Friday, October 26, 2007

Save the trees, kill the children!

Sometimes I am just utterly amazed when I read the headlines on the news sites. Today we have some crazy woman accosting Condoleezza Rice with "blood" on her hand. She's protesting the war because obviously we're killing so many Iraqis now-a-days. No doubt aspects of the war in Iraq deserve some criticism. How are we going to pay for it? What's the plan to stabilize the region? Etc. But really, protesting their blood on our hands? How many Kurds did Saddam kill before we removed him from power? Where's your bleeding heart for them? It's like what is the current situation is the absolute worse possible. It doesn't matter if it's better than it was; right now is horrible! Then this inevitably leads to some 'impeach Bush' chant as if that's what impeachment was for. I guess whatever the Constitution says (i.e. the law of the land) is really irrelevant. Don't like em, impeach em!

Then we have more increases in taxes and increasing minimum wage. It doesn't take more than a high school level economics course to understand what minimum wage does. What happens when a price is artificially raised above equilibrium? There's less demand for that product/service. This is common sense. I guess the un-commonsense part of it is that in the employment area, this means less people employed. So let me try to wrap my head around this. Democrats, those supposed advocates for the poor, want this increased, yet it is going to put more of these unskilled workers out of a job. How is that really helping them? Putting them out of a job for a high sounding political statement is good? Really the motto should be: "more money for some, no jobs for others." LOL. I want to cry and laugh at the same time.

The last thing is all this talk about justice--bleeding heart liberals talking about justice. Casting crowns summarizes modern thinking well: "save the trees and kill the children." This is justice my friends: being zealous for a cause, while turning a blind eye to a much more reprehensible practice at the same time. Let's make sure we remove the death penalty for murderers, rapists, and the like too because that's morally reprehensible, and yet using government money to provide easy access to abortion clinics because that's a fundamental right. I hope the irony is obvious here. The lives of murderers, rapists--extremely violent criminals--are worth more than the lives of unborn children.

Just the talk about justice and morality by the American left sickens me these days. My question is simply, on what basis do you decide what's right and wrong when you're all raving humanists? If one thinks providing government welfare to the poor is more important than global warming, how is that conflict resolved? There's no standard, no basis for their "morality." I guess in the end that's why they have to be so loud about it. It is really just a shouting match. One opinion verses the other. If they don't already, one day they will all realize that their high sounding causes were just their opinions. Pontius Pilot had similar ideas: 'Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, "I find no fault in Him at all."' I guess I prefer to be in touch with reality.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Guns and Peace

Here's a couple of articles I found interesting today.

Gun Control

This makes it very interesting why liberals in general want more and more gun control. This article makes that idea foolish because it would increase violent crime overall, not decrease it.

Christians and Muslims

Satan's attack on Christianity seems to come on all fronts. With one part of the Muslim world, he wants all Christians to pay tax or die under Islamic government. On the other part of the attack, he wants Christians to dilute the truths about Christianity so that everyone can live at peace.

I am thankful that we already know the outcome of this conflict.

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:


Labels: , ,

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Modern Spiritual Commitment

From FoxNews:

LOS ANGELES — “If” anything, time has taught Janet Jackson that matrimony is messy and sensuality is much simpler without a signature.

After two marriages and two divorces, the 41-year-old longtime lover of record producer and rapper Jermaine Dupri doesn’t desire another diamond.

“In this day and age, I feel we don’t need that piece of paper. For myself I don’t need that to validate what I have with someone,” Janet told FOX at the premiere of her new movie “Why Did I Get Married?” last Thursday. “It’s about a spiritual commitment and finding your soul mate and really exchanging vows with one another, and I think that’s enough for me at least.”

This kind of attitude just seems to define our modern age. No one commits to anything; they don't want to sued or have any sort of binding ties to anyone or anything. People are "spiritual" no doubt, but this is just a fancy way of saying "I want to follow the idol of myself." Of course this isn't new. Satan said the same thing to Eve in the Garden. It is interesting how it is glorified so much now-a-days though. What in the world does "really exchanging vows" mean when everything is "simpler without a signature?"

I suppose having a piece of paper doesn't mean much these days anyway, as the lawyers can twist and distort the words to no end. This attitude is absolutely anti-Christian to it's very core. Sure it tries to hide this with high sounding words about "spiritual commitment" and such, but that's a thin veil for something much more grotesque—humanism and worship of self. The God of the Bible was not afraid to write things down. He put His promises into real words that could be understood. His commitments are recorded on the pages of scripture for all to read. This is what real spiritual commitment is lest we should be deceived by "new" ideas.