At this point in the "officially sanctioned" rioting in Baltimore, we have seven police officers injured, one who is described as "non responsive".
But hey, the folks on the left will throw out crap like this in order to explain these things.
"...strong reactions are not arising from a sense of "disappointment," but a deep and serious concern about justice and oppression..."
Does anyone seriously think that injuring seven innocent people is an appropriate way to deal with a percieved lack of "justice" and "oppression".
Monday, April 27, 2015
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Lefty politicians say and do the strangest things.
Doesn't it seem strange to celebrate earth day and to warn of the dangers of climate change by leaving your mansion, hopping in your armored limo, following and being followed by a fleet of full sized armored SUV's, drive to the airport, hop on your private jumbo jet, fly 1500 miles, drive your fleet of limos/SUV's out to the middle of a swamp, then do it all in reverse. All for a photo op.
Doesn't it seem strange that there is actual proof that Hillary lied about the reason why she had a private e-mail server, and her supporters don't seem to mind?
Doesn't it seem strange that Hillary wants to "topple" the one percent, yet isn't starting by divesting herself of the approximately $100,000,000 that she and Bill have accumulated in the last 10 years or so. Does anyone really think she'll be "toppling" herself?
Doesn't it seem strange that a woman who has managed to accumulate over $100,000,000 for doing nothing productive, claims she's out to help the middle class?
Doesn't it seem strange that there is actual proof that Hillary lied about the reason why she had a private e-mail server, and her supporters don't seem to mind?
Doesn't it seem strange that Hillary wants to "topple" the one percent, yet isn't starting by divesting herself of the approximately $100,000,000 that she and Bill have accumulated in the last 10 years or so. Does anyone really think she'll be "toppling" herself?
Doesn't it seem strange that a woman who has managed to accumulate over $100,000,000 for doing nothing productive, claims she's out to help the middle class?
Friday, April 17, 2015
No title
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/did-early-christians-believe-in-substitutionary-atonement
"a moral wrong"
"What I am saying is that, today, slavery is clearly a moral wrong."
"Denying women basic liberties is a moral wrong."
"Forcing women (or anyone) into a marriage is a moral wrong."
"Deliberately targeting and killing children in wartime is a moral wrong."
These statements appear to be statements of Fact. It appears that the claim is that X is "a moral wrong", and that this claim is a Factual claim.
If these claims are Factual, then by what objective standard are these "a moral wrong"?
Have these practices always been "a moral wrong"?
If one looks at the phrase " today, slavery is clearly a moral wrong.", it seems to indicate that while slavery is "today" "a moral wrong"; at some previous point in history it was not "a moral wrong".
It seems strange to me that the concept of "a moral wrong" would not be both consistent and objective.
So, we have these two statements.
" Just because slavery was accepted as moral then does not mean it IS moral.
" Can you not agree with me that slavery is a moral wrong. Period?"
One which argues that slavery was "moral' at one point, while the other argues that "slavery is a moral wrong. Period?" (Strange punctuation is from the original quote)
The whole "accepted as moral"v. "IS moral", seems to indicate some confusion. It certainly confuses me.
It seems like slavery is either an objective "moral wrong" or it is not. The concept that morality is defined by acceptance seems strange to me. If that is the case, then it would be accurate to call Hitler, Stalin, and Mao "moral". Personally, I've never thought of them as moral.
Of course, the question of the innate morality of humanity is still open.
"Denying women basic liberties is a moral wrong."
"Forcing women (or anyone) into a marriage is a moral wrong."
"Deliberately targeting and killing children in wartime is a moral wrong."
These statements appear to be statements of Fact. It appears that the claim is that X is "a moral wrong", and that this claim is a Factual claim.
If these claims are Factual, then by what objective standard are these "a moral wrong"?
Have these practices always been "a moral wrong"?
If one looks at the phrase " today, slavery is clearly a moral wrong.", it seems to indicate that while slavery is "today" "a moral wrong"; at some previous point in history it was not "a moral wrong".
It seems strange to me that the concept of "a moral wrong" would not be both consistent and objective.
So, we have these two statements.
" Just because slavery was accepted as moral then does not mean it IS moral.
" Can you not agree with me that slavery is a moral wrong. Period?"
One which argues that slavery was "moral' at one point, while the other argues that "slavery is a moral wrong. Period?" (Strange punctuation is from the original quote)
The whole "accepted as moral"v. "IS moral", seems to indicate some confusion. It certainly confuses me.
It seems like slavery is either an objective "moral wrong" or it is not. The concept that morality is defined by acceptance seems strange to me. If that is the case, then it would be accurate to call Hitler, Stalin, and Mao "moral". Personally, I've never thought of them as moral.
Of course, the question of the innate morality of humanity is still open.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
It seems that those on the left can get away with saying just about anything.
I'm not talking about the guy who is slated to replace John Stewart and his comments that certainly appear to be insensitive and anti-semitic.
Nor am I talking about the pro Hillary guy who came out with the list of words that can't be used to describe Hillary. Although, it seems strange that you can call her disingenuous when she gets caught lying.
Nor am I talking about the death threats that Sarah Palin received on social media, which didn't seem to bother those on the left.
No, I'm talking about a conversation I had today with a co worker. Literally out of nowhere this person said "Yes, I'll like (insert the name of a conservative ex congressperson here) when they're dead.".
I can only imagine the response had I said "yeah, I'll like P-Bo when he's dead.", or any other liberal icon.
I could be wrong about this, but I know that I (and most of my conservative friends) would never say something like this. Certainly not in a conversation where others might actually have positive feelings toward the object of the comment.
It just seems a bit strange.
Nor am I talking about the pro Hillary guy who came out with the list of words that can't be used to describe Hillary. Although, it seems strange that you can call her disingenuous when she gets caught lying.
Nor am I talking about the death threats that Sarah Palin received on social media, which didn't seem to bother those on the left.
No, I'm talking about a conversation I had today with a co worker. Literally out of nowhere this person said "Yes, I'll like (insert the name of a conservative ex congressperson here) when they're dead.".
I can only imagine the response had I said "yeah, I'll like P-Bo when he's dead.", or any other liberal icon.
I could be wrong about this, but I know that I (and most of my conservative friends) would never say something like this. Certainly not in a conversation where others might actually have positive feelings toward the object of the comment.
It just seems a bit strange.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Monday, March 30, 2015
Quotes from Wright
"I want to suggest that scripture’s own view of authority
focuses on the authority of God himself."
It seems clear that Wright, agrees that scripture views itself as authoritative. (In so far as an inanimate object can view itself)
"Beginning, though, with explicit scriptural evidence about
authority itself, we find soon enough—this is obvious but is often ignored—that
all authority does indeed belong to God.
‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’. God says this, God says that, and it is
done. Now if that is not authoritative,
I don’t know what is. God calls Abraham;
he speaks authoritatively. God exercises
authority in great dynamic events (in Exodus, the Exile and Return). In the New Testament, we discover that
authority is ultimately invested in Christ: ‘all authority has been given to me
in heaven and on earth’. Then, perhaps
to our surprise, authority is invested in the apostles: Paul wrote whole
letters in order to make this point crystal clear (in a manner of
speaking). This authority, we discover,
has to do with the Holy Spirit. And the
whole church is then, and thereby, given authority to work within God’s world
as his accredited agent(s). From an
exceedingly quick survey, we are forced to say: authority, according to the
Bible itself, is vested in God himself, Father, Son and Spirit."
"And the notion of God’s authority, which we have to
understand before we understand what we mean by the authority of scripture, is
based on the fact that this God is the loving, wise, creator, redeemer
God. And his authority is his sovereign
exercise of those powers; his love and wise creations and redemption. What is he doing? He is not simply organizing the world. He is, as we see and know in Christ and by
the Spirit, judging and remaking his world.
What he does authoritatively he dots with this intent."
"Rather, God’s authority vested in scripture is designed, as
all God’s authority is designed, to liberate human beings, to judge and condemn
evil and sin in the world in order to set people free to be fully human. That’s what God is in the business of
doing. That is what his authority is
there for. And when we use a shorthand phrase like ‘authority of scripture’
that is what we ought to be meaning."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)