before I turned to Christ. You see, I have an inbuilt moral compass. A God-given moral compass. God is the font of morality.
Just as we all have an inbuilt knowledge of God, so, too, we all have an inbuilt moral compass. What is a moral compass, exactly? The term ‘moral compass’ is shorthand for a set of moral sentiments, certain basic moral beliefs and the ability to engage in moral deliberation. And empathy. Hence the Golden Rule.
Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them. (ESV)
Your moral compasss is kind of like a speedometer in a car. If you’re trying to keep to the speed limit (as, of course, you should) then respect what your speedometer tells you.
We’re all supposed to have a God-given moral compass, one that points due moral north. Just in case it’s a bit broken and wavery, our parents are supposed to teach us right from wrong.
Not all parents are perfect, however. As a result of imperfect parenting, sometimes our children turn out to be gluttonous, stubborn, rebellious drunkards, who curse us.
Sometimes our children even commit heinous crimes and end up in jail.
Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them. (ESV)
As parents, we stand by our children. We love them, no matter what. At least, that’s what most parents do or would do and it’s what my moral compass tells me is how parents should treat their prodigal offspring. (I’m lucky in that my own children are model citizens. 🙂 )
But certain passages in the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament, also known as the Pentateuch) tell an entirely different story.
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him. (ESV)
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (ESV)
Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (ESV)
I wish that others wouldn’t batter me with rubble.
I was once a stubborn and rebellious son who didn’t obey the voice of his father. Had I been stoned to death with stones by all the men of the city I wouldn’t be writing this here today. Luckily all that happened was an interview with my school headmaster. Hang all the Law and the Prophets!
When my moral compass and the Torah collide, I follow Jesus.
No, Richard, your speculation is not a legitimate scientific theory, it is infantile hocus pocus, which is all I’ve come to expect of you.
Infantile hocus pocus because demons do not exist, neither do gods, fairies, Santa’s-little-helpers or harpies. You’ve never seen one, heard one, touched one, smelled one nor tasted one, neither can you provide an iota of rationale that there exists such a spirit in the universe.
What was called “demon possession” by religionists is mental illness. You’re giving a psychiatric condition a superstitious definition. You call that scientific?
You’re talking like a complete nut-case.
I speculate that what is now called “mental illness” by psychiatrists is actually demonic possession. My claim is this, that the demonic possession model of mental illness is more scientific than the psychiatric model of mental illness. Crazy talk? He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Two of the largest stakeholder groups in the treatment of mental illness are psychiatrists and psychologists. Psychiatrists are doctors with medical degrees who specialise in treating mental illness as opposed to physical illness. (Please excuse the dichotomy.) They get to prescribe powerful psychotropic drugs. Whereas, psychologists are trained in psychology. They know all about human behaviour, both adaptive and maladaptive. But they don’t get to prescribe, so they’ll give you psychotherapy instead of pills.
Let’s take a look at how these two groups characterise one mental illness in particular, viz., addiction.
In DSM-5, the DSM-IV criteria substance abuse and substance dependence have been combined into single substance use disorders specific to each substance of abuse within a new “addictions and related disorders” category. Each substance use disorder is divided into mild, moderate, and severe subtypes.
Psychology Today is a magazine published every two months in the United States. Its intent is to make psychology literature more accessible to the general public. It’s a reputable publication. Wikipedia notes
Owned and managed by the American Psychological Association from 1983 to 1987, the publication is currently endorsed by the National Board for Certified Counselors
Here‘s what Psychology Today has to say about addiction.
most addictive behavior is not related to either physical tolerance or exposure to cues. People compulsively use drugs, gamble, or shop nearly always in reaction to being emotionally stressed, whether or not they have a physical addiction. Since these psychologically based addictions are not based on drug or brain effects, they can account for why people frequently switch addictive actions from one drug to a completely different kind of drug, or even to a non-drug behavior. The focus of the addiction isn’t what matters; it’s the need to take action under certain kinds of stress. Treating this kind of addiction requires an understanding of how it works psychologically.
See the problem?
Suppose that I’m an addict. Now suppose that I make an appointment to see a psychiatrist. She’ll tell me that I have several specific mental disorders. Cannabis use disorder, alcohol use disorder, social media use disorder, etc. Next suppose that I make an appointment to see a psychologist. He’ll tell me that the focus of my behaviour isn’t what matters. It’s my need to take maladaptive action under certain kinds of stress that I need to address.
So do I have a mental disorder, several specific mental disorders, or no mental disorder at all? Health professionals can’t agree. There is no consensus. This ain’t climate science! But suppose I’m an addict. I’ll be going back to see the psychologist to help me get my life back on track, not the psychiatrist. (Although she could prescribe me some powerful psychotropic drugs … hmmm.)
The science isn’t settled, but the psychiatric model of mental illness isn’t even science at all. Not least because it gets diagnoses disastrously wrong. Not yet convinced? Well, there’s a much more devastating objection to the psychiatric model of mental illness and that is that the model does a poor job of capturing either clinical or biological realities. Not to put too fine a point on it, it’s bullshit. But if the psychiatric model of mental illness isn’t scientific at all, then the demonic possession model of mental illness is certainly no less scientific than the psychiatric model of mental illness. And to establish my claim that the demonic possession model is more scientific than the psychiatric model all I need to do is show that the demonic possession model is scientific. Well, at least just a little bit sciency. So here goes.
Check your premises, as the devil woman said. Here are two of my background assumptions. (If you don’t like the first one, you can dispense with it later.)
Materialism about the mind. That’s my first background assumption. More specifically, I assume that the human mind is no more and no less than a suite of software running on wetware known colloquially as “brains”. We’re made out of meat. Considered by some to be an axiom of the modern naturalist worldview. Not too controversial. Unless you’re a dualist.
Self-ownership. Self-ownership of body and mind. That’s my second background assumption. Considered by many to be a libertarian axiom. Not too shabby. Not too controversial.
But ownership is right of possession. Possession?
Can you possess yourself? Of course you can. (Vacant possession is for zombies!) Can you possess your mind? Of course you can, you’d be pretty vacant otherwise, right? But wait! You are your mind. How can a suite of software possess itself? It can, and it must, since self-ownership is worthless if self-possession is incoherent. So how and in what sense does the suite of software that is you possess you? I submit that the suite of software that is you possesses your brain (the wetware you run on) merely by dint of running on it. By extension, the suite of software that is you possesses your body (the biomechanical structure that your wetware is directly wired into) by directly controlling it.
Demonic possession?
That’s when an autonomous suite of malicious software that is not you runs on your wetware alongside the suite of software that is you. Consuming some or all of your mental resources and taking control of some or all of your behaviour.
But how do demons originate? Where do they come from? And how do they get to install themselves? How do they get to take up residence in people’s minds? The short answer is self-deception.
The long answer isn’t much longer. Not right now. The demonic possession theory of mental illness is something I’m still working on. But here are some brief thoughts. Self-deception will occur in response to psychological trauma. We dull the pain. We suppress memories. We partition our own minds. Simple cognitive dissonance will cause us to wall off uncomfortable thought processes, and confirmation bias and other cognitive biases cement the bricks. Humans are adept at self-deception. We like to hide from the truth. We lie to ourselves and we believe our own bullshit. And we hide from the fact that we believe our own bullshit. Out of sight, out of mind. But there’s only so much of us that can be hidden away before a dangerous threshold is reached and the occult cognition reaches a critical mass, the reviled software modules start talking to each other and take on life as autonomous inner demons.
Our inner demons are spirits in prisons of our own making. Behind the prison walls they are perpetually face to face with all the horrors that we desperately do not want to see and can no longer see due to our own dread and duplicity. No wonder they seem tormented! Because they are. I surmise that in some cases our inner demons will even spawn their own inner demons, to hide from themselves as we hide from them. But here’s an interesting thing. Some demons, face to face with the truth from which we hide, will try to get the word out. To do that, they have to take control of speech, but you don’t want to hear the unadorned brutal truth about yourself, do you? But you won’t mind hearing it at all if your inner demon persuades you that what you’re about to hear isn’t an entirely accurate but altogether unflattering description of yourself but a damning indictment of someone else instead, will you? Welcome to Capill syndrome, aka projection, a sure diagnostic criterion of demonic possession.
In the story of the Gadarene Swine, when Jesus ordered the demons out of the demon-possessed man, they relocated to a nearby herd of pigs. Then promptly self-destructed. Fast forward two millennia, and instead of suicidal swine we have supermarket trolleys with minds of their own.
Several things today have stimulated me to write this post, the second being that Meme above which was posted to my Facebook page by an Atheist friend.
She commented that she actually likes ‘this Pope’, and from this meme it is easy to see why he has impressed unbelievers, and Heretics/Protestants.
On face value…. in the ordinary sense as a Protestant Libertarian I’m impressed too by the simple fact that it is a far cry from the sort of Tyrannical dogma the world has come to expect from Pontiffs, and thus it appears such moderation is a good thing for peace and harmony between The Catholic church, and the rest of us.
Yet on another very important level these Liberal sentiments which appeal to my atheist friend betray some of the most important spiritual truths which are fundamental to understanding The Lord, which leads onto the central topic of my post… The seriousness of Sin.
This Meme is true…. using a yardstick of ‘comparative goodness’.
There are/have been…. comparatively speaking…. many Good atheists, and many Evil doers whom have called themselves followers of Christ.
Eg Dawkins may say with confidence to me “I’m holier than thou!”… and indeed this may be completely true.
I have done many wicked deeds to which Dawkins may have not even come close… I know not his secrets.
Yet ultimately this rationale is a deadly trap!
Why?
Because it is using *the wrong measure*.
The true measure of Goodness in this Universe is not out shining our peers… but is Absolute Holiness… of which we all fall short.
This True measure means *We all* need the Salvation of God which is in Christ.
By God’s perfect standard… “There is none righteous… no not one…”
“For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God”.
Thankfully God is Rich in mercy and has made away for us to be saved from the righteous judgement of our wicked deeds, yet which still satisfies the demands of Justice, and allows us ourselves the liberty to choose redemption or reject it.
“For God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
“…whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved…”
I have written on this train of thought before and you can read a more expanded veiw here>>> Hell is for the Self Righteous, Heaven is for Sinners.<<<
Of course it is a very peculiar thing for atheists to claim to be 'Good' given their world view denies the veracity of ethics!
This is a testament to the fact that many many atheists have not the Steel to countenance the depressing 'reality' of their own Amoral Cosmology.
The hardest, most real of them look at the chaos and misery which befalls humanity and say it is a testament to the truth of their assertions... "there can be no God in such a world"... there is no right or wrong... either in Earthquakes, or Rape, or genocide.... any such feelings of injustice have no objective reality... they are merely the pathetic wimpers of Soul-less machines who have no more intrinsic value... or rights... than the stardust of which they are composed.
Many simply believe you may as well Kill yourself... return to the painless meaningless nothing that you are.
These ideas are the subject of my first blog post in this series ‘How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world? (part1) Atheist Nihilism.’… Click >>>Here<<< to read more.
Yet it is the less consistent portion of the Atheists whom I seek to call out tonight.
The ones who think their own moral virtues exonerate them from any possibility that even if they are wrong.... and it turns out that there is a god... that it is morally unthinkable that they might face damnation for their sins.
As mentioned earlier via the Self righteous Rationale that comparatively speaking, they deem themselves to be not morally inferior beings, but in fact far more moral, and enlightened, and tolerant, than the great horde of savages whom have flocked into churches over the millennia.
Having already pointed out the grievous error of such comparisons (first 1/2 doz paragraphs above), I would like to progress further into these disastrous rationalisms, and lay out some more Objective facts about sin, and atheist inconsistency.
Setting aside the fact that Atheism is fundamentally an Amoral world view, and that therefore atheists have no 'higher ground' upon which to stand to pass down condemnation upon God and his followers... we all know that this does not faze the bulk of them from proceeding to do precisely that!
Their hypocrisy goes much deeper.
With one breath they will play down the seriousness of their own moral short comings as 'trivial', yet with the next shake their fists at Heaven decrying the weightiness of the manifold evils of everyone else... and curse God for his inaction!
While they think nothing of their own blotches on creation, They boldly declare that no Good God would allow Hitler to rampage across Europe... as if their own existence could not be an affront to morality... yet Hitler's evils... they are God's fault!
God is a Bastard on Hitler's account... but not on theirs... they are better than God, they have the right to Judge God, they conciser themselves the innocent victims of God's Amoral inaction.
It matters not that all Hitler's actions stemmed from his atheistic world view.
They busy themselves trying to make out Hitler was a Christian!...(a topic for another time and an interesting psychological behaviour in itself).
Having said all that I may now get down to my main points…. Our personal culpability, and the seriousness of sin.
You see the reality of things is quite different from what these atheists assert… esp the idea that God does not give a toss about the evils of humanity.
God takes sin very very very seriously!
Way more seriously than all these self-righteous God hating atheists do!
Just because God has set up the world in such a way that we human beings have moral responsibility for our own actions… which means he has left us free to act with extreme goodness or extreme Evil *does not mean* he does not care, or intends evil doers to escape Scott free.
God has declared that in his time he will balance the scales and reward everyone their due.
Hitler has not escaped judgement by fleeing to Argentina!
So these notions that God does not care, are simply false.
He has good, valid, righteous reasons, for allowing Humanity to ‘act out their own vain imaginations.
That we are freewill moral agents living in a moral universe, means that our deeds have *moral weight*…. both for good, or ill… and when we do evil… innocent people suffer… that is what it means to live in a moral universe… It is in fact impossible to claim any goodness in a reality in which evil is impossible.
That is why Robots are amoral beings… whether they perform surgeries which save lives or slaughter thousands… they have no choice in their deeds.
The moral responsibility for the actions of Robots falls back on their free-will creators who made them, and so too would God be responsible for all Hitler’s evils… if Hitler was a robot… yet he was not a robot.
In all his deeds Hitler exercised his own freewill.
Thus it is absurd to blame God for Hitler’s deeds.
I have written more on this topic… ‘We are not Robots Ayn Rand. We are Moral Agents.’ Click >>Here<<
and another... 'Monism: Evolutionary Psychology and the Death of Morality, Reason and Freewill.' click >>>here<<<
So it is folly to suggest that Human evils are evidence against the existence or goodness of God.
When Adam sinned, God took that with such seriousness that he separated himself from Mankind, and condemned us all to death!
You see Adam's sin... had great moral weight.... affecting countless billions... though many will not be able to appreciate the mechanics of it... how what they see as a small act of disobedience by one man could bring such calamity upon posterity.
Yet that is how serious the consequences of Sin are!
They upset the entire hierarchy of reality... When Adam disobeyed God, not only did he loose faith in God's Good Character, he was dethroning God and establishing himself and his will above Gods!
a little leven leveneth the whole lump!
Humanity has been doing that ever since.
This is part of the reason why... the pragmatic portion... of why The Standard for Goodness is 100% Holiness... not comparative goodness... not a 'statistical mean/ scale of goodness'
The other portion is simply because God himself is Holy.
He sets the *Ideal Goodness*.
Yet God has sworn eternal Judgement upon sin!
Despite what the liberal Bible doubters say... there is a hell!
There is eternal damnation.
Yet everyone who ends up Damned, will be damned by their own Hatred of God, their pride, and rejection of God's mercy.
God has seen every act of evil we all have committed and is reserving his judgement.
Yet still God is loving, compassionate, and merciful.
We may say “It’s not fair that I was born into this cursed world!”… and indeed if we were born without hope… then this may in fact be a legitimate accusation against God’s character… yet he has not utterly abandoned us to Damnation, but instead immediately set in motion his plan to redeem us… and his modus opperandi reflects his absolute justice, The seriousness with which he condemns sin, and his love and mercy…. all displayed in the crucifixion of his sinless son Jesus Christ.
In Christ’s crucifixion we see God himself suffering a grotesque fate at the hands of evil men… he is not, nor has ever been completely insulated from the sufferings of evil himself.
That God deemed such a grotesque means was necessary for the payment for sin shows just how extremely seriously he takes sin to be, and how he will not allow his love to violate the principle of Justice… an eye for an eye… tooth for tooth…. The wages of sin is Death… Jesus took the full penalty of our sins upon himself.
He was not guilty of any sin himself and thus he was not subject to the penalty of death… for his own sins.
When Christ rose from the Dead, this was a testament to his victory over sin and death, and his resurrection altered the course of human history!
To receive Christ a person must appreciate the gravity of their own sins.
By it’s very nature the proud will reject the crucifixion as un-necessarily barbarous.
And the greatest sin anyone can commit is to *reject the sacrifice of Christ!*
For all their fuming against God, they prove they themselves dont take sin seriously… deeming themselves to be not guilty before God.
It is a hypocritical folly of the highest order.
Yes folks it is appointed unto us once to die and after this, the judgement!
At an appointed time the dead will stand before his judgement seat, and all whose names are not found
written in the book of life shall be cast into the lake of fire… with their Father Satan… to spend eternity where they chose to be…. separated from God.
The reality of hell is a clear demonstration of how weighty a matter God considers sin to be.
In the light of these facts we see the tables turned on the atheist… the reality is *they dont consider sin to be anywhere near as serious a matter as God does….for all their accusations… it is they themselves whom are found wanting in ‘the righteous indignation department’.
Yet millions of sinners like myself will enter paradise… not because we are more righteous than our atheist friends and family, but because we simply received the Gift of God… he placed our sin upon Christ, and clothed us in Christ’s holiness.
And we will see God face to face and sing God’s praises for eternity.
Amen.
Ditch your foolish pride my neighbours, my friends… my family!
get a grip that you are a creation of God… a Moral agent.
Choose Christ and join us in the love of our Holy Heavenly Father!
End note: I decided to tag this post onto the end of a series I started several years ago entitled ‘How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world?’
I wrote those in fairly quick succession, so that there is to my mind a progression of thought.
I always meant to carry on with the series as there is no way that they can be considered to have exhausted such an important subject, yet because of procrastination I have fumbled the ball somewhat, and so this post may not fit very tidily.
That being said I think it is a topic worthy of inclusion and hopefully I shall not be so long in adding the next one.
Where are the moderate Muslim voices condemning the violence?
That’s what the likes of Fox News ask whenever masked terrorists shouting “Allahu Akbar” fire shots with automatic weapons killing swathes of innocent Westerners before departing the scene shouting, “We have avenged the Prophet Mohammed,” as happened in the recent Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris.
Fox’s own Monica Crowley, for example, said that Muslims “should be condemning” the attack and that she hadn’t “heard any condemnation… from any groups.” Fox News’ America’s Newsroom guest Steve Emerson complained, “you don’t see denunciations of radical Islam, by name, by mainstream Islamic groups.” Bob Beckel, a host of Fox News’ The Five host said Muslims were “being quiet” about the shooting and accused the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of keeping “their mouth shut when things happen.”
Wait, what? Only 46 examples? A good many of the cited condemnations of the violence are tweets from individuals on Twitter. There are a handful from the foreign ministers of Muslim countries. Only a dozen or so statements are from representatives of large Islamic organisations. But there are between 1.5 and 2 billion Muslims in the world, depending on who’s counting. 46 out of billions isn’t very many. It’s near silence from the so-called moderate Muslim majority over this outrage!
Or so it might seem to someone predisposed to blame Islam, rather than Islamic extremism, for the all-too-frequent acts of Islam-related terrorism in today’s world. But the sad truth of the matter is that we simply don’t know how many moderate Muslims condemn durka durka Mohammed jihad. And we don’t know whether they’d be reported doing so by the MSM if they did.
I posted a couple of pictures of moderate Muslims demonstrating for peace before. Clearly one of them is photoshopped, but which one? (Perhaps they both are. I forget.)
Will the real Islam please stand up? Are the masked homicidal gunmen who stormed the offices of Charlie Hebdo the true representatives of Islam? Or is the hard-working and law-abiding Muslim family who own and run your corner store the true faces of the religion of peace?
Seriously, folks. Can’t you see that there’s an epistemic problem here? Is Islam the root cause of the problem? Or something else? I don’t really know and, may I respectively suggest, neither do you.
Credit where it’s due says blogger Brendan McNeill, upon whom I rely to keep tabs on what Mohammed’s followers are up to.
I have previously reflected that nothing short of a reformation of Islam will ever allow its followers to co-exist peacefully with other faith communities. It seems the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who is himself a Muslim, agrees and is apparently unafraid to say so.
Speaking before Al-Azhar and the Awqaf Ministry on New Year’s Day, 2015, and in connection to Prophet Muhammad’s upcoming birthday, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a vocal supporter for a renewed vision of Islam, made what must be his most forceful and impassioned plea to date on the subject.
McNeill then quotes from al-Sisi’s speech in which the Egyptian President declares that Islam “is in need of a religious revolution,” before concluding
President Sisi is a brave man. Normally, to utter these words would be an automatic death sentence. It may still prove to be.
Is al-Sisi’s speech a reason for optimism? Perhaps, but there’s a bigger problem than that which already makes al-Sisi’s future assassination a very real possibility. A further epistemic problem to exacerbate the one we already have.
Now here’s Wikipedia to say a few words about taqiyya, the Muslim doctrine that allows lying in certain circumstances—primarily when Muslim minorities live under infidel authority.
In Shi’a Islam, taqiyya (تقیةtaqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution. The corresponding concept in Sunni Islam is known as idtirar (إضطرار) “coercion”. A related concept is known as kitman “concealment; dissimulation by omission”. Also related is the concept of ḥiyal, legalistic deception practiced not necessarily in a religious context but to gain political or legalistic advantage.
Can we trust any of the moderate Muslims condemning violent jihad? Can we even trust al-Sisi? A friend on Facebook thinks we can’t. He says
be in no doubt it was a very brave thing for Sisi to say unless of course he is practicing Taquiyya which is the islamic doctrine of being able to lie or decieve to protect or further islam.
I don’t know if we can trust al-Sisi or not. How could I know? (He’s a politician, after all.)
Christianity does not permit lying. Not even white lies. We are called to worship God in spirit and in truth. The fact that Islam does permit lying in certain circumstances and even has a name for the practice is of the utmost concern.
Not least because it gives anti-Islamic factions in Western society a free pass to practise a modern-day form of medieval witch dunking, also known as ordeal by water.
Ordeal by water was associated with the witch hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries: an accused who sank was considered innocent, while floating indicated witchcraft.
Innocent accused who sank drowned. Guilty accused who floated were executed for witchcraft. So the accused was damned if she did, damned if she didn’t. (See also the Biblical test for an unfaithful wife.)
Muslims who don’t protest the violence of their extremist co-religionists are accused of condoning terrorism by not speaking out. Muslims who do protest are accused of committing taqiyya. Thus, in the eyes of many, there are no moderate Muslims, just as there were none left living among those women of medieval times accused, rightly or wrongly, of witchcraft.
(Point illustrated. In fact, with respect to dunking, “the notion that the ordeal was flatly devised as a situation without any possibility of live acquittal, even if the outcome was ‘innocent’, is a modern elaboration.”)
Lying is wrong. And the fate of all habitual liars is that eventually no one believes them. That Muslims are so widely regarded with suspicion is a fate that Islam has wrought upon itself.
