Connect with us

Culture and Religion

New Years Resolutions

Published

on

New Years Resolutions

Well, it’s about that time when people start thinking about new years resolutions, such as to resolving to Smile More and Complain less…

So, in that spirit …

For the President: Please stop getting into petty fights with leftists on twitter.

Mr. President, Twitter can be a double edged sword at times – a way to be instantly in touch with constituents, and a way to get off track in petty battles over irrelevant subjects. You need to show some restraint in picking your battles and perhaps have another pair of eyes to be sure of what is being disseminated. You have a powerful weapon of mass communication in social media. However, you need to be mindful that the backlash from inadvertent slip-ups can be devastating.

For the Conservative-Right: Resolve to stop complimenting Leftists with the term ‘Liberal’.

We all know that it’s hard to kick a bad habit and easy to confuse the terms ‘Leftist’ and ‘Liberal’. Nevertheless, we must be mindful that these terms signify two entirely different and antithetical concepts.  Besides that, Leftists love the deception having their authoritarian designs labelled as “Liberalism’.

Leftists are advocates of Collective rights – Socialism, Marxism, etc. while Liberals [from the same root word as Liberty] are by definition, advocates of individual rights and freedoms. At it’s core, Socialism is the subjugation of the individual to the collective and anathema to personal freedom and Liberty. Liberal implies a support of liberty, but if they advocate the economic slavery of socialism, that isn’t the case.

There is a silent split taking place in the formally unified Leftist sphere. Search on YouTube for “Leaving the Left” and you will see there is a whole series of videos on ‘Leaving the Left’ , including one from Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report ‘The Left is No Longer Liberal.’

So, how does one distinguish between the two?

If someone advocates for the collective rights of socialism, they are Leftist. If someone advocates for individual liberty and free trade, they are Liberal. [‘Classic Liberal’ in the vernacular – perhaps it is time to reclaim the original word…]

For the Socialist-Left: Resolve to give up on Gun Confiscation.

We are all well aware that this is your obsession and the lynch pin in depriving the people of their Liberty. Never the less, you people should realise that it’s just not going to happen.

We also know that you are working tirelessly day and night to chip away at out common sense civil rights. Everything from incremental steps like Intergalactic Background Checks and registration to ‘hail Mary’ attempts with the banning of undefined ‘assault weapons’.

This is why we resist (how’s that for a word) your efforts to use every ‘serious crisis’ and falsely pretend gun are unregulated and need something – anything – to clamp down on those who are innocent.

And for everyone else: Resolve to go back to the logical colours for two political sides – Red for the Socialist-Left and Blue for the Conservative-Right.

For years the common held designation had the Left as Red and the Right as Blue, then back during the year 2000 election some folks decided to turn things upside down. Well, now is the time to change them back to their rational form. Even the New York Times has acknowledged this with it’s “Red Century” series, and this would just be common sense to all involved.

Reference

When Republicans Were Blue and Democrats Were Red

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-republicans-were-blue-and-democrats-were-red-104176297/But not everyone liked the shift. Republican operative Clark Bensen wrote an analysis in 2004 titled “RED STATE BLUES: Did I Miss That Memo?”

“There are two general reasons why blue for Republican and Red for Democrat make the most sense: connotation and practice,” Bensen wrote. “First, there has been a generally understood meaning to the two colors inasmuch as they relate to politics. That is, the cooler color blue more closely represented the rational thinker and cold-hearted and the hotter red more closely represented the passionate and hot-blooded. This would translate into blue for Republicans and red for Democrats. Put another way, red was also the color most associated with socialism and the party of the Democrats was clearly the more socialistic of the two major parties.

“The second reason why blue for Republicans makes sense is that traditional political mapmakers have used blue for the modern-day Republicans, and the Federalists before that, throughout the 20th century. Perhaps this was a holdover from the days of the Civil War when the predominantly Republican North was ‘Blue’.”

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