Oct 12, 2011
Bring it
These socialists want violence. Listen to the way they talk, they sounds just like soviet communists. Well, if they want a war, let them bring it.
Oct 10, 2011
Troubled Patriot Update - October 2011
A good friend of mine has started a blog called, "The Bible and the Briar." He's a Conservative Christian with a good grasp on theology and politics. I recommend that you hop over and check out what he has to say.
As for me, this past month has been... interesting. I wrote before about the confrontation with a liberal. He later apologized and claimed that he was drunk at the time. He seems to be trying to make amends, but also has a knack for slamming conservatives whenever possible. As I've discovered how impossible it is to talk to the man, I just let his comments roll of my back. I actually feel sorry for him and the many others of like mind. They have no clue that they're wrong. They have huge hearts, but its all misplaced.
Speaking of which, as you previously noticed from my last posting, the liberals are out in force making free comedies for the rest of us to enjoy. When I first saw the chanting video on YouTube, I kept thinking about how much this reminded me of a scene in "An American Carol." I loaded up the movie, and there, in an almost perfect mirror example, was a scene where a crowd of American young adults mindlessly repeated liberal lines through robotic chanting. There is of course the laughable chant, "What does nefarious mean?" but it suffices to point out a truth - these kids really have no clue what they're protesting. They've listened to their leftist teachers (authority figures) demean capitalism for so long, that they strongly believe that it is the reason America is failing. They have no idea that its actually leftist policies that have put this nation into its current, dreadful, situation. There has to be some way of reaching them, I just have yet to figure out how. Its difficult battling an indoctrination that has consumed the majority of their young lives.
And then there is the debate surrounding Amanda Knox and the verdict of "not guilty." I read WorldNet Daily every morning and stumbled upon an article by Ilana Mercer called "America's angelic OJ" where she crucifies Knox. Not having the ability to keep my opinions to myself, I posted a comment as to where I basically stated that I am unsure at this point if Knox is guilty. I gave a few reasons why and also pointed out that this is not a mirror Simpson case. Obviously, I did not make any friends with that post. So, for any others who have come here to find out if I'm a "clueless liberal" or not (as one commenter said), let me give you some reasons as to why I'm unsure. Yes, I know the first trial ended up with a conviction, yet the second trial seemed to be about sloppy investigative work by the police force and questionable evidence. If the initial investigation itself was sloppy, that puts the evidence and police account of the murder into the realm of the "very questionable." In the article referenced above, Mercer gave a list of "facts" that were discovered during the investigation. She also proceeded to label Knox as a "sex addict." In regards to her being a sex addict or not, I have no clue. But having that addiction does not automatically encourage or lead one to commit murder. As well, if the investigation itself was sloppy, how reliable are those "hard and fast facts" that Mercer referred to?
In the end, the jury found Knox "not guilty" based upon the testimonies and evidences submitted during the trial. Some articles have reported that a few jurors had tears pouring down afterwords. Now unlike Mercer and quite a few others, I do not believe for one second that the jury was influenced by "the American government, a media blitz, and or big business." It makes no logical sense as to why an Italian jury would wish to overturn the conviction of an American simply to please various sects of a society foreign to them. One or two maybe, but not the entire jury. Believing otherwise colors both America and the jurists themselves in a dark and mistrustful light. I am not prepared to do so.
It is also a great injustice to compare the jurists with those of OJ Simpson when he was acquitted. The Simpson jury overwhelmingly voted "not guilty" purely based upon his race and a desire to "get even" with the white man. It was social justice during its finest hours. As such, there can be no honest comparison between the two.
The key issue appears to me to be one of elevated emotional responses. The murder of Meredith Kercher was a heinous act. Thus, both sides of this case have been electrically charged. I truly believe what we are witnessing in this instance are emotional outbursts more than anything else. Since I am not influenced as such, perhaps that is why I view things differently.
On the other hand, I am not a supporter of Knox. I am not trying to advocate for her innocence, nor portray her in any other light what so ever. I simply am unsure as to what the truth really is. She was convicted at the first trial, yet set free after the appeal. I've read that the Italian prosecution is seeking to appeal the "innocent" verdict. Perhaps during the third trial, the truth will be finally known.
Until then, I remain unconvinced as to her guilt or innocence.
Ok, on to one other matter: I really have been trying to get back to the examination of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and hope to have something up this week.
Cheers!
As for me, this past month has been... interesting. I wrote before about the confrontation with a liberal. He later apologized and claimed that he was drunk at the time. He seems to be trying to make amends, but also has a knack for slamming conservatives whenever possible. As I've discovered how impossible it is to talk to the man, I just let his comments roll of my back. I actually feel sorry for him and the many others of like mind. They have no clue that they're wrong. They have huge hearts, but its all misplaced.
Speaking of which, as you previously noticed from my last posting, the liberals are out in force making free comedies for the rest of us to enjoy. When I first saw the chanting video on YouTube, I kept thinking about how much this reminded me of a scene in "An American Carol." I loaded up the movie, and there, in an almost perfect mirror example, was a scene where a crowd of American young adults mindlessly repeated liberal lines through robotic chanting. There is of course the laughable chant, "What does nefarious mean?" but it suffices to point out a truth - these kids really have no clue what they're protesting. They've listened to their leftist teachers (authority figures) demean capitalism for so long, that they strongly believe that it is the reason America is failing. They have no idea that its actually leftist policies that have put this nation into its current, dreadful, situation. There has to be some way of reaching them, I just have yet to figure out how. Its difficult battling an indoctrination that has consumed the majority of their young lives.
And then there is the debate surrounding Amanda Knox and the verdict of "not guilty." I read WorldNet Daily every morning and stumbled upon an article by Ilana Mercer called "America's angelic OJ" where she crucifies Knox. Not having the ability to keep my opinions to myself, I posted a comment as to where I basically stated that I am unsure at this point if Knox is guilty. I gave a few reasons why and also pointed out that this is not a mirror Simpson case. Obviously, I did not make any friends with that post. So, for any others who have come here to find out if I'm a "clueless liberal" or not (as one commenter said), let me give you some reasons as to why I'm unsure. Yes, I know the first trial ended up with a conviction, yet the second trial seemed to be about sloppy investigative work by the police force and questionable evidence. If the initial investigation itself was sloppy, that puts the evidence and police account of the murder into the realm of the "very questionable." In the article referenced above, Mercer gave a list of "facts" that were discovered during the investigation. She also proceeded to label Knox as a "sex addict." In regards to her being a sex addict or not, I have no clue. But having that addiction does not automatically encourage or lead one to commit murder. As well, if the investigation itself was sloppy, how reliable are those "hard and fast facts" that Mercer referred to?
In the end, the jury found Knox "not guilty" based upon the testimonies and evidences submitted during the trial. Some articles have reported that a few jurors had tears pouring down afterwords. Now unlike Mercer and quite a few others, I do not believe for one second that the jury was influenced by "the American government, a media blitz, and or big business." It makes no logical sense as to why an Italian jury would wish to overturn the conviction of an American simply to please various sects of a society foreign to them. One or two maybe, but not the entire jury. Believing otherwise colors both America and the jurists themselves in a dark and mistrustful light. I am not prepared to do so.
It is also a great injustice to compare the jurists with those of OJ Simpson when he was acquitted. The Simpson jury overwhelmingly voted "not guilty" purely based upon his race and a desire to "get even" with the white man. It was social justice during its finest hours. As such, there can be no honest comparison between the two.
The key issue appears to me to be one of elevated emotional responses. The murder of Meredith Kercher was a heinous act. Thus, both sides of this case have been electrically charged. I truly believe what we are witnessing in this instance are emotional outbursts more than anything else. Since I am not influenced as such, perhaps that is why I view things differently.
On the other hand, I am not a supporter of Knox. I am not trying to advocate for her innocence, nor portray her in any other light what so ever. I simply am unsure as to what the truth really is. She was convicted at the first trial, yet set free after the appeal. I've read that the Italian prosecution is seeking to appeal the "innocent" verdict. Perhaps during the third trial, the truth will be finally known.
Until then, I remain unconvinced as to her guilt or innocence.
Ok, on to one other matter: I really have been trying to get back to the examination of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and hope to have something up this week.
Cheers!
Oct 8, 2011
Ummmm.... Yeah.... Edited
I was going to write a large article tonight about the clueless protesters around the country, but then Drudge had to go ahead and post this. You've probably seen it, but if not, grab some popcorn. This is great!
Remind you of something?
Oct 6, 2011
Christianity and Evolution
This particular entry isn't geared towards atheists or agnostics. Instead, this is for those who call themselves Christians. It also deals with the evolution vs. creation controversy. First, let me make my stance perfectly and unabashedly clear - I'm a bible literalist, six day Creationist.
For the past few years, I have been scratching my head and wondering how Christians can fall for the man-made theory of evolution. Obviously, the secular state institutions preach evolution and anyone who disagrees soon becomes demonized and ostracized. So, I can understand converts to Christianity not knowing that there could be anything else other than evolution to explain our existence. But once one starts reading the bible, God's position is made very clear. In fact, in the first chapter, verse 1, the bible states: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Notice the word, created. The bible then goes on to list what God did, day by day. Those who read Hebrew and understand linguistic rules (if they are honest) must come to the conclusion that the bible means literal days. Yet, Christians ignore this.
Lets look on a couple initial contradictions in a believer's life who holds firmly to the view that evolution is true. First, after finishing creation, God said that everything was very good. Not partially good, not ok, not a "whoops," but very good. The bible also says that death did not enter the world until sin entered the world. The bible states that sin entered through Adam. Thus, how can evolution be true if that before man "evolved," there were countless millions of years where, in the survival of the fittest, countless lives suffered torment and ultimately ended in death? How could death have existed before sin? The Christian who believes in evolution has no answer for this. Second, if God saw His creation as "very good," then according to evolution, God considers death and suffering to be "very good." As Christians, we know that this is not the character of God.
Then there is the issue that the facts simply do not support evolution. Let me refer you to two great scientific ministries - Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. ICR has started a new monthly video series called, "That's a fact." Their first entry raises the most simplistic of refutations to evolution, but ones that must be addressed. Both organizations are staffed with scientists who received their doctorates through secular universities. A good portion of those scientists were once evolutionists who were faced with the facts. In being honest, they became Creationists.
All of this information is out there, and every Christian is faced with these facts. Even I was an evolutionist before being saved. When I started looking into the creation vs. evolution conflict, I let the facts determine the truth, not some atheist theorist (Darwin). Why then, are there still Christians who hold fast to evolution?
That's when it hit me: they do not really believe that the bible is the inspired Word of God. Thus, they feel free to pick and chose what to believe. But if that's so, how can they believe that Christ was God come in the flesh (fully man and fully God), lived a sinless life, died on the cross bearing our sins, and then rose from the grave? Probably because it makes them feel good. These are the same Christians who deny Hell. Yet the same Jesus who they claim to worship also preached on the existence of Hell and eternal damnation. Thus, they chose once again what to believe. At this point, I have to ask, what makes a Christian who holds these beliefs different than someone who follows any other religion (or has no religion at all)? If everything is based on feelings, then there is no such thing as truth. They follow their heart. Yet the bible states that man's heart is deceitful and not to be followed. These Christians might have heard of verses that mention this, but again chose not to believe. Simply put, they have absolutely no foundation on which to stand.
In conclusion, I want to issue a challenge to every Christian who holds firm to the man-made theory of evolution: Examine the facts. I posted links to two very reputable and scientific organizations. I've mentioned some contradictions between what the bible says is the character of God, and what evolution says. Honestly look at them. I also challenge you to re-examine why you call yourself a Christian. Is it because it makes you feel good? Or is it something more? If what Christ said about his conquering of sin true, then examine His other claims. Be forewarned though, Christ was a Creationist. Is man greater than God? If not, why do you hold on to evolution? What exactly is your faith based upon?
Either God is true, or man is true. Which one are you going to believe? The evidence is out there. Its up to you to decide.
For the past few years, I have been scratching my head and wondering how Christians can fall for the man-made theory of evolution. Obviously, the secular state institutions preach evolution and anyone who disagrees soon becomes demonized and ostracized. So, I can understand converts to Christianity not knowing that there could be anything else other than evolution to explain our existence. But once one starts reading the bible, God's position is made very clear. In fact, in the first chapter, verse 1, the bible states: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Notice the word, created. The bible then goes on to list what God did, day by day. Those who read Hebrew and understand linguistic rules (if they are honest) must come to the conclusion that the bible means literal days. Yet, Christians ignore this.
Lets look on a couple initial contradictions in a believer's life who holds firmly to the view that evolution is true. First, after finishing creation, God said that everything was very good. Not partially good, not ok, not a "whoops," but very good. The bible also says that death did not enter the world until sin entered the world. The bible states that sin entered through Adam. Thus, how can evolution be true if that before man "evolved," there were countless millions of years where, in the survival of the fittest, countless lives suffered torment and ultimately ended in death? How could death have existed before sin? The Christian who believes in evolution has no answer for this. Second, if God saw His creation as "very good," then according to evolution, God considers death and suffering to be "very good." As Christians, we know that this is not the character of God.
Then there is the issue that the facts simply do not support evolution. Let me refer you to two great scientific ministries - Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. ICR has started a new monthly video series called, "That's a fact." Their first entry raises the most simplistic of refutations to evolution, but ones that must be addressed. Both organizations are staffed with scientists who received their doctorates through secular universities. A good portion of those scientists were once evolutionists who were faced with the facts. In being honest, they became Creationists.
All of this information is out there, and every Christian is faced with these facts. Even I was an evolutionist before being saved. When I started looking into the creation vs. evolution conflict, I let the facts determine the truth, not some atheist theorist (Darwin). Why then, are there still Christians who hold fast to evolution?
That's when it hit me: they do not really believe that the bible is the inspired Word of God. Thus, they feel free to pick and chose what to believe. But if that's so, how can they believe that Christ was God come in the flesh (fully man and fully God), lived a sinless life, died on the cross bearing our sins, and then rose from the grave? Probably because it makes them feel good. These are the same Christians who deny Hell. Yet the same Jesus who they claim to worship also preached on the existence of Hell and eternal damnation. Thus, they chose once again what to believe. At this point, I have to ask, what makes a Christian who holds these beliefs different than someone who follows any other religion (or has no religion at all)? If everything is based on feelings, then there is no such thing as truth. They follow their heart. Yet the bible states that man's heart is deceitful and not to be followed. These Christians might have heard of verses that mention this, but again chose not to believe. Simply put, they have absolutely no foundation on which to stand.
In conclusion, I want to issue a challenge to every Christian who holds firm to the man-made theory of evolution: Examine the facts. I posted links to two very reputable and scientific organizations. I've mentioned some contradictions between what the bible says is the character of God, and what evolution says. Honestly look at them. I also challenge you to re-examine why you call yourself a Christian. Is it because it makes you feel good? Or is it something more? If what Christ said about his conquering of sin true, then examine His other claims. Be forewarned though, Christ was a Creationist. Is man greater than God? If not, why do you hold on to evolution? What exactly is your faith based upon?
Either God is true, or man is true. Which one are you going to believe? The evidence is out there. Its up to you to decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)