Wednesday, June 25, 2014
A toddler exposed that the robbers of one Milwaukee home were not Black as originally told to police but rather White, leading to the eventual apprehension the babysitter and her boyfriend. In an attempt to curry favor with tolerancemongers, one social critic posted, “I doubt this story will be talked about on conservative talk radio.” Is there a reason why it should be? And I guess it is also George Bush’s fault that the residence was robbed to begin with. Is every other home invasion and robbery that takes place in the United States worthy of attention in areas beyond that in which the crime took place? This event will probably get more attention on Conservative talk radio than accurate accounts of the knockout game primarily as a phenomena where Trayvonite Blacks deliberately seek out White victims upon which to inflict significant cranial injury or stories of activist minorities fabricating attacks by Caucasian marauders will in the mainstream press. There, this might not be talk radio, but now it cannot be said that this story was not at least mentioned in conservative social media. But since it does not promote the “Whites are terrible; aren’t Blacks mistreated” mentality, I guess it does not count.
In a Youtube video on introductory Lutheranism, the viewer was assured that Martin Luther was no saint. Foremost among the flaws listed was nothing more than that he irritated people. But is that necessarily a flaw in itself without context or elaboration? Did not Christ, the sinless Lamb of God, so irritate people that He was crucified in part because of that character trait?
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Cosmos Promotes Universal Deception
That famous catchphrase is itself non-scientific at best and pseudoscientific at worst.
Even if one grants that the universe is billions and billions of years old (to employ rhetoric of nearly that many parodies of Sagan), on what grounds can one state such an absolute conclusion from the basis of observational science?
For example, in the worldview espoused by Cosmos, it is held that the cosmos began at the moment of the Big Bang.
Thus, if one cannot peek back beyond that point, on what grounds apart from a faith as deeply held by the most adamant of theist does one conjecture that something else did not exist to bring the something into existence?
One can make the case of the cosmos being all there is all one wants.
But if the triumvirate of space, time and matter is all you are going to appeal to, on what grounds do you lodge a complaint should those not wanting such a gospel of nihilistic hopelessness to infect the minds of their children want to blow your brains out?
The last segment of Sagan's trademark mantra dogmatically asserted that the cosmos is all that will ever be.
If we are to exist in an epistemological framework where nothing is certain and there is no purposeful supreme intelligence superintending so that everything continues on a routine path, how do we know some manner of quantum cascade won't take place tonight where one subatomic particle is so knocked off course that all of reality disintegrates back into nothingness?
For did not even the great skeptics such as David Hume concede that, just because the sun rose from time immemorial, that was no guarantee that it would do so tomorrow?
Interestingly, the proponents of the Cosmos invocation might insist that they are providing viewers insight into whatever was or ever will be.
However, what these propagandists are conveniently leaving out are those aspects of the totality they happen to disagree with or cannot flippantly gloss over.
For example, in the premiere episode, an inordinate amount of time was spent badmouthing the adherents of a supposedly non-existent God in the case of Giodarno Bruno who was persecuted for believing that an infinite God could have created additional inhabited planets.
If nothing is to be concealed in the name of approaching a comprehension of the universe as it is rather than how we would like it to be, at any point in this documentary's presentation did Neil deGrasse Tyson --- himself an avowed atheistic humanist --- give an as lengthy presentation about the liberties infringed and abridged by assorted forms of atheism such as Communism in the attempt to maintain a stranglehold on power by preventing the dissemination of not only competing perspectives but as well as facts deemed inconvenient to adherents of that particular ideology?
Thus, if the hallmark of what distinguishes the modern era as supposedly superior to that of the medieval is that by the definition of these terms that we know better and are more enlightened, doesn't that make the atrocities of Communism far greater having been committed by the self-professed adherents of science?
In another episode, Tyson became emotionally discombobulated that if we as a species did not repent of our carbon combusting, global warming ways, we could very well cease to exist.
However, once again, if the only thing that exists is the material totality of the universe and there is no noncontingent intelligence or personality sustaining these complex systems, who is to say existence is superior to nonexistence?
Science writer George Johnson suggested that the tendency to view the universe as designed is an evolutionary holdover that humanity ought to progress beyond.
Then why not this desire for continued existence beyond that of our immediate selves?
For is this for the most part a trait and bias of the human plague infesting the planet?
Swarms of grass hoppers defoliating an area don't reflect if there will be enough to go around decades down the road.
One truism is that any resident of this realm will be subject to some kind of ultimate authority.
One can either settle for that of other flawed human beings that will in the end lead to disappointment and eventually destruction.
Or, one can look to God as the foundation and utilize a number of the tools that He provides such as His word foremostly followed by reason contemplating upon principles derived from that revelation and their operation through the handiwork of His creation.
By Frederick Meekins
Does Duck Dynasty Coot Advocate Sanctioned Pedophilia?
If the statement is an accurate reflection of his beliefs, perhaps he would care to comment on and condemn photos of his sons where they are not only beardless but quaffed with blond highlights.
Seems that would be a greater indicator of effeminacy than men with appreciation for poodles and felines.
Click On The Headline
According to the British Telegraph, a Greenpeace honcho flies 250 miles during his commute to work. Yet this is an environmental wacko front group that has denounced the growth of aviation as a contributor to climate change. So, in other words, you are to set on your backside at home flagellating yourself over the privilege of using a flush toilet as commanded by these global elites enjoying lives of luxury.
It seems the incident of a disfigured toddler asked to leave a Kentucky Fried Chicken may be fraudulent. Will as many be a quick to posture and grandstand on Facebook against this deception as they were to applaud themselves regarding their own over-inflated sense of tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion?
Monday, June 23, 2014
Has-Been Rocker Compares Jihad To The Beauty Of The Virgin Birth
So if he was mangled by an improvised explosive device filled with shrapnel or his children vaporized in the World Trade Center Attack, would he still be strumming such a blame the victim tune?
Click On The Headline
In rebuking lack of attendance at prayer meeting as evidence of an individual not dedicating satisfactory time to prayer, isn't that saying that the appearance of prayer is more important than the substance? Unlike Sunday morning service, there is no indication that attendance at a midweek service is a Scriptural mandate.
And what about those that feel closer to God in the Cathedral of Nature than in a setting not that appreciably different than a police interrogation where those in attendance are expected to spill their guts in such a sordid and scandalous manner that the men and women need to be cordoned off from one another during the ritual?
Friday, June 20, 2014
Gun Ruling Undermines More Than Second Amendment
As a police officer, Bruce Abramksi was allowed a discount on a firearm that his uncle is reported to have wanted.
As upstanding citizens, Bruce and his uncle facilitated the transaction through a licensed firearms dealer.
All of the involved parties were legally permitted to handle the weapon in question.
Enemies of the Second Amendment herald this ruling where it is illegal to acquire a firearm without disclosing the intent to resell the defensive implement in question as some manner of criminal fraud.
It is argued that this measure will save lives and keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
But, as in the case of many other firearms regulations, this law and now judicial precedent won't save a single person.
For if Abramski's intentions were nefarious, would he have bothered to get a licensed firearms dealer involved?
Abramski's great sin was in thinking that the system could be used in such a way as to benefit the individual rather than to crush the person's spirit under the bureaucracy's ever-tightening grip.
The government is probably more concerned and outraged that Abramski might have ended up with $400 in his pocket without the Beast being rendered its sacrificial oblation.
If the government has concocted yet another excuse to interfere in the otherwise legal transactions of those residing within its borders who do not disclose an ancillary economic intent, could one someday end up going to jail should someone employed at a retailer purchase an item on behalf of a family member through an employee discount program?
Today this mentality elevates profit and trade to the status of a moral evil considered in certain ways worse than outright violence.
What is to prevent these out of control agencies from demanding similar revelations regarding internal motivations regarding porcelain dolls and vintage knickknacks purchased at estate sales for resale on Ebay?
By Frederick Meekins
Science journalist George Johnson has written in the New York Times that the sense of design many experience when observing or reflecting upon the intricacies of nature is an evolutionary holdover that we must strive to overcome as a species. Yet, any other time, these very same radical naturalists insist that we must not resist the primitive animalistic impulse to copulate outside of the shackles of monogamous heterosexual marriage.
In an attempt to undermine a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis in conservative Evangelical circles, the argument is being put forward that the scientific implications of the Biblical origins account (especially the consideration of the timeframe involved) should not be considered a major issue. Instead, these texts are to be viewed as a corrective to the Egyptian polytheism from which the ancient Israelites emerged under the leadership of Moses. But if that is the case, just where does the contemporary believer draw the line? If death really didn’t enter into the world through the singular act of Adam, why should we take seriously the Bible’s claim that only Christ provides an escape from this curse? For that matter, if we are to not take seriously as literal the whole seven day time frame because the ancients apparently couldn’t wrap their minds around basic astronomy and geophysics but rather as the allegorical understanding of the Hebrew pastoralists, can we be assured that talk of the risen Christ just wasn’t concocted to mirror the tales of anthropomorphized deities that the Greek and the Romans had a penchant for in a time when the intricacies of biology where still a mystery?
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Crazed Wench Murders Son For Online Hits
That same irritating type that prefaces everything that comes out of their constantly yapping mouths that you don’t understand unless you have kids.
Click On The Headline
Alabama Jursists Allow Rump Rangers To Ride High In The Saddle
Not like these laws can be easily enforced anyway.
Click On The Headline
In Star Wars, Obi-Wan Kenobi warned that, if he was struck down, he would become more powerful than could possibly be imagined. By eliminating the trademark status of the Redskins, even if the name of the team is changed, haven’t the tolerancemongers now allowed for the establishment of a thriving market where if nothing else the insignia will serve as a banner under which those tired of political correctness can rally under and make considerable profits off of for years to come?
Press Led On Propaganda Tour Of Obama Detention Camp
So much more humane than a tall fence at the border.
Click On The Headline