Connect with us

Culture and Religion

An old progressive radical in my hometown

Published

on

An old progressive radical in my hometown

Progressive radicals come in all shapes and sizes. Young and old, they could be your sons and daughters and grandchildren. Sadly, they can be as old as your grandparents. Yesterday I decided to unblock a person on a Facebook account I know to be a progressive radical. I was wondering if this person finally kicked the bucket.

Nope, that person is still very much alive, and likely in their 80’s if not 90’s. How do I know this person is a radical? I know this because I have read many of the letters that were published either by our local daily newspaper as well as our alternative weekly. Without fail she always came out swinging for supportive of abortion rights (and abortion on demand), discouraged adoption, and supported China’s one child policy.

If this ghoul had it her way, we would have to put our conscience aside and support and fund birth control policy that include abortion in health care (along with baking cakes and taking pictures for gay couples and affirming the way they enjoy having sex). It’s all about the woman’s active libido, and Margaret Sanger’s push for sexual liberation for women. One thing I noticed on her Facebook is that she talks about making a good future for our children and that means you should oppose any energy bill that promotes fossil fuel. Got to keep the focus on the more expensive wind and social energy programs that our children and grandchildren will pay a heavy price for.

But then again, they may not need to pay if their mothers did not want their children and had them murdered while still in their wombs. Like I said before, the mother must be able to enjoy a big juicy “Ballpark” even if that means she gets ‘knocked up’ at a time not of her choosing. Hey, all those family planning methods may not work, and abortion must become that backup and final resort.

Eight years ago, Dennis Prager wrote a piece for townhall.com in which he writes that polices of Democrats and Progressives are not based on rational and/or realistic thinking. They are based on their brand of faith and dogma. For the progressives that faith is based on hope, change and a utopia in which they can be “good without God” and creating the perfect utopia and prove that they are equal or better than God.

Democrats’ Policies Based on Dogma, Hopes, Dreams, not Reality

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2009/10/27/democrats-policies-based-on-dogma,-hopes,-dreams,-not-reality-n828673Given the huge economic failures that the left itself attributes to Medicare and Medicaid and given the economic collapse or near collapse of these systems in other countries, the left’s prescriptions can only be explained in one way: The left has made its views a form of religion.

Most individuals on the left are not religious, but virtually all people, secular and religious, liberal and conservative, yearn to believe in dogma, i.e., absolute beliefs that transcend reason. For people on the left in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, belief in the state — the notion that the state can do a better job at helping people and making a good society — is one such dogma. This applies especially to educating the young and to health care.

Funny thing is, even if the Freethinkers don’t believe in the supernatural, their opposition to drilling and fossil fuels does revile something. They too are ‘dirt worshipers,’ or people who worship the creation rather than the creator. They also must make the government the state church of their faith, because that is the institution that must “take care of the people.” They would rather put our society into a real-life hell instead of admitting they are wrong and need to return to God and His law. He is just in the way of their ‘fun.’

Want to know why people get upset when you tell them they are doing wrong, regardless of what that wrong is? You’re telling them that they can’t “feel good,” even if it’s using adult language, having sex outside of marriage (I could have done that myself but I didn’t), having sex with the same gender, or getting high on whatever drug or anti-drug it might be. You tell them that they can’t feel good, they get upset and demand that you shut up and leave them and warn them of their likely self-destruction no more. Breaking God’s law in any shape or form usually does “feel good,” at least for the short term.

They also prove Romans Chapter 1 to be correct. You reap what you sow kids. You’re not going to mock God and get away with it no matter how hard you try.

Moral relativism only applies to questioning God’s unchangeable law. Progressives actually believe in absolutes as well when it applies to what they believe in. Easy Sex/Free Love, worship of the dirt, big tyrannical government, and shaping the society they envision in their poisoned brainwashed minds. Progressivism is the biggest cult that Christians must push back against just as much if not more against other anti-Christian faiths that they consider such.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance?

Published

on

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance

To really answers the question of whether life was created or came about by random chance, we need to take a mathematical look at things. It may be easier to form our opinions based on something we read in a junior high science book, but there really is more to it than the surface questions asked and answered by scientists and theologians alike.

For the faithful, it comes down to faith. For the scientific, it also comes down to faith. Whose faith is more likely to be correct?

Part of the answer can be found in this short video. Those who think there’s no faith associated with scientific theories clearly don’t understand the mathematics behind the science they claim to hold dear.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets?

Published

on

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets

There’s a trend that has been growing for some time that is reaching a tipping point now. The trend is this: when someone becomes a big story in the news, their Twitter accounts are scoured from beginning to end in order to find Tweets that offend a particular group or protected class. In many cases, this offended group has been the LGBTQ comunity, such as the recent cases of Kevin Hart and Kyler Murray.

Hart was set to host the upcoming Academy Awards when it was “discovered” the comedian used anti-LGBTQ slurs in the past. He deleted the Tweets and apologized, but still felt it necessary to pull out of the Oscars after so much backlash.

Murray, the Heisman trophy winner, was forced to apologize after reports of his Tweets used the same slurs when he was 14- and 15-years-old.

Bigotry in all its forms is contemptible. But where do we draw the line between actual bigotry and unfortunate uses of words or opinions in the past that have been deemed unacceptable today?

Should President Obama (and for that matter, Hillary Clinton) be demonized by the LGBTQ community, mainstream media, and leftists for their perspectives a decade ago? Lest we forget, both announced sharp opposition to gay marriage when they were running for president in 2008. Which is worse, a potential head of state calling for marriage to be defined as being between a man and woman or a teenager in high school referring to someone as a “fag”?

Democratic politicians are apparently allowed to evolve in their beliefs, but comedians and college football players are not.

Anti-Christian Tweets

Sadly, some of the very people who demonize others on Twitter for using unacceptable terms in the past are the same people who also demonize Christians today. I’ve been combing through Tweets of many of the most outspoken proponents of LGBTQ rights, accusers of Islamophopia, and other anti-bigotry leaders. In many cases, these people who are against bigotry demonstrate their own bigotry towards the Judeo-Christian faiths without being big news stories.

I’m not posting the Tweets here. I will not participate in whataboutism, nor do I condone using someone’s past Tweets to highlight their alleged bigotry. There’s a difference between the militant and inexcusable posts by people like Louis Farrakhan and the posts be people like Murray, Hart, or the anti-Christian posts of their detractors. They might see it as okay to demonize people like Hart and Murray for their Tweets, but I will not participate in Twitter witch hunts on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both practices are wrong.

So the question really isn’t about when we start calling out anti-Christian Tweets. It’s about why we should openly debate each other’s perspectives without being condemned for our own perspectives. If someone Tweets something against the Judeo-Christian faith, I wouldn’t expect the Oscars to ban them from being their host. I would see it as an opportunity to share my own perspectives and hopefully show some who are against my faith that there’s something worth exploring.

Today, if you Tweet something deemed unacceptable by the LGBTQ community, you’re in jeopardy of losing much. If you Tweet something against the Judeo-Christian faiths, the left sees it as acceptable. Social media is the most hypocritical medium around.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

9 discoveries that confirm the Bible

Published

on

9 discoveries that confirm the Bible

In this extremely interesting short video detailing archaeological discoveries that confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible, the folks at World Video Bible School highlight some amazing evidence. I don’t know much about WVBS, but I can endorse this video itself.

Here’s the first of the 9 discoveries:

The Pilate Inscriptions

In 1961 in an Italian sponsored dig in Caesarea, archaeologists uncovered a stone that had a Latin inscription on it that said “Pontius Pilatus… prefect of Judea.” That Pilate is mentioned in the Gospel accounts on several occasions. You read in John 18:29:

Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

The find verifying the New Testament statement that Pilate was the prefect of Judea.

8 more

All of these discoveries are proper, indisputable archaeological finds. It’s one thing to contest the Bible’s authenticity as the Word of God, though its very presence and the takeaways we can draw from it point the faithful to the truth. However, claiming it as being historically wrong is being debunked regularly.

The authenticity of the Bible as a historical document is no longer a valid argument against it. As more archaeological evidence points to its physical truths, so too should its words and lessons be completely trustworthy to those seeking the truth.

 

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report