Shocking and distressing

I’m shocked and distressed to note that certain rational, fact based, reasonable comments are disappearing from certain blog posts.  I guess that it’s evil to limit speech in certain contexts, while completely appropriate in others.  I guess it’s even better to lament the (false and unproven claims) alleged limiting of speech, while simultaneously engaging in the very act you decry.   But, I guess I just don’t go off on bitchy rants about made up things often enough.

Really?

According to Diane Feinstein Made the claim that the new tax bill and is the worst piece of legislation that has ever come before the house of representatives. Given the fact that the house of representatives passed a fugitive slave law in 1850, I find this claim a little hard to swallow.

Just curious

Isn’t it somehow illegal to offer an elected official “straight cash homie” in an attempt to influence them to vote in a particular way?    It seems wrong that someone could publicly offer two senators a total of 4 million dollars to change their votes and not run afoul of the law.

Jesus Matters

I saw this today and thought it was pretty good.

Jesus Matters.

What do we mean by this?

That we do not want to be a community of academically-minded religious professionals, nor a gathering of like-minded socially aware moralists, but a community of people that experience the transforming power of Jesus.  We want it never to be far from our lips, our minds, our hearts, or our experience.

Jesus matters because Jesus is God
Jesus matters because He rescues us from the past, present, and future consequences of sin.
Jesus matters because He adopts us into God's family
Jesus matters because He extends us freedom and grace
Jesus matters because He is the King ushering in His Kingdom
Jesus matters because He calls us into mission with the God who is already at work in the world.

Anger

Anger continued on past its usefulness becomes unjust, then dangerous…it fuels not positive activism but regression, obsession, vengeance, self-righteousness. Corrosive, it feeds of itself, destroying its host in the process.

Ursula K Le Guin

I've seen this quote a couple of times and it sparked something we talked about in Bible study last week.  We're doing a study around the seven "deadly" sins and the topic was wrath.  The author talked bout how "righteous" anger can turn into something else entirely.  I was struck by how much of the disgust and revulsion at the parade of public figures caught up in various sexual misbehaviors has generated  a tide of appropriate anger at the harm done, the lies told, and the misuse of power and authority.  Yet, I'm also struck by how much of the people expressing this "justified" anger seem to revel in it.  To almost use the lack of what they consider an appropriate degree of anger as a litmus test to affirm their superiority.  I wondered than, and still do, how much of what started out as righteous indignation and anger, is turning into something else entirely.

Seems like Ursula just might agree with my take.

Not sure what to think.

Of late we're seeing in increasing number of men being outed for engaging in varying degrees of sexual misbehavior with women.   To be honest, there is a lot about this that I find troubling.

First, the fact that so many of these men have had long histories of this behavior which has been ignored, tolerated, joked about, and accepted.   Remember how everybody laughed off Ted Kennedy's drunken "waitress sandwich" incident?

Second, the fact that we've gone from that extreme, to the other where it's appropriate to fire someone at the first accusation. 

Third, the role that the culture plays in all of this.  Since the "Sexual revolution" there has been a push from the left to move sex away from something reserved for marriage and toward something that has minimal consequences.  Starting with "free love", the introduction of the birth control pill, the legalization of abortion, no fault divorce, movies and TV, 50 Shades of Gray, the ubiquity of free porn, and hook up culture.   The fact that all of these have been driven by folks who tend toward the left side of the political spectrum, is something that seems to be ignored, as is the fact that these things have contributed to what we're seeing now.

Fourth, while I understand the fact that these private companies have the ability to fire people at will, it seems a bit harsh and arbitrary to fire someone so quickly after an allegation.  It seems like a bit of an overreaction and an attempt to protect the company with little regard for the possible innocence of the one charged.

Fifth, it seems like we're lumping in an incredibly wide range of behavior and treating Keillor's touching with the same degree of seriousness as Weinstein's  harassment.  All the while, there's kind of been a pass for the Weiners' and Clinton's of the world and no one seems particularly bothered by the use of tax dollars to pay of the victims of various congressmen.  

Sixth, I can't for the life of me see how anyone can try to cast the prevalence of free  easily accessed porn as anything but a negative and to not see the connection between the Playboy mainstreaming of objectifying women purely for their physical/sexual attributes and how some men treat women. 

It seems like folks on the left have encouraged the migration of sex further and further away from marriage, then all of a sudden get overly moralistic when the consequences of those societal changes start to become too much.  

I'm not suggesting that the right isn't complicit in following the changes in society, just that virtually every change in the nature of sexual relations has come from the left and moved throughout society.

It still baffles me that the same folks who defended/excused Clinton, made snide jokes about Weinstein, and argue that porn and unfettered sex empowers women, bashed the crap out of Pence for going against the grain.  But even now, they would never admit that choosing to live by the Graham rule would have prevented much of what has everyone so worked up now.

Mixed Messages

There are plenty of mixed messages from the left floating around out there, and one wonders how to make sense of them.

For example, we're told the following things about men.


"The answer is that we do, and we must, regard all men as potential monsters to be feared. That's why we cross to the other side of the street at night, and why we sometimes obey when men say "Smile, honey!" We are always aware the alternative could be death."

 "It is squarely a man’s problem. In the wake of recent horror stories about men in power who abuse women — like Harvey Weinstein — we offer some of our findings on rape culture and some suggestions for men to make change."
 '

"But the socialization of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy.

And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism."

So, if those things are true, then why would anyone want these monsters mingling with women in places like restrooms or locker rooms?

Yet, one also wonders why...

"Laurel Hubbard is genetically male, but transitioned to female in her 30s, and now the former men's weightlifting champion has qualified for the New Zealand national weightlifting team as a woman.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced Saturday that it had cleared Hubbard to compete in the Commonwealth Games, one of several international competitions that precede the Olympics. Hubbard, they say, has "acceptable" levels of testosterone, clearing her to compete against female weightlifters even though she has a clear psychological and physical advantage."

or this...


"Transgender mixed martial arts (MMA) competitor Fallon Fox is facing new criticisms after breaking the eye socket of his last opponent.
On Saturday, Fox defeated Tamikka Brents by TKO at 2:17 of the first round of their match. In addition to the damaged orbital bone that required seven staples, Brents received a concussion. In a post-fight interview this week, she told Whoa TV that "I've never felt so overpowered ever in my life.""

or this...

" Transgender sprinter Andraya Yearwood, a freshman who was born a male, won the girls 100-meter and 200-meter dashes at the Connecticut high school Class M state championships — victories that didn’t come without some controversy."

Make any sense, in light of the first few quotes.

So, we're left with "All men are potential monsters", but we should let them in women's bathrooms, and some men are really women.  

Yet, we're told that women don't need guns.  Seems like with a bunch of "potential  monsters" out there that maybe allowing women the choice to carry would be a good idea.   But we all know that no one needs to carry because the police are the only ones who have guns.  Sounds great, until...

"In a shooting involving a police officer, there's often a familiar blame game: Was the cop was racist? Was the person shot threatening? Or maybe, the bias that leads cops to shoot affects us all."

 "76% of black Americans say police are more likely to target minorities."

So, to protect women and minorities from these "potential monsters", we want  to leave that to the police who are likely to target minorities.

I don't know for sure, but believing that all men are "potential monsters", who should be allowed unfettered access to places where women are most vulnerable, except for those men who are actually women, ....

I think you get the point.  It strains credulity to believe that people can actually hold these contradictory positions simultaneously.

H/T Matt Walsh

source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

My how things change

Several months back, it was reported that Vice President Mike Pence had made a choice regarding the way he personally managed his life and work.  He had chosen to adopt the Billy Graham rule as his personal standard of conduct.  No where did he suggest that this was anything beyond his personal standard for how he chose to live.  In essence, he chose to adhere to a higher standard of personal conduct than was the norm in an attempt to be above reproach and to not have even the appearance of impropriety.

Many people like Dan, chose to respond to Pence's choice (yes, I not the irony of folks who are "pro choice" ridiculing someone for their personal choice), with scorn, ridicule, and misinformation. 

Now, some months later, one wonders how many of these recent stories about men in positions of power using their positions to inflict sexual harm on those (both male and female) who had less power could have been avoided had people made the same choice as Pence.

At best, it's incredibly ironic that the same folks who made (and still do) excuse after excuse for Clinton, joked about Kennedy's peccadilloes while voting for him, and are now in full hue and cry over the allegations against judge Moore, were the same ones who mocked and derided Pence.  

Matt Walsh offers the opinion that there are three things that would help to minimize this seeming tide of sexual abuse and harassment.

1.  Observe the Billy Graham rule.
2. Emphasize Modesty
3. Emphasize Chastity.

Now, he's not suggesting that these three will stop every depraved harasser for all times.  Nor is he suggesting that these three be legislated.  Just that a return to three things that used to be considered virtues would be a pretty good place to start.   The link to the entire piece is below.

 In a related story, there is a movie called Call Me By Your Name, is apparently getting some  Academy Awards buzz of late.  This movie is about a 25 year old man seducing a 17 year old boy.  Personally, in the wake of the increasing number of "revelations" about the depravity of the Hollywood culture (especially the number of adult men sexually abusing young boys), I find this movie an odd choice to be celebrated.  It seems especially tone deaf for this particular industry to be touting a movie with this subject matter for awards in this context.



http://www.dailywire.com/news/23716/walsh-3-politically-incorrect-and-totally-matt-walsh?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

Al Franken needs to go

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/melinda-henneberger/article185315138.html


The less than conservative leaning Kansas City Star published this Op/Ed about Al Franken, and I makes some good points.

One of the salient point the author makes is this.

"And to the fury that Republicans have felt ever since over the way women who accused Bill Clinton of harassment, assault and rape were treated by feminists. How could they condone the actions of a man whose behavior undercut everything they’d ever said they cared about? I can’t tell you how many Republicans have told me, both before and after the election, that they saw no reason to disqualify Trump for behavior that progressives had defended."

To this day, I still hear leftists defend Bill Clinton with lines like: "He only lied about sex", "It was his private life," and "the Lewinky thing was consensual.".    So, it seems reasonable to ask why it's ok for Bill but not for Donald.

But none of that is why Franken should resign.  Nor should Franken resign because he's a liar with poor impulse control who has attacked, stalked, and threatened people with whom he disagrees.    Clearly that's problematic, but still not the reason.

Here's why Franken should go, and why the DFL isn't smart enough to push this.

1.  If the DFL encourages/forces Franken to resign, they regain at least a tiny bit of the moral high ground they've lost due to Clinton, Weiner, Weinstein, Menendez, etc.

2.  This puts the nail in Franken's reelection, and despite the deep blue nature of the peoples republic, there is a decent chance that the GOP could flip this seat if Franken runs.

3.  If Franken resigns, eventually Dayton will rouse himself from his stupor, and appoint a replacement.  Most likely that replacement would be Keith Ellison.  Ellison is the perfect candidate, he checks almost every affirmative action box, except for being a woman (of course he could change that in a second), and having him run as an incumbent will give him a huge advantage.   This ignores the fact that Ellison is dumb as a post and already in over his head, but it's the DFL.   

Clearly a Franken resignation moves the DFL cause forward in any number of ways and is a win/win for the left.   Unfortunately, Franken's support for abortion will probably tip the scales in his favor and his narcissism will prevent him from looking beyond himself.

It should go without saying, that I think he should stay and get beaten in his next election.

Fear?

What would motivate someone to ask for something, then (after it was provided) accuse the one who provided it of failing to do so?

What would motivate someone to make a claim, then when pressed to answer questions about that claim, dissappear?

What would make someone ask for evidence, then when evidence is provided, ask for different evidence?

Finally, what makes someone delete comments then characterize both the comments and the one who commented in a manner that can minimally be described as misleading?

Those are good questions, which will most likely end up like other threads of questions, unanswered.

Donald Trump is an evil,evil man. Judge Moore, is a slimy, little worm.

Donald Trump has a long history of engaging in behavior that could best be categorized as immoral.  He clearly is narcissistic and that seemingly drives him to evaluate all moral questions by the standard of what benefits him personally.  His history of affairs and divorces should remove any element of surprise from his his behavior toward women.

Judge Moore, several decades ago, engaged in behavior which is at best disgusting and creepy, at worst, illegal.  His refusal to acknowledge his situation and to drop out of the senate race seems to indicate someone who is also narcissistic and self centered.   He should drop out of the current senate race and focus on clearing his name if that is possible, however unlikely it seems.

These two are just the most recent of a long line of people in positions of power, wealth, fame, or government who have used their positions as aq means to inflict harm on others.   I shouldn't have to repeat the obvious and self evident fact that this behavior is wrong.

But, in a world where certain people insist that objective right and wrong don't exist and that morality is relative, where does the moral authority come from to demonize these people? 

Kill ‘em all

In the spirit of overreacting out there I have two related suggestions.

1.  Since a tiny percentage of inanimate objects get used by people to do horrible things we should indiscriminately ban the 99.9% of those inanimate objects.

2.  Since I tiny percentage of men engage in acts which sexually demean, assault, harass, or rape women as well as young children of both genders, we should engage in punitive action against the overwhelmingly large percentage of men who don’t engage in those acts.   Further should ignore the men who are actively engaged in preventing these acts and punishing these horrific people who engage in them.    Perhaps all men should be lulled of, or restricted in Somme reasonable way.

Perhaps the answer is for those of us in the 99% of men should just identify as one of the unlimited gender options available to us.

Another paraphrase.

I thought about doing a paraphrase of Proverbs 27, but decided I really didn't need to.

Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth;
    an outsider, and not your own lips.

 Stone is heavy and sand a burden,
    but a fool’s provocation is heavier than both.

 The prudent see danger and take refuge,
    but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.

 Though you grind a fool in a mortar,
    grinding them like grain with a pestle,
    you will not remove their folly from them.

The Russians are coming, well they’ve been here.

I just saw a WSJ article, reporting on a series of pieces in the notoriously right wing publication The Hill with new news on the Russian collusion story.   You’d think more information about American politicians colluding with Russia would be big news, wouldn’t you?  

I guess not.

Interesting

I know that some folk have tried to rationalize Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky as being consensual, and therefore less problematic.  

I guess I’d say two things.

1.  If you read the US legal code definition of sexual harassment, there is no possible way to claim that Clinton didn’t engage in sexual harassment.

2.  Monica Lewinsky herself disagrees with you.  

But why would anyone listen to Monica?  Or anyone else the Clintons abused and discarded.

Hiram

Just in case Dan (Mr. I rarely delete comments) decides to get picky about being off topic.  I offer this space for Hiram's question and whatever responses it my generate.





Would I be going too far if I imagine that Dan rejects divine inspiration of the Old Testament? I had that thought while reading this page---

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/da0_skygod.htm

~ Hiram

Origins

A while back Dan made the claim that "God created us in God's image.".   I was a little surprised to hear him so emphatically declare that God had created us.  So, I asked for clarification.  After some initial misunderstanding and confusion on his part, he finally responded with a statement of sorts about what he meant by using the word "create".   As part of the digression, there was a request that I "point" him in the direction of some resources on creation that might be more recent than his extensive reading from 2-3 decades ago.

I "pointed" him to a couple of options, which he responded to with a degree of derision.  Instead of continue down that road, I've decided to post a brief bibliography with some different views from a Christian perspective on the origins of life.

William Dembski- Mere Creation, The Design Inference, No Free Lunch, Signs of Intelligence, Uncommon Dissent,

Jonathan Wells- Icons of Evolution

Jaques Barzun- Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique if a Heritage

Phillip E. Johnson- Reason in the Balance

Michael Behe- Darwin’s Black Box

John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer- Darwinism, Design, and Public Education

Francis Beckwith- Law, Darwinism, and Public Education

Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen- The Mystery of Life’s Origin

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards- The Privileged Planet

Rose and Rose- Alas Poor Darwin

Stephen C. Meyer- Darwin’s Doubt, Signature in the Cell

Guillermo Gonzalez- Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

Alister McGrath-The Dawkins Delusion, Dawkins God

Charles Colson- How Now Shall We Live, Burden of Truth

Denyse O’Leary-By Design or By Chance

Lewis and Barnes- A Fortunate Universe

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exoplanet-census-suggests-earth-is-special-after-all/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/09/scientists-discover-some-of-the-oldest-signs-of-life-on-earth/541251/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1017083700096

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838

http://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/01/should-big-bang-be-disdained.html

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838

https://www.firstthings.com/author/stephen-c-meyer

http://www.discovery.org/a/200


If Dan would like to avail himself of any of these resources, they are here for him.  What will not be allowed is any of the ad hom/broad brush/snobbish attacks on entire groups of people he's chosen at his blog.  Anything of that nature will quickly disappear and never be seen again.   Any, actual engagement with anything specifically mentioned in any of these resources, or any actual refutation will be welcomed.

Shocking

Apparantly the Clinton Foundation thinks it’s appropriate to keep the money they got from Harvey Weinstein.

Really interesting piece.


 https://stream.org/harvey-weinstein-zeus-hollywood-feminists-hera-discuss/

A reference to the questions Dan said he'd answer after I answeder one of his questions. I've now answered him twice. So far nothing on these.

In an effort to be helpful as the comment thread gets longer, these are the questions you said you'd answer.  I thought this might be easier than scrolling through so many comments.




So, are you suggesting that Jesus explicit commandments need to be redefined, or modified, or clarified by filtering the explicit through some amorphous, undefined “way” that only you seem to understand?

Does that mean that you’re not going to clarify your opinions on “creation”?

Again, a clarification, when you said “ God IS NOT MAKING RULES. Period.End of discussion.”, we’re you planning to offer proof of this claim? Could we expect that proof when you explain your opinions on “creation”?

I suspect this might get deleted, so I'm going to post it here for posterity.

Art,

Of course "the best science" would argue (from a purely materialistic worldview), that altruism and love are simply convenient fictions designed to perpetuate the species.  Or they might say that it's just a random combination of genetic impulses.  Or that the appearance of altruism simply masks the selfish desire to make the world "less hellish" for personal gain.  Of course it's also observable that not everyone on the planet accepts this universal truth of love your fellow man.   Clearly, the Tsutsi's don't love the Hutu.  The Boers don't (didn't) love the Keffirs.  The Sunni don't love the Shia.  The Hindus don't love the Buddhists or the Muslims.  I don't think you can argue that the Chinese government/society has been particularly loving toward girl babies.  I don't think the FGM and honor killings that permeate an unknown segment of the Muslim community could be considered loving.

Maybe it's bot so universal.  Maybe not everyone is "craving moral order".    Or, at the very least, maybe by turning morality into simply the expression of the mores of a majority, any sense of morality has been diminished.

Maybe, just maybe, Dan is mistaken.

Love, what Jesus and Paul had to say

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

  “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word(teachings, commandments), and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.

 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here.

 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

 This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.  These things I command you, so that you will love one another.

 or the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.

 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends.

I think we can draw some conclusions from the above.

1.  We are commanded to love, even those who we disagree with.
2.  If we don't keep Jesus/God's commandments, then we don't love Him.
3.  Love doesn't sound like this:
" bat shit crazy"
" bigoted, hateful, ignorant and distasteful"
" Ugly, racist, bigoted, hateful, oppressive, ignorant, anti-American, ugly, theocratic, bigoted, hateful, ignorant, distasteful; stupidity, ineptness, insanity; idiot, pervert."
" fucking regurgitated shit"
" I'm meeting vulgar with vulgar"
" dickweeds"
" I don't give a rat's ass what you think"
 "You are defending fucking liars"
 "Shame on you and get the fuck out of here, you pervert-defender. No more of your shit-mouthed defense of the indefensible."
" You're a dick."
" You don't know shit."
" shit-eating pervert-creep"
" oppressors and sexist, racist jackasses"
" you're a pig. A sexist pig who is probably just too damned stupid to know what a pig you are."

Now that's just me, but I don't think any of the above statements align with either Jesus' commandments or Paul's explanation of what love looks like.

One might ask, how do the above comments demonstrate the "Truth that humans should watch out for one another, especially the least of these. Doing otherwise only contributes to making the world (and thus, our own lives!) a hellish place. It's irrational to disagree with this Truth and I think it is a Universal Truth."

Or is "watch(ing) out for one another", just a manifestation of a Utilitarian philosophy, so as to not make the world a "hellish place"?  But isn't making the world a better place (for me) just self interest gussied up as love?

"And for those of us who believe in God and follow Jesus,"

Since Jesus was looking for people to love him and the way He says that we show our love is to follow His commandments, I struggle to understand how denying the existence of commandments is "following" Jesus.

Really, loosing such unloving language at those you disagree with is "following Jesus"?  

  " It's True because it's True,", "People just generally recognize this Truth."," It is at least nearly universally recognized as a good idea", " a good idea.", "Jesus' teachings are just helpful pointer"

So, which one is it?

" Jesus was teaching a Way, rather than a set of rules. A Way of Grace and Love."

I'm shocked that this "Way", includes the kind of statements above, I question how they demonstrate either "Grace" or "Love".


"God is NOT MAKING RULES. Period. End of discussion."

Technically God is issuing commandments, not making rules, but clearly this statement of fact should be proven. 


This is quite a lot for one post, but I thought that I'd summarize what Jesus said about loving others, and what Paul though love looks like.  Then I though it valuable to contrast that with what others might say.

Food for thought.

I thought if something needed to be paraphrased it should be a warning to the Church, not a prophecy directed to ancient Israel.

Let's listen to the words of Peter.  " a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ", one of the "
eyewitnesses of his majesty",  someone who was with Jesus "on the holy mountain", perhaps Peter might have something to say that we can all learn from and apply.

There are going to be people who come around spreading lies!

They will even deny Jesus!

They will swiftly be destroyed!

Lots of people will be fooled by their lies, and seduced by their sensuality.

But, because of them the very notion of Truth will be blasphemed, denied, and redefined!

Their greed will bring about their destruction!

For if YHWH didn’t spare the angels who rebelled, but exiled them in chains to Hell to stay until they were judged.  If YHWH didn’t spare the ancient world (except Noah and his family as a beacon of righteousness).  If YHWH reduced Sodom and Gomorrah to smoldering ash as a result of their ungodliness.  In fact, using them as an example of what will happen to the ungodly!

If all that is true, then YHWH will rescue the Godly as surely as He rescued Lot and Noah.

These liars are bold and willful, it doesn’t even bother them when they blaspheme YHWH.

Even the angels weren’t as brazen in their blasphemy as these spreaders of lies!

These liars are like irrational, feral animals, acting purely in instinct and Reason, also surely to be destroyed like all rabid wild animals.   Strangely enough, for all their bluster and pride, they’re actually ignorant. 

They are like blots or blemishes revealed when the light of Truth shines on them.  They insatiable in their sin, focusing on adultery and greed, they prey on those who aren’t grounded in the Truth.  They’re like Balaam who was so in love with his wrongful gain, that he must be rebuked by a donkey!

These liars are like springs without water, they’re like mists driven before a hurricane, they have reserved seats in a place of gloom and darkness!

Because of their foolish boasting, they attract those who are also living in error!

They promise the freedom of Reason and autonomy, but, condemn themselves and others to the slavery of corruption!   Because whatever a person focuses on, is what he is enslaved by!

Even if these liars once escaped the death and defilement that come from the world because of knowing Jesus, they have become re-entangled and overcome so that they are worse off now than before they heard the Gospel!

In all honesty it would be better if these liars had never even heard the Gospel, than for them to have turned their backs on the holy commandments they have been given! 

The old saying is really true, the dog does return to its own vomit, and the pig (after getting clean) goes right back to wallowing in filth!