Saturday, July 29, 2006

A Lebanon-Israel Take

A ton of news coverage has saturated the public square regarding the conflict in the Middle East between Lebanon and Israel. Yesterday there was a press conference featuring President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and I found something Blair said worth noting.

He said, essentially, that the fight against terrorism would be like this, and that there is no other way to fight it, so we must keep doing what we're doing. The item that struck me was

"There is no other way."

Well, yes, there is another way. The other way is Jesus Christ, seeing how much He loves you and in that moving you to love another with that love. If everyone did that (oh this is just too easy) then there would be no violence.

But Blair, being a sworn servant of Cain, hasn't a clue about that other way. He only knows of the seven-fold vengeance he must help exact against rebels such as the terrorists in Lebanon, and he continues to enable the destructive activities of the plainly ruthless Ministry of Retribution. Hey, as horrible as it is, it is what he does.

But Jesus does what He does, freeing individuals from that body of death.

Blair and Hezbollah do violence, Jesus does restoration. In the World you will have sorrow, in the Kingdom you will have joy and peace. (Didn't Jesus actually say those exact words somewhere? Words to that effect?)

Other thoughts: Funny that Bush and Blair were singing the same song yesterday. I just can't help but speculate that the U.K. and the U.S. are the two mixed clay and iron parts of the feet in that statue of the dream Daniel interprets.

Any time I see the term "peacekeepers," such as "the U.N. should send a group of peacekeepers in," I cringe. It is used frequently by some of the most progressively minded people, as if they were offering up something radically wonderful. But really, what else is a peacekeeper except someone to blow the snot out of someone else blowing the snot out of someone? It is all still grand ultra-violence, and only really makes sense when the pre-eminent snot-blower-outter is Cain with his seven-fold vengeance.

I just can't see why there aren't more people wanting to be out of this body of death all together-- to be in His embrace and not just nodding when Tony Blair spews, "There is no other way than to blow the snot out of 'em."

Oh. Wait. I can see why.

For people to really know That Other Way people need to actually know about Him. And for people to know Him they need to meet up with those who actually already know Him. And for there to be those kind of people they need to be not grafted to the World that only knows the violent way. And to be not grafted they kind of need to be not contractually obligated to that World through 501c3's and such.

And how many followers of Christ are there out there like that?

As it is, as mere members of the World System Club, when most say "Jesus," they're considered to be saying "Here's some other guy in the violence schematic," and he's just as dismissed as any other Cain wanna-be.

For more on the way the Nation works, look here.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Caesar Tries Really Hard, He Does, At Least There's That

President Bush's Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton was the featured guest on this past Sunday's Meet the Press, and after Tim Russert got past all the questions about the Middle East he went to the embryonic stem cell research issue, addressing why the president vetoed its federal funding.

Bolton gave the standard response which was essentially, "The president thinks that the fertilized embryo is a human life that deserves protection." Fine answer.

The problem is, he can't speak the truth about the human embryo because he works for the World in the employ of Caesar. And as such, he was no match for the searing questions that Russert had for him about the inconsistency of the president's actions in light of his commitment.

To give you an idea about why the president's approach is so problematic, here was the progression of Russert's questioning.

First he quoted White House Spokesman Tony Snow as stating that ESCR is murder. Russert asked Bolton (again, in essence as this is a paraphrase), "Do you really believe it is murder in light of what millions of Americans think?"

Whoa. That's tough. In fact, today, Tony Snow had to apologize for using the word "murder." Of course he had to! He's got to be politically correct. But if Russert had someone on there who knew the truth, say, someone who is actually a follower of Christ and could share that truth, then he'd get a straight answer.

"Tim, just because a lot of people think it's not murder doesn't mean it isn't. The question that must be answered is 'Is that embryo a human being?' If it is, and all biological and ethical evidence states that it is, then deliberately using it for medical experiments that result in its demise for whatever reason is murder. Just as you would be unapologetic about using the term 'murder' for the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany--people who were also not considered human either-- so we are unequivocal about it also."

Russert's questioning certainly would have gone in a different direction if this response were offered, at least if he wanted to know precisely why an embryo is human. But for purposes of addressing the discourse, his next question was, "Why does the president allow private interests and the use of existing stem cell lines if it is indeed murder? Isn't this hypocritical?"

Bolton hemmed and hawwed and simply restated the president's position. Uh. What's the better response? How about: "Very true! If it is murder in any instance, then we should do all we can to make it illegal everywhere." You can see why Bolton could not say this, however. It's because it would be extraordinarily difficult to do that. The cat's already out of the bag: People want ESCR--they've got to have their need for human sacrifice gratified and ESCR is a marvelously convenient way to get that.

Then there's this one from Russert: "20 some-odd children were at the veto ceremony, children who were adopted embryos. But 400,000 embryos are still out there slated for destruction, highly unlikely they will ever be 'adopted.' Why shouldn't we use them for the research?"

My question to Russert would be, "Why are there 400,000 out there? What are people doing making those embryos?" Obviously the answer is that infertile couples must have that many if they hope to have any children at all. My question from there reflects a position that very few people would agree with, but as such, we have the embryo problem to begin with. That question, "Have we made such a god out of 'having children if you're infertile' that we must take the life of many others in order to get one? Do we do such a poor job of supporting the infertile couple and/or providing them with the positive perspective on adoption, or even adoptive children options at all?"

Once again it gets down to the critical question. Is the embryo a human being? If it is, then why are we doing all this?

Lastly, Russert leveled Bolton with this gem: "Do you know of any scientists who say there is as much promise for adult stem cell research?" Russert's was clearly trying to undermine ASCR by claiming that no scientist really believes in it. Needless to say Bolton could not name one. What could he have said? It's easy: "Just because I don't know of one or you don't know of one right now doesn't mean it doesn't show promise. What I've heard is that it does, and I've heard a lot. If you want names, I'll get you names, and you can check them out for yourself."

Is there any question that Meet the Press is trumpeting ESCR? What is funny is that on CBS's Sunday Morning show at about the exact same time as Meet the Press was aired, right between a humorous piece on social graces and scenes of North Carolina nature, was Utah senator Orrin Hatch giving a commentary on the value of ESCR and how the president should not have vetoed that bill. Was there any rebuttal? Any counter viewpoint? Any balance whatsoever in the discourse?

Actually, why should there be?

These guys just haven't a clue. None of them. They all live too richly in the Catholicist Nation.

What's the deal with human sacrifice? Look here for some thoughts.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

The Taking What's Not Yours Awards

Last week's Newsweek featured the cover story, "The Giving Back Awards" (July 10, 2006). It was a "special double issue" supposedly about 15 showcased people who, I imagine are giving back. On the cover were a couple of notable individuals, Brad Pitt and Rick Warren, and some others I didn't recognize. But then I didn't look too closely. I didn't even read it-- I just happened to see it on the table of an office.

Now how can I critique it if I didn't even read it? Simple, because I'm pretty sure I already know what the whole thing is about. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Here are some of those "beautiful" people who magazines like to feature, all doing really really really really really good things somehow somewhere someway-- a double issue's worth of super good things. And the concept of giving back means that these people have had so much fortune heaped upon them that they've listened to their heart and done a bunch of things to help others out who we presume have not been as fortunate. Seems okay.

Until we use our brains and actually think about what all this is.

Forgive me, but I can think of very few things that are as putridly wretched as this. I just can't figure out how anyone with a molecule of brain matter would think this was anything but. Actually I really should be saying a molecule of soul matter-- I say soul matter because the smartest people frequently do the stupidest things.

Does anybody not know this is merely a bunch of people blowing their trumpets in the public square so everyone can see how fabulous they are? How many golly-gee spiffy things they've done? How much money they've given so they can be ever-so fabulous? I mean, didn't Jesus say something about that?

The most repulsive thing is the whole giving back concept. Now come on, think about that. "Giving back." Usually-- no, wait-- all the time, what it means when you "give back" is that you've taken something that belongs to someone else. So, ahem, we're giving "awards" to people who're just doing what anyone should do?

What have these people taken that doesn't belong to them? Let's use Brad Pitt as an example. Now I'm not picking on Brad Pitt per se; here he's just a guy who represents any individual living richly in the Catholicist Nation. Brad has got millions of dollars from films and promotional appearances he's made over the years. Why does he have those millions of dollars? Well, he could only have gotten them one of two ways.

He either earned them-- and therefore, really, has no reason to give anything back, or he stole them-- and giving it back is just something he should be doing to make restitution to begin with.

We could even look a bit more at each. Did Brad Pitt earn that money? Well, if a gazillion people went to see his movies enough then, yeah, I guess he did. But does what Brad Pitt do really merit that kind of take? In other words, do these people really know what they're doing when they lavish him with all that money? To put it more simply, couldn't it be the case that Brad Pitt is seen as an idol, not just a movie star-type idol, but a real demonic captivating idol to which people assign their worship?

If this is indeed the case, then the whole thing about giving back is just a way to make the idol more "worthy" of his parishioners' worship. "Hey, look at this everyone! Look at what a magnanimous man Brad Pitt is, doing this and that for him and her oh how disadvantaged they are!" The Newsweek piece just becomes another chapter in the grand Catholicist mythology.

At this point it doesn't much matter whether he earned it or not. Whatever the Powers-That-Be in the Nation say is okay, then it's okay. They're brilliant myth-makers. (I think there is a word for "myth-makers" but I forgot what it was.) In the Catholicist Nation you gotta have those idols, especially the ones -- oh I get goose bumps and warm fuzzies-- who are "giving back." It's all part of the spectacular Mythology Show.

And you know what? There are just as many Jesuses in the mythology.

Gotta have 'em.

Just as long as no one finds the Real One.

Here's more on the Catholicist Nation.

And here are some of the Jesuses in the Mythology.

(Real quick, a perceptive Catholicist might look at all this and ask, "Oh but what about all the people they're helping?! How can you so cold-heartedly dismiss them?!" Hey, it's great that they're getting whatever nice things they're getting-- I'm not saying those are bad things at all. But it should be pointed out that without Christ they're all still dead. Furthermore, people who get nice things from Brad Pitt would get a thousand times that from Jesus Christ. But they don't want stuff from Christ-- a lot because the Catholicist Powers-That-Be convince them not to-- so they settle for the piddle Brad Pitt offers.)

Thursday, July 06, 2006

How to End All Abortions -- Really, He Can!

Scott Klusendorf is the best pro-life apologist there is. He's awesome. You can learn some terrific things about arguing for protecting the lives of unborn babies from him.

He just doesn't know much about the World System he's working for. If you're interested in looking a bit deeper into abortion and how an obligation with the World actually derails pro-life efforts, go to The Catholicist Nation.

Oh, and by the way, the "He" refered to in the title is not Mr. Klusendorf.

(Okay, okay, who is it?)