Est. May 2008

26 February, 2015

Atheist Tantrum

Because nothing says 'rationality' like living in terror of a being you say you don't believe exists.
The American Humanist Association sent a letter to newly elected members of Congress imploring them not to join the congressional prayer caucus, saying the caucus is a threat to the U.S. Constitution and American rights.
AHA Legal Director David Niose complains that the caucus breaks the mythical 'wall of separation' (found nowhere in the Constitution), whines about the caucus allegedly 'pandering to the Christian right' (whatever that is – I think it's a windmill), and accusing members of being 'hostile to the rights of Americans who are nonreligious and non-theistic” (with absolutely no evidence provided that this has ever happened).  The usual tantrum we're used to seeing from these folks.

And here's a kicker:
“As such, America needs a Congressional Prayer Caucus about as much as it needs a Congressional White Caucus or Congressional Male Caucus.”
Wonder why he left out the Congressional Black Caucus?

You know, now that I think about it, a cross does look a bit like a stopped windmill.  At least from a distance.  With fuzzy eyesight.

19 February, 2015

Cheap Lent

Lent is supposed to be a 'period of fasting, moderation, and self-denial (emphasis mine) traditionally observed by Catholics and some Protestant denominations'.  Of course, we can't be having that whole self-denial thing, now, can we?  Not in our modern, hurry-hurry, rush-rush society.  So, what to do, what to do?

That's right, folks.  If you don't really want to make the effort to, you know, actually go to church and get your ashes, there are 'churches' out there which'll meet you in the parking lot – or wherever – and give 'em to ya.  No muss, no fuss, no effort, none of that actually having to attend services to get your ashes.

And who's behind this blasphemy?  Well, it started out back in 2007, when 'Reverend' Theresa K.M. Danieley started passing out ashes outside of a coffeehouse.  Ms Danieley happens to be an Episcopal 'priest' – a denomination which is hemorrhaging members over its embrace of progressive leftist ideology.   

The 'Reverend' Aaron Lane thinks this is a great idea – he believes 'it could be a first step back for some people who haven't been to church in years'.  Of course, he just happens to be the pastor of an ELCA Church - another denomination which has embraced secular leftism and is bleeding members.  And I have to admit I'm skeptical in regard to his hopefulness: if you can't get people out of their cars and into the church to attend a one-hour service so they can get their ashes, what makes you think you're going to get them to come to church on a regular basis?

I wouldn't put it past these liberal denominations to eventually provide drive-through communion services, as well.  I mean, it's not like they're actually preaching and teaching the word of God.

17 February, 2015


Well, according to Rob Bell, unless the Christian church accepts and embraces the abomination (God's word for it, not mine) of homosexuality and same-sex 'marriage', it risks becoming irrelevant to society:
I think culture is already there and the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense, when you have in front of you flesh-and-blood people who are your brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles, and co-workers and neighbors, and they love each other and just want to go through life with someone.

16 February, 2015

Eternal Life

Or something as close to it as possible.  That's the gist of a Walter Hudson PJMedia article titled 'Would Christians Object to Living Indefinitely Through Technology?

The article states:
… the Christian faith doesn’t necessarily preclude an embrace of transhumanist technology. It depends on the particular nature of the tech. There’s nothing in mainstream Christian doctrine which would forbid something like artificial organs, for instance. And if replacing organs could extend life by decades or more, why not?

08 February, 2015

High Horse

By now you've probably heard about Mr. Obama's latest offense against Christians; if not … at last Thursday's National Prayer Breakfast, he said (among other things):
And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.
Needless to say, plenty of people (justifiably, IMO) climbed onto their own high horses to point out the error of the President's statement (such as here, here, here, and here).  And, of course, the points brought up in those articles (and many others) are spot-on. 
So there's no reason for me to beat that horse.  There is, however, that second sentence:
In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.
I find it curious that Mr. Obama would bring up Jim Crow, since members of his own political party were instrumental in writing and enacting those laws, and were, additionally, virulently opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Yes, it was white Southern Democrats who: 'gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures, having used insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the White League and Red Shirts, to disrupt Republican organizing, run Republican officeholders out of town, and intimidate blacks to suppress and discourage their voting. Extensive voter fraud was also used'; who 'legislated Jim Crow laws, segregating black people from the white population'. 

'Jim Crow laws were a product of the solidly Democratic South.'

And in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act came up for a vote, 'Southern Democrats and other segregationists were violently opposed to the measure [the Civil Rights Act (ed)], and tried to defeat it through a filibuster. When the bill finally came to a vote, it was passed by an overwhelming margin.'

Anyone familiar with Scripture knows the Bible doesn't call for or condone slavery, yet people always ask why Christians in the first century didn't openly oppose it within the Roman Empire.  Well, the Empire had a history at that time of violently suppressing any and all slave-revolts; had Christians openly called for abolition, they would have become targets for empirical oppression, and they already were targets (think of Nero using them as human torches to light his gardens, and/or the Christians who were fed to lions in the Flavian Amphitheater for the entertainment of the mob).

So, rather than call for abolition openly, they did so covertly, teaching masters that their slaves were fellow human beings, and that all men are accountable for their actions to God.  This led to the open advocacy of abolition, once the threat of death had been eliminated; this then led to the abolition of slavery throughout Christendom.

As for 'Christians' using the name of Christ to justify slavery, it's interesting to me that these so-called 'Christians' – who created Jim Crow segregation laws and who fought tooth-and-nail against any legislation which would have granted blacks equal rights just happened to be from the same political party as Mr. Obama.

Of course, that may be the reason he 'forgot' to mention that.