Category Archives: Uncategorized

It’s not Always Mental Deficiency

Communists/socialists are not necessarily stupid. Agility of mind is a cross-ideology gift, coming down from Him Who causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust. But cleverness and a ready ability to access mental catalogs of information cannot substitute for the wisdom which begins with the fear of the LORD.

So let us not assume unwisely that the comrades (at least not all of them) are ignorant of how their ideology has wrecked nations and brutally ended millions of lives over the last century or so. They might even be able to follow logically, for example, the socioeconomic plunge of Venezuela down from freedom and prosperity to chaos and indigence in a matter of decades. So why do they persist in following the pied piper of Marxism?

The God centered wisdom commended by the Bible includes the understanding that humans are God’s created beings, and recognizes the present universal corruption of human nature. (Thank God for the redemption freely offered to all through Christ!) This fallen state in which we all share, so evident in every arena of the human experience, they willfully ignore. And that is par for their course.

For example, they have been taught since childhood that the Earth is very, very old and therefore interpret geological phenomena accordingly. “Look at those rock layers on every continent. Yes, I believe. Uniformitarianism explains it all, Charles Lyell be praised! That sedimentary stratification is the result of water acting on the Earth’s surface over millions of years.”

Point out fossilized tree trunks which vertically intersect with multiple rock layers…suggest to them that the Earth doesn’t look old, but looks like it went through a catastrophic global flood several thousand years ago during which the layers were put down rapidly…propose that the existing Colorado river is not the slow poke carver of the Grand Canyon but only the residual trickle of an unimaginably powerful torrent which sculpted that magnificent marvel in short order, and you will be dismissed as a Neanderthal – who were simply a human ethnic group, not the semi-human cave dwellers of myth.

(By the way, whatever happened to that fine old English word once used as an epithet for the haplessly outdated, namely ANTEDILUVIAN? You know, as in Donovan’s Atlantis song: “The antediluvian kings colonized the world.” Perhaps it was one of the first victims of Newspeak. But back to topic.)

So our once red now green friends scratch their secularly indoctrinated heads pondering what went wrong with all previous attempts at engineering a classless utopia. As they ignore the violent, selfish, and greedy perversity of human nature which is so evident from the deluge of evils with which it covers the Earth, their inward thought is, “This time WE will get it right. We’ll fix the planet and establish a new, man made Eden for those who inhabit it!”

This hubris…this ugly toadstool of arrogance grows on the compost pile of a-Theism (intentionally so spelled). A-Theism is deliberate and formal in the case of the hard core communist. This is his profoundly devout religious creed: “there is no God!” The garden variety socialist might not be as doctrinaire, still he adheres to a practical form of a-Theism. He asserts that if there is a deity, it is detached from humanity’s concerns and irrelevant to the utopia seeking agenda. And he reckons that people who talk about the present kingdom of the living, loving, righteous and holy God will be at best tolerated nuisances in the society he envisions.

Being envisioned is as far as the Communist/socialist utopia will ever get. Can you say doomed to fail…again?

“Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, ‘Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us.’ He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision.” (Psalm 2:1-4)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Contra Gaystapo

Having shared an article which attempted to show that homosexuality is just fine according to the Bible, a friend asked for a rebuttal. Five lines of argumentation to that purpose follow…

1. The term “homosexual” is euphemistic; that some Bibles use it in translating from the original languages is regrettable. The meaning of the word used at Deuteronomy 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, 1 Kings 22:46, and 2 Kings 23:7 (translated “sodomite” by the KJV) is male temple prostitute.

At Leviticus 18:22 we don’t have a single word, but we read “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Cf. Leviticus 20:13, where capital punishment is to be inflicted on those who commit this. By allowing the word homosexual, as it is commonly used today, into our vocabulary we are already apologetically compromised to some extent.

Two pertinent Greek New Testament words (transliterated MALAKOS and ARSENOKOITES) refer to those committing such abominable practices which also are described by the apostle Paul in Romans 1. The first word means “soft, effeminate” and the second “one who lies with a male as with a female.” So the proscription of Leviticus applies; remember the two testaments are not at variance but together constitute the whole and coherent counsel of God. Cf. Romans 3:31

The word sodomite apparently came into the English language because of the Biblical city Sodom; hence also the related words sodomy, sodomize, etc. Among the sins of the inhabitants of that ancient Canaanite town was the “going after strange flesh” mentioned at Jude verse 7. Cf. Genesis 18, 19.

So linguistically, we already are sanitizing “deeds done in secret” (cf. Eph. 5:12) when we use the terms homosexual, bisexual, and transexual. And the very perversion in question is reflected in the perversion of the original meaning of the English word GAY, as used for example in the carol lyric, “don we now our gay apparel, fa la la…” Bright and festive this dark bondage is not.

2. Consider another Greek word, PORNEA, used frequently in the New Testament. It refers to ANY kind of sexual activity outside of marriage. The Bible identifies all such activity as sin. PORNO-GRAPHY means media portrayal of it. Our English word fornication corresponds to it. So “cheating” on one’s spouse, i.e. adultery, is a specific type of fornication. “Pre-marital sex” is another kind, looking at lurid images online or on glossy paper another, perverted behavior with someone of the same sex another.

And even though all fornication is not adultery, the Seventh Commandment must be considered. Jesus vigorously upheld it in His sermon on the mount, where He in no way abolishes the Law (cf. Mat. 5:17 ff.), but rather expounds on its spirituality and breadth of application. Lustful looks? In essence you’ve done the deed, declares the Master. (Who can stand up to such a standard? Let us be thankful He is also the One Who saves us from our sins!) Since marriage is by definition the union of one man and one woman, redefining it equals breaking a commandment Jesus upheld.

3. Let’s think hard about the term “having sex.” Though preceded by foreplay, usually the term refers to coitus itself…getting to the heart of the matter. The bard of Avon called it “making the beast with two backs,” or something to that effect. Can two people of the same sex even “have sex?” Why should we allow an imitation of coitus, a perverse mockery of it done by two men or two women, even be called “having sex?”

What does having sex, let alone the more noble expression making love, have to do with one man shoving his penis into another man’s anus, withdrawing it slathered with blood and dung, and leaving his seed in the other man’s rectum? That is not “having sex” and is an infuriating blasphemy against Him Whose name is Love, the One with Whom they will have to do in His time.

4. Another argument is similar to this one against erroneous views of divine creation: Where does the Bible proactively teach that the days of creation were really eons in duration, or that God used evolution to create humans and other life forms? Where is the positive teaching that would force us to reinterpret as “poetic” what is so clear in the precise historical narrative and prosaic geneaologies of the early chapters of Genesis (repeated in 1 Chronicles and Luke)? How does one tell a six year old about the six days of creation, and ten years later tell the sixteen year old that those days weren’t really days?

Are not all those modern views of creation, originating after Darwin published his magnum opus in A.D. 1859, merely attempts by those ashamed of the clear teaching of God’s word to accommodate and appease Mr. Worldly Wiseman, who calls it foolish?

(And speaking of evolution, how did the very process which allegedly works by natural selection as a population procreates over long periods of time bring forth a behavior which by definition cannot result in procreation? How did the “gay gene” evolve? How did the first mutant who did not want to engage in the behavior which does result in procreation pass that gene down to the next generation?)

Similarly, where does the Bible illustrate, exemplify, or proactively teach the legitimacy of this abominable perversion of what was so clearly established by God with the world’s first marriage? Holy writ gives us patriarchs and matriarchs, where are the Bible’s transiarchs? Where are the passages giving us practical instruction for Christian living in the gay home? How does a child who has been told he has two mothers or two fathers understand the Fifth Commandment?

Let them trot out their mantra “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.” Jesus never said anything about abortion, either. But rightly interpreting the book which tells us how John the baptizer in utero lept for joy (wow – an emotional lump of tissue!), we know it violates the Sixth Commandment.

Jesus never said anything about grand theft auto, does that mean I can steal a Maserati and call myself a member of the BGLQT (By Grand Larceny Quick Takers) community? No, it violates the Eighth Commandment.

5. At Ephesians 5:3 we read “But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints.” Our society once reflected that view of this particular form of fornication: it was not fit for polite conversation, it was a shameful horror. So a final brief argument from history and from the contemporary fruit of the normalization of these practices.

Sodom and Gomorrah beg the question, what other society has long endured after going down this path, let alone advanced? The demise of those societies might not have been as spectacularly miraculous as was that of Sodom and Gomorrah but they were overthrown in God’s providence and in accordance with His righteous judgment just as surely.

In our own time, consider: what has happened to the Boy Scouts of America? What has happened to women’s sports? How many children have been abused to the point of mayhem being committed on their bodies, eventually bringing them to utter despair and suicide? What about all the insanity in the public square over locker rooms, lavatories, and pronouns?

Only the salt of the earth can preserve western civilization. Only the light of the world can dispel this present darkness. Christians, we are the salt of the earth. We are the light of the world. (Matthew 5:13,14)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

No Machismo, No Hembrismo

On November 15 A.D. 2019 The New Yorker published an article by Susan B. Glasser entitled:

“In Trump’s Jaded Capital, Marie Yovanovitch’s Uncynical Outrage”

Yovanovitch is a former U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine, and the article dealt with her testimony in the current presidential impeachment inquiry. The title of the article and the gender of the former ambassador led me to coin a term:

Non-tyrannical patriarchy.

Sure, the ouster of Yovanovitch by President Trump was abrupt and no doubt shocking to her. But it’s a rough world out there. Once it was common to say, “It’s a man’s world,” because it was commonly recognized that men and women are not only anatomically different, but psychologically and emotionally different – which is not equivalent to inferior.

We non-tyrannical patriarchialists affirm those distinctions and believe that society is better off when it does likewise: men normatively in positions of leadership such as an ambassadorship. Yes, ordinarily men should be heads of state, town fathers, heads of households. God’s word the holy Bible insists that all ordained leaders in the Church of Christ be male.

At the same time, we non-tyrannical patriarchialists deny that men have the right to regard their wives as mere chattel slaves or to oppress women. Remember that good old word chivalry? Let it be equally normative that men cherish, protect, and provide for the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters of the world.

Vive la difference. Let society’s vocations generally reflect the toughness of masculinity and the tenderness of femininity. Long live “the binary.” Let men and women, both bearers of the image of God, celebrate and enjoy the respective roles God has given to each of the two (and only two) sexes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Half Baked

POTSTIRRER – Do you believe in evolution?

WINGNUT – Of course! Don’t tell me you deny it!?

POTSTIRRER – I do, and am sad that you and many others cling to that foolish myth.

WINGNUT, laughing heartily – This is incredible! I bet you believe in a flat earth, and refuse to accept that gender is merely a social construct!

POTSTIRRER – The earth is roughly spheroid…kinda pear shaped. But let me ask you this. You maintain that over millions of years as our ancestors procreated sexually, mutations and natural selection made the human race what it is today, right?

WINGNUT – It’s science, man! Shake off your religious superstition and face it!

POTSTIRRER – I’ll take that as a yes. Here’s my follow up question. At what point during those millions of years, when evolution was going on courtesty of that natural, inescapable reality called gender, did said natural, inescapable reality magically become merely a social construct, and how did that happen?

WINGNUT – Stares at POTSTIRRER with that deer in the headlights look.

POTSTIRRER, continuing his deconstruction work – In reality, the absurd idea that gender is merely a social construct was constructed within the last decade (at most). So which is it? Is evolution true, or is gender real? You can’t have it both ways.

WINGNUT, blubbering and hissing – Look at this cake on my pretty rainbow colored platter.

POTSTIRRER, eyes widening – What cake? I only see the platter decorated with the sign of the covenant God established with all flesh after the great Flood.

WINGNUT – I ate the cake!

POTSTIRRER – Oh, I get it. You can have your cake and eat it, too?

Wild-eyed WINGNUT – Exactly! Now bug off, you hateful racist bigot!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

High Flying Figure

The following analogy addresses the canard so often presented by defenders of abortion, namely “what about cases of rape?

Private jet A takes off. Shortly after reaching cruising altitude, the owner’s crew informs him that a child stowaway has been found on board. He makes a wicked choice. He orders the crew to open a hatch and throw the child out. After all, it’s HIS plane, HIS choice! His henchmen do the savage deed.

Private jet B takes off. Shortly after reaching cruising altitude, the owner’s crew informs him that a child stowaway has been found on board. He makes a merciful choice. Upon reaching his destination, he turns the stowaway over to the authorities, who arrange for the child’s adoption. It’s HIS plane, HIS choice!

Private jet C takes off. Shortly after reaching cruising altitude, the owner’s crew informs him that a child stowaway has been found on board. He learns that the child was forced onto the plane by her dead beat parents, in an effort to send her far away to get rid of her for good. The jet owner makes a loving choice. He adopts the child himself, welcoming her into his family. It’s HIS plane, HIS choice!

The one time stowaway from jet B grows up and cures cancer, while the one time stowaway from jet C grows up and becomes the first woman in human history to stand on the planet Mars.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Trying Again

To be PROGRESSive means you want to make PROGRESS. You want to see our society go from Point A to Point B.

As one who would identify politically as a conservative in the constitutionally originalist sense, once more I ask my progressive friends to provide a tangible identification of that to which they want to progress. Exactly where is your Point B, so to speak?

Expressing aspirations like having a drastically reduced “carbon footprint,” or universal health care, or lasting world peace, or freedom and prosperity for all is not answering that question. Telling us HOW you are going to attain such things is! How are you going to get to your Point B?

Analogy: Perhaps in A.D. 1969 some child in a third world country gazed up at the moon and wished he or she could go there and explore. Meanwhile, what happened that same year in this Republic? Built on the ideology of our declaration of independence, our Constitutional Republic (we are NOT a pure democracy, i.e. a land of mob rule) became the first and so far only country to plant human feet on the silvery orb that rules that night.

The vision for that amazing, feet planting feat was articulated by old line Democrat President JFK. It was carried to completion thanks first to the God of kind providence, then to the motivation, ingenuity, and industry which are gifts from the same God and which still thrived in those days in the land of the free and home of the brave.

Progressive friend, where is the figurative moon to which you want America to go? Who is your JFK-like visionary? What is going to motivate and spur us to want to go your figurative moon? What is your blueprint for the figurative rocket that will blast us off on our progressive journey?

I hope your answers to those questions do not involve socialism. Just look at history’s wrecks of once prosperous and free nations that have tried it. Can you say Venezuela?

I hope you’re not relying for your success on the oppressive micro-management and hyper regulation of a big central government controlling every facet of life, which makes a mockery of freedom. Can you say ultimate wet blanket? Can you count down to…oops, no ignition? Can you say de facto tyranny by a nanny state?

The Democrat party of today has become the poster boy (oops, poster person) for virulent progressivism. It has some youthful and inexperienced voices shrilly crying with great passion for all sorts of changes. Self controlled passion, purposefully channeled by the mind, is good but what is their party’s realistic, communicable plan?

Where are its wise and seasoned senior statesmen (oops, statespersons) with a well charted route for going to point B, which factors in human nature’s natural corruption as well as economic and current geo-political realities? And again exactly where is point B? After you point it out – very specifically – on the sociological map, persuade me to want to go there with you.

You can even hit me with a few epithets and hurl some ad hominem invective first. Go ahead, get them off your chest. But then answer the question calmly and cogently. I grow weary of hearing nothing but figurative crickets.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dialog on Gun Control

An acquaintance on Facebook wrote to me as follows:

Keith, one should always look at all the teachings of Jesus and study before drawing conclusions – I think. In Matthew 26:52 Jesus also said:”Put your sword back in its place. … for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” And then proceeds to say he could call upon his Father to protect if needed. Actions at this point reported almost the same in Mark and Luke. The only place I am aware of where Jesus acted with anything close to violence was in his removal of the money changers from the temple. And there it was his reacting to the sacrilege of the temple. Paul also said, “we must obey God rather than man.” If one must choose between God’s command to love everyone and their constitutional right to kill or maim someone in defense of their family? Most everyone will choose to defend his/her family. Fortunately, these are rare instances. Most killings in our country don’t so occur, most are by intentional shootings of victims, accidental shootings of innocent victims – many children – , suicide, and in small number – some mass shootings. The big question for everyone is: Are the 30,000 or so killings in our country every year (and growing) justified, just so that every citizen can have access to any type gun? Particularly when we can look at many other countries and see their killings are a tiny fraction of that in our country. I don’t wish to debate the 2nd Amendment. I just wish a fair discussion of my question.

My response follows…

[Name], I couldn’t agree more. The context of a passage of Scripture, the need to diligently cross-reference other passages, and being as familiar as possible with the whole counsel of God in Scripture is essential. So often, folks grab a snippet from the “good book” and off they go glibly into error.

One example is how the Sixth Commandment should be understood: “You shall not commit murder.” Yet, in Genesis 9:6 we read “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.” So the just and lawful execution of a murderer at the hand of human beings (after due process, of course) is not the same as the crime of homicide. This is further established in God’s Law by the “lex talionis,” the rule of retaliation. It was given to prevent the infliction by sinful man of punishments that went beyond what the crime committed required.

So God commanded “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” so that enraged lynch mobs and vigilantes, ignoring due process, would not take two eyes for one tooth, or an arm and a leg for one eye. He commanded life for life so that entire families would not be obliterated in escalating blood feuds. Jesus in His sermon on the mount is not negating the Law, He is giving the correct understanding of it to those who had twisted it.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” (Jesus speaking, Matthew 5:17)

“Do we then make void the Law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” (the apostle Paul, Romans 3:31)

Here is another classic example of how a superficial understanding of Biblical truth comes into play. Many people are quick to say “do not judge” when a certain behavior is condemned by another. “Who are YOU to judge?!” is often added with great moral indignation. The actual Bible verse is “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1; parallel Luke 6:37)

But turning to John 7:24, we find the Lord Christ also saying “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” In both cases, He is speaking imperatively…the Master commanding His disciples about judging!

So actually we are commanded to judge! But we are to do so righteously and without hypocrisy, not ignoring our own failings and always tempering judgment with mercy. Christ’s apostle Paul laments as follows to the Christian disciples at Corinth:

“…Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?” (1 Corinthians 6:5)

So I agree, we get in trouble when we operate with only a superficial understanding of the Word of God. Since guns are a means of self-defense (yes they also can be used for wicked purposes, like building bricks, baseball bats, or butcher knives), let’s bring more of the full teaching of Scripture to bear on the heart of the matter. Do the words of Jesus about turning the other cheek, or other statements in the Bible, mean we are forbidden to defend ourselves or others? My judgment is no, the Bible does not forbid us to defend ourselves or others.

That is why in another post I referred to Jesus’ words at Luke 22:26 “…But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

Just as one might embrace the “do not judge” command but ignore the “judge righteous judgment” command, so here. One might err by taking the statement Luke records out of context, disregarding the full teaching of the Bible, and concluding that Jesus’ kingdom is one which advances by military might. That of course would be wrong, as you pointed out citing Matthew 26.

There, the Lord says that He could appeal to His Father Who would send twelve legions of angels to deliver Him. Had the Lamb of God asked for and received that temporal deliverance from the cross that lay ahead of Him, He could not have lovingly laid down His life as the substitutionary sacrifice for His sheep, that they might have forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

Standing before Pilate, Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:36)

So let’s put this together. His kingdom does not originate in this world, but at present it is in this world. It does not advance by the sword (or the gun) but by the Gospel, “the power of God unto salvation.” (Romans 1:16)

Nevertheless, there is evidently a just and lawful use of swords, or the sinless and perfect Christ would not have told anyone to go BUY a sword! The sixth commandment, part of that Law He did not come to abolish and which His apostle says faith does not nullify, requires more than than not committing murder.

Compare the Eighth Commandment. It not only forbids me from stealing, but commands me to protect my neighbor’s property. The homespun adage “finders are keepers, losers are weepers” is a wicked one. Godly finders are people who actively seek to locate losers – i.e. the true owners – and return their property to them!

Even so with the Sixth Commandment. Not only am I forbidden from committing homicide, but from harboring wicked resentment and hatred against another (Matthew 5:22), and from failing to defend and protect his physical life, reputation and honor. That pretty much sums up the motive of those who oppose that savage, barbaric form of homicide called abortion.

Finally and briefly, the inalienable rights to which the American Declaration of Independence refers are not given by any government or human document, but come from God. The Second Amendment was written to protect the right of self defense. Gun control laws only assault God given rights. Criminals intent on using guns for evil purposes will scoff at such laws as surely as reckless drivers scoff at speed limits…while law abiding people, since they ARE law abiding, will comply with “gun control laws” at their own peril.

This response is long, yet so much more could be said. I hope that to some extent I have addressed your wish for a fair discussion of your question. I am happy to discuss it further if you wish.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized