"Methobaptist" & "Church Rage": the first one not to be conflated with those Indian tribes who use certain mushrooms to heighten their worship experience, and the second not to be misconstrued as The Wrath of God for those who don't attend church.
"Textual Tapioca"---not in any way synonymous with "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God."
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Saturday, July 21, 2007
New Trinity
In case you hadn't heard, the Senate is now honoring a new Trinity. "We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. [What's with the capitalization of "earth"?----Oh, that's right, Gaia is our Most Sacred Mother, blessed forever, AMEN!] May He stimulate and illuminate our minds." (Why does this bring to mind 2Cr 11:14?) No doubt the Spongists around the globe are elated to see that the spirit of URI reigneth ever more widely.
On the other hand, as execrable as this false worship is, one squirms at the thought of the shoutdown by the 3 opponents. This smells too much of fascist tactics (what, are the Children of Light to mimic the SDS and the Weathermen and their cultural forebears, the BrownShirts?). I seem to recall verses that instruct believers in a different approach: "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way;...the wisdom from above is...peaceable, gentle;...to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all men;...let your forbearance be known to all men, the LORD is near."
For those who think this is a hill to die on, how about a more appropriate tactic: barrage the Senate with phone calls and letters (and perhaps even picket peaceably, if you're inclined in that direction and have the leisure). Don't forget the "air war," either!
On the other hand, as execrable as this false worship is, one squirms at the thought of the shoutdown by the 3 opponents. This smells too much of fascist tactics (what, are the Children of Light to mimic the SDS and the Weathermen and their cultural forebears, the BrownShirts?). I seem to recall verses that instruct believers in a different approach: "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way;...the wisdom from above is...peaceable, gentle;...to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all men;...let your forbearance be known to all men, the LORD is near."
For those who think this is a hill to die on, how about a more appropriate tactic: barrage the Senate with phone calls and letters (and perhaps even picket peaceably, if you're inclined in that direction and have the leisure). Don't forget the "air war," either!
Friday, July 20, 2007
Dance the Tolerance Shuffle
[UPDATE: It's curious that the gentleman who penned the following paragraph should now have removed his entry---especially since I did not link his piece. What? Could it be that he now finally recognizes the evil of the slaughter of the innocents? But if he claims that he was simply "thinking outloud" when he penned that piece, then why would he---ashamedly?---pull the post down (when I posted this originally, his entry was accessible via Google; now it is not). If I am thinking outloud, I am not definitively taking a stand. And I can update my post indicating more clearly that what I have written is a mental wrestling, rather than a definitive statement of what I believe. And if "nobody" reads your blog, Sir, then why bother Final Solutioning a post that's been quoted?]
Recently, I came across this at a blog: What if [Christians] try to pass anti-abortion laws to prevent me from having an abortion even when I believe that abortion is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against abortion then they shouldn’t have one. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-abortion laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs. [Emphasis in orginal]
I hear a similar rationale from another person: What if they try to pass anti-apartheid laws to prevent me from protecting my fellow whites, even when I believe that apartheid is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against apartheid, then they don't have to believe in it. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-apartheid laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.
This chap totally agrees: What if they try to pass anti-racism laws to prevent me from saving my Volk, even when I believe that Aryan race-hygiene is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against racial purification, then they don't have to join the SS. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-racism laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.
Hold on, a 4th party uses yet again the same argument: What if they try to pass anti-slavery laws to prevent me from owning slaves, even when I believe that owning slaves is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against slavery, then they don't have to own any slaves. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-slavery laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.
Nothing new under the sun:
"Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not spare the widow
nor regard the gray hairs of the aged.
But let our might be our law of right, for what is weak proves itself to be useless."
(Wisdom of Solomon, 2:10-11)
Recently, I came across this at a blog: What if [Christians] try to pass anti-abortion laws to prevent me from having an abortion even when I believe that abortion is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against abortion then they shouldn’t have one. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-abortion laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs. [Emphasis in orginal]
I hear a similar rationale from another person: What if they try to pass anti-apartheid laws to prevent me from protecting my fellow whites, even when I believe that apartheid is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against apartheid, then they don't have to believe in it. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-apartheid laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.
This chap totally agrees: What if they try to pass anti-racism laws to prevent me from saving my Volk, even when I believe that Aryan race-hygiene is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against racial purification, then they don't have to join the SS. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-racism laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.
Hold on, a 4th party uses yet again the same argument: What if they try to pass anti-slavery laws to prevent me from owning slaves, even when I believe that owning slaves is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against slavery, then they don't have to own any slaves. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-slavery laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.
Nothing new under the sun:
"Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not spare the widow
nor regard the gray hairs of the aged.
But let our might be our law of right, for what is weak proves itself to be useless."
(Wisdom of Solomon, 2:10-11)
Faith, Part 2
The supreme function of reason
is to show man
that some things are beyond reason.
(Blaise Pascal)
Hackneyed Hopes
The Old Adversary was Proteus' great-great-grandpappy: oh, how he LOVES to come up with chameleonesque variations on a theme. 2 of his favorite (albeit timeworn) tricks are "Hath-God-Said?" and "You-Shall-Be-As-Gods." The latest colorful version of YSBAG I've encountered is this little gem.
Is this gentleman serious? When we look at man's 6000 years of recorded history, do we genuinely see evidence of his becoming more godlike? And if not, then lending that idea credence would seem to require a quantum leap of faith.
Is this gentleman serious? When we look at man's 6000 years of recorded history, do we genuinely see evidence of his becoming more godlike? And if not, then lending that idea credence would seem to require a quantum leap of faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
