"In short, if God created the universe as a special place for humanity, he seems to have wasted an awfully large amount of space where humanity will never make an appearance. He wasted a lot of time, too. Instead of six days, he took nine billion years to make Earth, another billion years or so to make life, and then another four billion years to make humanity. Humans have walked on Earth for less than one-hundredth of one percent of Earth's history.
In fact, when you think of it, why would an infinitely powerful God even need six days? Wouldn't he have the ability to create everything in an instant? And, why would he have to rest when he was all done?" (Victor J. Stenger) Posit: The vast universe was created to maintain the intricate uniqueness of life on Earth. In other words, Cosmos does just the opposite to Carl Sagan's narrow-minded thought. Rather than disproving God, the vast unknowableness of seemingly unused/unusable space PROVES the Existence of God is a strongly exclamatory expression. "Less than a year after his death, Hollywood released a movie (on July 11, 1997) based on Sagan’s novel, Contact (1985). The film’s central character, Dr. Eleanor Arroway (played by Jodie Foster), is surely the embodiment of the formative experiences, philosophical perspectives, and spiritual beliefs of Sagan himself. "On three separate occasions in the film, a pseudo-intellectual remark, obviously designed to defend the naturalistic explanation of the existence of the Universe while ridiculing the Christian viewpoint, is offered up to viewers. As a child, “Ellie” asks her father if life exists out in the Universe, to which he responds: “Well, if there wasn’t, it’d be an awful waste of space.”" Is it not terribly presumptuous to assume that the human perspective on any subject is the best perspective? Is it not terribly presumptuous to assume that the human perspective on any subject is the only perspective that is possible?
Is it not terribly presumptuous to assume that the human perspective at any given moment on any subject is the only perspective that humans will ever have on that subject?
9. The Kohinoor Diamond: monetary value never documentedThe Kohinoor Diamond This was once the largest diamond in the world.
It used to belong to India and the royal family, but when Britain took over the country and Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India in 1877, the gem became part of the British Crown Jewels. Of course, it was not a joyful event when India had to give up the huge diamond, but nevertheless, it did. The royal family actually had to give it as a “gift” to the Queen. India still claims that the Kohinoor diamond was taken by force and that it should be returned to its country of origin.
If humans could create the masterworks contained in this essay, which merely scratches the surface of all creativity that has been expressed throughout the history of the world,...
...then is it not conceivably possible that One God, Who has no competitors, since He has no equals,...
...could have created the vastness of Time and Space for the expressed purpose of maintaining the existence of His specially-loved humankind,...
...as well as for the ultimate purpose of expressing His Ecstatic, Effusive Love for His Personally-Chosen Eternal Bride?
In the vast population of Humanity, throughout the entirety of History, the fact that few human beings have even contemplated once, the idea that every existent piece of physical matter in the known and unknown cosmos/universe is vitally-necessary for the continuation of human life on Earth, in no way negates the very real fact that this personal hypothesis could indeed be the fullest-extent of the temporal reality that God has created for the benefit of Humanity, God's most-beloved creation in all of physical existence, and maybe even in the entirety of all existence in todo.
"The town says Hackett's rights are not being violated because she does not have to be present for the prayer to participate in the town meeting. A lawyer representing the town and the moderator said he could not comment on the case but will wait to see what the judge decides.
"'To me, the critical issues are those of an assumption of Christian privilege and compulsion. Using the government as a forum for one religion or another is something our country and our state were set up to prevent,' Hackett said Monday. 'Religious freedom does not mean we have got the right to force our religion on others.'"
"Religious freedom does not mean we have got the right to force our religion on others."
"The words you say will either acquit you or condemn you.”
A wise man spoke these words many centuries ago, which by application do indeed condemn Ms. Hackett.
Posit: "A statement of belief about religion is the confession of a religious belief."
Posit: "One cannot speak about religion, without professing some belief about religion, and thereby giving testimony to one's own religious belief." (Restatement of original posit)
Posit: "When an atheist is consistent with his/her alleged-atheism, then that atheist ignores religion completely in thought, in speech, and in deed. To be an atheist, and therefore truly non-religious, one has no opinion, no feeling, no space in his/her mind for any thoughts of religion, whatsoever."
Posit: "To be offended by religion, while declaring oneself to be an 'atheist' in hate-filled response to religion, one necessarily testifies to being a religious atheist, worshipping 'Atheos,' the antithesis to 'Theos,' (aka God.)"
Ms. Hackett is by application a religious atheist, since she cares enough about religion to take a moral stance, regarding religion.
Ergo, Ms. Hackett IS in violation of her own standard about "forcing our religion on others," she forced her own religious beliefs on other adults, thereby preventing those other adults from demonstrating their Constitutionally-protected Free Speech Rights. At the same time, Ms. Hackett began, whether knowingly or unwittingly, to establish the belief that her god, "Atheos," (the euphemism for "No-God,") must necessarily be worshipped to the exclusion of God, Who is publicly-worshipped publicly by Christians.
In other words the Freedom of Religion grants the freedom to express belief in God.
It does not grant any American the right to be free from initially-encountering religious-expressions.
The Freedom of Religion does provide the right to extricate oneself from such environment, once encountered, but it does not allow the inflicting of one American's will over the will of others present in order to create the environment that American may demand the subjugation of the rights of all other Americans present, who may not be of like-mind.
This article, printed in the Burlington Free Press of Burlington, Vermont, documents the very clear wording for a case of legal action against Marilyn Hacket, who may be cited as being arguably-libelous in criminal court on Contempt of Constitution charges, as well as being arguably-libelous in civil court on charges of theft of Free Speech Rights against the townsfolk of Franklin, Vermont.
(I would personally like to see Hacket counter-sued in a Class-Action Lawsuit to the tune of ten million dollars, which would equal one million dollars for every year that she has shown her contempt for the Constitutionally-protected Rights of other Americans, and has shown her determination, whether knowingly or unwittingly, to defame the character of the people of Franklin, Vermont, as well as the rest of us Americans, who still care about praying to The Only God, Who Exists.)
The acquiescence of the town's so-called leaders to prefer the wishes of one individual over the wishes of many individuals, (as well as negating the precedence of historically faith-filled practice,) thus rendering Ms. Hackett "more valuable, under The Constitution" than the majority of these citizens-present, places this town's council in the position of being arguably-libelous to the charge of Criminal Contempt of Constitution in the establishment of preferential-treatment of one individual's religious views to the subjugation of "the free exercise" of the same by the majority present.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The First Amendment to be adopted to The United States Constitution is at the same time the first enumerated Right granted as part of The Bill of Rights.
Marilyn Hackett was not forced to participate in religious worship, and I for one am highly-offended that truly-faithful individuals were subjected to her religious-practice of non-worship.
Marilyn Hackett had the same privilege that ever other American had in that meeting. She could stay or leave. That was her choice.
Marilyn Hackett chose to stay, (aka "Freedom of Choice/Freedom of Conscience.")
She did NOT have the right to FORCE her own religious views on the townsfolk of Franklin, Vermont.
The town's leadership had no right to accede to her narrow-minded demands.
The criminal charge, Contempt Of Court - Civil Or Criminal: "A judge who feels someone is improperly challenging or ignoring the court's authority has the power to declare the defiant person (called the contemnor) in contempt of court. "There are two types of contempt, criminal and civil.
"Criminal contempt occurs when the contemnor actually interferes with the ability of the court to function properly - for example, by yelling at the judge. This is also called direct contempt because it occurs directly in front of the judge. A criminal contemnor may be fined, jailed or both as punishment for his act.
"Civil contempt occurs when the contemnor willfully disobeys a court order. This is also called indirect contempt because it occurs outside the judge's immediate realm and evidence must be presented to the judge to prove the contempt. A civil contemnor, too, may be fined, jailed or both. The fine or jailing is meant to coerce the contemnor into obeying the court, not to punish him, and the contemnor will be released from jail just as soon as he complies with the court order. In family law, civil contempt is one way a court enforces alimony, child support, custody and visitation orders which have been violated...
The criminal charge, Contempt of Congress, (which is the legal-extension of the charge, Contempt of Court, as applied to the United States Congress, [i.e. House of Representatives and Senate,] and herein contained in the same definition found in a legal dictionary/lexicon,) "...By the Constitution of the United States, each house of congress may determine the rules of its proceeding's, punish its members for disorderly behaviour and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. The same provision is substantially contained in the constitutions of the several states.
"The power to make rules carries that of enforcing them, and to attach persons who violate them and punish them for contempts. This power of punishing for contempts is confined to punishment during the session of the legislature and cannot extend beyond it, and it seems this power cannot be exerted beyond imprisonment.
"Courts of justice have an inherent power to punish all persons for contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process, and for disturbing them in their proceedings...
"...When a person is in prison for a contempt, it has been decided in New York that he cannot be discharged by another judge when brought before him on a habeas corpus; and it belongs exclusively to the court offended to judge of contempts and what amounts to them; and no other court or judge can, or ought to undertake in a collateral way, to question or review an adjudication of a contempt made by another competent jurisdiction.
"This way be considered as the established doctrine equally in England as in this country."
The criminal charge, Contempt of Constitution, though not heretofore rendered as a charge in criminal court, (of which this writer is aware,) does seem to have legal merit, regarding the wording of the afore-stated lexicographical definition of Contempt of Court, which may be arguably-applied to all Americans up to and including the President of The united States of America.
"...By the Constitution of the United States, each house of congress may determine the rules of its proceeding's, punish its members for disorderly behaviour..."
Posit: "If the Constitution of The United States must be cited to give Authority to the charge of Contempt of Court, as it applies to the U. S. Congress, and every legal court, under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, either severally or corporately, as well as the power to exact criminal and/or civil punishment, regarding disrespect to and challenge toward the authority of the same, then by application the United States Constitution has the same Authority extant in its very wording as well as having the same power to exact punishment against every citizen of these United States, up to and including the President of these United States, when it may be proven, beyond reasonable doubt that said-citizen of the United States considers himself/herself to be above the highest law of the land, The United States Constitution."
This means that, if any citizen of these United States, willfully and knowingly violates any Right, protected in the Bill of Rights, against another citizen of these United States, either severally or corporately, then the alleged-until-proven criminal, whether Ms. Hackett or Mr. Obama, stands arguably-liable to be charged with Contempt of Court, regarding Respect for the United States Constitution.
Under the laws of the United States, the election of a felon to the Office of President would be difficult at best in the words of one writer on Yahoo's Answers page, (which is neither of legal-standing nor scientifically-calibrated, but is a barometer of public-opinion, "Technically a felon with restored voting rights could probably file to run, however getting elected to the office of President would be virtually impossible in our political climate.")
Bottom Line: Atheists would think-twice before running afoul of the law, if the establishment of the "No-God" position on religious thought was to be given, once and for all, precedence as being legally-liabilous to the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
In short, in the United States of America, atheists are completely free to not worship The Lord in private and in public.
However, atheists have no right to prevent Christians from worshipping The Lord in private and in public.
"The words you say will either acquit you or condemn you.”
(Jesus of Nazareth)
Throughout History powerful groups of humans have used their power to oppress other groups of people that they deem to be "non-human,"
unworthy of the recognition of basic personhood, and the respect that is extant in personhood.
In truth to refer to humans as more than one race could, arguably, be considered a racist remark.
To refer to the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity as non-existent is arguably the highest racist remark.
Even God holds this viewpoint. "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no god.'
" (Psalm 14:1)
There is believably only one human race, and all the regional/cultural/personal differences to which are consistently referenced as being the "many races of Mankind" are all extant in the original 46 chromosomes of one, Adam, the very first human. Racism
is the human-mindset that considers another human (or group of cosmetically/culturally similar humans) to be inferior, to be sub-human, to be non-human
,...in short, to be of less-value to this one (or group of similar someones) than is necessary to warrant the protection of, the respect for, or the recognition of being...human.
Who has the moral right to decide for all of us the character, the value, the definition of Honored Human?
If atheists, (especially the current-crop of vitriolic, hate-filled, evangelistic atheists,) have their way, regarding the denigration of the Person of God, then all humans are in danger of being racially-denigrated as well by these atheists, (who appear to believe that they alone have the right to define anything, regarding humanity and the cosmos.) Posit
: No perfect human being, (who is forever only a human being,) has ever walked the face of the Earth. Posit
: A perfect definition of right cannot be created/originated/expressed as measured by the standard of an imperfect human being. Posit
: If God does not exist, then right does not exist, since it is impossible for an entire humanity, full of "wrongs, to make a right." Posit
: The nearly-universal human belief in "right and wrong" proves the Existence of God, since Good, (aka Right,) professes the Existence of its namesake, God. Posit
: Recorded human history logs no culture, that was ever, originally, devoid of the worship of some god (or godlike human being.) In short Earth has never spawned a truly atheist culture. God signed His Presence on our hearts. (Atheism is nothing more/less/else than human reaction to an inferiority-complex. "O, so that's how it's going to be, God? You call the shots? Well, then I'll fix You. I will prove that You don't Exist. So there.")Posit
: The Lord has no need to "prove" His Existence. He simply declares His Existence, since our hearts already know that He does. Posit
: The Existence of God cannot be disproved by any human being, since no fallible human being can comprehend, let alone measure God for the purposes of quantifying and disqualifying God.
The plausibility of any level of heightened certainty, with regard to the alleged-non-existence of God, requires that some human must exist, who has personal knowledge of every millimeter of every universe in existence, throughout the entirety of the existence of the cosmos.
There are way too many unknowables
for any human to be considered sane, while expressing the thought, "God probably doesn't exist.
" Dude, and people say that I am guilty of wishful-thinking.
For instance, Hitler was an atheist, by modus operandi.
At the same time Hitler has been shamelessly exploited, (and re-written,) in recent history by atheists to appear to be acting as a "christian."
This has only served to oppress the message of belief in Jesus, the Christ, as well as to oppress HIS believers, and at the same time has attempted to oppress the very Character and Value of the Personhood of God. Hitler labelled the Jewish nation as non-persons or as sub-persons or as subversive persons
in order to attempt to exterminate their personal existence, and in the process to persecute, to abuse, to cause to suffer, to legitimize hatred toward, and to demote from basic human rights this noble group of people
, all because the Jewish
people did not meet Hitler's personal definition of "legitimate persons
." Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood
, (and the female version of Hitler, in my humble opinion,) labelled the pre-born, (aka human infants,) as non-persons or as sub-persons
in order to attempt to exterminate their personal existence, and in the process to persecute, to abuse, to cause to suffer, to legitimize hatred toward, and to demote from basic human rights this noble group of people
, all because the pre-born
did not meet Margaret Sanger's personal definition of "legitimate persons
." Many World-Cultures
have labelled various sub-culture people-groups as non-persons or as sub-persons or as subversive persons
in order to attempt to exterminate their personal existence, and in the process to persecute, to abuse, to cause to suffer, to legitimize hatred toward, and to demote from basic human rights these noble groups of peoples
, all because these said people-groups
did not meet the oppressive leaders' personal definitions of "legitimate persons
are labeling Almighty God as Non-Persons or as sub-Persons or as subversive Persons
in order to attempt to exterminate the very Personal existence of God in the hearts and the minds of humans, and in the process to persecute, to abuse, to cause to suffer, to legitimize hatred toward, and to demote from basic human/superhuman rights these NOBLE Individuals
, all because God Almighty
does not meet the atheists' personal definition of "Legitimate Persons
are guilty of consistent ad hominem attacks on the Character of The Lord
, based solely on their insatiable lust for power
, and their desire to oppress people of faith around the world by labeling The Lord "a non-Person," and further labeling we, HIS followers, as "subversive persons
We will not stand idly by while this latest onslaught of human oppression tries to demean, to persecute
, to subvert the lives of, to abuse, to cause to suffer, to legitimize hatred toward, and to work to demote from basic human rights noble people of faith
the world-over, all because we do not meet the atheists' personal definition of "legitimate persons
To allow atheists to control the paradigms of life and of language, will be to give atheists the right to subvert the dignity of all human beings the way that they merely "think" that they have "destroyed" the very Existence of God through the alleged-strength of their minds.
Atheists have long fought against belief in God as an oppressive force, merely codified as religion to control masses of humanity, localizing power in the hands of a dictatorial few.
Nowadays atheism should be listed as a religion, since it is a world-view, which is used to control masses of humanity, localizing power in the hands of a dictatorial few.
"Rick Santorum has won the Republican primaries in Alabama and Mississippi--a dramatic two-state sweep on a night when early expectations favored Mitt Romney in Mississippi." Conservative voters in general, and Christian voters in specific, vote on principle, not popularity, nor by ethnicity, nor provincialism. To be sure the North-South tiff that still lingered for nearly 140 years after the American Civil War was apparently "laid to rest, with the headstone, engraved, 'R.I.P.,'" on the day that Muslim extremists waylaid the Twin Towers in New York City. There is a Southernism, well-known in Georgia, USA, and most applicable to 9/11. "My brother and I can fight, like cats and dogs, as the day is long, but attack one of us, and we'll both be on you, like white on rice!" Nowadays, Americans watch each other's back...as a rule, while living by another modern business phrase, "Trust, but verify," when forced to purchase gasoline from some individual, with a Middle-Eastern face. Before you dump your load of "High and Mighty" on this free-thinker, please note. At no time did I espouse doing harm to anyone, including individuals, who hail from Middle-Eastern countries. (I honestly don't expect the same return-on-investment, if the roles are ever reversed.) However, wisdom was heightened, innocence was destroyed, and caution was sent into over-drive on the day that religious zealots made me painfully-aware of just how dangerous this world really is. Bottom Line: To coin a new remix of an old Southern euphemism, "I trust liars not at all, I trust Democrats in socially-polite theory, and I trust Republicans...only as far as I can throw them." (The last phrase is to be interpreted as wry wit, not literal modus operandi, since I rarely touch people, unless I know them very well.) All of that to say this, we Southerners respect a Northerner, who honors God and country, meaning that he respects The United States Constitution as given to us by our Founding Fathers. Furthermore, we expect him to unwaveringly uphold The Constitution as a STATIC document, not regard it as some flippant revisionist-euphemism, like "organic document." The U.S. Constitution has NEVER needed to be changed.
The U.S. Constitution is worthy of universal RESPECT, and implicit-obedience. Any so-called American, who wishes to gut the Constitution of its inherent strength, which is only-extant in the Original Intent, should show himself/herself to be a newly-honorable human being by renouncing his/her American citizenship, and leaving this country immediately. "America: Love it or Leave it!"(I doubt very seriously, that any individual of that stripe, will regard any of my words as anything more than a great joke, but at least one American knows this would be a great step forward in the direction of correcting an over-arching problem in our country.) Rick Santorum continues to gain ground with excellent souls, who live by principle, not by poll. Truth and Excellence is not the realm of the self-reliant masses of Humanity. Truth and Excellence is the realm of the reliable few, who trust the Only Reliable Word of Eternity. Excellent souls do not worry about great opposition.
Excellent souls are affirmed by great opposition.
Excellent souls are given great pause to consider, when most humans agree with them. It is then that they begin to wonder, "What am I doing wrong?" We must remember that most of History's greatest victories have come against all odds. 1. Gideon's 300 defeated tens of thousands of Midianites with clay-pots, candles, trumpets, and shouts. 2. General Washington was near inevitable surrender, when he was able to ferry away his beleaguered forces across a river under the cover of thick fog, one starless night, to elude the Redcoats in the Revolutionary War. 3. The Allies defeated the Axis forces, over the bodies of scores of dead comrades at Normandy. 4. The Japanese surprise attack on U.S. forces at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, "awoke the sleeping giant," bringing Japan to its knees for many years. 5. The surprise attack on Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City by Islamic extremists was followed by the multi-national, multiple-year manhunt for the two masterminds, Osama ben Laden and Saddam Hussein, who both were brought to Justice at the hands of the United States military of the small, precision strike-force variety. Will God help Rick Santorum win? Is God on Rick Santorum's side? Both of these questions remain to be seen, since The Lord is on the side of no human.
God is on His Own Side. When a human gets his or her heart right, being in agreement with God, then that human can be expected to be blessed by The Lord, whether in the protection from physical death to serve The Lord for a longer time here, or in His protection through death to be forever in His Presence, freed from further attacks on that human's person. Will good, Bible-believing Christians be given the victory of an American President, who loves, honors, and reveres The Bible in November of 2012? If that serves The Lord's Purpose for this moment in HIStory, due to a sufficient number of American hearts being revived and turned back to God, then Yes, that could indeed be the outcome of this American Presidential Election. However, if America, like Sodom and Gomorrah of old, lack the remnant of righteous persons, then The Lord could choose to remove the righteous souls, that do remain, exacting Justice in some form, including the retention of the individual, who could more accurately be named, President Nebuchadnezzar. Bottom Line: Even if President Rick Santorum is inaugurated in January, 2013, very little will change in this country of greatest moral value, until the Lord's people in America, humble themselves on their faces before The Lord of Glory in real Repentance of our national moral WICKEDNESS. (II Chronicles 7:14)
American Presidential Elections have much more in common with the WWE and the WCW, than with actual change in the direction in which this nation's history is moving.
1. During the pre-match interviews
with pro-wrestling combatants, there is a great deal of verbal posturing
. "Thunder-Gut, I'm going to slam you to the mat so hard you're going to remember things your Momma did before you were born!
" screams Tabula Rasa Brain, while the MC continues to try to wring the water out of the microphone cover from his last interview. Bottom Line to this comical charade
: WWE and WCW have long been rumored to be nothing more than carefully-orchestrated ballet dances between two American sumo wrestlers, who have a "gentleman's agreement" that they will not actually hurt each other.
American Presidential Candidates don't have a "throw-down on a wrestling mat
," but they do still wet a lot of microphones
trying to make the public believe that they are actually have a contest.
: Choreographed like an immaculate ballet, both professional wrestlers and Presidential candidates dance around throwing punches in a seemingly flawless display of gratuitous "violence-that-doesn't-really-hurt.
The Primary season every four years has to be slightly more civilized, (although current ads don't show that much,) since the final party nominee must be supported, (at least publicly,) by his former opponents, when the General Election season rolls-around.
Today's primary in Alabama and Mississippi pits Santorum against Gingrich or is it Santorum versus Romney or Romney versus Gingrich? Only time will tell, one would suppose.
Sadly, Divide and Conquer
seems to send the contest into the Democrats' court for a very obvious win.
We Americans truly are a fickle bunch.
We tend to prefer underdogs.
Box us into a mold, and we will squeeze-out, going in another direction entirely, just to "hairlip the devil.
We despise people "figuring us out.
If the American populous is still "Man-Enough to do so
," then we will vote-out the unrighteous interloper, who has declared squatter's rights on the highest office of the Executive Branch of our government. Constitutional Americans will elect Rick Santorum
in a landslide over the current no-name POTUS44. Teddy Roosevelt Americans will elect Newt Gingrich
in a landslide over the current no-name POTUS44, with the help of Constitutional Americans,...if that is possible. Progressive Republicans will nominate Mitt Romney for President
, only to elect the current no-name POTUS44 to four more years of the destruction of our way of life, and quite possibly the dissolution of this nation in its present form.
Why will a Mitt Romney, Republican candidacy for United States President, insure four more years of increasing pain for the American electorate? First, that outcome would NOT be sure.
I would be forced to vote for Mitt Romney, because the current President is NOT a natural-born U.S. citizen. (The rest of the world can "shout until they are blue-in-the-face" that he is, and I still will NOT believe you. Talk to somebody, who is gullible. I am not.) Secondly, a Mitt Romney Presidency would only provide a slightly-better "speed-bump on the road to Hell" for our nation
than the present POTUS, since the Kenyan has taken it upon himself the "grease the road
," Mitt Romney would be the only legitimate candidate in the race, and at least Mitt Romney is proud of his belief in God, whereas POTUS44 keeps it to himself
, consistently. Finally
, in the pragmatic assessment of public policies, during the span of terms in office, the race between Obama and Romney would be much like a trip to a fancy coffee shop.
"Will we be having a mocha or a latte?
" The color on the outside may be different, but it is all just expensive coffee. Obamacare vs. Romneycare
... Who gives a care? None of us want to pay the gargantuan cost, and THAT is something, about which we DO care.
It's all just a Washingtonian Power-Grab, not unlike the machinations of a British king more than two centuries ago now, that caused a ragtag bunch of farmers and businessmen to "stake (their) lives, (their) fortunes, and (their) sacred honor
" on the establishment of freedom from tyranny.
Modern Americans have no more "ponds" to cross to flee tyranny.
This Presidential contest will decide whether or not Americans still have the freedom to pull our pants back up or continue to endure the liberal social-enima fomented by Washington, District of Corruption
Frankly, the rest of the world should be just as interested in the outcome of the American Presidential race as we Americans are, since I have a gut feeling that "as goes America, so goes the world."
(If TEK Journalism-UK
is any indication, then there is great reason for hope, regarding the worldwide interest in this election.)
If a smooth "Jacob" of a man can sweet-talk his way into eight-years of elicit living-above-the-Consitutional-Rules of America
, (and for the most part, getting away with it
, due to the blessing of the world powers-that-be
, which control our main media outlets, our largest educational facilities, and many influential seats of national and state governments
, then what is to stop him from sweet-talking the European Union into giving him some newly-established office of say, European Prime Minister, hmmm?The World Wrestling Entertainment Championship Belt
could have an entirely new meaning to it, depending on the outcome of the American Presidential Election.
“In May 2002, the WWF was renamed
to World Wrestling Entertainment
(WWE) and the championship became known as the WWE Undisputed Championship.” Even the name-change of the actual, physical wrestlers, who smack sweaty muscles for a living, should give some indication of the intentions of both wrestlers and politicians.
Rigged? Could be. Maybe not, but then again...
In order to be thought of as a loving individual these days, one must love all humans, (and maybe even everything in existence,) equally, and equally-well.
However, one wonders, if that is desirable (or even possible.)
For instance, what does the word, “love
,” mean? Does anybody really know? “I love my Mom!” “I love chocolate!” “I love cats!” “I love the Yankees!” “I love roses!” “I love my girlfriend!” “I love football/soccer!” “I love hot dogs!” “I love diamonds!” “ I love sushi!” “I love Republicans!” “I love dolphins!” “I love Democrats!” “I love peace!” “I love God!” “I love war!” “I love for everybody to get along!” “I love for everybody to get along to leaving me alone!” “I love dogs!
Would everyone ever profess to love cats and their Moms the same way? (Please, consider before responding, I have known individuals, who appeared to love their cats more than their Moms.)
Does any Intellect love everyone to the same degree? ...to the same level? ...to the same quality?
The Greek language has become famous for coining four words to describe love in different ways, on different levels, and to different degrees.
,” (from which we received our English word, “erotic,”) is love is that sensual, sexual, passionate, pleasurable, self-grasping/other-grasping sport of satisfying one of life’s strongest physical/emotional desires, (which can often present itself as a “need.”)
’” is the familial love, that can be nurtured well or nearly destroyed in the first two decades of life, due to the required-proximity of family, (or family-substitute,) during the years of our inability to provide or to care for ourselves by ourselves in most cases.
” speaks of the strong friendships of life, that remain strong, no matter what life throws at these friends.
’” is the selfless love of one intellect to another intellect that invests in the best interest of the loved one, (without consideration about; desire for; nor cessation, due to the lack of;) reciprocal love from the one, being loved so unconditionally.
Though agape’ love is often attributed to humans, who have laid their lives in the protection of the lives of others, rare is the living human, who can achieve, (let alone maintain,) love to the degree of selflessness to qualify for the appellation of “agape’.”
The Only God, Who Exists, has the Ability to express Agape’ Love in its purest form, without even the hint of error, the accusations of humans, notwithstanding.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.
” (John 3:16)
“For God so loved the world,...
” Do you say, “Winston, you are wrong, it says plainly here that ‘...God so loved the world’.”
What kind of love DID God have for the world?
- Erotic? I don’t think so, (and His Word assures me, that is a given.)
- Storge’? Probably, since I would be moved to save a family member from harm.
- Phileo? Again, there is merit for this, since I care about my friends that much, too.
- Agape’? This is the tipping-point. God mounted His Rescue Plan to Save souls from the sinking Titanic of Humanity for the Glory of His Own Name, valuing humans, who were the bad-seed of the only innocent couple, who sinned-away their innocence.
“Okay, we now know the why, but the verse clearly mentions “the world
” as object of His Love, doesn’t it?
How many passengers of the H.M.S. Titanic were saved on the night of their demise, approximately one century ago now? Not nearly enough? True that!
Did everyone try to get into the lifeboats? No.
The captain, apparently, “went down with the ship.
Some, realizing that there were insufficient seats on lifeboats, no doubt resigned themselves to deck chairs to pass their last few minutes in the peace of resignation.
Some may have jumped into the ocean in search of apparently-substantial flotsam, unaware that the water’s temperature would make their buoyancy a moot point.
Some were drowned, while going back for valuables. (Some may have even jumped in the ocean with pockets full of gems and precious metals, only to sink beyond the attainment of buoyant flotsam.)
“...that He gave His only begotten Son,...
” If Humanity is pictured by the Titanic, and the Titanic’s owners provided insufficient lifeboats for the number of passengers that cursed night, then is The Lord to blame for the millions of lives that will be forever lost in Hell?
Of course not... This is where the stark contrast between the Wisdom of God and the wisdom of Man is clearly seen.
The White Star Line had more than enough lifeboats at their disposal, during the outfitting of the Titanic, to provide safe passage for twice the compliment of the living souls on the Titanic.
Why were they recalcitrant in doing so? Human Pride.
The apocryphal retelling of the events of that night, include the Divine epithet, “Not even God could sink this ship.
To this remix of Isaiah 14:12-14, the Godhead may be imagined to to look Each Other knowingly, “Did You just feel a gauntlet across the Face, Loved Ones? Of course, we did. The rude tauntings and presumptive challenges of human pride is incompatible with Perfect Holiness and Majesty. Though we could prevent their little boat from ‘getting a cold shoulder, we will not, since that would violate their will. This is very sad, but necessarily true.
The Lord, on the other hand, has provided the Lifeboat that is necessary for Saving every human life that will ever be Saved.
Not to mention the fact there remains Lifeboat space, totally-used, due to insipid human wisdom, which is still being used by the leaders of Humanity this very day. “We don’t want the Lifeboat, labelled ‘Jesus,’ on this ocean-going vessel. That would look too exclusionist. We have myriad lifeboats, lining the perimeter of the vessel, labelled, ‘Buddah,’ ‘Confucius,’ ‘Allah,’ ‘Evolution,’ ‘Science,’ ‘New Age,” ‘Post-Modernism,’ ‘The Enlightenment,’ and ‘Humanity,’ to name a few.
“...that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.
With agape’ appreciated and received, storge’ and phileo becomes firmly ensconced in the life of the believer. Respond in affirmative reception to The Lord’s initial Offer of Agape’ Love, and the depths of The Lord’s Love are revealed as extant in the Package.
“...that whosoever (does not) believe in Him, should...perish,...(to) have everlasting (death, aka ‘separation from God’.)
To reject the agape’s love of God is to cause pain in the Heart of God, but just as with human jilted lover, (but to an infinitely great degree,) there comes a time, when overtures to love come to an end, and the loving heart resolves to demonstrate love one final time to the hard-hearted, unreceptive, would-be lover by giving the loved one the very thing that the rejecter has consistently demanded.
“Go away, and leave me alone!
” To this God, the Jilted Lover responds, “As you wish.
It seems to me that Richard Dawkins once said something to the effect, that “If God does exist, I wouldn’t want to go to Heaven to live forever with such an unpleasant Individual. That would be Hell.”
Giving Hell to such individuals, seems to be God’s Agreement with that assessment.
Really now,...is there any human or superhuman individual that you could imagine, who would “just love everybody in the world,” with such a syrupy-sweet “love,” that nothing anybody did ever mattered to effect that love in any way?
We would call this kind of person, “insane,” wouldn’t we? Rightly so! We murdered The Only Son of The Only God because we didn’t believe that He was The Only Son of the Only God.
The bulk of the human race maintains that world-view today.
However, The Only Son of The Only God raised Himself up on that Third Day to an entirely NEW physical human life, that those of us, who are receptive to His Agape’ Love, could experience His Universal Love for believers, eternally.
Need Proof? Ten of the original twelve disciples of Jesus of Nazareth died the death of a martyr, against their personal wills. None of them tried to become a martyrs. Each of them had martyrdom forced upon them. (The same thing happened to the first deacon, Stephen.)
John, the Beloved, spent the bulk of his latter years, exiled to the Isle of Patmos, because he was too tough of an old bird to kindly die in a vat of boiling oil.
People die for causes that they believe in every day, but who dies for a Known Lie? Not me, and certainly not the first martyrs, who knew Jesus personally. (When He showed Himself to them in the upper room, after His Resurrection, nobody asked for ID, except Thomas, who was not there. When ID was presented, he fell on his face, before his Friend, Who IS God.)
Still got a bone to pick about “universal love?”
Sorry, but it can’t be one of Jesus’ bones.
No human being has ever produced those to the satisfaction of the world, beyond a reasonable doubt. Love is a many splendored thing.
The contemporary idea of love is a many splintered thing, which gets under the skin, causing eternal-festering.
The Monarchy is a great school master for the comprehension of God.
One does not question the word of the King, who is truly Regal, through and through. One accepts the Character of Majesty as Truth.
With all due respects, Great Britain’s Royal Family has appeared to be sadly affected by the spirit of this age, causing them to fail time and again to live up to their noble station in the Kingdom.
May The Lord be gracious to give Her Majesty continued long life, until one of the youthful princes may be found, who once again embraces his inherent nobility.
One does not toss Love, that is truly Love, onto the trash heap of Humanity, since one recognizes that this Love characterized the God, Who created us, Who redeemed His Own, and Who liberates His Own to the Freedom of the fulfilling service of loving Him in return.
“Aslan is not a tame Lion, but He is Good.
” (C. S. Lewis)
The United States of America has been increasingly demoralized, since World War II, due to the latest generations of Societal leaders, who are apparently determined to write checks on the Bank of our Collective Morality, using their pens of flesh, rather than to build our future on the knees, writing checks of the Bank of our Collective Morality in blood, while sacrificing their flesh.
"The question that lurked in many minds, even as Mr. Clinton won six primaries in the South, including the hard-fought contest in Florida, was whether the Democrats were playing into the Republicans' hands. The Arkansas Governor, in the view of many political professionals, would be highly vulnerable to assault by the Republicans this fall because of questions about his extramarital relations, his draft status during the Vietnam war and his financial dealings while Governor." Apparently, little has changed in twenty years. There is not one Democrat, nor one allegedly-unbiased newscaster in the country, who has the moral right to say anything, regarding anything of a moral nature, against any Republican Presidential candidate this year, since those same op-ed writers/pundits were consistently the VERY ones, who fought to keep the First Cigar from being Impeached. "Godliness makes a nation great, but sin is a disgrace to any people." (Proverbs 14:34, NLT) Even skeptics, who laugh at the statement that "The Bible is The Word of God," are on-record agreeing that in their words, "The Bible is a good book, that teaches morality." Well, if that is the case, then read It and weep. I know of no country in the so-called "civilized world," that has much of a moral track-record in the past half-century. There is a heinous, distressing, and perverted increase in the acceptance of "sleeping-around," "coming-out-of-the-closet," "a woman's right to chose (murder)," demands for the total embracing of "alternative-lifestyles," even demanding said from the mouths of those of us, who despise the travesty of these egregious Crimes Against Humanity.
"MR. GERGEN: 'In many, many states the Republican turnout actually went down in some, went up in others, but the Republican share of the primary vote in the South is up in almost every state. It's up significantly in some states. For instance, four years ago among all the primary voters 40 percent were voting at a Republican primary, this time 50 percent voting at a Republican primary. That suggests even as Bill Clinton was sweeping this out from the Democratic side, that George Bush retains a great deal of strength there and indeed, I think that's why he would still be favored in a general election against Bill Clinton.'"
During the primaries of 1992, Bill Clinton was not given much chance to defeat the much-stronger, greatly-favored, sitting President George W. Bush. However, when the tall philanderer from Arkansas, promised America money-out-the-wazoo because he was going to "steal from the rich to give to those 'poor little down & outers'," he was able to hoodwink a large enough minority of voters to gerrymander sufficient Electoral Votes to ensconce his abortion-loving, homosexual-loving self in the Oval Office. The next four years proved to be a continual party for Flower-Boy, while the first female "President" ran things. Hyperbole? "Sour Grapes?" You are quite welcome to believe that, if you wish. (You would be wrong, but this is still a free country thanks to Christians, like me.)However, our current Secretary of State is on-record, during the 1992 Presidential Election Cycle, "'If you vote for him,' Hillary once said, 'you get me.'...She has been called the Winnie Mandela of American politics, the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock; she has been labelled a radical feminist,...Richard Nixon, the rehabilitated elder statesmen of the Republican Party, has said, 'Hillary pounds the piano so hard that Bill can't be heard. You want a wife who's intelligent, but not too intelligent.'" So,...you think it's the Stupid Economy that is causing all of Society's problems. Really? 1. The fact that Americans have aborted more than an entire generation of potentially-working Americans, who would be in their twenties and their thirties now, has absolutely no bearing on the Economy? Are we Stupid? What about the seniors, who will soon have no Social Security to draw, since those young workers were murdered, and murder sucks-out your ability to produce as well as to reproduce. 2. The fact that individuals, who practice unspeakable acts in privacy, (and way-too-often in public,) with other individuals of their same gender/same mind-set, and who therefore cannot reproduce by themselves has absolutely no bearing on the Economy? The individuals in this category cannot add to the reproducible, and by extension, the Production Economy of the Future, through the efforts of their chosen sexual practices. Homosexuals may be allowed by some societal environments to rear children. However, that is only scientifically-possible through either adoption or through a third-party sperm-donor. Homosexuals cannot produce offspring by themselves. That is a scientific-impossibility.Homosexuality is an economic drain on Society's Future Economy, and therefore is an issue that must be addressed by thinking economists the world-over. If "it IS the Economy, Stupid," then this so-called lifestyle is pretty stupid with regards to the Economy of our children and grandchildren. 3. The fact that the Federal Government, which has increased Trade Deficits to an exponential-rate, during virtually every year, since the United States went-off the Gold Standard, during the Nixon Administration, has absolutely no bearing on the Economy? In layman's terms, leaving the Gold Standard was the same as saying, "An ounce of gold has always been worth one American dollar. If we leave this Gold Standard behind, then you will start making more money every year. In addition to that, if you keep ounces of gold in your treasure trove, then its value will increase every year, too. How does that make you feel about these wonderfully 'smart' leaders that you have elected?" Sorry, but I smell Las Vegas Switch on a national level, Major Big Time! (There is no reason for any reader to consider that this writer has any real love for Republicans as a political party/ideology. When Republicans are measured against Absolute Truth, very few measure-up better than Democrats. The closest comparison that I can give to illustrate the political environment of contemporary-America would be ancient Israel, after the death of Solomon. The Democrats are the 10 Northern Tribes, who retained the name of Israel. The Republicans are the two remaining Southern Tribes, who acquired the name of Judah. Democrats/Israel consistently-followed immoral, ungodly leaders 100% of the time. Republicans/Judah had maybe 15-20% moral, godly leadership. The rest were for all practical purposes Democrats/Israel. That is both depressingly sad and unnecessarily tragic.)To review, we find that sitting-President George H. W. Bush-POTUS41 was "sitting pretty" in the spring Primary Season of his bid for reelection. (Does that sound, like anybody we know?) Yet, former-Governor William Jefferson Clinton defeated President Bush with significantly-less than 50% of the Popular Vote by the American Electorate. Clinton, the gerrymandering, philandering, pro-choice, pro-homosexual, anti-morality, devoid-of-character, strongly-liberal, allegedly-christian member of America's "Flower Children" generation,......defeated the moderately-conservative, weak, nominally-spined President Bush, who was caught in the "Read my lips, 'No New Taxes'" Broken Promise,... ...with the aid of Texas businessman, Dumbo-ears-on-steroids, grapes-up-the-nose whiner, allegedly-Independent candidate, Ross Perot, who syphoned-off sufficient conservative votes to get Clinton elected so that Perot could go back to doing what he apparently-enjoyed, "making money hand-over-fist," until the next time that Clinton needed to play the same insipid ruse in front of the American populous to get Clinton re-elected. Focusing on the Economy IS Stupid! America MUST fall on our faces before Holy God in absolute, true-hearted, abject Repentance, begging for His Mercy, that He might SAVE us from ourselves. If The Lord does not Save us from our inevitable DOOM, then none of these lightweight humans has a prayer of a chance to save us. (II Chronicles 7:14) There is absolutely NO ALTERNATIVE for us. Why thank you! I am indeed a "prophet of doom," the same way that a disaster-relief worker is a "prophet of doom," when he/she refuses to let you drive your car further down the road to a bridge that has crumbled, due to the erosion created by flood waters. Feel free to say, "Thank you!"...Or not. Your choice. (WOW! Conservative, AND pro-choice, at no extra charge.) ;)Just in case you don't mind too terribly, I would prefer to wear the title of "compassionate accountability-partner." That has a much nicer ring to it.
Geology proves that The Earth IS less than 10,000 years old. At the same time, geology shows evidence that the Earth "looks like" it has evolved over billions of years. This explanation is consistent with the Genesis account of the Creation. In order for Adam to be instantly able to care for himself without the need for parents, The Lord created Adam with Apparent AGE. This meant that when Adam was less than one day old, he appeared to be, arguably between 15 - 25 years of age.Setting up the ratio comparison,... In his first minute of existence, Adam... could arguably be said to appear 20 years of age. If we allow that for the sake of this argument one minute of Actual Time is equal to twenty years of Apparent Age, then mathematically, we can set-up a ratio equation in numeric terms to enhance comprehension of the same concept. Let us begin by restating the math truisms that have long been established. One minute is 60 seconds.
One hour is 60 minutes long as well as being 3600 seconds.
One day is 24 hours, 1440 minutes, and 86,400 seconds.
One week is seven days, 168 hours, 10,080 minutes, and 60,4800 seconds.
One month is four standard-weeks; 672 hours; 40,320 minutes; and 2,419,200 seconds.
One year is 12 months, 52 weeks, 365 standard-days, 8760 hours, 525,600 minutes, and 31,536,000 seconds.
Completing the posit of facts, we find that... 20 years X 365 days = 7300 days.
7300 days X 24 hours = 175,200 hours
175,200 hours X 60 minutes = 10,512,000 minutes
10,512,000 minutes X 60 seconds = 630,720,000 seconds
Further written as a comparative ratio, the equation would be...in actual years over apparent years. (These are huge numbers to be sure, but to those of us, who can still remember high school, it is the cross-multiply and divide procedure that helps us find the answer to the equation, 1/2 = 4/x, which results in the answer of x = 8.)
1/630,720,000 = 10,000/x
(I have allowed for a 10,000 old Earth for the sake of this debate, since those of us, who believe the Earth to be relatively young in agreement with The Bible, consider 10,000 years to be old for the age of the Earth as compared to the billions of years range believed by those, who discredit The Bible in deference to evolution.)
When we cross-multiply and divide, we find that 1 multiplied by x = x, and 630,720,000 X 10,000 = 6,307,200,000,000. (In word designations the second half of the equation is rendered six hundred thirty million, seven hundred twenty thousand times ten thousand equals to six trillion, three hundred seven billion, 200 million!) According to Wikipedia, "Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."Many evolutionary scientists profess to believe that the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old by appearance, but in one-to-one ratio with the creation of the first Man, Adam, the Earth should arguably appear to be nearly six and a half trillion years old (or approximately 1000 times older than "the Old Girl" actually does look.)Bottom Line: The Bible declares that The LORD created Adam with the essential apparent age that was necessary for his own self-care as well as for the tasks required of him by God, but The LORD created "Mother Earth" with only enough apparent age to look fully-mature, while maintaining her looks to a greater degree than HE did for Adam!In conclusion, it may be inferred that The LORD created a Man to "look older," but HE created a LADY to still appear quite young.Comparing geological estimates of Earth's Apparent Age (4.5 billion years) to my calculations of Earth's Expected-to-be-Apparent Age (6.3 trillion years,) we may set-up another ratio to determine how much of a compliment The LORD has given the LADY, (aka "Mother Earth.") (We will simplify by rounding to the nearest trillion and billion for ease of calculation purposes...) What would be the apparent age of a 70 year old woman, if she was 1000 times younger-looking? Two options show-up through further mathematical computations. If we make the mistake of dividing 70 years into 1000 times younger-than-actual appearance, then the result is a 70-year-old woman, who appears to be 14.3 years of age. However, if we correctly divide 1000 times younger-than-actual appearance into 70 years of actual age, then the result would be a 70 year old woman, who appears to be 8.4 months old. Who said, "The Lord hates women!" That was certainly not me. However, I am the one, who consistently says that The Bible is light-years more complimentary to the human race in general, (and ladies in specific,) than evolutionary theory has any potential of being. On top of that The Bible is worlds more agreeable with actual scientific evidence than evolution has any potential-intelligence to be. Even if the reader chooses to remain philosophically-unconvinced by the posit that The Bible has more concrete evidence to back-up the claim of The Bible's position as Absolute Truth, the reader cannot deny that this claim is at least arguable. (The stunning photos of this article were taken by a camera purchased on Ebay, and duct-taped to a weather-balloon. My great compliments to Robert Harrison of Highburton, West Yorkshire, England.)