C.S. Lewis Has A Point

 "I’m reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and I came across a fascinating idea I’ve never heard presented before. Lewis doesn’t state it directly—only its implication—but for his conclusion to hold, it must be inferred. It appears in the chapter “The Cardinal Virtues,” on the final two pages. Lewis distinguishes between performing a just or temperate act and actually being a just or temperate person. A poor tennis player might hit a great shot occasionally, but that doesn’t make him a good player. We all agree on that. Therefore, isolated acts of obedience don’t make one virtuous, character is revealed in consistency. From there, Lewis argues that God wants more than mere obedience. Obedience matters, but God cares far more about our character. He wants us to become people who naturally produce obedient behavior. Then comes the part I've been contemplating for the last few days. Lewis notes that we might assume virtues are needed only for this life, because in heaven there will be nothing to quarrel about (so no need for justice) and no danger (so no need for courage). But he adds that while God won’t refuse entry to heaven for lacking certain qualities, heaven offers no further opportunity to develop them. As a result, we will never attain the “deep, strong, unshakable kind of happiness” God intends. The inference that struck me is this: we may have only our time on earth to become the people God intends us to be. This life forms our capacity for joy, virtue, and glory. Heaven fulfills it but does not expand it through suffering. In heaven there are no trials to forge bravery, self-control, patience, humility, resilience, integrity, gratitude, or joy in the midst of hardship. Those qualities are shaped here, not there. So here's the unsettling question: once we die and enter eternity, is our development finished? Is this life our only chance to become the best version of ourselves? If so, it’s sobering. All the time wasted scrolling Instagram reels or behaving poorly without seeking growth would carry eternal consequences. I should live each day with urgency, taking massive strides toward becoming the man God intends. The day I die, the work ends. My capacity for joy and virtue can no longer grow. I’m not sure if this idea is theologically sound. Maybe it's not. I’d love some insight from theologians who could explain why it might not hold. But if this life truly is our only training ground, delay is far more dangerous than I ever realized. That thought alone makes me want to live with far greater urgency than yesterday."

That Thing That Never Happens, Happened Again

 https://thefederalist.com/2025/12/17/fulton-county-we-dont-dispute-315000-votes-lacking-poll-workers-signatures-were-counted-in-2020/

 

Well, one more "conspiracy theory" that falls victim to reality.  

 

We were told this never happens...

We were told that even if it did happen, that it wasn't enough to make a difference.   

When A DFL Senator Is Convinced

 https://x.com/overton_news/status/2001114723190735162?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Interesting position from a democrat.   

A Good Laugh

 https://x.com/wallstreetapes/status/2000604264209527213?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

This is absolutely hilarious.   

A God Who Acts

 Luke 1 seems to present some difficulties to those who insist that YHWH does not act or intervene in events and with people.  Likewise for those who dismiss anything supernatural.  

"1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled^[a] among us, ² just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. ³ With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴ so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

 We start the Gospel of Luke with the author assuring the recipient that he is compiling an account based on eyewitness testimony, which the author investigated, with the intent of giving the reader certainty about the recorded events.   To me this seems to exclude the author repeating things that were not testified to be eyewitnesses or things about what the author doesn't have certainty.  

 

^"5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. ⁶ Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. ⁷ But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.

⁸ Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, ⁹ he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. ¹⁰ And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside."

 

This section set the stage in the historical context, and starts the story of Jesus with the birth narrative of John the Baptist.  

^"11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. ¹² When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. ¹³ But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. ¹⁴ He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, ¹⁵ for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. ¹⁶ He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. ¹⁷ And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”"

 

Given the introduction, it would follow that the author is certain about what he is reporting.   That YHWH sent an angel to speak with Zechariah and to tell him that YHWH Himself had heard the prayers of Zechariah and Elizabeth and that YHWH will intervene to answer those prayers.   Also that YHWH's answer takes place outside of the normal, natural, course of events.  YHWH is acting through a woman thought to be barren, in order to make a point.  Further, the restrictions on John recall the restrictions of Nazarites of the OT at least in some sense.  Finally, John's role is that of an OT prophet.  To prepare the way for "The Lord" (referring to Jesus in terms that are usually applied to YHWH), and to turn people to righteous obedience and wisdom.   Strangely enough, not one mention of any economic issues.  

^"18 Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.”

¹⁹ The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. ²⁰ And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time.”"

Zechariah's response to Gabriel was quite the contrast to Mary's later in the chapter.  His response is doubt and he demands proof.   Given the circumstances, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask but doubting an angel sent from YHWH does seem foolish.   Gabriel then provided his resume, so to speak.  He is clear that he stands in the presence of YHWH and the he speaks on behalf of YHWH.   That there is an "appointed time" for this to happen has always interested me.  It seem to indicate that these events were a part of a larger plan of YHWH and had been "appointed" long ago. 

²¹ Meanwhile, the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondering why he stayed so long in the temple. ²² When he came out, he could not speak to them. They realized he had seen a vision in the temple, for he kept making signs to them but remained unable to speak.

²³ When his time of service was completed, he returned home. ²⁴ After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained in seclusion. ²⁵ “The Lord has done this for me,” she said. “In these days he has shown his favor and taken away my disgrace among the people.”

Elizabeth, however, managed to respond in a much more appropriate way.

^"26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, ²⁷ to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸ The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

²⁹ Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. ³⁰ But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. ³¹ You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. ³² He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, ³³ and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”"

Once again we see the claim that YHWH sent Gabriel to someone to tell them that YHWH was going to intervene in time and space, and that He was going to use Mary as a part of His plan.    It seems germane to note that Gabriel specifies what the child's name is to be (YHWH Saves) and that Gabriel is giving Mary a glimpse of who/what Jesus really is.  This seems to be a reasonably clear statement of the deity of Jesus, and of His Kingship.  

^"34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

³⁵ The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called^[b] the Son of God. ³⁶ Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. ³⁷ For no word from God will ever fail.”

³⁸ “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her."

 

Note Mary's response compared to Zechariah.  She seems much more willing to accept what she is being told, and her questions seem to suggest sincere curiosity rather than disbelief.  The final statement about the "word of YHWH" never failing is interesting.    

"

³⁹ At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, ⁴⁰ where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. ⁴¹ When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. ⁴² In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! ⁴³ But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? ⁴⁴ As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. ⁴⁵ Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”"

Given that the author of Luke is clear that he is repeating eyewitness testimony, for the purpose of giving the reader certainty, it seems difficult to dismiss this episode as anything but accurate.  That Elizabeth knew, through the Holy Spirit, who and what Jesus was to be and do, seems impossible to attribute to anything except the intervention of YHWH.  Eliazbeth reiterates an unshakable confidence in the promises of YHWH. 

 As I read the first part of Luke 1, I am left to draw the conclusion that the author either spoke with eyewitnesses to these events and is recounting them accurately, or that  the author undercuts his own claims by including events that didn't/couldn't happen because YHWH "doesn't work that way in time and space".   Personally, I can't reconcile a God who doesn't intervene in the world He created with the events recorded in Scripture.  Either YHWH is a trustworthy God who keeps His promises and is actively intervening in the lives of His people, or He's not.  If He's not, then how can we trust anything we read in Scripture, especially the Gospels?

BoT

https://x.com/nldrmedia/status/1998861580407288256?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw 

Great example of how awesome some of these Somali immigrants are.  

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09726-0

Woopsie, I guess following the science doesn't help the greens extremists.

 "NATURE JOURNAL RETRACTS MAJOR CLIMATE STUDY THAT CLAIMED $38 TRILLION IN ANNUAL DAMAGE BY 2049 The "science" strikes again. Nature has retracted a highly publicized 2024 climate study from Germany's Potsdam Institute that projected climate change would cause $38 trillion in economic damage annually by 2049 and a 62% reduction in global GDP by 2100. Progressives hyped it relentlessly. Axios called it a study that "shines a new light on the patterns and severity of climate change's economic impacts." It was used to justify electric vehicle mandates and other costly government interventions. One problem: the study was garbage. Scientists found rows of data were "wrongly printed as a decimal, rather than a percentage point." When corrected for statistical uncertainty, the results became "statistically insignificant." And here's the kicker: the entire projection was driven by data anomalies from one country, Uzbekistan, where economic data from 1995-1999 was inaccurate. Remove Uzbekistan, fix the math errors, and suddenly the economic harm from climate change is no longer distinguishable from the costs of doing nothing. The Network for Greening the Financial System, a group of central banks including the Federal Reserve, had already incorporated this junk study into their climate stress tests. The Fed withdrew from that network in January. Why didn't peer reviewers catch obvious errors? Conformity bias. Nobody wanted to question findings that supported the narrative. This is why Americans don't trust climate "science." Source: Wall Street Journal / Nature"

 

 https://x.com/alphanews/status/1998860940196892830?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw 

The more you know.  

 

 

BoT

 https://x.com/nancyrpearcey/status/1995277952259645825?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Somehow the ASPL has foisted the narrative on us the slavery is uniquely a sin of the US, yet history tells a different story.

 https://x.com/alexduncantx/status/1995247833428160809?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

"The West didn’t reject Jesus — it rebranded Him. We’ve turned the Lion of Judah into a soft, inoffensive, hippie mascot who never confronts sin, never speaks hard truth, and never offends anyone. That Jesus doesn’t exist. The real Jesus was strong, bold, fearless, and unapologetic. He spoke with authority, not approval. He flipped tables. He rebuked corruption. He called men to repent, deny themselves, and follow Him — not to be comfortable, but to be transformed. Christ was not weak. He didn’t beg for acceptance. He didn’t silence truth to keep the peace. The West didn’t lose Jesus — it watered Him down to justify cowardice and compromise. If your version of Jesus never convicts you, never offends your pride, and never demands obedience — it’s not Jesus. It’s an idol."

 

 https://x.com/michaelarothman/status/1994932046339477737?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐀𝐓𝐀 𝐖𝐀𝐒 𝐒𝐎 𝐁𝐀𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐑𝐎𝐎𝐌 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐒𝐈𝐋𝐄𝐍𝐓 ⁠ ⁠⁠ ⁠⁠ ⁠ I watched this video clip of a Christian–Muslim debate and the single most jaw-dropping moment wasn’t an argument — it was a 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜. Nobody shouted. Nobody stormed off. Nobody even had a comeback. Because when the Christian speaker put the numbers on the screen, the whole place froze. ⁠ ⁠⁠ ⁠⁠ ⁠ 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭-𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦-𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐭. These aren’t opinions. These aren’t insults. These are the published consanguinity rates paired with average national IQs: ⁠ ⁠⁠ ⁠⁠ ⁠ 𝐏𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧 — 𝟔𝟓% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟏 𝐒𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐚 — 𝟓𝟖% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟕𝟔 𝐔𝐀𝐄 — 𝟓𝟒% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟐 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 — 𝟒𝟎% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟎 𝐘𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧 — 𝟒𝟓% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟔𝟑 𝐐𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐫 — 𝟑𝟎% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟏 𝐎𝐦𝐚𝐧 — 𝟑𝟔% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟕𝟗 𝐒𝐲𝐫𝐢𝐚 — 𝟑𝟗% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟕𝟒 𝐓𝐮𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐲 — 𝟐𝟓% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟕 𝐉𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐚𝐧 — 𝟑𝟐% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟎 𝐄𝐠𝐲𝐩𝐭 — 𝟑𝟐% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟕𝟔 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐨 — 𝟐𝟔% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟔𝟕 𝐌𝐚𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚 — 𝟒𝟑% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟔𝟎 𝐒𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐧 — 𝟑𝟎% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟕𝟗 𝐀𝐟𝐠𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧 — 𝟒𝟔% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟐 𝐀𝐥𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚 — 𝟑𝟗% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟕𝟔 ⁠ ⁠⁠ ⁠⁠ ⁠ And here’s the part that makes it even more staggering: 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭-𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 — 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝. In some places, it’s considered preferred. In others, it’s pushed as a way to “keep wealth in the family.” But the biological cost is massive, generational, and measurable. ⁠ ⁠⁠ ⁠⁠ ⁠ By contrast? 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧-𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝟏% — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧, 𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞. There’s no mystery here. No conspiracy. Just biology and math. ⁠ ⁠⁠ ⁠⁠ ⁠ 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐭, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. It’s not “hate.” It’s not “phobia.” It’s the cold reality of what cousin-marriage norms do to nations over centuries.

 

 https://x.com/whitehouse/status/1994894494064676974?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

I keep asking Dan for specific examples of laws being broken when he makes his outlandish claims, yet he can't provide specific examples.  

 

 https://x.com/swipewright/status/1993704793345343526?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

The sex/gender "debate" is simply absurd at this point if you are actually interested in "DATA". 

 

 https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1992827530718663101?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

Insanity, yet the DFL sheep will vote for her.