If it is improper to shout out during an address before Congress that the President lies, then why is all the incessant fawning applause proper?
I ask all of those now in a tizzy, will your manners keep you warm when your freedom has been taken away and you find yourself either in financial ruin at best or in a reeducation camp at worst?
If Obama can threaten to call out those critical of his healthcare plan, why can't we do the same to him?
Contrary to his most diehard fanatics, Obama is no God and it is suppose to be the Constitution and not the President that reigns supreme in the land of liberty.
Viewers wanting to see "Knowing" staring Nicholas Cage might expect a film not all that different from his "National Treasure" series or even perhaps "The Da Vinci Code" as from advertisements the story appears to center around an aged parchment with a series of numbers scribbled across it that seemingly predicts a series of disasters. However, by the film's conclusion, the apocalyptic symbolism alluded to is much more complex and potentially confusing than one might initially suspect.
After a series of catastrophes Cage’s astrophysicist character witnesses as a result of deciphering the cryptic document, one begins to get the impression that the transcendent presence guiding events is more of a tangible one rather than a force in the background. Hints of this are introduced when mysterious figures reminiscent of less than normal looking versions of Men In Black begin to stalk Cage’s son as well as the granddaughter of the character who wrote down the prophetic string of numbers in a flashback set fifty years in the past.
In most films one usually gets a distinct impression as to the forces overseeing mankind’s eschatological destiny. Usually they are traditionally supernatural or more in the vein of what moviegoers would consider extraterrestrial or interplanetary. Seldom do I remember a film where the distinctions were blurred or melded to such a degree as in "Knowing".
For example, viewers were first given a hint of this as Cage and one of the adolescents come across an illustration depicting Ezekiel's wheel within a wheel. The overt supernatural overtones continued to increase with interactions with the Men In Black, especially when a blinding lights emanates from one of their mouths when confronted by Cage and as Cage's partially deaf son picks up a message over his hearing aide from the "whispering people".
By the time of the movie's climactic act, Ezekiel's wheel within a wheel has descended to the rendezvous point where it has arrived to whisk the children under Cage’s care to safety away from the earth endangered by a gigantic solar flare. Not even at this point did screenwriters clarify where they came down theologically. For example, as Cage proceeded to board the craft, he was informed that only the chosen could enter.
Did this mean only those professing belief in God (about the best you can hope for from Hollywood as a positive ascent to the need for a relationship with Christ would be out of the question) since earlier in the film Cage's character hinted at lacking faith in a conscious divine power. Or more likely, were these tots suppose to be Indigo Children, a new classification of adolescent hypothesized to be the next step in human evolution as a way to explain a myriad of phenomena from such as why these children have IQ's higher than their parents to bratty teen behavior.
The distinction between garden variety extraterrestrial and angel is further blurred when these entities drop their humanoid facades to reveal themselves to be energy beings reminiscent of the Taelons from the early seasons of “Gene Roddenberry’s Earth: Final Conflict”. The obfuscation continues until the end of the film.
As the craft carrying the two children away from the earth lifts into space, the viewer realizes that these two youngsters were not the only two saved as they join a convoy of similar vehicles. Once more, while the average viewer might be sitting there dumbfounded as to what is being depicted, the viewer peripherally in the know will wonder if they have just seen a space age interpretation of the Rapture where it is believed that the saved will be whisked away by God to safety before destruction comes upon the world or rather, as non-dispensationalists have hypothesized, or how the masses will be duped into a pseudo-rapture orchestrated by so-called “flying saucers”.
Even after all of this, "Knowing" at its end dumps even deeper metaphysical symbolism upon the viewer to wade through. For after the earth is destroyed with the elements burning up with a fervent heat as foretold in II Peter 3:12, we see the children running through a field towards a very distinct looking tree that could very well be the Tree of Life. But as with other moments in this film, we are not given any definitive answer as to whether the children are in Heaven or merely on another planet.
Those that go into “Knowing” expecting a supernatural thriller will not be disappointed. However, what they may not know about is the symbolic dialogue regarding some of the most profound spiritual issues facing the world today.
A series of meetings were held to discuss "perseverance of the native Hawaiian people, challenges facing the Native Hawaiian community, and ways in which the White House might work with the community to find common solutions to our common challenges."
I wonder if similar concerns will be taken to ensure the continuation of Euro-American people or will steps continue to be taken in the form of Obama's healthcare proposals to finally eliminate White folks once and for all.
Don't endorse the content. The link is provided to educate the reader as to the perspectives in the world today. It does, however, show how the contemporary UFO contact movement is linked to older forms of spirtualism.
I am reminded of the scene in "Torchwood: Children Of Earth" where the military went in guns blazing to round up students and snatch them from their parents in the name of vaccinations. They were actually being handed over to be used as extraterrestrial narcotics.
Try as the atheist might to manipulate objective data to fit their hypothesis with some evolutionists going so far as to invoke the law in order to suppress perspectives conflicting with their origins account, the assumptions of atheism fail to square with the facts of nature and with the revelation of nature's God. At one time earlier in the modern era, it was quite common for the atheist to portray himself as the true friend and ally of science. However, as impartial observational science has probed deeper onto the macroscopic realm of cosmic space as well as the microscopic world of the subatomic particle, this relationship once prided by the atheist turned out not to be as solid as originally thought.
The scientific establishment and the philosophical elites once derided the so-called "theistic proofs" for the existence of God as the outdated wisdom of a less-enlightened era. It turns out, however, that these time-honored arguments may be as relevant as the latest academic journals.
The cosmological argument, perhaps the best known, states that all finite realities and structures have a cause. Therefore, ultimately there must be an uncaused cause complete in itself in order to get the proverbial billiard ball rolling; this the theist declared to be God.
Naturalistic cosmologists steeped in atheism such as Carl Sagan once tried to dance around the issue by saying that the cosmos is all there was, is, or ever will be. But it seems that the laws of physics don't exactly have a record of contributing to their local PBS station.
The Laws of Thermodynamics declare that, left to themselves, systems degrade to the maximum level of entropy; or in laymen's terms, things wear out. Employing this principle, one is forced to conclude that, if the universe is an infinitely-old closed system those like Sagan claim it to be, then the universe would have already wound down in eons past. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning. And since something finite cannot come from nothing, the hypothesis of a divine creator provides the most plausible alternative.
It has been noted that the theistic proofs do not necessarily reveal the God of Judeo-Christian adoration but at best point the seeker in His direction. Likewise, the findings of science point the individual in the direction of a yet more definitive source of knowledge standing in opposition to the claims of atheism.
Scripture strikes the decisive blow against those daring to spit cognitively in the face of God. Psalms 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."
Until the scientist can replicate life on his own from nothing whatsoever, that verse settles the issue of whether the universe sings the praises of an omnipotent Creator or testifies to the cruel fact of an arbitrary universe devoid of plan or purpose. Some will no doubt continue to insist upon their own path of stubbornness despite what the very molecules they are breathing might be telling them.
Of those failing to be persuaded by the evidence, Psalms 14:1 says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Webster’s defines fool as “a person devoid of reason or intelligence.” Either the educated person assents to the reality of God or his so-called “education” is not worth the value of the parchment the big-shot degree is printed upon.
If the skeptic still refuses to abandon atheism in light of the objective evidence, one is left with no alternative but to drag out the rotten fruits produced by this faulty system in terms of ruined lived and fallen nations. For instead of establishing a set of moral values resting upon a foundation apart from divine revelation as originally postulated by the adherents of early atheistic modernism, one ends up with an ethical system based upon the absolutist relativism of postmodernism where almost anything goes except daring to set forth some kind of behavioral standard binding upon all.
According to Chuck Colson in Against The Night: Living In The New Dark Ages, in the arena where relativism reigns supreme in opposition to the law of God, there is no legitimate ground in which one can exclude the arguments and proposals of Nazis, serial killers, and pedophiles (47). From today's headlines, the nation is coming to realize in the most brutal of ways that these ideas do not confine themselves to academic journals or newspaper opinion pages. And in the case of school shootings such as Columbine High, this radical antipathy towards God can in fact turn deadly.
If the lawlessness of atheism can wreak havoc upon individual lives, just imagine its affects magnified across entire societies. The major dictatorships of the twentieth century testify to this blood-soaked historical truth. Founded upon assorted atheistic ideologies, these totalitarian regimes promised secular heavens on earth but instead dragged their nations down to the very borders of hell.
Unfettered by eternal external standards, those holding the reins of power in such societies had nothing to hamper the implementation of their most extreme policy whims, not even the value of innocent human lives. For example, Mao Zedong of the People's Republic of China slaughtered five million of his own countrymen in pursuit of his Cultural Revolution and related kinds of Communist nonsense.
While the United States has not yet eliminated that many (at least among those fortunate enough to escape the womb alive), the Orwellian day is here when good will be called evil and evil called good. Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett aptly noted on an appearance on "Meet The Press" that, had the Columbine killers greeted one another with "Hail the King of Kings" rather than their trademark "Heil Hitler", school officials would have intervened since an affirmation of theism --- especially of a Christian variety --- is the one thing an atheistic educational system cannot tolerate. School officials did not intervene and the rest is history, with organized unbelief claiming yet a few more in its unrelenting war upon God and humanity.
As public rhetoricians are fond of pointing out, mankind stands at a crossroads. The choice, however, goes to a level deeper than the choice between Democrats and Republicans that Americans must make on election day.
The decision to be made transcends the limited purposes of institutionalized politics to embrace fundamental issues of worldview and belief. The nature of this conflict can be discovered in a comparison and contrast between atheism and Christianity.
From the fundamental postulate regarding the nonexistence of God, atheism attempts to formulate a comprehensive framework upon which to hang its understanding of mankind and the universe. Without God to account for the cosmos in which they find themselves, atheists argue that the complexity of nature arose through a process of gradual evolution governed by the rules of chance.
This process of evolution, to the atheist, serves as the dynamic against which man strives to find and determine his role upon the earth. As such, everything is thus in a state of flux and nothing is fixed as man struggles to figure things out against the backdrop of a cold and purposeless void.
Not even fundamental issues such as individual rights, personal ethics, or social institutions can afford to remain fixed and stagnant. And if innocent human lives are ruined or destroyed, that may seem regrettable at this moment along the long evolutionary chain, but mankind will ultimately get things worked out and the piles of corpses littering history’s ditches will not seem so nauseous upon further enlightenment.
Of these ideas, Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Any history book objective enough to attest to the horrors of the twentieth century testifies to this startling truth.
Standing in contrast to the lonely pointlessness of atheism is Judeo-Christian theism recognizing God as the fundamental proposition of the universe. Like atheism, the Judeo-Christian tradition builds its system around its conceptual foundation as well. But since its basis is drastically different from that of atheism, the conclusions drawn by Christianity are considerably different.
Christianity holds that, since the universe was created from nothing through the Word of God, all creation is dependent upon Him at all times. Colossians 1:17 says, “...by him all things consist.”
Since man is God’s creation, it is therefore God’s right to determine the standards by which man shall conduct his own affairs. And since God loves His creation, it follows that His standards are for the benefit of His children. These standards are communicated to mankind in a number of ways.
One such way is through individual conscience. Romans 2:14 says, “For when Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” While God has written the Law across the heart of man, man has suppressed this truth through sin.
God has overcome this development by making Himself known in the person of His Son Jesus Christ and through the direct propositional revelation of His Word and the Holy Bible of which II Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” It is within this framework of Law and Grace that the balance between the individual and society is found as this system and the objective standards established by it protect the individual since it recognizes the worth and fallen character of each. That is why Psalms 33:12 says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”
Atheism remains one of the most serious intellectual challenges faced by the contemporary Christian. Despite its obvious scientific and sociological shortcomings, the powerful adherents of this system positioned in influential sectors of society such as government and academia have enshrined this worldview as the official dogma of civilization nearly as stifling as anything allegedly imposed by the medieval Catholic Church.
Yet despite considerable efforts to enforce this system as an orthodoxy that goes so far as to jail students daring to pray around a flagpole, like its sister system in the former Soviet Union, Western atheism is a decaying ideology. It is amid this decay often resulting in social and individual ruin that the Christian is able to proclaim the superiority of the theistic alternative and the God of its adoration.
An article in the leftwing propaganda rag "Sojourners Magazine" titled "Sex Without Shame" fails to mention that the only shameless sex is to be found in marriage between a man and a woman.
The closest the article gets is a tepid "In our churches we need to help younger people...say 'yes' to some shared bodily interactions. As we need to help each other not only just say no, but understand why 'no' or 'not yet' is an appopriate life-giving response to some other options we encounter along our sexual journeys".
Will be interesting to hear additional research on this. At this time, I neither confirm or deny its allegations put merely post to inform readers as to what is perculating out there.
For the unfamiliar, Wallis is one of the subversives manipulating Evangelicalism into embracing a COMMUNITY emphasis which is little more than sugar-coated socialism.
If guns are legal in Arizona, why is this even a story?
If liberals are going to tell us that we cannot criticize the most barbaric practices of the jungle savage because we are not a part of that culture, who are the metropolitican East coast elites to criticize Western frontier values which seem to work a whole lot better than the Big City pro-government mentality?
A study finds that shorter students are "no less popular" than taller ones.
Frankly, from my own experience --- even in a Christian school --- the shorter ones were actually the snottiest brats in the class and were the actual bullies rather than the stouter pupils.
But since chubbier students don't fit in with the plans of New World Order types such as environmentalists, I guess we got what we deserved.
