Anti-Nonsense Alerts

Monday, August 21, 2006

While praying that we still even HAVE time to discuss and sort out such things

The latest idiotic-but-pretending-to-be-clever bumper sticker I've seen reads: "UH, THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE LIBERAL EXTREMISTS; SORRY TO RAIN ON YOUR PARADE." This is a fine example of "He who gets to define the terms, wins the argument."
Or perhaps better to say, "He who gets away with obscuring the definitions of terms can flatter himself that he has won the argument."

America's Founding Fathers were liberal extremists only relative to the starting point of monarchy. An oppressive king being at the right-wing end of the spectrum, breaking free of
his power could be considered a move to the "left." But in spite of the myth of all the Founders
being Deists (a myth more than adequately exploded by the research of David Barton and his
Wallbuilders organization), no informed person can consider them to be liberal extremists in
the sense that label bears TODAY. George Washington did not cross the Delaware to abort
babies, nor endure the winter at Valley Forge in order to build a gay bath-house there.

But odds are the composer of that bumper sticker doesn't even believe what it says himself;
he just wants to throw conservatives and patriots into confusion. Doubtless next week he'll
be back to condemning Washington and Jefferson for having owned slaves. That's much like
the liberal extremists who pretend to care about Jewish people's welfare only long enough to
pillory Mel Gibson; the same lefties will soon be back at their pastime of rooting for Muslim
terrorists to destroy Israel.

Speaking of the Muslim terrorists, I continue to pray AGAINST their evil plans. I get so tired
of wimpy, smarmy prayers for "peeeeeace" which those who pray are so often assuming
that the whole silly quarrel only started by accident, and both sides can be reasoned with. No,
both sides CAN'T be reasoned with; I'm sorry to rain on THAT neo-hippie parade. Only three
outcomes can occur with Islamist fanatics: (1) they get their way, (2) they repent of their sins
and submit to the REAL God through Jesus Christ, or (3) they are deprived of their power to
do harm--via death, disarming or detention. I pray for the side of civilization to WIN the war.


At 12:39 PM, Blogger CrochetMama905 said...

I would like to ask your opinion about the Kevin McCullough article "Why Liberals are Crushing Dissent." Most liberal homosexuals are anti-war and against the US war (lead by President Bush) against Islamofascism. Why do you think that they remain so? Don't they realize what the Shiite Muslims would do to them? Haven't they read or seen any of the articles on the Web about the homosexuals being put to death?

As a Christian do you think it is because of what the Bible describes as the delusion that takes place in the end times (II Thessalonians Chapter 2)? We know from that chapter that the evil will perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

But this seems so obvious to me! The lifestyle they have embraced is wrong. But surely they have to know that it is not only Christians who are against theyir lifestyle but also Islam. So why can't or won't they join the fight against Islamofascism simply based on that reason alone? Instead, it seems they spend their energy on trying to force their beliefs down everyone's throat and trying to outlaw the truth instead of fighting for their very lives!

Did you read the comment in that Kevin McCullough article by Soylentbrain who tried to comment on DailyKos and was first hidden and then banned? They are very careful to only allow one point of view to be shown aren't they. But you would think that they would realize that it is a false unity they have. Or do you think this may be part of the delusion God sends them?

My husband and I have been talking a great deal about this subject. I just found your comments and blog and since we agree with your views, and you express your thoughts in a very understandable and easy-to-read style, we would really enjoy hearing what you have to say about this matter. Thanks so much for your thoughts.

At 9:07 AM, Blogger Joseph Ravitts said...

Thanks for coming on board!

I confess I have not read the article to which you refer; but I am well aware of the situation you describe. It has at least some relationship to the "strong delusion" predicted by Scripture. But instead of citing that Scripture and saying no more, I believe it is worthwhile trying to determine how the delusion WORKS.

A common trait of many modern American heathen is their extreme short-sightedness. Inconvenience at the present moment gets more of their attention than a threat of bloody death next year. Christians pose inconvenience to American homosexuals, whereas Islamists pose a threat of horrible death; but the inconvenience from Christians is in the PRESENT, and so arouses more of the gays' phony indignation.

If you care to e-mail me at my home address:

--I can in return send you some of my past "Empowered For Freedom" articles which relate to this.

Joseph Ravitts, USN Ret.

At 9:42 AM, Blogger Joe B. Whitchurch said...

Speaking of your line "thowing conservatives and patriots into confusion", what's up with George Soros funding all these 'values' groups in name only? We know we have RINOs to deal with but now VINOs too?! LOL

The feigned moral outrage about Foley to calling those who write "God" into the public documents with quotes like 'nature and nature's God' or 'endowed by their Creator with...rights' and such and liberals are calling them liberals? This is amazing.

If this is what they want liberalism to be then I ask them to show it to me in their conduct. Show me in who they ask to step down from high offices. They didn't show me with Bill Clinton or with Teddy Kennedy or with Barney Frank or with that re-elected twice, Stubbs fellow.

Show me with how they respond to the ACLU's religious neutering of the nation via judicial activisms of sundry sorts, or in giving fines for obscenities on prime time TV, etc. In short, "Where's the beef?" The VINOs (Values In Name Only) are usually Vegans. There is no beef. Not to cast any negative connotations upon principled Vegans. LOL.

At 8:09 AM, Blogger Joseph Ravitts said...

The blog system for some reason is currently (30 October 2006) not letting me post a new entry here; so I am entering as a "comment" the recent "Empowered For Freedom" column which I wanted to post...


If somebody says to a Bible-believing Christian,
"You don't need no religion to have a relationship
with God," the Christian will take "religion" in this
context to mean something like "empty ceremonies;"
then the Christian can agree. But if the other person
says, "No, by 'religion,' I meant having a belief that
some statements are dependably true and others are
plainly false--that's what we must reject," then the
Christian will have to disagree in the strongest
possible nonviolent way. For the gospel of Christ is
NOT about free-floating emotions of niceness; it is
about specific events which happened at particular
times, making a life-or-death difference to all our
eternal destinies. If, then, a newspaper should write
a laudatory puff-piece about a celebrity who scorns
Biblical specifics, and run it right next to an
article where a former member of the Moody Bible
organization claims he's found the Bible to be
proven false...well, you can form a pretty firm
idea of how that editorial staff regards the
Christian faith.
On 21 October 2006, the "Style" section of
the Washington Post carried two articles which
began side by side on the front page of the section,
both written by Post staff writers. One, titled
"A Testament to Change," concerned the validity
of the texts upon which Christianity depends;
the other, titled "Jazz and Harmony," looked at
fashionable Hinduism in America.
The "Testament" article began in a pedantic
mood, saying: "If 40 percent of Americans refuse
to believe that humans evolved from earlier hominids,
how many will accept that the book we know as the
Bible evolved from earlier texts and was not handed
down, in toto, by God in its present form?" Only
after two paragraphs of scholarly-seeming statements
did it introduce individual academics, who tried
to assure us that we can still have faith of some
sort provided we DON'T regard the Holy Bible as
authoritative. The "Harmony" article started quite
differently, putting its main character up front:
Alice Coltrane, a celebrity in the jazz world
before the advent of gangsta rap. She is a convert
to a trendy "ecumenical Hinduism," and she was
described in a lyrical, adoring fashion: "She
is tall, mahogany of skin, swathed in a saffron
sari, ebony hair pressed smooth..." After all,
she's the good guy, not like those dumb redneck
evangelicals who probably watch NASCAR and
believe in the Resurrection of Jesus.
The "Testament" article promotes a display
at the Smithsonian Institution, titled "In The
Beginning: Bibles Before The Year 1000," with
papyrus and parchment fragments purporting to
demonstrate that the Bible was deceitfully
fabricated (as in C.S. Lewis' sarcastic image,
"by a committee of men well supplied with
scissors and library paste"). The great
politically-correct goal here is to insist
that Christianity is intellectually dishonest.
Meanwhile, the "Harmony" article sets out to
convince us of how Hinduism generates love
and goodness. Alice Coltrane, alias Swamimi
Turiyasangitananda, seems unconcerned with the
fact that, whereas Christianity conclusively
rejected slavery more than a century ago,
Hindu society RIGHT NOW is continuing to
condone LITERAL slavery, in the form of little
girls being sold into forced prostitution.
(And before anyone interjects "But what about
forced prostitution in America?", the answer
to this cheap riposte is that human trafficking
could never be going on in America now if
America were not STRAYING AWAY FROM
Christ--whereas human trafficking in India is IN
ACCORD WITH Hindu tradition, the same
tradition that gave us the caste system, and the
burning alive of widows like Mrs. Coltrane.)
The "Harmony" article is the longer of the
two. It ends with Mrs. Coltrane stating, as an
afterthought, that she is "just as devoted to
Christ and Christianity" as she was before her
late husband John Coltrane suckered her into
Hinduism. No doubt Alice is now, and was before,
devoted to a Christ who resembles a chocolate
Easter bunny: sweet and hollow. The meaningless
Christ of pop-culture sentimentality fits into
all recipes, like tofu (only less nutritious);
and both of the Post articles had the unified
agenda of eliminating the divine Christ Who has
objective history backing up His claim to Deity.
I should add something about the Smithsonian
Institution. I've been there a couple of times. It
has a bookstore in which I have seen a book
for sale that calls on us to worship Mother Earth.
So naturally they desire to undercut theological
competition. It's ironic, though, that the Post's
"Testament" article presses the point of the Bible's
"evolution" being like life's evolution. The only
aspect of Darwinian macroevolution which actually
has been visibly demonstrated is natural selection,
which of itself does not create any new species;
and similarly, the only aspect of the Bible
"evolving" that I know to be provable is that
phony scriptures were culled out over time,
leaving in place the valid inspired content
which had already been there. That's quite
different from proving that parts of the
canonical Bible were made up long after their
alleged origin and inserted retroactively. (Which reminds me: a favorite ploy of Bible-bashers is to bring up as "brand new" things that really were dealt with long ago. "Da Vinci Code" author Dan Brown was doing this when he acted as if the fraudulent Gnostic Gospels were a stunning new discovery. In reality, they had been proven many years ago to be fakes.)
Now, why is the Washington Post so eager
to undercut BIBLICAL Christianity, leaving us
a wimpy messiah-with-a-small-m who is only a
minor fashion accessory to Eastern pantheism?
Let's go back about four years. The Washington
Post once used its children's section--its
CHILDREN'S section!--to run a full-page
propaganda piece for gay "marriage." Taking
advantage of every child's natural reluctance
to think ill of his or her mother, the article
made a fatherless boy its poster child, the
boy himself being manipulated into declaring
(before a state legislature) how wonderful it
was for a boy to be raised by two lesbian
mommies! (Of course, if years of 24-7 gay
indoctrination cause the boy to turn out
homosexual himself, the gays will say with
straight faces--no pun intended--that his gay
preference was just an inevitable result of
genetic heredity.)
This relentless pro-homosexual agenda
just might have something to do with the COM-
Post's desire to deconstruct the gospel of
Jesus. It has everything to do with why that
paper will never get one cent of my money.

Yours for Jesus and America,
Joseph Richard Ravitts

At 2:35 PM, Blogger Ziomal said...

Very nice! I like it. smartphone games


Post a Comment

<< Home