Speech is violence?

These days the New Left claim that speech is violence - or, more precisely, that it can be.

So, true to form, in typical reaction, the Right claim that as a matter of fact it is not

Speech is not violence? the trouble is the Bible says something quite contrary: Life and death is in the power of the tongue: Proverbs 18:21. As this passage does not mean that the tongue is the conduit for supernatural energies which absurdity is what the positive confession types say, it has to mean something else.

And what? That you can destroy a person with cruel words or build them up with kind words.

Anyone who has felt the agony of cruel verbal rebuke knows this, and it is only indicative of the callousness of the Right that they deny this - unless of course they are so perfect and well beloved as to never have been bawled out, rebuked etc etc or have never been harassed online, or bullied in anyway that stopped short of physical beating

Scripture also adds James chapter 3, all of it - including this So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire!(verse 5) Also the Sermon on the mount - he who calls his brother raca - any term of contempt -   is guilty of (ie worthy of - hellfire Matthew 5:22 IOW speech IS violence. The Bible says so. What then is wrong with the Left when they state this? they define violence only to suit themselves, to excuse and exempt their own violent speech; and they think that legal stricture will correct it when it appears in anyone else other than themselves. But of course they hold their violent speech is righteous and this excuses all things. If those of the Right call themselves christian and profess to believe the Bible to be the word of God then they really have no right to deny this fact here. If some are atheistic and Right Wing - rare perhaps but they do exist - , well that is no business of mine' As for the Left's wanting to legislate hate speech: if Law could solve anything there was no need for a New Covenant. if the Right had any sense at all they will oppose the Left's legalism, not its more or less valid appeal to a true fact, namely that speech is - ie can be - violence. But if they, the Right want to blaspheme the name of the Lord, a Right Wing predilection and this because they confuse Right Wing politics with godliness and the left being mostly atheist, do not , well . . . . .

Be my guest

The Thunberg Outburst

if HOW DARE YOU? were a real question instead of an outburst of outrage she should be prepared to listen to the answer,

"we dare because the science you - ie Ms Thunberg - appeal to is junk

"we dare because even if you were right terrorizing people - ie other children - into a panic is criminal

"we dare because questions of science are nuanced, and you are incapable of such, by your own admission of having Asbergers

"we dare because even if you are right - but you are not - if it doesn't get paid for it does NOT GET DONE, so concerns about money are crucial. But you, child, are too young to know that money is what makes the world work, like it or not

"we dare because as regards truth -did your handlers ever teach you such an outlandish notion - your feelings have no relevance whatsoever but you offered nothing but feelings, hence your outburst is utterly irrelevant

"we dare because some of us who actually grew up know that the self righteousness of teenagers is something we all went through, in my case nearly 40 years ago, and that it shows shallowness and narrowness of mind so counts for nothing"

and if she were to ask HOW DARE YOU? to my face

I would answer this poor spoiled child in this aforementioned manner

after all it really would not be kind to ask her some questions about science: namely about outgassing, albedo. photosynthesis, Milankovich cycles, cosmic rays, the geologic record, and also about world history which is relevant to the question. I say this because I know she knows nothing about these and to humiliate a disturbed child would really be cruel

New Liberal and SJW Politics

It has been said that modern liberal thought is a christian construct.  Yes indeed. it never rose in lands that were never nominally christian.

Individual liberty was never a part of non Western cultures, nor human rights

I don't think much of G K Chesterton but he did come up with some real gems.

one of them was "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting because it has never been tried"

This is more true than i suspect even he would admit to.

What has been lost in the West is not christian faith but the hypocrisy of a society which held to some aspects of a christian worldview and thought that justified pretending to believe the Gospel of Christ. But though the gospel requires the christian worldview to make sense it is not the same thing as said world view

That being so all that remains is the heretical remnants of a Christianity gutted by removing the Holy Spirit - and this was done long long ago, long before the so called Age of Reason. Indeed the gutted remnant of the forms of faith is essentially the course of church history.

But some of these remnants have been fetishized - love, kindness, justice. When made idols or fetishes of they become twisted; and because with the reality of the Holy Spirit rejected our attempts to be loving kind and just will come up hard against our own inclinations to the contrary. This hate cruelty and injustice in all of us has to go somewhere so the New Left will vent it on their opponents, thinking it is righteous anger. It is of course nothing of the kind.

this is the liberalism of the new class of SJW fanatics.

someone said the cults were the unpaid bills of the church, that is to say the cults got traction because we the church had only own unbelief and hypocrisy and people had to go somewhere to have their real needs met

so we brought and paid for this latest SJW mania. it is the inevitable outcome of our own history

The Thunberg Phenomenon

Even if Greta Thunberg, child activist, even now likened by some activists to Joan of Arc or Jesus returned Himself, even if she is correct about global warming being man made and ongoing, she is acting in a way that is the height of irresponsibility.

She is on record as saying that we should be panicking as if our house were on fire, because it is

I have been in a few fire drills, but thank God I have never been in any real fires.

What do the fire wardens say?

"Move quickly and quietly to your nearest designated exit. Do not run. DO NOT PANIC."

Panic has people screaming hysterically and running aimlessly, killing each other in the stampede.

If a person shouts "FIRE" in a crowded theatre panic will ensue. People WILL likely die, even if there were no fire. And if there were no fire that person shouting so as to initiate the panic would be criminally liable; and if there were fire a stampede from said panic is still not a rational manner to respond. Otherwise, I might ask, why are fire drills the way they are, if panic is not only necessary but desirable?

Panic is the enemy of rational response to even a real disaster.

I repeat: to spread panic even in the name of the real threat ios the height of irresponsibility.

Greta Thunberg is on record as saying herself that she has severe mental problems : despair, depression   selective mutism  and refusing to eat for long periods.

A mind given to such extremes of despair is not given to balance or nuance.

But she never put her self forward. She  is a pawn of various interests who, in complete cynical disregard for the welfare of a child who is immature for her 16 years - she looks 12 -  think that an argument that has no traction will become credible if put in the mouth of said disabled child.

It is vile child abuse of the most cynical and brutal kind.

Her parents and handlers should be liable to criminal  charges, and the child herself ,  Greta Thunberg should be removed from the public arena before further damage is done to her, for I understand that autistic children of all degrees - and asbergers is a lesser degree of autism - need peace , quiet, regular routine and a controlled environment.

As for the issue itself, that of Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming, that is to be debated soberly with recourse to evidence, fact, logic and free and open  disclosure of all information and data by all scientists involved.

A society so bereft of reason to as to listen to a disabled child whose disability is mental is in a parlous state and will fall if that madness continues.

I have not addressed the issue itself here. That will come later, if I deem it worth the effort

Good Christians, Good Muslims

Good Christians read their Bibles, believe their Bibles and do what it says

Good Muslims read their Korans, believe their Korans and do what it says.

So what is the difference?

It is clearly what the  respective books command

Are murderous people who name Christ good Christians? Absolutely not.

Are murderous people who shout Allahu Akbar while killing what they call unbelievers good Muslims?

Go do some study and find out.

In times like this it is utterly imperative for people to study this matter.

To those who say I might be or am inciting hatred i  say this:

since when is studying a text in a scholarly manner and encouraging the same  an incitement to anything other than eye strain and the attendant ills of a sedentary life?

Don't trust your politicians who are intent on virtue signalling.

If Islam itself permits telling lies in its service you cannot trust Muslims either. So you must go to their text  to see if it does in fact permit telling lies in its service

Any real religion especially if it has a holy Book, is determined by the doctrines in its writings, and not by the lives of those who profess to follow it.

If we are lazy in this matter we could very well pay a terrible price in this matter.

Go and study.

While you can

Teresa Might

on the resignation of  the  British PM and her refusal to  stand for Brexit

Teresa May Teresa Might but what she Will is never fight for to what she Must she claims no right. Teresa's dawn is now DARK NIGHT

A First Post on nationalism and globalism

I regard globalism as a great and terrible evil.

I posted the following on a blog site which applauded nationalism as a virtue,  But . .

 . . . I do not agree that nationalism, touted as the remedy for such  is a virtue. I am well aware that God set up the nations, but he did so as recorded in the Tower of Babel event ; to keep man in separated groups lest his energies be pooled and unspeakable evil come about.

At best nationalism is a pragmatic strategy on the part of the Living God in the face of human sin. It is a lesser evil.

Why? The nations - all of them - rage against God and devise a vain thing (Psalm 2). I have never seen a patriot who was not an idolator; and no they do not love God, not when their love for their nation still has them treat their neighbour - the poor of their nations - with contempt. Besides if the nations are so good why are they in such a state of perpetual war such that some foolish minds hope to abolish war by abolish the nations? War is in our bones, not in our political constitutions

And let us consider that the story of the so called Good Samaritan the Samaritan in question did a good deed to someone his own people loathed and despised; and the feeling between Jews and Samaritans was mutual. Such mercy is not the hallmark of a patriot.

I am not a patriot. I act as a good citizen only because God commands me not to discredit the Gospel by bad behaviour, but my home is not this earth, for I am a citizen of heaven and a sojourner on this earth

Let us also grant that the Globalists are correct on the evils nationalism has spawned. The 20th century is full of the wreckage it produced. But the Globalists, in reaction to this undeniable fact want to go lurching like a drunkard blindly into something infinitely worse.

Globalism is of the devil, but the two evils here are not equal, for globalism is much, much worse.

But as we men are all evil we can only appeal to another idolatry (nationalism) to oppose an idolatry (Globalism).

Certainly Bergoglio - i will not dignify him with the papal name he arrogated to himself - has denied the Christian faith on more than one occasion.

I will let the mad frenzy of the nations continue to rage as scripture says they do. The farce will play itself out even if and when it ends with them achieving their one world dystopia. For dystopia it is, of such horror that Christ Himself must descend to earth with his host of saints in His retinue to destroy it.

But all in due time