Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts

September 4, 2018

Lack of Meaning in the Lives of Leftists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen


In the first season of the hardcore humanistic evolutionary show Star Trek: The Next Generation, the entity known as Q was antagonizing Captain Picard and the starship's crew. Picard misquoted Shakespeare. The misquote is not so much the issue, but Picard's attitude toward humanity:
PICARD: Oh, no. I know Hamlet. And what he might said with irony, I say with conviction. What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god. [Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2]
Q: Surely you don't really see your species like that, do you?
PICARD: I see us one day becoming that, Q.
He may as well have stamped his foot and said, "We're humanity! Don't underestimate us, because we've evolved into a great and noble species!" Wishful thinking, Cappy.

To summarize entropy in the most basic terms, everything goes from order to disorder. Devolution. I have the opinion that we are going societal entropy. If you study on it a spell, you might agree, since we can sit here and recite a passel of negative things going on. I also believe it is only by the grace of God that everything hasn't imploded.

Leftists seem to have a "purpose" in life of anger and opposition. Christians and Conservatives show a much more positive outlook.
Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Kenny Holston
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by the US Department of Defense)
Have you noticed that atheists and others who deny the authority of the Bible tend to be politically on the left? Anti-creationists such as this one seek to silence those who disagree with them through ridicule, misrepresentation, outright lies, and so on. Somehow, the political views of creationists negate whatever they have to say regarding evidence for special creation and questioning global climate change. Go to an atheist forum or social media area, and will you not only find a paucity of rational thought (such as equating all forms of "religion" in an excuse to demonize Christianity), but leftist propaganda. You will also notice an abundance of hatred for those who do not hold to their furious, irrational views.

One of the biggest problems with the anger and violence of the left is when the media ignore it. It is the rule, not the exception, to see a report that could be summed up as, "People in Venezuela are starving, and eating pink flamingos to stay alive. Now we'll spend another hour on hatred of Conservatives..." By the way, they leave out the fact that Venezuela was almost a paradise until socialists took over and ran it into the ground. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn think that it's a socialist utopia down there. Did you know that the guy who commenced to shooting Republicans was a Bernie Sanders supporter? How about how Candace Owens could not even have breakfast in peace because of fascists claiming to be anti-fascists? No, the leftist media tends to drop or even ignore stories that do not support their agenda. 

People here in the socialist republic on New York are afraid to wear Republican apparel, paste bumper stickers, and even discuss their views in public. (I have heard about this same fear in other leftist-dominated states as well.) This was going on back when George W. Bush was up for reelection, and people had their vehicles vandalized, were run off the road, and physically assaulted by leftists. I remember people claiming to be depressed and needing counseling when Bush won the election. Now it is worse, and some call it "Trump Anxiety Disorder" and "Trump Derangement Syndrome". Republicans did not act like this when Caliph B. Hussein Obama played emperor for eight years.



Here is some audio that supports what I've been saying. Steve Malzberg was filling in for Chris Plante, and he had some very interesting things to say. While the entire show is interesting, I'm asking you to listen to the first hour, beginning at the 7 minutes 40 seconds mark. (The "share" arrow has an option to download the show.)

I have formed an opinion from my observations that leftists, particularly those in the United States, would rather cry about their inept candidate losing because she was lousy, and to give opposition so they can bring down the government, than to work together for the benefit of the country. Atheists, anti-creationists, and leftists are very negative people. It seems that their purpose in life is to not only spread their anger, but throw tantrums and be destructive in general.

Now I have to slip in something else from Chris Plante (the man himself, not a substitute host) from August 31, 2018. Out California way and in some other areas, there's a business called In-N-Out Burger. California Democrats found out that they gave money to (gasp!) Republicans, so the call is out to boycott them! That's right, leftists, since you don't like them (never mind that they also gave money to Democrats as well), they must be punished! Cause a business with hundreds of locations to shut down, put people out of work, all because of your spite. Leftists are mentally ill. You can hear Chris's discussion of them (and Chik-Fil-A) at this link, at the 2 hr. 12 min. 47 sec. mark.

Bible-believing Christians do have a purpose in life, and it is the opposite of destruction and negativity. Of course, some who take exception to having their bad logic and bigotry exposed will have a contrary opinion, but I think the facts support this view. It is also interesting that while misotheists tend to be politically on the left, Christians tend to lean toward the right. Conservatives show that we have more purpose (and a more positive outlook) than those on the left. Captain Picard's naive view of humanity will never come to pass. Sorry, old son.
Are liberals floundering in uncertainty over the meaning of life? A new study indicates that more conservatives feel a sense of purpose than liberals.
A press release from University of Southern California (USC) gives an edge to conservatives. Knowing the overwhelmingly left-leaning atmosphere in academia, one can only imagine if the university was pleased with what psychology doctoral candidate David Newman and co-authors Norbert Schwarz and Arthur Stone found. “What is the meaning of life? Ask a conservative,” reporter Emily Gersena writes for a headline. “Researchers find that, even after accounting for religious belief, the association between political leanings and a sense of purpose were strong.
To read the rest and learn something, click on "Conservatives Feel More Purposeful Lives".



November 7, 2017

Grief and Pain from the Texas Shooter

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article contains a time-sensitive link that may expire soon, at which point, it will be deleted.

The murders of people in Sutherland Springs, Texas, has stirred many emotions. Grief, pain, anger, and others. It has also raised questions about how a loving God could allow this, what were the motives, and just...why? We will never have all the answers tied up in a neat package. We can find some of them.


Christians have hope and comfort despite grief such as caused by Kelley the atheist in Sutherland, Texas
Credit: Pixabay / MissSuss
At this writing, the motives are not known. I'm not going to varnish this, we already know that the killer was a seriously disturbed, violent atheist. Some are saying the motive was because of a domestic situation, others say "unknown" and "uncertain". The rampage may have been far worse if the shooter was not interrupted by the heroic actions of Stephen Willeford. If the motive was due to hatred of his mother-in-law, he could have killed only her elsewhere. The fact that he did this rampage during a church worship service speaks volumes about his moral fiber, and of society today.

Christians have been asking us to pray for the families and the community. (Of course, the leftist governor of New York is politicizing and ridiculing prayer, but we seen many times that the left has disdain for Bible believers.) Still, people are hurting. We can pray that they are comforted and that their faith remains strong. God is still on his throne, and there will be healing and ultimate Judgement. Kelley reportedly killed himself after the massacre, but his eternal problems are just beginning.

The day after the massacre, Ken Ham wrote a short post , "We Now Grieve with a Texas Church". This contains two free downloads: an e-book and a video in two parts. Although I have not read and watched the items, I can say that the process was easy. I hope they will help those who are hurting and have questions.

I'm going to take us on a side trail before I conclude this article.

The killer was an atheist. Not only that, but he apparently knew the truth of God's Word and rejected in. Someone will undoubtedly object, "There is no evidence that he did his killing in the name of atheism!", or some such. A similar objection is raised when Christians point out that the greatest mass murderers were either atheists, Darwinists, or both, bringing to mind what I call the "No True Atheist Fallacy".

Whether a proclamation of atheism was made or not, Kelley and other atheists have a faulty moral compass — they have no consistent, ultimate standard of morality. Indeed, there was really nothing of significance to stop Kelley, Breivik, McVeigh, Dahmer, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others from killing people. I have insisted for some time now that atheists are becoming more strident and angry, and expect that their violence will only increase. Their time is short, and the final Judgement is coming.

When I posted this link about the atheist killer at The Question Evolution Project, a venomous atheopath shared the post to his own page for his ongoing purpose of ridicule. Note his comment, which I highlighted in yellow (click for larger, if needed):



This is outrageous on several levels, and illustrates several scriptural truths (John 8:44, 2 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 2:14). First, not the slightest indication of remorse for the shooting, nor regret that it was done by one of his own kind. Second, people are responsible for their own actions (a concept that leftists do not seem to realize any longer — and most atheists are leftists, by the way). Third, what is the "religious right"? It is a vague phrase used to elicit fear and anger by those who wish to manipulate others who are driven by emotion instead of reason. Fourth, it is a red herring fallacy, a distraction. Fifth, atheists do not trust other atheists. EDIT: To see how this reprobate proved me right, click here.

I do not say this lightly, especially since the term is far overused today, but based on that comment and others this guy has made: he is evil. Not as bad as Kelley, but it would not surprise me in the least to learn that he approves of the murders. Yes, I've seen professing atheists applaud the deaths of Christians.

Dr. Albert Mohler said:
In one very important dimension, this demonstrates why the Christian worldview is so utterly different than every other worldview. Atheism, for instance, must affirm that, at its base, human life is merely a series of accidents. There is no Creator, so there is no human being made in the Creator’s image. Of course atheists would clearly classify this murderous attack in Sutherland Springs, Texas, as evil, but they have no real ability to understand or to embrace the notion of evil with any coherence. Evil is essentially a theological category.
When an atheist does bother to say something is evil, he or she is inadvertently standing on the Christian worldview! Atheism has no consistent moral standard, and is irrational. No wonder they have to use our ultimate standard.

Now we're back to the main trail, and I will conclude this article.

There is hope and comfort in Jesus. Dr. Albert Mohler has an excellent article (excerpted above) that I hope you will read. Click on "Tragedy in Texas: Christian Testimony in the Face of Evil". We have hope and comfort. Those who deny God have no hope, but only a terrifying eternal destiny unless they repent.



October 7, 2017

Can Secular Science Peer Review be Repaired?

There are people who consider peer review as the gold standard in science, and it is somehow a guarantee of truth. Not hardly!

As we have seen, the secular science industry is becoming increasingly biased and involved in leftist political activism. Add to this the fact that their peer review process discriminates against creationists, has numerous retractions, passes junk (including computer-generated papers), and is pretty much a good ol' boys' club. Their image has a bad complexion, and some scientists are calling for major changes.

Secular peer review in science needs better ethics. According to atheistic standards? It will not work.
Made at Hetermeel.com, then modified with colors
Unfortunately, the sidewinders in charge want to circle the wagons and maintain the status quo. They don't want transparency and accountability. Others want to improve ethical standards. Wait, what? People who reject the Creator and his Word have no consistent moral standard are going to decide what is right and wrong? Scientists are people, complete with presuppositions, knavery, altruism, varieties of morality, and the whole shootin' match that comes with being a human living in a fallen world. Something is missing from their plan.
Peer review is under attack with new move to combat fraud and special interest through integrity and transparency. But where do those come from?
Big Science remains in crisis. Phys.org reports on a study that found “More than a quarter of biomedical scientific papers may utilise practices that distort the interpretation of results or mislead readers so that results are viewed more favourably.” That has certainly been our experience at CEH, daily watching the press releases emanating from university PR departments, where the name of the game is to make your scientist look good no matter how questionable the findings. Public acceptance of scientific claims tracks political party affiliation to a remarkable degree. Allegations of conflict of interest, peer pressure and funding bias are rife. What has happened to the presumptive authority of the science, seeking objective knowledge for its own sake?
To finish reading, click on "Big Science Struggling to Regain Credibility".
   

February 6, 2017

Snowflakes Burning with Hate

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is indeed unfortunate that the political and cultural situations in the United States are not unique to our borders; the affliction is global. Instead, it is a reflection of postmodernism and nihilism, replete with relative truth and despair. After Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald J. Trump, people were suddenly confronted with the stark possibilities of having to actually work and become productive members of society for eight years; they never considered that Hillary could lose the election. Further, they were willingly blind to the duplicity and outright lies of the Obama administration, carrying this over and expecting more promises of good things from the leftist Democrats.

On the spiritual side, we get something like this confused ramblings from someone who has claimed to be an atheist and not an atheist in the same paragraph. He usually identifies himself as an atheist, and has said God is "non-existent". Here is an edited version of something this atheist said (he's an atheist except when he's not...weird...):

I sometimes feel anger towards "God". Maybe he is real for some but chose to withhold his reality from me, and that's unfair.
Hold on a spell, pilgrim! What makes you so doggone special, that God would "withhold his reality" from you? Things didn't go the way you liked, God did not jump through a flaming hoop to give you your desires? Did you ever carry your cross through town, wrongly condemned and sinless? Further, you are calling God a liar! God did make himself known to all (Rom. 1:18-24), and you're not the special snowflake that is the exception, and God is not a liar (Num. 23:19). If you want "fair", then you don't want God! That's right, because all have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and deserve death (Rom. 6:23). He didn't have to do it, but God gave us the offer of redemption through Jesus Christ, God the Son. Repent of your perverse reverse idolatry (making a false god that you can hate) while there's still time.

There are others who feel that they are beyond God's reach, exceptions to the rules, and so forth (the Democrat Party actually booed God). They are rejecting him so they can make themselves into their own postmodern false gods and make their own rules, especially in areas of sexuality. Leftists are known for opposing Christian moral values, the family, the sanctity of marriage, and endorsing every form of sexual perversion. God is not welcome in Leftistland, but reality cannot be changed through tantrums.

When the election did not go their way, many liberals became hysterical, needing safe spaces in which to cry and use coloring books. These are children in adult bodies, and such coddling is actually harmful to them. Can you imagine a campus debate club nowadays? "Don't cry, we'll let you win the debate. That's right, the Soviet Union was good for the world!" I can just imagine such weak-minded individuals who have been ill-prepared to face the real world actually having to obtain employment and then be told that they cannot have their way.


Delicate liberal snowflakes are burning with hate for anyone who disagrees with them. While calling others "fascists", they show the same attitudes themselves.
Modified from a graphic at Clker clipart
Now we have these poor, poor, pitiful snowflakes burning with rage and showing how contemptible the left really is. (Yes, in this case, snowflakes really do burn.) They're still delicate, but fearless in a mob setting. They wanted mob rule from the election instead of the established, legal Constitutional process that prevailed.

Leftists claim to be all about free speech, but apparently that only works one way: they demand to be heard at any time, in any place, in any way. If you do not allow an obstreperous balatron free reign with his or her outbursts, then the individual or group will invariably play the fascist card (among others). It's a favorite word of late, but the users do not know what it means. They simply use it to provoke negative emotional reactions. President Trump has been called a fascist by many, but his policies belie that claim. (I've been called a fascist, and someone was called a "fascist follower of the North Korean style false propaganda blog", showing that the writer has no concept of what either word means.) What is interesting is that these benighted accusers are unaware (whether through stupidity or willing ignorance) that Hillary Clinton's "Stronger Together" slogan has fascist origins.

Unfortunately for intelligent people who must suffer because of excerebrose rioters and slogan chanters, they have not realized that their statements comparing Trump to Hitler (or even saying Trump is Hitler) are utterly vapid. After all, those — almost called them sidewinders, but I don't wish to insult venomous reptiles with the comparison — losers still have their free speech. They are still criticizing the government and individuals in it, still unimprisoned, still alive. I'm fully in favor of arresting, prosecuting, and punishing those who set people's hair on fire, shove bloody tampons in someone's face, riot, burn buildings, and so forth. Put 'em in the slammer.

The crocodilian attitudes of the left become even more apparent with the treatment of Milo Yiannopoulos. He embodies two traits that leftists adore: he is not an American citizen, and he is blatantly homosexual. He also tends to be correct about some topics, but quite crude as well. Since he supports Trump, he's persona non grata. Those advocates of free speech and tolerance are themselves engaging in their version of fascism, even to the point of rioting to protest the free speech of someone they dislike!

Let me ride off on a side trail. Come along, will you?

Republicans and Conservatives are more likely to uphold traditional moral values and the rule of law, but we've been bamboozled by country club Republicans in the past. Politicians lie, it's their nature. (I can hope that Trump is different, but it's too soon to tell. Good start in many instances, though.) When Hillary Clinton insulted millions of Trump supporters by calling them a "basket of deplorables", many embraced the term. On social media, you can find groups and Pages using the title "Deplorables" and some variations. I scanned some of them, and they are living up to the title. There is hatred for the left and extreme profanity. Sure, the bigotry of the left has provoked negative emotions on the other side, but the profane, hateful reactions to the leftists are outrageous.

Back to the main trail again.

Let me edjamakate y'all: The problem is not political, philosophical, or social. It is sin. Membership in a political party does not mean you are a Christian, nor does it make you faultless. Politics cannot save you. Donald Trump cannot save anyone (I don't reckon he has such an exalted view of himself anyway). Salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone, not through works, rituals, membership, or anything else added on, you savvy? Trump campaigned to make America great again. Can that happen? In my opinion, we're under God's judgement, but we've been given a reprieve by not going full left. If we as a nation will humble ourselves and seek God, it may happen. Perhaps the leftists outside our borders will then learn from our example.





January 21, 2017

Synchronicity in the Press? Not Hardly!

The word synchronicity originated with Carl Jung, was developed by Arthur Koestler, others have offered their views on the concept, was the title of the final studio album by The Police, the title of a 2015 science fiction movie involving time travel, and more. Pseudo-intellectual New Age and postmodern writers (their material is easily obtained on the Web) are fond of synchronicity. I don't cotton to getting into all that, and want to keep it simple: according to synchronicity, coincidences are not what they appear, and may have a sort of supernatural basis.

Is it synchronicity, collusion, or something else that media sources keep on using the same terminology?
Image credit: Pixabay / wilhei
In the early days of the George W. Bush presidency, Rush Limbaugh collected a montage of remarks from different leftists, saying that Bush lacked "gravitas". So many people from different sources all suddenly using a rather uncommon word at the same time? The same kind of happenstance has occurred many times over the years. Fascinating.

When updating my post about pinheads who refused to provide services for the Trump inauguration, I found out that Ralph Lauren received the prestige for doing Melania's dress. (Some people care about fashion stuff. I'm a "get dressed and go to work" kind of guy.) Something that caught my attention was how a passel of agencies were were using New Age spiritism lingo, saying that Melania was "channeling" Jackie Kennedy. I used Google and typed, without quotes, melania channels jackie. Give it a try.

Way back yonder, typesetting was the way books, magazines, and so forth were given words so others could read them. Lead cold type in various fonts was set, backwards, so it could be inked and printing would happen. I was a typesetter for a few years, but I reckon it was called typesetting for lack of a better word, because I didn't set lead type. Rather, the Compugraphic was a computer that connected to a big box thing which photographed each letter or symbol, and produced a sheet of camera-ready paper that needed to be taken into the darkroom for developing. The machine with the film actually shook during the process. (Developing was easy, just put it in a machine that sent it through the proper chemicals.) Now it's done by typing on my unregistered assault keyboard and I can send something electronically for printing, Web publishing, or whatever. Why did I tell you about my typesetting days? For contrast in the history of printing, and I just felt like it.

"Get on with it, Cowboy Bob!"

Yes, well, you see, I lack belief that there's any synchronicity involved. Some agencies and reporters may borrow certain words or expressions from each other, but not on this scale. It seems like typeset boilerplate terminology is issued. (We see this all the time in atheists and anti-creationists.) Collusion? Shenanigans? Could very well be happening. Original thought, not so much.


January 20, 2017

Trump Inauguration Refusers Flip Off Millions

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People are making the news by refusing to perform at any of Donald Trump's inauguration events. They'll say things like, "He's not fit to be president", and "Trump offends people". Yeah, as if Hillary Clinton was fit. Not hardly! We also see violent protests by sore losers who reject the rule of law. (One sidewinder thinks they're justified, since he's tried, sentenced, and condemned Trump in the supreme court of his opinion). But that's okay, they're leftists, so the rest of us have to be tolerant of these domestic terrorists, right?


In the time leading up to the inauguration of Donald Trump, a lot of Americans have show their shameful true colors. People refusing service are not only rejecting Trump, but millions of other people outside their elitist group.
Image credit: Michael Vadon (CC BY-SA 2.0)
What really takes the rag off the bush is when Jennifer Holliday accepted the opportunity to perform, then backed out because the LGBT "community" was "heartbroken". Why? Do none of them believe in freedom? Jenny caved in to bullying, she said about the "community", that it "...was mostly responsible for birthing my career and I am deeply indebted to you". Seriously? Only them, no straight people bought tickets to see you or had any part in launching and continuing your career, buttercup?

Well, maybe they are all shallow and vindictive, and will boycott Holliday forever because she dared to take the opportunity. Maybe, I said. Something that really amazes me is that Jenny and the others who claim a high moral ground by refusing to perform in association with Donald Trump have yet to indicate where and how Trump has said anything about harming this precious small minority "community". I guess y'all never paid attention when your parents said to stand up to bullies, huh? To be fair, she said she received death threats.

If you study on it, the violent people you hear about are not Trump supporters, they're leftists. You can bet it wasn't from Republicans that Holliday got her alleged death threats, and it wasn't a Trump supporter that set himself on fire, saying Trump is “incapable of respecting the Constitution of the United States". And Hillary respected laws? Nope.

Then there are those fashion liberals who refuse to do Melania Trump's dress. Talk about throwing away significant fame and possible future customers because they're pouting about the election results! Ralph Lauren may be the one to do it [EDIT: Lauren got the job], and he's a Clinton supporter. Isn't that they way things should be, putting aside disagreements to get the job done?

The message that Holliday , the dressmakers, and others are sending is that they are not for all the people, but only some.

In case you hadn't noticed, the popular vote was almost 50-50, but most of the electoral votes were not in elitist leftist dense urban areas (even though Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1 percent, but we're not a mob rule country). The electoral votes piled up in rest of the country, that area leftists call "fly over" and hold in contempt. New York, California, and other liberal centers are all that matter to other liberals. By saying you're too good to perform for Trump or perform services, you're flipping off about 63 million people that voted for him. You elitist entertainers and so on are also showing your contempt for people who voted for Clinton, but are rational enough to hope for the best and get on with their lives. Guess you leftists don't need income from the rest of us.

One good thing about the election and events leading up to today (and probably afterward) is that a lot of truth came out. We've seen B. Hussein Obama's legacy of increasing racial tensions, anti-Christian activism, how intolerant those who demand tolerance can be, the way people despise the law when it's not in their favor, skyrocketing pro-abortion activism, and more. Although Trump was not my first choice for president, I'm not sulking, and pray that he does a good job. Proud to be an American? Well, not proud of my unthinking, emotionally-driven fellow countrymen.


November 5, 2016

An Improper Environment for Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Interesting that some cultures have made scientific advances in some areas, then just — stalled. Ancient pagan cultures had some good mathematics and observations, Mohammedans falsely take credit for various discoveries [1], Communist science was notorious for lagging behind the West (espionage was a big part of their progress [2]), and so on. For science to thrive, it needs the proper environment.

Some folks say that atheism and evolution are essential to scientific advancement. The opposite is true. Let's not lose the environment we had for scientific advancement.
Mao Zedong image on Chinese banknote
Image credit: Freeimages / Tudou Mao
Despite Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy's claims [3], belief in evolution has nothing to do with scientific progress. In reality, evolution is of no benefit to medicine [4], and has hindered scientific progress [5], and is anti-science [6]. Atheistic communism has been devastating to scientific advancement [6], and America is racing in that direction, what with the politicizing of science and all [7], [8], [9].

Do you need to be an atheist to be a scientist today? Not hardly! That pile of bovine scat has been propagated by atheopaths, but is a manipulative lie. Many of the greatest scientific minds, past and present, have not only been Christians, but creationists [7], and have not only contributed to science, but been foundational to modern science [8]. 

If you study on it for a spell, you'll see that continuous scientific advancement came from people with a biblical worldview in environments that supported science. My recommendation is that you don't fall for propaganda and trickery. I've given you a heap of information to show that science thrives in a biblically-based environment. Let's not cave in to atheists, evolutionists, and leftists who want to hijack science. Think, people! With your heads, not emotions and from propaganda. I ain't kiddin', neither!
 

August 20, 2016

It's Not My Fault!

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Writer, speaker, professional truth sayer, and alpaca groomer Matt Walsh has some strong, well-worded articles on The Blaze. They are mainly politically oriented, but he makes some spiritual points as well, such as this article contrasting Joel Osteen's bad theology with atheism. (Ever notice that atheists don't organize protest against Osteen's organization?) By the way, if Mr. Walsh was more in tune with presuppositional apologetics and how atheists, liberals, evolutionists, cultists and others argue from their presuppositions like Christians do, he'd be even more dangerous to the left.

Anyway.

On his August 16, 2016 podcast, "To Save America, It's Time We All Take Responsibility For Our Own Lives", he referred to a Facebook post that he made about the Black Live Matter thugs that rioted in Milwaukee on August 13. Apparently, people got so riled they wanted to invite him to a necktie party — literally. He said he received more death threats than usual. Essentially, his "crime" was saying that people need to be responsible for their own actions. What a novel concept!

Matt Walsh wrote post and also made a podcast about how people need to take responsibility for their actions. I ran with it, taking atheists to task for blaming Christians for atheism.

But no, people want to blame others, including The System®. What's ironic is that the liberals who blame the system are the system, and it is run by liberals. Sorta like the old days of hippie freaks who were rebelling against "the establishment" by remaining jobless, having promiscuous sex and using drugs — like today's leftists. The system — the establishment — is the liberal power structure that Americans (and in other places on this planet) have to deal with.

Now I've got the bit in my teeth and I'm going to run in a direction that Mr. Walsh didn't have in mind.

On several occasions, I've seen atheists complaining about Christians, that our actions are the cause of them becoming atheists. Bovine biscuits. That's just plain stupid. That's right, I said it! They choose atheism for several reasons: rebellion against God, rejection of the authority of his Word, autism, desire for attention, and more. When we stand up to bullies, point out logical fallacies, present the truth of the gospel, present evidence refuting evolution and affirming creation, they get meaner than a burlap sack full of rattlesnakes. 

On a side note, I read where someone became an atheist after reading the science fiction short story by Arthur C. Clarke called "The Star". In that, remnants of a civilization on a distant planet that had gone nova were found, and this star was the Star of Bethlehem in the Bible. And that jasper used it as a "reason" to become an atheist! Whose fault is it? Arthur C. Clarke? The publisher? Maybe the story itself? No, the guy grabbed a convenient excuse for what was already in his wicked heart.


Something that gets annoying is when well-meaning Christians have an attitude along the lines of, "Don't speak sternly to the professing atheist. He'll reject God forever, and it'll be all your fault!" That'll be the day. These people do not know the nature of atheists and seem to lack knowledge of certain parts of the Bible (Romans 1:18-23, Jeremiah 17:9, John 8:44, Romans 3:11, Psalm 10:4, and others). 

But what really sets my prairie schooner ablaze is how they belong to the wimpy Jesus cult. You know the guy: usually Caucasian, longish hair, beard, never said anything harsh to anyone, big fan of group hugs... That's not the Jesus of the Bible, that concept is an idol that people have made up so they can worship and discuss him.

I went off on a side trail for a bit, but I'm back now.

Too many people are looking to blame others for their choices. I'll allow that other people can influence our choices, but ultimately, the choices we make belong to us. Someone who claims to be an atheist wants to reject God? Nobody's fault — nobody's choice — but his.

 

October 10, 2015

Bill Nye's Pro-Abortion Anti-Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Bill Nye, the tiresome leftist guy, seems to be the go-to spokesman for anything pseudo-science. "Science Guy?" He has a BS in mechanical engineering (the consensus is that engineers are not scientists) and worked as a mechanical engineer for Boeing, was rejected by NASA, got his "science guy" start in the "Almost Live" comedy show, went on to do a science show for kids (mainly run on the liberal PBS-TV), and so on.
Bill Nye is getting increased adoration from leftists. Now he's using bad science and bad logic to support abortion.
Is Bill Nye pondering how NASA could succeed without him? Image credit: NASA/GSFC/Bill Hrybyk
By my cognating, he was just another unimportant celebrity that wandered away from the corral. But since it's cool for leftists to mock Christians (and especially creationists), Nye got attention by attacking biblical creationists in a video. Answers in Genesis responded with two reply videos, and when the attacks on AiG escalated, they issued a public challenge for Nye to debate one of their PhD scientists. The "science guy" didn't have the nerve to do that, so he had to settle for Ken Ham (who still has more earned academic credentials than Nye). The Ham-Nye debate had many responses from creationists. Nye not only ignored scientific evidence for creation, but used outdated material that had been dealt with by creationists long ago, and used logical fallacies. (That was fine with atheists, he could have made rude noises and they would have applauded.)

This poster boy for evolutionism has been sought for his "scientific" expertise on various topics, including global warming, the NFL under-inflated football scandal, shipbuilding (in the debate), and more. He's annoying, and the liberal media should stop consulting him.

What is much worse is that he's using his lack of science knowledge to support leftist pro-abortion propaganda. I find this troubling, and others are finding him mighty irritating nowadays. Bill Nye the Abortion Propaganda Non-Science Guy was taken to task in two strong articles that are worth reading: "Back to Science Class for the Science Guy", and "Abortion Fans Are Bad at Science and Even Worse at Making Rational Arguments".

When Bill Nye was a mite less known, The Onion posted a piece on how Nye was killed in an experiment. There was also a hoax in 2014 that was quickly discredited about his untimely demise. The man himself is not yet pushing up the daisies, but his integrity and credibility have rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. There's still time for him to repent and come to terms with the Creator that he is pretending does not exist (Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, John 1:12, 2 Corinthians 5:17). Until then, intelligent people need to refute his pronouncements.

September 6, 2015

Kim Davis, Homosexual "Marriage", and Religious Freedom

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Since the US Supreme Court legalized homosexual "marriage" (no one can actually redefine marriage because God is the one who defined it), religious persecution has been on the rise, as was predicted by Franklin Graham and others; say that homosexuality is a sin and not something to be celebrated, risk getting in trouble. The court has been wrong in the past (abortion, the Dred Scott decision, and others), and is wrong now. Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses that would violate her religious convictions. She went to jail, which was a violation of both the United States Constitution and the Kentucky Constitution. Indeed, the tinhorn activist judge who sent her to jail also required reeducation of students who opposed homosexuality.



Naturally, the Gaystapo, unintelligent atheists, and other leftists are thrilled with all this, not caring about the implications that state and federal laws are being violated. No, it's more important to advance the gay agenda and hog tie "religious" folks. These are the kind of people who would kick a fresh cow patty on a hot day.

One of the hate remarks is summarized in the picture above, that Kim Davis is on her fourth marriage, so she has no right to complain or stand up for her convictions. Sanctity of marriage? She's a hypocrite since she's had so many herself, so why complain about homosexuals wanting marriage? Narf! Nice superficial straw man there, Poindexter. The fact is, she made her religious commitment after her divorces and fourth marriage. Take a look at "Top 10 liberal lies about Kentucky clerk Kim Davis".

Follow me as we ride along this here side trail now.

Many Christians are uniting to support this "sister in Christ". But is she, really? She's a member of the Rock Solid Apostolic Church, which holds to a heretical modalist view like the United Pentecostal Church, which denies the true nature of God as revealed in Scripture. Her church's site is down (no surprise), but in the archived "About Us" section, it says in part,
We believe, as explicitly stated in the scriptures, that there is only one God (Deut 6:4). He is the Father of all creation (Malachi 2:10). He was manifested as the Son for our redemption (Isaiah 9:6, Matt. 1:21-23) and is dwelling in the lives of the believers as the Holy Ghost (Colossians 1:27). We preach the Bible as our roadmap to heaven. The plan of salvation that the apostles preached is the same plan that we preach (hence the name “Apostolic”), which is repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16, Col. 3:17, Eph. 4:5).  
Although they list several Bible verses, they are twisted and taken out of context. This church is listed in the Apostolic Churches directory, which has several major flaws in its beliefs section.

As I said, Rock Solid believes modalism, but also insist that water baptism is necessary for salvation, which is false. The Apostolic Churches also believe in the unbiblical doctrine that you must speak in tongues to prove you're saved. Both of these are adding works to faith-based salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). In addition, the "apostolic" churches are unbiblical, divisive, and cultic. To learn more, I suggest checking out Holly Pivec's "Spirit of Error" and these two interviews with her. Also the articles, "What is the New Apostolic Reformation?" and "The Apostles Who Don't Do Anything".

This brings me to something that will irritate some folks. That is, Kim Davis is deeply religious, but if she's accepting the false teachings of this group, then the Jesus she believes in and her religious convictions are not based on a proper understanding of the Bible. She would then need to repent and believe in the real Jesus of the Bible, and accept the biblical understanding of the nature of God.

Now let's rejoin the main trail we were riding and reach our destination.

Do I support Kim Davis because she's a sister in Christ? No, because I do not believe that she is. Should I join with others in supporting her for upholding her religious convictions? You betcha! Listen up, cow-patty-on-a-hot-day-kickers as well as decent people. Myopic atheists and leftists should be supporting her as well because of the blatant governmental violations of free speech, religion — and thought. Just because someone doesn't agree with the views of someone else doesn't mean they can't uphold the bigger principles at stake.

Update: She has been released from jail. Let's find out what happens.

This popular version of a quote by Martin Niemöller applies here:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
Do you savvy?
  

February 2, 2015

Creation, Conservatives, and Fighting for Free Speech

If the Grinch was a leftist, he might say, "Free speech is speech I can't stand in the least!" Let's face it, political correctness is primarily an effort to suppress free speech. Who are the biggest proponents of political correctness? Liberals, of course! They resort to labeling and name-calling, especially if someone holds to traditional Christian and Conservative values. If you point out that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, you're a homophobe (a meaningless term used to provoke emotion; I don't phobe homos, or heteros, for that matter). If you point out the minority-status national origin of a criminal, you're a racist. Say that there are some things women just can't do, you're a sexist. Ban an obstreperous atheopath from trampling a Christian or creationist site, you're a censor (news flash, Skippy, you were banned for being an obnoxious buffoon, not for being a threat to our beliefs, and certainly not for using logic).

Liberals rely on emotion and fear. When they have power, they use it with gusto. Post some of the aforementioned ideas on Facebook, you can get in trouble. One guy posted something in an atheist-dominated "debate" group promoting Question Evolution Day, and was promptly treated like garbage and QED was thoroughly misrepresented (atheists almost always misrepresent creationists). Then he mysteriously lost his account. However, (warning, I'm not kidding here) this obscene graphic was not removed, it does not violate the so-called standards of Facebook. And that's very, very typical of Fazebook.

There are still pockets of teh interweb where free speech still exists for Christians, creationists, and Conservatives. It is still a great equalizer, giving us regular folks a chance to express ourselves. But even that depends on various factors. We'll speak out while we still can.

Doug McBurney is a Conservative Christian who has a podcast called "The Weekly Worldview". Politically correct? Not hardly! Doug will tell you what he thinks about the news, and tell you the truth about the left. He is also a creationist who supports Question Evolution Day. He'll make you think, enrage atheists and liberals, make you laugh, he plays rock and roll to make ironic points... Check out his current podcast at "Snapshots from the Bizarro World".



September 7, 2013

Facebook Futility — Observations and Suggestions


"I know he has been subjected to utterly ridiculous bans and deletions on that obviously biased social interaction site. If Facebook keeps up the liberal censorship and arbitrary punishment of conservatives and creationists, it could lose the market share. It is only a matter of time before another site would step up to take their place. Remember, it didn't take long for FB to make Myspace obsolete."
Radar, in reference to this writer
I have two aspects that I want to discuss here. First, overall Internet safety guidelines and Facebook. Second, Facebook's blatant discrimination and bullying against political Conservatives, conservative Christians, and biblical creationists.

Facebook has changed over the years. Along with other social media, they grab the rights to use your photos. But the rules change frequently, so that could be outdated and modified already. One problem is that Facebook requires people to use their real names and information. The reason that is a problem is that it is a privacy concern, and haven of identity thieves.

An article on safety for young people makes sense for everyone. More than that, Facebook is not your friend. They want too much information. Do not give it to them. Although the powers at Facebook don't like it, people use fake names (many obviously fake, even obscene) on Facebook all the time, and have multiple accounts. For some, the only possible reason for them to exist is to be offensive.

Seems like a good idea to me.

The drawbacks are that your friends cannot find you unless you tell them ahead of time. "Yes, my name is John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt. Look for me under Jim Smith, here's the e-mail address that I used when I signed up, search for that..." Another drawback is if Facebook catches on and says, "We think this is a fake account. Verify your name".

Then you activate your auxiliary account. Which can be a hassle if you have 500 "friends" and need to make contact all over again, convincing them that yes, it's really you under this other name. Hopefully, you used the link under "Account Settings" and backed up your information so you can keep your photos, friends list and so on.

Ironically, this was posted on Facebook. Parody of both Facebook and the old Microsoft slogan, "What do you want to do today?"
 You have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages for yourself.

No matter what, I strongly recommend that you "lock down" your settings to at least "friends only". This includes your friends list. I don't think anybody needs to know who your friends are. Even other "friends". Some people will "friend up" almost anybody, and I think that's not such a good idea. You can get spies or pretenders.



Play it safe, people! Identity theft, fake friends, stalkers and so on. Think about it.

And now, the discrimination of Facebook.



More than a few of us are becoming increasingly exasperated with the increasing bigotry, discrimination and hypocrisy of Facebook. It is without legitimate cause. As Radar said in the quote at the top of the page, this can backfire and Facebook can lose market share.

One Admin on "The Question Evolution Project", under his own name, quoted an atheist and said something to the effect of, "Nice bit of prejudicial conjecture". The poor persecuted victim complained, and the Admin was given a 12-hour ban on posting, even though his comment violated none of their "standards". The next day, in an unrelated incident, another Admin was given the same penalty for disputing with an atheopath and showing the errors of his logic. We agree that if we foul up and deserve punishment, we'll "man up" and take it. But not this injustice.

This caused me to call for a no-nonsense ban policy: Instead of trying to show where the logic failed, or the lack of civility, or whatever, people are most likely going to be banned outright. We do not need to have all of the Admins put in the "time out" corner because Facebook took the side of a diaper-filler (it's happened to other Pages I could name).  Besides, what we're about and our rules are in the "About" section. We had this reply:


This kind of nonsense happens to individuals as well as Pages.

Of course, if atheist-run Facebook wasn't so blatantly discriminatory and hypocritical, such things would not be needed. Naturally, the secularists will say, "No, it's not true", even though Christophobes and leftists are getting away with filthy content, and some names are too shameful to even write down. Edit: Hatetheists attacked me for this post, ignoring the pertinent material and instead ridiculing things that were never said. These are the kinds of people to keep out of your stuff.

I believe that quite a few people are going to jump ship when a new social media service comes along with decent features, is consistent in applying its rules and won't steal your stuff.

Subscribe in a reader