Bible Bashing

I was a missionary in Chile for 2 years from ’97 – ’99. I went because I truly believe that the religion I belong to is true and I wanted to share the ‘good news’ with others. I learned a lot of things about life and looking back, I can see how my experiences there have shaped almost every aspect of my life and life views.

As a missionary, it was our objective to invite people to learn about what we believe and what makes our religion different. There are so many different people in this world and so many different religions. South America is predominately Christian, so most everyone already had a belief in Jesus Christ. Almost everyone I talked to believed in the Bible, as we do. Their belief in the Bible made it easier to teach those willing to listen and learn about us because we could teach them right out of their own scriptures about the gospel.

One thing I never did was Bible bash. I don’t think it works. You can fight all day with the Bible and even if you do end up proving your point, you will never make a friend or ally of someone you’ve had contentions with over scripture. It’s a classic lose-lose situation. It was my experience that those not willing to listen just will not listen, no matter what you are offering. And that’s OK. I believe in choice and I respect that. I’m sure I have been in the past and will be in the future stubborn on certain issues.

I want to relate this to politics. There are many things about our current situation that I feel strongly about. Now, I can’t say with as much certainty that my perspective in regard to politics and current affairs is as rock-solid as my faith in my religion. But, I can say that with both my faith and my positions on government, I seek only the truth. I am not vested in any party or movement. If I discover that I am wrong, I change my views. I have done this many times. I don’t think I would get along very well with myself from even 5 years ago. I have gone through many changes and much discovery over the last few years.

I am willing to listen to opposing points of view. I welcome honest political discussion. I think debates are useful. But I will not fight with you. I don’t like to do it and I think it is unproductive.

If you are intellectually honest and your motivations are pure, we can talk… even if we disagree. At the end of the day, we may even agree to disagree. That’s OK. If you or I bring up a point and the other disagrees, let’s talk about it and find out what the truth is together. This is where hopefully honest discussion prevails.

But if you cannot defend or uphold your views in the face of honest questioning, wouldn’t I be dishonest not to question your motivations? If you share the positions of known evil men or theories that have been factually disproven, who wouldn’t be skeptical and wonder why? If you attack me personally or belittle or diminish, I must dismiss you as fundamentally dishonest (at least on the issue at hand) and am forced to conclude you are willing to sacrifice truth in order to “win”.

A personal attack in order to avoid facts and logic is intellectually dishonest. A debate like this can never have a purposeful conclusion and anyone who engages in these Alinsky techniques that have become so popular and accepted, as far as I’m concerned, does not have a solid footing in their side of the issue. The only question at that point is whether they are ignorant, misguided or worst of all, invested in the outcome of a lie.

My Quiet Voice

Maxine, you say in your out-loud voice what most of us say in our quiet voice but want to say out loud. Bless you!!

Ever Seen A Crack Addict?

I am not naive.

I have never smoked. I have never done drugs. I have never had a drink of alcohol. I have never been in a brawl. I was pretty much a good kid growing up. I went to church every Sunday. Now, reading this, you would probably assume I was sheltered and inexperienced, right?

Mobster has the scoop on Black Judas…

You know, it’s amazing when a former Capo of the Cosa Nostra has infinitely more credibility than Al Sharpton (actually, this guy’s pretty sharp, I’ve read a few of his books). If the people he was “helping” looked into even superficially, he would be henceforth referred to as Black Judas.

Control The Media : CHECK

OK. We’ve now moved on past ‘If you don’t see what’s going on here, I seriously question your judgment’ to ‘If you don’t see what’s going on here YOU’RE A FREAKING MORON’. These are SERIOUSLY bad people trying to destroy our country. Wake up! How can you ever justify being on their side? At this point, even if they had a dude who looked like this you’d explain it all away and accuse anyone who raised an eyebrow at you as part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy:

This just in: White House Communications Director Anita Dunn  admits that government is attempting to control the media. Oops.

This just in: White House accuses Fox of being not being a news network and being propagandist.  ??????

This just in: MSNBC falls in line with government and accuses Fox of being an arm of the Republicans (who ever saw that coming!?)

Well, I guess the good news is that if Fox isn’t news, they’re the only one not being controlled by the government at this point. Go Fox!

On a completely unrelated note, Anita Dunn also admits that her favorite political “philosopher” is Mao (ps- look up any dictator. All communist/fascist nut-jobs fancy themselves philosophers… I picked a heck of a blog name! CRAP ;)), by most estimates the most prolific murderer of all time.

On another completely unrelated note, after she was exposed as a Mao lover, the White House issued a statement that sadly, Anita is planning on leaving to pursue other interests by the end of the year – a conspicuous preemptive on the  demise of all Obama commie associates.

New page on my blog

Freedom

America’s watchdog… I guess… if you ride the slow bus

Saw this post on Biggovernment.com:

Keith Olbermann Special on Health Care Tonight – The Drinking Game

by Derek Hunter

Let’s be honest, the only way to watch Keith Olbermann is drunk–blind drunk. That would explain his anemic ratings and his small but loyal following. Real drunks always frequent the same bars.

Since Olbermann is dedicating his show tonight to White House talking points on health care, I figured I might as well make it interesting by creating a drinking game for it.

Note: I don’t recommend watching Countdown, there is always something more entertaining and informative on the Watching Paint Dry network, but if your morbid curiosity gets the better of you make sure you have booze handy.

Take a drink every time Keith does one of the following:

• Says “sir” in anger. (Three if it’s a “How dare you, sir!)
• Mentions Sarah Palin (Two if he throws in a pejorative like “failed” or “quitter” first, three if he talks about Trig and the health care he got.)
• Each time he mentions the bogus 44,000 people who die each year for lack of health insurance number.
• Each time he mentions 46, 47 or 50 million uninsured. (Do a shot if he uses the new 30 million number.)
• Praises Canada, France or the UK. (Second sip when he says long lines are a lie.)
• Each time he says “death panel” and Palin.
• Each time he claims Republicans have no plan or solutions. Do a shot when he says Republicans want people to die.
• With every mention of Rush, Hannity, Beck or Levin (aka people with an audience).
• Finish your drink each time he exploits someone’s personal health care horror story and presents it as the norm.
• Chug from the bottle if he mentions the fact that Medicare rejects more claims than any other insurance plan in the country.
• Finish the bottle if he tells the truth about anything, accidentally or on purpose. (I was going to say that you take a drink each time he lies but I don’t want to cause a nationwide wave of alcohol poisoning.)

Feel free to add your own rules in the comments.

Follow these guidelines and you’ll be more drunk than Teddy Kennedy on, well, an average Tuesday in the 70’s. And that might just be enough to tolerate spending an hour watching Keith Olbermann…maybe.

Enjoy!

Corruption

I’m tired of all the corruption I see in politics and business.

Chicago-style (and now Washington-style) politics

Imagine you had committed a crime and were going to go to jail for breaking the law. Now imagine that you had a friend that could keep you out of jail because of his connections. Would you allow your crime to be covered up?

Let’s say you do. Good for you. You outsmarted the system. This kind of thing happens every day. What’s it gonna hurt if you participate a little teeny tiny bit. Not gonna hurt anyone, right?

Aside from the fact you’re trying to defeat the Law of Justice, which is impossible due to its eternal nature, you are now in someone’s debt without even knowing what the price is.

A recent example is our own wonderful-human-being David Letterman. To be clear, he didn’t (as far as we know) break the law, just the rules. His acts and their concealment left him susceptible to extortion.

Extortion leads to corruption.

We hear of people in the media, politics and Hollywood every day who are “outed” because they fell out of favor. If you think that the ones we hear about are representative of the actual amount of criminal/dishonest behavior, you’re delusional. An understanding of statistics tells us that. When you see one cockroach there’s 100 more you don’t see.

And with all the “favors” and “compromises” that happen in our society, particularly in our political circles, I imagine that the corruptions is rampant and disgusting. How do these people sleep at night unless they’re all atheists?

Another example of extortion:

Welfare/Bailouts.

Entitlement issues and lack of discipline leave us open to extortion from our corrupt government who uses our weaknesses to amass power and control of us. If we stop playing the game, they will cut us off. Inability to fail is unhealthy to a free society.

Absence of morality is the root problem in our society and only its elimination will put us back on track. Until we fix that, it doesn’t matter what ‘solutions we present. They won’t fix the problem. This is why we cannot continue doing the same things over and over, electing the same types of people over and over. They are corrupt and devoid of ethics.

Pick a side.

The Oath

It’s a wonder we even take seriously anything that comes out of our elected officials’ mouths with all the lies and deceit that permeate their speech. Regardless, I wanted to make aware of certain oaths that are taken – oaths that used to mean something:

Presidential Oath of Office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

If we had anyone with some guts in our government, an irrefutable case could be made that our Constitution is being trampled and circumvented. Obama has stated he believes the Constitution is flawed because it is a document of ‘negative liberties’. He has stated and continues to believe as proved by his actions that we should be governed by a system of ‘positive liberties’. Positive liberties means the government does things for you. To accomplish this, we must relinquish freedom. To give something to one necessitates the taking from another. How is this freedom or liberty? It is not. It is servitude.

And “redistributive change”? That’s not even code for socialism. That IS socialism!

How about this oath taken by the armed forces of the US:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same:…”

We’ve been heading down the road of socialism for the last 100 years. The enemy is within the gates. Their means are many but their motivation united: control and power.

Pick a side.

Would Jesus be for the public option?

I read the below opinion piece today in The Hill. I’ve also heard others pose similar arguments in an attempt to brand anyone who disagrees with their designs anti-Christian.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jesus would support the public option

By Brent Budowsky – 10/05/09 01:46 PM ET

As the president appears to be pushing harder for the public option and Senate Democratic leaders appear to be joining him, here is one vitally important argument on their behalf: Isn’t it fair to suggest that Jesus would support the public option?

Jesus spoke about the need to feed the hungry, clothe the needy, heal the ill, cure the sick and put the needs of the poor ahead of the hunger for money and wealth. Sure sounds more like the public option than premium-gouging and $10 million salaries for insurance-company CEOs. Right?
The late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said for a generation that healthcare is a moral issue for our times. He was right. There is rapacious greed in the healthcare industry, and most particularly with insurers who have been raising premiums, cutting benefits and throwing hard-hit policymakers to the wolves.

Those running insurance companies have neither the interest nor the desire nor the history of looking out for those in need, or looking out for the hard-pressed middle class.

Those running a public option would have no priority higher than the noble and worthy goals.

I think Jesus would want the poor and middle class taken care of, and not punished by the greed or indifference that plagues the current system.

I believe Jesus would side with the public option, not the insurers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

First off, I don’t think Jesus would have sided with the demon from the underworld formerly  known to us as Ted Kennedy. 😉

The author misunderstands the role of agency – the defining principle of this life – and Jesus’s understanding of this divine principle.

Ask yourself these questions and try to reconcile your answers with the author’s premise, which is ‘Not allowing a govt-run health care system would un-Christlike” :

Did Jesus overturn the moneychangers’ tables because making money was evil or because the venue was inappropriate?

Why didn’t Jesus heal everyone on the Earth while he was here? He certainly could have.

In my opinion, the author’s premise begs the question in that a government-run system would be a catastrophe, less efficient, more expensive, therefore ‘worse’ for all people and thereby thwarting what he supposes Jesus would want. But let’s set aside this factor of the issue.

Heath care is less a right than so many other things. How about food? How about reading, writing, freedom? So many in the world are without the basics. How about shelter (we dabbled with this and got Fannie, Freddie, and the current crisis we’re in)? We can never have an intellectually honest debate about health care until we can debate whether it is a right or not. Period. I firmly believe it is not! They use this argument to foster a false urgency. But, let’s set that aside, too.

Most importantly, Jesus never taught about government benevolence. Actually, benevolence and government are usually oxymorons. He was here to teach us as individuals. We will not be judged by what actions were taken by the government under which we live has or has not done. We will be judged by what we as individuals do. In addition to waste, inefficiency, lack of innovation, and low quality, having a govt-run system will deprive us of the blessings of service and sacrifice for our fellow man.

I don’t know exactly what Jesus would say about this whole debauchery, but I am confident he would agree that our corrupt and perverted government would not be the most capable of running anything fair, efficient and charitable.