If You Don't See Human Sacrifice Happening Everywhere, You Haven't Been Looking Closely Enough
My latest home page piece is all about vampires. The real vampires, namely all of us who go crazy stripping off the value of others trying to gain the world.
In other words, it's about human sacrifice.
Yes, even in today's modern, progressive, advanced, enlightened world human sacrifice happens all the time. In fact one of the most modern progressive advanced enlightened things done out there is to convince most people their human sacrificing is not really human sacrifice.
After perusing the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times on Sunday, I saw five great opinion pieces that serve as a great introduction to the piece. All five covering both the last pages of the entire section, all having something to do with human sacrifice. To wit...
First was Doyle McManus there urging president Obama to be brazenly partisan. This means get your one group to take over governance. He even called it "old-fashioned," intimating it's been around a while. Does anyone ever bother to ask who those in the enthroned group (in this instance the Democrats) are listening to? Who are they taking their orders from? What is the source of the world view that governs their decisions? And aren't those decisions -- particularly regarding rank value extraction to enable their exploitees -- just a form of human sacrifice?
Just underneath that on the page was a piece by Niall Ferguson, and he always gets right up to what's going on and does it so eloquently. But he only gets up to it, not at it. He writes, "Neither interest rates at zero nor fiscal stimulus can achieve a sustainable recovery if people in the United States and abroad collectively decide, overnight, that such measures will ultimately lead to much higher inflation rates or outright default." Come on, is this not simply saying that lots of people involved in human sacrifice are always on the verge of actually seeing how much of someone else's value they've hacked off or how much they've had hacked off by other more powerful exploiters? Why can't Ferguson or any other smart thoughtful individual see that? Oh, forgot, these are top-class World operatives -- forgive me...
Over to the next page is Chris Ayres moaning and groaning and moaning some more about taxes. It is actually a somewhat fun whimsical piece, but it screams with the pain of politically instituted oppression by taxation. The convoluted tax system makes it more likely people will rage against it all, perversely keeping the ragers more tied to Caesar so he can check their rebellious proclivities. The question here: how much more like human sacrifice can this be? Tell me, why isn't encouraging whatever allowances you can get anything other than "Chop off a finger every year for us and we'll give you a really good discount on how many toes you have to give us"?
Ralph Nader chimes in with a note about the whole Toyota crisis, and how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has failed to prevent this kind of thing. Yes we'd like authorized officials to help keep Toyota's from killing us, and most of us believe Toyota is not deliberately out to kill us. But everyone is asking, were there indeed things the company could have done to prevent this? If the answer is yes, then they should be prosecuted to some extend by a law enforcement entity instituted to crack heads over such matters. Nader is simply saying that enforcement should be even stronger, which simply means someone is doing really horrific things to someone somewhere. Not only that, but why be too draconian about it since they're such good business for head-crackers? Human sacrifice anyone?
Finally Marcia Meier writes of her schizophrenic brother, and while the piece is heartbreaking, the headline says it all: "Schizophrenic: Who Will Care?" As it is he's got some of his mother's estate, some payments from government, but in the end she asks what will happen when that runs out? "Who is responsible?" she asks, "Who is responsible for them all?"
Wow, those last two questions are the best ones of all.
After committing the most notorious act of human sacrifice on record, Cain asked "Am I my brother's keeper?" at which point God sent him out of His presence to make the greatest city ever to stomp around and be his brother's keeper for all those who refuse to call upon the name of the Lord. Those presently working and striving and governing in that city will prop up their brother, enable his reprobate behavior, and hack off their cut. This standard form of human sacrifice was all over this Times editorial section.
Those who've left it and gone into the Kingdom under the lordship of Jesus Christ have already had the sacrifice taken care of. Jesus shed His own blood to free them to sow beauty and wonder and goodness into the lives of those they encounter. Their love abounds because it is self-sacrificial, and as such the bounty of ecstatic joy and abundant provision is overwhelming.
The difference is elucidated a bit more in my March-April home page piece, where all the questions above are given some more penetrating consideration. I'd love for you to read it and share with me what you think.
In other words, it's about human sacrifice.
Yes, even in today's modern, progressive, advanced, enlightened world human sacrifice happens all the time. In fact one of the most modern progressive advanced enlightened things done out there is to convince most people their human sacrificing is not really human sacrifice.
After perusing the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times on Sunday, I saw five great opinion pieces that serve as a great introduction to the piece. All five covering both the last pages of the entire section, all having something to do with human sacrifice. To wit...
First was Doyle McManus there urging president Obama to be brazenly partisan. This means get your one group to take over governance. He even called it "old-fashioned," intimating it's been around a while. Does anyone ever bother to ask who those in the enthroned group (in this instance the Democrats) are listening to? Who are they taking their orders from? What is the source of the world view that governs their decisions? And aren't those decisions -- particularly regarding rank value extraction to enable their exploitees -- just a form of human sacrifice?
Just underneath that on the page was a piece by Niall Ferguson, and he always gets right up to what's going on and does it so eloquently. But he only gets up to it, not at it. He writes, "Neither interest rates at zero nor fiscal stimulus can achieve a sustainable recovery if people in the United States and abroad collectively decide, overnight, that such measures will ultimately lead to much higher inflation rates or outright default." Come on, is this not simply saying that lots of people involved in human sacrifice are always on the verge of actually seeing how much of someone else's value they've hacked off or how much they've had hacked off by other more powerful exploiters? Why can't Ferguson or any other smart thoughtful individual see that? Oh, forgot, these are top-class World operatives -- forgive me...
Over to the next page is Chris Ayres moaning and groaning and moaning some more about taxes. It is actually a somewhat fun whimsical piece, but it screams with the pain of politically instituted oppression by taxation. The convoluted tax system makes it more likely people will rage against it all, perversely keeping the ragers more tied to Caesar so he can check their rebellious proclivities. The question here: how much more like human sacrifice can this be? Tell me, why isn't encouraging whatever allowances you can get anything other than "Chop off a finger every year for us and we'll give you a really good discount on how many toes you have to give us"?
Ralph Nader chimes in with a note about the whole Toyota crisis, and how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has failed to prevent this kind of thing. Yes we'd like authorized officials to help keep Toyota's from killing us, and most of us believe Toyota is not deliberately out to kill us. But everyone is asking, were there indeed things the company could have done to prevent this? If the answer is yes, then they should be prosecuted to some extend by a law enforcement entity instituted to crack heads over such matters. Nader is simply saying that enforcement should be even stronger, which simply means someone is doing really horrific things to someone somewhere. Not only that, but why be too draconian about it since they're such good business for head-crackers? Human sacrifice anyone?
Finally Marcia Meier writes of her schizophrenic brother, and while the piece is heartbreaking, the headline says it all: "Schizophrenic: Who Will Care?" As it is he's got some of his mother's estate, some payments from government, but in the end she asks what will happen when that runs out? "Who is responsible?" she asks, "Who is responsible for them all?"
Wow, those last two questions are the best ones of all.
After committing the most notorious act of human sacrifice on record, Cain asked "Am I my brother's keeper?" at which point God sent him out of His presence to make the greatest city ever to stomp around and be his brother's keeper for all those who refuse to call upon the name of the Lord. Those presently working and striving and governing in that city will prop up their brother, enable his reprobate behavior, and hack off their cut. This standard form of human sacrifice was all over this Times editorial section.
Those who've left it and gone into the Kingdom under the lordship of Jesus Christ have already had the sacrifice taken care of. Jesus shed His own blood to free them to sow beauty and wonder and goodness into the lives of those they encounter. Their love abounds because it is self-sacrificial, and as such the bounty of ecstatic joy and abundant provision is overwhelming.
The difference is elucidated a bit more in my March-April home page piece, where all the questions above are given some more penetrating consideration. I'd love for you to read it and share with me what you think.
Comments
Post a Comment